The is a hugely needed initiative – well done! One thing that will need to be debated is power – who has it and why. A good starting place is Iraq and not just personalising it Blair and Bush. Here was a decision that the majority of regular people opposed. Millions took to the streets from all backgrounds to make their opposition clear before the event. We were right, we were wiser than our leaders. With a memoire a month it now turns out that many in power were against it too. So why did it happen? Last month Gordon Brown, one of the most interesting and intelligent Prime Ministers we have had invited Rupert Murdoch and Alan Greenspan to spend the weekend at the Prime Minister’s official country retreat. All three supported the war. If they discussed their mistake will they share this or apologise or ensure there is a full investigation? Ask no more. There are two things to think and organise about. One is that we the real democrats who base our values on human rights, should be in power. You can find a reflection of the global meaning of this is a piece I wrote with Isabel Hilton here:http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-opening/barnett_hilton_2792.jsp
It’s a global theme openDemocracy has covered a lot and I hope Liberal Conspiracy will take it up for the UK.
The second is to ask who, then, actually is in power if a wise democratic majority is not? The answer that Peter Oborne has come up with, of a new “Political Class” that includes the intelligence services and the media is very strong. He is not from the left (but he can quote Chomsky) but maybe his argument is one that we need: maybe there is an anti-liberal conspiracy!

I’m glad to see the impressive roster of bloggers that you have, but ‘liberal’ is not an adjective that I’d use to describe all that many of them. ‘Left’, certainly, but ‘liberal’?

Well said Anthony, well said indeed.

Anthony,

What an excellent contribution! You have somewhat crystalised my own suspicions.

Bemused – I don’t want to define what beig left or liberal means, although I’m fairly certain that broad values are shared by the contributors. From here it’s a matter of discussing where the ‘left’ or ‘liberals’ or ‘liberal-left’ should go and figure out a way to get there.

Anthony is right. My fear about this initiative is that will become yet another ‘Bash the Tories’ job – which completely ignores the role of the Labour government and its minions in moving the agenda in a rightwards, authoritarian direction. On some issues – ID cards, for example – Cameron is clearly better than Blair.

By all means let’s have a Liberal Conspiracy but one that remains true to its name.

One area where the liberal-left needs a rethink is the support among many commentators for Gordon Brown’s Britishness agenda, based on a false assumption that the status quo is the best way to keep the left in power in England.

As much as I respect the work Anthony Barnett has undertaken on a range of issues, I would like to take issue with two of his points and raise a third. Firstly, I doubt that the anti-war majority was any ‘wiser’ or more’ moral’ (which he does not claim – but others do) than the pro-war minority (the configurations actually did change over time).
I did not support the Iraq war, but found that debating with many of those ‘liberal interventionists’ who did was often a space where systematic, evidenced and soul-searching – if not agonised- debate did take place. In contrast, I rarely- well honstly never – found that the slogans, the leadership and the organisation of the ‘anti-war’ STWC movement promoted a ‘progressive’ understanding of the world or progressive and democratic methods of organisation and debate. On both sides there were well-informed and ‘decent’ people, the ill-informed who adopted their ‘default’ positions, and those for whom the Iraq war –its promotion or opposition -was a tactical moment in their promotion of their longer term strategies. The reasoning behind opposition or support of the war matters. The fact that the war was/is a fiasco, with devastating consequences for Iraqis(except the Kurds) does not validate all the analyses of the anti-war people nor invalidate all the analyses of the pro-war people: it shows that some of the anti-war analysts got it right. If we wish to learn from this experience, it is important is to specify what analyses(not positions) were right .

Secondly, I think the analysis about where power rests and how it is exercised is very important but there are other ways to examine it as well. I do think one question for the liberal/left is how and why this ‘anti-war movement’ became a rump that can hardly be described as progressive. Where were/are the opportunities for serious discussion – rather than a repetitive staking out of positions – for those for whom the Iraq War was a galvanising political moment? What are the progressive networks that were generated from involvement in the anti-war movement? (I think the Fabians have done/are doing something about where the supporters of Make Poverty History went?).
And critically, where are the discussions about concrete policy about where we – as progressives – go from here in Iraq? What should we be publicising/pressing the UK to do in relation to what is happening on the ground and how can we do that?
I often argue – at length – that in relation to the Iraq War – most universities abdicated their responsibilities to provide a public space for serious analysis and debate – subjecting arguments to rigorous scrutiny of their evidence-base, demanding transparency for their governing frameworks and assumptions (in short – there were rallies rather than democratic teach-ins). Beyond that, the ‘liberal/left’ betrayed a generation by abdicating any responsibility to offer ‘anti-war’ alternatives to/within the STWC. (Although this is basically a polemic!, I would like to unpack this/assess this thesis with others and consider its implications). Slogans do matter: eg. I know that exposing Blair as Bliar was considered a great achievement – but was it an achievement of the Daily Mail or the anti-war movement).

