The June edition of Prospect magazine includes an article titled Liberalise or Die by Richard Reeves and Philip Collins (no, not that Phil Collins).
The authors argue that the Labour Party must abandon its centralising Fabian tradition and become liberal. No mention of the fact that a perfectly acceptable liberal party already exists.
The article has already earned an angry reposte from John Harris in Monday’s Guardian.
Well, chaps, what do we think?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why health is the theme for the Lib Dem local election launch (Mary Reid)
OfSTED needs urgent reform now – and the Lib Dems should be leading calls for it (Wayne Chadburn)
Why Putin’s arrest warrant matters (Jack Wilkin)
Self-identification, a Returning Officer’s Perspective (Richard Gadsden)
Humza Yousaf narrowly elected as Scotland’s First Minister (Caron Lindsay)
Could this be the reason I have a strong interest in Edwardian Liberalism? This is me in a sailor suit
Councillor joins Lib Dems in Suffolk
Encounters
The Time I Met Paul O'Grady and Lily Savage at the Same Time
Satisfaction with the NHS falls to lowest level since records began in 1983
Ed Davey launches Lib Dem local elections campaign in Berkhamsted
Demolishing the Blue (hay bales) Wall: Lib Dem local election launch
My tweets
UK Government to reintroduce Victorian prison hulks?
Roads and pavements improvements for the West End 2023/24 #dundeewestend
David Evans 
Jeff Jeff 
Roland Roland 
29 Comments
Oh, I see. So the Lib Dems are liberal, despite opposing the smoking ban and being in favour of ridiculous green taxes?
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Green taxes are no less liberal than the current income tax system.
What is with this constantly regurgitated asinine argument of “it’s no less bad than what we’ve got” or “others are worse than what we’re suggesting”?
Since when was it ok to say that doing a shit thing is ok because other shit things exist?
How are green taxes not liberal? You may not agree with them but giving people incentives through the tax system to change behaviour rather than using compulsion seems pretty liberal.
Green taxes strike me as more liberal than income taxes, which we intend to reduce, or taxes on consumption, which I seem to recall the Tories being especially fond of.
It would be a terrible mistake to abandon them in some short-termist attempt to follow the opinion polls.
Returning to this article, I seem to recall that it was written long ago, so it’s a bit strange to see it posted now. The idea of Labour having a liberal streak is simply laughable. Old Labour, New Labour, Blairism and the tedious, piety of the “Third Way” have nothing to do with liberalism. We found that to our cost after 1997.
Some of Collins’ ideas are excellent, but the idea of this government delivering on them is risible.
Enough already!
Please can we get back on topic?
Is what Collins and Reeves are arguing a credible strategy for Labour? Why no mention of the Liberal Democrats as an alternative repository for such values? Where would the Lib Dems differ from the Collins/Reeves position?
In reply to Asquith:
The Reeves/Collins article has only just been published, in the June edition of Prospect. I would be interested to know why you think “it was written long ago”.
Quote from Lee Griffin on Lib Dem Voice from 29th May 2008:
“The question is, are the Lib Dem’s brave enough to go for truly green policies rather than unjustified and illiberal sweeping green taxes that financially penalise those that even manage to succesfully organise their carbon footprint?”
Sounds like an admission that green taxes are not quite what they seem, which is precisely my point.
Anyway, Labour should obviously become more liberal as they are casting away their libertarian supporters. Being a Labour supporter doesn’t mean you can’t support freedom, but this government evidently has a very different agenda.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
I respect John Harris for supporting the Lib Dems att he last general election, albeit very reluctantly.
However I cannot understand his objection to what is a very good article by Richard Reeves and Phil Collins.
If Labour could be persuaded to go down this route – and there is no sign that they will, then the left of centre politics personified by Robin Cook in the past could resurrect the “realignment of the left” that Jo Grimond called for many years ago.
At the moment in time there is nothing worth resurrecting at all from either of the other parties.
Simon Titley, I refer to the fact that this article was mentioned on the blogs long ago. Jonathan Calder blogged about it as long ago as the 27th of May. Admittedly the full article has only recently become viewable, but it might still have been a better idea to have the general discussion earlier.
I agree that civil libertarians have been driven away from Labour, but I can’t envisage them coming back and I can’t envisage Brown, or any likely replacement, doing anything for them. They know better than to vote for one of the conservative parties.
Enough of your hurling “asinine” around, Lee Griffin.
Firstly, it is perfectly legitimate to make a direct comparison between two policies, even if to determine which is ‘less bad’ than the other.
Secondly, I did not in any way state that ‘doing a shit thing is ok because other shit things exist’.
There’s no thirdly.
Once Brown goes, i think we’ll see a shift to the left in the Labour party as New Labour is effectively discarded. Look at what John Cruddas and others are proposing, and it soon becomes clear that, when the next generation of Labour politicians takes over from the old guard, they’ll be more Compass than IPPR.
New Labour was neo-liberal from the start, which is where it went wrong. So by saying “for New Labour to survive, it must become new liberal” Reeves & Collins completely lose all credence as they search for some cadence.
Bearing in mind that their description of the Beveridge-inspired NHS as a monument to social democratic ideas is meant as a compliment, this article would make me want to laugh at their self-indulgent ideological feather-bedding if it wasn’t so terrifyingly dimwitted – did they get paid for that drivel?
