Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Over 530 party members have responded, and we’re currently publishing the full results.
LDV asked: Please tick any or all of the descriptions below that you would be happy for someone else to use to describe you:
-
87% – Liberal
65% – Progressive
64% – Social liberal
60% – Internationalist
55% – Pragmatic
52% – Reformer
45% – Centre-left
44% – Civil libertarian
44% – Radical
41% – Green
35% – Economic liberal
34% – Social democrat
33% – Moderate
30% – Moderniser
27% – Centrist
25% – Keynesian
21% – Libertarian
20% – Ideological
16% – Mainstream
14% – Free marketeer
9% – Centre-right
4% – Other (please specify)
This is the kind of debate which can to easily become bogged-down in semantics, with some phrases (eg, economic liberalism, social democrat) loaded with historical baggage not always inferred by those using the descriptors of themselves. Nonetheless, there are some interesting findings here.
Amost two-thirds of members (64%) identify themselves as ‘Social liberal’, compared with 35% happily self-identifying with ‘Economic liberal’: given these are the two terms with greatest currency at the moment to describe the different ‘left/right’ wings of the party, it’s interesting that social liberals outnumber economic liberals 2:1, according to our survey.
Interesting, too, to ponder what such a survey of the party 25 years ago, when we were the SDP/Liberal Alliance, would have shown: my guess is fewer than 87% of party members would have been happy to call themselves ‘liberal’, and more than 34% would have self-identified as ‘social democrat’. That latter descriptor appears to have more or less replaced by the term, ‘progressive’, which 65% of members willingly ascribe to themselves.
LDV then asked: How would you describe your own politics?
Over 400 of your responded with your own free text description. Here’s the collective Wordle of how Lib Dem members describe ourselves:
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Keir Starmer was right: How Margaret Thatcher bankrolled a generation of left-wing entrepreneurs and artists
A split or a chasm?
Plans for 213 homes off Bromfield Road approved after nearly ten years
Handmade Christmas Gifts to suit any budget!
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
A Liberal vision for Urban Britain
Leekliberal
James Fowler
Denis Loretto
Richard
31 Comments
I may be suffering from tunnel vision, but can you tell me where these polls are publicised? I seem to only catch the results, but never the actual polls.
Maybe it’s because I don’t spend a lot of time on the site and just scan and read the posts. Perhaps you could announce the poll in a short post so at least I can stop and look for it.
🙂
Fair analysis.
^ Mark:
You have to sign up for them, I think. If you sign up for a forums account you’ll have the option of being included, and LDV’ll email you when one’s out. That’s how they keep it members only.
Socially liberal can also mean liberal on social (non economic) matters e.g. attitudes to homosexuality, abortion, drugs. Was the phrase defined?
@ Mark Johnston
All Forum members are automatically emailed the link to the survey, and the survey was advertised also on the public blog (the first link in the article above): https://www.libdemvoice.org/new-ldv-members-survey-now-live-your-views-on-the-nhs-immigration-av-and-the-coalition-23851.html
civic nationalist
economically liberal
autious progressive / radical conservative
I defined myself as both Economic Liberal and Social Liberal, they are not mutually exclusive.
indeed not.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/compassionate-liberalism-just-deserts-%e2%80%93-escaping-the-paradox-of-the-lefts-social-authoritarianism/
I think I ticked about a third of the boxes including some slightly contradictory ones because I felt affinities with both. Meh.
Looking at the word cloud does prompt the idea of renaming the party the “Social Liberal” party.
@Richard
Yes, that’s actually what I’ve always assumed the definition of ‘social liberal’ is – it’s only in the past couple of years that I’ve heard it used otherwise (though maybe I just didn’t notice before).
If ‘social liberal’ is now coming to mean ‘centre-left’ or something similar, then what is the difference between ‘social liberal’ and ‘social democrat’?
@Catherine: Social liberalism is different to social democracy. Social liberalism is liberalism with the economic liberalism pared down, and replaced with support for the welfare state and a mixed economy. Compared to classical liberalism, soclib is similar on social issues, but much more progressive on economic and welfarist issues.
Generally, in Britain, when we say ‘liberal’ we almost always mean ‘social liberal’. On the other hand, in mainland Europe, liberalism without the social prefix means an ideology closer to classical liberalism, liberal on economic issues, pro-business and anti-welfarist.
