Change will come and change will go, but the Liberal Democrats just keep going. Hopefully, usually forward!
We have been successful enough this year to attract both alarm and attempted derision from our rivals. Now we are being blamed for the defeat of the anti-Johnson alliance of smaller parties. Yet our leader did make us a force to be reckoned with in the Election by leading the anti-Brexit drive with the strong unique policy of possible Revoke.
However, in the over-confidence Jo showed in suggesting she could be prime minister she fired a rocket which, like the November 5 ones, shot up with a thousand stars – and then was extinguished. She lit the touch-paper herself and suffered the burn from it. But thousands of her colleagues in our party are still standing, and a few made it to the House of Commons.
So what? – disillusioned voters may say to us. You are irrelevant again – and more distrusted because it seemed by adopting the Revoke policy you threw away your one concession to Leave voters, that you would give them a chance for reconsideration in another referendum. You can apparently be as tricky as the biggest parties, voters may say, especially when the voting record of your departing leader in the Coalition is considered.
No, we are not perfect. But we still have more going for us, to offer the public, than either of the big parties. The mainstream of our centrist thinking, our philosophy and our policies, all appear generally acceptable to the majority of the British people.
As a commenter on the Nick Barlow thread here wrote, “The core of our policy direction as expressed in the Manifesto, which got a good press, provides an excellent future baseline: pro EU, pro business, green, standing up for human rights, anti-nationalism, etc.”
However, another poster there wrote that our party “doesn’t seem to offer a voice or hope to those individuals most in need as per the party’s stated principles and policies.” I don’t think that’s right, but we do have a way still to go, for instance in being as strong in aiming to promote social justice and reduce inequality as the Labour Party seems to be.
Yet that party is far from resolving its internal contradictions: socialism vs. social democracy, Momentum vs. Blairism, and so on. As for the Johnson government, this flash of self-serving compassion for the needs of the workers who lent him their votes is no more likely to last than did Jo’s rocket. We know what is at the heart of Tory thinking. As I wrote years ago, they are “a collection of sophisticated predators, who systematically promote the interests of their own kind and seek the further enrichment of the moneyed classes despite the deep inequalities in Britain.” There will soon enough be disillusion with them. Our sturdy councillors and Parliamentarians will be listened to again. Because we are needed, our base is secure.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Good news on political donations?
Conference booked
New chair of North Northamptonshire Council stands down over social media posts
Are Labour going to cross another red line?
Tristan Ward
Nick Baird
Tara Foster
Sarah
Simon McGrath
53 Comments
We must not have hopeless leadership again.
The party activists who knock on doors,who get the mood of the voter must be heard more.
Our policies have voter approval.We must build up on this and sell ourselves in our leaflets. What we stand for, our policies AND the future leader should be pit on them also so that he/she becomes recognised. We cannot expect the media to do it.
Maybe less leaflets, but higher quality and timed better. Just swamping people with leaflets, that say little, just turns people off. When I saw a leaflet that referenced a headline in the Telegraph, it looked desperate. If you send a leaflet it should contain meaningful information.
Get back to being serious and radical, not “centre”. Jo Swinson claiming to be the next PM just looked daft, and that slant negated the rest of the LD manifesto, no matter how good it was.
Sad though I am at the timing of the election, character wise,your leader can stand tall, as a decent woman, who would fight your corner. It is still shocking to me that a very flawed character,with a history of lying,betrayal and careless laziness in never being on top of his brief,(example poor Mrs N Ratcliffe, locked up in an Iranian jail,with sentence extended) could suddenly manage to rewrite history and get the last nine years of sometimes savage Tory Government wiped out, whereas your leader and party are seen as whipping boys for the coalition.
I remember how many times I would cringe as LibDem members of the coalition were sent out on tv to front nasty Tory policies and how they claim credit for policies they pinched from you.There will always be a role for a moderate party, socially just and looking after people, without scaring people by pretending it can be paid for by just the rich. You can be radical in change, without needing to go daft.
I actually think Johnson is mocking and laughing at people, making his new MPs repeat his lies on numbers of nurses and new hospitals and it is all a big game to him.I have watched him on tv when he was Mayor, during televised debates and can confirm that he is far from being a lovable rogue and can be very aggressive.
Your leader did well with Nield, but those five and seven way debates, which the other leaders declined, end up as dog fights and are a turnoff.
