A couple of weeks ago, David Laws made a speech at Parliament, organised by the Bright Blue think tank, expressing his views on the future of the coalition.
You can watch the very interesting speech below, or on YouTube here.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What would Keynes do? (Charlie Larkin)
Why Britain should be wary of Andy Burnham’s Devolution Revolution (Iain Donaldson)
“Build, baby, build” but don’t lower our ambitions on affordability (Victor Chamberlain)
Twenty-six years of evidence on drugs. Twenty-six years of cowardice. (Tanya Park)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Nine in ten paying more than necessary in Vehicle Excise Duty
A radical agenda but can Burnham deliver?
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
The Joy of Six 1540
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Graham Evans 
Nigel Quinton 
Katharine Pindar 
Peter Martin 
Slamdac 
12 Comments
Well now it’s pretty clear. To quote DL, the terms ‘Progressive Conservative’ and, “small ‘l’ liberal” are interchangeable. He sees no difference between himself, a ‘liberal’ and many (progressive) Conservatives – presumably most of the ‘Cameroonians’. He speaks so glowingly of the Coalition. Listening to Mr Laws, I really find it so difficult to believe that I’m a member of the same party as him. Will he redress the situation – by actually joining his ‘natural allies’ in the Tories – or should I do it, by leaving a Party which I’ve been a member of for 30 years (far longer than David Laws, I would imagine). I don’t think the current ‘broad Church’ of economic liberals / progressive Conservatives (like DL and most Lib Dems in the Cabinet) and social liberals can really hold for 3 more years , can it ?!
good speech, particularly the point at the end about the perils of differentiation, and how it could set-back the evolution of the party.
This group is obviously the latest incarnation of the One Nation Tories that Thatcher tried to suffocate, but how can anyone describe themselves as a “progressive conservative”? The two words mean mutually exclusive things.
Still I like this think tank’s tag line: “progressive > conservative”. They do know what the “>” sign means, don’t they?
I note the complete lack of criticism of the Tory ‘cock-ups’ on LDV.
We have ministers running around like headless chickens, conflicting stories on just about everything and, from LDV, silence.
Why no separate voice? After all, as per Cameron’s famous put down, “It’s not as if we’re brothers”.
Jason. Very tempting, especially after the treatment they meted out to us, and Nick, during the AV campaign. I think, however it would be a misjudgement. Actually you inspired me to blog on this point with your comment. Thank you!http://greenwichlib.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/no-lib-dem-mudslinging-from-the-wings/
Jason, why not write an article yourself?
Wind back about 50 years and the ruling group on Glasgow Corporation were the Progressives i.e. Conservatives.
The main centre-right party in Canada used to be the Progressive Conservative Party; in 2003 it merged with another, newer, right-wing party and is now just called the Conservative Party.
@ Bald Reynold
I understand and sympathise with your predicament. Having decided that I am no longer at home as a Liberal Democrat. I have, perforce, to identify myself as a small l liberal, but I am certainly not a conservative, whether “progressive” or otherwise.
When I listen to this, I get such a sense of deja vu. “National Liberals here I come. Right is where I started from.”
You hum it and I’ll play it.
Paddy must be in despair.
The main use of Progressive as a political label in the UK was for the joint Liberal and Labour platform for the London County Council about a century ago. The Conservatives rans as Moderates.
@ Bald Reynard
My apologies for misspelling your name.