I joined the Liberal Democrats in July 2015 after many years as a Labour supporter and member. There were a number of reasons for this, including Labour’s inability to offer a realistic alternative to the austerity agenda, and the issue of union influence, which Ed Miliband attempted to address, largely unsuccessfully in my opinion. I feel that the Labour Party as it is now is no longer a home for centre-left people like me, even more so now Jeremy Corbyn is leader. The country needs an opposition (any opposition) to the Tories, and the Labour Party are currently too busy with internal arguments to form an effective one.
I am delighted at the way Liberal Democrats have welcomed me. I have already joined the executive committee of my local party as social media and web officer, where I will help with the Lib Dem fightback, both locally and nationally. I have encountered nothing but kindness and support since joining, for which I am grateful.
I do think the party could be more visibly welcoming to former Labour supporters who may need a little more persuasion to join than I did. One way is to provide a forum for social democrat views within the party, since many former Labour people have similar views to those who formed the SDP in the 1980s. To achieve this, George Kendall and I have set up a Social Democrat Group whose aim is to reach out to social democrats both within the party, and those outside who may be considering joining. The group has a Facebook page, and a Twitter account. Please have a look if you are interested.
It will certainly be a challenge to persuade some former Labour supporters to join us. Some are still put off by our years in coalition, but having seen this from both sides (as a Labour member for the first three years from 2010-13, and now as a Lib Dem member) I am convinced that we made the best of a difficult situation at the time. However, if we provide a forum where their views can be discussed, and if those of us who have already joined have a visible and welcoming presence, I think we can be successful.
* Rob Jackson has been a Lib Dem member since July 2015. He is Social Media and Web Officer for the Newcastle-Under-Lyme local party, and Social Media Coordinator for the Social Democrat Group.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Peter Martin
expats
Alison C
David Raw
76 Comments
First of all, Rob – welcome to the party. Wonderful to see people both joining and becoming actively involved in the way you have.
I think you are right in what you say. Many of us bare the scars of campaigning against Labour, but the Labour Party we have campaigned against since the days of John Smith is no more. Many currently within the truly new Labour Party would find themselves much more in agreement with LibDem values and history than what has become of their party, but because of the coalition will be wary of crossing the floor (so to speak). We need to keep on in the way we have since May, setting out clear Liberal/Social Democratic positions based on sense, reason and reality and hold out the hand of friendship 🙂
Welcome!
A big welcome!
After last May’s election results, I remember those feelings of sorrow, regret, anger. But what moderate Labour members are feeling now will be worse. Not just because the hard left have taken over their party, but that we face the prospect of twenty or more years of Tory rule.
For me, the one political bright spot of 2015 has been that good former Labour members, who are our political soul-mates, have joined the party; and that there are many others like Rob, who have not yet joined us, but who may.
There is still a huge electoral constituency for a political party that combines the ideal of social justice with the practicalities of the real world.
The Tories think they are safe. That, if they put up a veneer of compassionate conservatism, they can run the country in the interests of privilege for decades to come.
I believe the British people can see through that veneer, but feel there is no choice. However, an alternative can emerge far faster than the Tories realise, but it won’t happen if we don’t work for it.
I know I often sound like the residence’s conservative voice, but I’m fully in favour of getting Labour defectors over to the Lib Dems.
Rob,
“……… including Labour’s inability to offer a realistic alternative to the austerity agenda”
Well yes, I take your point. But since the last election, there are some signs that
Labour is moving in the right direction. What is the ‘realistic alternative’ that the LIb Dems are supposed to have? Reading what Keynes, a former Liberal, actually wrote, rather than what others might claim he wrote, would be a good place to start in developing that.
George,
I wish Lib Dems wouldn’t use the phrase “hard left”. It was the so-called “hard left” in the Labour Party who were on your side over the Iraq War. I’m accused of being hard left simply for opposing the idea of austerity economics to which Rob rightly thinks we need an alternative. I’ve been told that I may well be right, but that the voters don’t understand economics and that we’ll lose votes if we don’t have the right ‘message’.
I oppose it, primarily, not for political reasons but because its clearly incorrect. It’s the thinking of the 1930’s which brought about a depression and could again now. Don’t think the 2008 GFC was the last of it. There’s plenty more to come!
It’s incorrect from a theoretical viewpoint and it’s incorrect practically. There isn’t a speck of evidence from anywhere, not the UK, not the eurozone, that it works.
Massive welcome, Rob. Glad to see that you are getting so involved.
The way things are going with Labour there might be a few more new faces at Lib Dem Constituency Party meetings in future. The first real test looks likely to be the local elections in May.
A big welcome to Rob. I agree that we could be doing more to put out fiendly feelers to Labour supporters, for a start I would reccomend keeping an eye on sites like Labour List, to see what Labourites are thinking.
The latest Labour news is that Ken Livinstone has said that the review of Labour policy on Trident ought to be completed in “8-10 weeks”.
Welcome and thanks for having the courage to join us and to already contribute so much
former Labour supporters and members are welcome to join, but please don’t try to set up another SDP. I was a member of the Liberal Party before the merger and I believe the best way forward is for the Liberal Democrats to reassert our Liberal credentials.
John Marriot are you confident about the partys fortunes in the local Elections do you expect Labour are going to get a good thrashing?
@petermartin2001
“I wish Lib Dems wouldn’t use the phrase “hard left”. It was the so-called “hard left” in the Labour Party who were on your side over the Iraq War. I’m accused of being hard left simply for opposing the idea of austerity economics …”
Wishing that people wouldn’t use the phrase “Hard Left” suggests that you think that the Hard Left doesn’t really exist. I worked in Liverpool in the 1980s when Militant had taken over the Labour Party, and I can tell you that there certainly is such a thing as the Hard Left.
Incidentally, I certainly wouldn’t accuse anybody of being Hard Left merely for opposing “austerity economics”. In the case of people who are taking over the Labour Party it is the whole plethora of views that they hold. I thought one senior former Labour Cabinet Minister put it interestingly a week ago when he referred to “Mr Corbyn’s view of the world is shaped by his anti-West prejudices as opposed to his desire to ‘stop war’. Most of his followers regard him as new and fresh in his ideas — they do not realise these are rooted in the Cold War sentiments of ‘fellow travellers’ who regarded the West as the aggressor.”
@ “a political party that combines the ideal of social justice with the practicalities of the real world.”
Yes, of course. But isn’t this just “motherhood and apple pie ” stuff, as the Americans say when politicians make bland statements with which no-one can disagree?
