44 Comments

• Joseph Bourke 25th Jan '19 - 12:22pm

  Good article, George.

  I think most people would be hard preessed to come up with any substantive differences in practice between policies developed on a platform of social democracy from that of social liberalism.

• Malcolm Todd 25th Jan '19 - 1:26pm

  Well said. I think I agree with you on most issues, and I too suspect I am not really “a liberal” – many of the left-inclined liberals that post on this site are rather too apt to claim that all sorts of collectivist and interventionist policies are somehow “real liberalism” based on nothing much more, it appears, than the idea that “I’m a Liberal and I’m in favour of this therefore it’s Liberalism!”
  I wouldn’t call myself a Social Democrat either, to be fair; I think the trouble with adopting any label like that is that it tends to lead either to lazy thinking (I’m going to oppose/support that because it’s what people like me do) or to the sort of intellectual contortionism you describe. When I was in the party, I was happy to call myself a “Liberal Democrat”, because that to me means nothing more or less than “member of the Liberal Democrat party”; now, I just call myself confused and disappointed…

• Peter Martin 25th Jan '19 - 2:01pm

  @ George,

  “Instead, we should support a programme of policies which both defends the interests of the vulnerable and maintains a healthy democracy……”

  We can all agree with the above. This article could well have been written in the 90’s and 00’s when everything looked to be working well from a Social Democratic perspective. The EU had introduced the euro, the peripheral EU countries were going gangbusters, (remember that now extinct creature the Celtic Tiger?) , immigration wasn’t a real problem. In fact the only real problem for the UK govt, apart from self induced ones like wanting to invade Iraq, was that the £ was too high to consider joining the euro!

  It’s not quite like that now. Is it? So I would say a more up-to-date article is called for.

  https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/05/collapse-europe-s-mainstream-centre-left

• frankie 25th Jan '19 - 5:26pm

  Celtic tiger extinct Peter, if you say so, the facts say different

  https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/ireland

  https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/ireland/uk?sc=XE34
  just a snipet from the figures, UK GDP per person 39,252, Eire 68,206

  Looks like the Celtic tiger is way ahead of us. Did you stop reading the news in the noughties, you seem never to have got last the 2008 crash. Catch up, your dated knowledge is making you look foolish, your arguments can be demolished with easy, they can’t even survive a quick glance never mind a full investigation.

• George Kendall 25th Jan '19 - 7:18pm

  Hi Malcolm Todd,

  I sympathise with your reluctance to use labels. Back when I was in the SDP, before the merger into the Lib Dems, I was reluctant to call myself a Social Democrat, because I thought any such label was too symplistic.
  However, as individualism has steadily become such a problem in our society, the label Social Democrat has grown on me.

  I’m sorry you are no longer a member. But, if you are interested, you don’t need to be a LibDem member to be on the mailing list of the Social Democrat Group. Nor do you need to self-describe as a Social Democrat.

  If, as you clearly are, you are committed to the principles the Social Democrat Group stands for, you would be very welcome: https://t.co/XMEEtmFSvb

• George Kendall 25th Jan '19 - 8:57pm

  Peter,

  I agree that social democrats in Europe face serious problems, but that doesn’t stop me supporting them. If they are right but unpopular, all the most reason to join them, and contribute to making them more popular.

  But if you are suggesting that the far-left, instead, are the ones who are right, why did you link to that article?

  It said: ‘At the heart of the matter is the difficult question of “socialism in one country”. Contemporary parties of the left across Europe simply do not believe that this is possible today, if it ever was.’

  It gives the example of the complete failure of François Mitterrand to achieve socialism in one country.

  The article does describe how populists of the left and right have gained support while in opposition, but it also describes what happened when the hard left actually got into power in Greece: “In January 2015, jubilation and hope at the arrival of a far-left government gave way, six months later, to despair as the same government signed a new bail-out agreement with the EU, which was even tougher than what Greeks had rejected in a referendum.”

  In both cases, the populist socialists had to break all their campaign pledges.

  If that happens here, and, with this Brexit mess it is quite likely, my fear is the pendulum will not swing back to moderate progressives, but to far-right populists, of the kind who now run the USA.

