FWIW, as I’m mentioned—Jennie wrote this as I had a meal to cook, I proof read it for her and made some suggestions, so it’s her post, but it could just as easily have been mine.

She is, of course, wholly correct. Clegg’s talking about State Socialism, not socialism (please note the capitalisations) in a speech to Demos, a liberal think tank that used to be close to Labour but isn’t so much now. Liberalism can incorporate many streams of socialism, socialism can be liberal.

But State Socialism is as antithetical to Liberalism as Corporatist Capitalism is.

People, have you got a vague idea of how remote and alien all this navel-gazing, tribal stuff is to 99,9% of the population and their daily problems???
And I’m not referring specifically to this post, but to both this and what Sunny Hundal wrote in his previous post and this kind of proti-Spanish Civil War internicine sniping…
We will never learn. 50 comments, some even with reference to the 1930s, hairsplitting and sterile debates about semantics and “socialism” and “progressive” and “liberalism”!

I know you’re gonna quite rightly tell me to piss off, but jesus guys, this is where the “right” wipes the floor with us. Please think about it.

If so, why haven’t Mat, or I, or any of the other many many leftist Lib Dems heard of them?

erm… I don’t know? but honestly, this isn’t really something I can comment on. I’m just stating a fact without putting in dramatic language.

The meme that Nick is moving the party to the right has no basis in fact, and those who push it seem to think that the more they repeat it, the more true it will become.

This is a relative thing isn’t it? I don’t care for press memes, I’m stating my own view.

And the implication seems to be that any comparison with socialism is an attack on the entirety of leftist thought.

No, my implication is that its trying to compare New Labour to socialism – which it isn’t. And even then, I think its an inaccurate description of socialism as I see it.

Surely, if the state is in control of the unequal distribution of power, the state is in control of the power itself? Liberalism is about taking that power away from the state and giving it back to the people.

erm… one could argue this is what socialism is also about…. an equal distribution of individual power and achievement and opportunity. How you want to redistribute power is not explained though…

The Liberal response to state interventionism is to consider the whole of society, not just the extreme examples. You can’t treat the whole of society like anomalies (like baby P, Karen Matthews, the murderers of James Bulger), and you shouldn’t try to. Liberal legislation would be to treat those anomalies with the due punishment they deserve, but not to (for example) create three and a half thousand new criminal offences over ten years and criminalise a hell of a lot more people and imprison them for no good reason

Well, the US criminalises a lot more people and arguably there is more of an emphasis there on having a smaller state. So not sure if this line of thought strictly applies. You can have a liberal state that is very strict on laws, no?

As it is, Clegg doesn’t say that in his speech – he just raises the two issues without addressing them. So why raise them?

Sunny is right to call this pragmatism, but I am unsure as to why he thinks this is a bad thing?

I didn’t say this was a bad thing! My point was that Clegg was trying to be ideological about an approach to free markets, when its very difficult to be! and you can’t diss state intervention without qualifying Northern Rock!

What Nick is saying is that capitalism, by getting rid of these bits

How would one get rid of those bits? How would the Libdems stop corps from handing out absurd bonuses?

I am at a loss to understand why there are those among us who keep attacking the Lib Dems and supporting the authoritarian and relatively right-wing current incarnation of the Labour party?

First, I’d love to know how I’m trying to prop up the current government’s authoritarian policies. Secondly, is the current govt right-wing or socialist? Not sure if you and Clegg agree on that… because he seems to be equating it to socialism.

Thirdly, I’m not putting everything on the left-right divide. I’m genuinely saying that on social issues and economic issues, there is broadly a liberal consensus on things. This is why I think people in the UK are much more likely to say that all the parties sound the same… I hardly ever caught anyone saying that in the States. There are very clear ideological diferences there, especially on social issues.;

What I am saying is, the electorate is still not sure what sets the Libdems out from the others, ideologically. To be honest I’m still not very clear…. and given that the polls have stubbornly refused to move over the last year as support for Labour has oscillated wildly…. I think the polls agree with me.

Stan, that leads directly on to the other post I have in drafts. I really think it’s important that the public can see that although we don’t agree on everything, we still think it’s important to stand together on most issues.

You’re right that the vast majority of the public don’t want to read every bit of the debate, but the fact that the debate is had, and that we compare and contrast views and come to consensus is important, rather than just being told what to think or do.