Most people think that a “practicality of the real world” is for Governments to spend no more than they receive in taxation. I’m not sure where they think money has come from in the first instance. Does everyone think that some monetary god has visited the BoE, created all he thinks we might need, and left strict instructions to never create any more?
So once we get down to the details of the actual realities and practicalities then it does become more contentious. That’s politics.
Rob….a very warm welcome. It can never be easy to move from one political party to another and must take some heart searching to take the leap. I am glad you have because people like yourself will bring a new dimension to this party, and the party needs that. I am sure many in the Labour Party who believe the centre is where political power is achieved are presently weighing up what to do, my hope is that they will follow in your footsteps, and a warm welcome awaits them.
Welcome Rob! I hope many more Labour liberals follow your lead.
@ Simon Shaw and George Kendall,
Can we just clarify what we mean by “hard left” ? I’m well aware of the political views of groups like Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.
But, I took George’s comment to be directed at the 60% of voters who supported Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn himself.
So is he “hard left”? What about the majority of his supporters? Are they “hard left” too?
Just as an aside, I might just say that I ran a website prior to the 2010 election called tacticalvoting.org which outlined the voting possibilities for each constituency. I gave a recommendation if tactical voting would do any good for each constituency. It got about 30,000 hits on election day alone, so I did play my small part in your 2010 success I’d say. Needless to add, I didn’t repeat the excercise in 2015! The website is now well and truly closed!
So I do believe, and this doesn’t endear me to some, in the need for all shades of progressive opinion to unite against the Tories. But this has to be on friendly terms of course. If we are accused of being “hard left”, you can forget about that in future.
@ Simon Shaw and George Kendall,
Can we just clarify what we mean by “hard left” ? I’m well aware of the political views of groups like Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.
But, I took George’s comment to be directed at the 60% of voters who supported Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn himself.
So is he “hard left”? What about the majority of his supporters? Are they “hard left” too?
Just as an aside, I might just say that I ran a website prior to the 2010 election called tacticalvotingDOTorg which outlined the voting possibilities for each constituency. I gave a recommendation if tactical voting would do any good for each constituency. It got about 30,000 hits on election day alone, so I did play my small part in your 2010 success I’d say. Needless to add, I didn’t repeat the excercise in 2015! The website is now well and truly closed!
So I do believe, and this doesn’t endear me to some, in the need for all shades of progressive opinion to unite against the Tories. But this has to be on friendly terms of course. If we are accused of being “hard left”, that’s not going to help in future.
@petermartin2001
“Can we just clarify what we mean by “hard left” ? I’m well aware of the political views of groups like Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.
But, I took George’s comment to be directed at the 60% of voters who supported Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn himself.
So is he “hard left”? What about the majority of his supporters? Are they “hard left” too?”
As you ask:
1. I don’t think that the majority of those who supported Corbyn are Hard Left.
2. I think that Corbyn himself is probably Hard Left – this will become clear one way or the other as time passes.
3. I certainly think that some of the key people surrounding or promoted by Corbyn are Hard Left.
I see some 13,000 or so have left Labour in recent months though it is unclear for what reasons including ‘natural churn’ as it is referred to. On the other hand the Labour membership has almost doubled to some 388,000 since Corbyn stood for Leader. I don’t have the Libdem numbers but I’ll wager the net membership of those that left following the love-in with the Tories vs. the mass defections from Labour that some on LDV refer to from time to time are a little less impressive.
Simon I’m glad you recognise that the phrase ‘hard left’ is being used rather cheaply. Can you list those specific polices that Corbyn supports which you believe to be genuinely hard left and thus presumably impossible for the LibDems to support?
I don’t think its about hard left or soft left it its about a conservative left so entrenched in its dogmatism and hatred of non conformity that it shouts down any and all real debate on reform or modernisation .They want to return to a brand of politics the rest of Great Britain moved on from in the 60s and 70s . As a social democrat I welcome Rob and I hope many others to our wonderful democratic and progressive party.
Hi petermartin2001,
I can’t think of a better way to describe the people around Corbyn other than “hard left”. I had some experience of the intimidation and violence of the hard left back in the 1980s, and from the evidence I see they are back, and they’ve taken over the Labour leadership.
For me, “hard left” is more an attitude of mind rather than a set of policies, but policies are part of it.
I’ve heard Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly refuse to clarify that he sees a difference between terrorists who systematically targeted civilians and the British Army. I’ve read those appointed by Corbyn say they want to withdraw from NATO, and believe in abolishing capitalism.
These people defend talking to terrorists, claiming they call them friends only because they want to promote peace. But did they ever call Loyalist Paramilitaries friends? And how committed to peace are they? Isn’t it a matter of public record that Stop the War was calling for war on Israel, while Corbyn was its chair?
But what disturbs me most is a lack of willingness to listen with alternative points of view. I have often disagreed with moderate Labour politicians over the last five years, but I believe that, in private, they would have admitted that there are no certain answers in economics. This is also true of leading anti-austerity economists like Paul Krugman, when they aren’t engaged in polemic.
The hard left I have encountered regard a deficit reduction programme as motivated by a desire to attack the state. They refuse to acknowledge that a different opinion is possible. That we need to reassure the financial markets. That, now we are growing, continuing to run a large deficit could create serious problems in the future.
It’s the anger they direct at those who have a different opinion that makes them hard left.
You’ve been willing to engage, and are a welcome but rare exception. The hard left I have spoken to respond to a detailed argument with a slogan. If I express concern about Corbyn, citing an interview on YouTube, they call it a smear.
Most of those who voted for Jeremy Corbyn aren’t hard left. They are ordinary people, with relatively little understanding of politics, who have been attracted by some of the things he has said.
The hard left are relatively small in number. They are the people behind Corbyn, and who he has appointed to his inner team. And I don’t think Corbyn is being open about their real nature and beliefs.
I believe the Corbyn movement does not engage with the practicalities of the real world. I know you disagree.
They want to reverse the cuts made over the last five years. In Corbyn’s election campaign he outlined how he would pay for this, but when this was shown to be impractical, he backed down. He now says those proposals were just the start of a conversation. I don’t think anyone has been told how Corbyn would pay for this spending, but the fact he continues to use the rhetoric of total opposition to austerity without explaining what that means worries me greatly. My suspicion is it would mean huge taxes on business, capital controls and rampant inflation. I may be wrong, but we just aren’t being told.