• George Kendall 25th Jan '19 - 9:33pm

  @Joseph Bourke

  It depends on which kind of social democrat and social liberal you are talking about. In some cases, they are identical. Indeed, Wikipedia describes the original SDP as having followed social liberalism
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK).

  Other social democrats can, of course, be pretty illiberal, and can have an instinct to hoard power in the centre, rather than using economic and welfare policies which will empower citizens.

  A few social liberals embrace radicalism for radicalism’s sake and are contemptuous of those who are cautious about radical change – if it has never been successfully tried elsewhere or never tried in proper pilot studies. This is particularly common among those who will angrily attack anyone who criticises Corbyn, but never attack anyone who criticises the LibDem leadership.

  A few social liberals, I’m afraid, seem to be caught up in the language of individualism. They seem to always talk about rights, and not about communities or the need for some to take on responsibilities in order to grant rights to others. I fear their thinking inhibits effective policy debate.

  And then there is the other meaning of the term social liberalism. There are some who say they are economic liberals and social liberals, and mean they are rightwing on economic policy and liberal on social policies. And that’s another kind of social liberalism altogether.

• Michael 1 25th Jan '19 - 10:58pm

  A good article, George – thanks for writing it.

  It does though sound to me that your definition of a Social Democrat is very close to that of being a Liberal! It is probably why since at least the 60s, Liberals have co-operated closely with Social Democrats in Labour such as Roy Jenkins and the Alliance was formed and we have the party today called the Liberal Democrats – which would be the label I would use of myself! And the Democrat part of that is important too – more referendums, devolution, direct democracy, fair votes. We need to abolish the oligarchy that we live in!

  —

  For me, clearly Liberal has greater connotations of Freedom than that of a Social Democrat. And I believe that everything starts with absolute freedom for the individual to do whatever they want. And that freedom should ONLY be taken away through firstly very careful consideration. And ONLY if it increases freedom overall.

  Of course as you outline that also means curtailing some freedoms – such as being able to spend your own money and have it taken away in tax to allow people to be free of poverty, ill-health and ignorance (through good education).

  And of course this is very easier said than done and everyone has to come to their own balance.

  But it is why I comment sometimes in favour of free speech on LDV. Free speech should be an individual right and serves a greater good (the discussion of political ideas and scientific advancement) and it should be very extreme to be punished. And sometimes I think we (both within the Lib Dems and as a country) are tending towards too much authoritarianism on the issue.

• Cassie 26th Jan '19 - 8:32am

  What does Liberal mean? To me, along with many, many others, it boils down to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. Means gun laws etc aren’t authoritarian.
  Total liberty isn’t Liberal, it’s Libertarian. Totally selfish.
  I reckon the party’s motto (and the only commandment for any and all religions!) should be: be nice.

• Ben Andrew 26th Jan '19 - 8:45am

  I very much agree with this. I think some Lib Dems describe themselves as liberals without a very clear definition of what they mean by this, because they are insecure about us not having one clear over arching philosophy.

• Peter Martin 26th Jan '19 - 8:48am

  @ Frankie,

  It’s quite a few years since I’ve heard the expression “Celtic Tiger”. Maybe it’s since been identified a large Tabby cat? Maybe still purring rather than roaring?

  You have to take Ireland’s GDP figures with a large pinch of salt. They are artificially inflated due to the practice of several large mutinationals who use Ireland as part of their tax avoidance/evasion measures. So, for example, all of Apple computers and iPhones in Australia are physically shipped directly to Australia from (usually) China. But the invoicing goes via Ireland. The iphones are sold to Apple (Ireland) at a cheap price and Apple (Ireland) then sells them to Apple (Australia) at a much higher price.

  It end up with Apple (Ireland) making fictitious profits which distort GDP figures too. But these ‘profits’ support few, if any, real jobs. Even doing the paperwork can be contracted out to the Far East.

  Having said that, Ireland has been reasonably successful in recent years because it’s managed to run a trading surplus of about 4% of GDP. This meets with the approval of German economists and it’s the only way to get by if you’re subject to the rules of the so-called Stability and Growth Pact. They think every country in the world should run a trading surplus.

