So there we are. The deep splits in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have foreshadowed the division of the British voting public now into two nearly equal halves. There will be plenty of analysis of who the Brexiters are and why they won, but one thing seems clear. The Leave voters rejected the supposed authority figures, the elites of politics and business and finance, all the leaders to whom our forebears looked up. It seemed to be in that respect a genuine revolt of the masses.
An almighty wave, worthy of a Japanese painter, has crashed our own tiny ship on a stony shore, called Britain outside the EU. But mighty galleons have crashed with us, some never to float again. We should have more buoyancy than them, and Tim has certainly showed it since the result.
Still, as we painfully pick our way over the pebbles, we need to think about why there is this apparent rebellion of the masses against the elites. It seems that people felt powerless and wanted a sense of control. One way we could respond to that is by fighting again for proportional representation, which will make all elections in England and Wales meaningful, restoring democracy without having referendums.
But also, we know that ordinary people have been hit hard in the years of austerity, as benefits have been controlled and reduced, as the lower-paid competed for jobs with immigrants, as new jobs tended to be short-term or on zero-hours contracts, and as with the increasing population pressure grew on housing, health services and school places. In the Coalition Government, with our own ministers constantly hampered by the Tory majority, probably there was too little concern about the effects of the welfare cuts on the poor.
Universal Credit was a distant dream, and meantime the deserving suffered alongside the less deserving. They saw how wealthy capitalists could pile up the pounds, while they were lucky if they could do it by eating and drinking. It was a time when fortunes were built up by bankers and directors of companies, and rich investors hid money in offshore trusts. So it continued under the present Government, where we now have obscene levels of executive pay, while workers in low-paid jobs with zero-hours contracts have to resort to food banks to feed themselves and their families, because of weeks without either pay or benefits. The poorest have no safety nets, no savings for a rainy day, just the ever-present dread of having no money next week.
When articulate leaders then told people who could see inequality and injustice that the problems were caused by excessive immigration and the undemocratic rule of Brussels and the courts of Europe, they were believed.
The only way forward for us now to restore our little ship and sail it to safe havens is, surely, to commit our party to look for greater equality and fairness for the majority of our citizens. They don’t expect shares and share options, just real sharing of decent jobs, housing and health care. Let’s work now with the Left where we can, promote policies that benefit the majority but especially the young who now have fewer prospects than before, aim to reduce the deep divide which has been shown up, and build a better Britain for all.
* 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
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
expats
5 Comments
Yes, the depth of the splits in the Tory and Labour parties are astonishing as is the extent to which their leaderships have lost touch with and come to despise their respective bases. It happened because both parties followed policies dictated by the self-interest of the powerful and connected, justified by neoliberal ideology and ignored bad outcomes (which are, after all, irrelevant if the only real goal is self-enrichment of narrow elites). The dire consequences for many people and communities are laid bare in this link.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/liverpool-london-brexit-leave-eu-referendum
So it disturbed me greatly to read Sal Brinton’s assertion in her email of 25th June that “We are the only party who can lead the 48% of the electorate who share our values …” That is a catastrophic misreading of the result, one that sees it as one of rival tribes of ‘progressives’ and ‘xenophobes’ rather than a howl of anguish, rage and pain from the those abandoned by the political establishment – the very people that Lib Dems once sought to represent.
Yet again it seems that the “modern Lib Dems” (as opposed to the more traditional sort) have decided that their job in life is to support the status quo to the hilt, no matter what, no questions asked, and nowhere is this more true than of the EU.
Traditionally Lib Dems were for pushing power down to the lowest feasible level and for democracy. The EU as it actually exists (rather than the fairy-tale version some imagine) is all about the exact opposite – centralising power and unaccountable technocratic management. The disastrous outcome of its thoroughly illiberal structure is plain for all to see in Greece, Spain, Italy etc. Across the EU Eurosceptic sentiment is soaring even in core countries like France. The euro is a suicide pill that absolutely guarantees it will continue to worsen and that means the EU in anything like its current form is doomed.
So why, oh why, did Lib Dems not stick with their own philosophy and propose reforms of the EU to turn it towards subsidiarity and make it democratic? Why also have they gone along with a nationalist trope that presented it as Britain vs. the Continent when the struggle for a better EU should always have been internationalised (again in true liberal tradition) as liberals in ALL EU states (representing the people) vs. Conservatives (representing vested interests)?
I agree with Gordon. Because there is a paucity of political and strategic judgement within the party – and within politics generally. What is the trigger for an emergency conference to debate and democratically decide this issue?? I think it needs to happen asap, because at the moment I’m very worried Tim (for whom I voted and support) et al have got it badly badly wrong on this issue.
“Special conference:An additional meeting of the conference requisitioned by the Federal Executive, Federal Policy Committee, conference itself or 200 members, in not fewer than 20 local parties under the provisions of Article 6.6 of the Federal constitution…”
Thanks, Gordon, that is a vital contribution which is worthy of a piece of its own. I think in the dismay and confusion about the way ahead, your ideas and James’s may not be followed up, because many Lib Dems understandably want a say just now and LDV wants to fit them all in. But yet what you say is so important, repeat those ideas in whatever link that allows it. Let us defend the EU only in its liberal possibilities, demanding reform; and in this country let us demand that representation of the poor and underprivileged becomes central to Lib Dem forward thinking and policies.
Katharine – Thanks for those kind words and also for the original article.
My first comment was a comprehensive rejection of the party’s policy stance of recent years citing traditional liberal values. I don’t think I’m a lot wrong about those (although I stand to be corrected). Yet no-one has chosen to debate the issues raised in the over 24 hours since I posted it. So, does everyone agree or, as I rather suspect, is it the case that the party leadership simply blanks out and refuses to acknowledge dissenting voices like the 30% of members who voted for Brexit? If so, the leadership is gripped by groupthink; ignoring evidence of the EU ‘as it actually is’ and going with the fantasy.
It is one thing to dream of and work towards a liberal internationalism, a world where nations co-operate for the common good and to lift their people to a better, brighter future. Any sane person would support that cause. But the EU took a wrong turn a couple of decades ago. Instead of a liberal internationalism it’s rapidly evolving to neoliberal internationalism and those three little letters change everything.
Liberals traditionally support ‘freedom’ as a core value by which they mean, for example, freedom from poverty, ignorance and so on – i.e. freedoms for people as individuals and in communities that enable them to achieve a better, fuller life. Neoliberals also believe in freedom but they mean something utterly different – freedom for powerful people (and their corporate fronts) from the pesky laws and rules which they see as only useful to keep the “little people” in order.
This subtle redefinition is the same trick that makes cancer so deadly. Some cells go rogue but aren’t recognised as such because they still have attributes that tag them as ‘self’ to the immune system giving them a free pass. So ask what, very precisely, is meant by ‘freedom’ or get political cancer which is what the Lib Dems have done and that is largely why they’re in such trouble.
With good leadership that could change fast. The global neoliberal project is in deep trouble; the euro slow-acting suicide pill means the EU cannot survive in anything like its present form whether or not we leave. We could offer a different path. But do the party leadership want to explore that option?