Love and Liberty

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for, and why vote for us?

Liberal Democrat Leadership contender Edward Davey MP highlights “a greener economy, a fairer society and a more caring country” on my lead question.

Last month I sent three questions on Lib Dem values to both Ed and Layla Moran – plus two individually tailored ‘mean’ questions each. Layla replied last week, so you also can read Layla Moran’s five answers here. Ed and his Correspondence Team have now replied to me in full, and you can read his five answers below.

Ed Davey MP’s Answers to my ‘Values’ Questions (asked to both Candidates)

Question One:

People say all politicians are the same. Lib Dems have often seen moderation, working with others and compromise as virtues, to the point of the caricature that a Liberal is someone so fair they don’t take their own side in an argument. So what really motivates you?

When someone asks you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in a sentence or two what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and why anyone should vote for us – what do you answer?

The biggest problem for the party over recent elections has been our failure to answer that question. The election review was clear about that: we must have a coherent message that speaks to voters.

So I’ve set out my answer in this election: I want the Liberal Democrats to be known as the party that fights for a greener economy, a fairer society and a more caring country. And I’ve illustrated that with a Green Economic Recovery Plan and priorities on childcare, education and carers.

My motivations in politics have long been the environment and caring. I was an environmentalist before I joined our party 30 years ago when we were 4% in the polls – and I joined partly because Ashdown and Hughes were the only politicians talking green.

And a lifetime of hands-on experience as a carer – as a young carer for my mum when she had terminal cancer, for my Nanna when she became frail and elderly and now as a parent of a disabled child – drives me just as much as any intellectual debate, linked as it is to the real life experiences of 10 million carers.


Question Two:

Two of the most heartfelt Liberal Democrat instincts are ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’ and ‘Stand up to bullies.’ Whether you call those ‘moderate and Liberal’, ‘caring and courage’, ‘love and liberty’, the party feels both, needs both, but they’re often competing as well as complimentary, so our balance between them changes with the times.

Which do we need most to lead on right now?

We are at their best when we can find issues that follow both instincts – because they are indeed often complimentary. Getting Boris Johnson to agree to a public inquiry at PMQs was a huge moment for me, and plays perfectly into these two instincts.

It was about both standing up to Boris Johnson and his awful Tory Government, but also looking to deliver something meaningful and life changing for the millions of people affected by the Covid-pandemic. I don’t think it is simple to say we can focus more on one than the other.

Rebuilding our society and economy post-Covid will need more of one, continuing to hold Boris Johnson to account so we can win elections in the future is a bit more of the other.


Question Three:

Ask what the core of Liberalism is and the answer’s obvious: “It’s About Freedom”. So obvious, that was the title of the Liberal Democrats’ 2002 philosophy paper. Look at our other positioning papers and manifestos under Charles Kennedy – “Freedom In A Liberal Society”, “Freedom, Justice, Honesty” – Freedom led*. Our constitution leads with “Liberty, equality and community”. But Leaders and campaigns since have made Freedom or Liberty invisible. Afraid it’s not popular, not relevant, or just ceded it to the illiberal Right?

Neither of you chose Freedom as a buzzword or even talk about it in your values. Why not?

I talk about freedom a lot, actually, because it runs through everything I’m standing for in this election. When I talk about my plans for carers, the reason I want more legal employment protections for carers is because it will give carers the freedom to choose how to balance their work and caring responsibilities. The investment I believe we need to make in universal childcare is all about unshackling people from excessive costs and opening up their options in terms of work and childcare responsibilities.

I’m a Liberal to my fingertips, and freedom underpins my views and priorities, and is never hidden. Whether “freedom” as a word is a good campaigning slogan, seems to me a different debate.

Ed Davey’s Answers to my ‘Mean’ Questions for him

Question Four:

The Leader needs to win attention and support. You’ve been Acting Leader for over six months, during which our poll rating has halved since the General Election. You’ve had your shot and flunked it. Why should we give you even longer to keep failing?

Good to get a nice and friendly one! I think it’s fair to say that being interim co-leader, on the back of a bad general election result, in the middle of a global pandemic is hardly the rich soil on which to grow a party. I think most reasonable people would agree with that!

I also note that our party scored just 5.9% at a nationwide elections, 11 months into the leadership of one Paddy Ashdown. I’m glad we didn’t ditch him in 1989.

And I’m proud of the work we’ve done holding Boris Johnson to account, setting up the coronavirus volunteer task force and forcing the PM to agree to holding a public inquiry, but I’m standing in this election because I want a mandate from members. I currently don’t have that, so I can’t push forward and deliver on my vision of a fairer, greener, more caring society, and help rebuild our party to win elections again.

The election review was brutally honest about the problems facing our party, and they were never going to be solved in 6 months after an election, even without a global pandemic. We have a big rebuilding job on, but I have every confidence that with a mandate for members, and the support of our party, we can implement the election review and rebuild the party to get us winning again.


Question Five:

People need to feel good about their vote to vote for us again. Nasty choices in the Coalition destroyed our feel-good factor as the Nice Party. As they did every day with Jo, Labour will derail us by throwing that history at us. Your history. How do we move on when a Minister from the past as Leader will always be on the defensive?

We had our best ever local election results and European election results with a coalition Minister, Vince Cable, leading our party, so I’d challenge the idea it automatically has to be a drag on our party. It certainly wasn’t for Vince!

I think we need to be realistic that elements of the Labour Party will throw coalition at us whoever is leader, because in plenty of places they are our political opponents and therefore it’s in their interest to bring it up. But I equally don’t think you’ll see the same level of vitriol from the top of the Labour Party under Starmer as we did under Jeremy Corbyn, because Keir Starmer knows he needs us to win seats against the Conservatives if he’s going to be Prime Minister.

I’m proud of what we achieved in coalition, from trebling renewable energy, to the pupil premium, to same-sex marriage and tax cuts for millions of people. Of course, no Government gets everything right, but I think the fact that I’m backed by people, like Daisy Cooper and Tim Farron, who were critical of coalition is testament to the fact that they recognise the choice for our next leader is bigger, and more important, than who was or wasn’t involved in coalition.

The other thing I would say is that the election review is 61 pages long, but mentions coalition in passing two or three times. It is a mistake to think our issues are purely routed in that, the rebuilding job we have is so much bigger.

Lib Dems Believe – More Answers

I’m grateful to Ed and his team for answering so comprehensively.

You can read Layla Moran’s five answers here.

You can also read my original post here, where I asked these questions to Ed and more to Layla. I also talk there in detail about why I chose the questions I did. I believe we need to be both distinctive and sharp to break through, and that politics-free politics won’t cut it. Post-Brexit, post Covid-19, I don’t feel I know the answers, and I want a Leader who will inspire me. But I want to avoid another Leadership self-destructing by hoping that nasty questions they don’t want asked will somehow just go away. Liberal Democrat Leadership elections are nice and wish the best for everyone, but actual election campaigns are not – I’ve attempted to test the two candidates a little harder. You can also read two utterly terrible answers to what the Lib Dems stand for that I’ve previously heard, one in a complacent local party and one from a very senior Lib Dem…

As a bonus, I also asked my Lib Dem values questions to several other current senior Lib Dems. Party President and Acting Co-Leader Mark Pack sent me his own answers, which you can read here. For that post I included some of my own answers, and several of the best answers I’ve previously heard or read, going all the way back to David Lloyd George and including a link to my very favourite – and very long even though I’ve abridged it – speech by Paddy Ashdown.

I hope some of them inspire you, too.

Labels: Ed Davey, Lib Dems Believe, Liberal Democrat Leadership, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, What the Lib Dems Stand For

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for, and why vote for us?

Liberal Democrat Leadership contender Layla Moran MP highlights “Education, the Environment and the Economy” as her three key priorities on my lead question.

Last month I sent three questions on Lib Dem values to both Layla and Ed Davey – plus two individually tailored ‘mean’ questions each. Layla and her Correspondence Team have replied to me in full, and you can read all five answers below (I will continue to nag Ed and his team).

Layla Moran’s Answers to my ‘Values’ Questions (asked to both Candidates)

Question One:

People say all politicians are the same. Lib Dems have often seen moderation, working with others and compromise as virtues, to the point of the caricature that a Liberal is someone so fair they don’t take their own side in an argument. So what really motivates you?

When someone asks you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in a sentence or two what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and why anyone should vote for us – what do you answer?

Layla has said on many occasions what motivates her is the need to make a case for a fairer, greener and more compassionate society, driven from the bottom up, that will champion small businesses and seek to tackle discrimination.

An issue we have regularly faced is the question of what we as a party stand for, at the last general election we were seen as the party of Stop Brexit. We now need to redefine ourselves as a party, we need to be a party with liberalism at its core, and as Paddy Ashdown used to say, ‘fizzing with ideas’. Layla wants the Liberal Democrats to have a clear vision, with a progressive green agenda highlighted by three key priorities; Education, the Environment and the Economy. This is what Layla wants the party to stand for. In the coming months, and possibly years, liberal ideas could be more popular than before, because Covid-19 has exposed the deep inequalities in our society and a clear majority are open to change – this is a huge opportunity.


Question Two:

Two of the most heartfelt Liberal Democrat instincts are ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’ and ‘Stand up to bullies.’ Whether you call those ‘moderate and Liberal’, ‘caring and courage’, ‘love and liberty’, the party feels both, needs both, but they’re often competing as well as complimentary, so our balance between them changes with the times.

Which do we need most to lead on right now?

Quite frankly, we still need to do both, in different ways. In terms of defeating the Conservatives, Layla has said she will work with anyone who shares her progressive liberal values. She is open to working with Keir Starmer and Labour on an issue by issue basis – though she would strongly encourage and push for an end to Labour tribalism and hostility in some local areas, as well as fully eradicating the antisemitism that is still prevalent in certain parts of their party membership.

Right now, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens share a similar vision for the society we want to see, one which contrasts sharply with the inward and backward looking world of the Conservatives. For us to overcome the injustices in the system, we must look to engage with other parties to take forward our shared goals. In Oxford West and Abingdon, Layla was supported by the local Green Party, who she still meets with regularly to update them on what she has been doing as their MP.

However, we are still different parties with different views on how change should be achieved. We have to be careful how we communicate our distinct identity, while allowing voters to see the common ground. In future, Layla believes a more respectful discourse between respective leaderships would show voters that an alternative Government to the Conservatives could be possible. This is all the more important for us as there are now around 90 seats in which the Liberal Democrats are the main opposition to the Conservatives. If we are to win these seats, we must regain the trust of Labour voters.

