In April of this year, I wrote an op-ed responding to Chris Whiting on the need for liberals and socialists to work together.
At the time, I opposed this idea, citing the ideological differences between socialists and liberals, and how we should reject cooperation.
In the following months, I’ve come to realise that I was wrong. In today’s political climate, cooperation is essential to combating extremism. The likes of Farage and Badenoch thrive on division among progressives, and my opposition to working with socialists only feeds into their desires.
I’ve also gone on a political journey, similar to Chris. The crossover between ideas such as ethical socialism, social democracy, social liberalism and centrism is strong, and cannot be denied. All ideas share the belief in promoting social justice, equality, liberty, and strengthening the democratic rights of citizens.
Much like many in our party, I support a mixed economy, strong ties to the EU, and federalism, and believe that the state has a responsibility to do more to help those who struggle to make ends meet, while also knowing when to step in and when to let people live their lives, free from government interference. I support freedom of enterprise and believe that no large national economy can thrive without big business playing a role. I support individual liberties and the right to express oneself, with the knowledge that it does not mean freedom from consequence.
But our society will never experience true freedom until its citizens are free from poverty, hunger, illness, and fear, which is why I support the state encouraging the growth of cooperatives and small businesses to enhance economic democracy. I support local communities coming together to find solutions to problems. I support the social ownership of public transport. I support strong trade unions negotiating greater working rights and conditions. And to echo a sentiment first demonstrated by Nye Bevan, we cannot call ourselves a civil society if someone is denied medical care due to a lack of means.
So, to round out this op-ed: Chris, I apologise for my original piece. I was rash in my response and should have taken more time to reflect on my opinion.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
The Joy of Six 1539
When the GIs came to Swansea
What's he got?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Richard Dickson
Paul Reynolds
Anne Williams
Jana
Peter Martin
6 Comments
Thanks for a refreshing survey of what our party stands for. There are obvious overlaps with Labour (and with the Greens and maybe some Nationalists), and obvious differences of emphasis.
The Labour Party’s problem is that many of its its members, and particularly the hard- liners, believe that they and they alone have the correct vision of the “good society” and the means of achieving it, and that other progressives with different priorities, (particularly us) should get off their patch and leave them to it.
Labour’s present parliamentary supremacy is based on the support of a mere 20 % of the country and by fewer than 10 million voters. I believe that is one of the causes of their present timidity, lack of confidence and vision.
What a difference it would have made if, in view of this, Sir Keir Starmer had said a year ago:” We realise that we have “won” the election only by a fluke of the electoral system and do not have the support of a majority the country. Thus, although we do not have to, we invite the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Nationalists, if they wish, to join our government, and, with shared ideas which have the support of the majority of those who voted, we will work together to build a Britain that works fairly for all its citizens, and plays an honourable part in world affairs.”
How would we have reacted?
How would we if they came to their senses and made the offer now?
Jack Meredith’s article paves the way.
It is difficult to know what the party stands for at the moment. The general strategy (as far as there is one) seems to be based around becoming more socialist than the socialists. Whatever Labour spend, the Liberal Democrats want to spend more. However big Labour want to make the welfare state, the Liberal Democrats want to make it slightly bigger. However much Labour want to tax, Liberal Democrats want to tax slightly more.
I am not at all convinced this will go down well with ‘Middle England’ or the large body of traditional Liberals like me who are bemused at the party’s leftward and corporatist drift. We need a bit more Gladstonian thinking on how to reduce public expenditure, cut taxes and get the economy working again. Without a functioning economy, NHS improvements and social care reform are just not possible. How to bring back growth is the issue of the day, not Europe, federalism or identity politics.
(Current LD councillor and two-times LD parliamentary candidate)
@James
I agree that I struggle to understand what the LibDems stand for; it doesn’t seem to have much roots in the party philosophy. I disagree with your assessment that we are trying to out-socialist Labour. We oppose the NiCs and inheritance rises as we agree that they are not good levers of targeting tax during a fragile economy. However, it all seems half-baked and we seem to want to pivot ourselves as both “we want more spending” but “we don’t want to pay for it”. And I, myself, as a fiscal conservative on the budget, deficit and debt interest (not to confuse with economic one) I don’t think that is wise approach to go about when bond yields have increased.
And I can tell you that my uncle is a middle-England former one nation Tory and retired; he does support our Party advocating social care. But he is not stupid to think we can do without it being paid up somehow – can’t have it both ways now.
And because I know Jack is from Centre (which I joined, recently) I agree with their philosophy that we should be pro-market, pro-business but we need to work at simplifying our tax, economic and work regime on the Scandinavian model which has worked (even outliners of countries where they have higher taxes but better competition and the tax regimes are simplified and take less administrative work)
(Current a LibDem Digital Officer but generally a nobody)
But back to Jack’s article. It’s positive to see this. I have always believed that in order to have the freedom of; (assembly, trade, enterprise, choice etc) it needs to also come with the freedom from; (poverty, injustice etc.)
Nice reflective article.
Thank you for an increasingly relevant article.
The death of “one nation” Conservative Party and the subversion of the Labour Party, as well as the deep dent to the L. D. Party in their combined support of Neoliberalism has and is reducing the essential coherence and stability of our society.
In short, Neoliberalism seeks and enforces socio-economic extremes and the minimising of initiatives and cooperative conversations.
As a mixed market economy in conjunction with some form of social democratic liberalism, would make our society more effective, stable and, not least, kinder.
What stops thé L D leadership from taking this opportunity?
We are moving too far to the left. We cannot oppose spending cuts without saying where we would raise the money. We must not forget where we won seats last year and where our voter demographics lye.