Finally, I do think that the liberal/left has to go beyond the politics of the ‘critique’; one of the legacies (I would argue) of a left so heavily influenced by trotskyite oppositionalism has been the tendency to see ‘success’ as ‘failure’ and to decry any concrete achievement as insufficient at best, a sellout at worst. . While it may well be true that we want the whole cake and should fight for it, this failure to celebrate/build upon achievements only furthers cynicism and fatalism. It is also contemptuous of progressive who worked hard for these achievements. Hence, I hope this blog can also be a vehicle for assessing progressive campaigns that worked and won – and learning from them. ..whether they are local, national or international. I also hope that discussion develops, rather than a ‘staking out# of a set of positions.
I know that ‘progressive’ debates and actions are ‘happening’ but they are dispersed and fragmented..hopefully the range of experiences and networks of the contributors offer may mean this will be a very different space!!
Best wishes.

Standing up for Liberal-Left ideals?

Isn’t that what the Dear Leader, Gordo the Magnificent is for?

Maybe better standing up for hard-pressed families who struggle to pay their ever expanding Tax and Council Tax bills? (How selfish of these n’er-do-wells though to actually want this money to do such frivolous things as pay the gas bill or decorate the house rather than on “Les Grand Projets” of Public Expenditure which is all for the collective good (1 mIllion new, Labour bureacuracts cant be wrong ater all!).

Congratulations.

Neocon e-activists are like weeds – look at the poor old BBC message boards where a hard core of nuts run riot. It’s as if they co ordinate their shifts to blow leftists away.

The “Intolerant Minority” – bloggers like Melanie Phillips – achieve critical mass by quoting and agreeing with one another, fuelling each others’ outrage like salivating hyenas.

Let this site not solely serve itself. It should also co ordinate motivate its readers to express themselves more forcefully on mainsteam boads, such as the BBC.

The title of the site is obviously a mischievous take on the constantly promoted idea that there is a vast liberal conspiracy running Britain.

Funny, I thought Britain was run by a vast illiberal conspiracy.

Beyond that, the ‘liberal/left’ betrayed a generation by abdicating any responsibility to offer ‘anti-war’ alternatives to/within the STWC.

I think that’s unfair, untrue and drastically underestimates the power of entrist strategists like the SWP.

There were other anti war coalitions that sprung up but they either didn’t play the media game as well or didn’t organise well enough to counter the parasitic nature of groups like the SWP.

I agree with Anthony Burnett that an understanding of power in the political process is one of the most important threads to pursue. The rich/powerful individuals and groups consistently gain the ears of those in power, set the agenda and restrict discussion of alternatives or analysis of the causes of failure of policies. But many of these figures now have a different base for their power. The growth of services, communications and banking mean that the levers of power are often invisible.
For example, PFI and PPP schemes seemed a good way for private companies to take profit from activities which were for a while provided directly by the state. Where has all the tax money spent on these schemes gone? Much of it is exported into tax havens and off-shore accounts. Meanwhile people are frustrated at the delivery of services and blame what they can see-the hospitals or schools burdened with debt that could be spent on staff and equipment. All this to prevent another run on the pound a la black wednesday.

Leon:
I am actually really happy to hear that it is untrue: I would greatly appreciate some info and links… or even just a brief account of what happened locally or nationally.
I think it is very important to have a proper assessment of what happened to the progressive voices in the anti-war movement. ..the successes, the problems, etc.
Many people I know/met were galvanised for the first time into political action by the Iraq issue and then either drifted away or did an about face and stomped away from the STWC dominated discussions and organisations; many wanted to ‘carry on’ campaigning on the issue but could find no meaningful/accessible way way to do so on liberal/progressive terms or just became very disillusioned with campaign politics.

About being unfair, well I am afraid that I personally did abdicate any responsibility whatsoever precisely because I am painfully aware of how entrist organisations like the SWP operate; I did not even try to do anything more than talk about the issues.here in the UK with people I know/met in other contexts. I am not convinced I am being unfair on left/liberal academics; I would be interested to hear about counter-examples.

Is there anything happening about what we need to know and do now in relation to Iraq..besides the calls for withdrawl???

Many thanks

“I don’t want to define what being left or liberal means.”

You ought to, I think. In the clearest possible terms.

Otherwise it’s just noise.

Strange how peoples perceptions of the net vary. Personally I find it dominated by the liberal/left, which I put down to the socio demographic profile of the average blogger. For example, bang “Political Correctness” into google and you will find 2-3 hits critical of it, about a dozen neutral and hundreds broadly supporting it.
As for the BBC being right wing, it’s simply laughable, the term Islamaphobophobia could have been invented for their web site.
And no, I don’t read the Daily Mail or vote conservative and my parents are both immigrants

The thing with making statements like “For example, bang “Political Correctness” into google and you will find 2-3 hits critical of it, about a dozen neutral and hundreds broadly supporting it.” is that it is really easy to check.

