Excellent article.

And very timely on the day when David Cameron announced that he is planning to be as radical in social policy as Thatcher was in economic policy.

“I’m a little bit tired of listening to liberal, educated, privileged young men and women mutter some feeble sop towards the Iraq war as an excuse for voting Tory, or not voting at all. If that’s you, Londoner or not, then Boris Johnson is your fault. The loss of the Labour heartlands to a clutch of ex-Etonians is your fault.”

Indeed, it is the voters fault that they don’t feel they can vote Labour any more I hope these emotive finger pointing’s actually inspire some people rather than make them remember it is, in the first place, why they dislike Labour and those that push for them.

This whole argument is wasted on me, no doubt people like me, you’re asking us to support shit because it’s better shit. That’s the state of politics? Well then you might as well just argue for people to stay at home, as it’s no progressive argument at all. Holding a nominally liberal party to account for it’s mistakes? Since when has the left actually done that aside from the Iraq war…and failed spectacularly to affect change despite record protests?

I’m not one for being defeatist, but supporting a corrupt government (morally or otherwise) while saying we just need to speak louder and more coherently doesn’t wash any more, we’ve had years to understand that is not how it works nor how it will work. I promise I won’t even get in to the whole Lammy hypocrisy again, but then I’ve not had the titular delights of hearing his sweet words in person.

It is very interesting how you talk about Labour talking about things like equality and civil partnerships as if they’re doing us a favour by the way. Isn’t it interesting that even animated people such as yourself can’t bring yourself to be of the belief that people can do anything against these sorts of governments, and that ultimately we are at the whim of their collective politics and morals as to what kind of hand we get dealt. Good old Labour party, they may be shitting on us but at least they’re also handing us scraps every now and again from the table.

Give me a break.

But we’re kidding ourselves if we think that the Tories care one jot more about civil liberties than Labour. In fact, most of the reforms the Blair and Brown regimes have tried to force through have been won on the back of Conservative support in parliament because Labour back-benchers have revolted, time and time again, against their own government whom they saw betraying the ideals of liberty and equality to which a lot of these politicians have dedicated their lives.

Which civil liberties ‘reforms’ have gone through with Conservative support?!

You might want a strong Labour presence in Parliament, but from a civil liberties viewpoint I think the evidence is clear: you don’t want a Labour Government.

There are about 30 Labour MPs who are decent enought to rebel on these occasions. The rest can go hang.

We need to step the hell up and decide what we are for, as well as what we’re against.

Labour, of course, hasn’t done that in years, but has adopted the same rhetoric that you’re now employing. Milliband warned us of the “emptiness” of the Conservatives and now Cooper is whispering about “Cameronomics”. One commentator likened this to a mobster hissing “Nice NHS you’ve got here, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it“.

I’m a little bit tired of listening to liberal, educated, privileged young men and women mutter some feeble sop towards the Iraq war as an excuse for voting Tory, or not voting at all.

This point raised my liberal, educated, privileged young hackles.

- You assume that arguing that the Iraq War is reason enough not to vote for Labour is ‘feeble’. This is an ad hominem.

- You imply the those who would prioritise Labour’s negative foreign policy over the Conservatives negative social policies are ignoring the concerns of those who may be affected by the latter. This does not consider the concerns of those who have been and may continue to be affected by the former. I assume that’s because it isn’t convenient to your argument.

If that’s you, Londoner or not, then Boris Johnson is your fault.

I don’t think that those angered by the Iraq War would have voted for Johnson (a supporter) over Livingstone (a fierce opponent). I will still chew off my arm before voting Labour at the next election. Or the Tories, for that matter. The Lib Dems may seduce me yet.

Ooh, stoppit Ben, you’re getting me all stampy.

Nice school debating skills picking up on the ad hominem – but you, in turn, have failed to tell me why Iraq ISN’T a feeble excuse for not voting Labour.

Being young, educated, privileged and liberal isn’t a crime. At least, christ, I hope it isn’t for my own sake! However, it does mean that we need to be really careful to remember that whilst foreign policy may well be the top thing on *our* minds, the thing that makes *us* most angry, we might not be quite as worried about having our precious benefits taken away when the Tories get in. Or having the minimum wage held down below inflation. Or, in your case, about having to get an abortion if you need one.

The fact is that in choosing not to vote Labour, with the voting system we’ve got, you’re letting the Tories in. Whether we need a new electoral system is a different question (yes, we do….). Can you really countenance that? Is it worth it, just because you’re pissed off about Iraq – a war which, at the end of the day, happened on US initiative?

Laurie, the problem I have with your argument is that it is so defeatist. It seems to just accept that we can’t expect anything better from Labour, that we have to take whatever scraps we can get and be grateful for them.
In my book I don’t have to justify why I’m not going to vote for a particular politician or party, it’s up to them to persuade me why I should vote for them, to give me a positive reason why they are going to make this country better. And they have to know that whatever party they represent if they carry out policies I strongly object to then I will vote against them. That’s what accountability means and I’m afraid that “well the Tories are worse” just doesn’t cut it for me. I mean is that what it has come to after a hundred years or so of the Labour Party? “Labour – less crap than the Tories”.

Laurie – excellent article.

ukliberty:
but from a civil liberties viewpoint I think the evidence is clear: you don’t want a Labour Government.

Mmm.. not too sure about this. Apart from the 42 days thing, how are you conviced the Tories will be better? Furthermore, they’re definitely going to be much worse on police powers.

and this was spot on: If that’s you, Londoner or not, then Boris Johnson is your fault

Andrew?

Quite honestly, yes. I think Labour are much less dreadful than the Tories. I’m 21; I don’t remember them when they were different.

Do I want more? Yes. And I’m waiting with bated breath for them to show me more. I don’t think it’s defeatism. I think it’s hope. I’ve heard stories about a Labour party that was better than this, and I’ve met a few politicians who believe it can be better again, who believe it can be socialist again. And for me, that’s good enough. I’m prepared to hope, because Labour has done some good things, too. Because I don’t think one issue is what this party should be judged on.

Of course Labour are less dreadful than the Tories, like Syphillis is less awful than AIDS.

I’d rather not have either, thanks.

Amusing article.

Sunny,

Apart from the 42 days thing, how are you conviced the Tories will be better [on civil liberties than Labour]?

Well, I’m going by the record in the last eleven years: not just 42 days, or 90 days, or 60 days, but control orders and terrorism legislation in general (and there is a lot), RIPA, fraud trials and inquests without juries, extradition treaty amendments, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, identity cards, the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (and the religious hatred clauses in ATCS bill), the Civil Contingencies Bill, information sharing, bill timetabling…

There are also press appearances to consider: I don’t recall much if any enthusiasm for attacks on civil liberties from leading Tories; Labour on the other hand..

Furthermore, the [Tories] are] definitely going to be much worse on police powers.

Why do you say that? The record indicates to me that while they might be ‘harsh’ on criminals they want criminals to be first proved criminals – Labour don’t seem to support the presumption of innocence and would be harsh regardless. As a non-criminal I think I’d prefer Tory rule.

look around for those politicians who are standing up for them, too. Actually, there are some. And they sure as hell aren’t wearing blue ribbons.

True. Most of them are wearing golden yellow ones. Which is why two years ago I put up and joined the Lib Dems—my avowed socialism (along assertions such as JS Mill was a socialist) gets me some funny looks at times (just as my support of markets gets me funny looks from other types of “socialist”), but I fit in there more than I ever could in the modern Labour party.

The problem is the system of governance, it forces the middle ground, lowest common denominator white-men-in-suits syndrome. Labour came to power promising to change it. It was in the 1997 manifesto that I voted for.

11 years later, we’re no closer to the necessary reforms they knew were needed while out of power but conveniently forgot about when they took office. And now their incompetence combined with a natural desire on the part of the electorate for a change, a turno, gives us Cameron sky high in the polls, and veering towards over-confidence.