We Remainers are not going to go meekly away, as we can see the damage ahead and will need advocates in Parliament, more than ever, now wise heads like Dominic Grieve are gone.It looks like Johnson has a cohort of yes men and women,though maybe too early to know.
Dont beat yourselves up too much. Even the pundits would not predict how the election would go and the anger in the country from brexiteers, was palpable and some of their leaders now “own ” the mess they created and will have to run with it and I am glad I am not them, when they continue trying to square irreconcilable positions.
For my own ” mental health, ” I am going to try to back off now as I was spending too much time, surfing round, looking for answers.I hope that with Corbyn gone and subject to a moderate leader getting in, there could be some reconfiguration of parties.
Good luck everyone and a peaceful 2020.
Nigel and Andy are right alas. I submitted a piece to our local Party’s Whats Apps Group saying much the same and identifying in some detail several blunders by the Leadership, which threw away the chance of a better result. It was a follow up to to an email I sent three weeks earlier to our (excelllent) Totnes candidate and to Party HQ in the forlorne hope that it might do some good.
Good responses, folks, reported on the broadcast media, from our acting leader Ed Davey on the prime minister’s first undesirable actions, and from Wera speaking passionately in parliament. Our MPs are clearly geared up to speak for the ten or twenty we hoped would have joined them in the Commons, who I’m sure will not be silenced either.
I still think Tim Farron’s best line was the one in which he described us as “the cockroaches of British politics” – more profound than you might think!
Less leaflets would be a really good idea.
I spoke to people in three different constituencies who were really irritated by the number that were coming through their letter boxes, particularly given that there had been no work prior to the election.
We really need to look at this.
An interesting take on the election by Tim Farron in Unherd earlier this week. His article is headed “It’s time we ‘progressives’ stopped hectoring” and his main points are as follows
“those who consider themselves ‘progressives’ have become far too focused on having the ‘correct’ ideology
“We paraded our certainty in having a superior and worthier outlook to those on the right
“We failed to understand the appeal of the emotional, populist politics of the right, and instead sneered at those who did not hold the ‘correct views’. But our version of identity politics alienated many. It simply made us seem as though we disapproved of most of the country.
“So, bluntly, we should not expect people to vote for us if it seems that we look down on them.
“I want us to stop hectoring the country, to love our country warts and all.
“Let us continue to stand up for what we believe in, and to continue to campaign for it. But let us also learn how to disagree well with others and not berate them for not thinking exactly as we do. We will never earn the right to run the country until we learn to love its people and seek first to understand.”
https://unherd.com/thepost/its-time-we-progressives-stopped-hectoring/
Good article Katherine and Tims peice is well worth the read but as i have said in other streams we need to reform and be radical and inclusive of the members who wish to serve this party suppoerters at the highest level .At least 3 political parties at the last election leaders did not seat in the house of commons and the biggest social movement extinction rebellion rejects conventional leadership models .Change should not be feared but embraced by Liberal Democrats .
@Nigel/Andy/Christopher/David. Thank you for your comments on leaflets and leadership. Would it be the case that local leaflets in between elections should attempt to relate local issues to some aspects of national policy, either motions passed by Conference or the statements of the Manifesto? I suppose that might help to bridge the gap between national and local campaigning?
@ Margaret. Thank you for your fair-minded comments and good wishes to our activists, Margaret. We certainly need strong voices raised against the probable intentions of Brexiteers and our prime minister, once the dressing-up clothes and masks are discarded. As for the Labour leadership to be, s/he won’t be able to disguise the fact that, as someone said on Radio 4 today, they are holding together three different groups of people, which I suppose contributed to the fatally ambiguous stance of the party after the Referendum, and which will resurface as a problem for them unless a fairer voting system eventually allows that grand coalition to separate out naturally, Fortunately that is not a problem we Liberal Democrats have.
@ Mike Jay. Thank you for quoting Tim Farron’s useful article for us, Mike. I recognised the tone from hearing his friendly and respectful approach to Leavers, while canvassing with him in Ambleside, and his own result shows the value of the approach.
@Neil Sandison. It would be great if you could summarise, here perhaps, your ideas on how we should ‘reform and be radical and inclusive’. How should we be changing, do you think?
Katharine, thank you for acknowledging my post. I don’t actually share your political perspective but when I do read you on LDV I am always moved by the kindness, humanity and sympathy shown in your posts. If everybody spoke for the Lib Dems in your voice they’d do a lot better. God Bless and Happy Christmas
Mike Jay 21st Dec ’19 – 6:22pm:
An interesting take on the election by Tim Farron in Unherd earlier this week.