And, you know, “the right” have shedloads of infighting. Look at how often UKIP or the BNP split up. And look at how the Tories stack up on Europe.

Stan, you have a point about a lot of the debate on left/liberal blogs being nothing more than navel-gazing; although to an extent Sunny’s last post was an attempt to see how effective Clegg’s positioning will be in communicating his party to the public. Whilst that might not be an issue of daily concern to most, it is important if the Lib Dems are to make themselves relevant to “99.9%” of the population.

However, to say “this is where the “right” wipes the floor with us” might be incorrect. Look at what is being written on Devil’s Kitchen, Guido Fawkes or Iain Dale: most people wouldn’t give two hoots about what those chumps write. The only difference is that on the blogosphere it is easier to whip up partisan heat by appealing to crude, negative instincts; the right-wing blogs excel at this and it is why their base is so active on comments threads all over the net, especially so on left-leaning blogs like Commentisfree.

The Tories are failing to articulate what they would do in government to address daily concerns: whilst the left in general is failing to take advantage of this open goal, let’s not think mistake any crappy moves by the right’s online cheerleaders as ones worth emulating.

Hi Jennie,

What’s the evidence that “People are pig sick of the nanny state”? CCTV is overwhelmingly popular, ID cards (which are a truly terrible idea) are supported by about half, Labour has gone up in the polls since it swung to greater levels of economic intervention and started nationalising stuff, welfare reform policies which involve far greater intrusion into people’s lives get 90% support – I struggle to think of an example of a policy which involves greater state intervention, has been introduced in, say, the last five years, and is massively unpopular.

And I suspect this is the reason that when the Lib Dems run election campaigns, they regularly call for more intervention, more regulation, or why Vince Cable at Prime Minister’s Questions this week called for, um, more intervention in the housing sector.

As for the Political Compass test, I tried it with the answers that, say, Gordon Brown would give, and ended up with results in the bottom left – you have to be incredibly right wing not to end up with Political Compass as some kind of left libertarian.

Please will someone put us out of our misery and put up a definition of ‘socialism’ for reference or dispute. This is all getting a bit circular.

Socialism: A system of ownership where businesses are owned in common, normally divided between State Socialists, who believe in nationalised ownership, and liberal (or Market) socialists (sometimes also referred to as mutualists) who believe in ownership by cooperatives, partnerships and similar.

Capitalism: a system of ownership where businesses are owned by private investors, normally divided between Corporatists (where competition is minimised and the state doles out many contracts) and liberal capitalists (who believe strongly in competition. Many corporatists like to pretend they favour liberal capitalism, but then do things like privatise formerly nationalised industries without first breaking them up, thus ensuring there’s no competition or ease of access to the market in order to compete.

Markets: a system of distribution and exchange wherein anyone can set up and attempt to compete within a sector and prices are determined by the purchaser, who can choose to go to a competitor. Perfect markets are almost impossible, thus the state (or some other vector) needs to regulate to ensure open access and competition.

Corporatism/command & control: a system of distribution and exchange where prices are set by a central authority, competition is minimised or removed and open access to compete isn’t allowed.

There y’go Thomas, a set of definitions, very simplistic, but it does the job. I favour a socialist market economy, but as long as there’s transparency and open competition, dodgy capitalists should be free to try to compete if they want. Important to make sure the Govt doesn’t go and do silly things like encourage demutualisation and similar though.

What Jennie and Rayyan said, in response to you Stan. The odd ideological spat isn’t necessarily a bad thing… as long as we don’t do it all the time!

The meme that Nick is moving the party to the right has no basis in fact, and those who push it seem to think that the more they repeat it, the more true it will become. This is rank, festering, bollocks.

