I believe that the days of the ideological approach are probably gone.

That said, we have such a cumbersome and inflexible state that I feel something radical must be done. I’d take this right down to the county council level.

Whitehall should be gutted. County councils should be abolished. The country should be broken up into semi-autonomous regions.

We should have a modest state tax, and then the regions can compete for the rest.

I’d vote for a party that promised to eradicate outdated Norman centralism.

Meanwhile, the Conservative tradition in British politics has oscillated wildly between a paternalistic view of the state – as sceptical as the Left of the capacity of people to take charge of their own lives – to an aggressive consumerism wedded to an unreformed model of politics at home and a brittle, slightly neurotic, nationalism abroad. The modern Conservative Party seems to me to be beached between these two traditions – keen to take a softer, paternalistic attitude towards social issues whilst taking an increasingly sink-or-swim attitude towards those hit by the economic downturn and a doctrinaire hatred of the EU.

There is not word of truth or intelligence in this in this and I assume it is an attempt to get your retaliation in first . The Liberal Party( as you rightly say) is in fact quite socialist on the ground . Clegg wishes to distance his Party from it own recent history of being the highest tax Party towards a more South friendly low tax face where it faces Conservative challenge . Against the charge of being a weather vane who would cut his own arms off to fir into a new trendy cats suit he invents a supposed oscillation in his electoral enemies . He often does this .
On the EU for example , the Liberals lied about the Constitution, lied about their position in the commons and then supported in the Lords when no-one was looking . This was all to avoid a referendum on the basis they would lose it. Their wild support for the EU against democracy against sense and against the countries interests is out of date and unpopular in the country.
Now that is swivel eyed extremism..

I disagree with your view that New Labour are close to the Conservative Party . They have been banging populist drum recently on welfare immigration and crime but that is because in ten years they actually ignored voters and drifted far to the left of the country . Public spending has shot up in real terms and I would say there was quite a large gap between the now centralist Brownite high tax big government Labour Party and Cameron`s traditional position . What you say would have been true of Blair and remained so for the early period of New Labour but when Brown lead the gained control from the left of the Party that consensus was over. This is why the Conservative Party were so delighted to get Brown a proper socialist whose history of attachment to collectivism does not allow him to pretend he is much else .

One thing this fascinating assault on Liberalism makes clear is that for real Liberals there is a choice. You either oppose Brown or support him with reservations which as Sunny says is what the Party really is . Sunny clearly wishes the Liberal Party to remain Labour lite or Labour’s little helper which is want it has been , he is clear that this is where its true centre of gravity lies,.
The Conservative Party has taken on board the social changes of the post war period. We are all social Liberals now .It retains its commitment to individual freedom , economic Liberalism and stands against socialist bossy booted statists . Economic dryness is tempered with social concerns and as ever from the least ideological Party , a large dollop of pragmatism.
Faced with a Brown empowered by a grim mandate Liberal people face a far larger state ,even higher taxes, centralising, erosion of freedoms , contempt for Parliament and a virtual propaganda ministry operating in the shadows . If not this is not what they call Liberal then a vote Conservative is the only option .We may disagree about Europe but that’s nothing new we have a vast deal in common and far far more than you do with brother Hundal and his tax spend and control night mare vision

With regard to regulation it is not the quantity but the quality of the people involved. If the following had been insisted upon
1. 90 % mortgages
2. Maximum of 4 x times salary . All debt to be subtracted from salary.
3. Self certifified mortgages to require proof income (to equal averer 3 years average signed by an accountant .
4. No buy to let mortgages
The massive property bubble could have been greatly reduced . What the UK requires are a smaller number of rules but better quality with common sense regulation.

If social workers visted “Baby P” 60 times then it shows an example of too much poor quality regulation undertaken by poor quality people.

To achieve a smaller state with better quality regulation employ better quality people, pay them more , reduce numbers employed and the sack those who fail. Ensure there is far better examination of new legislation either from Parliament or the EU and do not pass that which is useless.

The problem is that there are many uselsss administrators and other similar types on the government payroll who vote for Labour. Union power is based upon numbers. Government employee unions are the largest in the Uk and major funders of the Labour Party.

If one looks at the Indian Civil Service there was very small number of extremely competent civil servants . I believe memebre sof the ICS had to speak at least 4 langugaes and understand all about Hunduism, Islam and any other religion in their areas plus all the local customs.
If one looks at the Parachute Regiment, Royal Marine Commandos and Special Forces they comprise a very small number of exceptionally skilled and dedicated public employees.

The inability of Gordon Brown to define the required regulation between the FSA, Bof E and The Treasury demonstrates too much poor quality regulation. If all the regulatory staff had been within the Bof E and the Bof E had been tasked with regulation of the whole financial sector (including debt and derrivatives) then the problems would probaly have been seen much earlier. One Chairmen of the Federal Reserve stated that his job was too take away the punch bowl away just as the party started to take off. One stops a asset bubble from collapsing by preventing an asset bubble from occuring. Good regulation requres foresight and the aility to make sound decisions. Churchill and Lloyd George considered there would be another war with Germany due to the onerous conditiuons imposed by the French at the Treaty of Versailles.After his visit to Germany in 1929 Churchill realised the threat from the Nazis. By 1933 Churchill was urging increasing expenditure on arms.By 1936 he had attracted a large number os supporters who were supplyinghim with leaks from Government. Dr Vince cable warned about private and national debt in November 2003. Warren Bufffet always warned against the danger of financial derrivatives. One social worker warned about the appalling practices at Haringey Council.

Machiavelli said only a wise prince can be advised wisely , as only a wise prince can appoint wise counsellors and know when to accept their wise advice. A thousand useless civil servants who are wrong are more expensive than one wise civil servant who has the foresight to predict a problem and provide the advice to prevent a disaster.

Charlie, where would people who couldn’t pass your points (1) (2) and (3) live if (4) was disallowed?

We should have a modest state tax, and then the regions can compete for the rest.

London should declare independence, become a city state and keep all it’s money. Think how much we’d save? The roads would literally be paved with gold!

4. Pragmatism. My biggest issue is that this all this feels like limp idealism and fluffy words. For example, he mentions Karen Matthews and Baby P case but fails to answer what the liberal (or libertarian) response would be if not an inteventionist state. Letters From a Tory wrote an excellent letter on this recently pointing out how libertarians failed this charge. Clegg may not call himself a libertarian, but he raised these cases without outlining a liberal response.

Groan, not this tired old horse again.

London should declare independence, become a city state and keep all it’s money. Think how much we’d save? The roads would literally be paved with gold!

Go for it. No, seriously.

When the Labour party was on the hard left in the 70’s , I could see the point of the Liberals and then the SDP in the early 80‘s. Since then The Labour party has junked clause 4, and much of it’s ideology. As a result the Liberal Dems serve no purpose whatsoever. . As long as The Conservatives unite with New Labour on issues like the Iraq war , and the sell off of the post office the Lib Dems are powerless to stop anything.

All they are doing is splitting the anti Tory vote. We are now returning to the kind of polling that we had in the 1980s. The Conservative party is polling 40% and Labour and the Liberals split the majority of the remaining 60%. There was a great opportunity at the start of Blair’s term to forge an anti Tory alliance that could have kept them out of power for 25- 40 years. Blair was not interested and neither were many Labour die- hards who thought they could now win on their own.

As long as the Labour party and the Lib Dems keep splitting the anti Tory vote, particularly in England, the Tory party will be much more powerful than they should be.

This makes for an interesting piece to read, but only because it says more about the political perspective of Sunny than it does about Nick Clegg or the LibDems.

In the battle between ideals and reality they both have their place and Charlie’s quote from Machiavelli is relevant in this context. Clegg is not in of government where he could the correct answer to the question of intervention (that intervention is the consequence of earlier failings; that prevention is better than intervention). Intervention in the banking sector over Northern Rock etc, or in social services over Baby P etc, or abroad in Iraq or Afghanistan is a matter of responding to the consequences of others bad decisions rather than a sensible doctrine to follow even after you’ve in control of a situation. Dealing with real situations is to deal with situations which are beyond absolute control, so pragmatism must rule.

Complaining that a comparison between liberalism and socialism or conservatism is fatuous because the parties are broad churches is itself a fatuous complaint. And attempting to decypher some code relating to positioning which simply doesn’t exist is to dance to a tune which isn’t being played

That different political creeds have similarities in aims or methods or definitions is natural, but that’s not to say they are the same or the effects of each are similar.

Conservatives say the ends require means.
Socialists say the ends justify the means.
Liberals say the ends are determined by the means.

They are not incompatible. They are different. Let’s be honest about those differences and use them to understand how, when and where they are applied to best use.

Sunny,

Clegg is most definatly not a libertarian if by the term you understand it to be represented by the likes of Liberal Vision. He is many things and I dont happen to always think he is right but nonetheless I wouldnt say he was that; you make some relevant points about a lack of coherency which I have made myself and The Guardian makes quite effectively in it’s editorial on Clegg today by saying he is more an ideas than a communication man. Obviously, for a thrid party leader this is a bit of a problem to say the least.

In terms of the tax question Clegg’s mistake was to name a figure however, tax cuts are pretty much an empty vessel now in that both left and right can pour their hopes and dreams into them. Lefitists can take comfort from things like Clegg’s article in the New Statesman which seems to think the whole bundel can be paid for by closing loopholes on the upper-end of the tax scale and talk of ‘fairness’ while the right will take comfort from the fact that he expressed a willingness to look into using reductions in public spending to fund them (although this is on ‘low priority’ stuff like ID cards which I, like the vast majority of Lib Dems, oppose in any case).

You are right about ‘resonating emotionally’ with the electorate and not just getting the right policies (something that essentially seems to constitute Clegg’s entire strategic vision). Strategic steel is somewhat lacking and yes, we should be doing better in the polls but aren’t.

[4] Charlie pontificates about

too much poor quality regulation undertaken by poor quality people.

To achieve a smaller state with better quality regulation employ better quality people, pay them more , reduce numbers employed and the sack those who fail.

The problem is that there are many uselsss administrators and other similar types on the government payroll who vote for Labour.

Quite how he knows that competent people in the public service vote Tory or Lib Dem I don’t know, but I’m sure he’ll swing by to enlighten us. And I thought Ms Shoesmith was well paid.

Comparisons with élite military forces prove nothing – they would be the first to say that an élite presupposes a mass.

Suggesting that there should be sackings in the public sector for the sake of it – because there’s a sentiment (mostly among the self-employed, I suspect) that such people are in some weird sense insulated from economic reality – seems to be the flavour of the month on the ‘net at the moment. This morning I stuck my tongue in my cheek on Smithson’s site and suggested that the Councils that sacked the most staff should get the largest grants – and someone swallowed it whole! (Mind you, Sunny’s “inbreds” comment applies as much over there as it does to Guido.)

New Troll “Conservative Party has taken on board the social changes of the post war period. We are all social Liberals now”

Total bullshit. You are pretending to take on the social changes. The Tory party rank and file are as right wing as Norman Tebbit, as they have ever been.

More New troll “but that is because in ten years they actually ignored voters and drifted far to the left of the country .”

Wow You are even stupider than I thought. Do you think the left wing would sell off the post office? Do you think the left would have allowed the non Doms to get away without paying any tax? Do you think the left would have had a top rate of tax the same as when the Conservatives left power, and a standard rate of 20% ?

Charlie “Churchill and Lloyd George considered there would be another war with Germany due to the onerous conditiuons imposed by the French at the Treaty of Versailles.After his visit to Germany in 1929 Churchill realised the threat from the Nazis. By 1933 Churchill was urging increasing expenditure on arms.”

And Churchill was ignored by the Conservative party through out this period. Banished to the backbenches, he was seen as a trouble maker and was constantly shouted down in the House of Commons by the Tory party. Even when Chamberlin resigned, the Tory party still did not pick Churchill to lead the country. Their choice was Lord Halifax, a Well known German appeaser. It was only when the Labour party said NO, if we are entering into a coalition govt then it has to be Churchill did they back down.

The 1930’s and Churchill are one of the most airbrushed periods of history. If it had been left to your beloved Tory parliamentary party we would not have had Churchill as leader, and may all be talking German now.

Don’t be stupid, Brits are rubbish at languages At best 10% of us would be speaking pig-German, the rest of us would just take half the spaces out of our sentences, turn all the ‘C’s to ‘K’s and gratuitously capitalize a few things

All they are doing is splitting the anti Tory vote.

In what sense are the Lib Dems the anti-Tory vote? They’ve adopted an economic policy specifically to appeal to Tory voters, which they have every right to do if they wish, but it surely makes them anything but an anti-Tory vote.

“Wow You are even stupider than I thought.”

I love the irony of this sentence.

I have to echo EJH’s comments above slightly, in some area’s Lib Dem’s are fighting it out with the Tories, and in some area’s they’re fighting it out with Labour. There is clearly enough of a difference that there isn’t a national trend that Lib Dem’s only win against a certain party, nor that Lib Dem constituencies are all from the same demographic. Lib Dem’s clearly offer something different to both the other parties, but whether that is more than them simply being the most obvious “other” candidate in area’s where they have built up such support, in a cumbersome FPTP electoral system, can easily be debated.

‘Wow You are even stupider than I thought. Do you think the left wing would sell off the post office? Do you think the left would have allowed the non Doms to get away without paying any tax? Do you think the left would have had a top rate of tax the same as when the Conservatives left power, and a standard rate of 20% ?’

Well Labour have to some extent learnt that what they spent the 20th century saying was wrong from start to finish. However if Government spending was at 97 levels we would all pay no income tax
They have increased the state role in the country so we have overtaken Germany (once a socialist paradise for us to aspire to). Top rate tax payers and non doms are very hard to tax and Brown accepted early that it was not possible to raise money that way. ( |There was also an undertaking not to …I know ha ha ).His recent gesture is only that (See Institute of fiscal studies) This is why stealth taxes have become so important you pointless vapid prat
Where the leftishness has really shown through is the massive regulatory burden on companies which ahs all but destroyed small business , the fabulous pay and conditions handed out in the unionised Public sector . The target (including a target for targets ) state top down system and proliferation of offences and regulations requiring endless bureaucrats in non jobs . We have also accepted further international incursions into our self rule by a process of deceit as well as a quintupled rate of immigration .

The Tory party rank and file are as right wing as Norman Tebbit, as they have ever been.

You are as ignorant as you are charmless. Bravo

Holy hell, I find myself agreeing with thomas – This makes for an interesting piece to read, but only because it says more about the political perspective of Sunny than it does about Nick Clegg or the LibDems.

Hear hear.

If I get around to it I shall be posting a point-by-point to this later. Because it bloody well needs it. It’s a joy when one’s editor in chief is so utterly wrong-headed and purposefully misunderstanding of things, isn’t it?

One of these days I’m bound to get the sack from this site…

annoyed by Nick Clegg’s increasingly energetic drive to push the party rightwards

Which push would that be then?

The push towards increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to give money back to the poor? I thought that was the point of being left wing.

If wanting redistribution is right wing, then most of this site is a right wing site.

FFS Sunny. Have you ever spoken to Richard Reeves? Or read any of his writings? The guy’s a massive fanboy of John Stuart Mill, who he describes in the introduction to his book (which is next to me as I type, I haven’t finished it yet) as a “Liberal, Democrat and Socialist, in that order“. A description I apply to myself happily. And one richard has said he’s ahppy to have applied to himself as well.

The only problem I have with Clegg’s speech is he uses the word Socialism without any qualifying definitions, when he’s clearly and distinctly referring to State Socialism as tried (and failed) by Labour.

There are many other streams of socialist thought, and many of those you seem to think of as ‘right wing’ are vary strongly in favour of mutualism and market socialism.

Erm, which was the party to first advocate nationalising Northern Rock?

FFS. You didn’t actually pay any attention whatsoever to what Vince was saying in that time, did you?

Preventing a run on a bank is a paramount. Vince made that point, and said that the state had to step in. After Darling had thrown money at the problem and it hadn’t worked, he was the first to call for temporary nationalisation in order to prevent the run from getting worse. Which is, eventually, what Darling was forced to do.

You obviously have no conception whatsoever of any style of politics beyond simplistic, one dimensional left/right posturing. You’re either with us or against us is the sort of idiocy I expect from George W. Bush, not a supposed liberal.

Even Bob Worcester of Mori knows that left/right splits are far too simplistic, and the Political Compass is a dumbed down version of that analysis. Liberals oppose state action except as a last resort.

Opposing the wasteful state, opposing authoritarianism, in favour of individual rights, a strong education system and redistributionary taxation.

That‘s the direction Clegg is taking the party. How is that ‘right wing’.

… or then again, maybe I will let Mat comment….

“I love the irony of this sentence.”

Ah yes, our resident student union political debater. Who would rather spend hours debating procedure, than actually commit himself to anything of substance.

<i<The push towards increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to give money back to the poor?

When you say “towards…”

New troll “Where the leftishness has really shown through is the massive regulatory burden on companies which ahs all but destroyed small business , the fabulous pay and conditions handed out in the unionised Public sector .”

The stupid keeps coming.

The mess we are in now is down to deregulated private bankers on bothr sides of the atlantic, and other private spivs (with juicy private pensions, and bonuses) who were allowed in the name of the free market to fuck up their business’s , and drive the world economy into recession, all in the name of greed.

New Troll “Conservative Party has taken on board the social changes of the post war period. We are all social Liberals now”

Not when it comes to rape………..

“Jenny Jones, Green Party Assembly Member, today forced London’s Mayor to admit that he will not deliver new rape crisis centres in London on the scale he promised in his manifesto.

Before being elected, the Mayor pledged to provide £744,000 a year to fund the one existing rape crisis centre in London, along with three more new centres. However, under questioning by Jenny at the London Assembly budget committee, the Mayor stated that he would only provide £233,000 a year.

“Increased support for the victims of rape was an important part of Boris Johnson’s pledge to Londoners to tackle crime if they elected him. Now he is in office, he has cut his proposal by more than £500,000. He may say that he can lever in funds from elsewhere, but unless long-term funding is assured, rape victims will continue to suffer from inadequate support.”

Jennie,
It’s probably better safer to let Mat comment than be seen to agree with me. I’m always suspicious of motives.

How does Sunny describe his position – social democrat, no?

I foresee a schism.

The push towards increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to give money back to the poor?

Obviously not, but where is Clegg all for increasing taxes? He specifically attacks the 45p tax rise.

The only problem I have with Clegg’s speech is he uses the word Socialism without any qualifying definitions, when he’s clearly and distinctly referring to State Socialism as tried (and failed) by Labour.

What decade are we referring to here? Because I covered this in point 1…. there’s no real examples of socialism as practiced by Labour since 1997…

Preventing a run on a bank is a paramount. Vince made that point, and said that the state had to step in.

Yes, which is why I point out that in some cases state intervention is necessary and it works. Not sure how you’re contradicting me…. Vince Cable still advocated state intervention to save banks from falling. Many capitalists would argue it goes against basic free market values. My point was that state intervention in certain circumstances is necessary. And that Clegg did not qualify his blanket statement.

You’re either with us or against us is the sort of idiocy I expect from George W. Bush, not a supposed liberal.

I’m sorry but now you’re just ranting. When I talk about pragmatism, that is exactly what I’m also saying – that in such cases ideology goes out of the window and what works is implemented. Hence my point that most of the neo-liberals have resigned themselves to state intervention to prop up the finance sector.

Again – how are you contradicting me?

thomas: They are not incompatible. They are different. Let’s be honest about those differences and use them to understand how, when and where they are applied to best use.

This mis-understands my central point – while I realise there are clear differences between socialism and liberalism – was the point of the lecture to gives us a political philosophy lesson? Or was it to point out how that relates to the parties now? Because, like I keep saying, Labour is definitely NOT socialist in nature.

Darrell:
Clegg is most definatly not a libertarian if by the term you understand it to be represented by the likes of Liberal Vision.

I didn’t say he was libertarian. My concern is that he takes an approach on an issue – like saying that state intervention is wrong. Then he raises the Baby P and Karen Matthews cases, without explaining what his liberal approach to those issues would be (different from the current ideological approach). I mention libertarians in the context that they are also very effective at criticising, without actually laying out an ideological solution in response to this issue.

Lefitists can take comfort from things like Clegg’s article in the New Statesman which seems to think the whole bundel can be paid for by closing loopholes on the upper-end of the tax scale

Exactly – and I agree with all that. So is Clegg’s view that the top tax rate should have remained at 40p and that the only way to make the tax system more ‘fair’ would have been to close the loopholes?
Its more fair, but I don’t see how that’s ideologically much different to a 45p top tax rate. He says it won’t raise any extra cash. Are we sure of that?

Its a bit difficult to figure out his position if he says the rich should pay a higher share of the tax burden, but then is against raising the top tax rate to something as low as 45p. Obviously, I wouldn’t increase it to 90% or something…
I’m just curious what is Clegg’s upper limit. Where is the difference between fair and unfair? I genuinely just want to know… maybe Alix would know more about that.

Sunny,

Well I agree about libertarians in general it has to be said; I kind of sympathised with his comments about those two cases while slightly deploring his tendency to slip into ‘those bad people’ kind of popularism.

I think, and I made this point on the debate on the PBR, it is pretty well established that the 45p top-rate with no loophole closures isn’t exactly going to raise a large enough amount of cash to write home about; however, on Clegg’s attitude your guess can become as good as mine and again his sometimes inchorence is something i’ve raised.

I think the difference is whatever you want to be isnt it and surely that is the rub??

Now I know you like lecturing the trolls on their bad grammar…

“This mis-understands my central point – while I realise there are clear differences between socialism and liberalism – was the point of the lecture to gives us a political philosophy lesson? Or was it to point out how that relates to the parties now? Because, like I keep saying, Labour is definitely NOT socialist in nature.”

so it would help in understanding your points if you completed your sentences. Until then it will seem more like your point was to criticise anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

I could’ve sworn I saw Jennie write a response to this piece on the frontpage – where’d it go?

“Until then it will seem more like your point was to criticise anyone who doesn’t agree with you.”

… or just delete their posts. Again.

Raayn,

Ye I saw that too….it was there and it wasnt…what happened??? Was it deleted Jennie??

Rayvan, Sunny is editor in chief of this site. Where’d you think it went?

Ok, Guess that answers that question…why was it deleted Sunny??

Apparently it’s a waste of a post and should have been put in a comment, despite the fact that we have all been being told for ages that there need to be more posts to the site… Apparently only if they are the right sort of posts. How very Liberal.

Been there, done it and got the t-shirt Jennie when I was debating Sunny on anti-fascism…why dont you just post it on your blog and link back here….tis what I did….

thomas: I made that point in point 1, if you see above.

rayyan – I’m trying to convince jennie to post her response underneath the article, rather than start a new thread….

… because this isn’t, as it says on EVERY SINGLE POST, a joint effort, but Sunny’s personal fiefdom.

Apparently only if they are the right sort of posts. How very Liberal.

jennie – I put it as a draft, and I immediately emailed you to say that responses should be put beneath the article… as has always been the case on discussions on this site. Am I not even allowed to take editorial decisions now? Or am I now being accused of a conspiracy against Libdems? Honestly. Anyway, I’ve published it now.

Thanks Sunny, but your point is so obtuse as to be blunt.

Clegg’s clearly trying to explain himself, not his party.

Such blatantly facile comment as yours brings the whole political debate into disrepute, and you wonder why people get turned off politics!

This mis-understands my central point – while I realise there are clear differences between socialism and liberalism – was the point of the lecture to gives us a political philosophy lesson? Or was it to point out how that relates to the parties now? Because, like I keep saying, Labour is definitely NOT socialist in nature.

Clegg describes qualities he ascribes to liberalism and socialism (you, on the other hand, do not):

Liberalism believes fairness, fulfilment and freedom can be best secured by giving real power directly to millions of citizens.
Socialism believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.

A liberal believes in the raucous, unpredictable capacity of people to take decisions about their own lives.
A Socialist believes in the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives.

A liberal believes a progressive society is distinguished by aspiration, creativity and non conformity.
A Socialist believes a progressive society is characterised by enlightened top-down Government.

You may disagree with the labels but do you not recognise that the qualities that he ascribes to ‘Socialism’ can reasonably be ascribed to Labour?

Sunny, if you want to retain editorial control then that’s fine, but perhaps there ought to be some sort of policy document TELLING PEOPLE THIS and also outlining in some way what your editorial policies are?

And really, if that is the case, then you need to reword the footer.

Clegg’s clearly trying to explain himself, not his party.

I get that, thanks. Given that he is a party leader which is sometimes accused of lacking an idelogical narrative, forgive me for assuming he was also putting things into a westminster politics perspective.

ukliberty
but do you not recognise that the qualities that he ascribes to ‘Socialism’ can reasonably be ascribed to Labour?

which quality can be ascribed as socialist, but would not be covered under clegg’s own definition of progressive liberalism?

14 and 24 Sally. what I was attempting to point out was that quality of regulation depends upon foresight and the ability to intervene before a problem becomes too severe. Gordon Brown divided responsibility for regulation between the FSA, BofE and the Treasury. In addition, the Bof E was only asked to keep inflation down , not to measure debt, asset bubbles or the derrivatives markets. Gordon Brown lacks wisdom with regard to financial markets and therefore did not design an adequate regulatory body. Combining all those responsible for financial regulation into one body and ensuring they were assessing all the relevant aspects of the market – inflation, debt, asset prices and derrivatives may not have increased the total cost of regulation but would have greatly increased the effectiveness, provided the people were up to the task. As Warren Buffet has pointed out, asking the right questions is vital to obtaining the relevant information in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.Barings collapsed because the directors blinded by greed did not ask the right questions.

The EU’s common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy help to destroy fish stocks, subsidses wealthy land owners , supports growing crops people do not want and destroys agriculture in the developing countries due to dumping. Are we saying more CFP and CAP regulations would improve the situation?

Regulators foresight which in turn needs wisdom which means learning from one’s mistakes. If France and GB had intervened when Hitler invaded the Rhineland in 1936 because they had the foresight to realise the Nazis ambitions , then perhaps WW would not have occurred. The Nazi army hardly any ammunition. Post 1936 Hitler realised that France ad GB were unwilling to oppose him and Stalin was murdering his best officers.

The social worker who had the foresight and courage of her convictions to contact politicians about the incompetence of Haringey Social Services shows that one person with the wisdom and courage of their convictions is worth more than any number of incompetent regulators.
V Cable warned about the danger from the de-mutualisation of the building societies

Surely the example of Churchill , V Cable and social worker from Haringey is that the country needs wise regulation undertaken by wise regulators. Thousands of mediocre civil servants enforcing thousands of senseless regulations does not produce good government. Solomon and Alfred the Great are recognised fo the wisdom of their rule not the large quantity of rules they passed.
The UK and the EU needs to be wisely regulated .

I don’t believe you really are using the line that the LibDems don’t have an ideological narrative at the same time as criticising them for being pragmatic!

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

And if you are making assumptions about Clegg trying to explain things in a wider-ranging interview than normal from a westminster perspective then you really need to get out of that bubble quickly.

This is an instance where Clegg’s straight-talking style puts him closer in touch with the public than those self-appointed tribunes of the people in the meeja.

at the same time as criticising them for being pragmatic!

This is why I say you don’t read my stuff properly. My point 4, is that they’re not pragmatic enough… on the economy and social services.

which quality can be ascribed as socialist, but would not be covered under clegg’s own definition of progressive liberalism?

I don’t understand your question – each member of a pair seems distinct from the other.

Do you not recognise that the qualities that Clegg ascribes to ‘Socialism’ can reasonably be ascribed to Labour?

Exactly, your points 1 and 4 contradict each other.

You say there not ideological enough one moment and then turn round the next to say they aren’t pragmatic enough – so which is it?

Or are you saying something different (like for example, that in your view liberalism is a half-hearted political philosophy which doesn’t have a broad application in all policy areas)?

I know you’re not a LibDemmer Sunny, and neither am I, but surely we agree that fair’s fair and when we pass judgement we shouldn’t do so in a dishonest manner which tempts false interpretations?

each member of a pair seems distinct from the other.

ok, let’s split ideological hairs.

I don’t see the current Labour government as socialist. to even describe them left-wing is a stretch, but I’ll allow that. New Labour does some stuff which can be see as on the left of the political spectrum because it believes that some people are powerless and have less opportunities than others simply because of which family they’re born into or what part of the country. Now, you can place more emphasis on how that power is dispersed or distributed – but equalising power relationships is the central reasoning used by Labour to intervene (or maybe you disagree with this). Which is why I’m saying, with a bit of tinkering here and there, it could be called progressive liberalism (depending on which bits you tinker with, and how you define progressive liberalism further).

I’m not surprised there’s ideological confusion here…. Tim worstall once had a go at me when I used the phrase Social Liberalism, because he didn’t accept it:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1355

Either way, I would say NL is closer to progressive liberalism (in the way they see it) than socialism (in the way socialists see it). Maybe you could show otherwise.

Thanks for putting the post up again – off-topic, but I am almost bemused that two consecutive posters spelt my name wrong. It’s happening quite frequently on teh interwebs – what’s so hard about spelling it right????

The Lib Dems certainly aren’t the only party without a coherent political narrative, as has been noted before. I think the problem with them in particular is that many people expect them to offer a clear narrative distinct from that of the other two parties.

thomas: You say there not ideological enough one moment and then turn round the next to say they aren’t pragmatic enough – so which is it?

erm, now you’re just trying to argue for its own sake. In my first point I question the need to talk so extensively about socialism – as if he ascribed that to New Labour (because the analogy doesn’t work).

It’s got nothing to do with the fact that I think in certain cases being excessively ideological about the economy or social services is a mistake (taking just two examples).

The reason for argument is to make a case for action. The reason for debate is to inform and educate.

I disagree with your statement that I am arguing and I disagree that I’m doing it for it’s own sake.

From my modest position I can easily understand why Clegg talked about socialism, as this is the most readily and commonly understood ‘ideology’ which people have a handle on (believe it or not, he clearly does). So he was using comparison as the starting point for an exploratory discussion of their differences, which is different from using analogy to identify similarities.

Clegg didn’t ascribe any ideology to Labour, so your inverted rationale is based on pure supposition. Why am I not surprised that you accuse others of building straw men in order to avert attention from your own?

Sunny, you continue to argue about labels rather than the qualities someone has attributed to those labels – it seems we all have our own definitions of ‘socialism’ (and indeed ‘fascism’ and so on), which is why arguments about those labels, rather than what we really mean, are so tiresome.

Suppose, then, that we rewrite Clegg’s speech:

SocialismThis Labour Government believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.

A SocialistThis Labour Government believes in the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives.

A SocialistThis Labour Government believes a progressive society is characterised by enlightened top-down Government.

Would you agree those statements can be reasonably attributed to this Government?

Now, you can place more emphasis on how that power is dispersed or distributed

– there is a difference, as Jennie points out –

but equalising power relationships is the central reasoning used by Labour to intervene (or maybe you disagree with this).

That might be their reason, or claimed to be their reason. It’s not what I perceive them to have actually done in the last eleven years, their multitude of attempts to draw ever more power to the Executive, away from Parliament, the judiciary, and the people (not to mention their other obsessions).

Either way, I would say NL is closer to progressive liberalism (in the way they see it) than socialism (in the way socialists see it). Maybe you could show otherwise.

Of course different people perceive things differently. That’s why when we use labels we have to first agree on what they mean: it’s no good you buying apples only to be handed what you know as oranges.

Sunny

Obviously not, but where is Clegg all for increasing taxes? He specifically attacks the 45p tax rise.

Um, trying to resist being nasty here, but you’re a journalist, and this post was obviously planned and thought through. Did you do any basic research? Stephen Tall at Lib Dem Voice wrote this morning a retrospective on Nick’s first year which contained a link to this post:

Real tax cuts – big, permanent and fair – for the people who need them. Funded by making the wealthy pay their fair share, ending the special exemptions and loopholes they’ve profited from for so long. Liberal Democrats would reduce basic rate income tax by 4p in the pound. That would give nearly £1000 back to a worker on £30,000 a year. Funded by four changes.

One: ending upper rate pensions relief – so the wealthy don’t get extra pension help from the tax man. Two: taxing capital gains at the same rates as income. So bankers and executives can’t get away with paying 18% tax while their cleaners pay 31%. Three: green taxes to protect our environment. And four: tackling the scandal of corporate tax avoidance – a subject I’ll be addressing in a speech tomorrow. This is an opportunity for a new, fair tax system.

Or, y’know, you could’ve asked me, or Alix, who’s much more of a tax wonk than I am (and explained it all to me in the first place). Company directors can pay themselves a basic salary then take the rest as dividends, which get taxed as capital gains. Thus most of their income is taxed at 18% instead of at higher rate income tax.

That on its own would, I’m told, raise more than increasing the top rate by 5p in the pound for a tiny number of high income earners (who’ll mostly manage to dodge it anyway). That’s why the Lib Dems dumped their old 50p% tax pledge for high earners under Campbell and Clegg’s taken it further—Cable has a much more effective way to raise taxes than a simple, irrelevent headline income tax rate.

What decade are we referring to here? Because I covered this in point 1…. there’s no real examples of socialism as practiced by Labour since 1997…

Who mentioned since 1997? Old style State Socialism in which everything gets nationalised and centrally planned doesn’t work. But Labour have retained a fetish for state intervention in all things,sure, they’re not nationalising everything but they still like their central planning, targets and diktats (schools and hospitals are of course the worst sufferers here).

Your assumption that Clegg’s speech is inherently party political and an attack on the current Labour administration is at fault here—he’s clearly talking in broader terms to an audience aware of what he speaks (I would hope that think tank people know this sort of stuff).

Yes, which is why I point out that in some cases state intervention is necessary and it works. Not sure how you’re contradicting me…. Vince Cable still advocated state intervention to save banks from falling.

Of course it does, that’s pragmatic. Clegg’s point is that the state should not seek to run the economy as a long term objective (“does not believe is that the State should seek to micromanage the economy, or run vast swaths of it directly itself“).

Short term pragmatic nationalisation is fine, as long as the intention is to divest when appropriate. But long term control is bad.

So, um, what point were you trying to make in point 4? Because Clegg is being pragmatic and rejecting ideological ideals like state control of the economy, that’s what liberal economics is about.

Many capitalists would argue it goes against basic free market values.

Most capitalists wouldn’t understand free market values if they came up and bit them. Capitalism without state intervention leads to oligopolies and cartels. Besides, stepping in to prevent a run on the banks is the essence of Friedman’s analysis, remember?

That profit seeking privateers don’t like someone taking their profit is obvious—liberal economics has the answer to that, it’s called ensuring competition and open access, something Clegg has spoken on as well, in that speech I linked you to before about the banking sector.

And that Clegg did not qualify his blanket statement

You read his statement as saying that the state should never intervene at all. That’s not what he said, not even in the bit you quoted. The state can and should intervene where necessary, but not to take permanent control.

I’m sorry but now you’re just ranting.

Well, yes, you made me rather angry. That’s why I went away from the computer for a bit and left Jennie to write the follow up post.

When I talk about pragmatism, that is exactly what I’m also saying – that in such cases ideology goes out of the window and what works is implemented.

Yes.

You wrote a post attacking Clegg because he agreed with you. I’m still trying to work out why you think Clegg agreeing with you and doing what you argue is a bad thing. Or is it just that you want to disagree with him and are thus deliberately misreading him? Because that’s definitely what it looks like.

Hence my point that most of the neo-liberals have resigned themselves to state intervention to prop up the finance sector.

As already stated, several times, Friedman came to prominence, as a “neo-liberal”, because he argued the Federal Reserve didn’t act to intervene and thus prolongued the Depression. The State has a responsibility to ensure there isn’t a run on the banks by guaranteeing deposits. That’s, actually, something this Govt has been slow to do, and normally only after Vince has pointed out tot hem the problem. And, again, Clegg covered all this in that speech I linked you to that he made in February.

Aside: I really hate the term “neo-liberal”. It only became necessary because, in America, the entirely of “the left” took to calling themselves liberal because they couldn’t get away with calling themselves Social Democrats or Socialists. Thus the neo-liberal term was coined, as it’s an attempt to update economic liberalism (Friedman did, after all, start out as a Keynesian, and Keynes did say that his successors would have to solve the longer term problems he knew he was creating). That their ideas were picked up and corrupted by social conservatives who missed out key points (like the safety net that Friedman argued was essential) isn’t after all their fault.

Again – how are you contradicting me?

By pointing out the bits you completely misunderstood, or didn’t do basic research on?

Another comment, then I’ll stop

I would say NL is closer to progressive liberalism

Right. PFI is corporatist centralism. The way they handle web projects is illiberal, costly and pathetic (seriously, you and I could’ve done the Number10 WordPress revamp for 1/10th the cost and been very happy with the cash).

Liberalism is about decentralisation and competition. Labour are setting targets for everything and the only thing you’re allowed to compete on is where you invest your money. That’s not liberalism, it’s corporatism.

Ukliberty, why are you creating a fetishistic homunculus in your definition of “socialism” (which would have been utterly incomprehensibe to Robert Owen or William Morris among others) for the purpose of sticking pins in it?

To equate socialism with state control is mere ideological tricksiness: arguably what matters more than anything at present is to bring bankers back within the rule of law, and while that probably does mean state control in the short term (on which there is a degree of consensus unthinkable only a twelvemonth ago) there is no evidence that I know of that says that banks have to issue shares tradeable on stock exchanges in order for civilisation as we know it to survive.

To suppose that innovation depends on greed-driven “great men” (they somehow always seem to be men) is to betray a negative and at bottom deeply conservative view of human nature.

Mike, try reading and understanding – I was trying to get away from the labels, as I’m sure I made clear, and persuade Sunny to answer my questions, which he seems ever reluctant to do.

Mike

To equate socialism with state control is mere ideological tricksiness

Obviously, that’s why I’m making it clear that I’m a liberal socialist, and that Clegg is palpably talking about State Socialism and the idea that the state can and should solve most problems.

There is a crossover between liberalism and socialism, but there’s also a crossover between liberalism and capitalism. What there isn’t is a crossover between liberalism and corporatism, which is what this Govt appears to be attempting.

there is no evidence that I know of that says that banks have to issue shares tradeable on stock exchanges in order for civilisation as we know it to survive.

Absolutely, but there is a need for proper competition within the banking sector, and that means ease of access, deposit protection and transparency.

Morris and Owen were, if memory serves, in favour of cooperatives and similar, right? Thus liberal socialists, like me, Unity, Chris Dillow, Jennie and JS Mill. Not corporatists like the current incumbents.

From my modest position I can easily understand why Clegg talked about socialism, as this is the most readily and commonly understood ‘ideology’ which people have a handle on (believe it or not, he clearly does).

This is turning into a boring circular ideological wank-fest. You think socialism is easily defined MatGB in the other thread thinks Clegg is referring to State Socialism as opposed so socialism. Let me know when you have a clear ideological framework laid out.

ukliberty:
Would you agree those statements can be reasonably attributed to this Government?

In certain circumstances, yes. The same would go for the Tories in certain cases (their need to ‘support’ marriage for example). I think this Labour govt is ideologically inconsistent… as are the other political parties.

That’s why when we use labels we have to first agree on what they mean

Sure…. which is why I said the lecture might work as simply a lesson in ideological differences between liberalism and socialism.

But if I’m to read it to understand how the Libdems are going to behave in the future, and whether this is a path to competing more closely to the other parties, then I’m afraid I remain unconvinced. As I said at the top.

MatGB in the other thread thinks Clegg is referring to State Socialism

Well, I said it in my first comment to this thread as well mate. You even quoted me saying it.

if I’m to read it to understand how the Libdems are going to behave in the future, and whether this is a path to competing more closely to the other parties, then I’m afraid I remain unconvinced.

Um, favouring liberalism?

Example. Two former mutuals were the worst hit this year. One is still trading (HBOS), but the Govt has stated that it will override competition regulations and allow another big player to buy it, alongside a Govt rescue package. Thus reducing competition and overruling normal competition requirements. And still throwing money at it. This despite alternative offers to take it on as a seperate going concern, thus keeping the market competetive and still using the same back ups.

The other (B&B) has been nationalised, broken up into two, the profitable bit sold off to an overseas bank that already owns two other high street banking brands, reducing competition again. The other bit, the debt ridden bit, has been handed to a formerly nationalised bank.

Thus rather than either ensuring the banks stay in business as seperate, competing concerns or letting them go to the wall and ensuring the investors money was safe, they’re instead reduced competition and given Lloyds TSB an overwhelmingly strong market position, close to an oligopoly.

They’ve taken the Corporatist response. Reduce competition, reduce the ability of others to enter the market (a bank gone bust could see a new entrant buying up some of the business, they tried to keep the whole operation as one big corporation instead).

Liberals would not take an approach that reduces choice without viable replacements. Liberals would ensure that new operators wanting into the banking sector (including new locally based building societies, mutuals and cooperatives) could do so. Clegg has made that very clear, in the speech you talk about today and in the speech about banking he made in February.

Given that the other two parties are effectively taking the corporatist approach, I don’t want him to move us closer to them. That he’s not doing so is a good thing, it makes us more distinctive. You’re completely right to say that the big two parties are incredibly similar.

The Lib Dems aren’t.

[57] (I was going to reply, but it’s nearly Xmas so I’ll exercise restraint)

[58] I think we agree really. Your comments pretty much my own position, and I would hope that it would form something of an ideological core around which this site should operate – the case for this being that other places offer better platforms for Labourist State-junkies on the one hand and libertarians on the other.

liberal socialist

Yeah and I `m a vegan crocodile .

“Ah yes, our resident student union political debater. Who would rather spend hours debating procedure, than actually commit himself to anything of substance.”

Sorry, someone that spends their hours on this site reiterating tripe against “trolls” because they have no concept of how to “engage” is trying to lecture me on not committing to anything of substance? This just gets better!

Sunny:

“In certain circumstances, yes. The same would go for the Tories in certain cases (their need to ’support’ marriage for example). I think this Labour govt is ideologically inconsistent… as are the other political parties.”

Yet it seems that whenever anyone really starts to dig in to Labour’s ideological inconsistencies the answer is “We all know the bad stuff, but change from within and all that, need to think about the future and be less ideological and more realistic”. Then you go and post stuff like this that actively nit picks at the Lib Dem’s and the meanings of certain labels?

I can totally understand some of the arguments that have come here about how the Tories try to prescribe themselves to the public, and would expect those sort of posts here on a liberal and leftist site, but why are we seeing so much admonishment against the Liberal Democrats while we have to supposedly be more pragmatic and forgiving to Labour? Hell, even the posts that “attack” Labour here are ultimately worded in to a message of “how can we help them from stumbling?” and brought down to an individual rather than party level.

Not that that is necessarily the wrong way to do it, by the way, I think it is much more effective to (Sally, listen in) engage…this site just doesn’t engage with Lib Dem’s, it points fingers and condemns or laughs. Still, that is probably more to do with the Lib Dem’s on here not doing enough to deal with that side of things, it’s clearly let too much of a Labour mentality develop here.

“Combining all those responsible for financial regulation into one body and ensuring they were assessing all the relevant aspects of the market – inflation, debt, asset prices and derrivatives may not have increased the total cost of regulation but would have greatly increased the effectiveness, provided the people were up to the task.”

I can’t help but feel you’re pretty much spot on with your analysis, Charlie, and indeed one of the blogs I linked to today was saying much the same. We believe we are regulating in this country, but clearly we are not doing it anywhere near well enough to call it effective.

63. No matter who you are, and what type of Liberal you prescribe to be, you aren’t realistic unless you accept what type of person is going to lose something to ensure other people gain things. Some of us would just like it that liberalism stood up for giving liberties to the down-trodden and poor rather than reinforcing the wealth of the well off.

@LG “Still, that is probably more to do with the Lib Dem’s on here not doing enough to deal with that side of things, it’s clearly let too much of a Labour mentality develop here.”

Guilty a thousand fold. And I do feel guilty. A missed opportunity. Had good enough reasons at the time – LDV arguably more important as a service to members etc. But I do still feel guilty (it’s how I’m made).

There’s something else though. I remember, in the comments to the last substantive post I ever made here, seeing the Lib Dem tax package (still, lest we forget, the ONLY COHERENT TAX-CUTTING POLICY FOR THE LOWER AND MIDDLE-PAID among the major parties) being tortured for imagined hidden pitfalls beyond all sense to the extent that I ended up having to quote chapter and verse on the qualifying window for businesses to incur expenditure on new assets and still take advantage of rollover relief to offset against their capital gains (6 months before, 2 years after, if you want to know). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for scrutiny – but do I see a similar level of scrutiny being applied to this year’s Pre-Budget Report? Do I fuck.

I won the argument that time (the other guy basically ended up saying, well, yeah, but has an impact assessment been done, and anyway you just want to give everyone a puppy, pat on the head, Lib Dems mean well but you’re not serious blah blah blah fucking blah, no I’m not looking at this 70-page report you’re linking me to, no, no, fingers in ears la-la-la). And yes, it put me off. What’s the point of talking to people so partisan that they won’t even accept a highly specialised technical answer to their question because it doesn’t agree with their preconceptions? The Lib Dems do not ever get a “break” (to quote a recent injunction of Sunny’s in respect of the Labour party) from the typical audience of this site. Ever.

It’s not often you’ll hear me say this, but I’d much rather deliver Focuses.

“LDV arguably more important as a service to members etc. But I do still feel guilty (it’s how I’m made).”