Labour is going to lose the next election. It’s too late to change that. The question now is what the next Parliament will be like. The more genuinely liberal MPs there are, who genuinely want to change the system and sort the mess out, the better off we all are.

And when we finally fix the corrupting, systemic problem, maybe the duelling duopoly can be replaced with a more sane system where we genuinely don’t need to fear Tory landslides on less than half the vote?

Sunny,

“and this was spot on: If that’s you, Londoner or not, then Boris Johnson is your fault”

I really must relinquish this blame. To quote myself: “I don’t think that those angered by the Iraq War would have voted for Johnson (a supporter) over Livingstone (a fierce opponent).”

Laurie,

“Ooh, stoppit Ben, you’re getting me all stampy.”

Sorry. I erect a veneer of cold-hearted rationalism in order to mask my insubstantial knowledge and, finally, resignedly foundation-free ideology.

“Nice school debating skills picking up on the ad hominem”

Thank you.

“However, it does mean that we need to be really careful to remember that whilst foreign policy may well be the top thing on *our* minds, the thing that makes *us* most angry, we might not be quite as worried about having our precious benefits taken away when the Tories get in.”

*This isn’t a reasoned rationale, it’s just me hammering away as thoughts appear.*

Firstly, on personal level, I’ve just received exam results worthy of the fast food tradesman that I may ultimately become. Unemployment and social welfare, therefore, may become ever more consuming concerns.

Secondly, as I’ve mentioned, yout rationale doesn’t consider those that reside abroad. While social concerns may be the primary factor in *our* minds, we might not be quite as worried about the foreign policy of New Labour.

Thirdly, that foreign policy has been incredibly cynical. The New Labour government has courted some tyrannical leaders – in Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan – while claiming to oppose others absolutely, on the grounds of liberal humanitarianism. This has led it into catastrophic, and, importantly, deceitful, war.

Fourthly, that cynicism is expressed elsewhere, as our civil liberties are taken and governmental transparency is reduced. Meanwhile, it’s up to supporters of New Labour to identify their triumphs.

Fifthly, I don’t have any optimism that all of this will change. Milliband’s Guardian article was portrayed as if it were a bold, revolutionary document and yet the focal message was “Tories are empty”. Today, Yvette Cooper launched a radical salvo, wondering “who is asking questions about the Conservatives?”. All signs suggest that Labour is to become the unofficial opposition, and as citizens clearly express their discontent this is ridiculous.

“The fact is that in choosing not to vote Labour, with the voting system we’ve got, you’re letting the Tories in.”

Well I hope that the results don’t hinge upon my vote. Besides, I wouldn’t be. My constituency is one of the worst for Labour, and it’ll only be an objective vote for the Conservatives if I don’t plump for the Liberal Democrats.

Respectfully,

Ben

(None of that means that I’ll be happy if the Conservatives are elected. If our political situation isn’t worth becoming an alcoholic over then I don’t know what is.)

“The record indicates to me that while they might be ‘harsh’ on criminals they want criminals to be first proved criminals”

For those of you who don’t speak Tory, this translates as “the people who’ll be fucked over by draconian ‘law and order’ policies will be poor and/or black, of which I’m neither. However, I do like speeding in my car, so if they get rid of speed cameras they’ve got my vote.”

“Because I don’t think one issue is what this party should be judged on.”

Good, since most of us are judging Labour on a whole raft of issues.

On a more helpful note….

Others have already alluded here as to how Labour are already screwed and even if they aren’t they’re living in constituencies of non-Labour rule. If Labour really wants to limit the damage they’ll receive then Labour (supporters and local parties) will have to put pressure on those MPs that are marginals (now standing at…uh…loads if you take a very conservative [haha] 14% swing) to start being more what we need them to be.

You talk about how a vote against Labour is a vote for the Tories, and it’s a load of tosh. If people were actually encouraged, in constituencies where Lib Dem’s are up close, to vote for the Lib Dem’s instead of the Tories then while you may have a Tory government you’d also have at least a smaller majority for them to wield. By constantly ignoring the fact there are three main parties, and other smaller parties that can play their part in distinct constituencies you actually only play in to the hands of the conservatives and the power they wish to gain. Shall we grow up and stop partisan bollocks now? Again? For once?

By constantly ignoring the fact there are three main parties, and other smaller parties that can play their part in distinct constituencies you actually only play in to the hands of the conservatives and the power they wish to gain. Shall we grow up and stop partisan bollocks now? Again? For once?

Yes: this.

If you have any kind of left-liberal beliefs at all, you need to accept that [removing non-England for simplicity and rounding seat numbers to 600], 350 Tory / 125 Labour / 125 Lib Dem is a better outcome than 350 Tory / 200 Labour / 50 Lib Dem…

Or, if you aren’t facetious…how 400 Tory/ 130 Labour / 70 Lib Dem is worse than 350 Tory / 125 Labour, 125 Lib Dem. It’s about concentrating on seats not falling to Tories when Lib Dem’s are an alternative…but perhaps that is a little too wide a scope of thinking for such sound-bite necessary politics?

So the Tories “…hate the poor, women, ethnic minorities, and everyone who doesn’t look and think just like them”eh…?

Laurie continues to be LC’s very own Toynbee / Heffer figure – writes well & provocatively enough to pull in the comments but it really is utter, utter nonsense most of the time…

For those of you who don’t speak Tory, this translates as “the people who’ll be fucked over by draconian ‘law and order’ policies will be poor and/or black, of which I’m neither. However, I do like speeding in my car, so if they get rid of speed cameras they’ve got my vote.”

Yeah, ’cause that’s what he said.

Or to put it another way, for those who don’t speak NuLabour this translates as “we can’t defend our shit right wing policies on their own merits so we’ll pretend that people who disagree with them don’t care about poor people.

John, seriously, it’s that kind of argument that makes many of us even less likely to vote Labour.

The Iraq war was a scandal, a debacle, and a disaster. It was arguably the worst foreign policy decision taken by a British government since WW2. If Iraq is a “feeble” reason to vote against New Labour then I don’t know what would constitute a good one, to be honest.

the Tories supported the war as well of course. So in that regard, if you think that the choice we have is Labour vs. the Tories, you might argue that they’re both as bad as each other on foreign policy and focus on domestic issues. That would be a fair approach.

What I can’t understand is the idea that domestic policy somehow is more important, in itself, than foreign policy. I’d much rather have a government which made the British welfare system worse, and didn’t go around starting wars, than vice versa. War is not nice. Poverty is not nice either, but war is worse.

P.S For “Poverty”, read “The kind of poverty we have in Britain”. The kind of poverty they have elsewhere is just as bad as war. We’re lucky enough to be spared that.

“John, seriously, it’s that kind of argument that makes many of us even less likely to vote Labour.”

Well, it’s not as if I’m a Labour supporter – in terms of politics I’m left-libertarian, and in terms of party politics I’m for anyone who’s against the Tories.

“I’d much rather have a government which made the British welfare system worse, and didn’t go around starting wars, than vice versa.”

I think you’re exaggerating our geopolitical importance, there. The Iraq war would have happened with or without Blair; the UK’s involvement didn’t make much difference (it probably led to slightly fewer civilian deaths at the hands of occupying soldiers, but it’s hard to say whether it would have made any difference to the number of civilian deaths caused by our reducing the place to crazed anarchy). I’d rather a US president who didn’t start wars irrespective of his domestic policy, but it’s ridiculous arrogance to suggest the UK is in the same position…

Lee -
‘If people were actually encouraged, in constituencies where Lib Dem’s are up close, to vote for the Lib Dem’s instead of the Tories’

And this is the point, really, isn’t it. People AREN’T being encouraged to vote Lib-Dem. Most people aren’t even really sure what they stand for . To me, that smacks of a party who don’t really have that lust for power, who maybe wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had it. I don’t want to have to be gently reminded that there’s a third party – me, someone who’s pretty damn politically informed for my age-group – I want to have that party in my face, demanding my attention. When the Lib Dems get their act together, then I might be interested.