I thought the article by the Reverend Giles Fraser was rather more insightful…
How I became ‘Tory scum’:
https://unherd.com/2019/12/how-i-became-tory-scum/
Katharine, thank you also for your and others acknowledgement.
I agree leaflets should be sent occasionally in between elections to raise the profile of local candidates and to promote news and policy issues.
Well according to the UK’s American Ambassador its going to be the Roaring Twenties again. Actually at the beginning of 1920’s the UK economy went into recession with high levels of unemployment which lasted for the decade. Trade was disrupted due to tariff barriers and of course in 1929 there was the stock exchange crash.
I hope the Liberal Democrats create a new Yellow Book to deal with the economic challenges Britain today faces.
@ Manfarang You omitted to mention the reintroduction of the gold standard by the Chancellor of the Exchequer , the former Liberal, Winston Churchill. It resulted in stagnation, a terrible reduction in wages, and mass poverty in many of the industrial parts of the country.
We can do without a return to the 1920’s thank you.
” Here is what counts – our country needs the Liberal Democrats ”
Hi Katharine,
This is a serious non-partisan question, but why does the country need the Liberal Democrats?
Nothing in your essay as far as i can see offers any USP, it is a just a series of Mr Macwaber expectations.
You are clearly a very active LIbDem in your area, did you tell the electorates in Copeland and Workington that they needed you, perhaps more importantly did you think they were listening, because the result in both would suggest whatever they need it isn’t being offered by the LIbDems.
The country needed UKIP to force an EU referendum in 2015, once they had and the referendum was won, they handed their trust back to the Conservatives to get it done. When the Conservatives betrayed that trust, they needed the Brexit Party in the Euros to bring the Conserevatives into line. Once they dumped May and Boris became apparently ‘on message’ they handed their trust back to the Conservatives. If Boris breaks that trust the need for a political voice will return. The British electorate now know how to play the game to get what they want and I fancy they ain’t going to allow themselves to get sold a pup again anytime soon.
I’m afraid the days of winning power on the back of empty platitudes are probably over for good, so what is your USP that they need?
“We seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”, begins the Preamble to our Constitution, Sopwith. Regardless of your amusing jeering (transferred now I see from another thread), A better Britain is possible , as our Demand Better booklet puts it. “A country in which everyone has the opportunity to make the most of their lives, where they get something back for the contributions they make to their communities. A country where everyone can live in homes in safe, clean and friendly neighbourhoods, where people can do rewarding work for a decent income and have access to high-quality health and social care, childcare, transport, education for children and adults alike. A country where people can breathe clean air, use clean energy and enjoy the beauty of the natural world. A government that keeps the country safe,that helps it prosper, that builds a society in which everyone has an equal chance.”
That is the Liberal Democrat vision, as reaffirmed at the September Conference in 2018. I’m happy to continue to live with it; can you ask for more? Yes, we do have the policies to implement our vision, as you can read on our Website, and see in the latest summary of them in our Manifesto.
You are right, we have much work to do here in Copeland and Workington, where the two-party battle led to the present ascendancy of the Tories, as in so many parts of the north, and in the to-me equally beloved south-west, Cornwall and Devon. We will continue to show how much we have to offer which the country needs, and work hard for it.
Mike Jay, thank you for those very kind words. If there is anything true in them, it is that the qualities you mention come naturally to members of the Liberal Democrats, who are inspired by the vision touched on above. A lifelong Liberal, I am proud to be a member of this party.
Sopwith Morley – quite why someone who is clearly Tory is wasting his time on a Lib Dem website I dont know. Still, “The country” did not “need UKIP to force a referendum” – opinion polls from the time show that the vast majority of “the country” couldnt care less about the EU or having a referendum about it. UKIP spooked Cameron and he stupidly gave them a referendum. Then the Leave campaigns lied their a***s off and won it. We are a pro European party and we re not going to change our views just because a minority of the total population (26%) thought we should leave after hearing a load of lies, myths, half truths and propaganda. The current Tory government “won” the election on 44% of the vote and the majority of Parliament (53%) was elected on pro second referendum mandate, so your talk about “what the electorate wants” is total nonsense, FPTP NEVER gives the electorate “what it wants”, the only way to do that is with STV.
