Liberal Democrats “aren’t especially liberal – or even democratic”
September 9th, 2011 Posted in Liberal Democrats by Angela Harbutt
So says Graeme Archer at the Telegraph..
I recommend you go read it. I don’t agree with everything he says… you probably won’t either. But my god he has a point……
September 10th, 2011 at 1:32 am
Not read it yet, but he gives away a lot when he says “If we did feel the need for a Liberal Party…”
There’s no shortage of Tory *&%$s who never understood why we needed a liberal party. No matter what criticisms one may have of the Liberal Democrats, one would hope that in principle the idea of having a liberal party was welcome.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:07 am
I’m not very convinced by much of what that man says. It appears as though he thinks that “liberal” means “neoliberal”!
September 10th, 2011 at 8:17 am
As a signed up Lib Dem, I think Graeme Archer has a very good point to make. I find it sad that some Conservatives now are more genuinely liberal – that is, wanting to extend freedom, than many Liberal Democrats.
The point, Tom, is not that Conservatives don’t understand or support liberalism. The point is that liberalism is so expansive, and so widely accepted in a modern democracy like Britain, that it is hard to work out why you need a single party to embody and fly the flag for it. In a way, as liberals, we should be pleased that the idea of liberalism has more reach than our electoral punch alone can deliver. But it does raise the question (to which we probably all have slightly different answers) as to what makes our party distinctive.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Speaking as a Tory but regular reader of Liberal Vision, I was debating with some other centre-right people which Tory Prime Minsters we thought broadly represented our views. After Lady Thatcher we did struggle a bit. Heath, MacMillan, Eden etc were not ticking the boxes, who seemed to us as being centrists if not centre-left. I am afraid that my knowledge of the Liberal/Whig Party of the 19th century is woeful but my instinct for free trade and freedom of the individual suggests some extensive reading is required.
There is no doubt the merger of the Liberal party with SDP killed much of the basic credo of the Lib Dems. As a Tory I was hoping the coalition would herald in a new era of classical liberalism. Evidence currently is sparse.
I could be accused living in my own libertarian haemetically sealed bubble but there does seem a groundswell of the general population now has considerable sympathy. It may not be high brow political theory, but 13 years of Labour nannying and obsession with criminalising as many people as possible has made many people resent the state.
It is an irony that UKIP claim to be a Libertarian Party with the Austrian School of Economics a basic tenet, but their stance on immigration a possible an exception. However these days in the Tory party it is rare to come across among the younger people who believe state spending should be minimised and personal freedoms are sacrosanct.
Sorry for rambling on, but the Lid Dems have failed in the coalition to come across as distinctive and have broad appeal as a liberal party. If it does not we could be reading its obituary. It is a shame as even among the Tories we struggle to admire many of our past leaders.
September 10th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I’m a liberal. Should I join the Liberal Democratss or the Conservatives?
September 10th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
If you want an objective and reliable view, you don’t ask someone who wants to undermine you – that is, unless you’re prepared to actively disbelieve everything they say!
Graeme Archer regularly makes arguments based on his personal preference for confused and contentious definitions so I caution anyone from taking his words purely at face value, as this would enable him to dictate the terms of any discussion to his own advantage.
As a Conservative partisan writing in a tory paper I think Archer should worry more about the lack of conservatism in the Conservative party before he addresses something he knows little about and has less sympathy for.
And coming from that perspective he’s playing to reinforce negative preconceptions of the LibDems not to challenge orthodoxy, and is therefore definitely not a friend of liberty, let alone a friend of any party of liberty.
Given the dubious nature of his language skills I though it made a mockery of the Orwell bloggers prize for it to be awarded to him. Or has Orwells’ own name now also succumbed to newspeak?
September 11th, 2011 at 11:18 am
I have not been active in politics since the real liberal politics of the Liberal Party were steamrollered by the quasi liberal populist authoritarianism of the Social Democrats.
No, the Lib Dems are not truly liberal, they are part of the politically correct concensus that has alienated so mny voters from the political process. Genuine liberals argue for their belief, they do not try to impose a set of values nor do their support any initiatives that aim to change human nature by passing laws.
September 11th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
If you conflate my blog post on “Who Is Nick talking to these days” and the Graeme Archer article in the Telegraph I think we have the nub of the problem.
The Lib Dems have in my view lost focus on who they are talking to (too much talking to ourselves – not enough focus on talking to the wider electorate).
We need Nick to take the party by the scruff to the neck. One way to do that would be to INSIST that we ask the on very action, every statement,every policy “is this liberal?”. If not it has not place in our party.
Allied to that – and I am repeating myself here- the Lib Dems will NOT win votes at the nex election by being the party that acted as a brake to action. So let’s see some good old fashioned liberal policies and initiatives to the table….Fight red tape, simplify the tax code, give more freedom to citizens (at expense of the state)… that would be a start…
September 11th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Angela,
You’ve nailed it. No support for policies that are not liberal. The Lib part of the Lib Dems must stop letting the social democrats dictate the agenda. And as Liberals we should not be afraid to debate topics like immigration, further integration into Europe, minority rights etc.