Jenny Nick Clegg has little power to move “The Party ” ( More of an intimate soirée really ) . The Party wanted the leftier Huhne as you well know but they also knew that their main appeal was to some time Conservatives. It is crap to say there has not been a shift right , is that not what the Orange book is ? It was quietly dropped when Clegg was weak but now he is starting deliver what he said he would which is a Party which can compete in the South and not be Labour lite
It comes back to the perennial problem with the Lib Dems , they think they can take up every position simultaneously and it is at its very core ; incoherent . Sunny Hundal is a socialist. He would like taxes to be a lot higher a lot more redistributive .He would like all the groovy stuff they have in Sweden and 70%of cash run by the state . He knows this means a sacrifice of power to the state , he knows this means a large unwieldy bureaucracy and a loss of growth and considerable prescribing of free choice . He looks out at poverty and unfairness and says , its worth it .
I am a Conservative , I do not like an over mighty state I believe in targeted temporary intervention by the state but not as an end in itself . I always wanting to get to lower taxes eventually . I am mildly suspicious of the new because I value solutions that have evolved .I aim at a working society rather than a perfect one . I oppose socialism because IMHO it does not work and people are insufficiently ant like for it to ever work.

These competing visions have slugged it out over the last century and the Liberal Party oscillates between the two usually supporting Labour in practice . We now face the prospect of a sort of socialism we all thought had died with a full term of Brown. Here is the choice …you resists it or you support it . Sunny has revealed that there is a irreconcilable problem with being a Liberal socialist.. Its about as likely as cooked ice .

To my amazement I see evidence of genuinely Liberal , even Libertarian instincts hereabouts . They have nothing in common with red Hundal and his Soviet dream of organised utopia .

Newmania. I’m going to both quote and clear up his terrible punctuation, in order that I can try and make sense of what he’s trying to say:

Nick Clegg has little power to move “The Party” ( More of an intimate soirée really ).

True, the Lib Dems are a genuinely democratic party and policy making is done at conference. But the leader does set the tone and can push in a strong direction, he’s also responsible for selling the policies.

The Party wanted the leftier Huhne as you well know

Bollocks. Huhne is a proper economic liberal, with qualifications and experience in economics. I didn’t vote in the election, because they were both good and I couldn’t decide, but Nick won fair and square. Huhne isn’t any further left than Nick, and on some issues is more ‘right’, but it’s a stupid two way simplification.

but they also knew that their main appeal was to some time Conservatives.

Really? Where? In most of the SW (where I’m from), the Lib Dems are the anti-Tory vote of choice. In Yorkshire, where I am now, they’re the anti-Labour party in some areas and the anti-Tory party in others, in many places it’s a three way fight. The Lib Dems are targetting the huge number of people in the country that self-identify as liberals.

It is crap to say there has not been a shift right, is that not what the Orange book is?

Not, it’s not, and not, it’s not. Have you read the book? Written by such famous “righties” as, um, Chris Huhne, Lynne Featherstone, Steve Webb et al? The Orange Book wasn’t a shift to the right, at all, it was an exposition of economic liberalism. If you’re going to repeat a media myth, try not to do so to people that already know you’re wrong.

It was quietly dropped when Clegg was weak

When was this, exactly? During the leadership election where he ran on a position of liberalism? In his victory speech, where he stressed his liberalism? At the Liverpool spring conference, where he stressed his liberalism? Or at the Brighton Autumn conference, where, um, he stressed his liberalism? You’re talking factually innaccurate bollocks.

but now he is starting deliver what he said he would

Well, yes, but he’s been working on it openly since he took office a year ago.

which is a Party which can compete in the South and not be Labour lite

Um, Newmania? The Lib Dems are already competing well in the south, that’s how they’ve got so many seats. He’s made it very clear that his objective is to expand the reach of the party in Labour held areas in the north. Clearly, openly stated. So you’re talking factually inaccurate bollocks. Again.

It comes back to the perennial problem with the Lib Dems, they think they can take up every position simultaneously and it is at its very core incoherent.

Each of the three main parties is a broad church with a wide swathe of opinions. Or have you failed to notice the LRC within Labour or the Cornerstones within the Conservatives? The Lib Dems are a lot more coherent, and given that they’ve been consistent in their opposition of this Govts illiberalism for the entirety of this Parliament, you are, again, talking bollocks.

Sunny Hundal is a socialist.

So am I. I’ve even given my definitions above. Do please pay attention.

He would like taxes to be a lot higher a lot more redistributive. He would like all the groovy stuff they have in Sweden

What, like the Free Schools policy being put forward by Clegg and Laws, where teachers are free to set up schools competing with state schools? Are you sure? I want it, as I’d get a secular non-indoctrinaire school set up locally fairly quickly, but I don’t recall sunny saying any of these things, and I’ve been reading his various blogs for the last 4 years. I might be wrong, of course, Sunny?

and 70%of cash run by the state. He knows this means a sacrifice of power to the state , he knows this means a large unwieldy bureaucracy and a loss of growth and considerable prescribing of free choice . He looks out at poverty and unfairness and says , its worth it.