Result 1 is the wikipedia entry. Then, in order, you get ‘the campaign against political correctness’, ‘political correctness: the awful truth”, “political correctness is killing our freedoms”, “now a council bans the words ‘political correctness'”, “has political correctness gone mad?”, “Political correctness is like a poisonous gas seeping through the air”; and “political correctness watch”

Yep, for reasons I don’t fully understand the “antis” come first, but how many pages are there after that, and what is their content ?

“We want to campaign and push for our values: more equality, a better democracy, better standards of living, social justice, eradicating poverty, promoting non-violence etc, to be higher up the political agenda.”

I’ll start by saying this is all a great idea, but many people have stated you really need to nail colours to the mast on these issues, go a bit deeper, add more teeth, that will invoke debate, otherwise what the list above is nothing more than a pithy collection of what all but the most idiotic will agree with.

“better democracy” – is this PR ? What about PR that allows entry to government without a vote being cast in your favour, like New Zealand’s MMP system ? is that “better democracy” ?

“better standards of living” – is this translated as an absolute income standard, or perhaps not reliant on the state, more freedom of choice ?

“social justice” – who for ? The criminal or the victim, or is there some other magical way you can solve this.

“eradicating poverty” – this is poverty as in “can’t buy food”, or as in “can’t afford Sky Plus” ? Is this really meaning the Toynbee-ish “eradicating inequality”.

“promoting non-violence” – how ? by punishing violence ? Or we can give the Gandhi’s living amongst us a nice little bumper sticker for their Prius ?

Dig deeper, say something, be brave, don’t just complain. The liberal-left problem is the danger of becoming a joke collection of professional complainers who oppose not propose, it is tiring and not worth a jot.

I’ll start by saying this is all a great idea, but many people have stated you really need to nail colours to the mast on these issues, go a bit deeper,

Hi Ian, we plan to. But I don’t want to define what people should be thinking. Rather, we the authors want to have a public discussion amongst ourselves and with commenters and other bloggers (as well as think-tanks etc) on where our policies should be and why. I think that’s much more intellectually robust than defining positions from the start.

I learned about this site from Sunny Hundal’s “Bring on the conspiracy” (Guardian, 8th November, 2007), in which he argues that social issues from establishing a welfare system and healthcare to independent media, the pursuit of equality on gender, race and sexual orientation, and the environment, the consensus has tended to favour liberal-left movements.
Article 119 of the original Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Community, provided: “Each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.” Equal pay was defined as the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives, directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment from his [sic] employer.
The Article had been included at the insistence of the French, whose constitution already contained provisions for sexual equality. The scope of this Article has been has been extended substantially by the European Court of Justice. The first successful challenge to the scope came from Gabrielle Defrenne, an employee of the Belgian state airline, Sabena, who was obliged to retire as an air hostess at the age of 40, while her male counterparts could continue beyond that age.
Following the Defrenne judgement, there were many applications extending the Article. One of my favourites when I was studying European law and Social Policy was the case of Dr Pamela Enderby, who established the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
Judgements of the ECJ are binding on all member states, not just the applicant’s home state, which may be one of the reasons why the rabid right is so viscerally opposed to EU membership. A significant proportion (possibly most) of the improvements to sex equality in the workplace took place during the Thatcher/Major years. Right-wing Tories must have been livid.
Similarly Article 118 of the Treaty provided for improved Health and Safety in the workplace. It placed a duty on the Commission to bring forward proposals for improved Health and Safety at Work. Nearly all improvements to the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act have come directly from EU Directives. The Gradgrinds must be outraged.
It is possible that EU membership will be a pivotal matter in the next General Election. Do we deserve a debate on the merits and demerits of membership from a leftish perspective?

Do we deserve a debate on the merits and demerits of membership from a leftish perspective?

I agree – I think we should have that debate.

Fair enough Sunny,

I am broadly in favour of EU membership for several reasons. The European Community was formed in 1957 with the encouragement, and partly at the instigation, of the UK. This was in the wake of a war that had nearly destroyed many countries in Europe, not least Germany and the UK. The half century since its foundation has been largely free of international conflict where wars were previously common. At the time of the Treaty of Rome the Alsace Region had, within living memory, changed hands four times between France and Germany.

EC membership was instrumental in change to democracy in several right-wing dictatorships, e.g. Spain, Portugal and Greece. It has also been a catalyst for economic change in a number of former Eastern-bloc states. Some may question whether transition from state socialism to rampant capitalism has been a change for the better or for the worse.

Apart from relative peace and security in Europe, and I am aware of the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia (which in my view began as a civil war), the social provisions of the EU Treaty have acted as a safeguard against the worst excesses of Thatcherism – and, maybe, New Labourism.

And that’s the case for the defence, m’lud.