Layla has often stood up to bullies and has stuck up for the underrepresented. The Build Back Better policy paper, spearheaded by Layla, shows that the Liberal Democrats can be radical and progressive and campaign for the country to go in the right direction; an equal society, strong social justice and getting across our liberal values to the wider public. The Liberal Democrats are at our best when we are ‘fizzing with ideas’, as Paddy used to describe it. We need to show that we have the new ideas that can transform Britain after the COVID pandemic, and create a fairer and more inclusive society. We should also continue to call out the Conservatives for their illiberal and quite frankly offensive views on social issues, whether that be on racism or LGBTQ+ rights.


Question Three:

Ask what the core of Liberalism is and the answer’s obvious: “It’s About Freedom”. So obvious, that was the title of the Liberal Democrats’ 2002 philosophy paper. Look at our other positioning papers and manifestos under Charles Kennedy – “Freedom In A Liberal Society”, “Freedom, Justice, Honesty” – Freedom led*. Our constitution leads with “Liberty, equality and community”. But Leaders and campaigns since have made Freedom or Liberty invisible. Afraid it’s not popular, not relevant, or just ceded it to the illiberal Right?

Neither of you chose Freedom as a buzzword or even talk about it in your values. Why not?

Layla has often used the word freedom when discussing her vision for the country, and her reasoning for entering politics. In an interview in the New Statesman just last month Layla said that the party must emphasise that liberalism means “freedom to” as well as “freedom from”. She explained that this means talking about education and climate change, but also about business and the economy. Layla understands that liberalism is all about freedom, and she continues to advocate for greater freedoms for those who need it most.

Layla Moran’s Answers to my ‘Mean’ Questions for her

Question Four:

Last year Lib Dems surged on a pro-EU campaign. It wasn’t enough – but it was the one thing people knew about us and drew votes to us. I’ve read your “Vision”. There is no mention of Europe or working with other countries (a two-word afterthought: “and abroad”). Why have you completely dropped our one selling-point?

Layla’s heart has never left the EU, she is a European. However, that is not the feeling of the majority of the country right now, as demonstrated by the outcome of the 2019 General Election. Right now, the Liberal Democrats need to regain the trust of the electorate, and that starts by changing the hearts and minds of the country. Layla believes that we will rejoin the EU at some point in the future, but we need to reflect on when we start to promote those ideas, and how we do it. We cannot say to the electorate ‘we told you so’. Currently we should do all we can to avoid a No-deal Brexit and to campaign for as close an alignment as possible with our European friends and neighbours.


Question Five:

People need to feel good about their vote to vote for us again. How can the party stand unequivocally against bullying and domestic violence when the question keeps coming back to you and you’ll always be on the defensive with ‘Yes, but…’?

Thank you for raising this and allowing us the chance to address this issue. Layla understands the concerns of members about the incident which happened seven years ago in Glasgow.

Layla first spoke out about this last year. Though it wasn’t universally reported this way, she made it clear that she acted defensively – Layla acted in self-defence because she felt threatened.

As you may have heard her partner at the time and her were both arrested in line with Scotland’s zero-tolerance policy. She was initially charged but the charges were dropped when there was no case to answer. Layla has forgiven her former partner but nevertheless, she is keen to make sure her side of the situation is clear.

Layla is ready to state this categorically should she be asked about this by the media. Though, despite appearances on Sophy Ridge, BBC, SKY, ITN – broadcasters are yet to raise the issue.

There has been an election since she spoke out about the incident. Word from the campaign team was that it was barely raised on the doorstep in Oxford – and it certainly didn’t impact her vote share as she increased her majority by over 8,000.

Politicians are people with pasts. Layla has been open and honest about this awful incident. She is completely supportive of the zero-tolerance policy. She does not believe this diminishes or undermines the qualities and vision she would bring to our party as leader.

Our enemies will always try to hurt us, and pick apart our MPs’ lives looking to attack them. Layla knows that her honesty on the subject and her strength of character means she is prepared for this and will do all she can to ensure she embodies our values. Layla hopes members will support her in doing so.

Lib Dems Believe – More Answers

I’m grateful to Layla and her team for answering so comprehensively.

You can read my original post here, where I asked these questions to Layla and more to Ed (from whom I am still hoping for some reply). I also talk there in detail about why I chose the questions I did. I believe we need to be both distinctive and sharp to break through, and that politics-free politics won’t cut it. Post-Brexit, post Covid-19, I don’t feel I know the answers, and I want a Leader who will inspire me. But I want to avoid another Leadership self-destructing by hoping that nasty questions they don’t want asked will somehow just go away. Liberal Democrat Leadership elections are nice and wish the best for everyone, but actual election campaigns are not – I’ve attempted to test the two candidates a little harder. You can also read two utterly terrible answers to what the Lib Dems stand for that I’ve previously heard, one in a complacent local party and one from a very senior Lib Dem…

As a bonus, I also asked my Lib Dem values questions to several other current senior Lib Dems. Party President and Acting Co-Leader Mark Pack sent me his own answers, which you can read here. For that post I included some of my own answers, and several of the best answers I’ve previously heard or read, going all the way back to David Lloyd George and including a link to my very favourite – and very long even though I’ve abridged it – speech by Paddy Ashdown.

I hope some of them inspire you, too.

Labels: Layla Moran, Lib Dems Believe, Liberal Democrat Leadership, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, What the Lib Dems Stand For

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for, and why vote for us?

That’s my lead question from several I sent to Liberal Democrat Leadership candidates Layla Moran and Ed Davey. I’m still awaiting their replies, yet have just had answers from a Lib Dem Leader… But probably not the one you’re expecting.

Doctor Mark Pack is Acting Co-Leader of the Liberal Democrats, an unexpected temporary addition to his election as Lib Dem President, so I sent him three of the same questions and he was first to respond. Thank you, Mark! Here are Mark’s pithy answers:


Question One:

People say all politicians are the same. Lib Dems have often seen moderation, working with others and compromise as virtues, to the point of the caricature that a Liberal is someone so fair they don’t take their own side in an argument. So what really motivates you?

When someone asks you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in a sentence or two what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and why anyone should vote for us – what do you answer?

We want to give everyone the best possible chances to live their lives as they wish, to be who they want to be and to make their own choices. Both Labour and the Conservatives are far too keen to tell people how they should behave, or to pick chunks of society who they don’t care so much about and to put different parts of our society at odds with each with other.

(That’s my English doorstep answer, of course. For Scotland and Wales, I’d talk also about nationalists, and how we want to bring down barriers, not put up new ones between people on our common islands.)


Question Two:

Two of the most heartfelt Liberal Democrat instincts are ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’ and ‘Stand up to bullies.’ Whether you call those ‘moderate and Liberal’, ‘caring and courage’, ‘love and liberty’, the party feels both, needs both, but they’re often competing as well as complimentary, so our balance between them changes with the times.

Which do we need most to lead on right now?

As your own blog’s name correctly captures, we need both. Each is dependent on the other. Love and liberty each flourish when the other is present. I wouldn’t make a forced choice between the two, just as I won’t pick vowels or consonants are the most important types of letter. It’s when both come together that the best happens.


Question Three:

Ask what the core of Liberalism is and the answer’s obvious: “It’s About Freedom”. So obvious, that was the title of the Liberal Democrats’ 2002 philosophy paper. Look at our other positioning papers and manifestos under Charles Kennedy – “Freedom In A Liberal Society”, “Freedom, Justice, Honesty”, “Freedom, Fairness, Trust” – Freedom led. Our constitution leads with “Liberty, equality and community”. But Leaders and campaigns since have made Freedom or Liberty invisible.

Are we afraid it’s not popular, not relevant, or have we just ceded it to the illiberal Right?

I’m enthusiastic about the concept of freedom while being cautious about the vocabulary. The word as acquired strong right-wing overtones. If someone saw a leaflet saying ‘I’m for freedom’ and had to guess the politics of the candidate before reading on, I strongly suspect most people would assuming the person is right-wing, a libertarian even perhaps. If the word freedom seems right-wing, I also suspect the word liberty sounds like a word from the past. You’re more likely to hear it in a historical Hollywood movie than in ordinary conversation.

So I don’t worry too much about word counts on either, as long as the concept comes through clearly in what we argue for – such as the future benefits of a close relationship with the rest of Europe that minimises barriers, and so protects people’s freedoms.

Lib Dems Believe – More Answers

I posted my three questions (with an extra two individually targeted ‘mean’ ones for Ed and Layla) here on Monday, along with some of my own commentary on where the Liberal Democrats are going and – to lower the bar for the candidates – the two absolutely worst answers I’ve ever heard on Lib Dem values and why to vote for us.

I was rightly challenged on this to share some of the best answers I’ve had, too. So you can read my eight-Tweet thread here in which I pick out some of my favourites, including answers directly to me from Lib Dems such as Lynne Featherstone, Caron Lindsay and Brian Paddick, and historical choices such as David Lloyd George and Roy Jenkins (and a friend has just shared with me his own new vision this week, which I hope to quote and promote when he publishes it).

During the 2015 General Election I posted every day on Lib Dems Believe with a variety of values, long and short, old and new, in which the same ideas and ideals came across over and over, though in a wide variety of different words. Most answers I’ve had tend, like Mark’s, to be pithy. My absolute favourite is of course the longest of all those I chose, an abridgement of one of Paddy Ashdown’s Leader’s speeches and still the most inspiring I’ve ever heard. I recommend it.

Finally, as I’m judging others it’s only fair I put my own answers up for judgement too. Over many blog posts on what the Lib Dems stand for over many years, the pithy values closest to my heart remain “Freedom, Fairness, Future” (which I evolved from the party’s “Free, Fair and Green” in the 2000s because alliteration goes a long way) and “Freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity” (my more active rewording of the Preamble to the Lib Dem Constitution). My longer versions have changed much more, but this article includes both the latest written statement of values and my YouTube ‘Why vote Lib Dem’.

Here’s to the next set of inspiring answers!

Labels: Lib Dems Believe, Liberal Democrat Leadership, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, Mark Pack, Paddy Ashdown, What the Lib Dems Stand For

What do the Liberal Democrats stand for, and why vote for us?

That’s my lead question of a set I’ve just now sent to Liberal Democrat Leadership candidates Layla Moran and Ed Davey. I’ve asked each the same three questions about values (each framed by a contentious scene-setter) and a different two individually targeted mean questions, because I want to be inspired – but also I don’t want another Leader self-destructing.



I ask about values because those are what motivate me – and because for people to vote for us, we need to get their attention, we need to have something to say, and we need them to feel positive about their vote, that we embody their values too.

