In many ways the 20th century could be described as a socialist one.
Internationally parties using that label emerged gaining electoral strength, or in some cases,notably Russia, lead successful revolutions.
In Britain, Labour overtook a Liberal Party wracked by division and by 1945 they appeared totally dominant.But as the century ended the collapse of the regimes in Eastern Europe left socialism of the authoritarian variety totally discredited and the democratic socialist parties in the West struggling to define themselves.
Here Blair created New Labour, dropped Clause 4 and built a new philosophy that turned out to be ideologically hollow. A temporary rise in their electoral fortunes has now given way to what looks like another long period of opposition and the inevitable soul searching that goes with it. Their current current leadership election could even bring about a split.
The question is, can a Liberal Party take advantage of the current situation and make the 21st century a Liberal century?
I think we can, however it does mean learning from the mistakes of the past and positioning ourselves clearly as the progressive alternative to the Conservatives. That was historically the position of the Liberal Party and we need to get back there – not only because it is the right place to be, but also because it is electorally sensible.
In the majority of constituencies where we are electorally competitive, it is the Tories we are fighting, with Labour nowhere.
Being in coalition meant some of our progressive voters deserted us: now is the time to win them back.
We are at our best when we are fighting the forces of reaction and offering a clear choice to the British people. Let us do that in the coming years and make this a Liberal century.
* David is a member of Horsham and Crawley Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
50 Comments
There is no doubt that we live in liberal times now. Now everything is about the rights of the individual when before it was more socialistic and about the common good. We have no way of knowing what the future will look like though. But I certainly think right now we live in liberal times.
This does not mean the lib dems will necessarily be successful though. Other parties can also appeal to these instincts in people. Parties will be successful by being the first to back a liberal cause, just before most of the population. Being leaders and not poll followers. The lib dems problem is they can be rather spineless at times and risk adverse.
Question for all lib dems. What policies are the party 100% behind that are so liberal only 40% of the population would agree with it? If there is no answer to that question then the party will not lead
Excellent piece which I may say more about later. Right now I want to point readers to the real possibility of a Corbyn win in the Labour race, & the possibility of MPs defecting to us. Do we ask them to stand down & fight a By-election or not ? Either way is high-risk & would establish a precedent, it might be good to think about it now.
@paul barker. I’d consider it very unlikely that labour MPs would be liberals. Therefore why would you welcome them? Would blairites on the right of the Labour Party be allowed to just takeover the lib dems parliamentary party without signing up to liberal values? Do the lib dems have no principles?
“The question is, can a Liberal Party take advantage of the current situation and make the 21st century a Liberal century?”
A liberal party probably could…
Paul:
You really are one to count chickens (or is it turkeys in this case?) before they are hatched. Firstly a Corbyn win is extremely unlikely. The next six weeks will put Corbyn sufficiently to the test to disrupt his advance and since the others are more experienced campaigners they will be preparing a few rabbits to pull out of the hat to attract last minute decisions.
Even if Corbyn won, I think there would be moves to dislodge him after a couple of years. It would be very unlikely to see Labour politicians heading our way.
The difficulty with Liberalism in the 21st century is that we have accepted a level of surveillance and intrusion into our lives by the state and by large multinational corporations that would previously have been unimaginable. Yet at the same time many social attitudes have never been more liberal. In many ways the multinationals can be more powerful than the state, but often the state and the corporations are willing to collude in ways that are to the disadvantage of individuals.
Liberalism in the 21st century has to be an expression of a questioning scepticism towards all centres of power and of an insistence on processes by which powerful bodies are made accountable. This is difficult because it requires a balancing of the various powers and there is always a tendency for the state to appropriate further powers and to become increasingly paternalistic. We need to restate our view of fundamental rights and individual freedom together with a robust tolerance that is intolerant of intolerance.
We have to set the principles and then campaign on their applications, showing that whilst our instincts are to support the vulnerable, we also set limits on the reach of the state and other centres of power into our daily lives.
