Whilst The Economist is calling for Liberal Democrats to move economically rightwards, the mood music from the newly-elected Liberal Democrat MPs is somewhat different.
In a piece for The House Magazine, Bobby Dean, the MP for Carshalton and Wallington, suggests that;
Starmer says he wants to end the politics of easy answers – and I agree. But on the exam question of “how to fix Britain”, he sidesteps complex answers in favour of a simple one that we have all heard before: we must tighten our belts.
If this approach turns out to be what it sounds like – a continuation of short-sighted decisions – there is a real danger that we will get the same results as before: stumbling productivity, low growth and declining public services.
He goes on to emphasise our call for investment in the NHS and social care and for greater support for those struggling with the cost of living, linking that to changes in the taxation system and concludes, with a nod to an old “New Labour” anthem:
It’s all too tempting to believe that, following the disastrous Conservative government, things can only get better. But if this Labour government is going to succeed, it will need to do better than rehash old tunes.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
North London's expanse
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Big brother state
Jago Hazzard rides on London's cable car and no one else does
Roland
Paul Reynolds
Jonathan Brown
Simon R
Peter Martin
12 Comments
Austerity is essentially a counter inflation policy. If demand needs to be reduced to match supply then it’s in order to raise taxes and/or reduce spending to ease inflationary pressures. It’s not necessary for any other reason such as to try to reduce the size of the government deficit or to appease “the markets”. aka the bond vigilantes. That’s largely a bogeyman argument.
Keeping the economy on an even keel, ensuring that we have some growth and inflation is kept sensibly in check is really all that is required. If things are ticking along fine the “markets” will settle down to do whatever markets want to do.
Besides creating unnecessary austerity to try to solve a non-existent problem the big danger will be Reeves’ New Labour penchant to try to hide debt by involving the private sector. See link below on capital spending on reservoirs and sewage etc.
The private sector isn’t wanting to hand over their money out of the goodness of anyone’s heart. They naturally want a bigger return on their investment than they’d get by buying government bonds. Any sensible government would choose to give them 3-4% on their money rather than the 10% + + that they are likely to be getting.
It’s crazy economics. The only reason for doing it is to keep debt of the books. They would rather have a high debt off the books than a lower debt on it.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-billions-private-finance-new-reservoirs-sewage-overflows-3289969
Why do the Lib Dems think that their voters want a party to the left of Labour? Is this what you think people in places like Witney, Oxfordshire, want? Many voters want a more sensible version of the Tories, not a party to the left of Labour. The people that want a more left wing government do not live in places like Witney, and many of the other now Lib Dem parts of Britain. If the Lib Dems are ever to be one of two major parties then it’s by being to the right of Labour. This is obvious, since the Lib Dems would replace the Tories.
@Kyle Harrison: Most voters are not ideologues; they don’t think very much in terms of political “left” and “right” and they typically think about politics for about 5 minutes every week. So talk of “left of Labour” or “sensible version of the Tories” is meaningless to many of them.
@Kyle Harrison
That way if thinking nearly destroyed our party, we had our best results after labour moved right of us under Blair and again now they’ve done the same under Starmer. When we moved right it did nothing for us.
If you want a more sensible version of the Tories then that’s exactly what labour are trying to be. No point in us trying to copy them.
Indeed our public services have now gotten into such a state that I suspect many ex Tory voters may be to the left of the present government and would support higher spending and taxation to fix them as we campaigned for.
We did not win on a manifesto but a general offer of a kinder fairer Britain. Where we were credible, that offer appealed to those who have suffered under the Tories but also to many of a generous nature to whom life has generally been kind.
It seems likely that those people will continue to form a plurality in the seats we won and many where we are not credible. It also seems likely that the reality of life under Labour will prove less kind and fair than their and our voters wanted.
@David: I’m pretty sure it was not being economically centre-right that destroyed the LibDems electorally for a period. What destroyed the LibDems at the time was (a) being in a formal coalition that somewhat subsumed our separate identity, and (b) so obviously betraying a clear manifesto commitment so soon after the election. At the time I was a floating voter and I clearly remember amongst people I knew the general delight and respect at the way the LibDems were being pragmatic about negotiating the coalition (as one of my friends at the time put it: Yes! They’ve [the Tories and the LibDems] both dropped all the sillier stuff they were saying!), and then the horror and sense of betrayal a few months later when the tuition fees vote made it look like the LibDems had just been lying to get into power (not because of the particular policy – personally I thought the commitment to abolish tuition fees was somewhat daft anyway – but because of the way Nick Clegg led MPs to vote for something he’d so clearly and absolutely promised not to do).