@ Katharine Pindar
” Regardless of your amusing jeering (transferred now I see from another thread), A better Britain is possible , as our Demand Better booklet puts it. “A country in which everyone has the opportunity to make the most of their lives, where they get something back for the contributions they make to their communities. A country where everyone can live in homes in safe, clean and friendly neighbourhoods, where people can do rewarding work for a decent income and have access to high-quality health and social care, childcare, transport, education for children and adults alike. A country where people can breathe clean air, use clean energy and enjoy the beauty of the natural world. A government that keeps the country safe,that helps it prosper, that builds a society in which everyone has an equal chance.”
I didn’t think I was jeering at you, I thought I was asking a straight forward question in the spirit of debate.
Your Demand Booklet simply states the status quo for the vast majority of the population. If the Liberal Democratic vision is simply to maintain the status quo where is your vision, where are your radical politics.
Taking your Demand Booklet quote at face value, would I be correct in assuming that Councils that have been run by LibDem councils for many years will be outperforming councils run by other parties on issues such as homelessness and rough sleeping, after all if it is one of your priorities you will have been prioritising eliminating it. I will have to check but I wouldn’t expect to find a single rough sleeper in any of your council areas, as the relatively small numbers should be easily within the remit of any council to deal with, especially one that is led by a party that has it as part of its mission statement. Would I be correct in assuming that is the case.
Margaret, thank you so much for your kindness and reassurance. It’s good to know Remainers aren’t going anywhere and that you, yourself, value the Lib Dems. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a peaceful and joyous 2020.
Many thanks to Katharine and Sue and have a great Christmas and 2020, to all of you.As a country, I think that we are in for a rocky road and will need calm, moderate Liberal Democrats more than ever, probing and holding the Government to account.It did not take long for Johnson’s wheels to come off the wagon and already workers rights, environmental standards,rights of refugee children seem to be at risk and ominous threats against the independence of our judicial system.
As Ken Clarke said, today, now Johnson needs to stop campaigning and start governing.
Johnson was too arrogant to put himself up on tv debates, or more likely to avoid tripping himself up and the Today programme, for instance, is boycotted by the Tory Cabinet.
I doubt this will change, as Johnson comes over very badly, as a blustering bully and his front bench, quite frankly, are scary individuals.Now is the chance for your party to be out tbere, at every possible chance, like the impressive Layla Moran, when tv presenters cannot get anyone from the Government to bother to turn up.
Thanks for listening and my very best wishes to you all.Some very fine people contribute to this blog and have earned my respect.All the best.
I thought there were far too many personal attacks on the leaders of other parties, including refusal to work with them in a future govn (it rather defies democracy) and a refusal to bend a little from the moral high ground by offering Leavers concessions on things like Freedon of Movement.
The apparent LibDem position on immigration is an open door with more public spending to accommodate whatever numbers turn up whereas if given a referendum on the subject the democratic response would probably have been to slam the doors shut.
Frank West – yeah and if we had a referendum on hanging the likely result would be in favour of to bringing it back, that doesnt make it right.
@ JH
There are two points to make about the comparison between capital punishment and EU membership
1) Public opinion is now probably against CP. Or at least would be once it is pointed out to everyone the number of innocent people who would have been hanged in recent years.
2) Parliament did authorise a referendum on EU membership. It has never authorised a referendum on capital punishment. That is Parliament’s decision to make as much as any other.
@ Manfarang @ David Raw,
Yes there was no “Roaring 20s” in the UK. There was peculiar to the USA. It was an explosion of private debt in the economy which at first created a roaring boom but then created a crash. It was the same story all over again leading up to the 2008 crash.
So we are very unlikely to have that again. The Ambassador isn’t right. Nor should we want it. Governments, in the UK, USA and elsewhere, need to learn to regulate their economies by their spending and taxation policies. A balanced economy should be the goal. Not necessarily a balanced budget.
@JH
“Sopwith Morley – quite why someone who is clearly Tory is wasting his time on a Lib Dem website I dont know.”
I’m not a Tory I have no affiliation, but I do have strong policy positions and I usually lend my support to those who support those policy positions. If the response to my post is your rant, then I don’t think I am wasting my time if I am exposing the intolerant and clearly undemocratic nature of people like you who claim to be LibDems.
The real question is what are you doing on a LibDem site as you are clearly no liberal, and democracy to you seems to be an optional extra.