Recently I found myself becoming a hate figure (oderint dum metuant) on a US site where gay marriage was being debated. The “progressive liberals” were arguing that the law should force churches to perform same sex marriages because gays should have the same rights as everyone else. The row had been sparked by a deelopment in the case in which an activist appeal court judge overtuned a democratic vote.
My arguement, that liberals should not usurp to themselves the right to grant preference to the feelings of one group (gays) over another (churchgoers) attracted an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate from “liberals” In fact nobody has the right to be married in a church, it is at the discretion of chruch members or the hierarchy. I cited the hoops I had to jump through as a non believer baptized as CoE in order to marry my (lapsed) Catholic wife.
Even for a civil ceremony there are certain qualifications like not being already married or siblings. One cannot simply turn up and demand one’s ‘rights’.
The irony that those American liberals could not understand was they were quite prepared to accept exemption for mosques in the name of diversity but not for Catholic churches although homosexuality is abhorrent to both.
Thant kind of liberalism, infiltrating British politics unfortunately, makes a joke of our claims to stand for democracy and tolerance.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I assume this is the same Graeme Archer who is a writer on Conservative Home and a Tory activist in Hackney,
September 11th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
@James: I take your point, but it’s only half the story. There really is a significant part of the Conservative Party that is fundamentally illiberal, and would prefer a world without liberalism. Damian Green on immigration leaps to mind, but he is not alone and it’s not limited to that one issue. I know (and welcome the fact) that liberalism has basically triumphed, but only in a qualified form and it’s enemies are everywhere (as Hayek wryly observed in the dedication of The Road to Serfdom).
@Angela: All very well, but there are (too) many people in the Liberal Democrats who don’t understand the question “Is it liberal”?
The American meaning of liberalism has so infiltrated the public consciousness (helped along by the New Liberals at the turn of the last century) that they genuinely believe that redistribution from the income-rich to the income-poor (including the retired), in the form of services rather than cash, is liberal.
@Ian: I sympathise, but I do question whether the division within the Lib Dems is really a result of the alliance/merger. Former-Liberal Simon Hughes is probably more social democratic than former-SDP member Vince Cable. The SDP was basically a vehicle for the ego of Roy Jenkins, arguably the most successful liberal politician of his age. Meanwhile, David Owen was far more pro-market than many of the beard-and-sandle brigade in the Liberal Party. I’m not denying that there is a division, but I doubt is splits neatly along antecedent-party lines.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Experience tends to shape outlook and those with similar character are attracted to similar jobs. Most LDs are middle to upper middle class public sector and NGO employees, mostly with arts degrees.Very few LDs live in run down parts of Britain. Very few LDs have a technical education with extensive experience of workig for industry, especially with overseas employment and that of setting up small manufcaturng companies. Consequently most LDs tend to side emotionally with the state sector. The days when the Liberal Party was the party of the craftsman, engineer and manufacturer has long gone. The days when the Liberal Party was the party of energy, discipline, innovation and technical and business skills: the self made man, appears to be pre 1945 history, if not earlier.
Since the collapse of the Liberal Party in the early 1920s, it has had little interest in understanding the development in technology, the increase in global competition and the impact on employment. When Liberals supported he end of Empire, but few appreciated it meant the Indian Sub- Continent would create it’s own cotton industry which would lead to the decline of that in Lancashire.
Very few LDs appear to have the experience of sending their children to poorly performing comprehensives located within inner city Britain; living near to violent criminals; experience of their homes and businesses being burgled; running small businesses and dealing with red tape( – much of it due to the EU and gold plated by Whitehall) and worrying about rising fuel costs.
Many LDs support greater government expenditure and more complicated Human Rights Laws because they and their friends benefit.
Nowadays most LDs appear not to appreciate the challenges to this country from techological evolution and increased global competition. 200 years ago it was mostly Liberals who created the Industrial Revolution and promoted free trade which increased global competition. Free trade helped to reduce the cost of food, clothing and articles ( ceramics -Wedgewood) which benefitted the poor the most. The support for Quaker and Non- Conformist Schools teaching maths, business skills and modern languages, as apposed to the classics, educated and skilled personnel who created the Industrial Revolution. Nowadys too many LDs support the arts and social sciences rather than the STEM subjects which the country needs. There has been a massive increase in education from the 60s and the UK is still short of engineers, scientists and doctors. The same way the teaching of classics was a hindrance to the creation of the Industrial Revolution; the teaching of arts and social sciences are hindrances to the rebalencing of the economy and increasing our industrial capacity in the run down parts of the country.
If we want a German manufacturing capability, we need a German education system and Germam attitude to work and saving money.
September 13th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Charlie,
there’s a massive difference between making a coherent rational argument and stringing together so many assertions that you have a hangmans noose to prosecute your prejudices.
Most LDs this, most LDs that – it’s absolute BS.
LibDems are a diverse bunch – the only thing you can say about us with any accuracy is that we cut across society. We are defined by our diversity.