LFAT – ‘Green Taxes’ is an umbrella term which covers a wide range of proposals all of which claim to take environmental concerns as their first or main priority.
There is little or no consensus about what specific ‘green taxes’ are likely to be introduced or how the principle can be fully squared with sane economics, so picking up on this as a topic to beat your opponents over the head is a shallow act of partisan cowardice.
I am quite prepared to stand up for the principle of providing incentives for better environmental behaviour through fiscal policy on the basis that by designing them in such a way as makes financial and economic sense is solidly liberal.
Oranjepan – there is a vast difference between “neo-liberalism” and new liberalism. Collins and Reeves are being quite precise in their definition.
Frankly, I struggle to find anything in this article that I disagree with. Equally, I struggle to find anything substantial in this article that the Labour Party would ever seriously contemplate. The John Harrises of this world would never allow it.
The stark choice before them is indeed “liberalise or die”; it’s just that most of them would rather opt for the latter on the assumption that the unions will always bail them out no matter how unelectable they become.
Freethink blog also had an entry on this issue earlier.
If Labour did lurch to the left, they might well win votes on the basis of it. There are more than enough people who want more council houses, more redistribution, more legislation to protect temporary workers & workers’ rights in general, and so on. In fact, reading between the lines, many BNP voters are old-school socialists.
So we can’t reflexively dismiss the idea that going leftwards will see Labour gain votes from those who had previously abstained in disgust.
But such people are concentrated in Labour strongholds, and are rare in marginal seats, so under the present electoral system that isn’t likely to be a winner. Just like the Tories know they can’t pile up more and more votes in the south-east and lose everywhere else.
James, I apologise that I haven’t got your qualifications in political cryptology, but the way the article is written it seems to attempt the impossible of appearing to come from a non-partisan stance.
And it attempts this while the authors happily lap up every piece of conventional wisdom about how the political debate has been framed til now before mutely accepting the popularity of a redefined context proves its validity – which makes me highly suspicious of their underlying intentions.
Anyway I don’t agree that this or any choice is a simple two-sided matter – for Labour it is “liberalise, gradually wither away or bypass all controls where possible and make everybody suffer in the meantime” – of which I think they’ll continue thinking they are doing the former while we increasingly percieve them as doing the latter, and hindsight will definitely show the impossibility of avoiding the fate of all political careers.
This article has been around for a couple of weeks. I commented on it at more length in the Prospect First Drafts blog.
In summary, the article seems to say, rather persuasively, that the only way for the Labour party, as we have recenttly known it, to survive is to become a redundant near-clone of the LibDems. Should it not be headed “An Apolgy to Shirley Williams – We Who Did Not Follow You Now See We were Wrong.”?
Without getting deeply into the green tax arguments, a turn from centralism by Labour seems to me to offer them a way out of the creek without needing a paddle. But I’ll believe it when I see, as I think that the idea of giving autonomy to others is pretty much outside the universe of the current New Lab leadership generation.
One green tax, I love the reference in the Groan to Norman Baker on Transport:
“Norman Baker, the Lib Dem transport spokesman, said: “With Labour’s 30-year plan for the railways stopping inexplicably in 2014 and no firm proposals from the Conservatives, we are the only party with concrete proposals to build a transport system fit for the 21st century.”
Could somebody explain to me what was being done with Labour’s management plan for the railways in 1984, and did Maggie know that she was a face painted on a hot air balloon controlled by Mr Kinnock?
There’s probably a political angels on a pinhead or Groan subeditting explanation somewhere, but I can’t find it…
Sorry, forgot the url:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/03/liberaldemocrats.transport
Even if Labour were to lurch to the left, that won’t mean that they’ll be any more liberal than they are now – ‘left’ is just as sinister as concept as ‘right’ (more so?)
Anyway, the new politics is heading onto our ground, it’s up to us to play it well. There’ll always be conservatives in any system, and we can communicate with at least some of them when there’s mutual concern, but there’s no need for socialists/whatever the Labour party is these days and we should do everything we can to hasten their demise. We need to understand that Labour – not the Tories – is the obstacle to progressive politics.
“With Labour’s 30-year plan for the railways stopping inexplicably in 2014…”
Matt, I think he means that Labour has a 30-year plan, supposedly lasting from 2007-2037 but, as of yet, they haven’t come up with anything beyond 2014. They published this white paper last year.
Thanks. There’s a bit in the bowels of teh Transport Report somewhere which I have now found.
Looking at the paper. First sentence:
>London, Birmingham and Reading emerged as the big winners of the government’s strategic plan for the railways today.
That would be “sod our traditional heartlands”, then .
Incidentally – one for Mark P.
Why does the Guardian call this page “immigrationpolicy.transport”? There’s a tiny link to “Immigration”, but it’s a bit spammy in my view.
“a perfectly acceptable liberal party already exists”
I take it you mean UKIP since expressing traditional liberal views is allowed in that party & is officially forbidden in the LibDems.
I thought UKIP were more sort of mugwump whigs (and with a pretty appropriate levelof support)?
Neil Craig
I don’t want to sound rude, but what exactly are you doing here? I’m glad to see constructive critics like Passing Tory or LFAT, & would like to see more, but I’ve yet to see anything from you except constant bitching.
I’m trying to encourage traditional liberal politics in Britain. How about you?