When I read posts like those from Sopwith Morley above I am intrigued by the underlying assumption that the UK’s EU membership was the overwhelming cause of virtually all the ills of it’s people and that brexit will be the golden path to a great future. Throughout the referendum campaign and its aftermath I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any of this. It has to be said that it is the failure of the remain side to destroy this argument that has led to so little shift of opinion from the leave to remain side during the last 3 years. Yes, there has been a lot of dishonesty but in the past the public have been able to see through dishonesty.
As events unfold the mix of advantage (if any) and disadvantage will be displayed. I have no doubt that we are heading in a deeply damaging direction and the main job for Lib Dems and other like minds to use whatever influence we can muster to minimise the damage by keeping as close to our continental neighbours as possible.
Katharine Pindar states that “our country needs the Liberal Democrats”. Hmm …. it certainly needs Liberalism but I’m less sure that it is the same thing. There was an open goal and the party missed it.
Sopwith Morley – “I’m not a Tory I have no affiliation, but I do have strong policy positions and I usually lend my support to those who support those policy positions. If the response to my post is your rant, then I don’t think I am wasting my time if I am exposing the intolerant and clearly undemocratic nature of people like you who claim to be LibDems.
The real question is what are you doing on a LibDem site as you are clearly no liberal, and democracy to you seems to be an optional extra.”
Time and again on here your views come across to me as very Tory, quite how that is not Liberal or “not democratic” I dont know.
Peter Martin – “There are two points to make about the comparison between capital punishment and EU membership
1) Public opinion is now probably against CP. Or at least would be once it is pointed out to everyone the number of innocent people who would have been hanged in recent years.
2) Parliament did authorise a referendum on EU membership. It has never authorised a referendum on capital punishment. That is Parliament’s decision to make as much as any other.”
Public opinion is currently 56% against leaving the EU, but we re leaving, as, sadly we have a government that is in power despite only 44% of voters voting for it.
@Denis Loretto
“When I read posts like those from Sopwith Morley above I am intrigued by the underlying assumption that the UK’s EU membership was the overwhelming cause of virtually all the ills of it’s people…”
Isn’t it really the UK’s unwillingness to take a good hard look at itself and stop looking for scapegoats…?
Valiant defence of pro-European and Liberal views from JH, above, thank you. Since I agree with Denis Loretto, as indeed with Margaret, that we do seem likely to be heading in a deeply damaging direction under this government – as expected – we need new voices as well as familiar ones, to fight our cause.
We shall need to campaign with like-minded people from other parties, or who have become Independents in some cases, but I do think we need the Liberal Democrats to give a strong sense of direction, Michael Meadowcroft. Sorry to think that you, so long a campaigner, may be feeling some disillusionment! We may not have shown great wisdom in the strategy for this election, but we know where we are going, don’t we?
@JH
Where does your 56% figure come from? I’m sure I read on LVD just a week or so back that we shouldn’t vote Labour, even tactically, because Labour was a LEAVE party!
Peter Martin – actually I meant 53%, not 56%. Yes Labour was really a Leave party because it failed to come out in support of Remain and its leader was always anti EU, however it stood on a mandate that said it would negotiate its own deal and put that to a referendum, so thats where I get the 53% figure from – Tories+Brexit Ltd+UKIP = 47%, everyone else = 53%.
Sopwith Morley,
There is a different answer to your question, “why does the country need the Liberal Democrats?”
The Conservatives and the Labour Party are often authoritarian and therefore the UK needs a political party which is not. Currently this is the Liberal Democrats.
Of course this raises the question – how authoritarian are the Liberal Democrats? Perhaps more than they were 15 years ago.
Perhaps another unique feature of the Liberal Democrats is their support for non-conformity.
I value both aspects of the party where central authority is weak and members are not expected to conform to what the leadership says goes.
Turning to your critique of Katharine’s posting from the Demand Better booklet, it seems you have missed the point of what a liberal society looks like. For only a majority to make the most of their lives, for only a majority have a home of their own, where only a majority do rewarding work for a decent income, where only a majority breathe clean air, and where only a majority have an “equal chance” is not a liberal society. The Liberal Democrats vision is not to maintain the status quo, it is to ensure everyone has what you claim the majority have now.
My issue is not what a liberal society looks like, but the failure of the party to have the policies to put in place all aspects of it within a time frame. For the environment we have a time scale, but we don’t have one for ending poverty in the UK, or building enough homes.
