Here’s your starter for ten in our Saturday slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
‘Can a progressive alliance between the Lib Dems and Labour work?’ That is the question asked in this month’s issues of Total Politics magazine, debated by Neal Lawson of the left-leaning Compass pressure group (who argues Yes) and Labour MP Michael Dugher (who says No).
Neal’s is a thoughtful piece, which recognises the ebbs and flows of history — but does not view them as inevitable. After al, it was only 13 years prior to the Coalition being formed that Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair were all set to unleash their joint Project on their largely unsuspecting parties. Who knows what the political situation might look like in, say, 5-10 years’ time?
Naturally Neal’s article is coloured by his anti-Coalition view, but there’s plenty of thought-provoking material, including his provocative wish-list of what the Lib Dems should do next. This excerpt offers the gist of his argument:
A cursory glance at British politics would suggest that such a realignment is further away than ever. But take a closer look. As with Labour, so the Liberal Democrats have been the victims of a takeover by a small, rather neo-liberal elite. There will be a reaction to this – and there already is; witness their conference vote on rejecting NHS reforms. And emember, too, that, unlike Labour, they are still a democratic party. …
Over in the Lib Dem camp I hope one of three things happens; either the social liberals should take back control of their party, or they should split between the small groups of Orange Bookers and the rest. Alternatively, a large block could leave and join Labour or the Greens, who are, by necessity, the other part of any progressive alliance. What they can’t do is stay indefinitely in a coalition with George Osborne.
Agree or disagree? Let us know what you think below…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
44 Comments
The idea begs the question whether either party is “progressive”. And if so, what do we mean by that?
Jock raises an important question. And one that has been debated on this site in recent months.
Surely, if we are serious about pluralism in politics the answer to whether in would be possible at some time to work alongside Labour (or anyone else with enough votes) has got to be yes. It may be as uncomfortable as working with the Conservatives (should be) but it’s got to be possible.
Inclined to agree with the sentiment – party-wide we clearly have more in common with ‘the progressive left’ than we do with George Osborne – but it does expose the Labour arrogance that all we need to do is come to our senses and everything will be alright.
I agree with Jock. If you think I’m `getting into bed` with the local Labour Party (no bed would be big enough but that’s another story!) you’ve got another think coming.
My local Labour party may be `progressive` in their own narrowly self-defined terms – however their BEHAVIOUR is totally regressive and unenlightened.
To be progressive I think you have to have three qualities
1) Ethics when dealing with people and the electorate
2) Transparent when it comes to budgets and the alternative you’re putting forward
3) Ensuring that progressivism doesn’t exclude those on lower and middle incomes who are locked out of the benefit system
On all these local Labour is FAIL FAIL FAIL!
“Over in the Lib Dem camp I hope one of three things happens; either the social liberals should take back control of their party, or they should split between the small groups of Orange Bookers and the rest. Alternatively, a large block could leave and join Labour or the Greens, who are, by necessity, the other part of any progressive alliance. What they can’t do is stay indefinitely in a coalition with George Osborne.”
All part of the Labour /Miliband narrative that the natural party for us to ally with is Labour, that the Coalition is part of an entryist ‘orange book’ plot and that if we end the Coalition Labour might be kind enough in future to let us be in Coalition with them.
Which would be laughable if we didn’t have ‘ useful idiots’ like Richard Grayson and Linda Jack working from inside our party (while sitting on Labour Party Committees) to bring this about.
>Neal’s is a thoughtful piece,
It would be useful if you linked to the actual article, rather than the home page of the magazine (plastered with ‘vote no to AV’ adverts!!).
>Over in the Lib Dem camp I hope one of three things happens; either the social liberals should take back control of their party, or they should split between the small groups of Orange Bookers and the rest.
I hope the party stays a ‘broad church’ where a wide diversity of views on all subjects are tolerated, rather than splitting into narrow little tribes, none of which would probably fully represent my views of the life, the universe, etc.
>Alternatively, a large block could leave and join Labour or the Greens,
If you are an authoritarian who thinks they know what’s best for everyone and want to micromanage other people’s, feel free. Makes no more sense to me than would switching to the Tories.
Does the author not get that we are aware of the choices between the two major parties and don’t support either for good reasons?
>What they can’t do is stay indefinitely in a coalition with George Osborne.
Does this bloke understand how coalitions work?
It lasts till 2015 (hopefully1). After that, either one party gets an outright majority and doesn’t need a junior partner, or (realistically!), either the Tories or Labour get a tiny majority and have to look to form a new coalition.
Working with the Tories now doesn’t mean we couldn’t work with Labour (if they could work with anyone) post-2015. We’re not ideologically welded to either (thankfully).
Funny how it’s only in England these debates seem to take place.
Labour and Plaid are kicking lumps out of each other in the election campaign in Wales, despite having been in coalition and the possibility of being so again in a few weeks.
