Nick Thornsby regularly posts here on The Voice highlighting pieces elsewhere but there’s one post of his own which fully deserves a similar plug:
The progressive minority
If there is one ‘lesson to learn’ from Thursday’s various polls it is this: there is no ‘progressive majority’ in Britain.
Let us be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever – as if we didn’t already know it – that Labour is not a progressive, and most certainly not a liberal, party – and neither, in the main, are those people who voted for it.
As the No campaign liked to remind us, a majority of Labour councillors and members of Parliament opposed the modest upgrade of our democracy that the people were offered on Thursday. An overwhelming majority of Labour voters did the same. If the upgrade on offer had been more radical, it would have been even more heavily defeated, not because more Conservative supporters would have voted against it, but because an even greater majority of Labour supporters would have.
Those people – such as Polly Toynbee – who think that Britain on the whole is an anti-conservative, anti-reactionary country are deluded.
But they are even more deluded in thinking that the Labour party represents the forces of progress.
You can read Nick’s full post here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour giving Farage credibility by copycat adverts
Sinderins #dundeewestend
The Joy of Six 1322
In defence of free trade
Reform voters back PR and banning foreign donations
Andy Daer
Roland
David Evans
Nonconformistradical
22 Comments
There is little of consequence to be learned from the AV referendum other than that human beings natural bias to the status quo will win out over the possibility of a marginal improvement.
I agree with AndrewR in that the bias to the satus quo was clear.
But the article raises a wider question – I honestly have no idea what this word, ‘progressive,’ means. I suspect it means little to the public at large. Is it really a bad thing if Labour do not represent, ‘the forces of progress,’ if it’s just a minority pursuit? Is being ‘progressive’ as a matter of tribalism so good a thing? Maybe it is. If by, ‘progressive,’ you mean, ‘on the classic left of the political spectrum,’ then clearly the best that can be hoped for is modest, ‘progressive,’ elements in politics and government and there plainly is no majority.
I’d be more comfortable here if there was some definition of, ‘progressive,’ and why it is A Good Thing.
Progress – that means abandoning the old in favour of the new?
The is much wisdom that has been thrown away in the pursuit of progress, if we look at the native peoples of the world they know that they need to balance their needs with what the environment can suprt something that the industrialised world seems to have forgotten.
However some changes are beneficial e.g the development of medicines and the concept that a society needs to look after the welfare of ALL its citizens.
So what we need to do is present the reasons why a change is needed in a clear format rather than just saying this change is progressive because as i stated above not all progress is good progress.
Most people in this country are centre left and think the gap between rich and poor has gotten to high. This article on the bbc website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13410095 says that earnings for the bottom 50% are expected to increase from £17,100 to £18,700 between now and the year 2020. That won’t even keep up with inflation and most people will be worse off in ten years time than they are now. Earnings for the richest 0.1% however are expected to increase from £538,600 to £901,600 over the same period. Most voters are very unhappy about things like that and are therefore to the left of the Lib Dems, the Tories and Labour.
There is no progressive mainstream party to vote for in England, in Scotland however we have the SNP.
The AV vote showed that most people didn’t want to hand the Lib Dems the keys to the corridors of power and don’t think a system that can increase majorities during landslides and make things even more difficult for small parties is any better than FPTP. That’s why I didn’t vote for it.
I’d have voted for PR, I’m not voting for AV though.
Well done David. People like you helped sink any prospect of PR in our lifetimes. Hear that laughing sound? That’s Cameron, Osborne and Hague laughing at your stupidity.
@ Duncan
I agree there is a big problem with the definition of progressive. I thought about defining the term, but the post would have ended up being far too long!
To me, in every practical sense, progressive is essentially synonymous with liberal, or perhaps more accurately, to be a progressive is to be a liberal reformer.
I believe a more accurate use of language is to draw a distinction between partisans and pluralists: http://eachwishresigned.blogspot.com/2011/05/battle-in-british-politics-is-now.html
“Progressive” is a word that should only be applied to marginal tax rates that increase with higher income bands. It does not belong in the vocabulary of our party other than in that specific sense.
Our party is Liberal.