@Peter Martin
Well they’re definitely not a remain party that’s for sure. What they definitely are is a party in decline, as shown by how they’ve lost; first Scotland and now their traditional voters: the working class in the North of England, and they’re also losing a grip of Wales as well. And Labour supporters like yourself, coming here and lashing out at people with insecurity and anger is a bad look.
@ JH
The election was more than about Brexit. Many remainers voted Tory. Many leavers, like myself, voted for other parties. You can’t make the assumptions you’ve made, especially when you’d have used any tiny parliamentsry majority you’d hoped to obtain to revoke.
@ Yousef,
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I’d always thought lib dems, for whom I’ve voted a couple of times, were more anti Tory than anti Labour. So we should at least talk to each other.
But pehaps I should accept that the lib dems aren’t led by people like Paddy Ashown any longer.
@ MIchael BG
Thank you for attempting to answer the question, and thank you for your considered response.
I didn’t miss the point, I know that it is a ‘majority’ and sadly it will always be only a ‘majority’ who have the benefit of the fruits of our society, and I also know it is an unachievable aim outside the delusions of certain political elements to ensure it applies to every single individual, aka a ‘liberal society’.
My last question to Katharine on rough sleeping and homelessness was rhetorical and intended to expose the fact that LibDems in power are no more likely to deal with these problems than anybody else. Bath had 25 rough sleepers in the last report I read, Bath and other LibDem governed councils have had rough sleepers throughout their political tenures.
Why are they still rough sleepers in Bath, why are there rough sleepers in every LibDem council area. If you are so passionate about dealing with the issue with your mission of a ‘liberal society’ it should have been the first priority when taking control of councils.
How hard is it for a LibDem council to provide accommodation for 25 people, and even if the council won’t divvy up, why are there not 25 LIbDem members in wealthy LibDem areas like Bath who passionately believe in the Demand Better mission statement, offering free accomodation in their own homes to these people
The reality is the LIbDems are only interested in these things as an abstract concept to make themselves feel morally superior, but like the professional Green and climate activists who fly everywhere, only as long as it doesn’t impact on them personally.
I know several people who selflessly give plenty back to their community, I actually know somebody who does take in homeless young people on a short term basis, but these people who integrate their care and concern for others into their homes and daily lives are altruists and humanists, none of them work to the ten commandments of the Demand Better leaflet brought down from Mount Cowley Street, they don’t need to be told how to behave morally, it comes naturally.
The truth is none of the parties really care that much about those at the fringes of society, some parties are quite open about, and some hide behind a fake facade of concern, talking the talk, but never walking the walk.
Can you perhaps offer some thoughts as to why some in your party thinks the country needs the Liberal Democrats.
@ Michael BG. I very much agree with you Michael, but with the proviso that having a policy is not enough, particularly in the area of poverty.
When the party is at its present parliamentary strength, its spokespersons need to argue for that policy with enthusiasm and conviction. When it had, or has, a share of some power, if it ever does again, it needs to fight for that policy with determination and not to give excuses for legislation that has the opposite effect. With regret, I have to say the evidence points in the opposite direction, certainly in the case of the bedroom tax and the welfare ‘reforms’ , and more recently the complete blank on the UN Report on poverty in the U.K.
I think I understand where Michael Meadowcroft is coming from.
@ Michael BG @ David Raw,
In 1943 Michael Kalecki wrote:
“Discipline in the factories and political stability are more appreciated by the business leaders than are profits. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view and that unemployment is an integral part of the normal capitalist system. The capitalists therefore want to limit government intervention and spending as disruptions to laissez-faire that reduce their “state of confidence” in the overall economic performance, with the notable exception of armament spending and policies that lead to increased armament spending.”
In other words, the PTB don’t want poverty ended – even though it would be relatively straightforward to provide jobs for all who wanted them and an equitable welfare system for those who needed it. Their profits would even likely rise as a result of a more vibrant economy. They want to maintain the bottom decile in a state of dire need!
If he were still alive today and could see the social problems we are all concerned about occurring despite the huge increase in wealth that been created since 1943 he would know he was absolutely right!
We must stick to our principles, improve our messaging and marketing and continue campaigning and we will succeed, helped by the opposition. No-one can predict the future and stopping just before victory is a human failing. Seismic shifts do occur and we must prepare for the next one.
That was a very interesting answer you gave, Michael – thank you – both in reminding commenters that Lib Dems are anti-authoritarian and accepting of non-conformity, and in your central point that it isn’t enough for us that a majority should have all these goods, we want everyone to have them.