We work hard, we deliver leaflets, we’re local champions. That will always be crucial. But it has never been enough to break through – and we have just had three General Elections where it was within the margin of error of not being enough to avoid extinction. ‘Shut up about anything and just deliver leaflets’ has been tested to destruction. Where we work, we… mostly still don’t win now. This is not the 1990s any more, where local work had the wind in our sails of a popular leader who was on telly a lot, where most voters felt we were a sort of nice party, and where almost everywhere in England if they didn’t want to vote Labour or Tory we were the only ‘other’ option, so we could win through politics-free politics. None of those are true any more, and closing our eyes, wishing, and acting as if they still were will keep us irrelevant. While the SNP are the third party at Westminster – even though they’ve always won fewer votes than we do – even getting a one-liner on the news is a challenge, and using it to say nothing distinctive is a failure.

I like both candidates. Both have already said things that I fiercely agree with and both have made me go, ‘Oh, for f—’s sake!!’ so they’re both as qualified as any previous Leader on that basis. I’m not yet committed to either (though I’m leaning more towards one of them). I don’t know if either can break through, but I have to hope. Yes, both are talking up their local campaigning successes – but they are rare winners for the Liberal Democrats, and that’s something else we somehow need to get across to win again: people are put off voting for losers, and that vicious circle has been reinforced by the absolutely necessary cancellation of this year’s local elections, usually the one day of the year when Liberal Democrats have a chance to make good news about ourselves.

I am less certain about where the Liberal Democrats should go from here than I have ever been. For years, I have written about what the Lib Dems stand for. Last year, I demanded better of the party with the latest of my own arguments for our values. I summed those up in three words: “Freedom, Fairness, Future”.

Post-Brexit, post Covid-19, I don’t feel I know the answers. Though I still think “Freedom, Fairness, Future” are as good a handle on what we stand for as I’ve seen, even then I knew that they didn’t instinctively get across the internationalism at our heart, and I added “Bollocks To Brexit” – our one message that has chimed with large numbers of voters for ten years. Today, as two terrible disasters unroll with no end in sight, I can’t see where we go next. I can’t find an optimistic message. I started writing these questions a full month ago (and an extra candidate ago), but it’s been a rougher month than usual and I’ve been hoping for something upbeat to say. I don’t have it, but I still look for it.

Will Ed or Layla be able to inspire me? I hope so. For me, the single thing I most want to hear from a Liberal Democrat Leader is a clear heart to what we stand for that will not just have me nodding, but will have voters feel, yes, that’s better, I agree with that, that appeals to me, those are my values, that’s someone I can vote for.

My ‘Values’ Questions to Both Candidates

Question One to both of you:

People say all politicians are the same. Lib Dems have often seen moderation, working with others and compromise as virtues, to the point of the caricature that a Liberal is someone so fair they don’t take their own side in an argument. So what really motivates you? When someone asks you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in a sentence or two what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and why anyone should vote for us – what do you answer?

Question Two to both of you:

Two of the most heartfelt Liberal Democrat instincts are ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’ and ‘Stand up to bullies.’ Whether you call those ‘moderate and Liberal’, ‘caring and courage’, ‘love and liberty’, the party feels both, needs both, but they’re often competing as well as complimentary, so our balance between them changes with the times.

Which do we need most to lead on right now?

Question Three to both of you:

Ask what the core of Liberalism is and the answer’s obvious: “It’s About Freedom”. So obvious, that was the title of the Liberal Democrats’ 2002 philosophy paper. Look at our other positioning papers and manifestos under Charles Kennedy – “Freedom In A Liberal Society”, “Freedom, Justice, Honesty” – Freedom led*. Our constitution leads with “Liberty, equality and community”. But Leaders and campaigns since have made Freedom or Liberty invisible. Afraid it’s not popular, not relevant, or just ceded it to the illiberal Right?

Neither of you chose Freedom as a buzzword or even talk about it in your values. Why not?


I want to be inspired – but I want to avoid another Leadership self-destructing by hoping that nasty questions they don’t want asked will somehow just go away. Because getting people to feel warm and positive about voting for us also needs people who share our values not to feel, ‘Ick. The Lib Dem Leader doesn’t have my values’. I really hope both Ed and Layla have thought of the painful, embarrassing or exasperating question they least want to hear and are ready with their one-line, truthful reply to it first time. Those probably aren’t the mean questions I’ve come up with, but I’ve done my best to test them anyway. Liberal Democrat Leadership elections are nice and wish the best for everyone. Actual election campaigns are not.

My ‘Mean’ Questions to Ed Davey

Question Four to Ed:

The Leader needs to win attention and support. You’ve been Acting Leader for over six months, during which our poll rating has halved since the General Election. You’ve had your shot and flunked it. Why should we give you even longer to keep failing?

Question Five to Ed: People need to feel good about their vote to vote for us again. Nasty choices in the Coalition destroyed our feel-good factor as the Nice Party. As they did every day with Jo, Labour will derail us by throwing that history at us. Your history. How do we move on when a Minister from the past as Leader will always be on the defensive?

My ‘Mean’ Questions to Layla Moran

Question Four to Layla:

Last year Lib Dems surged on a pro-EU campaign. It wasn’t enough – but it was the one thing people knew about us and drew votes to us. I’ve read your “Vision”. There is no mention of Europe or working with other countries (a two-word afterthought: “and abroad”). Why have you completely dropped our one selling-point?

Question Five to Layla:

People need to feel good about their vote to vote for us again. How can the party stand unequivocally against bullying and domestic violence when the question keeps coming back to you and you’ll always be on the defensive with ‘Yes, but…’?

Two Terrible Answers (they must be able to do better, surely?)

I’ve asked some version of my ‘Why vote Lib Dem?’ Question One to Liberal Democrat Leaders, MPs and candidates local and national for over two decades. I’ve heard long and short answers, wonky and passionate, brilliant and unexpected. As I don’t have the latest ones yet, I thought I’d share the two absolutely worst experiences I’ve had with the question (if not the names).

At the height of Lib Dem blogging, my beloved Richard Flowers and Millennium Dome, Elephant organised many bloggers’ interviews with Lib Dem MPs and candidates for senior posts. I took part in several, though even when I was prolific in my blogging I still didn’t manage to write as much as I should. Only one MP was so gobsmackingly bad on this question that I made a deliberate choice not to write up the interview. This was his response to my ‘Why vote Lib Dem?’ question:

[PAUSE]
[GLARE]
[PAUSE]
“…I would refer them to our excellent policies.”
[GLARES AND SHUTS UP]

While my question has been pretty much the same across the years, I’ve changed the ‘frame’ depending on the context for the candidate – local, national, leadership. At one hustings in a local party that had become the epitome of politics-free politics and where competitors had matched and surpassed Lib Dem campaigning, I prefaced the question by pointing out that while we like to say that we’re local and hardworking, Tory and Labour candidates say the same, so what sets us apart from a local, hardworking Labour or Tory? The Returning Officer read this out in a tone of utter derision and said that it must have been written by a Labour or Tory plant, at which the audience laughed and a candidate agreed that there were no such things as local and hardworking Labour or Tories. That was their entire answer. Coincidentally, this was in a Parliamentary seat where Lib Dems had previously held six of the seven wards and had been reduced to just two in that Spring’s local elections, including Labour gaining their first elected councillor there for fifty years, so the reeking complacency was a more telling answer than any other I’ve had to this question.

I’m hoping for something more inspiring from Ed and Layla.


Updates:

Layla Moran Answers on Lib Dem Values and my ‘Mean’ Questions

Ed Davey Answers on Lib Dem Values and my ‘Mean’ Questions

And bonus Liberal Democrat Values: Mark Pack’s Three Answers



*Just after I posted, two more sprang to mind: “Freedom, Fairness, Trust” under Charles, for which I was Vice-Chair of the Federal Policy Committee and spoke in favour of at Conference, and the more mangled “Trust In People: Making Britain Free, Fair and Green” under Ming, for which I wasn’t and spoke against. But Freedom was always a big Lib Dem thing, until it wasn’t.

With thanks to my husband Richard for proof-reading and ‘Are you sure that’s wise’-ing this, and to Will Barter, who last month shared with me a piece he’d written on the direction of the party in general. One insight crystallised something for me with an ‘Ah! I wish I’d thought of it from that angle years ago!’, so I’ve nicked it. All my choices about where I’ve taken it and everything else above are my own responsibility.

Labels: Ed Davey, Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat Leadership, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, What the Lib Dems Stand For

Doctor Who has always been political. From the very start, the Doctor has fought fascism and stood up for freedom. But you wouldn’t know it from the periodic explosions from some fans or media headlines that the series has been ‘ruined’ by ‘suddenly’ turning Social Justice Warrior.

It’s not new. Fifty-four years ago tonight, the SJW Doctor upset a bunch of fans who just didn’t get it, condemned an unequal society, and gave the villain a piece of his mind.

“The sacrifice of even one soul is far too great! You must put an end to this inhuman practice.”

To Begin With…

Doctor Who – The Savages Episode 2 was first broadcast on June 4th, 1966. The Doctor (William Hartnell) and his companions Steven and Dodo have landed in what’s claimed to be an age of great peace and prosperity, but not everyone seems to be enjoying it. In the ‘civilised’, technologically advanced City, people profit from great vitality with no cost, contented as long as they ask no questions. In the wilderness outside, cave-dwellers age before their time. What could be the City’s terrible secret? …Yes, the twist came in Episode 1 of four. But there are two interesting things left (and one awkward one), and, surprisingly, Episode 2 is the exciting part.

The Savages is not an especially well-known story. It might be the most forgotten of Doctor Who’s largely forgotten third season – perhaps because it has no ‘monsters’ (at least, not to look it; keep The Dark Crystal in the back of your mind), perhaps because it was novelised very late in the range, perhaps because it was one of too many Doctor Who stories the BBC transmitted in the 1960s and then burnt (yes, I know). All of them survive as soundtracks recorded at home, usually with an assortment of photos to give a taste of what they may have looked like, but aside from a handful which have recently been animated to give them a new lease of life, they’re not as accessible as stories that move about a bit. And speaking personally, it was the Classic Who story I came to ‘see’ last and have probably watched least.

Particularly in these future times that don’t even pretend to great peace and prosperity, I try to find something cheering to Tweet each day. And not being one for uplifting mottos, the easiest prompt for me is to find the anniversary of a Doctor Who story or something else I enjoy and Tweet something interesting about it. Last week I had a look through some old notes from when I last watched The Savages in search of inspiration, and (slightly to my surprise) I found it. So this piece started off as a Twitter thread this time last week, which I’ve collated and polished and expanded here into something not quite an article, but which is now appallingly topical…

For many years, all I knew about The Savages was what I’d read in one-paragraph summaries in programme guides – and, a bit like Galaxy 4 at the top end of the same season, it’s a simple story with bold moral (but a complicated way of showing it) which when I eventually came to watch it, I found out there’s not a lot more to it than the one-paragraph pitch. But there is a bit more. The first thing about it is that it’s got several Doctor Who ‘firsts’ (even though most of them are more memorably done later).