You assume a lot there, and I’ve seen no evidence of it, and a lot that says the complete opposite. But then, you’re another one who sees the word ‘socialist’ and assumes some sort of cross between Wilson and Stalin without actually engaging any further.

I am a Conservative, I do not like an over mighty state I believe in targeted temporary intervention by the state but not as an end in itself.

Those are liberal positions, not Conservative positions, every Conservative Govt I’ve studied has worked to increase state power.

I always wanting to get to lower taxes eventually.

It’ll be a long wait under any Conservative Government, even Maggie didn’t manage to decrease the overall tax burden, she just shifted it onto different things. Mostly taxes paid by the lowest paid disproportionately, naturally.

If you genuinely want reduced state power and eventual lower taxes, the Conservative party isn’t for you, regardless of their rhetoric.

I am mildly suspicious of the new because I value solutions that have evolved.

You do know that the Whigs became the Liberal party, right? Besides, evolution? That’s not a conservative position. But if you don’t like the new, why do you spend so much time on a website set up less than a year ago on this newfangled www thingy?

I aim at a working society rather than a perfect one.

So you favour pragmatic realism then? Why are you a Conservatve again?

Oh, wait, I remember; if in doubt, quote Mill: most stupid people are conservative.

I oppose socialism because IMHO it does not work and people are insufficiently ant like for it to ever work.

Actually, there are so many different types of socialism that many of them do work. Shopped in a John Lewis recently?

These competing visions have slugged it out over the last century and the Liberal Party oscillates between the two usually supporting Labour in practice.

Well, actually, in practice the Liberal party has split itself up several times, and 4 of the 6 splits saw a bunch join the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats aren’t the Liberal party, they still exist with a small number of Cllrs and no real idea what to do. So, um, factually innacurate bullshit, again.

We now face the prospect of a sort of socialism we all thought had died with a full term of Brown. Here is the choice …you resists it or you support it . Sunny has revealed that there is a irreconcilable problem with being a Liberal socialist.. Its about as likely as cooked ice .

Which is why of course Sunny most recent post on Brown’s policies was pretty negative, and why it’s fairly clear that Brown isn’t a liberal in any real form.

Do you ever bother actually reading any of the stuff you respond to? Because it’s obvious you’re either not reading or not understanding.

To my amazement I see evidence of genuinely Liberal , even Libertarian instincts hereabouts . They have nothing in common with red Hundal and his Soviet dream of organised utopia .

Wow, almost a flash of actual reality there, then you had to go ruin it at the end with another ad hominem. Arse.

Remind me not to try to interpret Newmania again, trying to figure out what sentence goes where is hard enough. I though Conservatives believed in preserving things like, oh, the English language.

Oh bugger, looks like I didn’t close a tag properly. Jennie can fix it for me when she’s back from t’pub.

“What’s the evidence that “People are pig sick of the nanny state”?”

It’s a crude game really. Most “state interference” that I can think of, on a local or national level, that has been disliked from the get go never saw the light of day in the first place (or is continuing to be pushed in many a reworded manner). Do people really like CCTV? ID Cards? DNA databases? I think the answer for all those comes in how the question is asked and what the first thought of the person being asked is.

CCTV? “Ah well that means if I am mugged they might catch the person that did it” could be the first thought, pro-CCTV. CCTV? “Well they’ve admitted it’s next to useless, so as long as it dissuades crime” could be another. People think about things under so many different terms. Ask people whether or not they like that their movements from home to work and back again can be recorded and stored in a culture of governmental data losses and identity theft and you would probably get a different (and equally biased) answer.

People are against being nannied, why would any individual ever stand up and say that they need to be pushed, prodded, recorded and instructed to get along in life? However people are also against being harmed or routes to justice not being utilised. It’s a conflict that, due to the very intelligent way Labour (and the Tories before them) have managed just how intrusive that nannying is, I would not be surprised that we all have, but generally end up believing that it’s on balance better to just live with the negatives.

I’ve tried to sort it Mat, plenty of tags missing, so Jennie and you might want to still look over it later

I might be wrong, of course, Sunny?