And I don’t *want* a Tory government with a LibDem/Labour prescence in parliament. What I want is a Labour government, although a LibDem one would do. If I were to actually vote for who I’d like to see running government, I’d vote Socialist! But that’s even less likely to happen, so let’s not talk about it before I hae to go away and cry and listen to Billy Bragg.

And John B –

‘I think you’re exaggerating our geopolitical importance, there. The Iraq war would have happened with or without Blair; the UK’s involvement didn’t make much difference (it probably led to slightly fewer civilian deaths at the hands of occupying soldiers, but it’s hard to say whether it would have made any difference to the number of civilian deaths caused by our reducing the place to crazed anarchy). I’d rather a US president who didn’t start wars irrespective of his domestic policy, but it’s ridiculous arrogance to suggest the UK is in the same position…’

Absolutely bloody spot-on, thanks. The the middle-class-liberal angsting over Iraq stinks ever so slightly of imperialism, doesn’t it? Don’t get me wrong. I played truant to go and march in 2003. But let’s be real about what British involvement means ont he world stage.

“People AREN’T being encouraged to vote Lib-Dem. ”

No, because people like you are saying it’s Labour or nothing. Try putting your resources in to a useful campaign rather than these base reaffirmations of a dying two horse race. You say you want a Labour government, good for you…what you need to start to accept is there are swathes of people that quite simply don’t. For better or worse they see Labour as worse than the Tories even if you see it the other way around, and they are simply switching votes the only way they know how. Telling them the Tories are scum and only idiots vote for scum only makes them a) stop listening to you and b) more determined to give you a kick in the balls for it by proxy.

Seriously, more effort needs to go in to constituencies with a current Labour majority with a close Tory/Lib Dem fight around second, even constituencies where the Tories are second by a comfortable margin. It’s all well and good saying “well I’m not supporting Lib Dem’s until they do something” but that is just showing your own ignorance. Like them or not they are coming out with policy after policy, they are setting their stall out, what they need is support on the ground and (more importanly) high profile support.

If this site could rise out of it’s “how can we save Labour” stupor and think about “how can we save the Liberal-left’s power” on a more holistic level perhaps we’d have a strategy that didn’t sound like Labour supporters stamping their feet shouting “it’s not fair”.

War and poverty are intimately linked, so if you’re forced to make a choice between the two you end up getting both. Just like with a forced choice between of Labour or the Conservatives – you end up getting nothing else and successively more diasappointed and angry in turn.

But that’s not FAIR!
*STAMP*

Oh, and is lust for power a good qualification for political office? I find diplomacy, humility and tact far more appealing, but they aren’t easily rammed down your throat at every opportunity.

“The the middle-class-liberal angsting over Iraq stinks ever so slightly of imperialism, doesn’t it?“

I’m not entirely sure what you’re alleging. I’m stating that, in joining the invasion of Iraq, our government was deceitful and cynical. This has been one of the factors that has led me to a) not trust in their motives and b) not trust their information.

For clarification, I’m not going to support the Conservatives in writing or at the ballot box. However I’m not going to support Labour either.

People AREN’T being encouraged to vote Lib-Dem

In the constituencies where the Lib Dems are in with a chance, yes they are. The national media ignores them (us, I guess), but if you live in a seat where they’re strong, you’ll know it in the run up to an election.

Try ‘encouraging’ people when you’ve a tenth the budget and the media ignores you, it’s not actually that easy, hence the targetting of resources—if you live in a safe seat or in a Tory/Labour marginal, of course you won’t notice them, that’s WHY first past the post is an awful electoral system.

Most people aren’t even really sure what they stand for .

Compared to what? What does David Cameron stand for? Hell, what does the modern Labour party stand for?

Lib Dems stand for liberalism, democracy, local accountability and devolved power—giving control back to communities and people and making sure resources are allocated effectively. They also stand for changing the system of government, which given the mess we’re in due to the current system is pretty damn important.

To me, that smacks of a party who don’t really have that lust for power, who maybe wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had it.

Say that to Labour or Tory supporters in areas that they used to consider strongholds. Say that to people in Liverpool, Sheffield, Torbay or even Calder Valley (where I now live). If they’re still supporting one of the old duopoly, they’ll tell you how much of a ‘lust for power’ the Lib Dems have. That they’re not strong in most of London is obvious from polling figures, but they are strong in a lot of the rest of the country, which is why a huge number of activists from the other two parties resent their very existence.

I don’t want to have to be gently reminded that there’s a third party – me, someone who’s pretty damn politically informed for my age-group – I want to have that party in my face, demanding my attention.

*waves hands* What do you think I’m doing? Lib Dems are membership driven and reliant on membership donations and activism, no big business, wealthy donors or union money, just what we can afford. If you want to ignore the only one of the big three parties that remains democratic and accountable to its members, that has a significant socialist inclines membership and is genuinely liberal, just because they’re not strong in your area, or they don’t get a huge media coverage, that’s your choice, but don’t delude yourself into thinking it’s a good one.

When the Lib Dems get their act together, then I might be interested.

Without member involvement, the Lib Dems are nothing. That’s why I’m involved.

Nice to see someone appealing to top down action on a liberal site though, rather, um, paradoxical?

If you’re that politically involved and aware, don’t you think you owe it to yourself to investigate all the options rather than decide the old “well at least they’re not the other lot” mindset that’s done us so well over the last 60 years?

I did. I really liked what I found, overall. Sure, I don’t agree with policy on everything, but I disagree with a lot less than Blair/Brown’s New Labour triangulating.

ukliberty:
Well, I’m going by the record in the last eleven years: not just 42 days, or 90 days, or 60 days, but control orders and terrorism legislation in general (and there is a lot), RIPA, fraud trials and inquests without juries,

Not denying Labour’s bad record at all – but that’s an unfair comparison given a party out of power can say pretty much all it likes without the consequences. The point is, is the Tory record any better? Or would they be better on these issues? Apart from David Davis’s recent intervention, which has become quite deflated of late, where are their cries for more freedom?

What Mat said. I never knew there were as many people who had similar views to me till I joined the Lib Dems. And now I know that there are, I have a bit more fire in my belly.

The media ignore us because it’s in their interests to keep flogging two dead horses and support FPTP. That emphatically does not mean it is in the interests of the Liberal-left, or the country at large.

Sunny:

is the Tory record any better? Or would they be better on these issues?

In the current media climate, with the current electoral system? Probably not, no, and if they were in office now I’d be attacking them just as much.

A simple majority system pretty much requires concentrating too many resources in keeping swing voters in swing constituencies happy. When the media climate (which is basically “fear sells”) wants more and tougher action and more and more protection, then both parties compete for being the ‘toughest’, on terrorism, crime, whatever. Both main parties, to an extent, have to abandon their core vote and just fight over the media driven ‘centre ground’.

Hence we need to change the system, else we’ll never get a change on this, and whoever is in power is forced to triangulate constantly.

John B,

“The record indicates to me that while they might be ‘harsh’ on criminals they want criminals to be first proved criminals”

For those of you who don’t speak Tory, this translates as “the people who’ll be fucked over by draconian ‘law and order’ policies will be poor and/or black, of which I’m neither. However, I do like speeding in my car, so if they get rid of speed cameras they’ve got my vote.”

I’m getting rather bored with the silly non sequiturs and assumptions made by commenters here.

In fact I was trying to make a point about respect for due process. Labour has been trying to do away with due process since 1997 – there is no evidence of any respect for it, there is no evidence of respect for the rule of law or any of these traditional notions of freedom and justice (and privacy). The criminal justice system is cumbersome and takes too long to satisfy their desire for quick, Labour friendly results, and they are fond of using the courts as scapegoats. Some backbench Tories scapegoat the courts too, from time to time, but I do not recall frontbenchers abusing the courts in recent times.

Labour are behind the growth in civil orders issued to punish people for criminal offences without having to bother prosecuting them; they are behind the poorly and too broadly drafted and numerous laws attacking our liberties; they are behind putting the personal information of the innocent and law-abiding on ridiculously large databases; they are behind giving the Executive ever more power.

Their activities are what gives credence to Guy Herbert’s opinion that we are being subjected to a growth in soft facism, described by Richard Sennett of the LSE as “not so much a velvet glove as an invisible hand, the operations of control hidden from scrutiny as Patriot Act II, and more, internal repression presented to the public as merely preventive action against threats that have yet to materialise”.*

Therefore, given a choice between Labour and Tory on civil liberties issues I would choose Tory, as anyone familiar with the last eleven years would if they weren’t (1) slavishly devoted to Labour or (2) out of their tiny minds (those propositions don’t seem mutually exclusive). Look at Hansard. Look at the debates as well as the results of voting. The record seems clear.

I said nothing about any other socio-economic policies or the records of other parties. For the record, Tories and LibDems have often joined together in voting against the Government on the issues I mentioned – indeed they often work together in order to make more reasonable law out of Government clauses – and long may it continue.

Sunny, I was thinking more about your question, and thought the record doesn’t seem so good on immigration. But it must be noted that the Government introduces most new legislation, and the vast majority of Parliamentary debating time is spent on Government Bills.

Furthermore, the Government does not have a good track record in terms of purely Executive decisions – things the Tories have no control over – such as the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (and the Home Office remains a shambles). In short, neither party has a good record on immigration over the last eleven years, but Labour has by far the worst.

* As I say from time to time on my blog, I think the intentions are benign, not malign, but we have to look at the totality; the road to hell and all that. A quote from C.S. Lewis seems apposite: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Labour are the omnipotent (and incompetent) moral busybodies.

“Lib Dems stand for liberalism, democracy, local accountability and devolved power—giving control back to communities and people and making sure resources are allocated effectively.”

And yet they are pro-EU integration! All part of the same political class in the end, much as some of their proposals are sensible.

I suppose, if trends, in Scotland especially, continue, it is just in the realm of possibility that Labour will be wiped out as a political force or as a party altogether in the next few years, making the LibDems the new opposition. That might make the political landscape much more conducive to liberalism, since there are some genuine liberals in both the Conservatives and the LibDems, compared with the funny New Labour “market” corporatists that we have at the moment.

et they are pro-EU integration!

In favour of a decentralised, democratic and accountable EU doing as little as is needed but doing it well? Why yes, yes we are.

But we’re not in favour of an unaccountable, bureaucratic superstate. Nor do we favour leaving and thus trying to trade on a completely unequal footing in the way that Norway does (applying 75% of EU laws with no say strikes me as daft, you?).

Favouring membership does not not favour everything as is, nor does it mean agreeing with every stupid idea that comes out of Brussels.

And if that’s your single issue that you want to judge everyone, why perpetually simply hammer the Lib Dems? First past the post requires broad church coalitions, and for most people Europe is such a low priority it’s not something they even bother campaigning on much (yes, polling data and doorstep feedback does lead prioritising in campaigning issues).

it is just in the realm of possibility that Labour will be wiped out as a political force or as a party altogether in the next few years, making the LibDems the new opposition. That might make the political landscape much more conducive to liberalism,

It’s slightly more within those realms at the moment, some of the polls in swing seats are, from a Labour perspective, very scary to look at. Some of the seats they currently hold are likely to see them in third place next time.

And yes, it would be much more conducive to genuine liberalism, and Labour’s ‘market’ approach is as favourable to free and fair markets as Thatchers privatised monopolies were.

“Some backbench Tories scapegoat the courts too, from time to time, but I do not recall frontbenchers abusing the courts in recent times.”

They haven’t been in power in recent times. When they were, and even after they weren’t, they were happy to abuse the courts – indeed, I don’t think any Labour home secretary, even Blunkett, has been more outspokenly anti-”meddling courts”-ish than Howard was.

Meanwhile, Labour codified the ECHR into UK law.

I hate the way they’ve increased the number of people we lock up from the highest in Europe to even bloody higher – a policy which the Tories would doubtless continue – but they simply /haven’t/ done anything serious or significant to civil liberties. Even the (wrong-headed) terrorism detention laws are less draconian than the ones that prior governments (also wrongly) imposed to deal with the IRA without the sky falling or the constitution collapsing…

Mod #28 up.

Is being pro-EU a bad thing?

European integration is what has underpinned the post-WW2 peace and the growth in prosperity we’ve experienced. Which is why so many countries want to join it… hmm, Georgia…

“Mod #28 up.” ?

“In favour of a decentralised, democratic and accountable EU doing as little as is needed but doing it well? Why yes, yes we are.”

Then why wave the Lisbon Treaty through when it is obviously moving the EU in the wrong direction?

“But we’re not in favour of an unaccountable, bureaucratic superstate. Nor do we favour leaving and thus trying to trade on a completely unequal footing in the way that Norway does (applying 75% of EU laws with no say strikes me as daft, you?).”

Correct if I am wrong, but surely the only EU regulations that Norway have to abide by are with respect to goods and services traded WITH the EU and they are free to do whatever else they want with other countries. If that is the case, I don’t have a problem with that for the UK. The benefit of being able to set our own trade policy for the rest of the world would easily outweigh the disadvantage of not being able to set internal policy within the EU, which would become simply a big trading partner. It is not as if Switzerland or Norway have been especially impoverished by their situation!

Of course, the absolute ideal would be free movement, free trade and localised government throughout all of Europe with the UK as part of it. But that doesn’t look to be the direction of the EU and, given the practical options, I would take the UK as a nation state with moderately free populace than an EU superstate with an increasingly regulated and controlled populace.

“Is being pro-EU a bad thing?

European integration is what has underpinned the post-WW2 peace and the growth in prosperity we’ve experienced. Which is why so many countries want to join it… hmm, Georgia…”

There isn’t really any evidence that the EU, as a set of institutions as opposed to NATO, has made an additional contribution to peace in Europe. Even if it did, that doesn’t justify the current scope and direction of the project, especially with respect to domestic policy. The EU is neither inclined to nor capable of protecting Georgia. NATO (or rather the US with a little bit of help from others), with a bit of finessing, might.

I love the ridiculousness of this argument you’re having Nick. Indeed perhaps in that the Lib Dem’s among us are so used to having to defend minor points of disagreement that they cater to the argument.

Here we are in a thread where someone is asking us to forget ID cards, forget the war, forget 42 days, forget RIPA, forget failed targets on poverty, forget the raising of tax on the poor and ASBO’s; all because the supposed only other alternative is to vote Tories….and when the real alternative gets mentioned ti’s knocked down because of a level of support for the EU. Well done chaps.

Nick, excuse me for being dense, but didn’t Sarkozy broker the Georgian ceasefire as the holder of the EU Presidency, as mandated by the council of EU foreign ministers, backed by the joint resolution which arose out of recent meetings in Brussels which is based upon our pooled diplomatic weight?

Nick, while agreeing with Thomas’s point about Sarko’s role, I do agree wholeheartedly with Lee, this is now completely off topic for this thread. It’s been awhile since I got utterly bored of following European online debating (I used to write about it a lot) and you may be right about it being trading law rather than all law, I’ll have to do some digging.

Rather than derail this thread further I’ll try to write a full post on the subject (and answer your points properly) later in the week, in the meantime shall we go back to Laurie’s topic?

Easy to broker a “ceasefire” when one side has crushed the other and isn’t budging from its position.

I would go back to Laurie’s topic but I am not entirely sure what it is.

Thanks Mat, but I gotta say I like these digressions because they pick up on the underlying debate which Laurie tries to focus on – ie if bastards are gonna run the country after the next election come what may, what positions, principles and policies do we want them to promote?

If we want to reform the welfare state to make it fairer, it makes sense to ask what we mean by fairness; if we want to reform the welfare state to make it more economic, it makes sense to ask whether we want it to be more economic on an individual or collective level and how to do it, or whether we just want to kick it around as a political football by proposing inefficient tax-cuts, increased intrusion and greater dependency.

If Laurie is arguing for socio-economic equality and human rights then it makes no sense to ignore how this is impacted by the political structures which constitute our system of organising society, because one is part of the whole and each are intrinsically connected like bone and marrow. Therefore a critical understanding of representative bodies at all levels is vital to building up an idea of how to form a coherent polity.

The way to win arguments is to take on and challenge conventional orthodoxy, so although the idea of Europe is poison in some quarters it is necessarily part of the solution – if only we can work out how.

Sunny,

Not denying Labour’s bad record at all – but that’s an unfair comparison given a party out of power can say pretty much all it likes without the consequences. The point is, is the Tory record any better? Or would they be better on these issues? Apart from David Davis’s recent intervention, which has become quite deflated of late, where are their cries for more freedom?

In the debates, in the division lobby, in speeches and in the media.

(There is some irony here, in that – from time to time – Labour Ministers have in effect accused the Tories of being too liberal!)

I’m not sure what else they can do to persuade you – probably nothing. I think some people don’t read any further than “so-and-so is Conservative MP for Somewhereshire”.

But I repeat, going on the last eleven years, given the choice between the two parties on these grounds, I would choose Tory, and I think you’d be mad to choose Labour (although as I said, there are about 20-30 decent Labour MPs, they aren’t all bad).

Have a look at the speeches from the frontbench team involved in those debates: for example Cameron*, Davis, Grieve, and Garnier (the links are to contributions in terrorism debates). Contrast with the contributions from Labour frontbenchers.

I would like to turn your question around. Why do you think the Tories would be worse? If you think so because of their record in Government, have a think about which of the frontbench team were in Government at the times you disliked them.*

It seems worth adding that the Conservatives often draw a distinction between ‘what is right’ and ‘what is popular’ – now, you may well dispute ‘what is right’, but surely you agree with the premise that we should not always go with ‘what is popular’. Labour on the other hand seem to take the opposite view.

MatGB,

both parties compete for being the ‘toughest’, on terrorism, crime, whatever.

I think the Tories have somewhat of an advantage: they are traditionally seen as stronger on law and order (a top five issue) than Labour. Where Labour have increasingly become viewed as less competent on the economy, education, and health, they seem to have tried to shore up support by appearing to be ‘tough’ on law and order, attempting to outflank the Tories.

Labour’s laws and proposals are symptomatic of a desperate and populist Government seeking to retain power by the unprincipled erosion of our liberties. To be fair, I don’t believe a Conservative Government would feel the need to introduce similar measures, because they are naturally in a stronger position by virtue of tradition (although their reputation did swing too far to the nasty side under Howard’s leadership in the 2005 campaign – however I think that was mainly down to immigration).

I think they would attempt to outflank Labour on the other issues, economy, education and health, which aren’t so dangerous to our traditional notions of liberty (that’s not to say those issues are less important).

* in a 42 day debate, Jim Sheridan intervened on Davis with,

his Government were responsible for internment without charge and without limit of hundreds, if not thousands, of Irish people. Would he therefore inform the House when and how he changed his principles on civil liberties?

Davis promptly replied that he wasn’t in Government in 1975.

I dont understand what Boris has to do with anything written above. The only thing I’m sure about is that noone in their right mind wanted Ken to be mayor again?

Or is that exactly the point?

Tom -’Oh, and is lust for power a good qualification for political office?’
I think so, yes. And I think there’s no reason it can’t be tempered by humility, humanity and a passion for social justice. Setting up a binary between the two is sloppy thinking.

What rattles me about this thread is that nobody seems to be distinguishing between the actions of Labour governments and the integrity of Labour in parliament. The trouble is, under the FPTP system we don’t have a way of distinguishing between a vote for the executive and a vote for the legislative, and that’s a massive failure on the part of our electoral system. Angry with Brown? Vote him out, but don’t vote out the party.

And why did noone in their right mind want Ken to be mayor again? He made mistakes. He’s pompous and sometimes conniving. But he made London better, and fairer, and cleaner, and safer. Boris won’t.

“What rattles me about this thread is that nobody seems to be distinguishing between the actions of Labour governments and the integrity of Labour in parliament.”

What integrity? Others in this thread have proven more than adequately how the Labour party in parliament is no more to be trusted than the Tories, you only have to go back to 42 days to get that situation rung clear. You seem to put Labour MPs on a pedestal as being purer and better than their opponents, with some notable examples this is simply not the case. Government and party, they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet, and it sounds awful.

In fact, let me recall some recent examples. Obviously 42 days was all around bad for idiots in the Labour party defending it, but in particular showed how people like Vaz have zero integrity when it comes to being principled versus getting a shiny new office.

Then you have the new car tax, with Labour MPs spending the best part of an hour arguing how a retrospective measure of taxation isn’t retrospective.

And of course the many MPs on the Labour side that did their darnedest to prove that a promise for a referendum on the EU constitution doesn’t mean they have to have a referendum on the Treaty.

I don’t really care about the right’s and wrongs of all these arguments, but they are prime examples of MPs using debate time purely to argue the counter-point to their opposition, in some cases to specifically try and limit the PR damage of the things their government are doing. Even in the darkest legislation, Labour MPs still managed to find enough bribes…uh…I mean…knowledge no-one else is privy to, to support the government so that they didn’t lose face. This is a pretty bizarre definition of integrity by anyone’s book, no?

You seem to put Labour MPs on a pedestal as being purer and better than their opponents, with some notable examples this is simply not the case. Government and party, they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet, and it sounds awful.

I don’t think Laurie is doing that at all. She’s merely articulating the problem with many on the liberal-left, albeit not as stridently, that they want all the power but none of the responsibility.

In other words – the choice is exactly between AIDS and Syphilis, as Jennie put it above. We are forced to choose between a basket of policies not have a party that will follow our every whim.

Furthermore, a party will have to appeal to independent conservative voters too, to stay in power. I don’t like it – but that’s the way it goes. For a start we have to recognise that. We also have to recognise that in most cases its better Labour remain in power than the Tories come in.

Is that still the case? I’m not convinced yet. I actually think it may be better for Labour to spend a term out of power and prepare for power 6 years from now.

On civil liberties – granted the Labour record is terrible. I’m not defending it. I just think that under the circumstances, the Tories will be a lot worse. David Cameron’s favourite think-tank is run by Dean Godson. Just do a search on LC for his surname and you’ll realise what a nasty man he is. these people will be running the country in 2 years time.

One interesting thing about this debate is that even people who don’t like the Tories seem much more ready to give them the benefit of the doubt then they are for Labour.

To take three examples, Lee mentioned poverty – the Tory plans on welfare reform will absolutely hammer a lot of people on low incomes in a way that even Thatcher never dared (Laurie wrote an excellent post about this); ukliberty wrote that under Michael Howard their immigration policy was nasty – it’s still pretty much the same with some small tweaks and better PR; in foreign policy Cameron appears to be angling for a more belligerent approach than Labour.

When we get closer to the election, I hope that the discussion will be more about comparing different options. But there’ll be time for that – for the moment, would be interested to hear, particularly from former Labour voters who are now planning to vote for someone else or not bother, being realistic about the constraints, what do you think Labour should do differently?

“In other words – the choice is exactly between AIDS and Syphilis, as Jennie put it above. We are forced to choose between a basket of policies not have a party that will follow our every whim.”

You’re twisting the debate. I’ve never argued that MPs should be following our every whim, but Laurie *did* allude to MPs outside the front bench being supposedly brimming with integrity when put aside their opposition. As I said, I don’t care about the right’s and wrongs of the arguments, an MP that uses his time in parliament to down play the obvious and factual as if it isn’t true to save a party rather than defend a policy is worthless to the public as a politician.

I also think it’s easy to dig in to the belief that Brown is the only big problem with Labour. At the beginning he was the only problem, as he was absolutely unwilling to take Labour in a new positive direction. However the party didn’t deal with that, they have left the rot to fester and they are culpable for that. It is no longer easy to separate Brown from the party as the party have explicitly and implicitly put their faith in him, and with that lost the public’s faith themselves.

I personally feel time is running out all too fast, but to answer don’s question (not that I ever voted Labour, I never really felt hard done-by that they were in power over the Tories)…Labour quite simply need to put their money where their mouth is. It will require a change of leadership because certain recent legislation would need to be dropped or rescinded, but essentially corner stones of Labour’s recent past such as ID cards and the big surveillance push need to be dropped, real reform needs to happen in conjunction with business to give poorer people a better deal, and electoral reform MUST be put on the table.

“…since there are some genuine liberals in both the Conservatives and the LibDems….”

Brrrr.
That was the shiver that just slalomed down my spine.
Liberal conservatives?! Uh??
Guess we really are living in very , VERY strange times.
About this post….I believe the point is/was VOTE LABOUR the save the nations civil rights/integrity/moral high ground.

Kind of hard to discern that when all this post seems to have kicked up is a massive dust storm of garbled finger pointing and elitism.
As someone who does not work in politics (thank God!), this just seems like the same old usual tosh, quite frankly.

What would make a difference?
MP’s not voting for an increase in their wage packet.
The government of the day asking the electorate (those that ALL mp’s are supposed to serve, remember us?) what policies they should initiate, and, gasp, actually doing it.
surprising as it may seem, people may actually give a fuck then.

“But I repeat, going on the last eleven years, given the choice between the two parties on these grounds, I would choose Tory, and I think you’d be mad to choose Labour…”

There is a difference?
Here is a fine JS Mill quote that counters that kind of flag waving.

“He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision.”

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Still, this post has given me something to chuckle at on this drizzly august Tuesday.
Continue with the self important power postering guys!

“I will never be a Labour party member, but I know which bastards I’d rather see running my country. The bastards with a clue; the bastards who can point to old red firebrands and socialist young bloods peppered here and there in their ranks. The ones who are willing to revolt against their own government, not once, but continually. The ones who don’t hate the poor, women, ethnic minorities, and everyone who doesn’t look and think just like them. The ones with just one knarled red toe on the party line.”

And, Laurie, kind of sad that our choices are not really choices at all, isn’t it?!
Rock and a hard place.
I’d prefer to swim.

[56] Sunny wrote a party will have to appeal to independent conservative voters too, to stay in power. I don’t like it – but that’s the way it goes

I think you should unpick that one. Are you saying that a majority of voters are small-c conservatives of one sort or another? Do you mean in terms of their economic views, their position on social questions such as equalities issues or both?

Whether or not this is true really drives at the heart of the question. The only hard evidence I can see for it is in terms of the newspapers people buy, but against that

(i) a smaller proportion of voters buy newspapers at all they they used to, and there are no grounds for extrapolating from them to non-buters;

(ii) you also have to assume that a paper’s politics constitute a marketing asset. I’ve yet to hear an editor – of a tabloid, anyway – make this claim, and I suspect their marketing people would put it way down the list.

You may, of course, have other evidence. I suspect I’m not the only reader of LC who would like to see it.

If it’s true then it begs the question of whether we should be seeking to contract syphilis rather than AIDS and I see no way of reconciling the different views which have been expressed on here. What I would argue is that so long as most people define the “good life” in terms of increasing material prosperity and a generally individualist outlook on life, then, yes, the “left” will be on the back foot. But is that a given – or is it possible that we could organise around a commitment to change that mind-set?

Laurie,

What rattles me about this thread is that nobody seems to be distinguishing between the actions of Labour governments and the integrity of Labour in parliament. The trouble is, under the FPTP system we don’t have a way of distinguishing between a vote for the executive and a vote for the legislative, and that’s a massive failure on the part of our electoral system. Angry with Brown? Vote him out, but don’t vote out the party.

Your point about the electoral system seems somewhat irrelevant (that is not to say the system doesn’t have problems of its own).

I cannot see how you can reasonably draw such a distinction between the actions of the Government and those who consistently support it. A particular Government exists only because it can command the confidence of the Commons. In context this means a sufficient number of Labour MPs are satisfied that Gordon Brown and his team are the best (or the least worse, or the best / least worse compromise) for the job.

Furthermore, if the Government was not confident that it could not persuade a majority about specific legislation, it would usually be a waste of time to introduce it – they have lots more attacks on civil liberties to get through Parliament and there is only so much time!

Looking at divisions over specific legislation, let’s take the 42 day detention without charge vote as an example, not least because it’s something that everyone here seems to agree is wrong so we won’t get sidetracked by an argument on the merits.

301 Labour MPs voted for it (96 of whom were Ministers), 25 voted against it. From this point of view a distinction between the actions of the 205 pro-42 days MPs outside of the Government seem unreasonable, too: after all, they voted for the legislation.

This majority of Labour MPs do have integrity – they consistently vote with the Government no matter what.

(As an aside some Labour MPs did view this particular vote as a vote of confidence.)

On the other hand, the 20-30 Labour MPs who demonstrate respect for the things I’ve been talking about also have integrity – they consistently consider proposals on their merits*. I think they have a better form of integrity.

If elections were purely about civil liberties there are roughly 300 Labour MPs who shouldn’t be voted for at the next election. That is not the fault of our electoral system – that is their fault for supporting attacks on our liberties.

* I will give you an example: David Winnick. You may not agree with everything he says – I don’t – but when he speaks he demonstrates that he has at least attempted to understand the legislation and its possible consequences.

Laurie, um, I don’t know how to respond to this point both properly and briefly, so I’ll try but if I fail, apologies:

What rattles me about this thread is that nobody seems to be distinguishing between the actions of Labour governments and the integrity of Labour in parliament. The trouble is, under the FPTP system we don’t have a way of distinguishing between a vote for the executive and a vote for the legislative, and that’s a massive failure on the part of our electoral system. Angry with Brown? Vote him out, but don’t vote out the party.

Firstly, the FPTP electoral system isn’t the ‘problem’ here, it’s irrelevent to your point. We have a Parliamentary system, in which we elect MPs, they then support a Government, and the Cabinet is supposed to be able to command the support of a majority in Parliament.

Ireland has exactly the same system, but uses STV (my favoured electoral system). The point is that this isn’t a failure—it’s one of our systems principle strengths. Our MPs are supposed to represent a broad swathe of opinion, and their principle duty is to hold the Government to account. If Brown is failing, it’s the duty of MPs to remove him, as the Tories did with Thatcher. If they fail, they fail in their job. Or they believe he isn’t failing.

If an MP supports the Government, they’re a Government MP, otherwise they’re an Opposition MP. If the Government fails, then that is the fault of Government MPs, and that is why our system is better—the Executuve is always being held accountable, and can be removed at any point if it is failing, unlike in countries where the Executive is elected separately, where it is only accountable every election cycle, or through rarely used (and intentionally difficult) measures such as impeachment.

That Labour MPs are failing in their duty is a result of FPTP, but that they are supposed to hold the Govt to account is a strength of Parliamentary govt.

