Many of us are deeply worried about what the rise of Ukip means for the future of the United Kingdom. However, take heart, Ukip’s success only makes the way for a more liberal, centralist and moderate future for Britain. For the success of Ukip facilitates one of the great aims of our party: the destruction of the two party system.
Nothing is of greater annoyance than canvassing a resident who, whilst admitting she broadly agrees with our message and policies, could not possibly vote Lib Dem. Why? Because her mother always voted X and her mother’s mother the same.
Whilst this tribal voting has been in decline with every new cohort to reach voting age, it has been stubborn amongst the older generations. The nostalgic voter however, has seen Ukip as a last remaining hope to save Britain, by returning us to the 1950s’ vision: women in the home and foreigners kept well away. By tapping into this older vote, 59% being over 65, Ukip’s victory in the European Elections seems, to most, inevitable.
However, the presence of Ukip should spur us onward. For with every year that goes by, the numbers occupying the Ukip position dwindle in demographic terms. The Liberal Democrats may have a serious image problem with the public at the moment, especially the young, but our core values and message are warmly received.
On Europe for example the overwhelming majority of students see any notion of Britain pulling out of the EU as ludicrous. So bizarre is this concept that most have looks of confusion when confronted with a recent poll showing 45% of UK voters wanting to leave the EU completely.
On key issues – gay marriage, Europe, progressive taxation, and immigration – the values and ideology of Ukip face demographic extinction. The truth is that Ukip’s recent success hides an existential crisis: their vote is overwhelmingly old. This is a problem that is unlikely to change.
What’s more, this vote is increasingly coming from both ends of the spectrum. Indeed, for many old Labour voters and true blue Tories this great irony is surely not lost – while once they campaigned so vigorously against each other, they now campaign united under a new banner.
So why is this beneficial? Given that Ukip are taking older voters, from both sides of the political spectrum, the two-party system seems over, as the last cohorts to stubbornly defend the old duel play melt away. Yet this electoral success is unsustainable as it overwhelmingly draws from the old. The eventual outcome then, in the fullness of time, is a politics in which our party’s values are welcomed, and the old duel play of Labour and Tory is dismantled. This can only do us good.
My message is that, although we face an uncomfortable time in the polls (with our party vilified in some corners), our values remain on the right side of history. Ukip’s course can lead only to eventual irrelevance. The image problems we face can be fixed with new leaders and new policies. The ideological problems facing Ukip however are structural and existential.
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
Nonconformistradical
Mark Johnston
expats
Chloe
Dr Ruvi Ziegler
40 Comments
Caspian :
So, you’re saying that Ukip voting (troublemakers), are old and will be dead soon, so just bide your time?
This is a veritable Masterclass in spin. Even if you are right, you’ve make a perfect case for an EU referendum, because us oldies have already had a bite of the referendum cherry in 1975, whereas under 54’s never did. So using your logic, which was also once Clegg’s thinking (circa 2008 including ‘the small print’), it must now surely be time to let the excluded under 54’s have a say? Or are you excluding younger people from having a say in their future? There, ….spun it back for you.
Hi Caspian, I like thoughtful articles like this, but unfortunately I think the analysis is missing something: adaption. People have been waiting for conservatism to die out with its voters for years, but it keeps adapting. It has an almost timeless market in being the slowest to adapt. You can already see UKIP beginning to move with the times on gay marriage.
I think the analysis that the young hold Lib Dem values so we just have to kind of wait for the times to change to suit us is also flawed. I think the young become relatively less progressive as they get older and the Lib Dems won’t be competing for their votes with the current conservative parties, but an adapted beast, which will be more attractive to today’s young.
Best regards
Let’s have a referendum on the EU. Then UKIP may become an irrelevance.
Not prepared to do that? You’ll have to put up with UKIP for a while longer then! Sorry.
Withdrawal from the EU on the basis of the crumbly vote (of whom I am one) would be the final insult to our young people with a more European outlook.
We threw away the option to join the project at its outset due to the same sort of little England attitudes and a variety of other naive assumptions, and ever since our relationship with the EU (aided and abetted by ex pat newspaper proprietors) has been based on ignorance, fear and lies.
The prospect of a referendum guided by the Mail and Dun fills me with absolute dread.
“……My message is that, although we face an uncomfortable time in the polls (with our party vilified in some corners), our values remain on the right side of history. ”
Well, Caspian, it depends which core values you are talking about.