It’s fair enough, and maybe I’m misrepresenting what LC here is and who reads it, but I don’t think that LDV or Lib Dem members are the people that need to hear the stories about Lib Dem’s like we hear about Labour here. If this site can reach out to “ordinary” people and those wondering why it shouldn’t be a Tory government next time around then really some of that LDV effort needs to be, at worst, replicated over here.

But like I say, maybe I’m misrepresenting LC and who reads it.

Folks I have some heavy work to finish off tonight and then get up early early morning. However, thanks for your responses and while I may be being somewhat harsh on Clegg (though let it be known I’m generally kinder to him than Brown or Cameron!), I’ll try and respond tomorrow.

Alix, Lee, where did you get this idea that the Lib Dems “never get a break” on Liberal Conspiracy, or that there is some kind of Labour mentality?

Since the 10th December (arbitrary cut off point), I count seven articles critical of Labour’s policies on a wide range of issues, including both polemic and detailed scrutiny of proposals. During the same time, there were multiple articles praising Lynne Featherstone, at least one praising Nick Clegg and only Sunny’s one which was negative, followed hours later by a point-by-point rebuttal article from Jennie.

And as for the comments, there have been much harsher things written about Labour than about the Lib Dems.

And this looks interesting too:
http://libdems.org.uk/home/nick-clegg-launches-the-green-road-out-of-the-recession-98449610;show

Launched today, scrap the VAT cut and spend the money on environmental public works and reopening closed railway lines. Not had time to read the detail, need sleep.

“This is turning into a boring circular ideological wank-fest.”

I blame the author.

Lee Griffin,

I agree. But I also think that it’s up to the Lib Dem leaning writers to present Lib Dem politics. Not to allow Sunny, who let’s be fair, is sympathetic to Labour – even if he’s critical, to define the Liberal Democrats and their leader here.

This is an excellent space, with a very healthy and involved following. So it amazes me that Lib Dem writers don’t present more of a case on Liberal Conspiracy.

Personally I’d also like to see reasoned Tory writers make the liberal case for voting for the Conservatives. Some Tories are far more robust on issues close to our collective hearts than many Labour or Lib Dem politicians.

It makes absolutely no sense to bitch about Lib Dem suppression when the articles are simply not there to publish.

Now come on Lib Dem’rs, get writing.

OK Aaron, you’ve convinced me.

I don’t blame the author of this article, but the lack of authors for the non-articles on the LibDems. I apologise to Sunny.

“Now come on Lib Dem’rs, get writing.”

To be fair, Aaron, I’m doing my best – not only to write myself, but to nag Mat to to write – but there’s only so much I can do, especially when I have absolutely no idea what is expected of me.

Aaron: Your varying font size scares me.

Don:
“And as for the comments, there have been much harsher things written about Labour than about the Lib Dems.”

Hmm, I guess this is a matter of perspective. I see two positive articles about Lib Dems (one of which only because of the criticism leveled at them an article earlier) with no further engagement other than to use the Lynne Featherstone situation as an opportunity to attack a poor Tory AM, and I also see one complete pro-labour rhetoric along with plenty of anti-tory sentiment.

Lib Dem stances don’t really get an air (which I’ve said before, is as much Lib Dem writers fault, though is that because they are being lazy or because they feel this isn’t the place for them to contribute?), whether it be for constructive criticism (as per your welfare reform article, or Sunny’s “sealing the deal” article) or positive propaganda (the last one really was Lynne Featherstone, but even then she was actually campaiging on an issue not using the site to go on about Labour as a progressive party as the multiple guest writers have done).

As for the comments, given many more articles are about the Labour party historically, either critically or in praise, is it any surprise that the comments are harsher towards them? Given the general lack of exposure the Lib Dem’s get here it’s only realistic that the site attracts Tories to argue against Labour supporters.

I’m not bitching about Lib Dem *suppression* in the sense of editorial suppression at all. Don Paskini’s list of articles is interesting but not germane to my point – my point was about audience, not provision of content (which, as you say, I’m in a position to do something about).

Basically, I see political blogging as having three purposes (assuming we accept it matters a damn at all, which is something I’m interested in developing measurements for):

1. Communion with the like-minded, and specifically acting as a sort of cultural glue between members of the same party/movement. This is still the core purpose of LDV. Lee is right to say of course that Lib Dem members don’t *need* persuading, but they do still need cultural glue. E.g. three quarters of the stuff we reported from conference just wasn’t reported anywhere else, online or in print. By any standards that’s a useful service to members which ultimately contributes to the intellectual and cultural life of the party and makes people feel involved. Which is a Good Thing – especially in a party justly famed for being a leaflet delivery cult.

2. Influencing/getting linked by the dead tree meedja. I’m cynical about their overall impact on the population, but until such time as they’re obviously going down the tubes I’m happy to play the game. Both LDV and LC try to do this, but from my point of view if I want to promote a Lib Dem point of view to the media, LDV is the better vehicle for it, because that’s where they go for a specifically Lib Dem perspective.

3. Setting out your stall to the undecided. As Mat GB points out, there are undecideds lurking hereabouts. But there are far more decideds. Exhibit A would be Sally’s talk of Lib Dems’ only function being to “split the anti-Tory vote”. What a total waste of time it is to talk to someone who doesn’t even accept that a whole political movement has a basic validity unto itself.

By the law of averages, effort spent trying to set out your political stall on a site inhabited by a bunch of people who are already interested in politics is going to be wasted more often than it bears fruit. Being “already interested” usually means already having an allegiance in some degree. I’m the first to agree with the need for “outreach” work (there speaks the public sector hanger-on) but if I’m going to spend time outreaching anywhere I’d rather do it into other blogospheres – e.g. tech, history, psychology – and set out the Big Yellow stall to a whole world of undecideds, than on an avowedly political site. That seems to me a more honest way of operating – bringing liberalism to an audience that doesn’t know about it. The liberals hereabouts know who they are, and they know where we are. If you’re basically already a political anorak, it’s not my job to persuade you to pay a particular membership subscription, it’s your job to decide (or not).

Just some thoughts. This is the basis on which I divide up my blogging time. I enjoy the debate here but I don’t really see any more what it is I’d get in return for expending actual posting effort.

Lee.

Lib Dem stances don’t really get an air (which I’ve said before, is as much Lib Dem writers fault, though is that because they are being lazy or because they feel this isn’t the place for them to contribute?)

In my case, lazy, sort of, I’m barely posting to my own blog at the moment let alone here. But also, when I do contribute? When I comment digging out links, putting forward policies, etc? Sunny (and others, but this is Sunny’s post) ignore me.

Most of the points I’ve raised about this article are repeats of points I’ve made about previous articles. Both Alix and I have written about the tax policies. What’s the point of trying if the publisher is going to stick his fingers in his ears and make it obvious he’s not listening?

The reason I do try is I’m convinced that some on here (including the non-aligned like Chris, Aaron and Justin) ought to be Lib Dem activists. Hell, Unity ought to be a Lib Dem FFS. Under the current electoral system we’ve got no choice, Labour abandoned liberalism in 2001, and I don’t want a Tory Govt.

The other reason? Well, Alix has said she doesn’t think it’s the place, and Jennie’s posting fairly regularly. Um, that’s it.

Seriously, 20+ contributors to this site, and there are as many Green members as there are Lib Dems. 25%ish of the vote represented by three out of more than 20 contributors?

I don’t post enough. But Alix and I were the first Lib Dem contributors, and we didn’t come on for a few months after the site was set up. You know a lot of Lib Dems think this site is misnamed and should be called Labour Conspiracy?

That’s why. If we’re to reach out and draw coalitions around the issues, we need to, you know, actually reach out. And then listen when answers come back.

And given that this site is, effectively, Sunny’s site, that means he has to engage a bit more.

You realise how frustrating it is to have to repeat the same points, rebut the same lies and myths, again and again and again? When I have to do it to people who are supposedly sympathetic? When I have to repeat the same points again and again, to Sunny, and he still doesn’t acknowledge he’s factually wrong?

My most recent post was essentially “can I get top Google result for Brian Coleman”. I’ve not got the motivation to write substantive policy posts. Part of that’s me, I’ve not had the inclination to write much for months, but a lot of it is also the site itself.

I can ignore the idiotic trolls. But when it’s palpable that the substantive points you’re making are being ignored (or forgotten), even by the people you’re talking to and answering the questions of?

The site needs at least two more Lib Dem writers, and it also needs for the editor in cheif to actually pay attention when he’s told he’s got his facts wrong.

And if you think I’m angry and ranting, note that Jennie’s not commenting much here this morning. That’s not just because of the hangover.

I’ll think about a positioning post—the one I’m drafting is my way overdue one about, um, Nick Clegg. I think I’ll leave that for awhile, the interview was awhileback and it’s already late.

So isn’t our next task here to really try and take this site out of the realm of the decided? Obviously commentators here have decided, generally, on their ideologies at least, but what of those that read the site but don’t comment? Even if people reading weren’t ever to comment, how can we push LC to be something that is picked up more frequently for reading about politics at the same time as the BBC News politics feed?

It’s all well and good giving up, and maybe this site has gone past the point at which it can become a resource to the general public, but shouldn’t we try?

I call for more Lib Dem’s to write here, but maybe I should also say that more articles need to come up that provide an accessible insight in to politics; that encourages people to start forming polticial views and stances.