I believe engaging in the practicalities of the real world includes an acceptance that we have an imperfect understanding of economics, and a humility in admitting that, if there is a proposal to avoid austerity, if there is no country to the planet that has successfully implemented this proposal, it might not work.
Best wishes,
George
George,
Politics can be a rough game at times. It’s been a while but I’ve had, in my younger days, to physically defend myself from time to time. Once when I was set upon (~ 1975?) by a young Conservative who objected to my “Stuff the Jubilee” badge!
Of course that fight from long ago doesn’t add anything either way to the argument for or against a monarchy, politically.
I don’t buy this “we just don’t know” argument about economic austerity. It’s the sort of argument climate change deniers use about the physics of the atmosphere. The implication is that because we don’t know everything we know nothing. What are the options? That George Osborne doesn’t know how the system works. Or that he does know but he’s misleading others for his own political purposes? “We just don’t know” the answer to that for sure, maybe, but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who thought it was the latter.
The economics of the deficits is quite straightforward. The mistake usually made is to consider the budget position in isolation but totally ignore the balance of payments deficit due to the trade gap. So, doesn’t it follow that if the UK, as whole, is buying more from overseas than it sells overseas then someone has to fund that deficit by borrowing?
That borrowing either has to be by government or everyone else in the economy has to borrow more to fund the gap instead. What’s hard to grasp about that?
Is it really possible that George Osborne doesn’t understand this?
George – and where is the detailed economic policy from Tim Farron that will allow him to reverse some cuts, build thousands of houses and support huge infrastructure projects?
McDonnell spelt out that he was appointing a team of highly reputable economists and wanted Opposition parties to be able to use the OBR to verify any alternative plans to the Government. Your denouncement of Corbyn is not based on differences of opinion on specific policy initiatives but just based on vague labels, rhetoric and suspicions. Meanwhile the fail to apply the same standard of analysis towards LibDem policies.
Many have posted on LDV of the need for LibDems to state clearly what they now stand for including a clear and credible economic policy. Defining yourselves based on vague smears against Corbyn simply implies a reluctance to cosy-up to the Tories once more. If you think that will restore LibDems fortunes then good luck. You accuse of Corbyn of living in the past yet you casually ally him some some people you with references to violence. This is based on your personal experience of some 35 years ago. Perhaps it is you that is living in the past.
Typo – oh dear I meant to say ” a willingness not reluctance to cosy up to the Tories”
It’s Corbyn who was allying himself with men of violence in the past, and it’s relevant now because (i) he has not recanted his past links with them, and (ii) he continues to break bread with terrorists, always on one particular side of the conflict. So his worldview has not changed. I would be more understanding if he had changed his worldview since the 1980s, but he clearly has not. This is shown by the revisionist take of him and his supporters on his honouring Sinn Fein/IRA in the 1980s, that he was seeking “dialogue” and was proved right about doing so. The flaws in this argument are (i) Sinn Fein/IRA was not interested in a negotiated peace at that time; (ii) as mentioned above he called them his “friends” and did not talk to Loyalists, and (iii) any negotiation with terrorists has to have diplomatic or governmental backing to have any value at all.
PS Hi Dr Jackson ! (one of my lecturers at Keele University some 20 years ago)
Alex – this is old mud you are slinging. He has condemned anti semitism, islamophobia and has been unswerving in his support of peaceful settlements in conflicts as opposed to war. His critics recognise no contradiction in simultaneously throwing these smears of violence at him whilst alleging he is a pacifist.
Welcome Rob! I think we should welcome former Labour supporters put off by Labour’s infighting and leftward lurch AND any pro-European, socially liberal ex-Tories when they start tearing into each other over Europe
@Dave Orbison
“Simon I’m glad you recognise that the phrase ‘hard left’ is being used rather cheaply. Can you list those specific polices that Corbyn supports which you believe to be genuinely hard left and thus presumably impossible for the LibDems to support?”
I’m not sure why you think I “recognise” that. I’m sure all sorts of political terms are used and misused, but I think Hard Left is appropriate in the case of what’s happening at the top of the Labour Party. Are you saying you don’t?
As to your question reproduced above, what on earth makes you think that Lib Dems have to support or not support individual Corbyn policies? We’re not his poodle, you know.
As an example, I’m sure I and other Lib Dems are all in favour of trains running on time as much as possible, but that doesn’t mean that we need to run through a complete list of Hitler’s policies either putting a tick or a cross against them!
George said exactly what I think when he said: “For me, ‘hard left’ is more an attitude of mind rather than a set of policies, but policies are part of it.”
I’s say that a good example of that “attitude” is anti-Americanism. It’s so pervasive among many in the Labour Hard Left that they end up supporting some profoundly illiberal regimes around the world simply because they “stand up” to the US, as they see it.
@Simon Shaw,
It’s rather lazy of you to talk about the left’s supposed Anti-Americanism in the way you do. If you wanted to put a little more effort into your argument you’d explain that no-one on the left has anything at all against any American person simply because they happen to be American.
True, we’ve had issues with American foreign policy in the past. But that’s a different matter. In my lifetime it started with the Vietnam War which we opposed. Are you saying that was a mistake?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply. As I’ve said, you’re not hard left because you engage in the debate in a polite way.
We’ve often clashed on this, and I understand you disagree. What mystifies me is how you can compare the consensus of most ecnomists with climate change deniers.
There are a few economists who campaign strongly for holding off on deficit reduction, but even they acknowledge that you have to turn deficit hawk eventually. Paul Krugman has said “I’ll turn deficit and debt hawk once we’re out of this depression, but not now”. Most ecnomists, bearing in mind that our economy has been growing at over 2% for ten quarters, believe that time is now.
With climate change, the vast, vast majority of scientists are convinced that human activities are causing climate change, and that action is necessary.
With the deficit, the Bank of England, the IMF, the OBR, and a plethora of other economists believe that government debt is something to worry about. Many rightly criticise the new Conservative government approach as unnecessarily harsh. The majority criticise the cuts in capital spending from 2010. But it’s only a small number who don’t think the deficit is something to worry about.
So, if we were to use climate change deniers as an analogy, I think you put the accusation the wrong way around.
I know you believe that Wynne Godley’s work shows that, if the UK reduces its deficit, that will simply create debt in the UK private sector. But you are ignoring the international element. The twin deficits hypothesis suggests that there is a strong link between a national economy’s current account balance and its government budget balance. And therefore if the UK runs a high budget deficit continually, this will tend to increase our deficit with the rest of the world.
@Dave Orbison
Hi Dave,
You’re right, of course, that no opposition at this stage of a government is going to provide detailed policy of how they will balance the books. Neither the Lib Dems now, nor Labour in the last parliament did this.
But that doesn’t mean you can whip up opposition to any deficit reduction and expect to avoid hard questions.
McDonnell has appointed a team of leftwing economists who are known for their relaxed attitude to deficits. However, I suspect that even they will baulk at the suggestion that the cuts of 2010-2015 can be reversed.
Corbyn and McDonnell are currently saying contradictory things. That they would get rid of the deficit, but that an anti-austerity programme which reverses the cuts of the last parliament is possible without enormous tax increases.
Their economic policy isn’t being critiqued as it could be, because most of the focus has been on defense and foreign policy. But eventually it will. And either they will have to back down from their rhetoric of anti-austerity, and alienate much of their leftwing support, or they’ll have to admit that huge tax rises and/or capital controls and enormous inflation will be necessary.
As for Lib Dem policy. If you just take housing, Tim has talked about this, including allowing housing associations to borrow against their existing stock. Doubtless there is more detail to come. I don’t see a problem here, because house building is capital spending which produces a valuable asset. It’s not the same thing at all as increasing the current structural deficit.
Interesting discussion.
“Hard Left” isn’t (just) about the politics, it’s about the approach – a quasi-religious doctrinaire take on “in” and “out”, as exemplified by calling non-Corbyn Labour oderates “Tories” and seeking to expel them from the party.
This isn’t unique to the Labour Party, I should add.
………………As to your question reproduced above, what on earth makes you think that Lib Dems have to support or not support individual Corbyn policies? We’re not his poodle, you know……..
Considering the regular threads pre and post 2015 reviling Labour for not backing LibDem initiatives that sounds rather amusing….8 to 231 is really the ‘tail trying to wag the poodle’….Why not support policies that coincide with our interests; would you rather oppose for it’s own sake? BTW…this is a rhetorical question as I don’t expect a straight answer….
As an individual example….On the Calais situation Corbyn says…”These are human beings, these are people in desperate situations – they need our help and they need our support.”….That is no different from Tim Farron’s remarks …
@expats “would you rather oppose for it’s own sake?”
Labour have been very good at that.
George,
On the comparison to climate change deniers: I do think there’s something fundamentally rotten about the mainstream economics profession. It doesn’t adopt a scientific approach. Theories should fit the facts. It clearly doesn’t seem to bother them that they don’t. I’ll perhaps elaborate on this another time.
But, for now, let us look specifically at the question of the government’s budget deficit. Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that those economists who say that it needs to be reduced are correct. Can we also assume that those economists who say that we need to avoid another recession/depression are correct too? So how do we reduce the governments’s deficit while keeping the economy functioning well?
You do, I think, understand the significance of Godley’s sectoral balance work. A deficit in one sector has to be matched by the sum of surpluses in other sectors. So, as you say, if we reduce the government’s deficit the private sector has to take on more debt, or be less in surplus/ be more in deficit, if the deficit of the external sector remains the same. That’s just simple accounting but it doesn’t tell us anything about causality.
It could be that if the government reduces its deficit enough, the external deficit will fall too. The Greek government did manage to achieve both a much reduced government deficit and external balance of payments deficit in the last couple of years. But at what cost to its economy ! Greek imports are down because of increased poverty and a crashed economy. That’s one way to ‘balance the books’ but it isn’t a desirable one.
So if we are to reduce the government’s deficit we don’t want to adopt the Greek approach. We have to reduce imports and increase exports some other way. That does mean a significant devaluation of the pound to achieve.
It may seem a painful message but these are the options. 1) Learn to love a permanent govt deficit. 2) Devalue the pound to bring trade into closer balance or even create a surplus. 3) Carry on as we are, trying to push the burden of debt from government to the private sector.
George,
On your comment to Dave, I should say that JC doesn’t have it quite right either – at least publicly. I suspect he knows the score as I’ve outlined it but doesn’t want to create a political target for himself by being quite so frank about the options. He’ll prefer to talk about a growing economy reducing the government’s deficit. That will only work if the growing economy doesn’t suck in too many imports, which it will if the pound is too high. He won’t want to acknowledge that for obvious political reasons.
Spending cuts and tax increases don’t have any direct effect on the govt’s deficit BTW except to the extent that they make everyone poorer, reducing economic activity and so reducing the ability of the population to afford imported goods.
If you want to see a good position statement for the Liberal Democrats on the economy see Vince Cables and the Social Liberal Forums motion to the Spring conference it mixes social market economics with intervention and enablement and recognises the emerging green and circular economy which will open up exciting new markets in remanufacturing .indeed industry is already way ahead of the classical conservatism of George Osbourne and the old demand side economics of Mc Donnell .
@petermartin2001
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
We’ve been over this ground several times, and failed to come to an agreement. But I think this is the first thread where I’ve mentioned the The twin deficits hypothesis, which suggests that your approach would lead to an ever-increasing trade deficit for the UK (and we already have an alarmingly high one). I’d be interested in your take on that.
As to whether the mainstream economics profession should or should not adopt a more scientific approach. I recently heard the recording of a session of Piketty, Krugman and Stiglitz.
I didn’t of course agree with everything they said, but it was refreshing to hear Krugman acknowledge that, with regard to the Great Recession, he didn’t see the crisis coming. Piketty criticised the way economists spend too much time doing mathematical models, in order to try to look more scientific, but he said it was more like a social science. He also said he doesn’t believe in genius, and that economists should be more modest about what they know.
Strangely, these three seem to be the most prominent economists who most agree with your approach to deficits, but they seem to reject your assertion that economics can be approached as if it were a science.
We absolutely need to welcome people coming from Labour and I’m delighted Rob’s been welcomed. We must not be sniffy about people coming from another party as many of our longstanding activists did long ago. However, we’re not necessarily the right place for right-wing Labour people who can’t stand Corbyn but hold illiberal views on social issues and civil liberties, or are essentially top-down centralists. The reference to the founders of the SDP and others who left Labour for the SDP doesn’t necessarily help as some of them like Jenkins and Williams very clearly held essentially liberal views while still in the Labour Party. Others didn’t.
I’m still unclear about what exactly defines a Social Democrat and more specifically, what divides a Social Democrat from a Liberal. If it’s supposed to be support for equality, or for a degree of equality of outcome rather than just equality of opportunity and devil take the hindmost, I disagree that Liberalism is different. Might it be a lesser commitment to maximum devolution and empowerment down to the lowest levels? What is it that the Social Democrats in the Liberal Democrats feel a need to assert because it might otherwise be lost or downplayed, and who might agree with them but not consider him/herself as a Social Democrat?
Simon re“Simon I’m glad you recognise that the phrase ‘hard left’ is being used rather cheaply.” To which you replied “I’m not sure why you think I recognise that”. I plead guilty to misread what you stated and you do think he is ‘hard left’. But I would also like to address your comments “what on earth makes you think that Lib Dems have to support or not support individual Corbyn policies? We’re not his poodle, you know” before then going on to talk about Hitler and comparing his transport policies and the LibDems.
Dealing with each point in turn. You state that a diagnosis of ‘Hard Left’ can be made, not based on an inspection of policy but, by an examination of one’s state of mind. Really? Can you point me in the direction of the medical evidence to support this statement and how it specifically relates to Corbyn?
Re ‘the LibDems as poodles” I do not recall ever saying the LibDems HAD to support Labour policy, that would be very silly indeed. What I have consistently argued for is that where there is commonality on policy issues, BOTH Labour and LibDems (and others parties where applicable) should co-operate and campaign in support of that policy. To me it doesn’t matter who first thought of the policy, what matters is the proposed policy itself. Isn’t such cooperation the very basis of a coalition, with a small ‘c’, and isn’t this something the LibDems support?
In reference to your comments re Hitler…. well perhaps I’ll leave it there.
Incidentally, I note that you take Catherine Royce to task in here article re junior doctors for failing to produce evidence of the crisis within the NHS. You insist that she or others produce hard evidence whilst seemingly taking issue with here using all of 800 words to set out here views. It seems your demand for fact-based conclusions is rather at odds with your attack on Corbyn where you imply ‘hard left’ is a state of his mind.
Hi George, I think it is simply far too early to take a considered view on Labour or LibDems alternative economic plan to the Tories. They both need time to regroup following the General Election and determine the details of their economic policy. That is only fair and reasonable for both parties. However, I think some LibDems are chomping at the bit to attack Corbyn and are jumping the gun. When he has published his plans by all means dissect them if you will. But the current premature mudslinging thrown at Corbyn is in my opinion more a symptom of anxiety with some LibDems as to the state of their party mixed with the unease that the media insistence of a Labour meltdown is somewhat at odds with Labour have gained some 200,000 members since Corbyn stood for leader.
Simon Banks – I support much of what you say. Those disloyal Labour MP’s who are undermining Corbyn do so because they were pro Syria and Iraq war, pro cuts in benefits, pro Trident, pro curtailing of civil liberties and are aghast at the idea the Corbyn should allow Labour party members a proper say in determining party policy. They really believe they should be all powerful in this regard.
If I am wrong in any of their positions, please correct me. Now it occurs to me that on these broad band of specific and major policy issues, they are almost diametrically opposed to the LibDems’ positions. Taking cheap shots at Corbyn fueled by these egotists is opportunistic though some may argue its fair game for the LibDems. But isn’t it all going to get a bit confusing for the electorate when LibDems come to spell out their own policy issues in these areas. More to the point, should any of these right-wing authoritarian Labour MP’s jump ship and join the LibDems, would you be happy that they bring along with them their authoritarian approach and demands that they alone should determine Party policy?
As others have said, be careful what you wish for.
@petermartin2001
“It’s rather lazy of you to talk about the left’s supposed Anti-Americanism in the way you do. If you wanted to put a little more effort into your argument you’d explain that no-one on the left has anything at all against any American person simply because they happen to be American.”
That’s rather a ludicrous ‘straw man’ argument you are putting forward there.
When I very clearly talk about people on Labour’s Hard Left who “end up supporting some profoundly illiberal regimes around the world simply because they “stand up” to the US, as they see it” why on earth would you think I was talking about their attitude “against any American person”? You do understand that “the US” is a country, not a person?
@Dave Orbison
“It seems your demand for fact-based conclusions is rather at odds with your attack on Corbyn where you imply ‘hard left’ is a state of his mind.”
When I said earlier “George said exactly what I think when he said: ‘For me, ‘hard left’ is more an attitude of mind rather than a set of policies, but policies are part of it'” perhaps it might help if you explained what part of that, precisely, it is that you don’t understand.
As to your request to be pointed in “the direction of the medical evidence to support this statement and how it specifically relates to Corbyn?” perhaps you would care to check with Ken Livingstone. The Hard Left seem to be quite keen on referring people onto psychiatrists when it suits them.
@Simon Shaw 15th Jan ’16 – 9:48am
“It’s so pervasive among many in the Labour Hard Left that they end up supporting some profoundly illiberal regimes around the world simply because they “stand up” to the US, as they see it.”
I’m curious – do you have names for these many?
@Bolano
No, I don’t.
However, what I have just done (at least to reassure myself) was to choose three members of Labour’s Hard Left at random and do a Google search for “XX anti American”. In each case it turned up quite a number of results.
I’d suggest you can do something similar.
George,
I would agree with Picketty wrt his comment about mathematical models. I’d put it slightly differently though. Those mathematical models, to be scientific, have to be anchored to some testable reality. There’s no point to those models if they assume wage and prices are always perfectly set and the system is always at or close to equilibrium. People don’t behave as economists expect us to behave. We are social animals. We do the tasks which are required of us usually quite happily if we see that others doing the same tasks are similarly rewarded for example. But we don’t react well to others being rewarded much better than ourselves for making the same or less effort.
Companies don’t tend to reduce wages and prices much when demand for their products drops. This might happen to a limited extent, but in the main, companies respond by laying off workers and so reducing output and creating unemployment. That doesn’t happen in the economic models of neo-classical economists which is why I say they are unscientific.
You aren’t quite right about the twin deficit hypothesis. The ability of the UK to run a trade deficit is entirely outside our control. It requires that others are prepared to lend us money to fund that deficit. They are actually buying gilts and other securities which keeps the pound high, enabling us to afford more imports. The government then deficit spends the proceeds of those gilts back into the economy to complete the circuit.
So we can take two, both equally valid, views on this. We can say that if our overseas suppliers want to run a permanent trade surplus, which means they have to purchase our gilts to recycle that surplus, we should just let them . This means allowing the two deficits to continue, much as they are are now until such time as the gilt buyers change their minds.