The core values of Clegg, Browne, Laws and others in the “cohort” that has been trying to change the party beyond recognition are clearly not the core values on which we fought the last general election, or indeed any general election in the last forty years. They are not the core values which when we promoted them helped to build the party from the low point of 1970 to the high point before Clegg was installed by the tiniest of majorities.
Liberal Democrat core values do not embrace the hollowing out of the party and the undermining of paticipatory local democracy and local community politics, betrayal on tuition fees, the bedroom tax or any of the other measures which penalise the poor, nuclear power rather than renewables, shooting badgers etc etc. On these issues Clegg and co are on the wrong side of history.
I have no doubt that in local elections we may well achieve success in those areas where we can insulate ourselves from Clegg and what one commenter in LDV has describes as the “cleggacy”. But that success will remain limited until we end the problem at the top of the party.
I wish I could be as sanguine as Caspian. Look, four years ago UKIP was a party which did well at European level but was basically a joke. Today UKIP is the party which is challenging the hegemony of the ‘old’ parties and it is us who is the joke. I know that Lord Ashcroft’s polling shows most of UKIP’s support coming from the Tories and from older voters, but at the County elections last year five of UKIP’s gains were directly from the LibDems (including three in Eastleigh) and three more were in seats which we had held until recently. There are areas of the country where UKIP is creating a viable rooted organisation because they are giving a voice to people who feel alienated from and forgotten by the political establishment. It is in an “existential crisis” only in so far as it is still evolving as a party: at the moment it is clear about Europe and immigration, but is a bit of a tabula rasa with regard to most other issues. My fear is that it will turn into a ‘soft’ fascist party: socially authoritarian, covertly racist, economically liberal (in an Ayn Rand rather than an Orange Book sense). If they succeed in levering Britain out of the EU the consequent deterioration of our economy would lead to serious social unrest and a hard line response from whatever party or parties in power at the time. I don’t really see much opportunity for liberalism to thrive for some years whoever wins the next election.
It’s all very well talkign about the break up of the two party duopoly, but what do the Lib ems want to put in its place? The Party needs a coherent economic identity. At the moment there isn’t one. You can’t on the one hand trash the previous Labour government for believing the neoliberal myths about markets and not regulating the city properly and at the same time try to purge your own Party of non-neoliberal elements. What’s the point of moving towards electoral reform like PR if the Party only wants to appeal to 10% of the electorate anyway?
Andrew Whyte -De Gaulle kept us out the beginning more than a sense of Little England, not that one was not present at the time.
“the values and ideology of Ukip face demographic extinction. The truth is that Ukip’s recent success hides an existential crisis: their vote is overwhelmingly old. This is a problem that is unlikely to change.”
On the Sunday Politics today they ran a piece showing that former BNP voters ( ESP young, white working class men ) have now gone to UKIP. So I don’t think we can necessarily count on all the Kippers to simply die of impending old age.
It’s a bit laughable to say Ukip are facing an existential crisis when a few years ago they were nowhere.
It’s worth reminding people that in the last General Election Lib Dems standing on a broadly liberal social democratic platform got 6,836,824 votes. Ukip got less than one million. And yet now the Party is resorting to cheering itself up by saying that their future is orange, or more orange than purple anyway. Is this it now? Is this how far the Lib Dems have fallen that they’re now trying to talk themselves up as somehow bigger than Ukip. The Cleggite strategy is clear – diminish expectations.
To be honest, Clegg had no argument as to why we should stop governing our own country. Hope he makes more sense next time.
John Tilley is basically right.
As for UKIP they are now getting votes in some traditional strong Labour areas, and thedemogaphic of that vote seems to be rather different from that in the Tory strongholds. It does seem to include much of the BNP peak voe of a few years ago in such areas, and perhaps more since they are seen as more respectable than the BNP.
By the way, “old people” as a group do not die out, they are just replaced by more old people on the way up. People’s attitudes change as they get older and the innate conservatism of older people does not change. It’s probably true that a majority of people over 60 have voted Liberal at least once in their lives, at some level. It is also true that a lot of them do nowadays in places we win.
Tony
I just wanted to address some of the interesting comments raised.