Identifying as a LibDem can be about where you come from, it can be about where you want to get to, and it can be about the manner in which you get there if you wish it for yourself, but none is necessarily exclusive to the other.
Closed minds will never understand what it means to be open-minded.
There are LibDems who technically identify as left, right and centre; there are those with specific interests, some with a generalist approach, some with a practical desire to prioritise. We’re difficult to pin down for outsiders simply because LibDems exist in all walks of life.
Of course it’s true that our arguments are coloured by our individual perspectives, and these are heavily influenced by our experiences, but for you to state your belief with such unrepentant certainty that LibDems can be categorised so narrowly just shows how little you know about the party, it’s traditions, membership and supporter base. Stating you belief more forcefully does not affect change this one iota.
Sadly this suggests we haven’t communicated our message successfully and there is much we could still do to explain to people like you what the party stands for and seeks to achieve. Although happily this also means we haven’t failed to convince you, just that we have yet to put our case effectively.
September 13th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Oranjepan, there is little in the modern day LD which connects us to the Quaker and Nonconformist craftsmen who believed in free trade, excellence of technical education and the promotion of industry and finance. Many Liberals were not part of the Anglican Tradition and therefore banned fom local government, the civil service or universities. Consequently, the Liberal Part was critical of the use of patronage, of which employment is one type, instead believing that people should have the freedom to improve their own lot in life.
Alan Johnson accused the LDs of being soft on crime, inept on asylum and dangerous on national security. If the LDs had a few inner city mps and councillors; worked in the construction and agricultural sectors and sent our children to inner city comprehensives, then we may have a broader perspective.
The craftsmen of the 18 and 19 centuries were critical of a classical education and promoted a scientific education relevant to trade. Nowadays, UK produces a surplus of arts and social science graduates yet not enough engineers, doctors and craftsmen.
If we re-examined our 18 and 19 century roots, there is no reason why the LDs could not become the natural choice of the self employed and those in small businesses. The Tories are the party of the City and the Labour are the party of the public sector – only 15% of the private sector are members of unions. The industrial revolution is largely the development of labour saving innovation. The public sector unions do not want labour saving innovation because of reduced numbers and income.The unions would have probably objected to the creation of canals as they took trade away from the roads.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I would have thought the simple point that encouraging a middle ground and combining positive facets of the more extreme positions of Labour and the Conservatives would be reason enough for any 3rd party (which is generally how Lib Dem policy appears to operate in practice- more socialist than the Tories but anti-centralism etc).
Equally, the Lib Dems support electoral reform, pluralism and other legislative developments which, whilst generally not viewed as important by the electorate are essential if we intend to live in a free society in fact as well as name.
Equally I completely agree with @Dan – I’m a liberal, which party do you think I support?
September 14th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Charlie,
since when does being free mean being tied to history?
I’m quite happy to tip my hat and cherry-pick the best of what history offers for us to learn from, but I don’t think anyone should be dogmatic about it.
I agree that there are a natural near-term effect on electoral prospects of the fact that LibDems are the only party able to appeal to people in every corner of the country while others have retreated to their heartlands, but for the same reasons it’s simply untrue and you make a contradictory argument that we don’t have the broader perspective you hope for.
In my own area we have members who are city workers, trade union delegates and self-employed business people (as well as a very balanced membership in tems of age, gender and ethnicity) so from my own experience I reject the concept that any liberal party should seek to represent a class-based faction or other monotype. We have councillors who represent the most deprived wards and we have councillors who represent some of the most exclusive areas in the same borough. Our inability to win a Westminster seat round here has more to do with practical factors, such as the way boundaries are drawn and the depth of penetration across constituencies (ie delivery and canvassing networks). Where we have galvanised a grassroots activist base we win – we are always outgunned, but we are better at targetting our energies.
As for Alan Johnson (who, I should add, makes great play of the fact he was a postie my county), well, his criticisms are completely misplaced – rhetoric is no substitute for effective action.
Minimum sentencing is the easier option than dealing with the causes of crime and reoffending, it is counterproductive and derogates both responsibility and accountability. His record on asylum was pitiful, contrary to his own protocols and entirely manipulated for political purposes.
And Labour’s position on national security? Don’t make me laugh – double-dealing with Gadaffi, an illegal invasion in Iraq and complete disregard for their own ‘ethical’ policy on Human Rights including support for illegal rendition, detention without trial and torture, their overdependence on technology and massively inefficient centralised databases etc – between them they stimulated or provoked new threats while creating the direct means for attacks!
Johnson and Labour placed security in opposition to liberty and nearly ended up establishing a Police state.
Similarly on the economy in general and welfare more specifically it should be argued they overcomplicated the system to the extent they almost reinstituted serfdom.
The country is crying out for LibDem values, we just have to show we best represent them by promoting our values more clearly and consistently.
If you’re a LibDem then it sounds like you’re suffering from a struggling local party and would benefit from building connections with more vibrant groups who’ve shown they know what it takes to be successful – inspiration is always thin on the ground, so sometimes you have to go searching for it yourself.