The 21st century is looking decidedly mixed. On the one hand we have greater tolerance of non-conformity and acceptance of social equalities. On the other hand, as Martin says, we now have a surveillance society via CCTV and the Internet. We have a greater acceptance of the need for ‘security’ and the powers that this gives outside the norm. We have globalisation and cgoring corporate power. We also have a seemingly inexorable rise of identity politics – whether religious extremism, political nationalism, anit-immigration or blatant racism. I see plenty that Liberals need to fight for. I don’t see liberal-minded folk in Labour being able to dominate their party, nor liberal ninded folk in the Conservatives dominating theirs. We need a strong Liberal Democrat party to take the lead. That doesn’t mean we will inevitably be succesful. As David says, we can be somewhat spineless and risk averse at times.
My view is that we should forget the Labour party and forget the Conservative party too. The only way we will succeed is by explaining how a Liberal Democrat Britain would differ from a Labour Britain and a Conservative Britain and why Liberal values are so important for this country. Only then can we emphasise particular Liberal Democrat policies, like housing and human rights, as examples of where the Liberal Democrats will be different.
We should not always place ourselves in relation to our political opponents as it will only ensure that our support is based on sand. We need a core vote strategy based on what we are not what we are not.
The fundamental problem for the western world in the 21st century is: How can the mass of people continue to survive in a society where vast numbers of people have seen their opportunities for work automated out of existence or farmed out to low-wage economies? Where there is a polarisation of society between wealthy people or those safely ensconsed in well-paid “professions” and those who have to scrabble around trying to find low-paid work with little opportunity for advancement? Where the young have minimal chance of ever having anything resembling a “career”, a pension, owning a home or being secure in renting one, being able to travel abroad and to afford to be able to raise childen? Where education can only be obtained by borrowing tens of thousands of pounds? Where health care is rationed by price? Where the police and the military will quite blatantly be used to protect corporate interests rather than the interests of the population?
I think Richard is right. The lib dems should be a liberal party, not a Conservative party and not a Labour Party. Right now a real liberal party would do well in Britain. The UK is a liberal country, it is not a conservative country or a socialist country any more, the author of the article noted this.
The real question is, are the lib dems a liberal party? This is why I asked, what liberal policies are the lib dems 100% behind that are so liberal that only about 40% of the general population are in favour of. I got no answer and I can only assume that nobody can tell me about such a policy. I would therefore conclude that the lib dems are not, yet, a truly liberal party.
May I remind people who keep on about a “Liberal” century, Liberal values etc etc, that as the Liberal Democrats, we are a fusion of Liberal and Social Democrat, not JUST Liberal. I speak, by the way, as a former Liberal, not an SDP member.
Thanks for the comments guys.
@Sara Scarlett Have you ever thought about forming your own party?
In the UK the 20th century was a Conservative century and the 19th was a Liberal century. Liberal governments in the 19th century reduced the power of the landed-class, provided opportunities for the setting up of businesses and increased the democratic accountability of central government while giving massive powers to local government.
I don’t see people in the UK as being liberal, yes they mostly accept gay marriage, but they fear the effects of immigration and mostly want to force people into work. The challenge this century is the rise of multi-nationals and the power of the markets which as Ed Shepherd states brings “polarisation of society between wealthy people … and those who have … little opportunity for advancement.” People are much more individualistic and don’t feel that those left behind should be given financial resources. Also as David Wallace points out there is now less concern about the common good.
It is vital that we point out that being concerned about others has always been what a liberal society is about. Liberals supported cheap bread for the poor and health and safety regulations at work as well as increasing the amount of leisure time workers had in the 19th century. So Liberals today have to be active in at least two areas, increasing the wealth, opportunities and choices for those who are not benefiting from the current economic orthodoxy and regulating markets in the UK and worldwide to protect consumers and workers. Also we need to increase the total number of people who are elected to make them more representative of the people.
Can anyone actually answer the 40% question?
David Wallace
How about “immigration is a blessing not a curse” Although 100% of people on LDV are not behind that, Tim Farron is…
@Ed Shepherd
So far as I am concerned, you are the only person here who has said anything that is both useful and sensible.
I am REALLY fed up with all these articles we are getting now, like this one, going on and on about how we must be “liberal” and being “liberal” is what everyone wants, without saying a thing about what they mean by “liberal”.
Now, there was a time when we had some idea what “liberal” meant, but that was before the Orange Book crowd and other well-funded groups came along and wanted to push it to mean something different. We have had this determined attempt to get “liberal” to mean “support of free market economic policies”, which when I joined the Liberal Party in the 1970s was certainly NOT what that word was used to mean. However, so successful have been the Orange Book etc crowds (helped by the big business money funding them and vested interests pushing their ideas), that though I used to proudly call myself a “liberal” I am concerned that when people like the author of this article use the word without spelling out what they mean by it, that they do actually mean what the Orange Book etc crowd want to push it to mean.