Alternatively, we can say we’d like everything to be in a closer balance. We can act simultaneously to bring down both deficits in a controlled way.
But, the government is so fixated on one deficit to the exclusion of the other that it isn’t achieving anything useful at all . There’s been no growth in the economy (in terms of GDP per person) since 2008. This is why there’s so much discontent in the country and this, in turn, has undoubtedly helped the rise of politicians with views outside the normal “acceptable” range.
George,
I meant to say that, going by what he wrote in in his well known book Capital, Piketty (got the spelling right this time!) doesn’t have a relaxed view in his approach to deficits.
Which is fair enough of any economist providing they understand the accounting relationship between government deficits, private sector deficits and external or trade deficits. I’m sure he must but I don’t remember him covering that point in his book.
Keynes was aware of the problem of trade deficits which led him to propose a separate currency for international trade. The Bancor. It’s a pity that wasn’t accepted at the Bretton Woods conference. Something like that would help a lot right now.
@Dave Orbison
I agree it is too soon to know where Corbyn will take the Labour party on economic policy, but I think I am very worried about where is will go. All I have is what he and his close allies have said in the past. As we are seeing with the Trident review, existing Labour policy is pretty much irrelevant.
Despite appointing a supporter of Trident to be shadow defense minister, Corbyn made clear he wouldn’t respect existing policy. Has now replaced that shadow defense minister, and the two people who are in charge of the policy review are opposed to Trident. It may be that the unions can prevent the formal policy of Labour changing, but, in reality, it already has changed. Many Lib Dems would like to get rid of Trident. But I think we should all be concerned about how this change in policy has happened. Imagine if Tim had done the same in our party.
So just because there are currently a lot of social democrats in charge of various important shadow ministerial posts, doesn’t mean what they say has any significance to future Labour policy. What we are seeing is a total transformation of the Labour of 2010 into something entirely different.
Of course, if that’s what Labour members want, that is their right. But I think it would be disingenious to pretend that this is not happening.
It also means I think we should be extremely wary of any close association with Corbyn’s Labour. Of course we should cooperate on parliamentary tactics to prevent the Tories implementing policies we oppose.
But if we allow the tabloid media to associate us in the public mind with Corbyn, it will do tremendous political damage to the #LibDemFightback
@Simon Banks
You’re not the only one who is unclear about definitions. These political terms are very badly defined.
William Wallace gave a wonderful definition of Liberalism at the Syria day conference last Saturday. To loosely quote him, he said Liberalism is about following reason not emotion to pursue the best policies. If only that were always true. Of course emotion has its place, but it can lead to totally counterproductive policies if it is not checked by reason.
My definition of social democracy covers a huge range of opinion, and that’s deliberate. I think, under my definition, most Lib Dems would be social democrats. But I don’t think most of the supporters of Corbyn would be.
You raise a very important question which we shouldn’t duck. What happens if Labour self-destructs? What do we want? What if the choice is between welcoming a lot of Labour members who we disagree with on important issues, or their forming a separate party, and that potentially splitting the centre-left, and leaving the Tory party in power for 30+ years?
Broad churches win elections under First Past The Post (FPTP). How much to we want to stop the Tories running this country? How far should we compromise on who we let into the party? It’s an important debate to be had.
My view is that, if we are to defeat the Tories, we will have to be very broad indeed. And the primarily policy I want Labour people to come to accept is electoral reform. I think we have a good chance of convincing them of that. It is FPTP that has created this disaster, by making a socialist party unviable, and so making membership of Labour the only realistic way for socialists to get representation in parliament.
One we have electoral reform, then, if need be, this broad church can split. But until then, unless we want to gift the running of the country to what will be an increasingly rightwing Tory party, we need that broad church.
What do you think?
@Simon Banks said: “What is it that the Social Democrats in the Liberal Democrats feel a need to assert because it might otherwise be lost or downplayed, and who might agree with them but not consider him/herself as a Social Democrat?”
This is a great question.
In my opinion, it is often not about specific policies but symbolism, and it is often based on misunderstanding from all sides. However, we shouldn’t dismiss symbolism as unimportant, it can be of central importance to a political party.
Some social democrats are very uneasy about Liberalism because they assume that it means Libertarianism. I’ve heard Liberals react angrily to that suggestion, but it’s not an unreasonable thing to think, when it is true in some places overseas, and when I have heard members of the Lib Dems pretty much assert that Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same thing.
Some Liberals regard issues like abortion and euthanasia as Liberal issues, so again, it’s not surprising that a few are reluctant to self-describe as Liberals, when, in every other sense, they are.
Some social democrats read members of the Lib Dems who appear to have a lot of sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policy. I think very few of the party do, but those views are often expressed on the internet, so it wouldn’t be surprising if someone concluded that.
I think, if we are to become a broader church, and so become large enough to challenge the Tories, these very difficult questions are ones we are going to have to tackle. I’m not suggesting we can resolve them quickly, but we need to start thinking about them. And I hope that the Social Democrat Group will be able to provide a forum to contribute to this debate.
George ” As we are seeing with the Trident review, existing Labour policy is pretty much irrelevant”
You infer as others have that there is something inherently wrong with Corbyn changing Labour’s policy on Trident. A theme echoed in the media and with some right wing Labour MP’s. It’s as if he has no right to change an existing policy. But this is nonsense surely? Are you suggesting that Tim Farron should maintain the same policies as adopted by the LibDem’s during coalition? Of course not. If it is OK for Tim Farron to change direction on any given policy, why should Corbyn be forever locked down on this one policy?
Also, you suggest the policy has simply changed by virtue of who has been appointed as Shadow Defence Minister. But you know this is not true. Corbyn has consistently committed the party to adopt greater democratisation than at present in terms of policy formulation. It is the current system that gives too much power to a few MP’s to determine policy which is the problem. Assuming Corbyn consults the party membership, that must surely be a more satisfactory way of agreeing party policy on this subject. Until that time comes we will shall have to wait to see what the policy position will be going forward which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Personally I hope the policy is changed and the Labour Party does not support the renewal of Trident. If some Labour MP’s find this so unpalatable then LibDems may get a few new members. But if you want to accept such pro Trident, authoritarian egotists that would be fine by me.
The strapline at the head of the Lib Dem Voice site states that this site is “by and for Lib Dem supporters”. As Liberal Democrats, we are not afraid to grapple with, and react to, “comments from everyone”, but posters on the site who are not currently Lib Dem supporters and who post multiple comments on the same thread (as in this thread) ought to be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they test our patience.