A Few Doctor Who ‘Firsts’

This is the tail end of Doctor Who’s third season, a hefty way in for most series, but this Episode 2 is the first not to have a new title of its own. Up until now, modern viewers would recognise the way it’s been: from 1963 on, every episode had had its own title, no matter how long or short the story it’s part of. The Savages Episode 2 sets the pattern right up until the end of Classic Who: ‘Story Title + Episode X’.

Not an absolutely fascinating fact? Well, how about this: The Savages is the first Doctor Who story to have location filming at a quarry somewhere in England which, by the magic of television, becomes an alien world (and, by the magic of critics, becomes a cliché).

It’s the first Doctor Who script by Ian Stuart Black, a major TV writer who only contributes three Who stories, but all within a year. While his first here is a bit middling, his second is considerably more exciting (and influential in its own ways), while his third, The Macra Terror, is one of my all-time favourites (and one of those burnt stories now thrillingly recreated by animation).

And perhaps most significantly for the series’ continuing moral development, while it may not be a huge leap from what’s gone before, this is firmly the first story where the Doctor could leave but chooses instead to stay, save people and fight ‘human’ oppressors as he does Daleks. It’s also in its own way the show’s first vampire story (spoiler, but that’s already obvious in last week’s episode), though like most of Doctor Who’s many vampiric tales, it avoids using the V-word.

Where Fans Miss the Point

I feel bad for criticising “fans”. I love Doctor Who fans. I am one. I married one. And Doctor Who made such an impact on my life that one of my best-known articles remains How Doctor Who Made Me A Liberal. But there are some fans who seem to have watched Doctor Who without ever thinking about it for a single second, and who shout hateful politics that are the utter antithesis of the Doctor’s. I wonder if this story made a deliberate point as far back as 1966 – perhaps not about Doctor Who, but about how people watch ‘message’ TV and even when it makes its message so blatant that critics roll their eyes, some viewers still just don’t get it.

When I first watched Babylon 5 (another deliberately, institutionally liberal science fiction series) back in the ’90s, one early episode was the butt of criticism. Infection had a bad reputation as preachy, unsubtle and generic. It has several morals of the week (one at the end almost direct to camera), but the central one was so very heavy-handed that I remembered it with eye-rolls of my own. As if we needed to be told racial supremacists are bad! Rewatching it in the last couple of years, I thought, ‘No! It was too subtle! Louder! With diagrams! Neon letters ten metres tall!’ Because we haven’t learned a bloody thing! And The Savages has a very obvious moral that it seems could do with diagrams and neon letters ten metres tall even after the Doctor explains it pretty much direct to camera.

In earlier drafts, this story started as a racial allegory, which changed to became more generally applicable… But the make-up on the City-dwellers is awkward (it’s not exactly black-face for ‘role reversal’, but it’s not quite not; their leader seems to have by far the heaviest make-up, so it might imply a ‘tanned’, super-healthy look, like Dracula’s ruddy glow after feeding). I grew up knowing this sort of information from those one-paragraph synopses which told me pretty much everything. Except they all made the same crass mistakes.

The City-dwellers are not named “the Elders”.

Yes, some of the City-dwellers are indeed titled that. The rest of them aren’t called anything in particular. But… A clue: if you didn’t know the name of the city where I live, but you knew Sadiq Khan’s title, the people who live here would still not be called ‘the Mayors’.

That’s not the crass bit.

This is a story of rough-looking cave-dwellers exploited by ‘civilised’ City people. It’s an allegory. You see, I explain patronisingly, the ones who appear ‘civilised’ are, if you think about it, in a shock twist…
You might think I’m hammering the point home way too heavily. But despite neither peoples being named, leaving it to the viewer / listener to find the answer for themselves who the title of the story fits, ‘Who are the real “Savages” here?’ (it was the Sixties)…
In neon letters ten metres tall, for the avoidance of doubt: the conclusion this serial is subtly guiding viewers towards is that brutally draining the life-essence from people conveniently defined as not really people is savagery. Trying to live despite long violence and exploitation crushing your culture is not.

The City people are the real “Savages” here.
[Take a breather, rub your nose after I was too on it]

Yet in a triumph for unthinking literalism, every fan and book synopsis – even the soundtrack CD narration – labels the cave-dwellers “the savages”.
Headdesk.

All of which made it a thing of utter joy when I looked at this adventure and realised that the story’s villains who fail to see the problem here are the first in-universe Doctor Who fans. The City people have followed the Doctor’s travels and think he’s brilliant! They’ve even given him their own fan-fic title: “The Traveller From Beyond Time”. But they’ve never wondered if, just maybe, the things he says might apply to them.

The City’s Elders are nice, comfortable, polite people who put their robes on the Doctor and expect our hero to praise their way of life. They think he’ll literally fit in. They’re appalled when, instead of protecting their feelings, the Doctor first asks awkward questions and then compares them to the Daleks. The Savages might be better-remembered had the Elders looked like the Skeksis, but then they’d be much less uncomfortable for the viewer. If it were made today, an affronted Jano would be asking, ‘But, Doctor, don’t you think #CityLivesMatter?’

I love William Hartnell’s blazing righteous anger. You can see why some don’t.
No utopia can tolerate people asking difficult questions.
It’s always far worse to hurt people’s feelings by calling them out than it is for them to actually hurt, exploit and murder others.
From a certain point of view.

“We do not understand you, Doctor… How can you condemn this great artistic and scientific civilisation because of a few wretched barbarians?”

“So your rewards are only for the people that agree with you?”

“No! No, of course not… But if you are going to oppose us—”

“Oppose you? Indeed I am going to oppose you – just in the same way that I opposed the Daleks or any other menace to common humanity.”

“I’m sorry you take this attitude, Doctor. It is most unscientific. You are standing in the way of human progress.”

“Human progress, sir! How dare you call your treatment of these people ‘progress’?”

“They are hardly people, Doctor. They are not like us.”

“I fail to see the difference.”

“Do you not realise that all progress is based on exploitation?”

“Exploitation, indeed! This, sir, is protracted murder!”

“We have achieved a very great deal merely by the sacrifice of a few savages.”

“The sacrifice of even one soul is far too great! You must put an end to this inhuman practice.”

Nobody likes being called a monster, but in this story, the Daleks look just like us, and when he makes them uncomfortable they immediately turn on their hero, the Doctor. So by the end, the only answer it to smash it all up.

Doctor Who: being ruined for some fans by the Doctor being an SJW since 1966.

Bigger On the Inside

After this terrific impassioned moment, the story has a certain amount of trouble filling its second half, but it has one more great idea: the City-dwellers have long been draining and living off the energy, creativity, intelligence and life-force of the wilderness people. City leader Jano orders the Doctor to the vampiric lab and consumes his essence. But the Doctor is especially vivid…

Jano failed to get the point of Doctor Who as a viewer and fan, but on absorbing the Doctor directly he finally starts to think ‘What would the Doctor do?’ Because the Doctor’s essence is bigger on the inside. Though we don’t get nearly enough Hartnell later, we do get brilliant flashes of Hartnell from Frederick Jaeger as the Doctor’s life and morals struggle with his own (in a reverse-Buffy, the victim possessing the vampire). And that makes you feel what Doctor Who is about.

Plus, the Doctor carries his “reacting vibrator”, which is always entertaining.


If you’re intrigued, later stories engaging with similar ideas range from The Tenth Planet just a few months later (which expands from a vampire society to a whole vampire planet, and with mummy-wrapped zombies to make it memorable) to 1977’s The Face of Evil (two peoples split in a more interesting way though this time not really either of their faults, with the opposite ending where, rather than the Doctor leaving a natural leader to help from outside, leaves with the natural leader because she doesn’t want to be the chosen one) and then to 2011’s The Rebel Flesh / The Almost People (where some people count as human while those they exploit don’t, and the process makes another Doctor who makes life uncomfortable).




This is the third of what might be a series of Fragments – not-quite-finished, not-quite-polished, from ideas I’ve written up over time and maybe I’ll share some of them anyway. If you’d like more, please let me know, and if you’d like to help, please ask me, ‘Have you at some point written something intriguing about Story / Series X, and could you find it, consider it and post it?’ You might suggest one that I can (TS;RM [Too Short; Read More]? Here). This one was partially inspired by Iain Coleman, who asked for comedy historical Hartnells, and while I’ve not exactly got there, one out of three’s a start.

Labels: Babylon 5, Doctor Who, Fragments, Liberalism, The Dark Crystal, The Savages, William Hartnell

Happy thirty-first birthday, Liberal Democrats?

Liberalism is desperately needed today. Liberal Democrats are sometimes powerful voices, but sometimes tongue-tied.

We must demand better.

Last year I chose six words (three positive values, one urgent priority) for a short video on ‘Why the Lib Dems’:

Exit From Brexit

If our MPs would even pick six such words and sound like they meant them, that would be a start.

Our Leadership seems to think ‘Why can’t we all get along?’ is good enough. It isn’t. It’s a cry of helplessness, and they have no answer to their own question.

I don’t have all the answers. But the least the Lib Dem Leadership can do is answer why we shouldn’t all pack up and go home. The slogan “Demand Better” is a headline to get attention, but with absolutely no idea what to say if anyone then looks our way and asks, ‘Yes, what?’

It’s a cliché to say a Liberal won’t take their own side in an argument, but even after years of singularly failing to put any passion into Liberalism I didn’t expect our own Leadership’s answer to ‘Demand a better Centre Party’ to be ‘Oh, perhaps they have a point’. After a year of navel-gazing about ‘Registered Supporters’, now our Leadership doesn’t even seem to have the energy to ask potential supporters to register with this party in particular. Rather than assuming people would rally if we tinkered with the mechanics, perhaps the Liberal Democrats should have considered that the way to get people to support us is to articulate something worth supporting.

Some time ago, I wrote about “What It Means To Be A Liberal Democrat”. I made the case for the values I believe in and the positive difference Liberal Democrats should make.

Liberal Democrats can certainly demand better than what I publish here. But first we need our Leadership to stop standing frozen in the headlights in the middle of the road. To go anywhere, we must set out a direction of travel.

What It Means To Be A Liberal Democrat

To be a Liberal Democrat is to believe in freedom.

Freedom grounded in real life, starting with people as they are. Not ‘The People’. Not ‘Our People’. Freedom based on the unique worth and potential of every individual person, and the reality that the person who knows best how to live their life is themselves.