Thanks Ed for pointing out why a simplistic free market approach does not necessarily lead to people experiencing more personal freedom. When we defined liberalism as building a society in which none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity, it did very much acknowledge that there was more to freedom than supposed by those who push the idea that the only barriers to it are the state and its laws and taxation.
David Wallace
Now everything is about the rights of the individual when before it was more socialistic and about the common good.
Why do you think there is a contradiction? Surely the idea of the “common good” is that people should have rights to certain standards, such as reasonable housing and income. Those rights have been taken away now. With council housing available only to those in really dire emergency situations, and private housing so expensive, the fundamental liberty that comes from having one’s own secure home has gone.
The problem is that so many of those who talk about “rights of the individual” and want to define liberalism as all about free market economics are people from wealthy and privileged backgrounds who just don’t appreciate how much one’s liberty is restricted if one doesn’t come from that sort of background and so doesn’t have easy access to housing and jobs and so on that those with that background do.
The twentieth century, in the UK at least, could actually be described as a liberal century.
Economic thought was shaped by JM Keynes, a liberal.
Social policy advances came in the form of unemployment insurance, pensions, welfare and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. All of the progressive steps were either promoted by Liberal governments (The Liberal governments of Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith featuring Lloyd George and Churchill) , Liberal MPs (David Steel), men who became Liberal MPs (William Beveridge) or sympathisers (Roy Jenkins and Wolfenden).
Liberalism, despite its declining party political state for most of the twentieth century was hugely influential and often punched well above its weight.
It is for these reasons that I am proud to call myself a Liberal.
Andrew
How about “immigration is a blessing not a curse” Although 100% of people on LDV are not behind that,
The problem is that the further up the social scale you are, the more a blessing it is. It’s much easier to see immigration as purely a blessing if you’re right at the top of the social scale, so your way of life is secure, and immigration can be seen mainly in terms of it providing cheap labour for you to use, and interesting restaurants and shops in other places than the one you live in. At the lower end, however, there is a real fear that it means being out-competed for resources, and one’s own culture being pushed aside by the cultures of various immigrant groups.
So pushing the idea that liberalism mean regarding immigration as a blessing and not a curse, without even showing any signs of realising why some don’t quite see it that way, indicates how “liberalism” can come to be seen as an elitist idea and one which is not relevant to or actively hostile to the concerns of those who are not part of the economic and social elite.
Matthew,
I was not really trying to get into an argument on the merits of that statement (which is not at all a policy, is it?).
Just that David Wallace seemed anxious for someone to come up with something Lib Dems believe in that is supported by <40% of the electorate…
what can i say about immigration – as you say I am not directly threatened by it even though I don't have the money to start employing anyone.. I do however think that our economy would collapse without immigrants (especially EU migrants), and attitudes to immigration at all levels of society are often based on misinformation… But not always…
@matthew. The reason they can’t tell you what liberal means is because it means different things to different people, the party isn’t united behind a single ideology. After years of trying to be all things to all people the party Is left standing for nothing.
I had to leave the lib dems and join CISTA. Should I really have had to leave liberal party for a cause like that? But nevertheless I did.
I
If you are working in, for example, the hotel industry then the chances are that you will be on the national minimum wage, working long hours on an awkward shift pattern, and being treated as dispensable by your employer, both because there is very little unionisation of staff, and because there is a pool of immigrant labour from the EU to take your place if you complain about your treatment. We have to be prepared to face the facts – not wish them away with rhetorical phrases.
I find all this talk of who the century ‘belongs’ to as rather pointless and slightly hubristic. We’ll probably all be dead by the time someone’s worked it out. (And whoever it is it will be claimed it belongs to will probably not turn out to be British; or if its an ideology, it might be something we don’t have a name for yet).
I very clearly remember Robin Cook at a Labour Party conference some time around the turn of the century telling the assembled Labour masses that this would be the ‘socialist century’ (I was a student, which is why I was watching political party conferences on daytime telly). Goodness knows what he meant, but it doesn’t look like it from where I am right now.