Of course you’re not wrong… as I said earlier we agree on 90% of the ideological stuff. I just don’t pay much attention to newmania since he lost his marbles ages ago.

What is socialism? MatGB’s definition of socialism as the collective control of business or economic activity is one definition. But I can not see why it should be considered the “true” or dominant one, and particularly not in Britain if this is intended to reflect the ethos, history, beliefs or actions of the centre-left. (That case might be made internationally, especially in countries with stronger Marxist traditions).

The best introduction to historical and contemporary ideas of socialism is Tony Wright’s book “Socialisms”. Its central theme ‘The history of socialism is the history of socialisms. Moreover, it is a history not of fraternal plurality but of rivalry and antagonism’.

The search for a single definition of socialism is a chimera. However, the most consistently important theme of British socialism has been the idea of social equality. and not the idea of the collective control of the economic means of production (which, within a mixed economy, may or may not be a useful or necessary means to the end of greater equality).

The most significant intellectual traditions in the British Labour party have been
* a pragmatic Labourism (the pursuit of working-class and/or trade union interests; and general, not necessarily theorised, support for the underdog),
* intellectual Fabianism (itself a plural mixture of democratic collectivism, ethical socialist reformism and revisionist social democracy),
* ethical socialism (Methodist non-conformism, Christian socialism, Tawney, the cooperative movement),
* libertarian/liberal socialism (GDH Cole, Tawney again): from below
* social democracy
* to some extent, communitarianism.
- For most of the period from 1945 to the mid-1970s, Labour inherited of much of the social liberal/new liberal radical tradition, owing to the relative weakness of the Liberal Party (just as Liberalism had been the home for emerging radical and democratic socialist ideas of the 19th century).

- The most strikingly distinctive things about British democratic socialism in comparative terms has been the weakness of Marxism. Many European democratic socialist traditions moved from Marxism to social democracy. But Marxism was always very weak in British socialist politics, mostly to the left of Labour, and with the exception of brief flurries (Communism in the 1930s; and to a lesser extent trade union activism in the 1970s and ’80s) it has been marginal to politics outside of academia.

- Labourism was dominant from 1900-1918: indeed it was the (not particuarly ideological) political issue of working-class representation in Parliament which saw the unions break (somewhat reluctantly) from the broad Liberal progressive alliance, which was a diverse umbrella running from Whigs and Gladstonians to new liberals, radicals and emerging socialist voices.

- Economic collectivism was reflected in the 1918 constitution. It has been a very minor part of Labour’s agenda for most of the period after 1951, and it was somewhat less important to the 1945-51 government than the welfare state. (The mid/late 1970s drive to make this central again was a minority insurgency within the party, briefly and disastrously dominant from 1981-83).

- The dominant intellectual tradition in the modern Labour party has been social democracy.

The central argument in both the social democratic and ethical socialist traditions is about an idea of equality which encompasses equality of status and respect (which can be traced back to Rainsborough’s argument at Putney that “that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he” – a claim for equal democratic rights which is common ground between various radical, socialist and liberal traditions, and was conceded by the right, eventually, after 1918); and the more distinctive belief that genuine equality of opportunity (equal life chances) depends on breaking down structural barriers (such as class disadvantage, and other forms of discrimination) without which there is less freedom (considered positively, as autonomy: to choose our own conception of the good life and the opportunity to make substantive choices over our own life course; ), and power and freedom in society are unjustly distributed.

From this follows the argument made by Crosland (a democratic socialist and social democrat) and by Rawls (an egalitarian liberal) for ‘no unjustified inequalities’.

And Tawney’s argument that “Although natural endowments differ profoundly, it is the mark of a civilised society to aim at eliminating such inequalities as have their source not in individual differences, but in its own organisation – and individual differences which are the source of social energy are more likely to ripen and find expression if social inequalities are, as far as practicable, diminished.Nobody wants, or thinks possible, a society of identical mediocrities. It is the imposed uniformity of deprivation and disadvantage which socialists deplore and seek to eliminate”.

My sense is that Nick Clegg does, on the whole, favour both a public repositioning of the LibDems somewhat right (though, to some extent, the positioning difficulty arises from a not massively coherent or sustainable pitch for some ‘left of Labour’ space in the 2005 election – though you did get the prize of Brian Sedgemore!). In substantive policy terms, I think it is fair to judge his instincts to be somewhat to the right of those of Ashdown or Kennedy.