Yes, “progressive” really needs a context to be useful. Tarring swathes of the parties and population as unprogressive is simplistic.
I agree with Tom King’s excellent blogpost that the more interesting story is the tussle between the pluralists and the partisans.
@Duncan and @Nick Thornsby
I thought the same when reading this post – I’m not sure what a ‘progressive’ is either, and I’m certainly not sure whether I am one. I voted Yes to AV because it seemed to me to be a good idea to enable voters to express a preference, and it was the better of the two options. On the other hand, I’m not sure whether I’d vote Yes to everything that could be deemed ‘Progressive’. Some social changes strike me as retrograde, demolishing institutions and ideals that are very dear to my heart (making me, I suppose, conservative with a small c, and protective of some ‘socialist’ institutions, although I have never voted Labour or Conservative in my life…)
If progressive is synonymous with liberal, that brings us back to a discussion from another thread – the definition of ‘liberal’. And here too there is clearly a broad span of ideas: comments have offered everything from Ayn-Rand libertarian to David Laws’ four strands: personal, political, social and economic liberalism. A mindbogglingly wide spectrum of possibilities, many potential directions, and many potential conflicts. Some directions and outcomes are more attractive to the general public than others. Many of us can’t nail our political colours to our blog profile, because we’re not as attracted to the ideology as we are concerned about the outcome!
So what’s wrong with liberalism a la carte? Our public-school educated leaders will undoubtedly recognise the phrase ‘meden agan’ – ‘nothing in excess’. The less classically educated may recognise the origin of the following: ‘[The voting public is] Not Your Personal Army’. If the intent is to keep broad swathes of the public on one’s side, why not operate on the former basis, while keeping the latter in mind?
I think the issue here is that people are trying to own the term. To be a progressive Liberal is different to being a progressive socialist (are there any of those left in the Labour party ?). After all both have differing ideas of what progress is…..
However Nick conveniently forgets that plenty of people with progressive views he would probabl;y share were opposed to AV. Plently more saw some of the current Governments policies as anything but progressive and by linking the referendum to elections saw the two issues as linked. A different approach to the coalition (perhaps attacking the Tories as well as Labour during the election would have helped) may lead to a return to something like the “natural” spread of voters.
It is also unfair to label Labour as entirely un-progressive. I think the minimum wage, and the investment in schools that were falling to bits in 1997 both allow people to help themselves, a key goal of anyone who considers themselves Liberal. I also think that some of their other achievements in their term, the Equality Act, Human Rights Act etc were also progressive. I also believe they made huge mistakes in other areas strangley also including Human Rights(to list here would be preaching to the choir so I won’t).
The important thing is to start identifying areas of commonality and working together on those instead of attacking them all the time. The next area to me will be HOL reform. Clegg needs to show a bit of humnility and work with Labour on this if it is to stand any chance of actually happening. Better still he should maybe appoint a task force under someone seen as less toxic them himself, I would suggest Charles Kennedy. The one real truism is that the Conservative Party are not, in the vast majority of cases, progressive. To get anything through that is not sealed into the coalition agreement the support of a significant proportion of Labour MP’s will be required.
I’ve got to say I try not to use the term progressive. It’s like political correctness, there’s a certain arrogant disdain for arguments from other perspectives and ring of empty jargon to it.
I think social liberal draws are more accurate distinction between conservative and socialist social/economic ideas and politically liberal ideas.
The loss of the AV was sad, but it was a compromise shot at reform undone by a slightly self-satisfied campaign and antipathy towards the coalition not least from within the Conservative Party. And in the end this is an old democracy that some people believe should not be touched, Also if you believe in a pluralist view of liberal politics attributing negatives to other social liberal political parties out of party loyalty is sort of self-defeating. For instance why would the Labour Party offer full support to an AV campaign run by a party leadership that constantly attacks them.?
This is the crux of the problem for the Lib Dems. You can’t play adversarial party politics and expect support from people you are treating as opponents.
I voted yest AV.
“For instance why would the Labour Party offer full support to an AV campaign run by a party leadership that constantly attacks them.?
This is the crux of the problem for the Lib Dems. You can’t play adversarial party politics and expect support from people you are treating as opponents.”