• Peter Martin 26th Jan '19 - 9:04am

  @ George,

  I’m not suggesting that the far left are correct. I don’t want a recreation of the former East Germany.

  So you need to ask why the Social Democrats are very unpopular in Europe. I’d suggest it’s because the voters have tried it but they don’t get what is written on the tin. Social Democracy should be about managing the economy in the interests of everyone in the community. It should be about regulating the economy to minimise unemployment. Governments should put their foot on the ‘accelerator’ to speed up the economy and put their foot on the ‘brakes’ to slow it down if inflation is an issue.

  But they can’t do that as we see in Italy now. There is nothing wrong with Social Democratic politics per se. Even ones that are slightly to the right of mine. But they simply aren’t allowed in the EU if SGP rules apply.

• Tom Harney 26th Jan '19 - 10:58am

  I found the article very interesting. However I do not seem to meet the all these people who fit neatly into boxes. In fact there is increasing evidence that more people are rejecting the various labels.
  When I was a councillor and spoke to people, they rarely showed any interest in my political theories, or anybody else’s theories. Most people had clear views on what was fair in their community and believed that things like making sure that people had access to healthcare, somewhere to live, jobs and so on.
  Unfortunately we have allowed our education system to be taken over by the demands of bogus statistics which enable unjustified conclusions to be drawn on the performance of schools. On top of this there is an outrageous bullying by Ofsted which results in stress on staff and stress on children, as the children get involved in this aim of getting a few more marks in an exam.
  Until we find a way of addressing the realities of the world we will continue to live in the imaginary one of things like “far left” and “centre right”.

• George Kendall 26th Jan '19 - 12:40pm

  @Michael1
  Thanks, Michael.

  I like how you put it, that Liberal has greater connotations of Freedom than Social Democrat. I sometimes describe myself as a social democrat with liberal inclinations.

  What troubles me is that some in the party say things like: “We’re all Liberals here.” Then a few others condemn any party members who disagree and call them illiberal, sometimes they call them authoritarian. This can have serious consequences. It means some party members ask themselves, “Do I really belong in this party?” Others are afraid to honestly say what they think.

  I’ve seen this at party conference, where people have admitted to me that they did not vote for a motion or amendment because they were afraid of being seen “to vote the wrong way”.

  To be honest, I was nervous when I submitted this article. I thought some might be angry at my presumption in criticising the concept of Liberalism. But it is important to start having this debate.

  I’m grateful for the positive response. But it would be a shame if people who disagree with the article don’t join the debate. There will be people who have read this who genuinely disagree with the article, who think I am wrong. Perhaps they think there is a clear Liberal philosophy, that my approach to politics is wrong, and that I should empathise Liberty more and social justice less. If so, please do join this discussion thread!

• George Kendall 26th Jan '19 - 1:05pm

  @Cassie
  Thanks for engaging with the key question in my article.

  I don’t find the harm principle very helpful (“A person can do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others”)

  The trouble is, if someone objects to the action of another person, it will be because they believe it does do harm, either directly, or indirectly.

  To handle this, the principle has to be watered down to: “a person should be able to do whatever they want as long as there is limited direct or indirect harm to others”.

  That would be easy to apply if we were good at judging how much direct or indirect harm is done. But we are not.

  I can’t count the number of times some has said: “how dare the local council prevent me from doing this!” Or, “I have a *right* to this, how dare anyone deny me!”

  How do we decide whether a planning application will harm a neighbour? How do we decide whether someone taking cocaine is indirectly harming others? How do we decide whether someone owning a firearm will indirect harming others? And how do we decide whether the harm done justifies denying that person the right to do something?

  I am just as inconsistent myself. I’m constantly forgetting the indirect harm my actions do to others.

  My problem with the language of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is that it seems to affect the way people think, and it leads to either confused thinking, or intolerance of anyone who argues they shouldn’t have the freedom to do whatever they want.

  I want another principle to follow, and, in politics, I prefer the principle of “trying to defend the interests of the vulnerable”.