If those persistent rebels who do do their duty are to be rewarded, they should be supported electorally. If, for example, Chris McCafferty was standing for re-election next time instead of retiring, I, as a Lib Dem, would seriously consider voting for her (and thus campaigning in a different constituency). She’s, overall, done a fairly good job at attacking this Govts awful record.

That the majority of her colleagues have failed in this duty is specifically why they should be voted out.

Mike – I think you should unpick that one. Are you saying that a majority of voters are small-c conservatives of one sort or another? Do you mean in terms of their economic views, their position on social questions such as equalities issues or both?

Good question. My view is that on social issues this country is liberal and is increasingly becoming that way – and the Tories have had to move in that direction.

On economic issues no doubt the left has lost many of the arguments over the last few decades and I think its difficult to argue for dismantling the free market and putting in some sort of a socialist utopia.

I don’t think the majority of voters are small-c conservatives – I think one of the mistakes people on the left make precisely is that we’re too afraid of our own ideas and arguments and end up trying to triangulate (as Labour has been doing).

However, I’ll grant that in many cases the govt had change its image on a range of issues, from facing down the unions in some cases to being more business friendly in others. I think its initial response to terrorism was muddled and this is slowly getting much better. To that extent I prefer a Labour govt responding to terrorism than a Tory one.

So what do I mean? I’m saying that firstly I don’t expect a Labour govt to pass all legislation I agree with. I think the left is suffering from a post-Thatcher hangover so the disconnect between the leadership and party has been exacerbated. But at least its passed some legislation towards that goal – incorporating the HRA, minimum wage etc, banning Fox Hunting. I wouldn’t expect the tories to do that.

But there is a significant portion of independent small-c conservative voters that have voted Labour. They need to be retained on side while lefties are given a reason to carry on supporting the party. I don’t think the right balance has been struck, but a balance does need to be struck.

Lee Griffin:
an MP that uses his time in parliament to down play the obvious and factual as if it isn’t true to save a party rather than defend a policy is worthless to the public as a politician.

Well, I think its easy to say that from outside the party. But sometimes in politics, in fact more often than should be the case, loyalty matters more than what is right. You defend your own. I don’t think our political system allows dissenters much, otherwise we’d have more maverick Senators, US style. Its the way it is.

Yes, as someone being represented it’s very easy to say that those that succumb to loyalty over merit are worthless to me, especially from outside the party. That’s kind of the point.

I’m not about to sit here and be an apologist for the way the current system works, because it’s bollocks. How many people honestly care if the way things work now is that “loyalty matters more” and that we should be working with that? Should we be sitting here on issues such as (roll back the years) homosexuality and say the way it works is that homosexuals are treated as second class citizens and we have to work within that framework?

Why is it that the argument of “that’s how it is in Westminster” is used so often on this site when Labour MPs are being criticised for not doing what 25-30 MPs seem consistently able to do, while remaining in their seat over long periods of time? They may not get ministerial jobs, but they do the job they’re actually elected to achieve.

64 – this is really an argument about whether it is possible to achieve more by voting with your party and trying to influence decisions in other ways or by voting against your party when you disagree with it. This is a genuinely tough call with decent arguments on both sides (worth noting that it would still be a dilemma under any other voting system).

I think Lessons of History suggest that having some people adopt one strategy and some people adopt the other, and both to work together is the best approach. The way Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King worked together to get civil rights legislation passed in the USA, is an example of this at its best.

“worth noting that it would still be a dilemma under any other voting system”

True, though under any system where MPs actually feared to be representative to their local constituents rather than trying to ride on the crest of their party’s popularity you may see that dilemma a little more balanced and therefore useful. At the minute there is little incentive to look at the dilemma in front of you (as an MP) and do anything other than go with the flow.

‘I’m not about to sit here and be an apologist for the way the current system works, because it’s bollocks. How many people honestly care if the way things work now is that “loyalty matters more” and that we should be working with that? Should we be sitting here on issues such as (roll back the years) homosexuality and say the way it works is that homosexuals are treated as second class citizens and we have to work within that framework?’

Christopher Lee DANCES around your straw man, with big, mad eyes.

“Christopher Lee DANCES around your straw man, with big, mad eyes.”

Rawr. Way to reduce me to incoherence.

* wanders off humming Sumer Is Icumen In *

True, though under any system where MPs actually feared to be representative to their local constituents rather than trying to ride on the crest of their party’s popularity you may see that dilemma a little more balanced and therefore useful.

I’m afraid I think this is rather naive. There are a whole bunch of reasons also playing here – most importantly the role of the media. For example, if a large number of MPs constantly tried to ‘represent’ their constituents by dissenting, then the media would play it as a government in crisis, losing control and with little confidence from the people.

Secondly, how are MPs to judge how they’re representing? I expect Labour MPs to largely stick to leftwing narratives but sometimes they may want to offer a sop to a constituency that doesn’t agree with your views. Unless you’re holding referendums every time – its impossible to say that an MP isn’t being representative.

You may not like what they’re doing – in which case the question then genuinely comes down to three choices:

1) Remain part of the system and try to change it from the inside
2) Disconnect yourself from the system and see that as the only viable protest
3) Try and actively change the system.

Obviously, I favour 1 or 3, depending on how bad things are. Right now, on balance I think things are bad enough for the health of the Labour party and this young liberal-left movement that it might be better for Labour to lose.

I’ll come back to the reasons to that at another time.

But I do think that saying – well those MPs don’t represent me so the system is bollocks and I don’t want to engage with any party – is not a viable option. Especially if you want to affect politics.

[64] Sunny wrote on economic issues no doubt the left has lost many of the arguments over the last few decades and I think its difficult to argue for dismantling the free market and putting in some sort of a socialist utopia.

I think that’s a false dichotomy – Fabianism for example was about regulation of the market. I agree that there were particular historical circumstances in the first 30 or so years after World War II which meant that markets were much weaker politically than they have since become, and the extent to which governments can regulate them under “global” capitalism is very much a live issue. But regulation, whether in terms of tariffs, immigration restrictions, or “crossovers” into the social sphere such as the minimum wage (enforcement of which I expect the Tories to abandon) or anti-discrimination legislation is still very much with us.

I would argue that most people judge economic systems pragmatically – “by their fruits ye shall know them” – and they are quite right to do so. It’s possible to get the impression, from reading political blogs, that people actually believe in economic systems of one sort or another – I doubt that more than a very small proportion of voters actually feel any emotional attachment to economic processes. They are means to an end and should be subjected to the simple test of “what works”.

Thus it’s not altogether surprising that healthy young men (not here, but on other blogs such as Smithson’s) denounce the NHS – which transfers money from the young to the old and from men to women. Hopefully we can all spot and discount self-interest when we see it.

There is a view that economic developments in the next twenty years will be considerably less benign for free marketeers than those of the last thirty. It may be that our living standards can continue to rise, what is certain is that our resource consumption can’t. One strand of the left’s response to this must be to challenge the hegemony of consumption as the measure of the “good life” – I think the door is ajar. We need to push on it.

“Christopher Lee DANCES around your straw man, with big, mad eyes.”

Ah, calling straw man, a step below shouting Nazi, but a step above actually debating.

“For example, if a large number of MPs constantly tried to ‘represent’ their constituents by dissenting, then the media would play it as a government in crisis, losing control and with little confidence from the people.”

But if the system was focused around people electing local representatives then what does it matter? I think it’s naive in itself to assume if the balance of power of representation shifted that the media would be able to continue with the way it currently portrays westminster. Ultimately if more stock was put in constituency level representation then papers could scream as much as they want about dissent and party break down…the people will be the ones looking at an MP that is much more engaged with them and spends more of their time ensuring that their views are heard over the party line. Look at people like Chris McCafferty (if you take Jennie’s example) and tell me that such a situation doesn’t already exist where it happens.

