Hi Darrel, welcome to our unofficial Lib Dem mini-season ;o)

A very interesting post.

As far as Labour, they’re a bust flush. They have exhausted their talent – much like the Republicans in the States. McCain wants to win, but who would he call on? The Bush administration has devastated the pool of talent the GOP had, and McCain would have little experience and talent at his disposal.

Labour is the same. In ’97 they had a small army of talented politicians to build from. Now? A flurry of indentikit suits who’ve spent too much time around Westminster (as researchers, aids, and now MPs) and not enough working in the real world or helping communities. I can’t see that much difference in the Cameron ranks, but he does have a stronger pool to call on than Labour at the moment, mainly because a decade in office they’re either scandalised, exhausted, or too deep in the Westminster shit.

So yeah, why shouldn’t socialists vote Lib Dem? *

Voting on tribal grounds seems bizarre to me, and principled opposition is even more baffling. Labour are finished for at least two terms, and cannot oppose Cameron from a position of strength – maybe the Lib Dems, empowered by a bumper haul of MPs, could.

The Liberals have the talent. In Clegg, Huhne, Campbell, Willott, Kennedy, Cable, Featherstone, Kramer, Davey, Gidley, Hunter, Laws, Mulholland, Swinson, Teather, Hughes, Oaten, Goldsworthy, Teather, Paddick, Opik and Stephen Williams, they have the bricks to build a worthy opposition to Cameron.

So yeah, why not?

*I’m not a socialist, mind.

“However, if we are being entirely honest, socialists don’t really have much of a clue what to replace capitalism with anymore following the failure of social democracy and communism.”

There are quite a lot of bones to pick out of that one. One wonders what’s left after the apparent demise of Social Democracy – which seems to have been greatly exaggerated given the, literal, bankruptcy of neoliberalism. Perhaps you have a name for it, perhaps not, but it would be helpful if you could identify what the Liberal Party’s alternative is before expecting people to vote for it. From the blogs I’ve read it seems to be a kind of confused libertarianism with a bit of ‘not-for-profit’ claptrap thrown in.

“Tackling poverty; a whole raft of policy proposals exist here which I am not going to detail here in-depth. The point is that the Liberal Democrat program is hugely more ambitious than Labour’s.”

Again, a little detail would be helpful in guiding us political agnostics through the methodology of tackling poverty while reducing the overall tax take at a time when government is forced into borrowing a few hundred billion to try to stave off financial armageddon – thanks to the doctrines of the Mont Pelerin low tax, small state brigade.

The big problem for the Lib Dems is that they have become Janus-faced, with few even in their own party really quite sure where they stand. Party workers are campaigning in constituencies on better health care, education and pensions (despite having a leader who doesn’t know what a state pension is), seemingly unaware that the leadership have tacked towards a low-tax future completely at variance with the tenor of the times.

One wonders what’s left after the apparent demise of Social Democracy – which seems to have been greatly exaggerated given the, literal, bankruptcy of neoliberalism.

Yeah, I had a problem with that. As far as I can see, Social Democratic politics has never been stronger. Hey, even the Tories are at it!

Chuck:

OK, here’s an attempt at answering your questions about public services vs tax. The Liberal Democrat approach is:

a. Tax bad things, like pollution, more heavily
b. Raise taxes for the very rich
c. Cut back on major items of government expenditure that we disagree with (e.g. ID cards)

The funds from all these would then go on
1. Some extra expenditure
2. Cutting taxes, with the empahsis on helping the least well off rather than the most well off (cf Conservative concentration on cutting inheritance tax)

I don’t see how saying that the funds which a, b and c raise should be split between 1 and 2 is being Janus faced? I also think it’s much more in tenor with the times than sayhing that funds should only go on extra expenditure.

I think it’s more accurate to say that the old trade union dominated Labour party that existed from the Twenties to the Eighties has failed, rather than social democracy or communism. New Labour is a vacuum. We need a new Left wing programme to coelesce around and I think the Lib Dems have been moving towards providing one (our tax policies are the most progressive to be offered by any party in a generation). People who start from a socialist basis can end up at the same set of policies as people who start from an individualist basis. I find myself agreeing with Chris Dillow a lot, in spite of him being a Marxist and me being an individualist liberal.

The SDP split was necessary to move the Left away from the cul de sac of militant trade unionism, I think a further split in the Labour party will be necessary if we’re to have a further realignment. What I’d like to see is radicals from both a socialist and a liberal background uniting to promote a new programme dedicated to the expansion of personal freedom, radical reform of the public services and redistribution of wealth. If it’s to happen I’m sure the Lib Dems will play a central role and I’d encourage every forward thinking socialist to join up and work for a left wing liberal government.

Why socialists should vote Lib Dem…. so that Clegg can do a deal to put Cameron in power.

You cannot be serious? With the opinion polls showing the Lib Dems peaking at 17% or slumping to 12% this must surely be either a wind-up or something written by the Tories.

Bob, I am told that the Liberal Democrat figures look a lot better if you allow for tactical voting. They would probably be well advised to point that out in a lot of seats.

Personally, I always thought Blairism was an attempt to install “Liberal Democracy” in the heart of the Labour Party, but it seems as though the transplant may be rejected.

The tactical voting comment is slightly funny in light of the fact that the LibDems are some of the worst (attempted) abusers of tactical voting out there. Where they’re in second, they say “only the libdems can win here”. Where they’re not, they say “its a two horse race”. I’ve seen no evidence of them being anything but political opportunists, and have no confidence in assertions that they would bring out about electoral reform if they got into government (because at that point they would no longer need it). The evidence I’ve seen is that they pander to the right in Tory areas and to the left in Labour areas.

But then, I’m biased…

[6] Last week we were on 20 % while Labour were on 24%.

[8] We’re not opportunists, there’s a central body of liberal thought stretching back to the 17th century at least. The Lib Dems have been officially committed to promoting liberalism since 2004 when we adopted It’s About Freedom as our statement of principles. I think these principles imply a particular set of policies and that we’re getting closer to adopting that radical agenda with each passing year. Whatever the rhetoric in a particular seat, the policies are the same everywhere.

I found this reasonably unconvincing. I think Bob’s first point is a good one – with the lib dems realigning themselves for a potential coalition/cooperation with the Tories (which personally I don’t believe will happen) there’s little to commend them to socialists.

There are a number of Lib Dem MPs who I’m completely unoffended by – but they hardly advance a set of arguments that resemble socialist politics. Do they support workers in struggle? Are they opposed to PFI – or for the renationalisation of the railways and other public services? What are their foreign policy statements on Colombia, Venezuela, or the crisis in Bolivia?

Socialists who still want to fight for a left vision are still going to have to do that independently from the Lib Dems, and unfortunately I think from Labour too.

I’m all for working together in campaigns where individuals in those parties have a decent position (things like ID cards and abortion come to mind) No problems – but voting for or even joining the lib dems – that’s just a distraction that detracts from coherent socialist politics.

There is an opportunity right now to argue for social democratic reforms which would chime with a large portion of society – that’s rather more substantial than simply arguing for a least worst option.

Is this the same Darrell Goodliffe who was once the enfant terrible of the cpgb/Weekly Worker? I have wondered what happened to him. Sorry to see he’s travelled from the ultra left to the not-so left.

“raditionally Labour has been seen by socialist’s as their party not always because of policy but also because it is the party of the trade unions; the organised working class. However, not only is that link weakening but it is also a tenuous reason for the obsession with one party”

That paragraph alone shows you don’t get it. It’s not a tenuous reason – it’s the reason why the Labour Party IS the Labour Party.

Lib Dem policy is tailored towards the needs and the values of a section of the middle class. That’s because its membership is overwhelmingly middle class, most of its voters are too and it does not have institutional or funding links to the working class.

The fact that you don’t understand tribal voting again shows you just don’t get it. If you got health treatment on the NHS because of the Party that represented the working class, if someone in your family went to university for the first time because of Labour and you choose to persevere with Labour in the belief it’s better to stick with a Party with that record because they’re more likely to further your interests in the long-term (even if you don’t like New Labour), that doesn’t mean you are less bright or enlightened or whatever than someone who moves their vote away from Labour. Tribal voting is not necessarily a bad thing.

Of course there is a debate about whether socialists should stay with the Labour Party – I believe we should. But the idea that socialists leaving the Labour Party should join the Lib Dems is so bizarre as to be funny.

“The big problem for the Lib Dems is that they have become Janus-faced, with few even in their own party really quite sure where they stand. Party workers are campaigning in constituencies on better health care, education and pensions (despite having a leader who doesn’t know what a state pension is), seemingly unaware that the leadership have tacked towards a low-tax future completely at variance with the tenor of the times.”

What a complete simplification…yet again repeated, last time I think it was Kate that said it. The lib-dems are not about “low-tax” they are about “fair tax”, that’s to say that people are taxed more equitably, hence the previous policy of local income tax (is that still a policy?) and this new one of reducing WASTED SPENDING based on Lib Dem policy to provide tax cuts to the less well off. Nothing in that points to a reduction in services, it’s an old argument that worked semi-well against the Tories but has no basis at all against the Lib Dems.

“You cannot be serious? With the opinion polls showing the Lib Dems peaking at 17% or slumping to 12% this must surely be either a wind-up or something written by the Tories.”

Opinion polls now are irrelevant, they are what they are because unfortunately people listen to people like you, Bob, without asking any further questions. The Election is a way off yet and opinion polls can change, and indeed they will change based on how well Lib Dem’s can put the argument for power versus what is clearly a very basic non-argument that you and other Labour supporters will employ… “What, them? You’re having a laugh..don’t be silly”….

“Where they’re not, they say “its a two horse race”. I’ve seen no evidence of them being anything but political opportunists, and have no confidence in assertions that they would bring out about electoral reform if they got into government (because at that point they would no longer need it).”

That’s always a danger, though I personally never see Lib Dems gaining power to such a degree FPTP becomes favourable. Given the Lib Dem movement is based on electoral reform more recently then it would be hard to remove themselves from it.

And actually I agree they’re opportunists, just as the Tories are and Labour too. To try and claim that any political party is pure and won’t do whatever they can within their own policies to win is naive. I find it interesting that when Cameron comes up with some press release to capitalise on a poor Labour period, or when Labour do something at a time when a bigger issue is being reported to hide their actions, this is all “par for the course”. When Lib Dems tailor their message for their audience they are “opportunists”. It’s hilarious that people think they act any differently to a party aspiring to power.

“Tribal voting is not necessarily a bad thing.”

It’s not a bad thing if what you’re voting for makes sense. Voting for a party just “because” is, at best, moronic. I like the idea that Lib Dems do nothing for the working classes, even though local income tax would have greatly benefited especially large working class families, their education policies have ensure there are no financial barriers to higher education, current policing policy would mean those likely to be targetted by the police, mostly working class families, would be less likely to simply be locked up in prison for short periods of time.

There is plenty the Lib Dem’s do for working classes and for those in poverty, but myths must be perpetuated I guess.

[13] Your basis for socialists sticking with Labour seems to be a mixture of nostalgia for Labour policies of the past and a forlorn hope that Labour will return to them. The party that you are a member of now is not a pressure group for the working class, it’s precisely what you’re claiming the Lib Dems are – a party tailored towards winning the votes of middle class swing voters.

If you look at our policy platform you’ll see that we would help people on low incomes more than Labour would. It makes no sense whatsoever for a socialist to join Labour rather than the Liberal Democrats at the present time. And we’re not realigning towards the Tory party, we’re seeking to replace Labour as the dominant progressive force in British politics.

I am grateful to tim f. I could not see the basis for socialists voting for New Labour. I now see it. The basis is a hope that Labour will one day turn back into a socialist party.

The LibDems will never be a socialist party, They have not been and will not be the party of the working class – organised or not. The LibDems are alergic to the idea of fixed and inherited social class labels. Someone who wants the children of today’s workers to remain working class will do better to vote Tory or New Labour than vote LibDem.

However, if a socialist’s priority is to recapture the Labour Party for socialism (and her/his second priority to reduce poverty) should not a socialist vote for a Labour candiate who shares the socialist viewpoint; or if the Labour candidate is New Labour, for the LibDem candidate?

Bob Piper,

Maybe someone could contribute a piece that makes the case for socialists to vote New Labour?

With the opinion polls showing the Lib Dems peaking at 17% or slumping to 12% this must surely be either a wind-up or something written by the Tories. ~ Bob Piper

Bob has a point. While I would argue that the Lib Dems have the talent and the ideas, they don’t have the foundation to build on.

But then voting Labour, IMO, is voting for the illiberal politics of fear, the constant launching of non-existent policy changes, and a tired and spent party.

I’m sorry Bob. I will always vote for equality and opportunity, but I feel Labour need to regroup and drop the arrogance. And I simply can’t abide Mrs. Harman. That’s unfair, but it’s the way I feel.

I’m not a tribal animal. I will not vote for Labour. My key values have not been served by Labour – save for their work in education. But I will vote for them again after a period of retrospection, if they rediscover the values that attracted me in ’97 and ’01.

Brown isn’t a leader. Full stop. He’s a very good politician and is an intellectual man worthy of better treatment. Miliband is a pup who’s spent to. much time in the company of political pamphlets. We need a leader, not Brains from Thunderbirds.

‘Tackling poverty; a whole raft of policy proposals exist here which I am not going to detail here in-depth. The point is that the Liberal Democrat program is hugely more ambitious than Labour’s.’

Darrell, my man – not good enough, I’m afraid. Can you detail three or four points on the raft? It’s not enough to say that socialism has failed, or to imply that it has failed on the common ground that socialists and liberals find themselves on – namely, some concern for legislating in favour those who need support – without going into the details of such a platform. How would the Lib Dems, for instance, stand on the trade union freedom bill? What are your views on outsourcing public services? How should the NHs operate?

etc

What are your views on outsourcing public services? ~ Kate

This is a subject that needs its own thread. I don’t feel comfortable with sprawling bureaucracies under Whitehall control. We need a wider debate on localised power and taxation.

The Regional Assemblies idea was quashed by a very well orchestrated campaign led mainly by the right – who claimed it would mean another layer of bureaucracy. This should not have necessarily been the case – maybe Labour handled it poorly or proposed a poorly thought-out policy.

Britain is too Norman in its centralised model. I don’t care if services are provided by private or public provision, but I do think it should be decided locally.

A regional assembly could provide a perfect environment to try out ideas, and groom a generation of politicians with practical experience. I know we’re a small country, but we’re also an incredibly diverse and unequal one.

Kate: Has Lib Dem policy ever suggested that it wants to outsource public services. More than Labour already has done that is?

Lee Griffin:

“current policing policy would mean those likely to be targetted by the police, mostly working class families, would be less likely to simply be locked up in prison for short periods of time”

Tip: if you want to convince people you’re on the side of the working classes you might want to avoid implying that working class people are mostly criminals.

Where did *I* imply that the working class are criminals? I said that the police are more likely to target the working class, this is a problem inherent in our policing system where minorities and lower social classes are disproportionately discriminated against by the authorities. Both Tories and Labour have helped perpetuate this in one way or another, perhaps it’s time for another party to have a stab at changing that attitude once and for all, no?

Lee: I think the list of outsourcing Lib Dem councils is as long as your… arm. Am going to put together a little list for you when I sober up.

I few months ago I was going to vote Lib Dem but I’m not so sure any more. There’s a strong chance that I will end up voting Labour if, come the election, it looks like a huge Tory majority. I personally think that will be a disaster for the country as much as a Labour landslide is.

I wouldn’t trust a bunch of social conservatives with so much power.

Well, you seemed to be suggesting that “we’ll give you community sentences rather than short prison sentences” would be a working class vote winner, for that to be so you would have to be working on the assumption that electorally significant numbers of working class people currently serve short prison sentences and would benefit from being given different kinds of sentence. If you fancy taking that campaign out on the road, seriously, be my guest. You may find, however, that you get considerably fewer people slamming the door in your face if you sell your Criminal Justice policy on the basis that it will protect people from crime rather than telling people how it will be awesome for criminals. For example “More imaginative sentencing will reduce re-offending rates” works better than “Hey! Criminals! Who wants to get of jail! Vote Lib Dem and everyone walks free!”. Apart from anything else, the reason why crime is a major working class issue is that working class people are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime.

Additionally, although I enjoy your police-r-evul-bourjeois-fashist-pigz schtik as much as the next ex-6th Form Marxist, I fail to see how reducing the number short prison sentences will have a major impact on the discriminatory culture of policing that you perceive.

Sorry for late replies, have been indisposed for most of the day lol….

Aaron and a couple of people made a point basically questioning my assertion that social democracy has failed….surely it has in terms of providing a notion of an alternative form of society?? This is really the context i was making the assertion in…i really dont think David Cameron saying he is in favour of ‘sensible’ regulation of financial markets makes him a social democrat….it means he realises that there are structural problems with capitalism that needs to be solved…

Jim Jay and a couple of people made points about potential coalition with the Tories which all in effect amount to if’s/but’s and maybes…the reality of the situation is that such a deal is unlikely to happen in my eyes and if it was would have to garner substantial policy concessions from the Tories for the idea to even have a chance of being sold to the Labour-leaning/leftist part of the lib dem membership….

averypublic…enfant terrible?? Im not sure if to take that as flattery or not….