To be a Liberal Democrat is to demand better. Government shouldn’t just protect the interests of those who are already well-off, and sneer at and push down people working hard to make a life for themselves, or those who aren’t able to support themselves. Liberal Democrats demand freedom from poverty. Government shouldn’t assume it can do everything, control everyone, as long as you take what you’re given and don’t ask awkward questions of those in charge. Liberal Democrats demand freedom from ignorance. Government shouldn’t tell you that your nation is the only thing that matters about you, drive out ‘outsiders’ and call anyone who doesn’t want their flag cut smaller, narrower and meaner ‘traitors’. Liberal Democrats demand freedom from conformity.

Liberal Democrats feel in our guts that everyone should be free to live their own life, that pushing people about and telling them what to do or who to be is wrong. We feel in our guts that everyone should have a fair chance, that prejudice and lack of opportunity are wrong. We feel in our guts the need for a better future, that piling up today’s problems for our kids to deal with tomorrow is wrong. But politics isn’t just about gut feelings and protesting when things aren’t right. We must face up to how things really are to work out how to change them, and change our own methods if experience shows us better ways to achieve our ideals. So Liberal Democrats are principle-led, but evidence-based.

An open, fairer society and a greener, stronger economy are interdependent. Liberal Democrats champion opportunity, fairness and economic responsibility. An economy that works, that encourages enterprise, that’s environmentally and financially sustainable, and where everyone pays their fair share. All thriving within an outward-looking, optimistic society that’s open-minded, open-hearted and open to co-operating with other countries to tackle climate change, promote peace and increase prosperity for our whole planet’s future.

Liberal Democrats believe freedom needs both positive help to make it real for everyone, and action to break down barriers to freedom such as poverty, ignorance and conformity. Education is the single most crucial way to combine both. A great education ensures everyone has the opportunity to realise their potential, whatever their background, whatever their choices. Every child getting the best education is central to them growing up with the freedom to live their own lives, getting a fair start and building for the future. If you’re for every person, and you want every person to have the ability to ask the important questions and make their own informed decisions in realising their own dreams, education is where it starts. If you want an economy growing and succeeding with innovation and creativity and where the most talented get ahead instead of just the most wealthy, education, training and apprenticeships are where it starts.

From the foundation that society should be for everyone and that everyone should be free, Liberal Democrats understand that individual people choose to come together in any number of complementary ways – families, jobs, mutual interests, neighbourhoods, nations, the whole human family – and that decisions can be made at any of those levels without giving up the others. That’s why we’ve always been both the most localist and the most internationalist party. Any political party denying diversity, defining itself by just one single identity or community and telling each individual that your birth or your faith or your cash or your class or your country is the only thing that counts doesn’t just diminish people’s lives and hopes, doesn’t just make society more fearful, hateful and divided, but is the mark of a party so stuck in its own prejudices that it has no idea how real people’s real lives work.

One vivid, simple answer to what Liberalism is for has always stuck with me: Liberalism is about standing up to bullies. That’s why a Liberal’s gut instinct is to side with the underdog – whoever the bully is and whoever the underdog is at any one time. Any sort of power can threaten liberty, but any sort of power can defend it, too. Whether it’s the state, or big business or big unions, or just other people, any of them can boss you around and anyone can help stop you being bossed around. So Liberals wouldn’t label any of them ‘the enemy’ or do away with any of them – just as we won’t say any of them are right all the time. When government acts fairly it can be the biggest force to restrain bullies, from crooks and murderers to stifling communities and bad employers; but a government that bosses you around or that only protects one special interest or only picks on another is just a bigger bully. The closer anyone has to a monopoly of power, the more it’s abused. Liberals challenge power and privilege, break up monopolies, set the same rules for everyone and make the starting point for any decisions the people that they affect.

When the starting point is people, what’s the end point? Get real! If you start with people you never say ‘that’s it.’ Whether it’s a grandiose utopia that you’ll never finish building or a thousand mean little targets to tick, imaginary end points have two things in common. Believing the ‘ends’ justify the means, they throw real people under the bus, seeing individuals only as statistics or as problems. And they never work. A Liberal society isn’t a perfect society, because there aren’t any perfect people or perfect politicians – but an open, untidy society that develops constantly in response to the individuals who form it has the advantage of being about real life. Liberals don’t say ‘We know best’, because everyone’s best is different.

To be a Liberal Democrat is to be wary of grand plans and little prejudices. To say of human nature, ‘It’s complicated’. Anyone might be kind or selfish, creative or lazy, successful or failing. Other parties see that as a reason to control people, because they believe people who disagree with them can’t be trusted with freedom, and they think ‘their people’ will want to do what they tell them anyway. Other parties fear pluralism, diversity, flexibility and individuality. Liberal Democrats might give an instinctive two-word answer to that ending in “—off”, but we have a better answer, too, countering fear with hope. Our fear is more that if a government makes a mistake in its giant one-life-fits-all authoritarianism, it’s going to be a doozy. And our hope, based on realism, is that the more different ideas run free, the more brilliant, practical ones will succeed. Believe in people, enable people, and unlock everyone’s potential.

To be a Liberal Democrat is to embrace the contradictions – because people are contradictory. Because only one idea has room for how messy, contradictory and wonderful real life and real people are. Freedom.

The Story Since 2016

I’ve never published this before, but for a couple of years it was on the Liberal Democrat main website as one of nine shortlisted essays chosen in early 2016. The competition was part of a consultation on “What It Means To Be A Liberal Democrat In 2015”. I re-read it a couple of weeks ago and was surprised how relevant it still seemed (even the ‘traitors’ line was in there back then). I aimed to make our Liberalism instinctive and accessible, and that stands. My video above is much more politically punchy for our immediate priorities and better to show someone who’s not interested in philosophy. Comparing this essay to my 2017 General Election post “A Liberal Britain. A Brighter Future. My Hope”, that takes a very different approach and that, too, has some punchy lines confronting issues I didn’t mention at all here (though in trying to find hope post-Brexit I was a little too shell-shocked to do more than wish it would all go away).

You’d think British politics has changed a lot since 2016. As the Prime Minister might say, nothing has changed, and yet everything has. Back when I wrote my “What It Means To Be A Liberal Democrat”, I was concerned that I’d leaned a bit too hard on vigilance about the state rather than its power to help – giving emphasis to education, but not health or infrastructure. After two years of Theresa May in charge, I didn’t go nearly far enough in warning against the might of government to be a heartless bully, an unmitigated f— up, or both at the same time. Back then, Brexit was a looming threat, not yet a tectonic shift. Since then, British politics has been frozen while Britain itself has become far worse – all because of the worst decision ever made in British democracy, and a slither of decisions and non-decisions ever since that have only made the worst decision worse still.

In the face of this titanic catastrophe, the Liberal Democrat Leadership has been more frozen than most. Much of the time their only message has been ‘Why can’t we all get along?’ when the answer is ‘Because an awful lot of people made a decision based on hating other people’, and wishing and hoping that they didn’t really mean it and that the clock would turn back has failed to make any impact as a political strategy because it has no political appeal and no political reality. Liberalism is worth fighting for. Bullies must be stood up to. Looking hand-wringingly heavenward and wishing that the bully and the bullied would just get along simply does not cut it.

If I’d started writing this today, stopping Brexit would have been the angry focus and I would have been far more pugnacious against Theresa May and her fascistic Hostile Environment or Jeremy Corbyn and his sub-BNP attacks on immigrants stealing British jobs. I’ve written quite a few times on what the Lib Dems stand for, and I may well write again. But I realised that what I’d written was something positive – and that wasn’t afraid to take a side. I’ve decided to publish pretty much what I entered, with a couple of small polishes. The competition set a limit of a thousand words. I’ve reintroduced a sentence or two that I’d originally cut for space, but mainly I’ve put back one whole paragraph. The reason I removed that one at the time was that I liked what it was aiming for but it just didn’t quite flow. Ironically, I found the Lib Dems’ “Demand Better” gave me the edge I was looking for, so that one paragraph has been rewritten today and restored to set the tone at the top.

You see? You can get something out of demanding better – but you have to give people some idea of what you’re demanding.

Labels: Brexit, Bullies, Economy, Education, Environment, Ideas, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, Meddling In Things That Are Nobody's Business But Your Own, What the Lib Dems Stand For

I’m a Liberal and I want a brighter future.

This General Election hasn’t been about that. I’m sick at heart of the Theresa May—Jeremy Corbyn—Brexit bad trip to a meaner past.

But the hope of a Liberal future keeps me going.

My vote on Thursday will not be just to stop the Conservatives / stop Labour because though both are s**t I’m marginally more afraid of one than the other. I can’t vote to make Britain just a bit worse.

I’ll vote positively.

Here’s my hope of a future worth voting for.

Do you want a brighter future?

Because if you do, then I should warn you – it’s going to take all sorts of things. Making society be for everyone, so everyone can be free. Finding long-term funding for the NHS and schools. And not being afraid to reconsider when things go wrong.

It won’t be easy answers, fear and blame.

But I’ll tell you what it could be…

Britain, 2030. A Liberal Democrat government, and a decade since Britain voted against the mayhem of a disastrous bad Brexit deal and changed Britain’s future.

The biggest change was the one no-one expected. It was Brexit that broke Westminster. The Prime Minister no-one elected ordered everyone to obey. The government without a plan grabbed for more power than ever. But the more they tightened their grip, the more people slipped through their fingers. Their extreme Brexit mess brought Britain to the brink of disaster, yet they never took responsibility for their own incompetence and they still tried to stop anyone having a say. Labour just split four ways and fought each other. But with popular pressure (and all those Lib Dem gains), even MPs rebelled. A new hope. When Britain had another choice, we threw out the idea of government control too.

The Liberal Democrat government came to power to bring everyone together, admitting they wouldn’t always know best and promising to listen all the way. Principles first, then consulting people, testing plans out to make sure they work, building consensus – that’s how changes happen now. The age of imposition leading to massive screw-ups is over.

It’s much easier to be heard and make a difference. Britain’s nations, regions, cities and counties took back control from one-size-fits-all Westminster. With real power distributed, economies across the country are stronger. Fair votes mean you get what you vote for and can hold them to account. With the end of safe seats, some Labour and Tory MPs gave up, but now all parties have to work harder and listen more. And whether the best place to use power is locally, nationally or internationally, the most important place to take decisions is you taking power over your own life.

The NHS has the money it needs and now treats mental health as urgently as physical, but it’s also helped by preventative health and reducing pollution.

Schools have the money they need, but they’re also helped by tackling child poverty. Better education, training and apprenticeships enables everyone to have opportunity to realise their potential, whatever their background, whatever their choices.

At last there’s a government willing to tell it like it is. That people want to come to Britain because it’s a brilliant country with British values of tolerance, freedom and standing up for the underdog. That there’s no way to stop that without tearing down so much that’s good about Britain. And why should we want to? Openness and compassion have always made Britain a brighter country for everyone. And for the people for who still want Britain smaller and meaner, if you want the economy to thrive to support our NHS and schools – if you want the people to work in our NHS and schools – then we have to welcome migrants too.

At last Britain’s leaders are in tune with Britain’s bigger values. It’s made such a difference to have a government valuing diversity and inclusion, refusing to find groups to blame. The Liberal Democrats set their mission as freedom for everyone from poverty, ignorance and conformity. They tackled inequality and prejudice, saying whatever your sex, race, class, sexuality, gender identity, disability, belief or background, you were part of society, the barriers stopping you getting on must go, and we should all look out for each other when we need it. That was the turning point against the rise in hate crime a decade ago.

There’s more freedom and less crime. Everyone has the liberty to live their lives as they choose (without harming others) after scrapping victimless crimes that waste people’s lives, waste public money and waste police time. Now police get to chase the real crooks, far fewer young and ethnic minority people get criminalised, and the Cornish economy’s booming on the cannabis crop.

Remember when governments always acted like people were simple and taxes had to be complicated? That was the wrong way round. Now everyone pays their fair share and can see where the money comes from, and small businesses flourish because the wealthiest can’t find loopholes.

Britain is becoming more respected again in the world. It’s been hard work. After decades of shouting insults instead of wanting to make Europe work, a lot of our European partners were just fed up with us. But it helped that there was relief all round when Britain voted not to keep trying for a much worse deal than we had to start with by leaving, and instead at last to get stuck in and change the EU for the better. Making it more democratic, decentralised and open. Encouraging both free and fairer trade in and beyond the biggest single market in the history of the world. Standing up against racism and intolerance. And young people feel like they’ve got their future back.

Above all, Liberal Britain has turned to the future. Innovation and enterprise are getting results. Green jobs are leading the economic revival as internationalist Britain becomes a leader in zero-carbon technology to tackle climate change. With environmental and economic responsibility at home, we’ve stopped leaving problems for the next generation to tackle, and started addressing intergenerational equality.

Not everyone’s happy. For bullies, busybodies and bigots it’s much harder to push others around. But life’s better for most people who want control over their own lives, not control over everyone else’s.

A Liberal Britain by 2030 isn’t a certainty. It’s a choice. And you always have more choices. You can stay back and let things happen. You can complain there isn’t a better yesterday. Or, every new day, you can decide to get stuck in and help make a better future.

Why I’m Looking Forward To Britain In 2030

If you’re wondering why this isn’t totally on-message, it’s partly because I never am, partly because the election’s had naff all vision in it so I wanted to say something I felt, and it’s partly because although it’s about the future, it’s one I prepared earlier.

My health has been almost as crappy as the election campaign and I’ve not been able to do much. And the election’s not cheered me up, to put it mildly. I’ve not had the mojo to write.

But this January the inspiring people at Your Liberal Britain ran a competition to imagine what a Liberal Britain might look like by 2030, and I wrote something for them then. Here it is.

I hadn’t been expecting a General Election, either.

You might have recognised some of the words, some from unexpected places, but not from our Manifesto. The way I’m most on-message, it turns out, is that the Lib Dem Manifesto is Change Britain’s Future and the party’s been campaigning for a Brighter Future. What I’ve published above was almost all written in January, but after using “better future” a lot in mine I’ve decided that I like “brighter” better. So I changed a few of those.

The Your Liberal Britain competition asked for 500 words. I wrote nearly a thousand in one big rush and, having left it until the deadline, was hacking bits out all evening to try and reduce my word count. I remember deleting one paragraph at five to midnight just because it was the right length. I didn’t much like what I slashed down to 500 words, and I didn’t win with my 500 words. Now I come to share my words, I’ve kept the ones I liked.

More Liberal Democrat Values

Every day in the 2015 General Election, I chose an inspiring Liberal quote from a wide range of people. You can see all the variety of Lib Dems Believe here.


Me on video in 2015: Liberal Democrats Believe



Me on video this year: Another Vote – Another Disappointment?



Your Liberal Britain: all sorts of goodies, and worth coming back to after the election for more inspiration and more consultation. I’ve not had the spoons to do all the Lib Dem philosophy I want to over the last couple of years. I’m thrilled these new members have been doing way more than I ever could.


And of course the official version – the 2017 Lib Dem Manifesto Change Britain’s Future, free to download in a range of accessible formats.


Now, please, if you found any of this moving, or inspiring, or just some hope, go out and vote for it.

Labels: Brexit, British Politics, General Election, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, What the Lib Dems Stand For

Introducing Doctor Who – Rose…

The first new Doctor Who story starts with an ordinary person who follows someone extraordinary to a blue box that’s larger on the inside than the outside and travels in time and space. Again.

Fast, funny and fantastic, Billie Piper and Christopher Eccleston burst onto our screens and deadly dummies burst through shop windows in the perfect Doctor Who relaunch, choosing strangeness over ‘normality’, running towards adventure and reinventing British television. And it all looks glorious. It’s nearly Christmas, but it was at Easter 2005 that Doctor Who – Rose.

“Right. Where d’you wanna start?”

The biggest question for me: how do I choose only ten reasons to watch this?

This blog post is also a sort of reprint or Special Edition, once again from a celebratory series I began last year. That was largely brought to a halt by my terrible health, and then since restarting I’ve fallen further behind after being hospitalised. This year my health’s been the worst it’s ever been even by my standards, and it’s so much harder than ever to be enthused, or to find inspiration or even the energy to move. I’m not sure right now whether the next one of these I attempt might skip to the Christmas one and run the risk of never getting back to those I’ve planned in between, or whether I should carry on in my own idiosyncratic order with the added downer that it could be always Winter and never Christmas. But you know, rewriting Rose today may not have given me the physical energy I need, but it has refired just a start of my enthusiasm and more determination. Because if there’s one thing 2016 proves we all desperately need and Rose long since proved just might happen beyond all hope, it’s that a comeback might just come if you keep at it hard and long enough…

Ten Reasons To Watch Rose (warning: spoilers lower down the list)

1 – Rose.

This episode is built on Rose Tyler, and Billie Piper is perfect. It’s Rose’s story, the story of a young woman who doesn’t know she’s looking for something better in her life until it runs into her – and who then goes after it. She’s completely normal – and smart, fresh and funny. She works in a shop. She knows nothing about the Doctor or walking dummies or miraculous travels. With the new audience, she comes in half-way through the story, tries to make sense of it all, and won’t let go when it’s horrifying, intriguing or joyous. The Doctor’s in a story of living plastic “Autons” animated by the alien Nestene Consciousness, but that’s just window-dressing. The story we’re watching follows Rose as she almost-unwillingly picks at the weird thread of the Doctor’s world intruding into hers, rather than us or her being given the whole lot in one big splat of culture shock or backstory. And she makes it an achievement – increasingly determined first to find out what’s going on and then to do something about it, even when her family tell her she shouldn’t bother and the Doctor won’t answer her questions. Her ‘hero moment’ comes when she swings in to save the Doctor with a great piss-take of a motivational speech:

“I’ve got no A-Levels. No job. No future. But I tell you what I have got – Jericho Street Junior School under-sevens gymnastics team. I got the bronze!”

But for me I was really sold on Rose, and Billie, in two moments where she shows she’s not just a foil to the Doctor but brings something more: when it seems her boyfriend Mickey is dead, Rose’s first thought is that she’ll have to tell his mother, grounding the series in consequences from the start; and her brilliant comic timing with just a nod and an eyebrow when she’s being smarter than the Doctor.

Above all, Rose is the symbol of the new audience who didn’t know they were looking for Doctor Who until they started watching, embodying the message that the series is for everybody – not least young women – so why don’t you demand something more interesting from your television set?




2 – The Doctor.

Christopher Eccleston is, like William Hartnell before him, at first a mystery to the ordinary person who doesn’t know what to make of him, but also fantastic from his first moment. When Rose and we first meet him, he’s a baffling mixture of reassuring and alarming as only

“Nice to meet you Rose. Run for your life!”

while waving a bomb could be. Of course he has to be the Doctor when he starts with “Run!” Speaking to Rose, he’s upbeat and engaging, but when he turns away that all switches off – and when he talks to someone who knows of his world, he can’t hide his pain. And at the same time he can be as innocent as a new-born about our world, from his appealing faith in a not-totally-a-disguise to having to be reminded that death might upset people, that there are details as well as the big picture. Rose keeps trying to make the Doctor pay attention to what she thinks is serious, and when she tracks down someone else who’s been trying to find out about the Doctor he’s even more so, telling her that “The Doctor is a legend woven throughout history”… When back at her flat, the legend had been worrying about his ears, losing control of a card trick and dismissing the celebrity gossip with a glance:

“Hmm. That won’t last; he’s gay, and she’s an alien.”

But then, he doesn’t seem quite human, dismissing the whole of humanity as “boneheads” and “stupid apes” to our faces… Only to stick up for us as “capable of so much more”. Christopher Eccleston is brilliant casting to relaunch the Doctor, a very serious actor who you wouldn’t expect in the role but who’s utterly right for it, bringing dramatic credibility and all the range of the Ninth Doctor: lonely, angry, hurt, wrapped up in survivor’s guilt… Yet surprised and delighted by Rose – and very funny.




3 – That introduction to the TARDIS.

“Right. Where d’you wanna start?”
“Um – the inside’s bigger than the outside?”
“Yes.”
“It’s – it’s alien.”
“Yep.”
“Are you alien?”
“Yes. That all right?”
“Yeah.”

This is the heart of Rose – when she walks into the Doctor’s world, coming up to two-thirds of the way into the episode. It’s one of the most wonderful moments – or series of moments – in all of Doctor Who, and I could easily find ten reasons to watch this sequence alone. But I’ve not put it first, because there’s a reason the story doesn’t start here. You have to earn it, to discover the wonder and terror and sheer fun for yourself alongside Rose. And though it runs across several different settings, it’s also a big, long talky scene. In disguise.

Before Rose aired, I’d admitted to three big fears – beyond the unsayable, existential one that Doctor Who would come back, only to go away again. I’d worried that pop star Billie Piper wouldn’t be able to act. I’d worried that the Doctor wouldn’t be likeable, as I’d seen Christopher Eccleston in many things and he’d been many things – intense, mostly – but not fun. And I’d worried that they’d mess up the TARDIS and not introduce it properly (like the 1996 TV Movie that came and went, starting off inside it rather than letting us find out). This was the point where I knew without a doubt that I’d been deliriously wrong on all three.