I think there are lots of dilemmas for the leader of a third party, particularly when (as has not been the case since 1992), there is a genuine fight for power between the two major parties. So I can see the political rationale behind what he is doing.

But since this was presented as an exercise in political ideas, I would note two features of this which I think lose something valuable.

(1) His own beliefs, and his sense of how to give the party a distinctive edge, are very much based on stressing his and the party’s liberalism. The social democratic traditions of the party are in a much more minor key as a result. (That is much less true of some other senior LibDems, notably Vince Cable, who draws substantively on liberal and social democratic traditions, but it seems clear to me that Clegg does not feel much emotional or intellectual connection with them.

Now I appreciate that the party does not want to be a “merged” party, and that individual trajectories matter much less than they did in the early 1990s.

However, the irony of Clegg’s caricature of Labour (which may be useful positioning for the LibDems, but both simplified and weakened the speech) is that it cuts off the LibDems from intellectual arguments to which they can also stake a significant claim, and which are particularly useful resources for the politics of a recession.

(2) His definition of liberalism is a somewhat narrow one too.

The New Liberal definition of ‘freedom to’ (freedom as autonomy) – and the introduction of the idea of freedom from poverty as much as freedom from the state – gave liberalism a new set of intellectual and political resources, reflected in the extension of state activity for progressive causes under Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith and Lloyd George after the 1906 landslide.

But Clegg does not particularly draw on that New Liberal argument, and is relatively weak on the importance of structural and class-based disadvantage. This is a related point in many ways to that about social democracy: this would give him a different (liberal) route to social democratic arguments. However, the strength of the emphasis he he places on a smaller state and the dangers of state failure (where he, rhetorically, is often rather similar to Cameron) means he does not tend to do this.

Once liberalism had made that shift, there is in truth no fundamental ideological division between new Liberals and social democrats (whether of the LibDem or Labour variety). There are a range of differences of ethos, strategy, language and policy. However, a less caricatured debate between these traditions could also prove useful to both of them, because the interrogation of these different progressive traditions could enrich each of them.

I think there is a good argument for saying they have complementary strengths and weaknesses – in particular, that Labour (having become much more pluralistic and democratic from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s – resulting in significant constitutional reform) would benefit from paying more attention to liberalism and pluralism on issues of democracy and civil liberties, while the Liberal Democrats could in my view give more weight to addressing class-based disadvantage.

Of course Clegg favours a move to the right – but then the Lib Dems have long struck me as a social-democratic crust on top of a party which has vastly different characters depending upon where one finds it in the country and which of the main parties is its opposition at the time.

Jennie, to be honest blanket phrases like “people are sick of the interventionist state” smack of libertarianism to me. I see two main issues with that statement, the first being that, as Donpaskini says, it just isn’t true. The fact is that (for whatever reason) surveillance measures and extra law and order devices are popular with the electorate at large, even though I don’t like them. The second is that it concerns me deeply that anyone would oppose “state intervention” per se. Speaking for myself, I’m in favour of state intervention in healthcare, social security, education and other areas where without it the vulnerable would be left destitute whilst the rich trampled all over them. I’m also in favour of state intervention in the economy, albeit not in the manner that Brown seems to be going about it. If we’re talking about people who were against state intervention as a rule, then in recent years we’re talking about figures like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek and Murray Rothbard, none of whom strike me as figures who fall within the compassionate left wing of politics.

All that aside, there is a more basic question – if Clegg is such a top notch leader then why are his numbers so much worse than those of Charlie Kennedy, who most certainly positioned the Lib Dems well to the left of his predecessors and successors as leader?

This thread makes for an enlightening read for the unaffiliated among us.

Perhaps I should reconsider joining the LibDems, though I’m probably not the type of person they’d want as a member.

Left-right tribalism is meaningless and counterproductive

The same could be said of party politics, when you think about it.

