The SLF are not Social Democrats
The Social Liberal Forum, a left leaning lobby within the Liberal Democrats, held their first conference on Saturday. The event and lobby have been characterised as a gathering of social democrats.
“‘We are trying to make sure that mainstream liberal values continue to be shown in mainstream party policy.’ By mainstream he means social democratic.” – Independent on Sunday
“a group that represents social democrats within the Lib Dems” – Guardian
It’s an easy assumption, but anachronistic. The Social Democrats were the pragmatic right of the 1980s Labour Party, generally comfortable with markets and capitalism. Former members such as Andrew Lansley, Andrew Adonis, and Chris Huhne sit in all three major parties today.
That opposing the direction of travel in public service reform of the first two, and coming closing to tearing up the public services position of the Liberal Democrat Commission bearing the name of the latter, is principally what the SLF is known for, is a pretty big hint.
The SLF, like LV, and unlike the SDP, tend to be sceptical of central government and imperial adventures. There is nothing inherently objectionable in their desire to see more local democratic accountability over local public services. We just wish they would see that there is nothing inherently objectionable in using market mechanisms to make institutions accountable to individuals.
The SLF and LV both sit on a liberal spectrum. We’re all social liberals. We differ in our concept of social justice.
LV leans towards redistribution as a means to an end, for example tackling ignorance and poverty. SLF leans towards redistribution as an end in itself, in the belief that a flatter society is a better one.
We differ in our economic preferences. We support a more Hayekian model of sound money and a night watchman state, they tend to Keynesianism and activist government.
As SLF member James Graham notes in an excellent piece of analysis, most of the labels are unsatisfactory. I’m not entirely convinced by his conclusion though that social liberal is least dissatsifactory. His ealier pick of socialist liberal is the most accurate description of the SLF’s bias towards redistribution, sympathy for public ownership, scepticism of markets, and bottom-up change.
It’s a better counter-point to the use of economic liberal to describe the right, and largely defines what we oppose in the SLF agenda, their socialism.
The SDP was a victim of it’s own analysis. It highlighted that the early 1980s Labour party was too extreme, too left-wing, and too unwilling to compromise with the real world to be electable. Having made that point, most forcibly in the 1983 election where only geography and first past the post saved the reds from meltdown, Labour’s modernisers set about expelling Militant, ditching Old Labour poses, and creating the election powerhouse that was New Labour.
They became the SDP.
The SDP itself was dead over 20 years ago.
The SLF is very much alive, exploiting the circumstances of coalition with Conservatives, and a long-standing weakness amongst our ‘Orange-Book’ leadership to take party management seriously. SLF have every reason to believe that should we continue on that trend, that the next Leader of the party could be from the left.
That is the long-game. That is the risk to which those of us who regard liberalism’s anti-socialist tradition as important should be most alert.
That though is the battle with the SLF, not a re-run of the merger debates of the 1980s.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:56 am
Andy
This is all a bit Judean Peoples’ Front, isn’t it? Getting het up about minutiae in order to differentiate oneself from another.
I have no strong feelings one way or another about the SLF, but I would hardly say that they believe in redistribution as ‘an end in itself’. Their end is a fairer society, and if we must play the game of picking out differences then it seems that your particular ‘end’ is the implementation of an academic model on a society – the belief that ideology trumps all.
This is a dangerous state of affairs. The application of ideology of any sort onto nations has caused nothing but woe in the past century. Most people are of a pragmatic bent, and can see that a one-size-fits-all model simply doesn’t work – if you don’t believe me, hold a straw poll on who thinks privatising BT was the right thing to do and compare with those who think privatising British Rail was the right thing to do.
Our great strength as Liberal Democrats is and should remain a flexible approach to governance; to champion what works in a particular circumstance as opposed to being cheerleaders for long-dead academics. Much of what will work from the Orange Book is based on pragmatism – but economic liberalism for its own sake should NEVER be the tail that wags the dog.
June 21st, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Martin, strange comments, the article is a contribution to the debate kicked off by Jonathan Calder based on the media coverage of the SLF, highlighting (very briefly) the ideas that underpin common ground and diffrences between us as members of the wider liberal family.
From the perspective of ‘what works’, understanding perceptions, why we think about things differently and where we agree I would have thought was fairly useful in understanding some of the dynamics of the party.
Labels are also important, given they frame how people react to ideas. An Ashcroft study in the last Parliament for example found people agreed with Conservative ideas, until they found out they were Conservative. Left groups tend to avoid the socialist label for the same reason.
