I approach this guest article for Liberal Democrat Voice with some trepidation, not least because when I introduced the launch of Liberal Conspiracy a few months ago, it was greeted with some scepticism amongst Lib Dem bloggers. Jonathan Calder called it “a conspiracy against Liberals”, Joe Otten calls us the Lefty Conspiracy and, at worst case, Alix Mortimer said it could be “a plot to draw Liberal Democrats towards Labour”.
There’s no doubt British politics is an incredibly tribal affair and this is reflected in the fact that all our prominent political blogs are tightly aligned to specific parties. The over-arching philosophical question we face, by defining ourselves as being of ‘liberal-left’ persuasion, is the tension between statists and liberals on the left, which Duncan Stephen explored here. I’m not afraid of exploring these issues, and neither is it meant to be a “wedge”, as Charlotte Gore called it.
Instead, I approach Liberal Conspiracy from two positions: first, that most people are more interested in policies, values and ideals more than the party advocating them. The trick, of course, is to develop and debate good ideas. Secondly, to focus more on how political parties can be pressured, through online organising, to support those values and ideals (of liberal-left persuasion, of course).
Crucially, those ideas and policies are not necessarily party aligned. Our first campaign, against Home Office proposals to raise pre-detention charge to 42 days, is supported strongly by the Lib Dems, of course. We’re now gearing up to raise profile of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which potentially poses a threat to abortion choice and offers the pro-choice lobby to propose more progressive policies. Also upcoming – pushing for electoral reform. In all these cases, the issue matters more than the party supporting them.
There are two points to make here. The Liberal Conspiracy position is somewhat inevitable given that both Labour and the Tories have been exchanging clothes over the last 10 years, and focused more on marketing and spinning their ideas than staying true to traditional values. If political parties have become promiscuous with their ideas, there is no reason why voters shouldn’t also become promiscuous with their choice. Arguably, the parties were only following voter trends anyway.
My second point is that there is, and should be, space for progressive activists and voters of all stripes to come together to push specific policy agendas that help make Britain a better place. To be honest, I don’t care which party gets into power as long as they have Good IdeasTM. This isn’t to deny that people are attracted to parties on the basis of ideals and values, but to say that being more promiscuous may stop parties taking votes for granted and fight hard for their (leftist, liberal or conservative) corner.
My feeling is that campaigning and discussing issues rather than simply party politics is more likely to attract a bigger audience and grow the blogosphere. Though I may be wrong. It’s still early days.
* Sunny Hundal is editor of the online magazine Asians in Media and founder of the thinktank New Generation Network.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Steve Winwood on working with Viv Stanshall
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A quiet conference
From Creeting St Peter to the (Liberal Democrat) world...
John Waller
Chris Moore
Michael McDowall
Geoff Reid
David Symonds
18 Comments
Hi Sunny, the Centre for Policy Studies has an interesting report out on politics and the internet that you might like to read – some of it chimes with what you say here: http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=1001
It’s a thoughtful piece Sunny but I think you need to consider that party politics in part exists precisely because wise groups of non-aligned sages having thought-provoking debates is not generally engaging outside student debating societies. Anymore than it’s interesting to watch 22 gentleman pass a ball around mid-field before politely coming to a consensus over who should score a goal.
Liberal Conspiracy would be a more interesting project if it was really about building coalitions, rather than just continuing the struggle and perpetuating the left-right divide.
I read Liberal Conspiracy, I link to it from my blog, and, yes, I label the link “lefty conspiracy” as a mild protest against the name of the project, that to be honest I didn’t think anybody would notice.
I agree with Sunny that non-partisan discussion and activity is often more interesting and fruitful than partisan pissing contests. However a project like Liberal Conspiracy still has a centre of mass – ideas it wants to explore and ideas it doesn’t. Good guys we want to talk to and bad guys who will just confuse the issue.
And so it is gratifying that so many on the left recognise liberalism as worth talking about, but of course it is also a little double-edged for us – we are just as eager to spread liberalism to the right. If there were believed to be a unifying concept of left-liberal (the way Sunny means it, not so much the way Jock Coates means it) it is bound to make this job harder.
Of course it is your gig, you can do what you like and talk to who you want. Show a flattering human face of the left and co-opt a few liberals. All’s fair etc. And calling it liberal conspiracy will do that. I will keep reading anyway.