Don’t hear anyone loudly complaining that Plaid can’t “stay indefinitely” in coalition with Carwyn Jones.
Oops:
…other people’s, feel free.
the missing word is ‘lives’
(wish there was an ‘edit post’ option!!)
It is rather a strange question really, can you form a socialist alliance? Well of course you can, a political party is not a machine it is a group of human beings who can form relations and alliances (and make them work) if they so desire.
All 3 of the major parties tend to have a broad range of opinion amongst their members, for some elements the only real difference between the factions is the colour of the rossette.
You may have issues in the near future though as NC seems to have moved half of the Lab MPs into the Con/UKIP/BNP parties, which will probably not endear them to your Party and have them spitting feathers no doubt. Also, after reading a lot of Labour blogs I would say your Party isn’t really trusted by many in Labour due to campaign tactics you’ve used in the past, so that may be a barrier which you will have to work on.
I think that as long as Labour completely misses the point about the LibDems and about the nature of coalition politics, as this argument seems to be doing, there won’t be much of a chance for LibLab alliance. I think it’s a pity, because it ought to work, and better than a LibCon coalition, to be honest.
As long as Labour doesn’t understand that the LibDems aren’t just ‘Labour Light’ (or, at the moment, ‘Labour Light’ led astray, as they would have it) this won’t happen. As long as they don’t understand that ‘not Labour’ doesn’t necessarly mean ‘right wing’, this won’t happen. Again we are treated to the idea that the evil ‘Orange Bookers’ have temproarily hijacked the LibDems, which is the only reason why they are currently not behaving as ‘Labour Light’ should. It’s obvious that there are different opinions within the LibDems, but this is simply too simplistic and misses the point about liberalism, instead clinging to the old one-dimensional left/right model which simply isn’t sufficient to describe people’s political position, or to describe accurately where the LibDems feature in the political landscape.
Thus, this article just shows how far we are from a point where mutual understanding is possible. How can there be an honest conversation if one side is unwilling to deal with the LibDems as they are, and insists that before any deal is possible, they turn into the LibDems as Labour wants them to be?
Frankly, it makes me sad. I’d rather like to see a coalition between LibDems and Labour: in policy terms that ought to be an easier fit in many respects. But the Labour mindset needs to move on to understand the fundamentals of collaboration between *distinct* parties. No wonder that they haven’t yet come up with an analysis of the current coalition which actually matches reality and which would help them to become the effective opposition we urgently need.
@Simon McGrath
“Which would be laughable if we didn’t have ‘ useful idiots’ like Richard Grayson and Linda Jack working from inside our party (while sitting on Labour Party Committees) to bring this about.”
Nice display of intra-party tribalism. Of course, it might be said that the only ‘useful idiots’ are the trojan horse tories such as yourself…
@ Maria “As long as Labour doesn’t understand that the LibDems aren’t just ‘Labour Light”
——————————————————————-
Unfortunately in my constituency of Cheltenham and in others such as Bath and Chippenham that is exactly what we portrayed ouselves as.
The elction campaign in these constituencies had 3 messages.
1) Our candidate is a good bloke standing up for …………
2) You can’t trust the Tories
3) Labour can’t win (so vote for us because we’re a bit like them only nicer)
It would be profoundly in the interests of Liberalism (and liberalism) if there were no Liberal party and instead left-wing Liberals formed a community of opinion within a left-wing party while right-wing Liberals joined a right-wing party. That way would mean the ideal political system of two broadly based but ideologically distinct parties, each capable of government, competing with each other.
Typical narrow minded Labour view that we’re currently being hijacked by right wingers. No, we cannot stay in Coalition with the Tories indefinitely, just for as long as it’s the best option for us, for them and for Britain.
I agree with “Jock”. Is it accurate to describe the Conservatives and the current LibDems as “progressive”/
So err, Vince Cable as a useful idiot too then?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/22/vote-for-av-vince-cable
@peter – ‘if course, it might be said that the only ‘useful idiots’ are the trojan horse tories such as yourself…’
I joined the party in 1976 .. an awful long time to be a Trojan horse.
@G – have you actually read the article – vince is calling for an alliance on AV. Nothing else. and he isnt as far as I know on any labour party committees.
Of course we could form a coalition government with Labour, we have just as much if not more in common policy wise with the Labour Tradition as we do with the Tories. What it will take though is Labour to grow up and stop blaming us for the coalition and all the cuts (many of which they would have made themselves had the won the election) when they failed to win enough seas and had a very unpopular Leader which made such a coalition after the last election impossible. On the other hand we need to stop arbitrarily attacking Labour whilst seemingly defending the Tories we should be critical of both where they deserve it, although that is a difficult if not impossible thing to do whilst collective responsibility demands we defend all Government Policies without even pointing out what the Lib Dem position is.
Why are we even giving this the time of day ? We should seriously consider splitting so we can become Labours b*tch, sorry, junior partner ? Would any Labour site publish an appeal for Labour to split so their liberal faction could work with us ?
Labour arent Progressive. Dont take my word for it , there was a poll on this very question in 2009 – the results on “who is progressive ?”
Libdems & Conservatives came equal 1st with 22%,
Green a close 2nd with 17%,
Labour 3rd with 12%.
Thats the “Peoples” verdict.
Of course we are open to Coalition with Labour in 2015, if the numbers are right & they offer us a good deal, thats 4 years away.
I think Lawson is going to look fairly silly a lot sooner than that, in 12 days when the Libdem “meltdown” fails to appear.
To put my neck on the line I am predicting Libdem losses of 200 seats or less in the English locals.
“Over in the Lib Dem camp I hope one of three things happens; either the social liberals should take back control of their party, or they should split between the small groups of Orange Bookers and the rest. Alternatively, a large block could leave and join Labour or the Greens, who are, by necessity, the other part of any progressive alliance. What they can’t do is stay indefinitely in a coalition with George Osborne.”
To me this reeks of arrogance and hubris in two parts:
a) the presumption that labour will always represent the ‘real’ alternative to Conservatism
b) the assumption that the Lib-Dem’s will be happy to remain the eternal bridesmaids of the progressive-left
It is therefore the wrong question, for while it is obvious that the Lib-Dem’s cannot remain in coalition with the Tories forever they certainly can for the rest of this parliament, what matters then is what happens after that.
Labour is presuming that the ‘minnows’ of British politics might like to seek another parties protection and patronage, and are generously holding out their hand of friendship.
How nice of them, but if the Lib-Dem’s aren’t setting their ambitions a little higher than that I will be very disappointed!
@Alex M
Spot on. If the party believes in pluralism it means that they should be willing to explore working with anyone. The problem here is that Clegg and others to the right of the Party do not seem (and it could just be appearences) to want to work with Labour full stop…
@Simon McGrath
Whilst you may see them as idiots, perhaps they actually believe in pluralism and their work may help Labour see that the Lib Dems are not Labour Light. I would like to see a similar thing happening with the Tories before the next election. The Labour process needs to be now as they are rightly reacting to the publice wholesale rejection of them by examing all policy areas.
Personally I have previously voted Labour but voted Lib Dem at the last few elections. My reasoning has always been based upon policies on offer and the perceived integrity of the party I am voting for (not to mention a healthy dose of tactical voting on one occaision). Integrity has taken a massive hit with tuition fees but the former holds true. I would see the Lib Dems curbing some of the more right wing tendancies in a Tory coalition, I would want them to tackle Labour authoritarian nature in a Labour Coalition. Would I would not want is a love in (as we seem to have now) or anything more permanent than one parliament (obviously the same combination may be appropriate following an election).
For any coalition to work the whole concept of collective responsibility needs to be addressed. Parties should only be required to collectively take responsibility for items in the agreement (and any subsequent one passed by appropriate party mechanisms). Other than that criticism should be allowed and indeed welcomed. The voters need to know what parties stand for. This would neccesitate a decent period post election for negotiations, as in other countries where coalition is the norm.
@Steve way – when I described them as ‘useful idiots’ it was the Leninisnt meaning I had in mind. Defintion from Wikipedia:
“In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used.”
Funny, I rather see Richard Grayson as a member of the Maquis circa 1940 than a Stalinist patsy.
@Simon McGrath
None of which changes my point. If a party is truly pluralist it needs to be prepared to work with any and all other parties towards common goals. Those who took up Labours invitation cannot really lose. Either it will be genuine and it will foster better understanding of common ground AND differences, or Labour will be playing a game and will be seen by the electorate to have done so.
There are many on the right of the Tory party who probably see many Lib Dem MP’s as useful idiots at this time…..
The truth is even to their supporters, Labour were a spent force and needed time in opposition to re think. For any coalition to work with them they need to curb the authoritarian approach that was followed in the latter Blair and Brown years. But the Tories are no better, it was right to form this coalition but closing doors off to Labour before an election may scare voters off who feel that a vote for the Lib dems will only prop up another Tory led government.
No because progressive is a meaningless phrase uttered by people too scared to say ‘radical’ or ‘socialist’ or ‘conservative’ depending on their outlook.
Fortunately Liberals can say ‘Liberal’ with confidence without resorting to weasel words.
“There are many on the right of the Tory party who probably see many Lib Dem MP’s as useful idiots at this time…..”
I’m sure there are, but that doesn’t change the fact the Lib-Dem’s are in government, with significant ministerial portfolios and input into policy.
‘On the other hand we need to stop arbitrarily attacking Labour whilst seemingly defending the Tories we should be critical of both where they deserve it, although that is a difficult if not impossible thing to do whilst collective responsibility demands we defend all Government Policies without even pointing out what the Lib Dem position is.’
The trouble is the basic economic policy of the Tories (when to deal with the deficit & when to make cuts etc) we quite rightly opposed whilst in opposition and were closer to Labour on this key issue in the election of 2010. The Tories reluctantly offered a referendum on AV not PR; probably not as a middle way compromise but because they knew it would be easier to defeat & discredit than one of genuine PR. So the coalition was born with a very few other pallatives to Liberals – one being that of raising low income earners out of tax.
If AV is defeated then we should begin to make moves to a Labour Party under Ed Milliband that is seemingly becoming a different beast. Mr Milliband is supporting electoral reform unlike our coalition partners and we agree with him and his party on social & economic issues, foreign affairs, Europe etc far more than Cameron., Osborne, Haig et el. The referendum on AV exposes the sham nature of this unnatural coalition. Just take a look at his virilent and obnoxious Right Wing bank benchers – can we really stomach sitting with these reactionaries.
I think one will find that Ed Milliband will increasingly reject the authoritarian old (new) Labour – I believe we will not be hearing any more on ID cards and similar however much their old guard reactionaries like Reed & Blunket et el (yes Labour has it’s fiar share) will carry on as cheerleaders. There is a good chance that Labour will re-discover their civil liberty ethos of old and thereby making a much more natural coaltion with them more possible and certainly more pallatable than the present one.
This coalition is what the Tories do best i.e. riding on the Lib Dems to get power (despite the electorate voting overwhlmingly against their sort of policies) promising this that and the other while in reality ensuring it is their policies and only their policies that actually hold sway. The AV referendum simply reveals all this of course – Cameron’s seeming broken promise that he will keep a low profile, and not criticising the excesses of the NO Campaign; as if pretending that it is not being organised and basically run & funded by the Tories and their donors.
The NO Campaign has sunk to low levels but what on earth do we expect from that lot – their main reason for the coalition let’s face it was, as I have said, to get power by any means and of course to suck the life out of us and destroy our party which they have always hated. Look at the way the NO Campaign is trying to discredit Nick Clegg – for (can you believe) agreeing to compromise his policies to create the colaition which got them into power (that’s rich isn’t it!). Talk about being ungrateful but of course it just proves that they are suc a lot of ——!
At last spurred on by the sudden realisation that the Tories are (have always been and will always be) a bunch of ……. Nick (God bless) is beginning to criticise Cameron – twice in two days! Vince we see has just about had it with them and so too
So let’s now begin to make a rainbow deal and kick the Tories out – if the AV referendum is lost a new Rainbow Coalition will put a vote to the people for PR or FPtheP and see what the peole decide then – after all the Tories themselves argue, don’t they (?), that that should be the real choice in a referendum on electoral reform. I agree.
Finally:
‘As with Labour, so the Liberal Democrats have been the victims of a takeover by a small, rather neo-liberal elite. There will be a reaction to this – and there already is; witness their conference vote on rejecting NHS reforms. And remember, too, that, unlike Labour, they are still a democratic party. …’ Exactly the so called neo-liberals are a small minority and do not represent the Lib Dem grassroots.
By the way – of course if the Referendum goes for a NO the Tories are double winners as in the ‘agreement’ they get (wrongly in my opnion) a reduction in the number of seats. Coupled with the Simple Plurality System of voting (if it were ot remain) – the Tories could well be in power for years to come; of course on their own having seen off electoral reform and the Lib Dems at one stroke!
Congratulations to Lib Dem Voice for raising a tricky yet central issue for the party. But we might ask why the subject of the future existence of the Lib Dems as we know it today is being raised second hand, via a politics magazine discussion between two Labour Party members? The answer of course is that the topic is so potentially explosive for the Lib Dems, and this is why leading members of the party have been and will continue to avoid any public discussion of the subject. But this very silence is all the more reason why this thread should remain live for months to come.
The question needs to be considered in the light of what has happened over the past year – not just the election and the forming of the Coalition, but also the choices made by the leadership since then, particularly on tuition fees. This has all left the party in the position it is currently in, that is with a dire position in the polls and accumulating evidence that it has lost the support of the leftish end of its previous base. My own far-from-radical assessment is that these lost voters were disappointed to see the Lib Dems helping David Cameron into Downing Street, disappointed at the level of cuts being planned in public services and outraged by the volte face on tuition fees; consequently, there has been an emotional and very-tough-to-reverse hardening of opinion among them against Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. (In my favour, I should point out that I was arguing as far back as last August what is now received wisdom, that Clegg’s line on tuition fees would be disastrous for trust in him and the party’s brand).
For those here who want the Lib Dems to soldier on as they are, the question then is – where are you going to get the votes from for 2015? The old days of being to many voters an indistinct alternative to the bigger two parties are gone. The events of the past year would make it extremely tough for any Lib Dem leader to win back the leftish voters who have withdrawn their support. For Clegg in a Coalition delivering essentially George Osborne’s right-wing economic policy, it looks impossible. Ergo Clegg is going to have to develop a new, inevitably more right wing, constituency of voters. With, inevitably, more right wing policies.
What then of the social liberals, the bigger part of the party membership? Are they supposed to stand by while Clegg spends the next four years shifting the party’s policies and electoral base to the right? In this scenario, come 2015, what would be the point for them of being in the Lib Dems?
Given time, social liberals could oust Clegg, allowing Chris Huhne or A.N. Other to take the helm, and set about rebuilding the support the Lib Dems had before the last election. But if the polls are anything like they are today, they won’t be given time. Cameron will simply say the Coalition Agreement has been violated, call an election and the Parliamentary party will be obliterated.
There are no easy ways out. And so we have the mess the party is in today, in which speculation about schisms is not only rife but entirely logical.
Maybe something can be learned from Europe. On the Continent, where they’ve been doing Coalition government for years, there are usually at least two minor parties, with at least one leaning to the left, one to the right. The Netherlands and Germany are examples. So I would like to suggest an amicable divorce between economic and social liberals cemented by a non-agression pact in the seats of existing MPs.
In such a pact, the two parties emerging from today’s Lib Dems would avoid fighting each other in the seats of their existing MPs. In this way, the sitting MPs would be given a clear run at re-election and the opportunity to win over local support from the full range of past Lib Dem supporters. In other constituencies, both parties would slug it out with the competition.
The two parties themselves would be much better placed than a single Lib Dem party to appeal to an electorate newly-aware of the potential for coalitions after the 2015 election. Next time, a pitch that says, vote for us but no promises on who we’d partner with simply won’t wash. In my divorce-plus-pact scenario, one party would say, vote for us and if it comes to coalition we’ll side with Labour. The other would be the mirror image.
Such a divorce-plus-pact can offer both sides decent prospects at the next election, even without AV. Given the party’s current predicament, why hesitate?
“their main reason for the coalition let’s face it was, as I have said, to get power by any means and of course to suck the life out of us and destroy our party which they have always hated.”
I believe you have an inflated sense of the Lib-Dem’s importance as understood by the Conservative party.
If they hate anyone, and the visceral hate always appears to emanate from the left, then it would be labour for it is they that are the real competition, just as it is they that hold the key to release a generation of voters poisoned against the Tories as a result of the Thatcher years.
Quite frankly, the Lib-Dem’s do not feature in this calculation significantly.
I must be a bit older than most of you – I remember the Lib-Lab Pact. Of course we can work with another party for the good of Britain. But just at the moment that other party is not Labour. And I hate the way they are so patronising. If I agreed with them about most things I’d join the Labour Party. I don’t and I haven’t.
@Judith:
Yes, Labour may be patronising sometimes, but I’d take that over the Tories any day. The fact is that the election of 2010, LibDems campaigned on a platform which was miles closer to Labour’s than the Tories’. The majority of the country did not vote for right-wing, reactionary and uncaring Tory policy. Most people voted LD and Labour. There indeed is a progressive majority in the UK.
The Tories always hated the NHS, voted against it at its’ inception and chronically underfunded it whenever in power. And now it looks, to me, like they want to truly pave the way for future privatisation. LDs did not campaign on this! The public don’t want it. The plans should be scrapped.
The way the government has been scapegoating the sick and disabled is something LDs should speak out against, but you’ve just been letting it happen. Labour were horrible towards the disabled as well, at times, but not as nasty as the Tories are now. One who doesn’t live here would think it was the sick and disabled who created the crisis based on the way the Tories and their press talk.
A few weeks ago Clegg was attacking social privilege. All well and good and I agree with him. And then what does Cameron do? Come out FOR social privilege seemingly to undermine Clegg. And the nasty lies of the NO2AV campaign is disgusting. The Tories have never cared for the average man in the street and we all know it. They care for big business, money and more money. They are the most reactionary, uncaring force in UK politics. And our party is letting the Tories be Tories. Why? To placate the all-powerful markets who are more important to the Tories than people? Well, it’s what Tories do. It’s what they’ve always done.
Labour may have become authoritarian under Blair/Brown and they made plenty of mistakes, don’t we all know it?! But, IMO, I’d rather work with Labour any day rather than the Tories. The Tories stand for the rich, big business and the ruling class. The LDs never did, but the public long started to associate you with the Tories.
We’re probably going to be battered on May the 5th. And the longer we enable the Tories, the lower our support will drop. Our voters are warning the LDs. Either we start to listen to the mostly left-of-centre people who voted for us, or we die. I see it being as simple as that.
Well done Charlie – let’s hope more realise the truth in what you are saying at last!
But in answer to :
‘I believe you have an inflated sense of the Lib-Dem’s importance as understood by the Conservative party.
If they hate anyone, and the visceral hate always appears to emanate from the left, then it would be labour for it is they that are the real competition, just as it is they that hold the key to release a generation of voters poisoned against the Tories as a result of the Thatcher years.
Quite frankly, the Lib-Dem’s do not feature in this calculation significantly.’
You perhaps reveal yourself as some one from the Right! For in my experience having grown up in a very Tory area amongst Tories – the Right hold the keys to hating people believe you me; conversly the Left generally do not have hate on their agenda. (Apart from the extreme Left)
That’s the first point but the second is where you say I have ‘an inflated sense of the Lib-Dem’s importance as understood by the Conservative party’. Actually no one party thank goodness holds the key to power any more and with a vote for electoral reform even less so in the future. We now live in a multi-party society where other than the main old parties can decide our future. Sadly for both Tory & Labour Party – especially the Tories for as Charlie said most people are left of centre – governments are more vulnerable than before to third party opinion. Were the Lib Dems to withdraw their support for this coalition Cameron could hold an election but my guess is that the Left and Centre Left would this time win over 50% of the seats. This in turn would lead to a more natural coalition of a (hopefully and I do believe) less authoritarian Labour Party with Lib Dems and others like Greens, Plaid and SNP (all centre Left and progressive). This Rainbow Coalition government had been denied the voters in 2010 – we can redress that by acting to oust the Tories.
@ Charlie – “The Tories always hated the NHS, voted against it at its’ inception and chronically underfunded it whenever in power. And now it looks, to me, like they want to truly pave the way for future privatisation.”
Let’s not get carried away with the hyperbole please, there is no indication that any party intends to diverge away from the historic trend of taxing between 37-40 percent of GDP for use in public spending.
If it comes to a question between upping spending beyond 40% on a long-term basis and funding the NHS we all get moist about then believe you me I will side with the cuts, for the alternative WILL damage long-term growth and WILL therefore damage the NHS your children might like to have in their lifetime.
@ David Orr – “You perhaps reveal yourself as some one from the Right!”
Everyone seems intent on ‘exposing’ me at the moment, but let me explore the logical connection in your statement; do I come across as being an exponent of hate, is this why you think you’ve nailed me?
Let me answer the implied question directly however, for the benefit of future speculation; I am a classical liberal, which means I value negative freedom and am economically liberal, which in todays lexicon means I am indeed from the ‘right’. While I loath and despise the old-tory social authoritarianism that created such travesty’s as section 28, but I csn not in good conscience support LIb-Dem policies on the core areas of my political interest Defence and Europe.
Daniel Hannan has beaten me to the punch, but if you can stand to read his words without frothing at the mouth its a pretty good description of my political allegiance:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100059344/why-im-happy-to-call-myself-a-liberal/
So, I may not be your type of the Liberal, the modern day Lib-Dem with a dangerous fascination with positive-liberty, but I am indeed a liberal if only in the classical sense.
To put this another way:
How many ways can the government legally force entry into your home? They reasons used to be numbered on one hand, now there are I am told hundreds. Some of these will be for perfectly ‘nice’ reasons like protecting vulnerable kids, a large proportion will be for similarly innocuous reasons, but taken together they represent a fantastic assault on the negative liberty that you as a citizen are supposed to possess.
Do the Lib-Dem’s care about this kind of freedom?
Interesting you quote Daniel Hannan who of course is a very right wing anti-European Conservative and member of the Conservative Party and an MEP for that Party.
Many conservatives might like to call themselves classical liberals but that is a subterfuge for what they are in reality which is of course laissez faire Conservatives – maybe not Tories in the old sense but in today’s politics – of the Right.
As a modern Liberal I believe in political freedom and civil liberties. That is why I and other Lib Dems support the European Court of Human Rights which anti- Europeans inc. Mr Hannan (and I presume ipso facto you too) would not support. I also believe in protecting the poor and vulnerable.
Of course a democratically accountable state needs to regulate certain activities that impinge upon the rights of vulnerable people such as the elderly, children, ao. The state also needs to regulate corporations from exploiting employees and unions’ rights, as they do consumers, by checking on Cartels and unfair practices. Obviously any intervention by the state needs be subject to democratic accountability through Parliament and even better through strong regional and local government. Just as the police need to be fully accountable and acting within the rule of law; which is why I believe that there needs be an independent check on any police activities an actions that might be deemed to infringe civil liberties. Which is a good reason to support a written constitution and Bill of Rights as in the US; and separation of powers. It is also a valid reason for more local democratically accountable bodies and other measures to ensure against arbitrary or unnecessary intrusion into a person’s privacy eg ID Cards etc.
Of course to a so called classical liberal (i.e. someone who would today be numbered as included within the modern British Conservative Party umbrella – which of course still includes paternalist Tories & more Left leaning social Tories too et el) this is seen as an intrusion, but it is only intrusion to protect people from exploitation and harm etc.
We are no longer living in the 18th Century which is why to be a Liberal today has a somewhat different meaning to one 200 years ago or more. The modern Liberal and Lib Dem Party is much more a party of LLoyd George, the 1929 Yellow Book, Keynes, Beveridge & Jo Grimond etc than Wm. Gladstone – but still upholding many of the political freedoms in which the latter believed – just not the economic ones! After all Mrs. Thatcher was not entirely incorrect to say that she was the heir of Gladstone, but of course only in fiscal economy/fiscal prudence; just like Geo. Osborne, in fact, with his obsession with cuts and his real objective of shrinking the state’s intervention in social and economic protection for the vulnerable.
So – no you are not my type of liberal because you a Conservative of the Right.
David Orr Posted 24th April 2011 at 7:13 pm
@”…the Right hold the keys to hating people believe you me..” & “…the Left generally do not have hate on their agenda…”
More of that Socialist tolerance I see, have you read many of the comments on this site? I only ask as there are plenty of examples of foaming at the mouth hatred of both the right and the Labour Party (I would guess that most of the people who comment here are not from the extreme left). In fact it gets so bad that it can blind people to certain facts, how about:
“..Most people voted LD and Labour..” Er no, they didn’t, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a need for all the small parties to form the coalition that was originally talked about.
Some other points:
“… Rainbow Coalition government had been denied the voters in 2010 …”
Actually, them there pesky voters denied the politicians a cosy little coalition, because on the whole history shows that the left tend to hate other versions of the left only slightly less than they hate the right. Voting the way they did made made it very hard for the left to establish a coalition.
“… especially the Tories for as Charlie said most people are left of centre …”
As some one who has a passing interest in politics, I would appreciate the links to articles that show this. A huge chunk of people didn’t bother to vote all so how were their allegiences determined?
“… Cameron could hold an election but my guess is that the Left and Centre Left would this time win over 50% of the seats …”
Quite a gamble, but even if it turned out to be true then I would guess that Labour would win by enough to avoid coalition with the LDP (you don’t have a particularly good rep amongst some Labour people), though they may need a couple of the smaller parties.
“… Plaid and SNP …”
Nice bit of short termism there, so these 2 would demand extra funding to prop up that coalition which would mean extra cuts in England. I don’t suppose you care to much about that as England seems to be far more centre right than Wales and Scotland and is probably hated for “not seeing the true light”.
@ Jedibeeftrix Posted 24th April 2011 at 8:11 pm
“.. How many ways can the government legally force entry into your home? ..”
I’ve heard the same sort of figures, HM Customs always had the right to search without a warrant of course. But when Gordon merged them with the IR they never removed that right, do you happen to know it the tax people adopted the no warrant right as a consequence of the merger?
PS, just saw your site, love Ubuntu – had a hard disk crash one of my boxes last month and have been running it off DVD since with hardly any issues – try that with Windows!! When I’ve scraped enough together to get another disk it’ll be loaded and that machine will become my main workhorse (apologies, 100% of topic there).
@ David Orr –
“Interesting you quote Daniel Hannan who of course is a very right wing anti-European Conservative and member of the Conservative Party and an MEP for that Party.”
And yet the first instinct is to play the caricature, and not read what he said. That is disappointing.
“I also believe in protecting the poor and vulnerable.”
You believe in apple-pie and motherhood, how novel! It may surprise you to hear that other people of many different persuasions also believe in such mighty fine principles. As noted before; none of the parties is seriously looking at spending more or less than the 37-40 percent of GDP on government duties.
“Of course a democratically accountable state needs to regulate certain activities that impinge upon the rights of vulnerable people such as the elderly, children, ao.”
Your mistake is to see this as an exercise in extremes; yes there is a place for positive liberty and an important one too, all i would argue is that as Isaiah Berlin noted there is a balance to be struck for positive liberty is easily subverted to ends other than liberty, and that its use in excess will lead to the deleterious loss of negative liberty.
I find myself quoting him quite a lot:
“It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’ the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.”
“So – no you are not my type of liberal because you a Conservative of the Right.”
I can cope with that, I merely wish to see the Lib-Dem’s realise that individual liberty has been somewhat overlooked in the politics of the last 50 years, and that this represents a significant electoral advantage given the party’s history.
@ chris_sh –
“do you happen to know it the tax people adopted the no warrant right as a consequence of the merger?”
I don’t, but the total number of reasons the state could force entry to private property had passed 100 about five years ago, with another four years of authoritarian labour since it has no doubt grown greatly since.
“love Ubuntu – had a hard disk crash one of my boxes last month and have been running it off DVD since with hardly any issues – try that with Windows!!”
Yup, always had a passion for suse, but there is no doubting that Ubuntu comes closest to the “it just works” quality that we all want from computers. I have a friend who likewise has a duff harddrive that will not accept windows, and he too finds that Ubuntu copes magnificently regardless.
Ignoring your condescending comment on apple pie – which I have heard so often from people who loathe the idea of a welfare state
‘And yet the first instinct is to play the caricature, and not read what he said. That is disappointing.’
You are assuming incorrectly – and having read what he said, and having heard other things he has said in the past, I still find myself in almost (not of course total) disagreement.
The conservative idea of liberty always ignores social liberty as being of equal importance to political freedom in order to ensure that liberty is geniune for everybody in a modern society. One way of ensuring social & economic liberty is having a progressive tax system. Freedom from want & poverty, is mainly guaranteed by our welfare state. This can only be fairly paid for by income tax.
Taxation is not a ‘diminution of personal autonomy’ as it is a way that individuals can contribute to the community and support those less privileged than themselves. Income tax is a progressive way of re-balancing society and protecting the poor and disadvantaged. Daniel’s criticism of taxation reveals both his and those generally on the Right’s hostility to ensuring a fair distribution of wealth.
Of course we could indeed lower tax to reduce genuine waste:
One way we could possibly reduce taxes is if we spend less not on essential services etc but on so called defence. Britain is a medium power and so we should start by cutting trident and reducing the size of the armed forces to match our medium power status position in the world to other countries such as Denmark or Germany. Even better would be to pool our defence resources with Europe as was suggested the other day. Another way of reducing taxation would be to get rid of the monarchy (and hangers on) and other useless wastes of expenditure (how much is this so called royal wedding costing the taxpayer?) rather than nurses or teachers.
Liberty is not today a narrowly defined or easily defined term.
“I have a friend who likewise has a duff harddrive that will not accept windows, and he too finds that Ubuntu copes magnificently regardless.”
And broadly speaking socialism produced Ubuntu and capitalism produced Windows. Don’t think about that one too hard or your brain might explode.
William Cullerne Bow rightly says that this thread should remain live for some time because the topic is so important – that is one of the things that frustrates me about this form of communication: this will shortly just disappear under the weight of subsequent, often less important topics.
On the subject of ‘progressive’ majorities though: I’ve done a bit of research on this and looked at the share of the vote at every election since 1945, both UK wide and in England, and I am a bit surprised to find that if you take the Labour/Liberal/SNP/PC vote as ‘progressive’ (room for argument, I accept) as opposed to the Conservative vote then at every election with the exception of 1955 the UK progressive vote is larger than the Conservative vote, and even more surprisingly this is true in England as well. In addition, the disparity between the UK Tory vote share and the English Tory vote is smaller than I would have guessed, being 3.1% in 2010 and at its maximum in 1987 at 3.9%.
David Orr – “….how much is this royal wedding costing the taxpayer?” In direct terms, a piffling amount. In terms of the imposition of an extra day’s holiday by the government an absolute fortune: I employ four people, and my wage bill for one day is £385, so that is straight out of the (non-existent) profits of the business, in addition to the loss of production at our busiest time of the year when we can, just about make a profit. So thanks, Cameron: you could have told them to get married on Saturday like everybody else, but the chance to curry favour with the electorate just before an election was too tempting. Party of small business my a…!
I really don’t like the Green Party. Nothing against them as individuals, but I feel no affinity with them as a party. I’m not an anti-capitalist, alternative person, I’m a Liberal Democrat. I am happy for the Liberal Democrats to decide democratically to work with other parties when it is in the national interest (or local interest, in local government), even if that might mean working with the Greens, but I have the same cultural aversion to the Greens that some colleagues have to the Conservatives. I support the coalition with the Conservatives as it is in the national interest and we have what I consider to be a good government. In future, circumstances might necessitate a similar coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and I could equally support that. But that’s got nothing to do with a supposed ‘progressive alliance’ between us and Labour. I have no appetite for that at all. I was happy to support the Labour/Lib Dem Joint Administration that used to run my local borough of Barnet, because it was the best available option for local people at that time. There will be times, locally and nationally, when it’s sensible for Labour and Lib Dems to work together in certain circumstances, just as we are now working with the Conservatives. But we can still remain separate parties, even if politics becomes less tribal and more co-operative, as in Germany, for example, where parties manage to compete in elections and co-operate in coalitions without the need for progressive alliances and grand plans for re-alignment.
“And broadly speaking socialism produced Ubuntu and capitalism produced Windows. Don’t think about that one too hard or your brain might explode.”
Unfortunately, that is not a very useful parallel to make as has been noted by Bruce Perens himself:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3809221/Bruce-Perens-Is-Open-Source-Capitalist-or-Communist.htm
http://slashdot.org/articles/980824/0854256.shtml
“..Most people voted LD and Labour..” Er no, they didn’t, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a need for all the small parties to form the coalition that was originally talked about.
Er yes, they did actually – over 50% of people voted lib dem and labour combined.