I take note of the idea that UKIP has already started changing its pitch on things like gay marriage. Farage in the TV debates softened his tone slightly by implying that he only opposed it due to the risk of the European Court of Human Rights forcing ceremonies in churches. To me this only backs up my point, that UKIP’s ideological pitch is untenable. Farage I suggest is in full knowledge that to grow his party further he must reach into more moderate elements of the Tory and labour parties. You suggest that this demonstrates that UKIP will not die out. I suggest that this evidences just that.
The fact that there will never be considerable popular support for a radical pitch like UKIPs (thets not forget we are talking about 10-15 % here) the leaders of UKIP will be tempted, as Farage is, to move his pitch towards the centre. By doing so the UKIP we see, the UKIP I am scared of, dies. It dies in three ways 1) its ideology dies as its leaders become more moderate 2) it competes with the Conservatives on the centre rights and becomes indistinguishable and therefore ceases to become an attractive proposition for voters. (In this scenario a formal reunion of the right in Canada is a possibility) Thirdly, given that UKIPs flagship policy on the EU is so out of touch with students one would wonder how a party with UKIPs name and branding could survive in 40 years, when most have been brought up under the EU and have little desire in leaving it.
UKIP faces an existential crisis because it has constructed itself on an anti EU platform. This platform is unpopular with under 35s and given that it would be impossible to rebrand UKIP as a pro EU party UKIP faces demographic extinction. (assuming we vote to stay in when the poll comes)
I do not believe in any way that there will never be other parties like UKIP whether it be to the left or right. However the pluralist politics I spoke of helps us. It helps us as voter are less tribal and it forces Labour and the Tories to tac to their flanks to control these emerging pressure groups. This allows us room on the centre ground. ( I was surprised when we re started the Warwick University Lib Dems that our largest section of new members where coming from the Tories and Labour. Labour members were wary of the marxists on campus, this coupled with Red Ed forced them to our banner. Similarly Tory rhetoric around Europe and immigration has forced ex tory members to jump ship too. I appreciate that student politics is more radical and can’t be generalised but it’s not unthinkable to think something similar could happen in a pluralist politics.
CC – From what you are saying yo appear to see the future of the Lib Dems as a free market libertarian Party. Essentially for people who don’t like the Tory approach to immigration and Europe. I’m not sure there’s huge room for such a party.
At some point the Lib Dems will have to make a decision on economic policy and decide what they stand for. Clegg wanted to do that but never sought a mandate which is why so many people will never respect him. The whole ‘centre ground’ is a bit of a myth. The Lib Dems have to set out a clear economic philosophy. The Tories are for less government spending and regulation, Labour to some extent at the other end of the spectrum. What is the Lib Dem economic philosophy? ‘Centre ground’ won’t do. There are plenty of people in the Tory and Labour Party who want to win the centre ground in order to win elections. FPTP will still produce parties gravitating towards the middle in some way.
Well I enjoyed reading this, a thoughtful piece on direction.
I half remember 4 years ago everyone fussing about the BNP, and it seems to me that ukip are just the latest sensation. They do though help to break up ingrained party politics, even if we don’t like their direction while they’re having their day in the limelight. Once the excitement of voting for them wears off people will see through them. Meantime they might just spare us a majority Tory govt at the next election!
Frank Booth- I think your right. I think that FPTP has forced the Lib dems to be a broad church , as the name would suggest, resulting in differences in economic vision. (whether this would remain the same under PR is an interesting question) Although we could unite around calls for greater social mobility in opposition it is clear to see the tribulations of government have shown the deep divisions within our party on the economics. This is important to members as the economic vision (the philosophy as you say) is crucial to anyone interested in politics. However I wonder how important it is on the doorstep. The public want competence not a philosophical pamphlet.
I highly doubt whether voters are wondering whether our free school meal policy is born out of a philosophy of redistribution or equality of opportunity and negative freedom.
I fear that your comment is all too real and that our present state is untenable, that being a broad church. For I think it is one of the great strengths of the party that we have a clear difference in opinion and can boast in some way to be a microcosm of wider moderate society. The problem , as you highlight, is how that works in government when the party is demanded to make a call. I don’t think Mr Cleggs ” we followed the arithmetic of the electorate” in to economic liberalism in 2010 or social democracy in 2015 quite works.
The UKIP demographic has is and will change – so lets not get caught up hoping it will go away. If anything, the opposite is the case – it might be that for the first time a viable party of the right challenges the conservative party.
That would indeed help destroy the 2 party system – just a Clegg has destroyed the three party one !