Kate…stated my views about the NHS on another thread and won’t repeat myself here….i pretty much share Aarons hostility to large centralised bureaucracies…it is the parties position to review trade union legislation…fair cop on the lack of content on tackling poverty though so this is especially for you (and the others who mentioned it)…

-£600 million extra early years and childcare
help for up to 1.5 million vulnerable children, a new £1.5bn Pupil Premium to deliver
extra help in schools
-raising the rate of child
benefit by up to £5 for each family
-Cut the extra costs (‘Poverty Premium’) paid by poor people and reduce problems
of debt – including abolishing higher utility pre-payment charges; allowing social
pricing for utility bills for vulnerable groups; increasing the availability of low cost
home energy conservation measures; extending the Winter Heating Allowance to
those on higher rate disability benefits; and improving access to the Social Fund.

Darrell:

different attitudes to capitalism and how to deal with it. Socialists want to replace it and liberals want to promote it while protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Of course, this is a sweeping generalisation

More than a sweeping generalisation, it’s conflating the word ‘capitalism’ with ‘markets’ and asserting that liberals can’t be socialists.

Neither is correct to do (and yes, either Chris Dillow or m’self should’ve written a proper post on this months back, so sue me). Liberals believe in fair and open markets, the system of ownership is irreverent within the market as long as it’s fair. “Markets where possible, the state where necessary”, as Michael Meadowcroft reminded me the old slogan went. Within that belief, there are liberal capitalists, who believe in the predominant current ownership structure, and liberal socialists, such as myself and, oh, forget his name, oh yeah, John Stuart Mill, who believe(d) in co-operatives, mutuals, partnerships and similar.

Recent issues within the British economy make this case more strongly, note that it’s the former mutuals that were encouraged to demutualise by Tory and then New Labour govts that have been the centre of the problems, the remaining mutuals appear to be holding up well. It’s not markets that have caused the problem, it’s the system of ownership.

Liberals belief in levelling the playing field and ensuring fair and open access to the markets that exist, which should mean we ensure co-operatives, mutuals, partnerships (such as John Lewis, for example) are at least not discouraged, and are able to get startup funding easily.

Old-style centralised state-socialism has failed, but forward thinking socialists should look to the other traditions within the socialist body of thought, and especially pay attention to the works of Mill.

Kate said:

I think the list of outsourcing Lib Dem councils is as long as your… arm

Well of course it is. Central government insists on it, and it’s them that provide the money. Compulsory competitive tendering and similar isn’t something a lot of Lib Dems are keen on, neither is PFI. But it’s the only horse in town, and until they can set central policy, which would broadly be to tell councils to do what they think is best and make sure there are minimum standards and, crucially, proper democratic accountability, it’s what the councils have to deal with.

For the health service, for example, they’d remove tiers of bureaucracy and central decision making, and make local health boards properly accountable to local voters, either directly or by giving control to the councils, and ensure the money saved from the cutting of layers of bureaucracy is spent on front line services.

Afraid I haven’t, personally, acquainted myself with the trade union freedom bill you’ve mentioned, can you give me a link to an explanation? I tend to concentrate my efforts on constitutional stuff, specifically voting systems, but freedom of association and similar I definitely approve of, if that’s what the bill is—’freedom’ is an easy word to use, but the meaning is frequently vague.

As for outsourcing, I agree with Aaron, I, personally, am neutral, it can be done well or badly (there’s a local social enterprise called Kerbside that used to do all the recycling, the local (Tory with Labour backing) council royally screwed them over), but it should be a decision made locally not by central diktat.

Aaron on regional assemblies:

This should not have necessarily been the case – maybe Labour handled it poorly or proposed a poorly thought-out policy.

Both—Prescott was put in charge, Blair wouldn’t let them have any real power devoled from Westminster, they as proposed would’ve been glorified talking shops replacing a tier of local government (thus making power more remote, not bringing it closer) and the referendum that was held saw a resounding no, with campaigners using a white elephant balloon. Of course, that’s only if you exclude the London regional assembly, which seems to be doing OK.

Yes, I remain bitter about the whole thing, I was fairly involved in the SW constitutional convention at the time, complete farce from beginning to end 🙁

Oh and no prizes for spotting the Lib Dems are not a socialist party….never said they were….i said they have a platform which can be supported by socialists….and while you are all hoping the unions will ‘turn Labour around’ they are busy in secret talks with the Tories by all accounts…so good luck with that 🙂

Here’s my (much shorter) reasoning why a socialist might vote LibDem:

1. There is no viable party to represent my views.
2. Labour, which I previously felt did represent me, is no longer my party, and it is a fantasy to imagine that it will return to its former self.
3. If there’s no party that I feel able to vote for on ideological reasons, then I must vote for a party who might bring about a shift in politics that might bring such a party into existence (or allow me to reclaim Labour along with numerous like-minded people).
4. PR would be key to this, since under FPTP parties have no reason to capitulate to their base until their base threatens to vote for someone else (which usually only happens once they are going to lose anyway).
5. Of the three main parties, the only one likely to bring about PR, either in power or as a deal-breaker for coalition, is the Lib Dems.

I would add to this that anyone who believes the Lib Dems might abandon multi-member constituency STV once they got into power has clearly never been to Lib Dem conference and been to the endless fringe meetings on electoral reform. I have, and I would simply say this: If Clegg, or any successor, ever tried to get away with dropping this policy, or simply not securing it in a coalition negotiation, or shifting policy-making away from conference so as to achieve either of these, then half of their activists would leave the party overnight. I certainly would. Electoral reform is, in that tired, hackneyed phrase, “part of our DNA” as a party.

So, socialists, you have a choice:

A. Delude yourself that the Labour government we have is as good as it gets, and that pouring your activism/votes into propping up this kind of Tory-lite government every few years between Tory governments is the most productive thing you can do politically.
B. Vote Labour out of a mixture of sheer mindless tribalism towards them and mistrust of liberal motivations and principles.
C. Vote for a party you don’t agree with short-term, but who would at least be better than the Tories, and who would bring in a political system in which your voice could be heard.
D. Change your ideology.

