When I formed the Classical Liberals, I had many people say to me that we would be best suited to just being another wing of the Tories or the Liberal Democrats (I wonder, given we’re now larger than them if there is an argument they should be a wing of us), and that it was foolish to try to start another new party instead of just becoming a part of one of the existing ‘broad tent’ parties. As somebody who spent 11 months leading possibly the broadest of the ‘broad tent’ parties, I immediately knew this wouldn’t work - while broad-tent parties do have their advantages, namely a greater ability to win seats, they also do have many, many weaknesses.

Towards the end of my time in UKIP, I’m not actually sure what united the party, other than not being Tories or National Unionists - our primary goal was achieved, we were leaving the European Union, but we couldn’t even agree on how we wanted to leave, with a mix of protectionist no-deal nonsense and internationalist and open beliefs in staying in the single market and close to Europe being floated among the membership, and socially, the party was never, even in the old days, united on any level with social policies - this led to intense factionalism and battles for control of the party, such as the “make the libertarians UKIP again” movement of the Nationalist Party, and previous ideological leadership and manifesto battles. While certain ‘broad-tent’ parties are (publicly at least) able to give the impression of some level of unity, I feel this is far too a fragile balance, and this was ultimately one of the reasons why I decided that I’d create a new party, rather than being part of another ‘broad tent’ one.

While there will never be a political party where 100% of our members believe in 100% of what we say, but there can be a political party where we have a clear set of well-defined principles - in the Classical Liberals, that is the belief that every human is entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a belief that free market capitalism has been the greatest driving force behind human development - these principles mean that we’ve got a foundation for all of our policies, and while members can and do disagree with me on issues, that we’re able to work it out in a way agreeable to all. To me, the Classical Liberals have been able to find the correct balance between the ‘broad tent’ parties and the alternative - many tiny parties, all so 100% of people can agree with policy 100% of the time.

Of course, I’d be foolish to claim that right now, the Classical Liberals have the same chance as the Tories of forming the government - it is clear that we don’t, but that’s not inherently a bad thing - we’re able to work with the Conservatives, as we’ll work with any party, on issues where we agree (such as most economic policies, barring their new silly idea of scrapping NIT - more on that in a later blog), and then take our own sides where we don’t agree (like with the Single Market) - Indeed, I believe that this should be the future of politics - rather than the trend towards two monolithic ‘broad tent’ parties, we should look to having a dozen or so smaller parties who can work with each other where they agree and where there is a need, but then disagree respectfully when they don’t, rather than creating factionalism and power struggles within one ‘broad tent’ party.

My experiences of UKIP and the Classical Liberals contrast remarkably, especially where members do disagree with me, and this shows the strengths of smaller, more united, and more principled parties over the traditional ‘broad tent’ model.