Rose keeps teasing the TARDIS before revealing it as the Doctor’s impossible time and space machine: a blue hut glimpsed in the shadows as Rose runs from her exploding workplace; the Doctor striding off towards what looks like another wooden booth with a light on top on another street in the light of day, a wheezing, groaning sound, Rose turns, and it’s gone – a scene with a special magic for Richard and me; the same blue box standing by the bins behind the restaurant in which a plastic facsimile of her boyfriend is going berserk.

And then a place of safety can be weirder than the threat.




Rose has seen Auton Mickey smashing everything in sight. Obviously she wants the Doctor to undo the padlocked restaurant back gates. So why is he strolling to a wooden box that can’t possibly protect them? He walks in. She follows… She has to come straight out again. She walks all the way round. Then she takes the plunge. A gloriously huge space, with a turquoise undersea glimmer, great coral arches and a control console and the Doctor at the centre, both packed with weirdness. It’s the best introduction to the TARDIS since An Unearthly Child, and even as the Doctor gently takes her through his and its strange origins, there’s a hint of more strangeness to come that he doesn’t even explain right now:

“The assembled hordes of Genghis Khan couldn’t get through that door. And believe me, they’ve tried.”

But it’s not just a surprise for Rose. The Doctor’s brought her world into his, too – not just in carrying an alien replica of her boyfriend’s head that he’s trying to trace a signal from. No, something much more alarming. He asks about her culture shock and gets instant culture shock whiplash back from her asking if this means her boyfriend’s dead. And he’s panicking and petulant at losing the signal, too, so he goes back outside. Where, obviously, it isn’t safe. Then Rose looks through the door. And they’re on the Thames Embankment without having moved.




The Doctor’s explanations are unspeakably joyous to watch. Sulky:

“We’ve moved. Does it fly?”
“Disappears there and reappears here. You wouldn’t understand.”

Angry:

“I’ll have to tell his mother. Oh… Mickey! I’ll have to tell his mother he’s dead, and you just went and forgot him, again! You were right – you are alien.”
“Look, if I did forget some kid called Mickey—”
“Yeah, he’s not a kid—”
“It’s because I’m busy trying to save the life of every stupid ape blundering about on top of this planet! All right?”

Hilarious pouty non-answer:

“If you are an alien, how comes you sound like you’re from the North?”
“Lots of planets have a north.”

And, best of all, so proud of his toy, so wide-eyed and so endearingly clueless:

“What’s a police public call box?”
“It’s a telephone box. From the 1950s. It’s a disguise.”

I can’t imagine more perfect dialogue and actors. Rose has stepped into the Doctor’s world and out the other side; now he’s telling her more about it, but in the way he does so telling her and us much more about himself, while Rose brings her ordinary life with her by being the adult, constantly taking a deep breath and moving on rather than reacting with a ‘What?’ or a ‘You’re joking’ or a ‘You unspeakable git’ to the countless ways in which he’s completely self-unaware.

And there’s one more thing, after the Doctor’s mini-1970s-Who-style lecture on ecology: the transmitter he’s come to track down. Something the alien Consciousness needs to boost its signal to control every single piece of plastic. How can you hide something that big? Which is where Rose shows just how useful she can be to the Doctor, and Billie Piper completely steals the show without saying a word. The Doctor’s on the Embankment, his head framed like a halo by the lights of the London Eye on the opposite bank, wittering on all night about how it must be round, and massive, like a dish, like a wheel, radial – “Must be completely invisible.” All the while, Rose is looking straight at him, and it, and raising her eyebrow, and giving little nods to point past him. And I was nearly crying with laughter. A perfect five minutes.

The TARDIS. Always the bridge between different worlds.




4 – The opening.

A thrilling version of the Doctor Who Theme – electronic and orchestral, with new bits to surprise even old viewers and to entrance the new audience. A blue box slipping through a scintillating time tunnel from blue to red (and still to find out the reimagined significance of both).

A zoom-in from a view of the Earth in space right to Rose’s estate, Rose’s bedroom, Rose waking up, montage of her Mum who’s settled for nothing much, the bus, the big shop where she works and which she can’t wait to escape, modern London whizzing around her, her boyfriend making her laugh, all in a couple of minutes of energy energy energy and fast music that keeps skipping playfully in and out of diegetic (with fabulously massive bass in the new Blu-ray mix), establishing her life in two minutes flat. And, for long-term viewers, a visual nod to the openings of Spearhead From Space and The Ark In Space – both stories major influences at the start of Russell T Davies’ Doctor Who – for Rose On Earth.

Then the end of the working day and the end of Rose’s old life: she goes down to the basement to collect the lottery money but finds creepy walking dummies and a man telling her to run instead. And to cap it all, he blows up the store. All told, seven minutes to grab your attention at breakneck pace and with a more complete mini-adventure than a James Bond pre-credits or The Avengers – The Town of No Return. Though with its mix of drama, comedy, British iconography colliding with strangeness and a man who does this for a life a woman who does this for fun, the closest thing TV’s come to The Avengers for a while, too.


5 – A man gives the first big scream.

A subtle reinforcement of ‘this is not the sneering stereotype people put the show down with’: the first person we see letting out a real cry of fear is a terrified man, who clutches the woman he’s with and screams his head off – just after fake Mickey’s head comes off. The real Mickey has been almost as useless a boyfriend, even before dissolving from laddish swagger into scared, helpless victim. Rose, meanwhile, hits the fire alarm to get everyone out to safety – and then saves the Doctor at the climax.


6 – Choosing strangeness over ‘normality’.

Those fantastic trailers spoke the truth. The Doctor told us “It won’t be quiet, it won’t be safe, and it won’t be calm”; Rose told us, “I’ve got a choice” between home, Mum, boyfriend, job – or chucking it all for danger, monsters, life or death. “What do you think?” And that’s what Rose is all about – taking the risk. Because choosing safety and ‘normality’ is the obvious choice, and this wants to show you the other side. The side of ‘strange’ and ‘change’. And danger.

It’s not that normality doesn’t have its appeal. It’s comfortable. You don’t need to think. And it’s safe. That’s the word that keeps pounding at us, from Rose’s Mum, from Rose herself, and the Doctor simply says, no, it won’t be. This first episode of the new series is not quite yet, as Russell T Davies described the Doctor’s constant companion, “Death,” and Doctor Who, “steeped in death” – even as killer shop window dummies break through their shop windows and start shooting, we don’t yet see the impacts and the bodies, but we know they’re there, and if he’s a little hesitant to start with on the danger (even the Autons breaking windows lack punch), the director excels in showing us weirdness colliding with modern soap-style life.

TV, chips, department stores, beans on toast, Mum and boyfriend. Russell T Davies’ Doctor Who was grounded in ordinary life as never before, and many fan critics complained that it was “soap opera”. The point was that the mass audience saw what was different instead. That it showed both sides, or there wouldn’t be a choice – but that it made the choice to go with ‘different’. Rose cares about her ordinary life. We all care about ours. She reacts as a real person when her boyfriend or her Mum are in danger. But that doesn’t mean she has to be forced to settle for them as the only thing in life. Both are in their own ways the anti-Doctor: her Mum Jackie tells her not to better herself, not to get airs and graces (she thinks even the upmarket store her daughter worked in was too good for her), not to stand up or stand out, to be safe, even that “There’s no point in getting up, sweetheart”; her boyfriend Mickey is an easy relationship to pass the time, but he cares more about the pub than her and they don’t have anything to say to each other and no longer even listen to each other, absurdly highlighted when she doesn’t even notice he’s been replaced by a plastic impostor.

The point of Rose, of Doctor Who, is that there’s more to life than being the same. You can choose freedom from conformity instead. Not everyone will make Rose’s choice, but this programme always will. You can just eat, sleep, work, never looking for anything different, never mixing with anyone different. From the start, Doctor Who was about opening your mind and life to the strange, the different, the alien. In 1963, that meant a mind-expanding TARDIS and allegories of fascism; by 1988 it was confronting racism head-on; in 2005, no-one mentions the new central character has a black boyfriend, but life’s got to reach higher than just the new normal. Mickey’s the one who bundles all the weirdness together, the good and the bad, when the Doctor asks Rose to come with him:

“Don’t. He’s an alien. He’s – he’s a thing.”

The show rejects xenophobia instead: not just about its alien hero, but even in his first reaction to the would-be invader:

“I’m not here to kill it. I’ve got to give it a chance.”

Rose could settle. But she makes the choice. Be outward-looking, go beyond the obvious, find out what her true potential might be – part of Russell’s optimistic, outgoing vision of humanity for the series. It’s completely at odds with so much of modern life and almost all of modern TV, but both Rose and Rose know the risks and take them anyway.

I first wrote this piece last year, and I still agree with every word. But what I wrote then in hope and optimism now seems like angry determination. Xenophobia has won this year. Hatred and fear have won this year. Racism has taken Britain so far back in time I can barely believe it, let alone stomach it. And the voice of Jackie Tyler, sitting where she is, never wanting to move or change or listen to anything else, seeing it as a personal affront that her daughter should do anything more interesting or ambitious, anything that’s not being exactly the same as her, and ordering her not to bother? That’s been the voice of 2016, small-mindedly, mean-spiritedly, self-and-other-harmingly trying to take back control over everyone else’s lives because she doesn’t have enough in her own and won’t let anyone else be better.

But you know what? Time travel goes forward as well as back. Be outward-looking. Go beyond the obvious. Realise your true potential. Love the alien. Free yourself – and others – from conformity. The worldsview of Rose is still the better choice. And once she’d seen a bit more of the world, even Jackie got off her bum to make it too. Time to change the channel.




7 – Choosing strange TV over normal TV, and reinventing British television.

2005 doesn’t seem like that long in the past, but they did things differently there. Russell T Davies and the BBC took a massive risk. There was nothing like Doctor Who on then. Well, there isn’t anything else like Doctor Who, but the BBC and ITV had been stuck for many years making virtually nothing but conveyor-belt banality. Reality shows, cop shows or medical shows or medical-cop shows, and that was it until a very different doc show threw a bomb into British TV. If you wanted anything remotely different then you had to pick up a vintage TV DVD or a vintage TV channel. No Merlin, Primeval or Robin Hood. No The Sarah Jane Adventures, Wizards Vs Aliens or Wolfblood. No Hyde – not even Jekyll. No Life On Mars, Torchwood, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell or Being Human. No Class. Nothing interesting made for the TV wasteland in years, and everyone told by a complacent media that anything different would be crap even if anyone dared show it, so no-one should even try. No wonder every industry expert said Doctor Who would be a flop. But because it was so brilliantly conceived and made, it became one of the biggest hits on television, all over again, and suddenly people started making shows that might be interesting again. Thank goodness.