• Lorenzo Cherin 26th Jan '19 - 1:17pm

  George , a surprising piece, you tread the same ground often, but seem unaware that these words mean so much that varies, as to be almost not worth the worry.

  In America we , all of us , would be Democrats. When I said a few good things about Bernie Sanders, you came on full blast against his economic stance, you were the more staunch economic liberal, me the more pragmatic social democrat on that issue or viewpoint.

  In many countries, liberals are in the centre or even centre right, in Canada, Trudeau is, in my view a socialist and no liberal, he mandates and with a top down attitude to policy, I would not support.

  I relate to the U.S., two broad parties once upon a time, room in there for mainstream political views . Now, there, here, chaos.

  If the social democrat group is going strong, where are my e mail notifications, would be keen to be in touch.

• Stimpson 26th Jan '19 - 1:55pm

  The state has no business in the bedroom and no business in the boardroom. And the state is a regressive entity by the very concept of nation states.

  That is why Liberalism makes sense.

• David Evans 26th Jan '19 - 2:51pm

  Stimpson ‘ … the state is a regressive entity by the very concept of nation states. That is why Liberalism makes sense.” And that is why you are a libertarian and I am a liberal.

• Sean Hagan 26th Jan '19 - 4:40pm

  @David Evans – absolutely agree with your conclusion!

  @Stimpson – I obviously understand what you imply, but think that you should also clarify exactly what you mean when you assert (in such sweeping terms) that the state has “no business in the boardroom”.

• Katerina Porter 26th Jan '19 - 4:55pm

  Macmillan’s “you never had it so good” applied to most of the postwar West and whether political parties called themselves Social Democrats or not they followed similar policies and a great increase of prosperity resulted. There was direct action by the state, (even before the War there was Roosevelt’s New Deal), the creation of welfare states, and very high taxation for the most rich. In America between 1951 and 1963 it was 91% and with us it was even higher. It came to an end when OPEC raised oil prices steeply in 1973 which led to very high inflation, robber baron union leaders and a change of ideology. My husband and I decided to join the Alliance but found one had to belong either to the Liberals or SDP. We joined both – I cannot now remember who joined which and then it became the Liberal Democrats. It was going to be called the Social and Liberal Democrats but I think I remember people were afraid we would be called the Salad Party…………..

• Peter Martin 26th Jan '19 - 6:52pm

  @ George,

  There isn’t a wordwide accepted meaning for Liberalism. In Australia it means the right wing Liberal Party of Australia. In the USA the term liberal is applied to those on the left. In Germany, ‘Liberalism’ is associated with the Free Democrats who might be socially liberal, but economically sound to be much more Thatcherite that Thatcher.

  It’s really only in the UK that Liberalism is associated with the political centre. Not always though. There are some strange bedfellows in the Lib Dems. I can’t quite see how Katharine Pindar can happily coexist in the same party as Arnold Kiel or Stimpson.

• George Kendall 26th Jan '19 - 7:08pm

  @Tom Harney
  Thank you. I’m glad you found it interesting.

  No label fits neatly me either.

  For many years, I avoided philosophical labels and just called myself a Liberal Democrat.

  However, a few years back, I realised the language we use to describe ourselves does matter. It affects what we say and how we think. And it can help us form a coherent way of thinking.

  I constantly hear people say things like: “that’s not very liberal”, or “I think the liberal thing to do is”. Inevitably, that has an effect on me. Sometimes I think “I don’t care if it’s ‘illiberal’ if it’s the right thing to believe.” But I might feel threatened by those words, and feel under presssure to conform to ‘liberalism’. That’s fine if ‘liberalism’ is a good philosophy which leads to good policies. But, as I have tried to show in the article, some forms of liberalism can lead to inconsistent policies and even bad policies.

  I have heard a few party members say: “we should be intolerant of illiberalism”. That has alarmed me. It may drive people out of the party, and it is inherently contradictory.

  One of the key features of liberalism has been its belief in tolerance. But, when I challenge this intolerance, I hear, “that used to be liberalism, but liberalism is now different.”