@ Matthew Huntbach and tonyhill
It is good to see party members putting the case for the reasons why our current levels of immigration are not really liberal.
@ Andrew
“I do however think that our economy would collapse without immigrants (especially EU migrants),”
I don’t recall any economy collapsing because of a labour shortage (a labour shortage can cause some economic problems). If the EU was run correctly there would not be large scale migration from countries with a poor economic outlook to those that have economic growth. Regional policy in the EU has failed to produce economic growth across the whole EU. In the UK at least I get the impression that the government does have regional policies to encourage growth outside the south-east of England (it is just they don’t work very well, so economic growth if greater in south-east England than in other areas of the UK). In my view a liberal society would provide the necessary support so people who do not wish to move away from where they were born and where they have family ties can have the same life-style choices, liberty and freedom as those who migrate.
David Wallace
The reason they can’t tell you what liberal means is because it means different things to different people, the party isn’t united behind a single ideology. After years of trying to be all things to all people the party Is left standing for nothing.
No, I don’t think so. In my 37 years of membership I’ve always found there’s lots of agreement on many things. There is always much more concern for proper democracy and pluralism than there is in the Labour Party, and always much more concern for social fairness and equality of opportunity than there is in the Conservative Party. To me, the central core of the party’s ideology was that it believed in action, through the state if necessary, to promote freedom with a full acknowledgement that freedom requires adequate access to resources for all, but it rejected the one-party mentality of Labour. I’ve campaigned for the party in areas of social affluence and in areas of social deprivation, and I’ve found the members in all those places much the same – the idea that the party says one thing in one area and something completely different in another does not fit in with my experience.
What has wrecked all this, however, has been the Orange Book mentality (sorry to use the word “Orange Book”, as I accept the book itself was a collection of essays rather than a coherent manifesto, but it was pushed by those who wanted to push the party down the free market route, and I find it’s a more neutral term than others to mean that sort). I’m fine with the idea that free market economics is an aspect of liberalism, we would support the use of free market provision where appropriate, but also recognise that in some cases it is inappropriate, and also realise that the tendency for it to push wealth towards being concentrated in a small number of hands needs to be tempered. What I’m not fine with is the obsession with the idea that the free market is all that liberalism is about (apart from a few token things like gay rights), and the way the people who think this way have tried to dominate the party in an illiberal and undemocratic way and poured contempt on those who disagree with them. The damage doe by these people is shown by the way so much discussion in this group turns into an argument between them and others.
David Wallace:
I did not take your question too seriously with its oddly specific 100% and 40% requirements, but how about proportional representation as an obvious answer? Other policies could be greater engagement in the EU to tackle international problems, devolution of powers away from Westminster to the regions and local government and you could probably make up a criminal justice reform that could be tailored to fit your requirement, but in reality policies are never designed to attract 40% pubic support while enjoying 100% support from the membership or anything else.
David Wallace:
I had to look up what CISTA is (C stands for cannabis). I suppose joining CISTA is what happens if your priority is to find a party that has found a policy that 100% of its members support, but imagines is supported by 40% of the electorate. Though I doubt you do have 40% support for whatever it is CISTA are proposing. Of course you could always modify a policy until it did acquire 40% support, but what would be the point in that?
In my last comment I made a passing reference to the London Fiefdom of Newham.
For those who are not fully aware of what is going on there the following may be of interest —
http://forestgate.net/
@martin: CISTA Are a single issue party whose goal is to pressure the government into having a royal commission on cannabis because they believe this would result in legalisation. A policy like this would gain the support of around 40% of the public. We shouldn’t have needed to form a single issue party for this, a policy like this should have come from and have been push by the lib dems in 2010.
The Tories policies are so right wing that they’re probably to the right of 60% of the population. The conservatives are a centre right party that over a third of the voters are united around, this is why they are so successful.
Thanks for sharing the link John Tilley.
Our FPTP electoral system creates to many one party states.
@Matthew Huntbach your final paragraph is both a misrepresentation of economic liberalism and an exaggeration of its influence.
It’s also a convenient scapegoating of an “other” that allows you to avoid the sorts of deep questions about the nature of party philosophy and operation that need to be asked and answerEd if liberalism is to have a party to champion it.
Blame it all on the Bookers if you want. But don’t expect to avoid the many mistakes of the past, or be relevant to the lives of people in this country.