Where would UKIP be if we had had a referendum years ago Where would the SNP be if one had been held years ago on non-SNP terms. The big parties have arrogantly treated voters with contempt. I don’t believe in referendum, but even less do I believe in the Clegg “read the small print” lying to people.
So the future of UKIP – the protest vote, the anti-gay marriage, bring back the 1950’s vote, local groups in perpetual opposition with nothing constructive to say on councils, a ready made place for disaffected cllrs to defect to.
Fundamentally, some of the UKIP points need addressing – beyond the scare stories of 37 million Bulgarians all coming over, is the right of all EU citizens to come with no checks, no restrictions and no controls a good idea. Not really. Who does it help, who is accountable. Controlled and managed migration with proper central govt support for local services is the not the same as trusting to luck and being surprised when communities are disturbed by large scale migration.
If it is the case the 2.2 million UK citizens live in the EU, about the same as EU citizens in the UK – what does UKIP proposals mean for these people – will they all be sent back to the UK.
“I fear that your comment is all too real and that our present state is untenable, that being a broad church.”
Successful parties in a FPTP system [need] to be broad churches.
@Frank Booth
“The whole ‘centre ground’ is a bit of a myth. The Lib Dems have to set out a clear economic philosophy. The Tories are for less government spending and regulation, Labour to some extent at the other end of the spectrum. What is the Lib Dem economic philosophy? ‘Centre ground’ won’t do. There are plenty of people in the Tory and Labour Party who want to win the centre ground in order to win elections.”
Isn’t there a certain illogicallity there? You say the Centre Ground is a myth, but then that many in the Tory and Labour parties want to win it.
An awful lot of voters see themselves as being in the Centre Ground. We want the majority of them to see the Lib Dems as their natural home.
Simon Shaw – most voters see their views as moderate I would agree. However I would suggest the centre ground in the country at large is well to the left of Westminster on economic matters and well to the right on social matters. It’s why I think Clegg’s brand of economic and social liberalism has so little appeal which may surprise a wealthy Londoner like himself, but wouldn’t if he visited most of the marginals in this country.
Simon Shaw
take your sentences —
“–An awful lot of voters see themselves as being in the Centre Ground. We want the majority of them to see the Lib Dems as their natural home.–”
and instead of the words ‘in the Centre Ground’ inserts either, UKIP, Conservative, Labour, None of the above.
Would you still agree with the sentiment?
Some voters are tribal and as Caspian says in his original piece vote for the same party as their mother and their grandmother. But we can win the trust and confidence of other voters as we have done in those areas where we have worked with local people of all political backgrounds ( we used to call this community politics ). In this way have we have in the not too distant past achieved majorities in places with very different voting traditions, Southport, Newcastle, Somerset , Southwark, Liverpool and Richmond .
Would you agree that in those and many other areas where we have been successful we did not limit ourselves to appealing to a notional “centre ground”?
The big problem with this line of reasoning is that older people vote and increasingly young people don’t. So whilst UKIPs electoral base may die out there is nothing to suggest that the LIb Dems will benefit from a frankly negligible youth vote especially in the overcrowded middle ground that both Labour and the Tories already occupy anyway.
Dear Caspian
Your opinion can only be respected (even if it is misguided), and it’s always good to see young people engaged in politics. But given some of the factually disingenuous statements you’ve made in your article, it must be corrected. You will indeed benefit from this, as your arguments when debating with a knowledgeable Eurosceptic will indeed be trounced with ease.
To reply to your fundamental message that Ukip’s’ problems are ideologically ‘structural and existential.’ Firstly, although it is impossible at this stage to refute your claim of ‘Ukip’s eventual irrelevance,’ their progression and growth thus far, appear an adequate measure of their future potential. As recent polls have signified, the more public exposure Ukip receive, the more public support proportional increases. Much is made, particularly from the Lib Dems, that the more Ukip’s ‘nostalgic’ position on Europe is exposed, the more public opinion for them will fade. But, as last weeks public debate between Farage and Clegg proved, this is not the case. Opinion polls did not shift, despite Clegg’s key arguments for remaining part of the EU including the risk of 3 million jobs and that only 7% of UK law stems from EU institutions. In fact, these mythological conceptions were convincingly refuted.