Ultimately I believe a person’s belief in a local MP as a local MP always trumps a person’s belief in a party, unless that party’s policies are particularly unsavoury.

“Obviously, I favour 1 or 3, depending on how bad things are. Right now, on balance I think things are bad enough for the health of the Labour party and this young liberal-left movement that it might be better for Labour to lose.”

The system must be wider than simply throwing support behind Labour though, which I have to be honest is all that this site seems to be promoting recently.

“But I do think that saying – well those MPs don’t represent me so the system is bollocks and I don’t want to engage with any party – is not a viable option. Especially if you want to affect politics.”

I’ve never said this, I’ve said that if MPs don’t represent their constituency adequately, then the system is bollocks, and people shouldn’t engage with those MPs. I would love to hear how this can be changed from the inside, as it seems to me that without the public doing their duty and voting out the government they don’t like, they won’t learn. But then aren’t the Tories an excellent example of how they haven’t learned to be better politicians as a potential government? Only better PR people? Why is it that I get this amazing feeling that after Labour lose in 2010 the stock excuse will be that Labour didn’t manage the situation well enough, but ultimately the global economy was to blame, not their complete inability to be representative and balanced politicians?

Laurie@53

“setting up a binary… is sloppy thinking”

Are you trying to throw an accusation at me or are you acknowledging the point that absolutes don’t exist and conditions need to be applied? If it’s the former, then your words are devoid of meaning, analysis or insight. If it’s the latter, then you’re being sloppy by failing to apply that logic to your subsequent conclusion about how party leaders relate to the party they lead.

Such disconnects are rampant under our present regime as seen in the way Labour’s legislating zeal is tempered by it’s inability to create the necessary regulatory frameworks to make systems function without conflict. This is a consistent theme which runs through the Labour programme and can be identified in several of today’s headline stories.

Gary Glitter: proposals for additional passport restrictions on paedophiles are intended to control their ability to offend by reducing their freedom to travel beyond UK jurisdiction, but at the same time the fact that existing powers aren’t used highlight the waste of energy which goes into creating new legislation (the sex offenders register can’t keep up with changes of address and loses track of most even before they leave the country) – why make dangerous individuals report travel plans earlier when most don’t bother and only 5 have ever been stopped in the first place?

BAA: the breakup of the airports monopoly has been criticised by some airline executives for its failure to address either consumer or competition issues. The arbitrariness of landing charge rises, for example, shows how the control of the airport management is beyond accountability. Meanwhile individual airport management boards will still operate internal and regional monopolies.

Business waste: the Lord’s Science and Technology committee report has pointed out how the government’s desire to reduce waste is undercut by the inflexible tax regime which provides a disincentive to companies to change their behaviour, but the government has defended their lack of action as a form of ‘inducement’. The report concluded “If our society was to implement the hierarchy effectively, a far smaller amount of waste would need to be disposed of after all the previous stages had been put into practice,”

This idea of responsibility is what is hurting the lack of progress in many areas, but while Labour strategy is to provide ever-increasing powers to act it is at the expense of clarifying the framework for action and who was to do what.

This was exemplified in the mortgage market when Northern Rock collapsed because although the tri-partite regulatory mechanism meant the BoE, the Treasury and the FSA each had the power to intervene at different stages to prevent the meltdown each had an institutional desire to cover up problems to minimise criticism rather than communicating them at the earliest opportunity to minimise damage – when the inevitable happened each exculpated themselves by pointing the finger.

Duplication of responsibility, overburdening of responsibility and overpowering responsibility may look on paper like a doubling or trebling of scrutiny and oversight, but in practise it provides an excuse for failure. Which is exactly what this government practices at every level: in it’s well-intentioned desire to prevent bad practise it has actually created the conditions where it can multiply.

This is in contrast to the previous Thatcherite regime famed for it’s well-intentioned deregulating zeal which opened the system to abuse by the powerful on all sides.

FWIW I don’t think any of the parties are the problem, it is the system itself which forces the appeasement of vested interests at the expense of dealing with the fundamental problems – so how can I use my vote to change the voting system by voting for either of the two-party binary?

If you oppose binary oppositions, it is imperative you oppose the forced choice represented by the lack of synthesising choice between the Labour and Conservative parties.

Mike@71

It is also imperative that we support our institutions (NHS, Police etc) with constructive criticisms, rather than doing away with all criticism whatsoever.

Sunny@70

those are three false choices.

If you are inside the system it is because you are actively trying to change the system to a greater or lesser extent, and if you are outside the system you are still in it albeit in a wider context. Passivity and protest are both forms of participation too.

“The ones who don’t hate the poor, women, ethnic minorities, and everyone who doesn’t look and think just like them. The ones with just one knarled red toe on the party line.”

For me as a Labour leftie, my own view is It is a way of advancing your politics. I have had no illusions in reclaiming the LP and it is not our job to reclaim the LP. The LP is the LP.

The problem is that NL is totally committed to neo-liberalism that includes ideological attacks on the poor. The language that speaks of the “workshy” and the whole issue of “culture of dependency”. The various green papers and the Welfare Reform Act doesn’t seek to advance or even improve the unemployed instead it is moralistic where it emphasises “rights and responsibilities” and yet again the onus is on the poor. What about improving the DDA? What about flexible working hours for lone parents? What about free childcare? What about, perish the thought, people going for jobs on their own terms as opposed to being coerced under the threat of benefit sanctions that will increase poverty?

There isn’t anything positive about these welfare reforms, there are no fine lines between supportive and hostility, it is blatant hostility along with contracting out the welfare benefits systems to private companies as it is all about profit and making a fast buck….Public money is being thrown at these companies and they all end up with this collective faces in the trough.

Yes, indeed, I do not want to see a Tory government cos Cameron is a Thatcherite. I think there is a fundamental ideological difference between the Tories and NL, and there’s a cigarette paper’s worth of difference between the two. NL seek to change things in a gradualistic manner while the Tories will be more turbo-charged. But both are competing about who can be more “right-wing” on welfare reform and it is the poor who are caught between a rock and a hard place. At the end of the day, both went to see the introduction of that hideous thing calles workfare (and we are beginning to see it now). Unfortunately, NL will continue to listen to their private equity buddies and the likes of David Freud.

Harpymark – agreed with all of that.

Mike:
It may be that our living standards can continue to rise, what is certain is that our resource consumption can’t. One strand of the left’s response to this must be to challenge the hegemony of consumption as the measure of the “good life” – I think the door is ajar. We need to push on it.

Also agreed. I think you should expand on this further. Did you see Aditya chakrabortty’s article on this recently on CIF?

Lee:
Ultimately if more stock was put in constituency level representation then papers could scream as much as they want about dissent and party break down

Are you saying people should put more stock into their MPs or the system should change? Because right now, people are still tghly tied to their parties.
Secondly, if you want to change the electoral system, like I do (as do orgs like Fabian Society) – how do you plan to change that?

The system must be wider than simply throwing support behind Labour though, which I have to be honest is all that this site seems to be promoting recently.

I’m happy to promote Labour, Libdems or the Greens. It just happens that online Labour have the most amount of supporters, and it is the party in govt so more commentary revolves around it.

I would love to hear how this can be changed from the inside, as it seems to me that without the public doing their duty and voting out the government they don’t like, they won’t learn.

How do you propose its changed from the outside?

One important, political issue with 42 days was that the consensus Brown and Smith claimed to want was firmly established against the legislation some time ago. They nevertheless pressed ahead, and made it an issue of confidence despite their claims that it wasn’t. It was in effect extortion, Labour MPs feeling they had to vote for it otherwise they would harm the Government.

As well as it being a profoundly illiberal piece of legislation, Labour MPs should have voted against it because they were being extorted, and they should consider getting rid of the leadership for putting them in that position.