@Hugh p “posters on the site who are not currently Lib Dem supporters and who post multiple comments on the same thread (as in this thread) ought to be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they test our patience.”
To be fair, I think that the contribution of Dave Orbison and petermartin2001 to this thread has been much more helpful than your own.
@George Kendall “Broad churches win elections under First Past The Post”
I think this is an important point but it creates a problem for a “centrist” party like the Lib Dems. It must be easier for a broad church to either the political left or right to maintain a reasonably consistent position on a range of policies with most of the internal argument being about emphasis and priorities. For Lib Dems a broad church means that on individual policies the party must reconcile diametrically opposed views (even if they are close to the centre) and risks presenting to the electorate an inconsistent lucky dip of polices which would make the party’s default position on any issue difficult to predict.
@ George – “I think, if we are to become a broader church, and so become large enough to challenge the Tories, these very difficult questions are ones we are going to have to tackle”
I’m delighted to see this ambition expressed, along with the realisation that this requires the compromise of broad-church approach to policy and ideology. It is so rarely expressed these days.
@ Hugh – “posters on the site who are not currently Lib Dem supporters and who post multiple comments on the same thread ought to be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they test our patience.”
I can’t speak for Dave Orbison, but I have no regard for your patience when it comes to tackling ideas that i believe to be pernicious.
@ Peter – “it creates a problem for a “centrist” party like the Lib Dems. It must be easier for a broad church to either the political left or right to maintain a reasonably consistent position on a range”
Indeed, but do you not see the opportunity on the left?
The tories are a flexible bunch, they have been in government with only brief pauses to give some other chap a turn for over 200 years now. When you consider that they are by definition supposed to be rigidly inflexible in accommodating change one can only wonder that they alone in british politics have successfully navigated centuries of non-stop tumultuous change without ever ceasing to be relevant to the needs of the moment as perceived by the electorate.
Maybe this adaptability can be explained by Lord Hailsham’s description of the party in that Conservatism is not an ideology at all to which adherence is demanded, rather it is a state of mind that see’s its role as not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism.
So while I personally applaud every time the lib-dem’s do something sensible like taking less of my money to spend on windmill subsidies, I do not think that they party has a successful future couching itself under the umbrella of the centr-right.
No, the liberals faded when they ceased to best represent the pole of politics they sought to fight from, but there is nothing written in stone that labour should continue to occupy that pole.
labour 1915 = less than 7 million trade union members (pop 45m)
labour 1965 = more than 14 million trade union members (pop 55m)
labour 2015 = less than 7 million trade union members (pop 65m)
There still needs to be a political movement that represents those who value collective enablement to a greater degree than individual freedom, are labour best placed to provide that vision in the 21st century?
The decline of organised labour certainly seems to argue against the possibility.
So if you are looking for an historic opportunity to launch the liberals on a path back to prominence (and relevance), then look left my friend, look left.
Mr Orbison clearly misunderstands the Lib Dem policy on Trident. A very narrow majority support the current party policy, but a substantial minority would scrap Trident. Of course this vote was based on the rules that existed prior to Autumn conference 2015. Who knows what a one member one vote conference or a ballot of all members would decide? I suspect that there are many more members who are nearer the Corbyn stance on this issue than Mr Orbison thinks. We shall see. This unilateralist pacifist hopes so.
@Mick Taylor
“Who knows what a one member one vote conference or a ballot of all members would decide? I suspect that there are many more members who are nearer the Corbyn stance on this issue than Mr Orbison thinks.”
Really? I would have thought that if there were a ballot of all Lib Dem members on this issue then it would show the exact opposite of what you suspect. Certainly a recent opinion poll shows more support among Lib Dem voters for either renewal of Trident or (our own policy of) limited renwal of Trident, than for unilateralism.
In a 2013 Youguv survey….”The United Kingdom should give up nuclear weapons altogether” showed….Con 8% Labour 26% LibDems 33% UKIP 12% in favour
However..”Should the government decide that they will go ahead with their ‘Like for Like’ Trident replacement then…..”The United Kingdom should give up nuclear weapons altogether” showed….Con 13% Labour 37% LibDems 50% UKIP 18%…
Now, unless the year on year fall in support for Trident has reversed, it looks as if a majority of LibDems now prefer NO ‘Trident’ than a like for like replacement….
@Mick Taylor and Simon Shaw
Thank you both for illustrating my point about a lack of clarity and agreement when it comes to the Lib Dem position on important issues. 😉 If members cannot be sure then have a little sympathy for those of us on the outside!
@Hugh p
Sorry if my earlier post seems rude. I was struck though by the irony of your comment in the context of a thread about welcoming Labour supporters. Dave Orbison and petermartin2001 seem to be exactly the sort of people with whom Lib Dems should be engaging, particularly on specific issues of policy where there might be agreement.
Dave Orbison: The contradiction is in Corbyn himself, for claiming to be a “pacifist” while allying himself with warmongers. He may have condemned anti semitism but he still honours anti-semites. At best this shows poor political judgement.
@jedibeeftrix “So if you are looking for an historic opportunity to launch the liberals on a path back to prominence (and relevance), then look left my friend, look left.”
… light the blue touchpaper and retire! 😉
For once I find it hard to disagree with you, but I think you are raising a dilemma that Lib Dems have not resolved in the 8 months since the General Election (or the 8+ years before it).
It would be a reversal of an approach that Matthew Huntbach used to rail against on these pages which is summed up by an article I recently came across by Richard Reeves (which I suspect is the one to which Matthew regularly referred): “Social liberals should join Labour. … Social liberals in the Lib Dems have a perfectly respectable set of political principles, but they are the principals of another party.” (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/19/libdemconference.liberaldemocrats) This seems particularly relevant given the subject of this thread.
@Hughp,
My intention, with perhaps the odd lapse, has been to explore areas where Lib Dems and Labour members might find some agreement rather than to provoke a political argument along party lines. The Liberal Party had a great economist in John Maynard Keynes and my interest is to see all progressive parties once again base their policies on Keynesian and Post-Keynesian economics.
Whether or not we support the EU, want the railways and utilities nationalised, want a bigger or smaller government we all must want a healthy economy first and foremost. It is not healthy right now and we have to ask why.
@Hugh p “posters on the site who are not currently Lib Dem supporters and who post multiple comments on the same thread (as in this thread) ought to be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they test our patience.”