Which is it to be?

These credit crunching days are an odd time for you to declare that social democracy doesn’t work, don’t you think? I have to confess I’ve voted Lib Dem before but only because that idiot George Galloway was my MP for a while. You’re missing a hugely important problem for socialists: socialists are generally interested in politics; the Lib Dems are for people who are not interested in politics – in much the same way that people in Glasgow who support Partick Thistle aren’t really interested in football.

‘But it’s the only horse in town’ – don’t think that’s true of outsourcing, Matt my man. Plenty of examples of instances of where services have been kept inhouse (housing at Camden – not ALMOd out, Bristol City keeping care services in after considering outsourced options, etc). True, there are incentives to outsource, but they don’t have to be pursued.

Re: trade union freedom bill – am v big on that, because my experience as a union activist demonstrated clearly to me that industrial action remains the only real weapon that low-paid people have at their disposal, especially when confronting the outsourcing juggernaut… this country has very tough anti trade union laws – no solidarity striking (thus was the T&G threatened when BAA staff went out in support of Gate Gourmet strikers, etc), limited protections for people who take strike action, etc. There are also very strict balloting rules, etc.

Here’s a starter on the TUC site:

http://www.tuc.org.uk/law/index.cfm?mins=560

Mat GB,

But a level playing field will only at best create a mixed economy…if you are saying every company should be a co-operative mutual etc etc then you are changing the system of owernership for a whole economy; your not levelling the playing field; you are flattening it and creating a new one….

Ah, but Darrell, if we level the competetive playing field and let co-operatives compete without the current hindrance, they can defeat the capitalists at their own game. I don’t want to force them out, I want to out-compete them.

There is, after all, a reason why John Lewis/Waitrose have a reputation as being damn good (even if too expensive for my pocket). More of that at all levels within the market would be a damn good thing.

Kate, you’re right, it’s not something they’re always absolutely forced to do. But the incentives are damn strong to do so, and if you’re on a shoe string budget, with your council tax capped, and you’re forced to either cut services completely or outsource some, it’s not an easy choice but sometimes it’s the only one you can make.

Change the insane system of centralised diktat and allow councils to do as their voters want, like I said, outsourcing to co-operatives and social enterprises can be both very effective and very popular. But outsourcing to global multinat #435 is rarely either popular or effective.

I’ll read the link tomorrow, too many whiskys for new ideas this evening. Danke.

[31] Um… you need only go to LibDemBlogs to find endless folk who are both interested in politics and are Lib Dems – apparently impossible according to your view. As for social democracy being dead, I’m not sure much of the LibDem party membership or even leadership would sign up to that, it’s an ill-chosen phrasing by Darrell, nothing more.

[30] According to Andy Hinton

So, socialists, you have a choice:

A. Delude yourself that the Labour government we have is as good as it gets, and that pouring your activism/votes into propping up this kind of Tory-lite government every few years between Tory governments is the most productive thing you can do politically.
B. Vote Labour out of a mixture of sheer mindless tribalism towards them and mistrust of liberal motivations and principles.
C. Vote for a party you don’t agree with short-term, but who would at least be better than the Tories, and who would bring in a political system in which your voice could be heard.
D. Change your ideology.

Actually, there’s also

E. Vote Green, SNP/Plaid if in the right country to do so, or even for a far-left group, and
F. Abstain, possibly writing “old Labour” or some such on the ballot paper.

Anyway at least this thread has confirmed my suspicions about the hopless confusion of Lib Dem economics, with Meadowcroft (who I’d always thought was on the left of the Party) praising markets and others wanting to tame them with mutuals/co-ops.

Mat GB,

So, basically what you are saying is that the mutuals and co-ops will change capitalism through some Darwinian natural selection….as long is the profit motive rules in any case the bigger co-ops mutuals will quickly become ‘the capitalists’ in any case so nothing you have said persuades me that this crisis would not have arisen if the system of ownership and level playing field existed in the first place….

Andy,

Well obviously I agree that saying Lib Dems arent interested in politics is wrong. As to your point about social democracy obviously I can only speak for my own point of view but I dont know how you can speak for the leaderships (who would probably actually agree it is dead) or the rest of the membership….interesting factette, the campaign for social democracy within the Lib Dems Facebook group has 6 members compared to 3000 odd in the Lib Dems official ones…

Point 2 is that it obviously does depend on the context of what you are defining social democracy as…so as an individual i stand by my remark….

“Additionally, although I enjoy your police-r-evul-bourjeois-fashist-pigz schtik as much as the next ex-6th Form Marxist, I fail to see how reducing the number short prison sentences will have a major impact on the discriminatory culture of policing that you perceive.”

You can throw around a lot of fancy (if not entirely well formed) words, but you can’t differentiate between two issues? I said that the claim Lib Dem’s do nothing that benefits the working classes has little basis in fact, one example being that of policing to prevent the culture of crime as much as to punish the creators of it. You then swan in and claim this is me stating all working classes are criminals. I inform you why this is not the case and then you suddenly try to link my original statement to a secondary statement which I issued as a response to the separate issue of discriminatory practice.

High-larious.

And I’m not hating on the police, I think by and large they do a fantastic job, I just think that they’re also resourced and managed in such a way that discriminatory practice is the only way to get the results they need to meet their quota’s. That’s a whole separate issue though.

“You may find, however, that you get considerably fewer people slamming the door in your face if you sell your Criminal Justice policy on the basis that it will protect people from crime rather than telling people how it will be awesome for criminals.”

You just love spin don’t you, a very definite Labour trait 😉 I bow to the amazing ability you have to deduce the above from what I said. Magicall.