It really was nothing to do with it being a right-wing coalition that lost the LibDems so much support (after all the Tories massively increased their support in 2015). I’m pretty sure the same thing would have happened if the LibDems had acted that way in and been largely subsumed by a left-wing Labour coalition.
” Most voters are not ideologues; they don’t think very much in terms of political ‘left’ and ‘right’……….. So talk of ‘left of Labour’ or ‘sensible version of the Tories is meaningless to many of them.”
I think this is basically right. There is, however, still a basic class loyalty evident in our support for political parties. We are all aware that Lib Dems can do better in Tory facing seats. Disgruntled Tories from the more affluent middle classes are more disposed to voting Lib Dem, even if they are standing on a left platform, whereas they probably won’t vote Labour.
That’s too simple, Peter.
In fact, the choice of Labour or Lib Dems for erstwhile Conservative voters is heavily influenced by the local presence and organisation of the two parties. Affluent voters in many constituencies go Labour, where they see Labour as the credible winner. In others, it’s the LDs. The Greens – to the left of Labour and LDs – were credible in a few Conservative seats and picked up many affluent voters there.
Class in itself is a much less important predictor of voting habits than it was 50 years ago. Bear in mind too that Reform and Tories have made serious inroads amongst working class voters.
In 2015 many erstwhile Lib Dem voters who liked the Coalition will have voted Tory because they couldn’t see any reason to vote for us instead of the bigger party in the arrangement. The main reason for this was how the Coalition was conducted (from the Rose Garden love-in onwards) and the rule that both parties should “own” everything the Coalition did (which in practice meant the Tories owning the popular policies and us owning the unpopular ones).
@ Chris,
I didn’t include Reform in my previous comment but I’d say that many erstwhile working class Labour voters have less problem voting for them than they would the Tories. Reform are even more to the right than the Tories so we might expect this to be the other way around.
Labour voters are often characterised as being economically to the left and socially to the right. We’d probably agree that this was an oversimplification too, but there’s enough truth in that to make it a worrying thought. If Reform seriously want to go after the working class vote they need to add a bit of Socialism into the Nationalist mix. History tells us that this might not end well.
There is something in what you say, of course. There is always an element of tactical voting. However, it can’t just be coincidence that there is a strong correlation between Lib Dem electoral success and economic affluence in the constituency. I haven’t ever been to Witney, as mentioned by Kyle, but I very much doubt that Labour would have won there even in the unlikely event that the Lib Dem candidate had stood down and advised everyone to vote Labour.
Peter, have a look at City of London and Westminster, Chelsea, Kensington and Bayswater: all three exceptionally affluent seats. All Labour gains. Many very well-off voters back Labour.
Witney: LDs superior organisation. LDs didn’t
have such in the above mentioned three London seats.
Agree with your remarks about Reform: the leadership favours “Thatcherite” economics; their voters want better run public services. If Reform went populist economically, they would do even better.
“What destroyed the LibDems at the time was (a) being in a formal coalition that somewhat subsumed our separate identity”
Bang on. And Labour and the Green Party have the authoritarian left sown up, even if we did want to go there.
The other point is that Labour and the “left didn’t win the election. The Tories lost it, and the electorate basically voted for the party they thought were going to beat the blues. (Exceptions for idealogues like us of course, and there was some enthusiasm for “Reform”) This is shown by Labour’s popularity crashing so quickly. It didn’t happen to |Blair this way.
It seems to me our historic duty is to prevent Farage’s mob becoming established (whether they call themselves “Reform” “Conservative” or anything else. If we are successful we get to be second party, and the whole dynamics of any coalition change completely.
There will always be space for a party that is cautious abut the state, freedom loving, supportive of business, pro-properly regulated free markets and free trade. It could and should be the Liberal Democrats and is not incompatible with properly valuing human rights and supporting people especially through education.. Wrap that up with stewardship of the environment and I think that’s a pretty appealing package.
The Victorian Liberal party often campaigned on “peace, retrenchment and reform”. We could do worse.