The problem I have with Liberal Conspiracy is that its often not liberal and the way it talks of Left Liberalism (in a completely different manner to historical left liberalism – which has more in common with modern libertarianism).
As a liberal I reject the concepts of left and right liberalism (in modern parlance) but I do welcome debate across the political spectrum though, and Liberal Conspiracy does offer areas to discuss as well as areas to agree on, just as the ASI does from the right.
Its just labeling yourselves as ‘left liberal’ which gets to me.
Sunny, all these pressure groups and the like achieve diddly-squat in my view. If you truly want to effect change then you have to work within one of the mainstream political parties. I’m guessing that you’re closest to Labour. So join the Labour party, get stuck in, and I genuinely wish you well. But at the moment, you’re in danger of going think-tank-crazy with precious little to show for it at the end of the day.
And here we go, the very problem that makes me sigh in disbelief. Semantics still get in the way. There seem to be hundreds of definitions of liberalism and other tags around it, and while liberals sit around arguing about which kind is best, we’re having more and more authoritarian bullshit shoved down our throat by an increasingly right-moving Labour party with little opposition from those they’re emulating in blue.
Hello, thanks for the responses.
Gavin: Yeah I went through it last night. The American stuff was all standard fare – regurgitating various books by Joe Trippi and Matt Bai and others, which I’ve also been reading recently. I also advise reading Crashing the Gate by Markos of Daily Kos. I somewhat disagree on the British side of things because I think firstly we haven’t adequately explored how online politics can be successful, and secondly because there haven’t been any strong wedge issues to drive campaigning.
Norman – I agree. I’m not at all doubting that one then has to take those ideas or policies to the parties and build coalitions to put some pressure. That is also part of my agenda. Some are interested in ideas and debates, and others in campaigning. I can’t say everyone follows my agenda but you’re right in saying that I can’t stay aloof from the party structure. It’s a matter of trying to figure out how do then drive those ideas into something more concrete.
Oranjepan – Could you be more specific? I agree that sometimes partisan views come into play. For example, I applaud the stance taken by Libdems and Tories on 42 days. I disagree strongly with the Tories on the BBC and abortion though. So in certain debates they’ll be ‘the enemy’. So to speak.
Its just labeling yourselves as ‘left liberal’ which gets to me.
Well, those debates about labels are never-ending on our site, Tristan. We had them before we even started!
Laurence – maybe. I’m not joining the Labour party anytime soon. In both cases – Libdems and Labour, I like and dislike some of their ideas/policies. haha @ think-tank crazy. YEs, maybe.
Lee – agreed, which is why I find it difficult to align myself with Labour.
I’m a liberal with no axe to grind on behalf of anyone. In my humble opinion the ones with the most authentic liberal policies are:
1. LibDem
2. Conservative
3. Labour.
Because I tend to be economically liberal, Eurosceptic and unconvinced of the merits of immigration, people have often suggested that I align with the Tories. But I won’t, because they haven’t authentically opposed participation in Iraq, ID cards, centralism and general authoritarianism like the LibDems have.
Additionally, for all Dave from PR’s attempts to decontaminate the party, the right-wing nutheads are still there.
But I do just about prefer the Tories to Labour. I don’t think there’s any running to be gained from Brown and co. Some of their voters could be persuaded to go over to the LibDems, especially the more affluent ones. We should be explaining to them why they shouldn’t side with the Tories.
@ Joe: Any specific ideas you think the conspiracy should be discussing that you think it’s avoiding? I try to read fairly regularly, might be paying a bit more attention from now on as well.
Not so much a specific point, more of a comparison to dear old Ming and the coalition question, which will forever haunt any third party.
Unlike Tristan, I’m not bothered about labels, but I am bothered about compulsory dogmatic tenets of faith associated with those labels by which you are then measured – it is this artificiality which leads to opoositional politics, undermines any serious hope of coalition building and is ultimately to the detriment of long-term policy aspirations.
In using a defining term (ie ‘left’) you effectively exclude all compromise on your collaborators terms, whatever they may be and however much you are in agreement. It’s a form of blackmail and it gambles your chances of success against getting all your own way.
In the end you’ve got to decide whether action is primarily motivated out of a desire to make a difference, or designed to gain power.
You yourself commented on LC that politics is about power. I disagree, it is ultimately about the impact had on people.