Social democracy is to the left of soclib, supports public spending and the welfare state, collectivism, equality and trade unionism far more strongly and explicitly. Social democracy is a centre-left ideology whilst social liberalism is closer to the centre of the political spectrum.
@Catherine,
I defined my political position as Liberal and left of centre (I’m not sure about (centre-left) long before the SDP was formed and before the words “social democrat” were commonly used, or clearly defined, within the context of British politics.
I recall a Liberal Party public meeting, circa 1970, during the course of which a member of the audience described himself as a “social democrat”. After the meeting several Liberal Party members gathered around him to enquire what he meant and where he was coming from. Very much in the spirit of liberalism, rather than shout down hecklers, as is the wont of the other two parties, they were eager to engage with others and explore different points of view (contrast some current contributors to LDV who deride as “trolls”, etc. those who have the temerity to disagree with them.)
If one accepts FSD’s definitions of Social Liberalism and Social Democracy, i would be very happy to be a member of a party which resulted from a marriage between the two: is that not what tthe Liberal Democrats were conceived to be?
For the past year, I have been feeling less and less “at home” as a member of the Liberal Democrats. The results of this poll and the activities of the Social Liberal Forum encourage me to to hope that all is not lost and that I should presevere as a member and continue to fight my corner from within the party. Much as I deplore the current government, leaving the LibDems is not an attractive option since I have no other “political home” to go to.
Liberal? Progressive? Moderate? So why are you propping up Cameron’s reactionary gang then?
I’m quite impressed it took 14 comments before someone like MacK turned up
@Joe Donnelly
Well, it is the Bank Holiday.
What is the difference between a social liberal and a social democrat?
Well I was there when I joined the Liberal party in 1983. We were a social liberal party then. We agreed with Social Democrats on social justice and redistributing wealth. We were both not ideological free marketeers and the Tim Farron quotation about Thatcherism being “organised wickedness” was what we all thought at the time – we lived through it after all. Both parties identified as Left-of Centre, indeed Nick Clegg is the first leader of the LIberal Democrats not to do so.
There were differences however. There were cultural differences. The SDP was more of an establishment party into wearing suits and ties, whilst Liberals were more bohemian and anti-establishment. Liberals were very much a Green party in those days, even going as far as supporting a policy of no-Growth economics in the tradition of JS Mill. Liberals were suspicious of the SDP in that in their Labour days they were centralisers of power. However that was not reflected in the SDP who soon learnt to embrace community politics. Another sticking point was that the SDP were locked into a Cold War mentality and insisted on the UK retaining nuclear weapons. The Liberals were split on this but when it came to the vote at the Liberal Assembly the disarmers usually won.
In the 1960s Jo Grimond set the Liberal party on the course of “Realigning the Left” and when I joined there was a lot of enthusiasm within the party to do just that. The Young Liberals at the time were on the radical left and wanted the UK to leave NATO, something the party establishment felt very uncomfortable with.
Through time words change their meanings and I think the word Liberal has more right wing connotations than it did when I joined the party. I prefer the older definition myself and it seems odd to me that Chris Huhne, a former SDP member, seems to be the main standard bearer for Green politics within the Lib Dems compared to Nick Clegg who seems a lot less interested if his leader’s speeches are anything to go by.
@geoffrey “liberals were very much a Green party in those days, even going as far as supporting a policy of no-Growth economics in the tradition of JS Mill”
Not my recollection of the old liberal party but surely we should all be glad Mill was wrong on this one. Not sure many of us would be happy with a mid Victorian standard f living
@FSD, Nick and Geoffrey – thanks, that’s an interesting summary of where the two traditions come from and how they differ. I guess I’d define myself as mostly a social liberal but probably closer to social democrat on a few issues (such as localism).
Social liberalism, for me, is liberalism on social matters. I therefore find it vaguely offensive when people assert that there is some great gulf between “social liberals” and “economic liberals” or “Orange Bookers”, since I am proud to be both a social liberal and an economic liberal. I really do urge the Social Liberal Forum to tread carefully, and preferably to choose a different name. The current name is unnecessarily divisive.
