Write for us!
If Jo Grimond’s logic, clarity and calm rhetoric drew me to liberalism, Michael Meadowcroft’s understanding of the philosophy underpinning it, confirmed my place in the party.
In the 1980s I moved to Battersea and with some difficulty managed to locate and join a moribund local Liberal Party – but that’s another story. The activities of Margaret Thatcher had made whinging from an armchair, or complaining to friends in the pub, insufficient and I needed to rekindle my political flame. Battersea is close to central London, so the next step was to join a Michael Meadowcroft initiative he had set up in Westminster following his election to parliament in 1983.
It was called the Liberal Information Network, or LiNK and was ably managed by Hannan Rose. It had been Michael’s idea to set up a kind of bargain basement think tank, drawing on the ideas of young activists in the London area at the time – people like Alan Leaman, Martin Horwood and Duncan Brack. Michael would book a meeting room in parliament and a bunch of us would attend to discuss policy ideas, pre-conference plans and write articles, often without Michael’s physical presence being required.
Hannan Rose edited the LiNk newsletter that contained precis of useful news and comment, gleaned from national newspapers, as a reference service to MPs and activists. In pre-internet days, this was a useful compact resource. Hannan also edited the Radical Quarterly, an A3 size booklet containing essays on new policy initiatives. This was my introduction to involvement with the party on national issues and not simply as a local campaigner. Michael’s energy and commitment was key to this activity. Without him, much of it simply wouldn’t have happened.
What made Michael stand out was his grasp of what made the party distinctive and different at a time when we were in alliance with the SDP and party loyalties were slithering about. As the Labour Party struggled to reclaim an identity that was relevant to voters and nearer the centre ground, the Liberals needed to understand the USP that made the party different to the managerial, collegiate SDP which had a philosophy that seemed to be moderate and consensus based, but without roots. The Liberal Party had a genuine philosophy, built on Mill and articulated in the Preamble to the Constitution, which was carried forward, largely intact, into the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal/SDP merger was a trauma that in hindsight, our first past the post electoral system probably made inevitable. It was the intellectual clout of Michael, along with others like Tony Greaves and Rachael Pitchford that ensured that when the merger happened, the Liberal Party was not subsumed in a corporate centre ground party without intellectual substance.
Above all, Michael Meadowcroft was a man who understood that politics means nothing if you don’t know why you hold the position you do. Without philosophical foundations, political parties can be blown almost anywhere, as the Overton Window is shoved to the left and right by powerful vested interests.
Today’s Liberal Democrats would do well to understand this, before it is too late.
I will miss him, not because we had communicated recently, but because without his energy and inspiration, I might not have remained involved in liberal politics as long as I have done. And without Michael’s belief in and understanding of liberalism as a philosophy, as communicated to me, I might not care enough to continue the fight.
Featured image by Keith Edkins – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7916555