Secondly, Ukip’s problems are ‘ideological.’ Such a claim requires substantiation. the truth in fact, is arguably on the contrary. Ukip’s strongest asset is it’s ideological position. True, there are elements of frustrated voters who use ukip as a vehicle to protest at coalition policies, much in the same way as lib dem voters before they entered government in 2010. But Ukip stands for much more than the concept of EU withdrawal. Even academics Ford and Goodwin admit, the economy and immigration are higher up the list of ukip voter concerns. Ukip’s existence has occurred through the consistent failure of of successive government policy, and are thus borne not out of ideology, but as a symptom of a bigger problem. As such, Ukip works extremely well at grassroots level up. Their Councillors do not operate under a party whip system and can thus stand up for their local residents with greater autonomy.
In terms of their position on Europe, your age old line about taking Britain back to the 1950’s, domesticated women and no immigration etc is just plain wrong. In truth, there is a strong argument to suggest that remaining part of an economically dwindling political union is more inward looking than a simple free trade deal and friendship based on mutual cooperation. Let’s not forget, the 3 million jobs Clegg talks about are based on trade, not political union. Nowehere else in the world is a nation state required to be subject to a political union in order to trade. Let’s also be clear that the UK is the largest importer of German cars in the world. It would be counter productive for the German government to introduce tariffs on exports, the German manufacturing industry would not allow it. And let me also clarify your remark about no immigration. True, many Ukip supporting have significant concerns, indeed it is regarding number two on the priority list. But Ukip’s immigration policy is not simply to pull up the drawbridge, but to implement a skills based immigration policy which would allow the brightest and the best to come here to live and work, but would also prevent a mass over supply of unskilled labour which has unquestionably led to wage compression among tradesman and women, and has displaced opportunities for thousands of British born young people in search of low skilled jobs.Youth unemployment currently stands at around 21%, of course this is partially a symptom of the economy, but mass uncontrolled immigration has had significant effect on job prospects for young people. Lets also not forget, if we had all listened to the Liberal Democrats during the 1990’s, the UK would have joined the misconstruction that is euro currency. Thank goodness we didn’t. The effect of that decision is hitting home hard is the club med countries as a result. Unemployment topping 60% in parts of Spain.
So my Message to you.The ‘old’ voters you’re referring to, are increasingly becoming a diminishing proportion of the overall Ukip vote. Younger working class, formerly labour voters and indeed many who have never voted before, are consolidating an increasingly significant proportion of the Ukip vote, and this will be a continuing trend beyond the European elections this year.
Clegg and those on this site seems to be obsessed with the 1950s. There were some unpleasant things like the persecution of gay men but for most people it was a good time as they were becoming more prosperous and yet people were still polite and neighbourly in a way which many are not any more. Not many would have loud music blaring out at all hours to keep their neighbours awake, nor would they waste the doctor’s time with a cold even though a consultation was free by then. Most still looked after themselves rather than impose their problems on the rest of society. Of course there have been wonderful improvements in medical science but I guess that is not what people are referring to. It was a time of hope for many and that feeling seems to have largely gone, many people seemingly feeling a sense of despair and fear of any change whether they are old or young. Older ones do not like the EU and the younger ones fear leaving it even if that might be the right thing to do.
I’m sensing a few commenter’s here are starting to get the Ukip phenomenon, but unfortunately Caspian is not one of them.
Caracatus writes:
“The big parties have arrogantly treated voters with contempt.”
That is your starting point, in understanding Ukip. For a growing number of people, the established parties are the just same body politic wearing different coloured rosettes on different days. They are seen as a cynical ‘cabal’, and a controlling, nannying, self serving cabal at that. People are angry and fed up to the back teeth with their constantly lying, and constant deceiving, and…. ‘didn’t you read the small print!?’ Westminster fix-up. Ukip voters know full well that Farage and Ukip are not the answer. Ukip is a sledgehammer, being swung by the disenfranchised, and it is going to come down so hard it will make Westminster teeth rattle. Because sometimes you have to smash something that is NOT working, before you can re-build something more suited to everyone’s needs. Once Ukip has performed the task required of it, who cares if it withers on the vine?
A typical graph of the number of voters by ideological self-identification will show two peaks — one on the left, one on the right — with a dip between them in “the centre.” The task of a party whose main support lies on one of the peaks is, first, to maintain its hold on its base, and then attract additional voters — either from the fringe *or* from the centre, to the extent that this can be done without alienating the base.
The task of a centrist party is much more difficult; not only does it need to hold on to centre voters who are continually being appealed to by left and right, but it must also attract voters from the slopes of the left and right peaks.
