Policy and structure

print Print
Please select which sections you would like to print:
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
Feedback
Corrections? Updates? Omissions? Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login).
Thank you for your feedback

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Also known as: Social and Liberal Democratic Party
Quick Facts
Date:
1988 - present
Areas Of Involvement:
libertarianism

The Liberal Democrats have maintained the old Liberal Party’s tradition of radical or social liberalism. In particular, they have laid great emphasis on issues of constitutional reform, including electoral reform, devolution of state authority from the centre to the regions, reform of the House of Lords, and the need for freedom-of-information legislation and a bill of rights. The Liberal Democrats take a left-of-centre stance on educational and social issues and are committed to European integration. Such policies have directed the party toward the ideological space occupied by the “new,” less radical, Labour Party—a movement that was attested to by the leadership’s 1995 decision to drop the formal strategy of “equidistance” between the two major parties. After the 1997 elections, the Liberal Democrats sought greater cooperation with the governing Labour Party, forming an informal pact on areas of agreement, including European integration and constitutional reform. The unprecedented agreement provided seats for the Liberal Democrats on a Joint Cabinet Committee.

The Liberal Democrats are an amalgam of their predecessors in organizational terms. Displaying the federalism of the Liberals, they operate separate but parallel English, Scottish, Welsh, and Federal party structures. In policy making, the Federal Conference, which meets twice a year, is formally sovereign, though much of the decisive influence over policy proposals put before conference is wielded by the Federal Policy Committee (an innovation derived from the SDP), which consists of the party leader, the party president (the chief extraparliamentary figure in the party), and representatives of the parliamentary party, the national parties, the local councillors, and the grassroots organizations. The Policy Committee also has control over the drafting of the party’s election manifestos.

The Federal Executive, chaired by the party president, oversees the party’s general affairs. It consists of the party leader, the vice presidents, members of Parliament, local councillors, representatives of the national parties, members elected by the Federal Conference, and various other members.

There are a number of incentives for rank-and-file members to participate in party affairs, chief among which are the right to elect the party leader and president, the right to vote in any consultative policy referendum called by the Federal Executive, and the right to participate in the selection process for parliamentary candidates. The national party organizations draw up lists of approved candidates from which local parties can select their own shortlists; the national parties can remove names from the approved lists at any time.

One of the most striking features of the electoral support won by the Liberal Democrats (as well as their party’s progenitors) is its heterogeneity. The party regularly wins the votes of about two-fifths of all managers, professionals, and nonmanual employees; approximately one-quarter of manual employees; and one-fifth of self-employed individuals. Geographically, some regions of relatively concentrated Liberal Democrat voting are recognizable, especially in the so-called Celtic fringes of Scotland and southwestern England. The party’s membership is overwhelmingly middle-class and highly educated—even more so than that of the Conservatives. Financially, the Liberal Democrats are the most poorly funded British party: unlike the two dominant parties, they are unable to rely on major corporate or trade union sponsors and are forced to raise funds from the individual membership and from a few wealthy sympathizers.

Paul David WebbThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica