Former MP Stephen Lloyd interview

Will Barber-Taylor: Hello, and welcome to the Centre Think Tank Interview series. As always, I am your host, Will Barber-Taylor. And in this episode, I am delighted to be joined by Stephen Lloyd, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne from 2010 to 2015, and again from 2017 to 2019; former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2014, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Work and Pensions from 2017 to 2018.

Will Barber-Taylor: Welcome to the interview, Stephen.

Stephen Lloyd: Good afternoon. Hello Will, good to be here.

Will Barber-Taylor: It is great to have you on, Stephen. The first question that I would like to ask is about some articles that Centre Think Tank is currently running. We are currently running a series of articles looking at why people consider themselves centrists. Why do you consider yourself one?

Stephen Lloyd: I would say that to me, centrism also encompasses the moderate. I would call myself, or would have called myself, a moderate centrist politician. The interesting thing is that there was a poll recently that came out, I think it was Ipsos, where it asked the people who took the poll their views on certain political positions. What were people’s views of left, right, centre, and so on? The interesting thing is that the word centrist was not favoured. I think that is probably because normal, ordinary folk do not know what a centrist means.

What I also noticed is that a substantial majority of them consider themselves moderate. To my mind, centrist is a moderate position. Take me as an example, I would say having been in business many years, before I went into politics, I would probably call myself right of centre on a lot of economic issues, but left of centre on a lot of social issues. That puts me broadly in the centre of the political spectrum, which a lot of people would define as moderate.

I suppose a lot of that is to do with small L liberalism in the sense that the small L liberal, I do not think, considers themselves to be tribal. What they are interested in is what works. While quite often someone who would call themselves very much to the left persuasion will never see anything good coming from right of centre, and likewise. Someone quite often on the right of the political spectrum will never see anything good coming from the left. To me, that is just crazy because it means that tribalism and ideology are put higher than actual outcomes, which to me is just daft. Interestingly enough, I found that most ordinary people hate the word ordinary because it all sounds pejorative. I am going to call them normal people. People, not like you and me, who think about politics all the time, but just get on with their lives. All they are interested in is what works. They are much less fixed on labels than politicians are. That fits what would broadly be defined as a centrist position. We are interested in what works; we are not that fussed when it comes to left, right, centre or whatever.

Will Barber-Taylor: It is interesting, your answer reminded me of a scene from the final series of The West Wing, the debate episode between Arnold Vinick and Matt Santos, when Arnold Vinick attacks Matt Santos for using the term progressive and says, “Why have you stopped calling yourselves liberal? You are calling yourselves progressives now.” And Matt Santos gives this rather impassioned defence of liberalism.

Do you think that sometimes people in particular political parties, you mentioned tribalism, are afraid of using terms like centrist or liberal because they do not want to be characterised as being similar to other politicians who have used that label, and they want to try and make a distinction between themselves and some other politicians?

Stephen Lloyd: I think that is a very, very good point. Like you, I will give a puff for The West Wing. If any listeners have not watched it, particularly younger listeners, please do. It is outstanding writing. It is just brilliant. But in a way, the challenge they have in America, because of the right wing and the Tea Party and Trumpism, which is Tea Party on steroids, if that is possible, quite a lot of folk in this country might not be aware that in America, to be called a liberal is defined as an absolute insult, which is crazy. Believe you me, in America, for an awful lot of people, it is as bad an insult as they can use. The point that Aaron Sorkin, who was the writer of The West Wing, the point he was trying to get over in that episode, which was brilliant was that it is seen as such an insult for the mass of people in the middle in America that politicians who would really, are now really small-l or large-l liberal, shy away from having that label pinned to them because they know it is, or they fear it is, fixed in the mind of so many ordinary American voters as an insult, like Communists in the Red Scare McCarthy era, that they fear it.

Alongside that, you have others who very bravely, deftly, and defiantly call themselves liberal all the time, which I respect, but I also know that if they are politicians, they represent very, very liberal, democratic areas. They can afford to do that because their voters are not normal, ordinary American voters.

The sadness of all this is the word liberal, a political creed, liberalism, which I am very proud of, and I think has a tremendous history and successful history since the 60s in America. Politicians are frightened to say that they are liberal. That is why they started using the word progressive. I think that is a sad thing, I do.

It is not as bad as that in this country, definitely, but I think some fear it, which is why they are using the word progressive, and that is a shame. I think we should take that word back and take that value judgment back and wear it proudly.

Would I do that if I were an American politician in a typical Democratic area that was not uber-liberal? The truth is, I probably would not because the right wing, the hard right wing in America, have demonised that word so much that it is a tough label to carry. I think that is very, very sad. I also think it is demented because it is completely inaccurate. But you have to deal with reality as opposed to what we like things to be or how we would like things to be. It is tricky.

Will Barber-Taylor: On that issue of dealing with reality. During the EU referendum, you were a remain supporter, but when Eastbourne voted to leave, you accepted the results of the referendum. Why did you decide to take a stand like that when, I am guessing, it created tensions for you within your party, within the Liberal Democrats?

Stephen Lloyd: It was very difficult. I could see the way things were going that ultimately it may cost me my seat, which it did ultimately. The reason is very simple. Funnily enough, it is not a deep ideological reason. It is to do with honourable behaviour. In the run-up to the referendum, I would have lost my seat in 2015, as you mentioned in the intro. The referendum took place in the intervening period when I was back to being a parliamentary candidate again for Eastbourne. I went to three or four different public meetings, big public meetings, 200-plus people being there, advocating to remain. I have always been a Remainer, just simply because of economic logic, but they were difficult meetings. Eastbourne is a breezy, blessed seaside town.

As I say, 200 plus, they were probably 95% United Kingdom Independence Party Brexiteers at those meetings. I have had four or five brave remainers sitting in the corner; the rest were Brexiteers. It is only after we lost the referendum that the remainers got fired up. Before that, they were not. I always remember that. But at this particular meeting, it was in the town hall, there were a couple of hundred people there, and I was arguing for Remain. I have been at Eastbourne for a long time. I have knocked on thousands of doors. A lot of people know me. I know a lot of people. There is a guy who stood up who I knew, a raging Brexiter, ironically married to a Polish person; you just give up thinking rationally about Brexit.

I remember he said to me words to this effect. He said, “Stephen, I know you. I have known you a long time. We disagree on several political things, but I know that I know you, Stephen, and I respect you. You are an honourable guy.” He said, “In the referendum, if you remainers lose, will you do what always happens with the establishment if they lose? Will you just insist we have another referendum until the public gets it right?”

And that question hit me quite hard because, between you and me, that is what we did. We did it in Denmark, we did it in Ireland when the public got it “wrong”. The establishment said, “No, we are going to have the question again.” I did not think things through. I dropped that to the ultimate conclusion, but I thought he was right. I remember saying to him, Look him straight in the eye. I remember him to this day. I said I am a Remainer. I believe it is economically daft to leave the European Union, but you also know me. I will give you my word that if we, Remainers, do lose, then I will accept the results of the referendum and I will support whatever bill the government puts through to leave the European Union.

Now, to be honest, at the time, I did not think we would lose, but I thought I was going to give him my word. I gave my word, and then sure enough, we lost. It put me in a pickle intellectually because I think that leaving the European Union was bad for the United Kingdom, but it also put me in a position where, when I started my political journey, when I went into politics in the year 2000. I remember making a promise to myself that I would keep my word if I ever succeeded as a politician. The reason for that was not being pure, because I am not pure; it was because I recognised even then that a lot of the public had lost faith in politicians. Prophecies. Fair or unfair, I know and knew that they had lost faith. That made me decide: I am going to stick to my word. 

It was difficult. The pressure was enormous, absolutely enormous. But I gave my word, and I kept my word, and I voted for the exit bill more times than Boris Johnson did. That amuses me a wee bit. Then, when it came to the next general election, there was a generally understood perspective that when you come to a new election, you have kept your promise, the slate is clean, and you say what you are going to stand for in the election. I kept my word and voted for this bill four times. I have to tell you, if Theresa May’s bill had gone through, bad as it was, we would probably be in a better position now, but that is an argument for another day.

What I decided to do now is keep my word; it is important, even if it makes it very, very difficult for me. I do not regret that. I do not regret that when the election was called, I was able to say, “Okay, I have kept my word, I voted for it four times. Now that the election is over and the election has been called, I believe I have kept my word to the town. I am now telling you that the slate is brushed clean, and I am standing as a Remainer, knowing that that could probably lose me my seat.” I believe that it was the right thing for me to keep my word, whether it was a good idea for me to give that promise, that is for others to decide. But it was the right thing in my judgment to keep my word.

Then it was the right thing once I kept my word, and there was a new election call for me to fight as a Remainer. Even though I was, between you, me, and anyone listening, pretty sure in a town like Eastbourne, that I would lose my seat. I sleep easily at night, but truth be told, I am pissed off in the sense that I know that if it were not for Brexit, I would have won the seat. But that is life, you make your decision, you take responsibility. I do not regret that, though I do regret the mess we are in now.

Will Barber-Taylor: How do you think we are going to get out of the mess that we are in now? Do you think that the relationship between the UK and the EU is going to eventually evolve into rejoining the EU? Or do you think we are going to have some Norway arrangement? Or how do you think our relationship with the EU is going to progress as time goes on?

Stephen Lloyd: I have retired now, so these are purely my views and not the party’s. I am no longer an active politician, so this is very much my view. I will pose something that is partly a question and partly polemical. If you were in the EU, would you have us back? You and I know that we are a bloody nightmare.

It is the English, it is not Welsh, the Scots or the Irish; it is the English. Logical or illogical, we have been a pain to the EU for the last 30 years. This is my view, not the party’s. If I were a French politician or a German politician or a Dutch politician who is very supportive of us, but if I were them, and the English really came back and said, “We want to join the EU.” One, I would partly want to say bugger off. And the other thing I would say, and this is where it gets tough, I certainly believe that the French would do this regretfully. I believe that the terms would be shocking because we have burned our boats. I do not think that for the foreseeable future, they will let us back.

However, because of this awful situation in Ukraine with this dictator, Vladimir Putin, it has brought to the fore the importance of security issues. The UK still has, compared to a lot of other European countries, a very, very substantial armed force. As a consequence, all this happened in the last month or so in Ukraine, I believe that we will continue and grow our security partnership with the EU because they need us, and we need them. I think from a security perspective, that relationship will grow. I think that is a good thing, Frankly, on the rest, the logic of the economy, the logic of trade, after Boris Johnson is gone, which may be tomorrow or two years,  and if the Conservative Party becomes a half pragmatic sensible party again, which it may not, but if it does or Keir Starmer wins, which is quite possible, I think a more serious discussion will be had along the lines of Norway or the European Economic Area.

If Johnson and the hard right Brexiteers still run the Conservative Party or are still in the government, then we will just keep stumbling towards this ridiculous Liz Truss view that we are important in the world. I hope that does not happen because that would just be terrible.

I am reasonably hopeful that if a sensible government takes over next time, perhaps Starmer, or perhaps Starmer with the Liberal Democrats in a minority agreement or what have you, then I think some constructive, creative thinking around some Norway or Switzerland option may be on the table. I hope so for the sake of us economically. However, I think any party that advocates for us to rejoin the EU will get an absolute hiding outside the cities and the university towns. Because one of the other things I have noticed in the opinion polls is that a significant majority of people now see that Brexit is not working. But when a question is asked, do you want to rejoin? It is still even stevens because people have had it. Whether that is logical, fair or right or irrelevant, politics is about delivery.

I think there is a chance that a pragmatic trade-related improvement, alongside what Norway and other European Economic Area countries have, may be on the table. It may happen with the next government, unless it is the Tories again, and then we just will have to continue being idiots from the outside.

Will Barber-Taylor: I would like to turn now to the mental health paper that Centre Think Tank published not too long ago. You wrote the foreword to our paper by Pushkin Defyer, and you subsequently appeared as a member of the panel on mental health. You mentioned in that event how loneliness affects older people. As we come towards the end of the pandemic, how do you think we should start to tackle the issue of loneliness in older people?

Stephen Lloyd: That is such a good question. I thought it was an exceptional paper. It also came up with a lot of solutions for proposals, which is very encouraging. One of the things where my thinking has moved on is that post lockdown, looking at opinion polls, it is clear that a lot of younger people, because I think of lockdown, the percentage or the numbers of younger people who also say they feel much more lonely now than they did two years ago has gone up significantly.

Unbeknownst to me, because, sadly, I am no longer young, I was not really as aware as I am now of how lockdown has affected the younger generation. It has been quite extraordinary, the data. I think it is a big issue generally now; it is not just for older people. 

To answer your question about older people, that has always been a problem because of isolation. If your family moves away, or your peers start dying off, which has been exacerbated by lockdown. I think from the older people’s perspective, a lot of charities, a lot of organisations, know about the issue and they know what to do, and they try their best to do it. And that is by getting outreach services to go and see older people, to keep an eye on them, befriending services, all those sorts of things. They do work. There is no two ways about it. I have seen it with my own eyes. I think that needs bigger support. I think that the government, through the Department for Work and Pensions, needs to actually put that in as part of their outcomes that X per cent of their budget actually goes towards enhancing and supporting friendship services. Simple things like that. I do not mean that you have a member of staff being forced to go and see five older people, because that just does not work. You have got to want to do it. 

If you take Eastbourne, there are a lot of charities across all ages, and there are several organisations working with older people. One of them started with a chap who worked with me when I was the MP, and I helped him get it off the ground. The charity is called Just Friends. I remember when he came to me about four or five years ago; his wife had died. He was in his early eighties, one of those remarkably fit and healthy people.

But his wife sadly had died; she had had dementia, and she passed away. He was very lonely, and he decided to do something about it. So he started Just Friends. When he came to see me, he was very clear: this is not about romance, it is about company. It is about getting out there to older people within and across Eastbourne, saying that you can come on a Wednesday to join everyone for a cup of tea and coffee, events would be organised, etc.

I thought it was a great idea. I certainly agree that there was a need. You fast-forward four or five years, and now Just Friends has about 500 members, which is incredible. I have been to a number of their events, particularly when I was the MP. I keep in touch because he is a nice chap.

The events, first of all, are about 80% female, which is quite interesting. I think that is because more often than not, men die earlier than women. What struck me with a lot of these good folk who go to these events is that they just want company. They are not about to come to an event and meet a partner at the age of 80. It is just about the company. If that is in Eastbourne, that must be the same across the country. That emphasises to me how debilitating loneliness is.

The other interesting thing about it is that it is shameful. It is embarrassing to admit you are lonely because if you admit you are lonely, if you think about it, you are admitting to the public, “I do not have any friends.” There is a whole set of emotions around loneliness that I think are very, very hard to crack. That is why I do not think the state can fix it by social workers going in and saying, “Hello, dear, hello, are you all right?” Because of that, in a way, it makes you feel even smaller. I think charitable organisations, networks, and outreach are the key, certainly for older people.

Now, let us look at the younger generation. It has been a real eye-opener for me. The lockdown seems to have exacerbated it so much. What I would ask is perhaps a similar approach can also be done by charities or organisations, beginning to think to themselves, okay, what about outreach to younger people? But you have to handle it very sensitively. Because you cannot say to a bunch of young people, “Come and have a cup of tea and a chat”? I do not know about you, but when I was young, if I were lonely, I would never do that because that thing would make it even more embarrassing.

I cannot design that because I am an old fart now, but I certainly think that is something that younger people and perhaps Centre Think Tank, our own think tank, can put some thinking around. Clearly, this is an issue for younger people because of the lockdown. What can we do to develop solutions inspired by those used for older people, but tweak them so that they are relevant and acceptable for younger people? It appears to be as much of an issue now for younger people as for older people.

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. We are coming towards the end of the interview, Stephen, and it has been fantastic to have you on. I do have one final question. Now, recently, only yesterday, a couple of days ago, the Oscars occurred. The Oscars are traditionally a film event that involves actors and directors receiving awards. Now I wondered if you could choose any actor, past or present, alive or dead, to play you in a film, who would you pick to play you in a film?

Stephen Lloyd: That is an interesting question. I have never even thought of that. 

I will give you a tip for any listeners who are going into politics:  if you decide to go for it, work for an MP or whatever party, have a good think before or once you are selected as a candidate, to come up with a whole series of answers to these questions. I have it written somewhere. What is my favourite song?

In my youth, before I went into business, I was an actor. I was an incredibly unsuccessful actor for several reasons, one of which was that I had no talent. That tends to get in the way. I did a bit of television, a bit of film, and a bit of theatre. I reached the point where I was always out of work or out of acting work. I was a waiter, I washed dishes, I did all the things you did. I thought to myself, I saw quite talented people who are also out of work, and I decided that if they are out of work and I have no talent, I need to change professions.

Second thing, the other reason I was not a good actor is that I was never interested in playing someone else. Quite a lot of really good actors I have worked with, for example, Alec Guinness, are top people. The fascinating thing about them is that quite often they were quite quiet and quite introverted. Then they would take on a role and be stunning. I thought that was interesting. This was all when I was in my mid-twenties, and I thought about it more. Then I realised that the other reason I was not a good actor, other than the lack of talent, was that I am comfortable in my skin, and I like playing myself. Another way of putting it is that I am an egotist, but you are part of the light to say that, anyway. 

The past 30 – 25 years, when I went into frontline politics, I discovered that I like playing myself. I was comfortable talking to anyone and addressing a crowd of 500, all while maintaining the centre of attention, because I like being myself. I suppose the best person to play me, if there is ever a film about me, is me. That is the truth.

Will Barber-Taylor: No, I think that is a great answer. It is certainly not the one I was expecting, though. Thank you once again for joining us, Stephen.

Stephen Lloyd: Thank you, Will.

Note: This interview has been edited for grammar, clarity, and flow. The original recording is the final and definitive version.