Economic liberalism is about ensuring that all individuals have the maximum possible ability to live their life as they wish in matters relating to work and spending (and that doesn’t necessarily mean deregulation – dangerous concentrations of power must be tackled), whereas social liberalism is the same but focusing on different sorts of interactions. I really don’t think either is a coherent doctrine to the exclusion of the other, and broadly speaking the party has (implicitly) taken that line.
As a member of the Social Liberal Forum I have an entirely open mind about whether “Orange Bookers” are Social Liberals or not. I can only judge them by what they say. We all agree that we want more social mobility, but social mobility in itself does not reduce poverty, at least not for those who remain for whatever reason not socially mobile. I am waiting for Nick Clegg to reply to the open letter that my SLF collegues sent to Nick Clegg, see http://socialliberal.net/2010/11/27/an-open-letter-to-nick-clegg-regarding-inequality-social-mobility-and-fairness/
For as long as this letter remains unanswered, then I remain concerned about the commitment by Orange Bookers to poverty reduction.
The preamble of the constitution of the LIberal Democrats (http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx) is clear that the Liberal Democrats would want to eliminate poverty, as did William Beverage; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/beveridge_william.shtml
So in theory Liberals who join the Liberal Democrats are committed to this. However I am not sure that all Liberal Democrats are fully signed up to this because what I hear from the party leadership seems half hearted to me.
Geoffrey – maybe Mr Clegg is a bit busy to respond to open letters with running the country and everything. To be fair the preamble says that no one should be enslaved by poverty. It does not mean that we will ever get rid of poverty. As Liberals we (I think) all believe in a meritocratic society with equality of opportunity. Although there should always be a safety net, it cannot ever be generous enough to stop some poverty, which is a relative concept anyway. The key is that the state should enable people to get out of it by working and that people shouldn’t be disadvantaged by being born into such a situation. We have a long way before we get there as a country. Some of the so called “orange bookers” (the book is not a coherent group of policies) think that the centralised state is not a good deliver of social mobility. They may have a point. Beverage was a big proponent of voluntary action and a critic of an overbearing state. A hostage to fortune when you enlist a dead person from another era on to your side.
“Maybe Mr Clegg is a bit busy to respond to open letters with running the country and everything”
Maybe Mr Clegg should spend a few minutes doing what all governing politicians should do, which is to engage in a proper dialogue with their own parties and supporters, and make sure that there is a broad consensus in favour of what their government is doing. Maybe, when Mr Clegg has made a great virtue of his ability to pause and listen, he should engage with people like Geoffrey Payne, rather than just waiting for the local elections to be over before moving ahead with health privatisation.
All we hear from Clegg at the moment is how hard it all is, and how he just wants to be recognised as a human being. Reminds me of John Major.
@Stuart Wheatcroft, the political ideology known as social liberalism is a different concept to being socially liberal. Although obvious both overlap!
Guys…lovey little academic debate but ever wonder how Lib Dem voters define themselves? Where you stand as the only party that can beat Labour they define themselves as anti-Labour and where, as in the rural South West, you are the only party that can beat the Tories they define themselves as anti-Tory.
BTW…Orange bookers seem to me no more than economic right wingers who think gay marriage is a good thing…think most of the Tory front bench. If by “Social liberals” we mean the old radical left of centre, 1p on income tax, support for a prualist ecomony – they seem to me, well, defeated. Sad, I liked them.
Are any of the people here among the 65% who described themselves as “progressive”, and if so what do you mean when you say that. It just strikes me that a word that is used by both George Osborne and Ed Miliband to describe their policies does not have a single universally accepted definition…
For the record I only ticked two boxes: Liberal and Civil libertarian. I avoided Social liberal because of the lack of clarity over whether it means what the SLF mean by it or “liberalism on social issues”. I avoided Economic liberal (even though in many issues I am one) because it gives an impression that you only care about money and everything else can go to hell (an attitude better described as Thatcherism, though Thatcherism included conservatism on social values).
@ Niklas Smith…and those who share his views. So, there are no real differences between you and the Cameron Tory party? If there aren’t, or none that you can explain simply on the back on an envlope to a rather dim ordinary voter like myself, what is the point of you being in the Lib Dem’s – like the logo better, Orange a your favourite colour?