If you want a Liberal Century then you need to recognise the need for community identity .Globalisation in commerce and regionalisation in power structures undermines localism which the conservatives have dropped like a red hot potato .They like Labour before them are adopting a command economy where devolution of decision making comes from boards of the powerful, metro mayors and police commissioners at arms length from the public.. There will be little in way of genuine local autonomy .Our message must be one of returning power to communities ,towns and villages to make their own decisions through their elected representatives .If a community wants to have the freedom try something different or deliver a local plan that reflects genuine local needs it should not be bullied by the planning inspectorate or a regional land commission into compliance with the Status Quo .
We need to build trust again in local governance where you can have your say and that it will not just be given lip service to by the political elite be they in Westminster, Manchester ,or Birmingham. Sadly apathy has grown and participation has dwindled in local government most councillors are elected by only a third of those eligible to vote
This is why I support PR in local government .Lets make sure every vote does in fact count .Liberalism has always been and should remain as a way of enabling and empowering people to have some more power over the things that affect their every day lives. Social Justice comes from identifying and then acting upon the needs of your community. Democracy comes from making sure every vote counts.
I think that the Century(s) of both Liberalism and Socialism, were the 19th and 20th Centuries. Further to that, Liberalism and Socialism peaked in around 2008, and is in a slow but inevitable descent from here.
Why?
Liberalism and Socialism has never existed at any time in history pre 1800, except in the minds of a handful of philosophers. The reason for this is that Liberalism could not be afforded. We needed the sweat of a man’s work to get things done. Moreover we needed his sweat for minimal cost. The discovery of the steam engine (coal), and the Internal Combustion Engine (oil), transformed the need for a man’s sweat. If you need to dig a large hole in the ground, you don’t need a two dozen Irish navvies sweating with spades for low wages, a JCB digger with a tank full of diesel oil, (liquid fossil slaves) will do far better.
The real beauty of fossil oil was its immense energy content and its cheapness. Using cheap fossil fuels meant that society could afford altruism, Socialism, Liberalism,.. at least as long as that very cheap fossil fuel was available.
The threat now to Liberalism, Socialism, and indeed any form of ubiquitous altruism and philanthropy, is from here on going to be crippled by four factors.
1. The sheer energy content of fossil oil cannot be matched by any other source of energy, and fossil oil is becoming harder to find, and access, and thus ‘cheap no more’
2. Whilst fossil fuel has got us to this ‘bountiful Liberal’ point in history, we now understand that it is chocking our planet and we have to abandon it. What we as yet have not been willing to grasp, is that leaving fossil fuel in the ground will mean a reduction in lifestyle, and a discovery that Liberalism is a function of cheap fossil fuel, and cannot be afforded anymore.
3. Automation. The capitalist economy has hit the buffers. If you are manufacturing a TV, to make it ever cheaper (production increase), the only real way now to cheapen it is to reduce the man hours needed to create it. But automation in a 20th Century economy can only eat its own tail. Where are the wages of the laid off TV assembler to buy the ever cheaper TV?
4. Seven billion people and rising is too many for Liberalism to be credible.
“@Sara Scarlett Have you ever thought about forming your own party?”
Yes, but then I also considered taking Buddhist Holy Orders. Both ideas were dismissed swiftly.
TCO
@Matthew Huntbach your final paragraph is both a misrepresentation of economic liberalism and an exaggeration of its influence.
Well then, it is up to people like you to convince me of that. You say I am wrong, but I am basing what I say on what I read here from people who call themselves “economic” or “classical” liberals. What I say IS how you lot come across.
“Blair created New Labour,”
Please take into account the position of the young Prime Minister compared with the more experienced President of the USA. Bill Clinton’s advice was to copy the New Democrats and build a coalition of existing supporters who know what to expect and are willing to work, with new members who can be persuaded to attend social events and vote.
The problem is it only works once. If the promises the party faithful are loyally hoping for are not delivered they get annoyed. If the hpoes of the faithful are delivered the new-ish members get annoyed or lapse their support.
Those in the Labour party who dream of another 1997 are as romantic as those who dream of another 1945. Few of us have a personal memory of a landslide win in 1906 (after a secret deal with a young labour party and under first-past-the-post). How old is Lord Bonkers now? Or has his title passed to his grandson?
