Vince Cable published an interesting piece in the New Statesman last month (I missed it at the time): My advice to young Lib Dems — rise above the tribalism.
It’s a biographical reflection on his political journey — from Young Liberal to Mr Wilson’s ‘White Heat’ Labour to the breakaway SDP and finally to the Liberal Democrats, where he joined “some of the descendants of Grimond and Crosland”.
However, it also has a very clear political message. At least, I think it does. Tell me below-the-line if you think I’m over-reading, especially the third point.
First, the danger of formal mergers even where the missions seem aligned. Vince’s efforts to unite the Liberals and Campaign for Democratic Socialism “were a disaster, as both sides formed obscure theological points on which to disagree, proving themselves every bit as sectarian as warring Trotskyite sects. I was disowned and the warriors went back to their tribal armies.”
Secondly, that party loyalties rule, especially where the points of difference are small but significant (the closer you are, the louder you shout): “having walked along both sides of the dividing line for half a century, I recognise the bitter intensity of these small differences and the strength of tribal affiliation.”
And thirdly — and I think most significantly — Vince brings the story up-to-date, with what sounds to me like a call for Lib Dems and Labour social democrats to work together to challenge the Right, as historically represented by the Tories but also now by Ukip:
My own descendants are aspiring Liberal students faced with hostile Labour social democrats. They no longer have the moral superiority and innocence of opposition; but they do have the understanding of a party of government. I trust they will not repeat my mistake, dissipating energy into an attempted merger. But they should rise above tribalism, not least because many shared beliefs and values are being challenged more than ever.
Pointed, no?
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
12 opening scenes from Malcolm in the Middle
Reform drop council by-election candidate Irene Davidson
HERA - Harris Education and Recreation Association updates #dundeewestend
Greg Hyde
Lyell Yardarms
Mick Scholes
Dominic
7 Comments
As liberals, surely we believe in choice and competition. So why deride those who want to keep it as “tribalists”?
“Tribalism” should be reserved for people who reflexively vote for a party because of familial, regional, or class traditions, without thinking about the reasons for their votes. It should not be shorthand for “unseemly passion in a political cause.”
test
One of the lesser reasons for Tribalism is a failure across Parties to understand just how different they are. Cable is utterly wrong about Labourin thinking that its Values are primary & in seeing another Party.
The thing that holds Labour together is not Values or Ideology but a perceived Loyalty to The Working Class as the only real “Prgoressive” force. Where Liberals see individuals with attachements, Labour supporters see members of Groups.
The term Party is also confusing if applies both to Libdems & Labour . Labour are a Movement – Party, Uninons, The Co-op are effectively all one thing
None of this is an argument against co-operation with Labour, just a warning that Liberals & Labourites are often talking at cross-purposes, using the same words to mean different things.
but surely the two big old parties are coalitions within, ie various factions held together in the crude pursuit of power, a togetherness described as ‘broad church’ but necessitated by our current electoral system. If they imagine the alternative there is an instinctual fear of the unknown, of the inevitable divorces that would follow from a fair voting system. A fear of the need to then stand as an entity on their own feet rather than secure as a faction within a tribe, frightened rather than excited by the new freedom to coalesce in a different agreement with others some of whom are currently in a different ‘tribe’.
I assume that Vince is hinting at a willingness to work with Labour on common values, while acknowledging that we also have different values. We also operate differently in that we are not tribal in our approach to people, all of whom deserve to be heard.
I hope that one lesson we have learned from the present coalition is the need to take time over any agreement with another party; it should not be rushed. Another lesson which is also vital is to stick by the agreement and have a clear understanding that if anything not in the agreement arises, we have no obligation to support the other party and will be free to argue that it should not be considered or if pressed by the other party, be free to vote against.
I don’t know anything about Vince’s spell as a marriage guidance counsellor, but it is faintly possible that the “tribalism” remark might not be unreasonable. It could be that genuine points of difference were raised and Vince didn’t realise why they were important; but it could be people were attaching to beloved words without thinking sharply about what they meant. It’s also worth remembering that any party is a coalition: there are Liberal Democrats who seem to me not just to have different views on particular policies (as one might expect and desire) but to be arguing from a different political philosophy. The key issue is whether we can co-operate, plus whether we can communicate.