Can you imagine how soul-destroyingly boring all of British TV would still be without it?


8 – Looking back…

Since Doctor Who finished its original TV run in 1989, stories had flourished in novels, CDs and other media, but the only attempt to bring it back to TV had flopped. The 1996 TV Movie gave the impression you had to know everything before you even started, and was crammed with indigestible torrents of backstory. Rose wasn’t. It introduced the viewers to the bare basics of the series and only slowly filled in more, taking Rose and the audience with it. But at the same time the series was marketed as new for a new audience, it was clearly carrying on from all that had come before if you looked and listened carefully. Russell T Davies’ instinct for appealing to the widest possible audience was underpinned by a deep and abiding love of a show that was worth getting people to love all over again.

So notice how even the opening moments echo two influential stories from the 1970s, one suggesting a more Earthbound Doctor and the other an alien Doctor who both admires and is frustrated by humanity, and see how both run through Rose and the 2005 series, with the walking dummies once again an ideal way to introduce new viewers to a weird-but-not-too-weird alien attacker. See how by starting with an ordinary person becoming intrigued by the steadily more extraordinary and discovering the Doctor for herself echoes the pattern of the very first story, An Unearthly Child, even down to the title having a similar focus with an inverted meaning (and a nod to the day before it was first shown)… Right through to the cat-flap mystery on a council estate evoking Survival, the very last TV story until all the rest. And that’s before it becomes clear how much the underlying story owes to the novels from the years in between…


9 – Looking forward…

You expect a new TV series to start with a bang. Whether it’s the most explosive spaceship battle or the most explicit sex scene, producers show us the biggest money shot they can afford up front to get people watching, get people talking and get people to come back – even though what follows will never deliver quite as much again. This might be their only chance with the viewers, and they’re desperate not to blow it. Russell T Davies knew all that: it’s how he’d launched Queer As Folk. But his renewed Doctor Who held back instead. Doctor Who isn’t like any other show. It can go anywhere in time and space, and in almost any style. How do you show that all at once? You don’t. Doctor Who is too broad and too deep for any one piece of television. You have to get people to tune in again and again. You could call it caution – starting slow, letting an audience fed on years of banality discover the Doctor’s world with Rose one step at a time rather than frightening them off with every weird thing all at once. You could call it confidence – that the show would be so appealing that people would want more, and it would deliver much more. I call it amazingly good judgement.

Like Robert Holmes – the most celebrated writer for Twentieth Century Doctor Who, name-checked in the credits here – Russell drops in hints of history way beyond the plot’s requirements. I love a writer who leaves tantalising threads of backstory dangling, ones which may or may not ever be picked up (and am always put off by those which, like the endless post-Frank Herberts of Dune, or Revenge of the Sith, beat the life out of these intriguing hints by telling us exactly and only what we already know in the most banally obvious way and with no dangling creativity whatever).

Rose looks like a simple alien invasion story, but is packed with other layers, promising more to come. What’s startlingly new about the way Russell does it is that he begins with the characters: much of what we see of the Doctor here only makes sense in a context we don’t know yet, but we can already see what he’s feeling. We don’t get introduced to the Last Great Time War with a space battle or a portentous voiceover hitting us in the face in the opening scene: instead, that’s all about Rose, sketching in a life we recognise. It takes us longer to recognise that the jolly terrorist Doctor we first meet rattling off words as top-speed gags puts his survivor-guilt death wish right in the middle of them (and blowing up a London landmark won’t be a one-off, either). How do we know the War mattered, was so great and so terrible? The pain cracking the Doctor’s voice as he desperately pleads,

“I was there. I fought in the War. It wasn’t my fault. I couldn’t save your world – I couldn’t save any of them!”

This isn’t a history book. It’s still-raw personal anguish. And long before – or long after, according to taste – The Night of the Doctor, the Nestene Consciousness doesn’t recount but reacts to that backstory, too: it starts the invasion in panic, because it recognises a TARDIS. As my husband Richard puts it, “Terror of the Autons”, indeed. What did the Doctor, his people and their War do? Rose asks if the Doctor’s on his own; we don’t grasp the full implications of that yet, but the way the Doctor’s expressive face shuts down cold as he turns away from her tells us more. We get to feel it all before the second week gives us more of the story of just how he’s “a long way from home” – and a special effects extravaganza. In retrospect, reminders of weddings terrifying Jackie take on extra meaning, while even a shuffling wheelie bin looks like it’s foreshadowing a kid pretending to be a Dalek.

And there’s one more thing Rose promises us, right at the end, if it’s still not grabbed you…


10 – Running towards…

“By the way, did I mention – it also travels in time?”

The whole story runs towards the moment of choice. For Rose, and the viewer. It’s shown you so much already – and here’s the promise of more. “Is it always this dangerous?” asks Rose as her boyfriend literally holds her back. “Yeah,” says the Doctor, and suddenly she has too many everyday things to do, and he steps into the TARDIS, and we see the light flash, a wind rise, and it fades away.

And then Doctor Who comes back.

Rose has made the Doctor’s world so utterly compelling that it fills sixteen seconds away with the yearning of sixteen years, for Rose and for the audience together, old and new. Then we all feel the joy of an endless wait fulfilled when the TARDIS rematerialises and the Doctor steps back into our lives again. It travels in time? We’ve all just felt forever in sixteen seconds. The loss had already told Rose she’d made the wrong decision, and now there’s more even than she’d thought there would be. And when the first thing the Doctor said to her was “Run!” it wasn’t just a warning, but a promise of danger.

Rose runs towards the open door of the TARDIS with a massive smile on her face, slow motion prolonging the moment so we can delight in the sheer joy of it as the thrillingly deep musical sting of the Doctor Who Theme crashes in.

Of course we all want to go with her.

What Else Should I Tell You About Rose?

After all the wait, Rose was fantastic.

After all nearly twelve years, Rose is still fantastic. And the mixture of fear, hope and enthusiasm I had back then is now simply enthusiasm and the most abiding love. A few weeks ago, BBC Store offered Doctor Who’s 1989 adventures, Season Twenty-Six, as a bundle for half price. The last of the original series is still one of its very best, and I bought it (in the umpteenth format) while in hospital and in dire need of cheering up. Today I finished watching it with the no longer final story, Survival, then went immediately on with Rose. I’d not watched these two back-to-back before, and perhaps because I’m still more fragile than usual or perhaps because both stories are simply wonderful, the combination took my breath away.

Watching the final few minutes of 1989’s Doctor Who, I find myself standing, fists clenched at my sides, a sad, defiant thrill coursing through me at “I thought I could run forever” and “gone, but it lives on inside you. It always will”, even twenty-seven years on. My mouth twists in a bittersweet smile, my face tightens, my eyes moisten. Then, as the swirling starscape fades away, I press play again, the TARDIS hurtles into a blaze of blue, and I’m not even half-way into the titles when there’s a tear and a smile of fierce joy. I remember what my husband told me on one bloody terrible day in June when everything worthwhile seemed lost.

“Do you know what you get if you add Rose to Survival? A Revival.”

I’m never going to be objective about this one.

What am I saying? I’m never going to be objective about any of them.

I wasn’t the only one. It got ten million viewers – still one of the highest ratings for the Doctor in the Twenty-First Century. Within days, the BBC confirmed there would be another series, and a Christmas special. In retrospect, it looks like an inevitable rise. But at the time, when news also leaked that Christopher Eccleston was to leave the show after the trip of a surprisingly short time, it all felt terribly fragile. I was wrong there too. Just as I was about Jackie and Mickey only being comic relief characters, or the plots being perfunctory (Rose walks in half-way through the story of the Autons, but this is her story, not theirs, and you can tell that because her name’s the title and theirs are only in the credits), or the tone not being sinister, or the music not being grand or scary yet. All these things would develop. You can’t do all of Doctor Who in one episode. And this is still the best of all the season-openers this century.

One more thing about why Rose is special to me. Richard and I had friends near what on TV was about to become Rose’s estate. One day in July 2004, one of them went to the doctor – and saw the TARDIS. He rang us, and so that evening we saw Rose turn back and look into the sudden wind at something that wasn’t there, then run back, longing for it. We knew. We knew.

[I’ve still got that ancient phone because I can’t get the pictures off it.]

And, if you need one, my score:

Usually this is a simple mark out of ten, the crudest possible metric of how good I think it is. Some weeks there will be exceptions.

9/10 says my head
But the joy it always sparks in my heart is 10/10.

If You Like Rose, Why Not Try…

The 2005 season re-establishes where the series can go so perfectly that the same sort of pattern’s been followed almost annually to introduce new viewers, taking us to past, present and future in the first three stories. So it’s pretty much a perfect start to follow Rose with The End of the World and The Unquiet Dead. Or, for me, the whole Christopher Eccleston season, which whether you call it Series One or Season Twenty-seven is one of the few Doctor Who years where I can cheerfully enthuse about every single story without looking shifty. Or there’s the earlier season that most resembles this one, Tom Baker’s first, Season Twelve, from 1975 – or for a single story, Spearhead From Space introduces both Jon Pertwee’s Doctor and the Autons.

Not the Autons, but with a terrific monster that looks very like a modern take on an old-school Nestene, there’s Invasion of the Bane, another terrific launch episode in which Russell T Davies and Elisabeth Sladen spearhead Doctor Who spin-off series The Sarah Jane Adventures. Or from just the year after Rose, director Graeme Harper’s Rise of the Cybermen shows us an even more smashing entrance for a monster as the Cybermen break windows with stunning pace and energy.

But in particular I’m going to recommend The Christmas Invasion, seasonal and the final Doctor Who story of that fantastic year of 2005. The series had returned and become a massive hit – but could it continue without its first Doctor? Once again, Rose is the crucial character in discovering and accepting not the Doctor’s world, but the new Doctor. It’s a terrific alien invasion story in its own right, but Rose carries it all the way until David Tennant’s ready to step up. And it may not be the Nestene Consciousness behind it this time, but there’s still something ordinary turning deadly to keep you on the edge of your seat – are you going to get killed by a Christmas Tree?

Next Time…

From beginnings to an ending of sorts, a final evolutionary form…? Except, of course, there’s no such thing.

Labels: Bigotry, Brexit, Chris Achilleos, Christopher Eccleston, Doctor Who, Doctor Who 52, Fascism, Liberalism, Repeats Er I Mean Special Editions, Revival, Rose