The relative success of the Lib Dems in the past two elections has been due to maintaining support among centre voters (not all, but enough), *and* attracting votes from the left, particularly Labour base voters who had become alienated by Blairism. Since joining government, however, Clegg et al. have adopted a new political tactic: repudiating ex-Labour voters, perhaps hoping to find new votes on the moderate slope of the right peak. Oddly enough, however, this tactic has done nothing to convince those voters that they would be better represented by voting Lib Dem than by voting Conservative. As a result, the Lib Dems are left with only a small puddle of centre voters and a few others on the left and right whose identification with the Liberal Democrats is personal or sentimental.
The fact is that, for reasons I can only guess at, the Lib Dems (and the Liberals before them) have rarely had any success in drawing votes from the Tory base. They have had somewhat better success with Labour voters (though typically due to Labour own goals) — perhaps because Labour is (or sometimes has been) quite ideologically diverse.
At present, the Lib Dems have little likelihood of succeeding either in the strategy of drawing votes from the left or in siphoning them from the right. Nor can they really run a non-ideological campaign boasting of their competent record in government. The best that can be done right now is to try to maintain the coherence of the national base by reassuring them that the Liberal Democrats still stand for the social and liberal principles on which they were founded; ride out the coming elections; and hope, with a change of leadership and (most likely) a prolonged stint in opposition, to rebuild trust in the party. I can’t say what might happen if there were a change in leadership *before* the election, but in any case that is too remote a contingency to be worth speculating on.
@John Dunn “sometimes you have to smash something that is NOT working, before you can re-build something more suited to everyone’s needs”
Actually, when you smash something that’s broken, you not only fail to fix it, but you end up with a frightful mess and probably several self-sustained injuries. The way to fix a broken mechanism is to take it apart methodically, determine the problem, make adjustments and repairs, test them, and then put everything back together. Sledgehammer tactics only appeal to frightened and stupid people.
In any case, the only message that a series of victories for UKIP will send to the major parties is “Aha, we need to be more like UKIP — more nationalistic, more xenophobic, more bigoted, more socially conservative, more isolated, and less interested in dealing with the country’s real problems.” Do you really think that’s a valuable message that the “establishment” need to hear?
@JohnTilley
“take your sentences —
“–An awful lot of voters see themselves as being in the Centre Ground. We want the majority of them to see the Lib Dems as their natural home.–”
and instead of the words ‘in the Centre Ground’ inserts either, UKIP, Conservative, Labour, None of the above.
Would you still agree with the sentiment?”
Sorry, I don’t understand the question you are asking (or the point you are making).
@glenn
“… especially in the overcrowded middle ground that both Labour and the Tories already occupy anyway.”
Really? Do you say that because you are one of those in the “middle ground”?
I don’t think most of the public view Labour and the Conservatives that way if, for example, you refer to UK Polling Report studies.
@JohnTilley
Would you agree that in those and many other areas where we have been successful we did not limit ourselves to appealing to a notional “centre ground”?
Just to point out that I wasn’t arguing that. It’s the other way round.
I have repeatedly argued that our objective should be to see the majority of those in the middle 25% to 30% of the political spectrum viewing the Lib Dems as their natural political home. That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t expect to secure some support from outside that band (and more from the left than from the right).
Put another way, I can only really think of 5 places on the Left-Right political spectrum where we should expect to see a large chunk of our electoral support coming from:
1. From the right of the Conservatives
2. From broadly the same political ground as the Conservatives
3, From the Centre Ground
4. From broadly the same political ground as Labour
5. From the left of Labour
There is only one sensible answer there, and it is 3.
Simon Shaw,
I base it on virtually identical policies with slightly different slants, I think a lot of people fling labels like left wing and right wing around without really being able to define those terms. I think the lib dems would better off emphasising their radical humanist leanings rather trying to appeal to some imagined middle ground, Labour for instance introduced a lot of policies associated with the conservatives notably tuition fees and the ATOs tests as well as hands off banking reforms. As far as I know they didn’t introduce anything even remotely associated with their socialist origins! Under Blair they were economically to the right of the Tories under Major or even Thatcher. Ditto for the Tories., I’m not fond of them but they are not really as right wing as their critics claim they are and they’ve in this coalition introduced some social liberal reforms. To me the Liberal’s natural home is on what is misleadingly labeled the Left ie in favour of removing inherited privilege and trying to make the world a nicer fairer place instead of the Doctor Pangloss idea that we already live in the best of all possible worlds.