36. I don’t think he really pegged it down to Lib Dems, only that he would.

“Anyway at least this thread has confirmed my suspicions about the hopless confusion of Lib Dem economics”

As a party I thought Lib Dem’s were fairly solid on economics, this is why Vince Cable has been seen generally as much respected in what he (and the Lib Dems) have been saying leading up to the current situation. Supporters may be confused, but then the liberal banner brings a very wide wash of opinions on such matters, given that the Left/Right balance really isn’t the main driving force of the party.

40. Indeed I didn’t, I went out of my way to use the non-specific phrase “a party … who would”, although I would indeed say that the Lib Dems best fit this bill as the most likely to win of the PR-supporting options.

38. I can of course only speak for what I see social democracy as. To check I wasn’t being unreasonable, I just looked up a definition on wikipedia. The first paragraph of the article on social democracy reads as follows:

“Social democracy is a political ideology of the left and centre-left. It emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement,[1] and continues to be influential in many developed and developing nations. It advocates the creation of a democratic welfare state that combines capitalist and socialist institutions and practices. Unlike others on the left, such as Marxists, who seek to challenge the capitalist system more fundamentally, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove claimed injustices. Some consider social democracy to be a moderate form of socialism, though others reject that designation.”

To me that sounds utterly in tune with Lib Dem thinking as expressed in much of our policy and in the statements of the party leadership. I might also point out that many of our members used to be members of the SDP. I really don’t think I’m being massively controversial to suggest that most Lib Dems don’t think social democracy is dead. It might not be the direction of travel of policy at the moment, but social democracy still informs much of lib dem policy.

Andy,

Well this is where we get into grey areas isnt it. Of course, the SDP merger is part of the past of the Liberal Democrats and you may well be right but then again you may well be wrong. Liberals might argue that the definition you gave of social democracy, for example a ‘democratic welfare state’ falls within the confines of liberalism….

If we look at Labour historically then it did at least pay lip service to challenging capitalism (ie, clause IV) in a way Wikipedia claims is the sole province of Marxists….in theory the eventual aim was to in theory reform capitalism out of existence….so, I think the segment you produce for Wikipedia itself leaves alot to be desired…..

Darrell

Wkipedia isn’t claiming Marxists are the only people who challenge capitalism, the phrase used is “such as Marxists”. I would certainly argue that clause IV came from a rather different place than the mainstream of social democracy.

I never said that social democracy was exclusive of liberalism – indeed, it would have been a pretty strange merger of SDP and Liberals if that were the case. So of course a “democratic welfare state” can be seen as part of liberalism, but that’s no reason it can’t be socially democratic too.

Can we please not use Wikipedia as an “authority” on such matters? Yes, I know it’s easy and I use it myself a lot, but I try to restrain myself from quoting it other than on matters of fact (such as sourcing a quote).

For some people “social democracy” means “capitalism with a human face”, for others – such as, from memory, the Webbs – it was a mechanism to supersede capitalism by slow strangulation. FWIW, I’m of the “socialism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried” school of thought. In a very real sense, this site is all about whether we should try harder or give up!

I tend to agree with the broad thrust of what Mike says to be honest. I am dying to know what a socialist institution actually is although I assume they mean nationalised industries but I would see them as not being socialist institutions but industries nationalised under bureaucratic state control. I think there is alot of scope for dialogue about the way forward and it’s something that Mike has started with his series of articles.

FWIW, I’m of the “socialism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried” school of thought. In a very real sense, this site is all about whether we should try harder or give up!

In fairness, *free* markets have never actually been tried either.

FTR. I prefer the Freiburg School to Marx.

When deciding which party to vote for I think it is best not to describe yourself philosophically in the terms used in party names as this creates a predeliction towards one or other without any justification: people have philosophies, parties have members.

And the it is the same for all parties. They are all inventions of the modern era, constantly evolving to represent the combined identity of each their members’ personality. And they will each continue to change as time passes.

The Old Labour ‘values’ are no such thing. The policies which the party built successful platforms on did not imbibe the different generations of leaders with some visionary ability to unlock the secrets of the universe and provide suplication to all under the sun.

If you get away from using words like liberty/liberal, democracy/democrat, social/society, conservative, environmentalist etc for a moment there is plenty of space for every kind of belief because the ability to disagree leads us to understand where the other side is coming from.

What we do need however is a clearer understanding of the relevance of the choices at hand.

[47] I’m blushing…

[48] That I think is fair comment. In both cases, part of the answer may lie in the fact that people don’t just have interests, they have short-term and long-term interests, and the one often fouls the other. Tariff barriers (which economists often cite as the way that the US economy, for instance, falls short of being a “free market”) really reflect the political weight given to the former rather than the latter. No one advocates a wholly free market, without, for instance, patent law or a state monopoly on violence. (Well, doubtless there are people on samizdata who do, but you know what I mean.)

Theoretical solutions of both left and right tend to address the long term, and to be much less good at the “how do we get there from here” stuff. The only theoretical tool I know which seeks to handle this is the discount rate, and all the evidence suggests that voters and politicians are far more short-termist than economists and political philosophers would like them to be!

Mike, I think we’d be even more angry if our politicians spent all their time on the floor of parliament in obscure thoeretical debate rather than on addressing current needs.

Of course there must be some balance to show that they have some philosophical grounding, but that’s exactly why nobody should rule out voting for the LibDems: 60-odd seats is a foundation, even if they have yet to build on it.

Why limit your options?

Exactly Thomas. The whole point here is that no party is likely to be a perfect fit for your own theoretical positions and Labour was never that for socialists in any case so I don’t see why when the Labour Party is clearly not dealivering the goods this myopic focus on the Labour Party should remain.

Quick point regarding LibDems introducing PR – up here in Scotland, they managed to push Labour into accepting Single Transferable Vote (yay!) for local council elections, even though it was obviously going to cost Labour seats.

(Mind you, Jack McConnell was quite happy to see certain of the councillors disappear…)

I was in a band with that Greg Mulholland, you know…(it was a long time ago!)