  I’m certainly not saying everyone should be a social democrat, nor am I saying everyone should have a political philosophy.

  I’m saying that social democracy is one of the two philosophies the party was founded on, and it’s perfectly valid for me, and others, to be both social democrats and members of the party.

• George Kendall 26th Jan '19 - 7:15pm

  @Stimpson
  Thank you for engaging in the debate.

  Obviously, your simple definition of Liberalism raises questions.

  If the state is regressive, are you saying that we should have no state? That would mean no national health service, no legal restriction on which side of the road you drive on, no police force.

  Are you saying that there should be no law against pedophilia, as long as it was in your bedroom? No health and safety legislation, as long as it was in your company.

  I very much doubt you think the above, so perhaps you could clarify what you think the limits of freedom should be.

• Nonconformistradical 26th Jan '19 - 8:38pm

  @Stimpson
  Are you suggesting that businesses should be totally unregulated? If not then who should regulate them and how? I ask because self-regulation e.g. banks doesn’t have great tra ck record. Neither does the record of some of the large auditors.

• Thomas 27th Jan '19 - 5:13am

  Peter Martin – historically the FDP has 2 wings. The political landscape of Weimar Republic shows this more clearly. One wing was from the DDP on the left, which is similar to the Libdems. Another wing was DVP/National Liberals on the right. Actually, the National Liberals were historically in favour of state interventions “for” the industry captains, but against state interventions for labour and consumers, since at that time they were the main party of business in Germany. Actually, you can compare it to the Gilded Age Republican Party. Currently the National liberal wing is dominant within the FDP.
  I want to add: In France, liberals are the likes of Macron.

  Stimpson – The modern day US Republican Party/Libertarian Party would have welcomed you. Or, you can be an anarchist.
  I would personally see myself either a Bull Moose Republican or a Rockefeller Republican if I were an American, but more of the former.

• Alex Macfie 27th Jan '19 - 9:16am

  Peter Martin: The Liberal Party of Australia does not belong to Liberal International (it actually belongs to the same international grouping as our Conservatives, reflecting its place in the political spectrum). In Australian politics, “small-l liberalism” is always clearly separated from the politics of the country’s Liberal Party, and its flag is carried by the Australian Democrats (but which has been in the political doldrums for the past 11 years; anyone who thinks we LIb Dems are in a bad state might get some comfort from our Australian sister party which has been in a much worse position for much longer (or maybe it’s a warning to us)).
  Likewise, the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor very democratic (still it’s better than its Russian namesake). It doesn’t belong to any international grouping, and seems to be a party that exists for the sake of having power.

• Stimpson 27th Jan '19 - 10:11am

  My comment itself was somewhat simplistic, I agree – there are areas where intervention is necessary – for example if a corporation refuses to employ BAME people, or in cases of sexual assault or so forth.

  But the general thrust of my view is that individuals are better off making their own decisions in the main, that the private sector is always better than the bully state, and that people should be free of discrimination regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religious belief and should not feel ostracised or threatened in this country.

  I may agree with the Tories on economic measures, but they are nationalists and authoritarian which are both terrible things. Equally where as I think much of the “Progress” set of Labour are generally a good bunch, those who are advocating 1970s statism and militant trade unionism are just as regressive and dangerous as Rees-Mogg and friends.

  Essentially I do not want a country where either the views of the ERG or ASLEF are given any credence.

• Thomas 27th Jan '19 - 11:30am

  Stimpson – Tory economic policies have created an economy reliant on debt-fuelled consumer spending and asset stripping. They also triggered the trend of financial deregulation that eventually led to the Financial Crisis. You talked about radical, hard-left Labour of the 1970s, but they also began with Tory economic policies dated back to the interwar period. The Conservative policies have always prioritized land-owning and aristocrats and then City interests over industries. Worse, many of them are Communist China cheerleaders.

  All countries with strong manufacturing have industrial policies to support manufacturers: investments in infrastructures, skills and R&D (Britain serious lags behind); protection against foreign takeovers (non-existent in Britain); government procurement; financing support for manufacturing businesses and exporters (Britain also lacks).
  A serious industry policy can split the business vote.