I can understand how a civil libertarian however economic right wing would not be able to back the old gay hating, hang ’em and flog ’em Tories but the Tory party has genuinely changed accross a broad civil liberty of issues.
The Tories also gave up on the corn laws a long time ago. If free market, cut the state down to a minimium, cut taxes/ limit benefits, get private companies running as many services as possible, etc is your thing then you’re 99% of the way to being a Tory…just start taking the Daily Mail and you’re there!
@Kevin: I’m sorry, but I don’t see where I said that my views were indistinguishable with those of David Cameron’s Tories. How would you describe their views?
One reason I don’t describe myself as an “economic liberal” is precisely because I don’t believe in a minimal state. There is more to the state than simply providing a basic infrastructure so that business can function and laws are enforced. As for private companies and NGOs running public services, I am quite open to that (especially free schools), but I think the sort of outsourcing the Tories in Suffolk County Council (“EasyCouncil”) are doing is madness. There is a big difference between having multiple providers in services where people have a choice (like schools) than in ones which are by definition a monopoly (like a local authority’s call centre).
@Niklas apart from your support for free schools, which circumvent local authority control, I find there is much I agree in your last posting.
On the question of choice in schools; if a parent wants to rationally do the best for their children, they would send their children to the best school, of which there can only be one and not every parent can send their children to that school, so they have to go somewhere else. However not all parents do what is rationally best for their children. Some parents did not benefit from their education and so are less likely to value it and care about which school their children go to. So choice for parents as to which schools they go to will benefit disproportionately middle class families where the parents value education more highly. Middle class children will disproportionately go to better schools at the choice of their parents, and as a result this will inhibit social mobility.
Surely the aim should be to improve poor schools so it does not matter so much which school a child goes to. The local school should be the best choice.
@Kevin
The day I can read the Daily Mail without retching will be… let’s not go there! But apart from that, I don’t recognise much of that policy list as being Lib Dem, not even of the Orange Book variety.
Free market? Yes, absolutely – but the Tories aren’t economically liberal free marketeers, they’re capitalists which is a very different thing (IIRC Vince Cable wrote an article a while back with a nice definition of the difference).
Cut the state down to a minimum? No – and I’d be surprised if you can find even one Lib Dem MP (or member) who advocates that. But that doesn’t mean the state is automatically the answer to every social problem either – there are some things the state does well and some things that volunteers or the private sector can usually do better. Personally, I’m probably not too far from Blair’s ‘third way’ when it comes to state vs private.
Cut taxes / limit benefits? Not by default, but I’m very much in favour of ensuring that someone in work is better off than someone on benefits – with the obvious exception of disability benefits (which I think are being cut too much at the moment). I do not believe that anyone but the tiniest minority of people would really choose a life on benefits, because there is a dignity in working and earning a living and to just throw cash at people and leave them on benefits for their entire life is to deny them a chance of a (hopefully) satisfying career and the self-esteem that tends to go with that.
Regardless of the reason for someone being out of work, studies show that it leads to feeling of low self-worth (even if it’s due to circumstances out of their control, which it usually is). But if they’re financially better-off on benefits then it doesn’t make rational sense for them to work, so anything the government can do to avoid that kind of disincentive is a good thing in my book.
As a side note – even on social matters I think you paint a very optimistic picture of how far the Conservative party has come. I don’t doubt that Cameron and many (most?) of his front-bench have given up on homophobia, sexism (well, overt sexism anyway) and many other historic prejudices. But they still lean strongly towards interfering in people’s private lives and relationships in order to make them live the way they think is ‘best’. I only need to listen to Cameron’s thoughts on marriage for confirmation that I could never support his party. And of course, the less said about many of his backbenchers the better…
@Catherine: Excellent points. I would love to see that Vince Cable article if you can find the link. And the liberalisation of Conservative views on moral issues is indeed overstated. Even sexism seems to make its appearance on their front bench – remember “Calm down, dear!”?
@Geoffrey Payne: Thank you for your comment. One reason that Conference is always a pleasant place to be is that Lib Dem activists find out that they agree with each other more than they expected 🙂 If only Lib Dem Voice comment threads were more often like that…
I’d be very interested to hear Stephen detail what terms are included in the other 4%… they could be most enlightening of all!