“As Mat GB points out, there are undecideds lurking hereabouts.”

Sorry, this was on Twitter, not the thread. Must learn to differentiate between technologies. Before it’s too late.

[78] Mat, if you were typical of your Party I’d give joining it serious consideration. But it equally comprises what I might call the Smithson tendency – liberal conservatives for whom the Tory brand is still toxic because they’re europhiles. And for me such folk are as much part of the problem as anyone else is.

As to the name of the site, I always took it to be ironic – rather in the way that “Tory” and “Whig” (among other political labels) started out as insults which were then adopted in a spirit of proud defiance.

Still this thread has me thinking. I became involved (although I’ve written d*mn all for ages) in a trusting way, at least in part ‘cos I couldn’t see a downside – I still don’t see one, for that matter. However, maybe we are having some pains of growth… I tend to think of a website as belonging to whoever is paying for the host/bandwith, which I presume is Sunny (no doubt if I’m wrong I’ll be told…) I’m not sure whether to develop this theme here in plain sight or by round-robin e-mail, anyone care to offer guidance?

“I’ll think about a positioning post—the one I’m drafting is my way overdue one about, um, Nick Clegg. I think I’ll leave that for awhile, the interview was awhileback and it’s already late.”

I’d echo James Graham’s recent sentiments and say that what is needed is more information about Lib Dem’s and what they’d be doing, taking “real world” issues and applying Lib Dem policy to them. On here we get a lot of discussion about individual Labour policy, about why they’re wrong or why they’re good…Lib Dem articles tend to be more lofty, which is good for some but not for really highlighting the more Liberal part of this Liberal-Left site.

Lee, I’m the last person that should be writing that sort of post. I’m a high end constitutional wonk, my principle obsession is why the voting system is bollocks, why it’s complete bollocks, why it’s a complete distortion and why ROPA’47 was one of the worst things to happen to British democracy.

Everything else is a sideline. I’m learning how to do practical applied stuff (I’m reading a lot of economics stuff at the moment, for example), but it’s really not my thing.

STV, civil liberties, constitutiionalism and freedom. Everything else is something that might get the party some votes so we can push the stuff I care about.

I only joined in 2006. And I’m open that my membership is a means to an end—change the voting system and all the three main parties realign. Like I said, we need more Lib Dem contributors—should I go recruit some practically minded ones?

“how can we push LC to be something that is picked up more frequently for reading about politics at the same time as the BBC News politics feed?”

This kind of underlies my point. I’m no longer sure I want to. It’s not a vehicle that particularly chimes with my views in its overall outlook and particularly its editorial policy (seriously, I know some were joking, but I was quite shocked by the illiberalism of some of the anti-trolling discussion). So why should it be my energy that promotes it?

It’s true that if I and other Lib Dems wrote here furiously every day for a month it might start to become something more like I feel I could promote and have a bit of notional ownership of (in fact that’s an experiment I’m willing to try). But that’s not a working pattern I could adopt as a matter of course (I don’t even post on LDV every day, let alone my own blog). So, in the spirit of good ol’ Lib Dem targetting, my default decision has been that a half-adequate effort is better spent somewhere else making up the whole of someone else’s half-adequate effort. Because there’s no way we have the resources between us to put up a wholly adequate effort here.

Further to Mat’s point, are other contribs aware that not infrequently other Lib Dems are sending tweets along the lines of “Another reason why Liberal Conspiracy isn’t liberal: tinyurl”? If you seriously want to “engage”, guys, you’re facing an uphill struggle. And I want a reason before I become an evangelist for you towards other Lib Dems.

Mike, There are, undoubtedly, Liberal conservatives in the party. But there are also a large number of self described Social Democrats (who I don’t tend to get on with), a smaller number of Liberal socialists (like me) and a bunch of libertarians and similar.

Hell, the Conservative and Unionist party has a large bunch of former Liberals and their successors, who couldn’t countenance working with the old “nationalise the lot” Labour party (and I think, on balance, they were right about that, it was such a counter-productive blind alley).

The biggest issue the Lib dems face is that, because they’re third, people don’t think they can get anywhere, so look elsewhere. Which is a self perpetuating cycle. Are you genuinely happier with Labour, the party of John “I have never been a liberal” Stalinist Reid and Ruth Kelly?

If people like you were to engage and get involved (as I did two years ago), then the party could start to break that cycle. Where I am, in 1997 they were a distant third, now with the retirement of our (bloody good) Labour MP, they’re looking at taking second place—but if people believed they could win, they’d stop the Tories from doing so. Labour, locally to me, has lot itself completely. If the sitting MP wasn’t retiring, I’d vote for her and campaign elsewhere, but she is, and the Labour PPC is of the nationalise the lot bring back clause 4 tendency.

I tend to think of a website as belonging to whoever is paying for the host/bandwith, which I presume is Sunny (no doubt if I’m wrong I’ll be told

As do I, but it’s something that could be clarified. Sunny’s site, Sunny’s rules, but it’d help if we knew what they were and what he actually wanted from us, we’re too big to keep muddling along, I think.

“should I go recruit some practically minded ones?”

Yes, what are you waiting for

“Further to Mat’s point, are other contribs aware that not infrequently other Lib Dems are sending tweets along the lines of “Another reason why Liberal Conspiracy isn’t liberal: tinyurl”? If you seriously want to “engage”, guys, you’re facing an uphill struggle. And I want a reason before I become an evangelist for you towards other Lib Dems.”

Believe me, I feel the same, but abandoning it out of disgust isn’t going to solve that issue whatsoever now, is it? I’m not a Lib Dem, but if I had more time I certainly would write more liberal based articles (if I thought they had a chance at being published), if more people could do that then don’t you think that those tweets would start to change? And if they don’t start to change then aren’t those Lib Dem’s ultimately just partisan players who can’t stand sharing the sandbox?

I think Alix is right in a lot of what she says, but that’s WHY I beat my head against the brick wall of LC as much as I do; yes, it’s an uphill struggle, but attempting to reach out to the closed-minded, even if you’ve done it unsuccessfully a thousand times before, and even if you’re not hugely hopeful of being listened to this time, is something we (as Lib Dems) need to be doing.

I haven’t even tried to write for LDV because, to me, it feels like preaching to the choir. Writing here, however frustrating it might be, is at least pushing the fact that we are active at people who might otherwise completely ignore us. It’s harder for them to do so if we are visible.

There is also the fact that, given the name of the site, and the high position it enjoys in the blogosphere, people (rightly or wrongly) associate the views of the site with the word Liberal. There therefore NEEDS to be a Lib Dem contribution.

Here’s a thing I remember.

Some of the first discussions we had on this site were (inevitably) about what “liberal” meant. As I recall, one of these was kicked off by an article (by, I think, Sunny) saying that self-styled liberals should stop fussing about the exact meanings people attached to the word and get stuck in to, I don’t know, discussing nice, fluffy policies that both sides could approve of. And we Lib Dems all came back saying, yeah, nice thought, but that’s no bloody good, because to us “liberal” has a very distinct meaning, whereas to you it’s a synonym for “things that are fluffy and progressive and we approve of them”. We made it quite clear that any discussion based on this faultline was going to fall down sooner or later, however stuck in we got to policy detail (and there was a time when I did).

And from the look of Sunny @ 51:

“NL is closer to progressive liberalism (in the way they see it)”

…we’ve still got this faultline, haven’t we. Not even the most basic, sine qua non argument from the Liberal Democrats has been accepted by the editor of the site. What’s the point in going any further?

Hello Jennie. How’s the head?

Maybe I need to come back to this thread when I’m in a better mood. Bah humbug.

Head is pounding, thanks for asking. Drinking Riggwelter on a three-days-empty stomach is not a good plan.

You’re right Alix, in that Sunny for all of his protestations still has (in my eyes) too much of an attachment to New Labour, not so much with its specific (and often alarmingly illiberal) policies, as with its touchy-feelly window-dressing, In other words,to me, he’s too trusting that it’s an institution worth saving, that it’s salvagable, and it’s worth engaging with curent New Lab drones. Me, I’d stand further back, wait for ‘the project’ to utterly implode, and THEN try and engage/rebuild a more liberal/centrist/leftist Labour party.

[85] Well, I understand your position now, Mat – basically you’re a kind of entryist who wants to see STV for Westminster because you believe that will break and remake the Party system into something more ideologically coherent and out of which will come a nice fluffy party that is both (and equally) egalitarian and libertarian – and intellectually coherent (which last is perhaps a consummation devoutly to be wished rather than one we can at present prove in any meaningful way).

I am far from convinced that STV is at all likely. The minimum condition would appear to be two successive hung Parliaments, and even then the vested interests in FPTP might prevail. Still, you might reply that someone writing in the mid 1820s might reasonably have discounted the prospect of Parliamentary reform within the next ten years, and it happened in 1832 (just, and only because the tellers in the Lords fiddled the figures!)