When so many in our country live in poverty, I agree with you and with David that to make tackling that problem should be central to our policies and our campaigning. It was urgent before, and remains so under this new government. We should make a point of reviving the Alston recommendations on the anniversary of the report, in May this coming year, if welfare needs and the problems arising from Universal Credit have not been tackled this spring, and this is an obvious scandal for council candidates and councillors to focus on, as the May elections approach.
The interlocking problems amount to much more than the rough sleepers part of it, Sopwith Morley. People have lost their homes because of the callous handling of the Universal Credit roll-out. Homelessness has led to thousands of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and how can they get on with either jobs or consistent schooling for the children, moved from one residence to another? The idea of homes in ‘safe, clean and friendly neighbourhoods’ is out of reach for many, with drug gangs preying on children and leading to such appalling crimes as children stabbing each other. The idea of having an affordable home of their own is also of course a dream for many, particularly young people today.
There is so much to be done, that every Liberal Democrat needs to rest and recuperate this holiday, if possible, and prepare for the struggles to come.
The FT was making an interesting point in this article
“The Conservative party won the election, but they are far from winning the battle of ideas.”
https://www.ft.com/content/e6678366-21a1-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b
I thought exactly the same when I read John Redwood’s blog:
“The new Governor has to understand there has been a big change of economic policy with the change of government. The target of reducing state debt as the main aim of policy has gone. The promotion of growth now lies at the heart of the new fiscal framework…..The Bank of course has to keep to the inflation remit but needs to understand the shift of its parallel aim of helping promote growth and good levels of employment. Currently there is no inflation threat in the advanced world and no inflation problem in the UK”
Naturally JR has some way to go, but he’s clearly moving in the right direction. When I write this kind of thing I can always rely on someone to kick off about Zimbabwe and Venezuela!
Winning people over to new ideas is much more important in the longer term than winning elections.
Sorry Jeff, I’ve only just seen your comment of 21st re Giles Fraser. Yes, it was more insightful and I too became “Tory scum” even though my preference would be Blue Labour/SDP.
I quoted Farron here because he’s a former leader who is clearly unhappy about the way his party addresses those with whom they disagree.
I wouldn’t trust Redwood with my pet goldfish, never mind the economy. Neither politicians nor economists have anything to say about the economy. One cares only about votes now, not our grandchildren’s future, and the other only exists at all to argue with other economists over their weird pet theories (which they all have).
When our economic fool’s paradise collapses it will happen with terrifying speed.
One argument that Labour was beginning to make that does not seem to have gained traction as of yet is the recommendation in this report https://landforthemany.uk/3-for-the-many-not-the-few-a-fair-price-for-land/ “We recommend that a Labour government set an explicit goal of stabilising land and house prices, so that wages can catch up and the house price-to-income ratio gradually return to its historic norm (figure 2). To achieve this goal, we will need bold policies, particularly to bring rents under control, and rein in speculative, debt-fuelled demand.”
Instead, we are likely to see under a Conservative government a continuation of the Help to buy scheme that serves only to inflate house prices and rents further.
The argument for making house price stabilisation part of the Bank of England’s remit was recently made by Polly Mackenzie at unherd https://unherd.com/2018/04/social-housing-not-answer-time-take-home-owners/
“… the Government should make a commitment to stop house prices from rising, in cash terms, for at least the next 30 years, and take all the action needed to make it happen. That would mean increasing supply, appropriately regulating housing finance, and reforming planning and land taxation. Every council should be charged with building enough to stop prices from rising in their area – with the right to grow into neighbouring council areas if their borders are too tightly constrained. If the costs of housing rose, Ministers would have to report to Parliament on their failure and their plans to correct the trend.
Setting this clear, national objective would change the investment model for land owners and housebuilders; instead of making more money the longer you wait to build, you’d make the most if you built quickly. Building council or housing association properties will be a necessary part of the mix, in the short term. For vulnerable people, in particular, this type of housing can provide essential stability and security (and the same protections must be afforded those in the private rental sector). But building a few Affordable Homes should never become an excuse for letting homes in general get less affordable. ”
Tackle the cost of land as liberals have advocated for a century and much of the problem with excessive private debt accumulation, inadequate housing provision and benefits and the economic inequality and instability it generates can be addressed.