Exactly. The Liberal Democrats need to decide themselves if they’re partisans or pluralists. And just mouthing the phrases it won’t cut it. You have *no* hope of any electoral reform without Labour – so as long as the current fad continues for blaming Labour for everything, including all of the Liberal Democrats’ electoral and political failures, the party will remain a minor footnote in British politics – only unable to play on its historical Janus faced campaigning strategies without being seen by the electorate as liars.
“If the upgrade on offer had been more radical, it would have been even more heavily defeated, not because more Conservative supporters would have voted against it, but because an even greater majority of Labour supporters would have.”
There is no evidence to suggest that had AV been accepted by the people, a vote for PR would have been more likely (or less likely).
These things come about, (as the agreement by Libs and Cons to hold an AV referendum) through political horse-trading in the particular circumstances of the day. So in other circumstances, we might have had a vote on PR. In other circumstances in future, we might yet have such a referendum.
“Well done David. People like you helped sink any prospect of PR in our lifetimes. Hear that laughing sound? That’s Cameron, Osborne and Hague laughing at your stupidity.” No, Cleggo did that by selling out for a misrable little compromise.
I was asked on the ballot if I wanted to replace FPTP with AV. The answer to that question is of course no, I don’t want FPTP replaced an electorial system that is just as bad if not worse.
You know, instead of an AV vote you could have got the rules changed to STV for local government elections only by legislation like the Lib Dems did in Scotland. To late now though, look forward to seeing more Lib Dem councillors go next year and with it the bed rock of the party, then all we’ll need is a general election to rid ourselves of them for good. The last thing Britain needs is such a two faced party that says one thing in one part of the coutnry and a different thing in another. I voted Lib Dem in the General Election because I believed they were a liberal center left alternative to Labour, then they voted with the Tories to charge £9,000 a year for a university place despite having promised never to do this, not as a manifesto pledge but as a direct promise from ever MP to their constituents as individuals.
@MBoy
Clegg stated that whatever the outcome there would not be a further referndum. Therefore we would be stuck with the miserable compromise…
IF, he had insisted a proportional system was on the ballot then maybe there would have been a different result. But the argument that STV or AM would follow AV was never a proven one. The ballot was about AV and neither campaign bothered to focus on that.
good article nick.
If we’re advertising blog posts on this topic I found some really good links for a discussion.
http://notyetoutofthewoods.blogspot.com/2011/05/different-visions-of-progressive.html
the way it seems to me Clegg is correct on the issue of progressive politics: politics by it’s very nature is progressive and no serious party wants to revert to a system where resolved problems are unresolved.
so all serious political parties have at least some claim to being progressive and this therefore becomes a matter of relative balance for the public to choose between.
additionally this marks an interesting stage in developing the long-sought and hoped for distinctive edge to LibDem identity, in line with his so-called ‘muscular liberalism’ that the party should make a stand in the ‘liberal centre’ of British politics, but that this ‘progressive centrism’ should not concern itself with equidistance from the other parties and rather set out our own independent stall based on LibDem principles and LibDem values.
If he can further develop this narrative then he may yet change negative public characterisations of him and lead a real charge of the bright brigade!
It is useful to read newspapers like THE Sun and the Daily Mail to see what we are up against. The torrent of bile they poured out against AV was incredible. The way they paint our party is incredible. It is pure and astonishing propaganda, it is the equivalent to the Soviet era state press used to defend the privilege of the ruling class and to make people think anyone opposed to it is nasty and dangerous.
I do not think people opposed AV because they understood it and rejected it on that basis. Almost everyone I talked to about it who opposed AV when they said why brought about arguments which came straight from the lies told by the likes of THE Sun and the Daily Mail. Had the case for AV been put in a balanced way which properly explained the system – as multiple rounds of election with the main difference from FPTP being that it ends the “don’t split the vote” penalty that forces people to restrict their choice to the big party candidates – I think it would have passed. Just as one example, a friend of mine who started off saying he was pro-AV ended up saying he was against it “because I don’t want to be forced to vote for parties I detest”. What he meant by this was that somehow he had been conned into thinking that under AV you HAVE to use all your preferences.