I call you an “entryist” because it seems to me that you have major policy disagreements with most of your fellow Lib Dems, although again I accept that your own account suggests that the only Lib Dem who doesn’t is the one who doesn’t have any policy views of their own! In itself, that is hardly an attractor…

The other point where we may part company is that you still have faith in the mass-membership Party model. I think, on the other hand, that it is obsolescent (if not actually already obsolete – when the Tories were up to 20% ahead in the polls their membership roll was still in decline) and that the future is about a series of – principally internet-inspired – interlinking campaigning groups and civic associations. In this future, political parties may mutate into Parliamentary caucuses first and foremost. Which is why I want primary elections, so that the electorate can identify the strongest challenger to each incumbent – as opposed to the Party organisations and the mass media manipulating opinion poll findings doing so. This in turn will raise incumbents’ game, and provide a tonic to the body politic. Joining a party – yes, I appreciate I’m arguing against what I said earlier, but now I’m being serious – legitimises the political game as currently it is being played. And it is the game, at least as much as any player in it, which is the problem.

Me, I’d stand further back, wait for ‘the project’ to utterly implode, and THEN try and engage/rebuild a more liberal/centrist/leftist Labour party.

The problem with that is that it means having a Tory Govt after the next General Election.

It risks having a Tory Govt for many GEs. Not a risk I want to take. The more Lib Dem MPs we’ve got, the more leverage they have in Parliament. That means assisting them from taking seats from Labour at the next GE, while also helping them keep seats from the Tories.

Which is why I’m involved. Labour is currently beyond help, at least not without a significant leadership change and a massive change of direction (the principles of the ’97 manifesto would be a good start).

“Which is why I want primary elections, so that the electorate can identify the strongest challenger to each incumbent – as opposed to the Party organisations and the mass media manipulating opinion poll findings doing so. This in turn will raise incumbents’ game, and provide a tonic to the body politic.”

Which will all still make bugger all difference under a FPTP system. One needs the other, in all honesty.

@MatGB (93). Difference of tactics. I just foresee that when New lab implode they will do so very bitterly and nastily, with a lot of collateral damage, so I’d keep further away.
Re the next GE, I think that’s going to the Tories regardless, and new Lab will disintegrate rapidly. The issue then becomes the speed at which a genuinely liberal looking, opposition can be constructed, for which I’d hoped a site like this may help., that is forging stronger (older or non”newLab” Labour) alliances with liberal and left minded thinkers and movers, while by-passing the poisonous Newlab elements

basically you’re a kind of entryist who wants to see STV for Westminster because you believe that will break and remake the Party system

Effectively, yes. That was my original intention when joining. But all parties are broad churches—I said when I joined that of the issues that I thought were important, the Lib Dems were fairly sound on 80% of them (there were 5 main issues IIRC), but now my priorities are slightly changed (moving across the country and in with a single mother and becoming a primary child carer for a 5-year-old does do that), and now I’m a lot closer to the Lib Dem line. But that’s partially because under both Ming and Clegg, the party has been moving in my direction: statements that they’d go to jail instead of accept an ID card, strong commitment to redistributionary taxation combined with pigouvian green taxes, long term commitment to raising the tax threshold and sorting out some sort of LVT, Cable and Clegg’s policies on the banking system, the free schools system (again, new priority, but sending her to an indoctrinating church school because there was no effective choice really galls), etc.

out of which will come a nice fluffy party that is both (and equally) egalitarian and libertarian

Sort of. I’d like to be in the same party as about 50% of the Greens, Unity, Chris Dillow and Jock Coats. Under STV, that could even be the Lib Dems.

major policy disagreements with most of your fellow Lib Dems, although again I accept that your own account suggests that the only Lib Dem who doesn’t is the one who doesn’t have any policy views of their own

I wouldn’t call them major, just different emphasises on short term policies—pretty much all policies are aimed at a single four year period, that’s true of all parties, but the underlying principles are sound. And all the parties are broad church coalitions, that’s required under FPTP and would be required of any Govt formed under STV. I set my priorities, and on them, the Lib Dems are either already good or moving in the right direction.

you still have faith in the mass-membership Party model.

Under FPTP? Yes, essential. But under STV?

No, not really. I’d like to be in the same party as those I listed above. But it’d be much more important for me to be in the same Govt (or at least supporting it). STV allows for a much more disperse party system, and allows for effective independents to run without risk, and actually get in, etc.

I’d actually loved for the parliamentary parties to go back to being primarily Parliamentary caucuses (like they effectively were for most of the 19th C), and for much looser coalitions.

But that requires multi-member constituencies (like we had until 1885/1947) and STV for counting the votes.

And with STV, you don’t need open primaries, as there are many incumbents and you can choose between competing replacements. And if the parties don’t put someone forward you like, then, well, put yourself forward.

I think we’re a lot closer than you suspect, at least on this issue, Mike—parties are a means to an end, and essential under FPTP. Get the end? Parties change, adapt. Or die off. I care not.

By the way what about this for a question ? We know Clegg was in talks with Brown about some cooperation , a while ago (Indy) and I see here that Liberals hare happy to sign up to a joint Liberal and New Labour group . We have also seen notable figures from the Liberal Party ally with London’s hard left Labour against Boris Johnson.
Is there any Liberal here at all who could imagine close links with the Conservative Party or combining with the Conservative Party in Government ? Nick Clegg claims this is entirely possible as Liberals are , “equidistant “. My impression is that Liberals are actually various breeds of socialist and hell would freeze over before they help us defeat Brown
In this case isn’t Nick Clegg lying . and is the simply explanation of this rightish stanc not simply that ? He is telling Conservative voters lies about his Party so they will vote for him.( Answer is yes ). Actually it is a cadre of a broad leftist movement as its members will happily attest

Or who will prove me wrong , who would ally with the Conservative Party?

“Or who will prove me wrong , who would ally with the Conservative Party?”

You’re on the wrong site really. Lib Dem’s may be equidistant, but those Lib Dem’s are more likely to be reading stuff elsewhere than here, aren’t they?

@Newmania, simple question: why would I as a Liberal Democrat be interested in “allying” with a party that fundamentally isn’t liberal? And I’m not sure Clegg said both were “equally likely”. As I recall his take has always been that both are “equally unlikely” but it’s a matter of emphasis I suppose.

Jen et al,

I wasn’t aiming #73 at anyone personally.

I just think this site represents a great opportunity to sway may Lib/left people over to the Lib Dems. T’is all.

Do people think Lib Con should be a more user-dominated blog, like Daily Kos, with any registered user being able to blog/write a diary, but with a selection of front page stuff written by an editorial team and a referral system whereby users can “digg” the posts they like the most? That would make for more frequent posts, and possibly a livelier online community.

Rayyan: One of the great shames of this blog, as Jennie frequently alludes to, is that there aren’t really many barriers to getting your stuff on this site (unless the main editor(ial team) find it threatening perhaps?). You can email stories to the editors or to the tips email address and they get considered. You don’t need to be able to log on, just supply your article and ask for it to be included if they want it.

Not quite as open as an anyone can post, but with priorities on placement, system…but really not all that far behind it in principle. I guess it just needs to be made more clear that people can contribute and how to do so.

Rayyan, I don’t think it’s a good idea. One being Kos is Kos, specifically set up as a Democrat left community site. It’s party partizan, and avowedly so. Second being that the quality of contributions, even from the top team, is incredibly variable.

Third being more specific. LabourHome is run on the same system as Kos. The editor is currently ddefending a libel case due to a post written by one of the diarists. English defamation laws are an arse.

Allowing open access to posting is far too risky in this jurisdiction, even if I thought it was a good idea. I dislike the format of Kos and Home, and don’t think it’s effective. There are already too many idiots who don’t get the point and think that when a post on here says something it means we all agree, allowing open access of dubious quality? No thanks.

As Lee says, getting a decent article published on here is quite easy–perhaps an improved submission system might be good. But I’m not sure complete open access would be a good idea.

It could be done–allow anyone to register with WordPress as a ‘contributor’, and then appoint editors to approve posts for publication either on the main blog or a different category (that doesn’t display on the front page). But definitely not open access posting, it’s a little elitist, but it’s one of the reasons that Labour Home is somewhere I tend to avoid, the signal/noise ratio is too low.

The comment threads on LC give this place a sense of community, but beyond that I get a sense of disconnection between everyone.

I’d like to see a page of standing links to contributing conspirators and organisations which are worthwhile supporting (with an aggregated feed?). I think this would be a productive demonstration of the coalition and the level of unity which exists. One of the expressed desires is to become a hub… well there’s a lot of wasted potential for this, which is (I suspect) why different sides feel left out in the cold (such as the LibDems in this thread).

I also agreed that a clearer line on contributions is vital, as having helped coordinate the CiC response (where are the final two chapters BTW?) it was clear to me that the lack of uniform direction was the biggest factor holding it back.

I think the most sustainable policy is to be even-handed to all sides even if that sounds unfairly unsympathetic to the ‘more deserving’ and unfairly indulgent towards the ‘less deserving’, but if we don’t have a representative measure (and a method of checking and balancing) then we tend to discover ourselves hamstrung by the lack of a strong editorial line.

If this is Sunny’s site and his rules, then he must apply them more actively. Otherwise ownership and enforcement must be opened up to prevent the invested goodwill from causing the site to implode. The current drift cannot continue.

5. Good point. The amount of debt available has pushed up prices. Prices are high because people can borrow 5-6xtimes salary and the interest rates are low. The vast amount of debt and low interest rates enabled private equity to prosper; hence asset bubbles. In France and Germany most mortgages are not more than 70%. There is also much better quality rented accommodation on the market in Europe.