June 21st, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Hi Andy,
I don’t want to drag you off topic but would you mind elaborating on what you said about failing to take party management seriously? Do you mean they should try harder to sell economic liberal policies to members? What could they be doing more effectively?
June 21st, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I think it’s a sure sign that we haven’t woven our Liberalism together to address the early 21st Century issues. Such Ginger groups uphold an ideological tilt of Liberalism to either 3/5 ‘economic’ or 3/5 ‘social’, that perhaps saps goodwill and mutual understanding.
Is the division so serious and permanent? Or could it become so? If we had STV, would there be two Liberal parties?
I think D66, a self-proclaimed social liberal party has seemingly found the right synergy for the times, but having said that, there are still two liberal parties in the Netherlands.
I don’t object to ginger groups but wouldn’t the time be better spent in dialogue over a new Liberal Summer School tradition? The three key themes addressed mutually: Liberating and Enabling People and Business, Social Justice in times of Austerity, and Intergenerational Fairness.
June 21st, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Nice piece, but one can be a social democrat without being a Social Democrat, and the SLF are clearly the former to some approximation.
June 21st, 2011 at 10:47 pm
@Henry In a nutshell I think the party leadership rarely prepares the ground for policy shifts. Tuition fees being the prime example.
What that might look like is more regular use of think tanks, the party’s e-mail list to consult and survey, and more internal communications on the outcome. With tuition fees for example the party could have sent around the 2006 Centre Forum report that showed our policy was regressive and expensive, or rather a link with some commentary inviting feedback, followed up by a survey testing ideas and options for change. Then a report on that. Much as LDV do now using Liberty Research. Instead it is constrained by a policy development process that is quite inflexible and rarely consults either members or the public outside conference, which itself is unrepresentative.
@JohnM There is plenty of dialogue through party meetings and some ginger groups. That the party has factions though should be seen as a good thing. It shows we’re a broad church, and we help ensure positions that are adopted are more robust.
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:12 am
I wanted to point out that I disagree with the following comment
The SLF and LV both sit on a liberal spectrum. We’re all social liberals. We differ in our concept of social justice.
I am not a social liberal, I am a libertarian. The social liberals believe in freedom to/positive freedom whereas libertarians believe in freedom from/negative freedom. I wish to see a reduction in the number of government ‘schemes’ to ‘help’ me.
The SLF is on the authoritarian left, whereas LV is mostly on the libertarian right. I am on the libertarian left but have a lot in common with LV and little in common with the SLF.
I don’t see how LV is a social liberal group but I am happy to be educated.
Ed
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:24 pm
An interesting opinion piece and discussion in the comments. I would recommend to Ed that he asks Lembit Opik about how it is possible to marry up libertarianism with social liberalism as that seems to be his pitch.
In response to Andy’s comment about preparing the ground on tuition fees, I do recall the leadership trying to do that in the last Parliament, but they found the opposition so overwhelming that they could not get anywhere.
Interesting also to read that conference is “unrepresentative”. Maybe but in what way? Do you think LV will win more debates if it was more representive? Why?
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Hi Andy,
Thanks for this timely piece. SLF and LV may well disagree along the Hayek/Keynes line, but as you rightly said we are all liberal at heart and are suspicious of the concentration of power – where I’d say the change in emphasis lies is that social liberals tend to focus on the accumulation of too much power in market institutions and LV-types on the same in the State – both provide a useful steadying force I’d say.
Ed, sorry, but it is precisely my belief in positive freedoms that make me a Lib Dem – and as for you being lucky enough not to need “government ‘schemes’ to ‘help'” you, I congratulate you on your good fortune – but remind you that for a great many people there is a need for a such things – hence having things like the NHS.
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Hi Prateek,
I am a geolibertarian and wish to see the government pay back oil revenues and land values to the citizen. The SLF seem to believe that it is better for the government to spend this money on behalf of the people. We both agree that resources should be allocated to all – the difference is whether we allow the population to set their own priorities or whether government should decide.
The Labour Party seeks to replicate the working class to provide it with a voter base. Thats why they abolished the 10% tax rate and left it to us to raise the tax threshold. Lib Dems should seek real change in my view.
The SLF is too authoritarian and sits to the right of anywhere I am comfortable with but we need to be a big tent synthesising Social and Classical Liberalism if we are to succeed.
Ed