@Sara Scarlett
LOL
Why not join the Lib Dems then?
@Richard Underhill
You are correct the New Democrats came before New Labour.
I was aware but it slipped my mind.
@ David Wallace
“@matthew. The reason they can’t tell you what liberal means is because it means different things to different people, the party isn’t united behind a single ideology.”
How about this for the meaning of liberalism – being concerned about the well-being of everyone, while allowing everyone to control their own lives so long as they don’t impinge on the freedom of others.
Well-being here is meant to include health, social and economic well-being.
@ Neil Sandison
I think we all should be able to agree that we wish to empower people. I don’t think STV is enough. The abolition of the cabinet system and elected mayors in local government has to be a high priority. If the council is proportional then all decision making bodies should be as well. Also I think it is important that the proportion of councillors to voters is kept low, say 2000 electors for every councillor. Then we would also need to look at a lower proportion of electors to MPs. In 1885 there were about 8,500 electors for every MP. In Scotland there are about 30,850 electors per member if all were elected in single-member constituencies. Today there are about 71,500 electors for each UK MP. Maybe we should double the number of MPs to 1300 to get a more representative parliament and to ensure constituencies only have to be about twice the size they are to elect 4 MPs by STV.
TCO
It’s also a convenient scapegoating of an “other” that allows you to avoid the sorts of deep questions about the nature of party philosophy and operation that need to be asked and answerEd if liberalism is to have a party to champion it.
What “deep questions”? There seems to be only one question you “economic liberals” want to ask and that is “How can we eradicate the last little bits of opposition to our ideology?”. The Conservative Party has got rid of all its old small-c conservative and “King and Country” attitudes, so its ideology is now just what you would call “economic liberalism”. Three of the four contenders for the Labour Party leadership want to push their party that way, and the national media has been full of fanatical attacks on the last Labour leader for not being as fully in favour of it as the previous ones, and even more fanatical attacks on the one contender for the leadership who wants to go the other way. Article after article after article appears in the national media urging both the Labour Party and us to adopt the same ideology, full of propaganda pushing dubious propositions about it as if they were fact. In effect, you lot want a one party state. Oh sure, three parties in number, but all saying close variations of the same thing.
And when I ask questions about that, and query whether the ideology you support really works as you claim, you accuse ME of closing down the debate.
John Dunn
Further to that, Liberalism and Socialism peaked in around 2008,
Peaked? You mean you believe 2008 was the year when socialism as an ideology received its highest support and was most dominant? I would say it peaked in the 1960s, or maybe even the 1950s. We know that here it was so unfashionable that Tony Blair was widely praised for having eradicated it from the Labour Party, and the assumption was that this was the only way the Labour Party could win power.
As for Liberalism, well, for may years it was said that it was an irrelevant ideology because everything it wanted had been achieved: full democracy, freedom of expression, no state favouritism towards any religion, a fair judicial system, no patronage in state appointments. So you could say it had peaked when that was essentially achieved, and that its peaking is what ended the old Liberal Party.
If Liberalism is to be revived, we must understand why people do not feel free, why they feel their lives are too much controlled by outside forces. By and large, I do not believe that for most people the cause of that feeling of lack of freedom is the state.That is what I meant when I said that Ed Shepherd at 4.58pm yesterday was the only one speaking sense, because to me he was the only one showing an understanding of what I believe most people would see as the biggest barriers to their personal freedom in modern society.
That is why I believe the big questions that need to be asked now are about why “economic liberalism” is not delivering the freedom it promises.
“Why not join the Lib Dems then?”
Is that some sort of joke? I was a LibDem. I won’t rejoin the LibDems because you are the worst people I have ever met in politics. The reason nobody votes for you anymore is because they know the LibDems are the real nasty party. You don’t seem to realise how other parties and people see you. Maybe you’d make more progress if you cultivated some self-awareness.
Matthew Huntbach 26th Jul ’15 – 6:34pm
Well done, Matthew, this is a near perfect summary of UK politics in 2015.
If only the media pundits and so-called experts were so well aware.
You wrote –
“. The Conservative Party has got rid of all its old small-c conservative and “King and Country” attitudes, so its ideology is now just what you would call “economic liberalism”.