Simon, it is not just a Right-Left spectrum though and there are those who are Liberally disposed in all 5 groups of whom the Liberal Party/ Lib Dems in the UK have historically attracted people from groups 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Caspian: I do hope you mean “centrist” and not “centralist”. I dislike centrism, but it can be liberal. Centralism can’t be.
Simon Shaw: you seem to me to be defining the Liberal Democrats purely in terms of the other parties. Some of the things that most reliably define Liberal Democrats (civil liberties, devolution all the way, empowerment of communities of free association, environmentalism) aren’t at all defining issues for Conservatives or Labour, so why let us be defined by them?
All: I hope Caspian’s right, but it seems to me UKIP and other populist parties of the right are basically parties of fear and rejection, fuelled by confusion at a bewildering, uncontrollable, fast-changing world and and fear of loss of personal identity. Yes, in twenty years’ time very few people may be hostile to gay marriage, but they will be hostile to something else and people who when young rejected anti-gay or racist attitudes may as they age be frightened of something else.
I am old but I would never vote for UKIP whose policies are anathema to me. That said, I would suggest it’s not UKIP that faces an existential crisis but the Lib Dems because they threw in their lot with the Tories. Come the European Election you will find that out.
Simon Shaw
I accept that you genuinely do not understand my point. I am however gratified that glenn, Martin and Simon Banks have expressed similar points to my own.
It maynexplainmympoint better if I were to draw out an existing campaign in your own area. Liberal Democrats in Southport are I believe campaigning to keep open local libraries which the bone-headed Labour Sefton Council are trying to close. Now if one were to argue in traditional left / right terms, one might argue that supporting public libraries puts the Liberal Democrats to the left of those who want to close them. I expect you might respond to say that it is not a simple left/right issue and that supporters of local libraries come from across the political spectrum. I think that both are probably true.
What I hope you will acknowledge is that there is no “centre ground” on keeping libraries open or closed. You either close them or you keep them running.
Unfortunately in UK politics Conservatives and Labourites often agree and so if like Cleggyou go for the centre ground youmend up in exactly the same place as the Conservatives and Labourites.
I have begun to think that UKIP have shot their bolt. With only 7 weeks to The European Elections shouldnt UKIP be rising in the Polls ? Instead they seem stuck around 12% in the Polling averages. Perhaps the Immigration hysteria at the end of last year drained some of their poison. Its hard to keep yelling “The Romanians are coming ! ” when they dont.
John Tilley:
The problem with the smaller local libraries is that not many people use them as they prefer to go to the bigger ones where there are more facilities or have a computer at home where they can get the information they need. I used to go to the Library several times per week but since I bought my PC I just go once in a while to the Central Library as the local one does not keep the information I want. I cannot help noticing that very few go there now compared with about 8 years ago. It is sad but somehow a new way of providing the services that people need must be found.
“What I hope you will acknowledge is that there is no “centre ground” on keeping libraries open or closed. You either close them or you keep them running.”
Couldn’t you just close half of them? In the same way that it was suggested we could get rid of half our nuclear weapons?
Simon Shaw – Please correct me if I’m wrong but it seems that you view political positioning in almost exclusively pragmatic terms: the Lib Dems should target the largest pool of votes, wherever they may be. Centrism before liberalism. I’m uncomfortable with this. The middle ground is often a sensible place to be but its occupation all too frequently involves an excessive dilution of basic principles. Look at Labour’s Blairites. And this view of the spectrum as simply left to right seems to be overly simplistic.
Maybe I’ve been barking up the wrong tree but I thought this party was about liberalism not centrism or equidistance. If being liberal conflicts with the political middle ground then I’d like to see the party up sticks for more promising territory.
nvelope2003
I had not intended to start a discussion about libraries, I was just aware that in Southport it has been an issue on which the local Liberal Democrats had campaigned and therefore was an illustration of my point on centrism.
I obviously do not know about your local library but here in Kingston when I was a councillor we were told similar things about small local branch libraries; despite that we opened a new small branch library and interestingly it is still open and popular today twenty years later.
Chris
Yes a good parallel. I expect any time now Jeremy Browne will be sharing a platform with the Tax Payers Alliance and the IEA to propose this policy for Libraries.