🙂

46. FWIW, Mike, I agree that wikipedia isn’t an “authority”, but in the context I was quoting it, I only really intended to show an example of what “most people” might understand by the words social democracy, to reassure myself I wasn’t exactly going out on a limb. Obviously there is no well defined bullet point list of axioms for social democracy, nor for any other popular strain of thought, but there is nonetheless a general understanding of what people mean by the term. Of any source, wikipedia seemed to me, by its nature, the best place to look for that.

[46] Mike wrote, “FWIW, I’m of the “socialism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried” school of thought. In a very real sense, this site is all about whether we should try harder or give up!”

Liberalism forces you towards a particular set of policies. I’m yet to see a statement of socialism that does the same. It seems to me that you can start from a socialist/collectivist basis and argue towards a set of liberal policies. You can also start from socialism and argue towards authoritarian policies. What is it that you want to try harder to achieve?

Marx’s view of history and his economics were wrong. His social analysis is interesting, but I think that taking a hard class-based view of things tends to distract from our being able to identify solutions to the problems he identified. Having said that, I’ve always been an individualist an find it difficult to think about things from a collectivist point of view. Chris Dillow seems to have negotiated his way from a Marxist set of premises towards a liberal set of policies.

The Labour Party no longer represents anyone or anything. It’s a hollowed out shell that needs to be kicked to pieces. What is it about the Lib Dems that those of you who want to throw away your votes on the Greens/SWP etc don’t like?

Andrew,

Firstly the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t agree with you that Marx was wrong about economics. I find it amazing that as capitalism is spiraling rapidly downward people can still find defences for this system. The most common defence of capitalism; that it would be ‘ok if it wasnt for greedy individuals’ but those individuals are only following the logic of capitalsim to it’s end. I think there is alot of value in Marx’s economics…

[55] Well, Andrew, in my own case a vote for the Greens would be no more thrown away than a vote for the Lib Dems, who run a poor third round here. And that is true for at least half of England. Nor have I ever seen an explanation as to why those on the left who live in Scotland or Wales should prefer the Lib Dems to the SNP or Plaid.

If I haven’t made clear what my differences with the Lib Dems are by now, I don’t suppose I ever shall. And I doubt that all Lib Dems would agree that liberalism “forces” you to do anything! For example, neither liberalism nor socialism, as such, enlighten me much as to whether a United States of Europe would be a good or a bad thing. Nor do they tell me when to prefer local discretion to national standards or vice versa, how to balance freedom of speech against respect for women and ethnic groups, whether to build a third runway at Heathrow or a new high-speed railway (or both, or neither) or how serious the threat of climate change is or… but I hope the point is made.

My basic disagreement with the “markets where possible, the State where necessary” approach is that it supposes that liberty and equality are the only political dimensions we have to consider. I consider fraternity to be as important as either. I am coming to the conclusion that the Lib Dems here simply don’t understand what I mean by the word. Too busy bowling alone, I suppose.

Darrell: If people too socialism to it’s end then it would no doubt bring down the economy too…don’t you think?

[58] Lee, straw men give you hay fever…

I don’t know that your point is made Mike, you seem to just be picking examples of issues where philosophy can be interpreted in different ways based on different adjoining beliefs and priorities and therefore not be easily pigeonholed as being an issue of one political persuasion or another.

59: Ah, the usual straw man argument claim. *rolling of eyes here*

If you’re going to have people sitting around here claiming that it is capitalism that is to blame, not the people that took it to extremes, then how can you not have the debate about the opposite side of the scale?

As an ex-Lib-Dem now in the Green Party, it amuses me to witness the spectacle of LibDems here trying to posture as radical / leftist. I tried to persuade Paddy Ashdown to reposition the LibDems on the left of the political spectrum, to take advantage of the gaping hole left open by New Labour’s adoption of Thatcherism; I failed completely. (See http://rupertread.fastmail.co.uk/From%20Limehouse%20to%20Campbell,%20and%20beyond.doc )I left the Party when Charlie K. took over; and since then, the general thrust of LibDem policy has only been yet further to the Right.
Janus-faced? Yes. It doesn’t take much hunting around the blogosphere to find the parallel argument being made, for why Cameronians should vote LibDem. See e.g. http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2008/06/should-lib-dems-love-bomb-david-cameron.html
The fundamental problem with the LibDems is that they stand for so little. Clegg is trying to get them to stand for ‘liberty’. But this is fundamentally a right-wing idea.
The crisis convulsing our planet should make clear to us that it is time for a return to ideology. We need a bold new analysis – a Green New Deal [ http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_publicationdetail.aspx?pid=258 ] to tackle peak oil, manmade climate change, and financial crisis. The old ideologies have failed; and the LibDems hardly have any ideology at all. The ideology for our time is ecologism. See Andrew Dobson’s book, GREEN POLITICAL THOUGHT.
Now is not the time for timidity. Socialists should get where the action is, and make it happen… Vote Green, to go green…

Lee,

It all depends on what you mean by socialism really doesnt it. Do you mean bureacratised central state planning? In that case I agree with you totally. ‘Socialist’ economies up to this point have been nothing better than glorified companies with a ‘red’ banner whose purpose was to enrich and empower state bureaucrats. Here Mike’s point is relevant; socialism in it’s purest form has actually never been tried. Incidentally, I totally agree with you that it is only fair to examine the opposition.

The notion that economic planning is impossible is however nonsense. Capitalism itself includes elements of planning though ultimately it is anarchic. At the core of this crisis and at the core of the fundemental problems with capitalism itself is the profit motive. Indeed, those ‘greedy individuals’ are there as a symptom of the disease.

Incidentally, for peoples reference I post the below….it seems to me that the below does represent a radical reforming agenda which is the very least that can be agreed on right now in the here and now….

http://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/economic_recovery_plan_brief.pdf

From my philosophical rather than economic perspective, there seemed to precious little value in Marxist economics having studied it for 2 years. It is pretty useless at making specific predictions about the future which means it is poor as far as scientific theory goes. Of course, current economic theory isn’t great either and it would be nice to see progress on this. I have recently been introduced to a new form of Georgism which claims to be able to predict outcomes more reliably (it does this by making a strict distinction between land and capital): http://www.progress.org/geonomy/

It applies libertarian economic principles in all respects except to land acquisition.