As I have argued elsewhere, the massive majority against AV was actually a massive vote of confidence in the Cameron government because it was a vote which endorsed the distortions of FPTP which led to that government being formed. The main argument “No to AV” used was that they believed it good for elections to distort the result, strengthening the biggest party and weakening third parties, and so giving the “decisive” government resulting from that. Well, that is just what we have, a government in which the Conservatives have been strengthened and the Liberal Democrats weakened, so it is indeed very decisive – that is what we are seeing in the decisive way it is making huge cuts and going for huge privatisations.
Now, how can all those very non-Tory places which gave a large majority to “No” in the referendum have voted in a way which is really a vote of confidence in Cameron? I think it is because the people there did not know what they were doing. In many areas where the Tory vote is low there is nevertheless a very high proportion of people who read THE Sun, so the work of this propaganda sheet was particularly effective there. Also, however, one must blame Labour. The high proportion of Labour Party people who became in effect Tory stooges by working for the “No” campaign must never be forgotten.
@Nick Thornsby.
“The Liberal Democrats are a liberal minority fighting a conservative majority.”
Really? There are reports that in “The Times” David Laws has warned against attacking the Tories!
@Mathew Huntbach
“Now, how can all those very non-Tory places which gave a large majority to “No” in the referendum have voted in a way which is really a vote of confidence in Cameron? I think it is because the people there did not know what they were doing.”
Here we go again. More Carmanesque rubbishing of the electorate for making clear their opinions. You insult the intelligence of everyone by telling them they do not know a good thing from a bad thing when they see it. Like millions in this country I do not read the Lie Sheets but I do consider the arguments and like millions of others I decided that AV was A BAD THING! Doesn’t it ever occur to you that you may not be right and millions of people may not be wrong? Can’t you allow that millions of intelligent people loathe the prospect of AV so much they voted NO overwhelmingly to AV despite Cameron’s support for a no vote even though in other circumstances they would rather bite their own arms off than give Cameron a vote of confidence? The interviews I have seen with the electorate suggest that they knew very well what they were doing and it is arrogant of you to suggest otherwise. They saw AV as an even more unfair voting system than FPTP. You may not perceive it that way but an overwhelming majority do. If you are typical of your party the Liberal Democrats should be careful, they are rapidly becoming perceived as the party that shoots the messenger!
MacK
Here we go again. More Carmanesque rubbishing of the electorate for making clear their opinions. You insult the intelligence of everyone by telling them they do not know a good thing from a bad thing when they see it. Like millions in this country I do not read the Lie Sheets but I do consider the arguments and like millions of others I decided that AV was A BAD THING. Doesn’t it ever occur to you that you may not be right and millions of people may not be wrong?
If I had seen intelligent and logical arguments against AV, I would have some sympathy with you, but I did not. I myself had to give the logical case against AV because I saw no-one else putting it. Many people said they were against AV because they hated Nick Clegg because of the coalition. Now that is a most ridiculous and illogical argument. They hate Nick Clegg because they think he has been too weak and the Toruies too strong, and so they vote for an electoral system whose biggest virtuie as given by its supporters is that it weakenes teh third party and strengthemes the biggest party? Er, that’s really so stupid, and sorry, to me it doesn’t stop it being stupid just becauise millions thought that way. It’s as illogical as voting BNP as a protest against racism. I.e. it’s voting for the very thing you say you are against.
Other arguments put against AV such as the one that says it gives some people more vote s than other are just plain wrong. They offend me as a mathematician. What you appear to be saying is that because millions of people say 2+2=5 I don’t have a right to say it doesn’t.
Sorry, I am perfectly able to deal with people who disagree with me but put a logical case against. In fact I often argue the case for things I don’t believe in because I feel the case needs to be put.
If you are typical of your party the Liberal Democrats should be careful, they are rapidly becoming perceived as the party that shoots the messenger!
I am not typical of anyone but myself. I spend much of my time in LibDem Voice mouthing off against the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, a man I detest for many reasons, one that he is too right wing, two that he is cluelss, three that he is incompetent, and I could add more, but maybe you get my point. I don’t think I’m typical of the Lib Dems in being quite so anti-Clegg as I am.