  George Kendall – a party that fits to govern must balance interests between capital and labour. I am not advocating for a Gilded Age Robber Baron party or a full-blown Thatcherite party, but we must reach out to the business community because after all, they are essential to economic development, and calling yourself a “Social Democrat” will do you no good in such effort, if not driving them to the Tories even more.

• George Kendall 27th Jan '19 - 4:51pm

  @Thomas

  You are right that we need to reach out to business and the wealthy. But if anyone suggests that the wealthy don’t care about the vulnerable in the community, I think they are mistaken. Many of the wealthy are deeply concerned, they just want to make sure it is done with sensible policies.

  Their emphasis is not just on caring for the powerless, but also empowering them to improve their lives so they are no longer dependent on the state. There is nothing wrong with that. It fits in well with what the Joseph Rountree Foundation are saying (
  https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/we-can-solve-poverty-uk )

  What repells wealthy people is when so-called progressives say they are in favour of social justice, but then use limited resources to spend on ideology, rather than effective action.

  Of course, there are social democrats who have wasted public spending in the past. So we must make absolutely clear our commitment to the strong economy we need for the government to have a good tax income and to spending those taxes in the most efficient way possible.

  We need to be outspoken in condemning the politics of the hard left, which stirs up hatred, and has contempt for private industry. And particularly, we need to speak out against the people who currently lead the Labour party who believe in things like the following:
  

• George Kendall 27th Jan '19 - 11:51pm

  Hi @Lorenzo Cherin,
  It’s good to communicate again.

  As I said to @Malcolm Todd above, I used to reject labels in a similar way to yourself. But I’ve changed my mind.

  I hope in this thread that I’ve shown I am extremely aware of how ambiguous language is, and particularly terms that describe political philosophy. But I have come to realise that language is also incredibly important, both negatively, in the way it can manipulate the debate, and, more positively, in how it can help people to think through their priorities.

  Over the last thirty-odd years in the party, I’ve seen how effective it can be if you frame the debate using your own language. Who would want to be called authoritarian? Yet some liberals use this term freely to describe anyone who isn’t a libertarian. See https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2017

  But, more positively, language can help us to work out what our priorities are. If we think that individual liberty is so important that we should almost never limit it, even if at a serious cost to the wider community, then fair enough. What is not good is if we support policies arbitrarily, without considering how they fit into what we believe is important. If that is happening, then we are probably being manipulated by clever rhetoric, or by political fashion. And we are not following our own values.

  As I have said above, I think the narrow ideologies of left and right are extremely dangerous. But that doesn’t mean more thoughtful people can’t think hard about their values, and then try to apply them consistently.

  I hope in a small way, this thread may help a few people do this.

• George Kendall 28th Jan '19 - 12:49am

  @Lorenzo Cherin
  Regarding the article I wrote about Bernie Sanders, I presume you mean this one:
  https://www.libdemvoice.org/world-poverty-is-falling-bernie-sanders-would-reverse-that-50469.html
  Thanks for the prompt, I’ve now re-read it, and the debate that followed. Depressingly, what I feared might happen did happen (Trump), and people who think of themselves as leftwing continue to lend comfort to protectionist policies which will increase global poverty.

  If you are saying my support of allowing poor countries to export to the West is against the principles of social democracy, then I strongly disagree with you.

  I make a similar point in the article above, when I condemn those who say: “people in my country have a right to a job, and if that means unemployment in the developing world, that’s not my concern.”

  Of course, if possible, I would want to raise the living standards of people in poor countries. But the effect of what Sanders was proposing in his campaign website would be to shut them out of US markets altogether. I think that was reprehensible Trumpist nationalist populism. And it may well have helped Trump get elected.

  Trumpist protectionism is no more acceptable if it is disguised with a false claim that the policy will raise wages in the developing world.

  That said, there is a debate to be had. There will be cases where we should always shut goods out, for example, when the workers are not free, such as when political prisoners are forced to make goods. And there is a difficult balance to be struck, on the one hand, we want to drive up their wages, but on the other, we don’t want to force all industry out of the developing world. But it needs to a genuine balance, not protectionist nationalism disguised as social democracy.

