A leading Lib Dem politician was kind enough to embrace ideas l advocate to use the existing housing stock to create affordable, social, market tenancies. As for societising the economy using new corporate form, quite correctly he pointed out that social enterprise exists already. Result, disappear into a cosy bunker and write about the politics of society and develop a coherent narrative of market societism, a free-market economy which operates for the common good. As l approach my final chapter l determined to keep my own counsel, until yesterday when l read an article by Daniel Finkelstein questioning the point of our party.
In his article, using at times inflammatory language, he accuses us of being an obstacle to the creation of a coherent alternative to the Conservative Party. I disagree profoundly with this assertion but he identifies a foundational issue, that to be successful a party has to “represent either a distinct ideology or a significant demographic group”.
We are a party of values but eschew ideology, understandably so and for good reasons; as the historian Thomas Bartlett wrote, our forbear party, the Liberal party was conceived in “gentler times”. Our ’gentle’, humane and considerate view of a fair and just society chimes with modern notions of well-being and an instinctive understanding of need and the common good.
The politics of society are those of collective well-being without sacrificing the significance of the individual. This is the ideology suited to our modernity, not driven by power and control.
As individuals, we may not be shareholders, we may not believe the state has all the answers but we are all members of society. This is our demographic, what is called the Centre ground of British politics. Our demographic is identifiable, everyone who values mutual interdependence and asserts collective rights,