[56] Darrell,

I couldn’t care less what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks about economics. Most Marxists don’t try to defend Marx’s economic theories nowadays. Having said that, I’m not sure I was defending capitalism as presently constituted. It depends what you mean by capitalism.

[57] Mike,

The difference between voting Liberal Democrat and voting Green is that the Lib Dems can build from nothing and take a seat over the course of two or three elections whereas the Greens can’t. The SNP would break up the UK thereby reducing the potential of every Scottish citizen. Nationalism in general is fundamentally wrong-headed – your national identity is a private matter and should be irrelevant to politics. States exist to promote the interests of their citizens, not to promote a particular culture or religion.

On the fraternity point, liberals would maximise your freedom to fraternise. Barring restraining orders you can fraternise all you like.

[62] Liberty is not a right wing idea. The right don’t believe in liberty, they believe in property. The freedom they promote is the freedom to have what you hold and devil take the hindmost. A genuine commitment to maximise liberty is necessarily left wing – it requires redistribution of wealth to ensure that everyone has the means to make choices.

Andrew,

So, for example, are you seriously going to tell me that Marx was wrong about capitalism being endemically crisis prone? I’d like to see you try and say it isn’t now of all times….

I think it should be possible to design markets that are less crisis-prone. I would probably still describe a state built around such markets as capitalist. The most glaring error in Marx’s economics is the Labour theory of value.

Did Marx have a theory to explain why markets were crisis-prone?

Andrew,

I’m not saying Marx is gospel, what I am saying is there are things of value there. For example, there is alot of worthwhile stuff about alienation etc etc. I notice you use the phrase ‘less crisis prone’ which means to me they will still be prone and you recognise that; yes he did, without going into vast amounts of detail it revolved around the tendency of the rate of profit to decline due a top heavy accumulation of surplus value which then leads to the need for capital to be destroyed to restore some kind of parity to the system.

Rupert,

ideology never left us, so I don’t know what you mean when you state your wish for a return to it.

As for your oh so obvious bitterness towards your former party and colleagues this looks like shooting yourself in the foot. If you wish to advance the electoral fortunes of the Green party, surely it would be more sensible to help them push for the changes in the electoral system both you and they wish to bring about in alliance rather than by splitting any consensual position which exists between you and they.

The fact remains that the LibDems are far closer to becoming a party of government than the Greens are and that this is unlikely to change within the foreseeable future of even your most ardent and optimistic supporter.

Really your slogan should be ‘Vote Green, Go Nowhere’.

Now I challenge you (or anyone else for that matter) to tell me where and when the arguments of either left or right were conclusively proven to have the correct (or incorrect) answers for all people (or none) in all circumstances (or in none). I would very much like to read your evidence.

[66] The idea that the potential of a citizen is directly proportional to the size of the state in which (s)he is a citizen is a new one to me.

Why can’t the Greens “build over two or three elections” to take a seat? Because they’ve never done so yet? Why must the future be like the past? If your argument means anything, it must also apply to local council seats, where it’s patently false.

[68] Having criticised Wikipedia earlier, it has an excellent article on the Labour Theory of Value. It was a given of classical economics, most certainly not invented by Marx.

Anyone interested in the realities of what being a LibDem, Labour or Conservative tends to boil down to in contemporary Britain should have sat in Norwich City Council Chamber last night, as Councillors from these Parties formed a mutual admiration society and drowned themselves in negative rhetoric in order to attack us for daring to oppose one of their pet road-building projects. See my post on this, here:
http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/10/dont-be-dinosaur-beyond-main-3-parties.html
thomas is right that ideology never left us: all the three grey Parties are tacitly committed to the same ideology, of endless industrial growth, of workshipping at the shrine of big business and big money, of neoliberal globalisation. I wish they understood that this was / is an ideology, rather than being under the silly illusion that they are ‘pragmatic’, ‘sensible’, etc.
I harbour no bitterness toward my old Party: just sadness that they are joining with their fellow dinosaurs in leading the world into perdition and oblivion.

That’s a bit dramatic, Rupert.

You talk about the need for _big changes_, yet only fools make designs on the horizon. But what happens when you make _big changes_ and you aren’t happy with the result? Do you make more _big changes_? And how do you adjudge whether your not compounding your earlier errors?

No, If you want to see big effects you need to make small incremental changes and keep making them until you are happy with the result.

I’d like to be warned about some of the details for the _big changes_ you Greens propose.

‘The Liberals have the talent.’

This is the thing I don’t get. Obviously, as the third biggest Blairite party in the country, the Lib Dems are going nowhere, have no political future, will never influence a debate, or make a speech anyone hears, let alone take office and draft policy.

If they can’t get anywhere with Labour in its current state, and even the Conservatives half way through the process of rebranding themselves, then you can really see the case being made for proposing a motion at the next Conference to wind up the party and auction off its assets.

So what keeps that talent going? What is the big ideological issue that stops them joining one of the other Blairite parties?

Are the Labour Party trade union links really so strong they would count for more than 30 MPs and a 10% voting block?

What wouldn’t Cameron say or do about the City for the same prize?

Why do the Lib Dems still exist?

“What is the big ideological issue that stops them joining one of the other Blairite parties?”

a) they hate the Tories and they hate Labour; you might as well ask why there are six hundred different Trot parties.

b) they are a major party in local and regional government

Its about time someone comes along and leads us into a socialist republic. Capitolism can not work in a society that keeps the poor poor. Obama is young and with the right judges appointed could change the rag we call a constitution and hopefully be annointed as our dictator for many years to comes. Those dam rich people would find out what its like to struggle for every dime.
Long live communism!