On the subject of the upcoming Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill you claim (over at LC) to wish to defend the concept of the rights of the woman, instead of clearly stating the human being is uppermost in your thoughts – the aim is the same, but the bureaucracy should never overwhelm the individual.
There are so many areas where the exertion of influence can be decisive and ought to valued more highly for the contributions that are made without the trappings of officialdom.
Look at the recent example of Northern Rock, where the eventual decision was first voiced on LibDem benches. This was followed up by a concerted (maybe concentrated is a better word, as it’s been almost a one-man-show) campaign of arm-twisting and pointed commentary to make sure the inevitable happened, all the while flying in the face of the taunts of conventional wisdom and political acceptability, but it is such an enormously large sum of money (60% of the annual budget for the whole NHS and who knows how much more) that strong leadership was needed.
To put it concisely: the ends never justify the means, because the ends are determined by the means.
Sunny
I am always in favour of debate and dialogue, but it was you who announced a new website to serve the “liberal left” and prided youself that “most of the well-known political left-of-centre bloggers are here”.
We noticed that no well-known Lib Dem blogger was invited to participate. What lesson did you expect us to draw from this exercise?
Hi Jonathan,
Well, I think that oversight on my part was because I was looking for left-of-centre bloggers rather than Libdem or Labour bloggers. But, point taken on board. MatGB and Alix Mortimer have both agreed to join the Conspiracy. You heard it here first.
To put it concisely: the ends never justify the means, because the ends are determined by the means.
I like that. I don’t disagree with you either. Well, it’s food for thought. Admittedly, I’m quite partisan on my thoughts and ideas.
to wish to defend the concept of the rights of the woman, instead of clearly stating the human being is uppermost in your thoughts
The two are the same in this case, in my view.
Mat, I don’t read it exhaustively enough to know what it has missed out.
But here’s a story I caught the end of on Today this morning
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article3399671.ece
Willetts holds a not being nasty 101 class for the Tories. They’ve even discovered the prisoner’s dilemma and co-operation in nature. (It sounded better on Today than it does coming through Finkelstein.)
In the partisan world of course I wouldn’t take the Tories at face value on this. But a site like Liberal Conspiracy probably should, and should look at these ideas, with a charitable interpretation.
Taking it at face value, a question is, by recognising society, are the Tories just heading for social engineering with conservative ends, or can they really stop putting the boot in to all those people and communities they exist to hold in contempt. And can we ask a similar question of the left?
Another question: are there any new values here? The prisoners dilemma and lessons from nature can hint to us of the consequences of neglecting co-operation. But I would still expect a conservative to relish some of these consequences.
Sunny,
All power to your elbow. To be honest, the only thing that really irks me about Liberal Conspiracy is this statement under FAQs, which still sticks out like a sore thumb: “The Labour party may represent the best vehicle for our political goals as they are in power, but our allegiance is towards liberal-left policies and ideas than specific parties.”
This, at a pinch, aligns LC as broadly pro-Labour. Could you not change it to “Regardless of which party may represent the best vehicle for our political goals, our allegiance is to liberal-left policies and ideas rather than specific parties.”? What would be the downside?
As a survivor of the stultifying poisoned atmosphere of late 90s big tentism, this is a bit of a deal breaker for me, and I suspect many others. No-one likes the feeling they are being co-opted without their consent.
(I’ve raised this point before.)
I do not consider the Labour party to be a left wing party anymore, but the values of the left once included a belief in civil liberties, multiculturalism, decentralisation, ecology, nuclear disarmanent, feminism, a critique of capitalism and the redistribution of wealth.
The Liberal party once contested with Labour over these values, and there are still some of us in the Liberal Democrats who believe in them.
For the last 50+ ywears I have watched lively young socialists turning themselves into depressing Tories as they age. (Yes, in the 1990s a group of them took over the Labour Party amd changed its policies into Tory look-alike.) The thing I like about Liberal Conspiracy is that I seem to see some youngish socialists there finding their way into liberal ways of thought.
It took me a while to work out that this thread has been revived from 2008! I stand by what I wrote back then, although since then the Coalition government has set the clock backwards in terms of what I wanted the Lib Dems to do in government. I think in 2015 we will have to decide as a party whether we want to stand for what we have done or become a party that is more determined to tackle issues around poverty, social fabric, market failure, centralisation of power and civil liberties where this government has failed.