• Lorenzo Cherin 28th Jan '19 - 1:02am

  George we only disagree on labels, I am a classical Liberal on liberty, related issues a social Liberal on community related issues, a social democrat , on equality related issues, the way you seem, you would be too I and most would reckon, the words only mean what each regard them to, within the framework of objective definitions having some part.

  I label you a good man, enough of a label.

• Nonconformistradical 28th Jan '19 - 6:10am

  @George Kendal
  It appears to me that all too many of the wealthy want to isolate themselves from those less fortunate than themselves. Hiding away in gated communities. Hiding their wealth in offshore tax havens. Excuse my cynicism but I find your view incredibly naive. Actions speak louder than words.

• Peter Martin 28th Jan '19 - 8:59am

  “If you are saying my support of allowing poor countries to export to the West is against the principles of social democracy……”

  Just who is saying they shouldn’t? Maybe you have the EU in mind with its very high tariff barriers designed to ‘protect’ EU manufacturers? So, for example, the EU is happy to allow an African country to export coffee and cocoa at low tariff rates but if it tries to develop those products by value adding them into chocolate and coffee products the tariff barriers really kick in.

  Protectionism hasn’t been invented by Trump. The EU has 10% import tariffs on all foreign cars. But the EU gets upset if anyone else wants to put similar tariffs on EU exports.

• Peter Martin 28th Jan '19 - 9:09am

  Just following on from my last comment:

  “How the EU starves Africa into submission”

  https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

• Daniel Walker 28th Jan '19 - 10:19am

  @Peter Martin

  I’ve responded to this statement elsewhere but, in short, most African countries can export, and import, anything but arms to/from the EU under the aptly-named Everything But Arms programme. As the link you provide acknowledges in the corrections.

• Thomas 28th Jan '19 - 11:34am

  Nonconformistradical – You know, about what you have said about the British upper class.

  An article comparing Japanese and British railway privatisation.
  https://www.ft.com/content/9f7f044e-1f16-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

  Even we assume that other things are equal, one important factor regarding Japan’s success was that Japanese railway operators and owners actually care about local communities, and they take a long-term view rather than quarterly profit. The same cannot be said with the Brits.

• George Kendall 28th Jan '19 - 4:55pm

  @Nonconformistradical

  Fair enough. Maybe my hurried reply needs some clarification.

  When I spoke about wealthy people, I did not mean to refer to all wealthy people. In every community, there are good, bad, and indifferent. In the main, most people in all communities are indifferent. They won’t oppose actions that improve justice, but they won’t go out of their way to promote them either. The majority of the rich are like this too.

  Of course, the effect of the actions of indifferent people is often pretty selfish. But I think, with a small core group of good people providing leadership, it is possible to get many of the indifferent people to vote for positive change.

  Most people in this country are reasonably affluent. And, by world standards, they are definitely rich. I don’t know your situation, but I suspect most people who post here are very affluent by world standards. If we own a car and can travel abroad for holidays, we are pretty well off. If we own a house in the UK, we are extremely well off!

  Most people don’t feel strongly about, say, overseas aid. But it has been possible to elect MPs of all parties who have supported 0.7% of GDP going to overseas aid. This is because a core number of people (including some rich people) have been committed to this aid figure.

  1/2

• George Kendall 28th Jan '19 - 4:55pm

  2/2

  What we need to do is find a way to shift the majority on other issues, such as maintaining and improving access to our markets for people in the developing world, so they can trade their way out of poverty.

  Some progress has been made. While it’s true that the EU and the USA are protectionist in many areas, the very poorest countries have zero tarriffs for most exports: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45342607

  This would not be possible if the affluent majority in this country was totally opposed to it.

  For all their (innumerable) faults, MPs in all parties support this approach to the very poorest countries. (UKIP doesn’t, of course, but thankfully they don’t have any MPs)

  What I found incredibly depressing about this thread ( https://www.libdemvoice.org/world-poverty-is-falling-bernie-sanders-would-reverse-that-50469.html ), is that it is not just Trump/UKIP who push the populist line that domestic companies should re-shore their factories from the developing world to rich western countries. That nationalist protectionism has even found support among a few Lib Dems 🙁

  Though I was a bit shocked by that thread, I wouldn’t accuse those people of being bad people. Just lacking awareness of the regressive implications of the policies they were defending.