Hugh how do you expect to win former LibDem supports back to the party unless you engage with others who may not currently class themselves as LibDem supporters? Or are you suggesting that LibDem members should be entitled to more posts in a debate than those who have yet to be one over? I post on LDV on selective topics only and I’m sorry I test your patience if your comment was aimed at me as opposed to other ‘frequent posters’. I guess you could exercise your right not to read mine or other comments, perhaps a more proportionate response that any form of censorship.
The reason I post is because I believe that an essential part of politics is ‘the debate’ whether that be with people within the party you support, OR with those who are yet to be won over. I do not see political support as a binary issue i.e. you must either be “for or against” any given party.
Trident are perfect and topical example where it would be wrong and simplistic to represent one party has having a united party all standing behind the perceived ‘right solution’. It is not as simple as that and the role of debate is essential in reasoning policy and scrutinizing the details of any proposed policy. When an issue such as Trident splits opinion in many parties what is so wrong in debating this across parties?
I post on LDV not, as you seemingly think to irate LibDems, but to argue the case for policies I support. If you like I campaign for small ‘c’ coalitions across parties based on policies not personalities. For this reason, I consistently urge LibDems and Labour and other parties to work together where they can on common policy platforms. I feel that politicians shouldn’t just focus on trying to promote their party solely but should use their skills and access to the media to campaign together to help inform and shape public opinion on certain matters.
I stand corrected on Trident and LibDem policy. I thought conference had voted to get rid of it as opposed to keeping the missiles so long as the submarines just do not go out to sea. (If that’s right).
@Simon Shaw 15th Jan ’16 – 8:24pm
“However, what I have just done (at least to reassure myself) was to choose three members of Labour’s Hard Left at random and do a Google search for “XX anti American”. In each case it turned up quite a number of results.
I’d suggest you can do something similar.”
Thanks. Following your suggestion I’ve just tried “Simon Shaw anti-American”. Turned up 390,000 results. Unfortunately, I haven’t got time to check them all but I presume you’re not one of the anti-American Simon Shaws listed?
@expats
“Now, unless the year on year fall in support for Trident has reversed, it looks as if a majority of LibDems now prefer NO ‘Trident’ than a like for like replacement….”
That’s not what the recent (September 2015) YouGov poll found. For Lib Dem voters the results were:
26% support replacing Trident like-with-like
33% support replacing with a cheaper alternative (Lib Dem policy)
27% support scrapping Trident
14% don’t know
@Peter Watson
The way I read @Hugh p’s comment was that it was a subtle reminder to anyone reading this thread that those who criticise the party in these comments sections are often not party members.
Personally, I’m quite relaxed about the comments in this thread. I think anyone reading it will be aware of who is a Lib Dem, and who isn’t. But I have read other thread where contributers who I know are not Lib Dem members have used the word “we”, and thus implied they were disillusioned party members.
For the record, I’ve enjoyed debating with @petermartin2001. We usually disagree. But I always get the sense that he has read my points, and is trying to give an honest answer.
Sadly, on the internet, it’s all too often for someone to take a sentence out of context, and attack that, even if with a careful reading of your original comment that criticism has already been answered. But, of course, that’s the price we pay for allowing open debate, and it becomes inevitable if we allow our political opponents to join in.
Thank you for apologising to Hugh. He made a general comment, without naming anyone, you responded with a direct criticism of him. and then you’ve apologised. I wish the internet were always that civil.
@Neil Sandison
The SLF motion that you refer to is a good example of how policy is made in this party. A lot of people in the party will agree with it, but who knows if it’ll be passed, or passed unamended? It is just a proposed motion, not yet even on the agenda, and is no more party policy than anyone else’s motion.
If anyone is interested in it, it’s here:
http://www.socialliberal.net/in_favour_of_a_fairer_economy_in_a_stronger_society
@Bolano
Regarding the use of the term, hard-left, I know some people hate it. But it’s not just the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph who describe Corbyn and McDonnell with that term. I’ve seen it used in the Guardian and the Independent, I recently read a Corbyn-supporter self-describe that way.
My own direct experience of the hard left is, as I’ve said, 35 years out of date. But when I read blogs like the following, it feels like yesterday:
http://jonathonproctor.moonfruit.com/blog/4590200087/Auf-Wiedersehen-party/10460029
“Momentum have acted like left wing bullies. those who stand against it are subject to tirades of abuse and vilification. i know I’ve endured it. I’ve seen good friends of mine being told they will be de-selected”
If I find a different term that captures my impression of what they are really like, I’ll start using that term. But I feel that a softer term, like socialism, would be insulting to socialists.
I take different view of the situation. What will someone do for me?
Promises, empty promises. If political parties spent less time on worrying about expenses, and concentrated on those who elected them, things could be so different.
My previous MP got one comment, and that was me.
Jedibeeftrix,
“Do you not see the opportunity on the left?” … “While I personally applaud every time the lib-dem’s do something sensible like taking less of my money to spend on windmill subsidies, I do not think that the party has a successful future couching itself under the umbrella of the centre-right.” ….”If you are looking for an historic opportunity to launch the liberals on a path back to prominence (and relevance), then look left my friend, look left.”
I fear that this can probably be translated as “I’m a Tory supporter, and so I’d like the Lib Dems to help see off our Labour opponents.” I think we should instead repent our travels along that road under our previous leader!
@George Kendall 17th Jan ’16 – 12:18am
I think if you’re going to argue “a softer term, like socialism, would be insulting to socialists”, then you come into conflict with your cited blog, where Jonathan Proctor claims “treacherous sub groups forming like momentum who’s sole aim is to turn Labour into a party of socialists”. Hard Left is currently used as an insult thrown at anyone who agrees with Corbyn by those on the right of the Labour Party, on the right of the Lib Dems, or anywhere among the Tories. Frankly, I struggle to notice Hard Left policies among those espoused so far. But if wanting the railways nationalised makes me Hard Left, then fine – I can live with that. If anything, I tend to find that use of the term Hard Left enables me to tell the Orange Bookers, Blairites and Thatcherites apart from the rest of us.
That said, by Simon Shaw’s figures, the Lib Dems appear to have been rather heavily infiltrated by Hard Leftists, if 27% want to scrap Trident. But I send comradely greetings to that 27% of Red Army Reservists!
Thanks for all the comments on this, related and unrelated. Special thanks to Alex MacFie for saying hello. It’s always good to hear from my former students!