Sopwith Morley,
Some people make a difference one person at a time as you state, but not enough. Some people wish to change society or resist change and they join a political party with the hope that they can do something within their political party which might result in the type of society they wish to see. Most people do neither; they are focused on their own lives and the lives of their family and friends.
You have not understood the first part of my comment, the Liberal Democrats do not work in the authoritarian way you suggested based on Exodus 20:1-17. The Demand Better booklet was not produced by HQ (George Street now) but was produced by the Federal Policy Committee and after it was amended agreed by members at a conference.
I live in an area with a rich district council, it has a large amount of savings, the income from which it mostly uses for capital projects. I think the borough has provided 20 bedrooms for the homeless and I think built a centre run by the YMCA which provides 83 places for young people for short stay. I don’t know if these were planned and built when the Liberal Democrats jointly run the council. However, there are still rough sleepers in the Borough.
For councils it is a choice between priorities and as Katharine points out there are homeless people which the council has to provide accommodation for who are not rough sleepers.
As I have stated the Liberal Democrats have a way to go to have the policies to achieve the liberal society as set out in the Demand Better booklet. As a member of the party I hope that I can help the party to get there.
David Raw,
Indeed, once we have the right policies we need to tell people about them and campaign on them.
Peter Martin,
It Michal Kalecki was correct this should not stop a Liberal Democrat government imposing full employment against the power of those who own capital.
I hope that John Redwood is correct and increasing the growth rate will be at the heart of the government’s fiscal policy. However, “good levels of employment” is not “full employment” and doesn’t address the issue of underemployment.
Katharine Pindar,
As you say the problems are often interconnected and are huge. Indeed, there is much to do to change society into a liberal one.
Interesting takes on the evils both of unbridled capitalism and of unbridled socialism in some of the above posts, thank you, colleagues and friends. I am thinking, Peter Martin, that if the only quote you can make about capitalists wanting to limit full employment and government intervention for social purposes is from 1943, probably their Tory representatives have become better at disguising their purposes since. I don’t see the Tories as having new ideas, except for ideas which will serve their basic and perpetual drive to preserve and increase the power and wealth of their kind.
As for the current socialists, the Polly Mackenzie quote you usefully provide, Joseph, shows too clearly their authoritarian and top-down thinking. ‘The Government should make a commitment to stop house prices rising, in cash terms, for at least the next 30 years … Every council should be charged with building enough to stop house prices from rising in their area….’ Quite so.
Local Council action to provide accommodation IS needed, however, and surely this is where the newly enlarged Lib Dem councillor cohort can do good, whether in promoting provision of bedrooms for the homeless or the building of much more social housing. Starved council resources must be replenished, and this government obliged to take account of their needs. which can be demanded as part of their current stance of populism.
Peter Martin – 53% of MPs in the current Commons were put there on a second referendum mandate this is fact, I have made no “assumptions”. The election was only about Brexit, any fool can see that . . . apart from the Labour party and look where it got them. Many remainers voted Tory because they were scared that Corbyn would get in.
Sopwith Morley – how many homeless people have you taken into your rich Tory mansion ? I assume you have hundreds living with you.
Peter Martin – 53% of the Commons was elected on a mandate for a second referendum, this is a fact, I assume nothing. The election was about Brexit, everyone knew that, only the Labour party tried to pretend it wasnt and look where it got them. Many remainers voted Tory because they were scared not doing so would allow Corbyn in, it would have been different if we had PR – they would be free to vote for whomever they wanted.
JH
And in 2017 over 80% of voters voted for parties promising to honour the referendum. Not everyone voting this time voted for parties like Labour were doing it because they were offering a referendum. I know quite a few leave voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Tory. Peter Martin is a labour voter. As a liberal, I didn’t vote in a general election for the first time ever. The bottom line is that Remain lost in 2016, lost again in 2017, couldn’t even beat the Brexit Party in its home turf of the Euro elections and after three years of blocking antics have lost again in 2019. The EU cause just isn’t that big of a vote grabber.
The EU cause. Glenn, was one which the Liberal Democrat party believed in and still does. We don’t deny our beliefs, whether for political advantage or any other reason. In any case, probably more than half the population does probably think now that it would have been better for the country to remain, even if they agree it’s time to end the weary battle. Regrets, they will have a few, and anxieties, we will unfortunately often have, as the work to try to make the best of Brexit goes on. We will go on trying to protect the interests of our country, plus our EU exiles within Britain and our British living in the EU, as we always have done.