Three of the four contenders for the Labour Party leadership want to push their party that way, and the national media has been full of fanatical attacks on the last Labour leader for not being as fully in favour of it as the previous ones, and even more fanatical attacks on the one contender for the leadership who wants to go the other way.
Article after article after article appears in the national media urging both the Labour Party and us to adopt the same ideology, full of propaganda pushing dubious propositions about it as if they were fact. In effect, ”
This is a brilliant summary.
It is interesting to watch comments in LDV from people who have swallowed the media conformity that we should all be right wing conservatives.
It would appear that some people have lost the ability to observe, consider and come to their own conclusion and merely parrot the current myth being passed down from those at the top.
There is no need for a one party state in this country if virtually all the media and virtually all the leading politicians conform to the same very narrow spectrum of rIght wing views.
Thank goodness a large majority of the members of the Liberal Democrats voted for Tim Farron and thereby showed those at the top that some of us are capable of independent thought and the hope for something better.
@Sara Scarlett
No it wasn’t a joke it was a serious and friendly comment in response to yours.
I have come back to the Lib Dems because as someone who discovered liberalism relatively late I believe it is the best option available to me, this is my second time with the party and yes I left previously following some bad experiences.
That said I was previously a Labour party member and trade union official.
Nothing I saw in the Lib Dems compared to the treatment I received from my erstwhile ‘comrades’ in the so called Labour movement.
As far as i’m concerned if there is a nasty party its Labour.
From what I see in my area the Tories aren’t much better either.
Matthew writes :
“That is why I believe the big questions that need to be asked now are about why “economic liberalism” is not delivering the freedom it promises.”
And I’m saying that *cheap* fossil fuel, was *the* enabling factor for “economic liberalism”. And now cheap fossil fuel is in its descent,.. so will follow Liberalism?.
*Metaphorically speaking*, ~ society had the sheer abundance of energy at its fingertips (in crude oil), that it could afford the altruism (and Liberalism), of saying to the proverbial Irish navvy. ” Look, you can put that spade down now we have this fantastic source of energy in oil,….. so go mop your brow and become free to be whatever you want to be,… a poet,.. go learn the trade of an actor,… go work for the BBC, learn camerawork and photograph butterflies in the Amazon,.. because we have such abundant energy (and economic growth), from oil, that we as a society can afford to be Liberal in our attitude to what career each of us want to pursue.” Everyone,.. be free !!!
But that (crude oil supported ), affluent ‘free an easy’, affordability, is going into reverse, now that oil is no longer cheap, and the economic growth is receding along with it. That Liberal, Socialist, altruist punch bowl smashed to the floor in 2008, and the freedom of everyone to pursue ‘whatever they wish to do, as long as they do not impinge on others’,… is coming to an end?
My husband and I joined the Alliance. To qualify we had to join one of the two parties, so one joined the Liberals and the other the SDP.. Neither had belonged to a party before and were floating voters. The thing to remember is that the first 30 years after the War were unparalleled in the growth of prosperity in the West with unprecedented creation of welbeing for the majority. The French call this time les trente glorieuses. It was Bismarck who introduced state pensions – hardly a liberal. But Keynes , Beveridge and Social Democracy – whatever the actual political party was in power in the different countries.- brought these years about. Taxation was high – the marginal rate of income tax in America was 90% for the first 20 years, then 80% for ten. . Natural monopolies were nationalised. and the early ones in the Uk were not a problem for the Conservatives, who had created the BBC. (Ian Gilmour- Whatever Happened to the Tories) We now subsidise the railways four times as much as old British Rail and the private companies are still using BR rolling stock developed and built shortly before privatisation. What finished this period was the oil crisis which led to huge inflation, and robber baron unions, some of their leadership being fellow travellers with the aim of undermining our economy. And no – Socialism is not Communism. The rise of the Chicago school of economics has surely now been proved wrong with its free markets ,deregulation and austerity now in the EU leading to apparently the slowest recovery from a recession in history Not in the US where one is told the MIT school of economics is more influential. Competition and free market (and profit?) approach introduced to the NHS has apparently increased the admin cost from 3 -4% to 30- 40% of the budget (Professor Allyson Pollock) Our danger from the state now is surveillance. The state/public contribution is generally vital and not included in GDP calculation whilst its benefits are enormous (.Demos report a year ago.) For instance US public investment in surface transport is $180 billion per annum, but the benefit is $800 billion and the enforcement of the Clean Air Act over 20 years cost $500 billion but the benefit eg in health was$22 trillion. The biggest threat to our liberty surely are the hugely powerful multinationals.?
