[Politics] The Liberal Democrats

[davywavy]

There was a point, about a year ago, when the Liberal Democratic Party were the hippest, most jivingest party in the country. Bouyed by Nick Clegg's failure to make a complete tit of himself on national television, LibDem supporters were jubilant, opinion polls briefly put them in second place in the election, and "I agree with Nick" was a catchphrase for, oooh, the best part of a week.

Speaking personally, I've never really considered voting for the LibDems. I always thought they had some really good ideas, but they also had far too many policies which read like they'd been written by someone who'd been kicked in the head by a horse - and it looked like most of the electorate agreed with me, because come the election they'd slipped back to their usual third place. It's arguable that the defection of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative partty to UKIP had a greater effect upon the outcome of the last election* than did any agreeing with Nick, but thanks to the vagaries of the electoral system we ended up with a Liberal Party in government for the first time in as long as anyone who is young enough to still have all their marbles can remember.

Since then, I've been generally impressed by how the coalition has worked out. I didn't vote for either of the parties involved, but overall I've come to the conclusion that of all the possible outcomes of the election they've turned out to be probably the least worst. George Osborne's economic shortcomings have been bolstered by David Laws and Danny Alexander telling him what to do, whilst the more 'kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse' LibDem policies have been curtailed by David Cameron laughing until he cries every time they're mentioned. Moreover, the LibDems have got several policies through which most certainly wouldn't have happened under a solely Conservative majority - the raising of the tax threshold to 10k (which is a brilliant policy and will do more to get people into work and out of the poverty trap than Labour managed in 13 years and with all the tax credits you can eat. I'm hoping the economics of raising it to 14k will be in place before the next election), and the ending of the detention of migrant children, for example. Additionally, they've got a shot at their dream of electoral reform.

Despite their successes, the outright rejection of the LibDems by their voters has been impressive to watch. If I'd been a LibDem supporter before the last election, I'd be pretty much delighted at this stage of procedings but it appears I'm missing something about the Liberal Democrat Supporter mindset - and it's what I'm missing that I want to explore. Y'see, I'm generally an optimistic, glass-half-full sort of chap and I find that the world goes my way so rarely that I'm delighted when it does. The outrage from Libdems that their party hasn't been able to acheive their ideal world in eight months flat as part of a compromise government just leaves me baffled, and I'm starting to wonder what the average Liberal Democrat actually wants...
Nick Clegg once said something to the effect that the Libdems weren't a party of government, but their role was to act as the conscience of government and that comment makes me wonder if the LibDems (or their supporters) really ever wanted to get into power, with all the compromises and failures which being in power entails. As I didn't vote for either of the two current governmental parties, I'm aware of the smug self-satisfaction which comes from being able to believe anything I like whilst never having to engage with the consequences of seeing those beliefs enacted or challenged - and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion that the LibDems were the party for people who wanted to feel like that.

It's all really blown up over the pledges, signed by many Libdem candidates, to oppose university tuition fees. Pledges which, in the event, many of those who are now MPs have been unable to keep, to their obvious distress. Higher tuition fees have been coming ever since Polytechnics were allowed to start pretending to be universities in the early 1990s, Tony Blair decided that anyone can go to university no matter how thick they are and finally Gordon Brown getting the economy alone in the changing rooms and saying it had a real purty mouth. It really strikes me that blaming the Libdems for having to break that promise is like being angry that someone who promised to buy you a pint turned up at the pub having been mugged and their wallet stolen. Like Vince Cable wearily said - he's having to live in the real world now.

But this is a serious question to all my Libdem-supporting pals out there. What are the Liberal democrats? Or what did you think they were? Are you a political party, with politics being 'the art of the possible', with all the the grubby compromise that entails? Or were you just the biggest pressure group in the country all along who happened to get unlucky and find yourselves in over your heads when it came down to it? You've got more of your policies enacted in coalition than you otherwise ever would in a million years - why aren't you happy? What were you expecting to happen? What would you like to have happened?
What, in other words, did you actually want in the first place - because I'm darned if I can figure it out from your reactions.

^{*There are twenty seats where the number of UKIP votes exceded the number of votes which would have swung them to the Conservatives. If Cameron hadn't gone back on his EU-referendum promise, I reckon we'd've had an outright Conservative majority.}

Comments

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agree with the following (I say as a Labour Party member). I'd also like to see higher top rates to cut back on Employer NIC contributions - which is a tax on employing people

"the raising of the tax threshold to 10k (which is a brilliant policy and will do more to get people into work and out of the poverty trap than Labour managed in 13 years and with all the tax credits you can eat."

Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If you like lower taxes of any sort whatsoever, why are you a Labour member? The two are imcompatible viewpoints.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Only in your mind.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Taking a quick glance at the last decade, I'd suggest it's in more places than that?

C'mon dude, a Labour party memeber wanting lower taxes is like an anti-globalisation campaigner with a Starbucks loyalty card in their wallet. You can't have it both ways, attractive though it is.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

There are several Labour traditions - because the previous Labour Government did certain things doesn't necessarily negate those traditions.

Labour have preferred to tax and distribute through benefits, although even Brown has always been keen to merge the benefit and taxation systems - but then haven't all governments (this one certainly).