  /ends

• George Kendall 28th Jan '19 - 6:10pm

  @Katerina Porter

  I like the way you point out that some people, who didn’t call themselves social democrats, pursued social democrat policies. I agree. It’s why I talk of northern Europe as if it is social democratic, even though some of these countries have rarely had explicitly social democrat countries. One of the risks of using labels like this is that it can sound tribal, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I am happy whenever anyone introduces policies that will improve out society, whatever the party or label.

  Similar to you and your husband, I joined in 1981. I always assumed it was going to form a merged party eventually. And I was never a tribal social democrat.

  @frankie @Ben Andrew @David Evans @Sean Hagan @Alex Macfie @Daniel Walker
  Just a quick thank you to you all for your comments. I’ve read all of them. I just haven’t felt I have anything new to reply to them. (Sometimes because I just completely agree with you!)

• George Kendall 28th Jan '19 - 11:28pm

  I don’t think we should be restrictive on who we describe as social democrats.

  I know her constituents in South Cambridgeshire are probably very angry with her for voting with the government for the policies she is complaining about, but if Heidi Allen actually voted in the same way she speaks, perhaps she could be described as a social democrat.

  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/24/ive-absolutely-had-enough-tory-mp-embarks-on-anti-austerity-tour?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR1wNZ7mt-73Y_UspAK7lV6gswUVM50AzbWTHhGh6UitP24Sn21Bz1lkTMQ

• Thomas 29th Jan '19 - 2:39am

  George Kendall – I will support the reshoring if it is about moving production away from Communist China. Unlike other developing countries, Communist China actively and systemically support the policies of dumping and intellectual property theft. Many of non-consumer electronicand other industrial components produced in China may contain spying chips, hacking devices and crypts. In addition, they also use the amount of foreign currency hoarded to buy up sensitive strategic assets in the West, with espionage and spying purposes rather than just profit maximization. Developed country governments cannot pressure/encourage corporates to move production from China to a third country like Vietnam, but they can pressure/encourage them to reshore.

  Besides, some lessons I learned from the two world wars include the need for a strong manufacturing base. Strategic industries must be protected to some degrees, not just because of employment issue but also because of national security and geopolitical grounds, because a strong national defense needs strong strategic industries to support it. The national security and geopolitical issues cannot be ignored. You can just look at how appalling British defense procurement currently is. There is a reason I consider myself both a social liberal and a (19th century Germany) national liberal.

• George Kendall 29th Jan '19 - 7:32pm

  @Thomas

  Fair point. There may well be cases where it would be sensible to resist the offshoring of industry to certain countries.

  – If a country is deliberately maximising their exports and minimising their imports, it may be necessary to take action.
  – In areas of national security, it may be necessary to retain production either in our own country or that of a reliable ally.
  – If a country is exporting products using technology which they have obtained illegally.
  – And perhaps if the environmental standards or workers’ conditions are so bad, to accept those products would be mean we were complicit in what was happening.

  But I don’t think that is the motivation behind most protectionism today. Like in most of politics, the issues are complex. But Bernie Sanders campaign statements were not complex. He was explicitly nationalist and protectionist: he wanted jobs to move from low-income countries like Haiti and Vietnam back to America.

  That said, it wouldn’t have been much better if he had been less explicitly protectionist, and cynically pretended that his only motivation was to raise environmental standards and low wages in those countries.

  See https://slate.com/business/2016/04/bernie-sanders-is-the-developing-worlds-worst-nightmare.html

• George Kendall 31st Jan '19 - 11:49pm

  Thank you to everyone who has commented.

  When a thread is six days old I find very few people comment, but I’d still be happy to continue discussing the issue.

  For those interested, do add a comment on the following Facebook page:
  https://www.facebook.com/SocialDemocratGroup/posts/2332025557043582?notif_id=1548962357117198