PS I have never voted Labour and am not remotely Socialist. I have voted Liberal and in the long ago past One Nation Conservative.
John Dunn
And I’m saying that *cheap* fossil fuel, was *the* enabling factor for “economic liberalism”. And now cheap fossil fuel is in its descent,.. so will follow Liberalism?.
Cheap fossil fuel ended in 1973, with the big rises in oil prices imposed by the Arab nations in response to the Yom Kippur war. Economic liberalism saw its big growth in support after that. The economic liberals will argue that market forces will lead to alternatives to be developed. Oil prices have been falling, not rising, recently.
However, in some ways you have a point. That is why right-wing economic types also tend to be climate change deniers. The same people who will readily accept the Laffer curve arguments take a completely different approach when it comes to climate change. On the one side, a bit of hand-waving is enough to convince them, on the other they demand high levels of proof for the theory and claim it is all wrong if there is the slightest case of an alternative explanation. That is because their theories don’t work out so well if you have to consider that the market cannot always solve everything, that things really do run out, that there really are global effects we must all share responsibility for.
“The economic liberals will argue that market forces will lead to alternatives to be developed.”
Then those ‘economic liberals’ should have stayed in Chemistry class, instead of smoking ‘waki-baki’ behind the bike shed. There is nothing that comes close to the sheer BTU content of crude oil. Even bio fuel only has about 2/3rds the energy content of fossil oil.
Another piece of info : EROEI ( Energy Return on Energy Invested )
In around 1920 the EROEI of crude oil was 100 to 1. So, 99 barrels of freed up surplus energy for each one used to drill for it. You can have an extremely Liberal society, with 99 barrels of freed up energy! Party time for everyone !!
But, in 2015 the EROEI of crude oil is about 14 to 1. A lot less energy available per barrel used to drill for it. That is why society is tightening up, and why Liberalism is getting dumped,.. because we built a society on 99 barrels of freed up oil, but we now have only around 13 barrels to keep the ‘economic plates’ spinning? Something has to give, and Liberalism will be one of them?
And bio fuel has an EROEI of about 1.5 to 1, which makes it virtually pointless as a source of energy. Its only value lies in the fact that it is a liquid.
Bring on those alternatives, but be quick about it.
John Dunn
“The economic liberals will argue that market forces will lead to alternatives to be developed.”
Then those ‘economic liberals’ should have stayed in Chemistry class, instead of smoking ‘waki-baki’ behind the bike shed
I didn’t say I agreed with them. In fact I very much do not agree with them on this.
However, when you say that long-term dropping off of the availability of oil means Liberalism has to be given up, what exactly do you mean? Are you suggesting it mean democracy and free speech must be abandoned and we must be ruled by dictators or an aristocracy, or have an enforced state religion, or some other such things? Well, that is what you imply when you say Liberalism is not viable.
Matthew asks :
“However, when you say that long-term dropping off of the availability of oil means Liberalism has to be given up, what exactly do you mean?”
Firstly no-one (except a sociopath!), *wants to be less liberal*, but I’m saying that our circumstances are going to force us to be less liberal. Liberalism is a bit of an abstract concept. One way of describing it in the real world might be.. Liberalism = *A human centred, social template for how we as a society agree to divide up and share resources between all of our citizens*?
If those resources are extremely abundant, (as they were for the last 200 years), we as a society could afford to be Liberal, because once we as a society had covered our core needs, there was a massive surplus to allow for a generous and liberal sharing of those surplus recourses?
But when resources become a ‘shrinking pie’, as they are now becoming over the next few decades, our economic surplus (and ability to share), after covering our core needs is also shrinking. To understand how this applies, we have to view recent and proposed policy moves, through the lens of this shrinking resource allocation.?
So the ‘bedroom tax’,… Tax credits limited to 2 children,..The refusal of NICE to approve very expensive drugs,… etc,… are all a practical (if unfortunate?), consequence of our surplus economic resource shrinkage. And we are now in the deeply uncomfortable, but unavoidable review *downwards*, of just how liberal we as a society can afford to be.., as we hit more and more resource limits?