Tax credits can be seen as an attempt to effectively lower low-rate tax payers marginal rates - I think that's a little bureaucratic, and would prefer lower rates of income tax. However, it is complicated - and as such can't wholly dismiss the previous governments attempts to bet the poverty trap. the problem with the current government is the economy and a lack of growth in employment - I just don't think the private sector will be able to pick up the slack, when public sector jobs are being shed.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There's a great quote from Trotsky, along the lines of "The British Labour movement is comprised of three British political movements; first, the desire of the working man to improve his lot, second, the tradition of dissent, be it political or social, and third, the Fabian movement. If the Fabians gain the ascendancy, it will be a catastrophe."

I'm always impressed by just how right he was in that particular prediction.

the problem with the current government is the economy and a lack of growth in employment

I love the way you neatly trip past how that problem might have arisen, and where the lion's share of respinsibility might lie :D

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Well Fabian methods (ie the state) have certainly gripped the Labour Party, I certainly think the time is right for the Party to look to its other traditions. I like the Big Society agenda, but think Labour and its old self help/association/coop traditions can actually say more, more coherently than the coalition has done.

Re the economic problem, I think global crisis is the phrase you should be looking for. If anything Uk unemployment and growth currently isn't that bad compared to US or EU, and that's probably down to the expansionary policies of the previous gov. We shall see how far the current coalitions austerity agenda takes us down a hole.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yes, all the privately educated middle classes in your upper echelons mean that Fabianism is on the way out. Best of luck.

Would I be correct in guessing that you haven't looked too hard into the causes of the crash? Bear in mind I was predicting it in May 2005 based solely on what Brown had done, you might glance a little closer to home.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Are you saying Brown caused the global crash?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Not individually, but he's in my top 3 along with Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan.

I'd poin the finger at Mervyn King as well, but he's so wet that he was just a yes-man and I feel a bit sorry for him.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

while I'd say that crashes are a common part of a global economic cycle, once every 15 years or so.

Brown's role, if anything (because I don't think the UK was that influencial), was while the good times rolled he stuck with the received wisdom when it came to financial markets - No other Party suggested any alternatives - if you did Dave, well, perhaps you run for Parliament, train as an economist and work for the IMF/World Bank/FEd/Bank of England....

Policy is difficult to shift from a good idea on paper to reality... there are vested interests, assumed wisdom and bounded rationality, the fortunes of day to day politics etc....

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Why do I need to train as an economist? Brown had lots working for him at the Bank of England. If you peruse their 2006 economic stability report (it's easy to find, it's got "OH my GOD! We're SCREWED!" in big letters on the cover), you'll note that he was warned what was coming and did precisely nothing.

You're also looking too near-past for the causes. They were identifiable as early as 2002, as Warren Buffet pointed out at the time. Of course, that's why he's the richest man in the world - but if nobody listened to him, why would they listen to me? I just get the consolation of having been right with plenty of warning, which not only allows me the moral ascendancy over anyone who defends Brown, but also allowed me to clear my personal debt and buy gold back when it was cheap.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Actually I take that back. You can have it both ways, because you're in opposition now.

I mean, that was the whole point of the post about the Libdems, so yeah.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Of course you can have it both ways.

Lower tax or some groups, and higher for others.

Re the globalisation analogy - globalisation isn't one thing, the idea is contested (narrative - if you like) - and you can certainly support some aspects but not others.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You say that, but it never actually works out like that in practice. But, like I say, in opposition you can say anything you like.

It's a grand feeling, isn't it?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Well you can. A 10% rate and a 50% rate.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Given that if you're earning over about 65k (coincidentally what MP's earn. Funny that) then paying tax at over 20-21% is kinda optional, what's your plan B?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Is it optional, I don't know at what levels accountants really come into the mix.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You know I'm good at this sort of thing. Give me the benefit of the doubt?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm the lobbyist, fella :)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So you've got no plan B in case your initial economic plan fails. Gosh, you're like George Osborne!

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a question:

You say you are a still a card carrying member of the Labour Party.

Why?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I am, fyi I joined in 2007.

I've always been a Labour supporter, however I'm not sure how partisan I am I've voted Lib Dem and actually quite like elements of the coalition, particularly on civil liberties, big society/localism (although I can't stand Eric Pickles and Shapps).

Why I'm still a card carrying member - stubbornness :) to some extent I remember the 80's and carry some of those associated prejudices against the Tories, but positively I think the Labour movement and Party is the best vehicle for the causes that I rank highly : employment work place rights being one of them (the minimum wage is for me is one of the best most humane thing the previous admin did).

What I really support are traditions that exist within the the Labour Party: the co-op, civil liberties (al a Roy Jenkins). I think the Labour Party should look at some of its older mutual traditions - I think EdM is doing that, to some extent.

If I was my current age in th early 80s I would have found it difficult to stay with the Labour Party, and would have probably joined the SDP.




There are also traditions within the party

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[(Anonymous)]

You do realise all the SDP* have been in the Liberal-Democrat Party since 1992, that is why it is called that.

D

(*except Finkelstein)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I did know that - and like I said I have voted Lib Dem. But what would have made me lave Labour in the early '80s were the likes of Benn and Militant - not an issue in the 90's.