The thing is it is perfectly possible to want to put strict limits on the power of the state in some areas and so oppose ID cards, 42 days’ detention, the DNA database, restrictions on the right to protest etc. (although personally I don’t get too bothered about CCTV in public places) and at the same time believe that it is perfectly legtimate for the state to intervene in other ways, such as Alan mentions above.
Of course Labour has been guilty of abusing the power of the state – in the ways I mentioned above, in exerting too much centralised control of health and education services (which is not to say there should not be state intervention in these areas at all) and no doubt other ways as well but the answer is not a blanket call for less state intervention, it’s to find a way to limit the power if the state where it should not be interfering (ie to ensure civil liberties are protected) and more intellinet policy making in the areas where state intervention is appropriate. To be fair there seem to be a number of Labour party members who fail to see this as well and portray those of us who attack measures such as 42 days’ detention as small state libertarians.

When you say

The Liberal response, if not an interventionist state, is a LESS INTERVENTIONIST STATE. If you want less state interventionism, you don’t need to do something else instead, you just need to stop intervening.

I think you are missing the point Sunny was making. He wasn’t arguing for state intervention as an end in itself but as a means of addressing imbalances in power. If you want less state intervention then you have to either accept that the problem will not be addressed at all or demonstrate that reducing the power of the state will in itself address it. Your answer seems to be

Surely, if the state is in control of the unequal distribution of power, the state is in control of the power itself? Liberalism is about taking that power away from the state and giving it back to the people.

But is the state really in control of the unequal distribution of power? Surely that largely stems from our capitalist system. Taking power away from the state does not neccessarily pass power back to individuals themselves. Would abolishing the minimum wage give low paid workers more power or less?

That’s why I’m also wary of blanket condemnations of “regulation and red tape”. Sometimes these things are there for a good reason and do give individuals more power. What regulations do you want to remove, health and safety or the minimum wage or trade union rights?

Sorry, bit of a balls up with the blockquotes there.

Punctuation ? I see .In fact the transcendent glories of English Literature were largely achieved without the Pooterish clerkliness so admired by Matt GB . Shakespeare was notably varied, even for his own time and a settled system was not even conceived of until the age of Dictionaries . After this point uniformity still did not have the status Matt is calling on, to imply he is from a higher social class than me . Laurence Strerne , published , Like Dickens in periodical form, received so many complaints that he published a page of punctuation to keep the more anally retentive happy .
With the growth of mass readership and London as the brain of the Empire, a new lower middleclass evolved at the end of the 19th century . These people who you will meet in Jerome K Jerome, HG Wells and Pooter himself. These were terribly conscious of their insecure class status, and from this point the assertion of status by virtue of footling grammar and punctuation was important .It differentiated them from the working class they had recently left .Matt GB is the custodian of a peculiarly English snobbery of the lower middling pen pusher whose origins are lost in the mists of the late 19th century . It amuses me to see him to proud of his banal estate agent skills and so ignorant of English and its traditions

The rest of it is the usual tedious dancing on a pin head the Liberal Party attacked the Labour Party from the left throughout the 90s and was only noticeable from the influx of Labour Party members after the brief SDP moment . Sunny wants higher taxes and more state provision of services. I , in common with all Conservatives want the reverse. What do you want?

The Liberal Party has no real commitment to freedom and there is a very good reason for this .Their views are held only a by a minority and people given freedom , keep doing things they don’t like. Hunting Foxes for example, smoking in pubs, wishing to be consulted about handing the country over to unaccountable foreign bureaucrats, retaining marriage as the main institution of the country reducing immigration brining back capital punishment et al . Goodness the lengths they went to, to avoid anyone having that freedom.
They have no real commitment to personal empowerment in real cash terms because it entails risks and failures . Thus while Byzantine tax formulas are gleefully concocted to confuse the issue you will never see a Liberal stand up to the Unions , say no to intervention on social grounds and eventually this costs money . Had they the slightest prospect of being in power a great deal more honesty would be required but in any case it is Party supported usually by Public Sector managers who know where their bread is buttered In twenty years of dealing with small business I have never met a Liberal and the fact Chris Huhne traded his Public school journalistic twiddling for large sums does not give me entree into small business which Liberal have no experience of .
Margaret Thatcher inherited a slump in which public spending inevitably went up as it is now , additionally she was committed to Callaghan’s public spending levels which she tried to avoid. Turning the state around is a tricky business involving a lot of political risk . The Liberal Party has no stomach for it . Churchill last Premiership also used a huge state proportionally as it tried to roll back the central control Labour had tried to retain from the war . Your examples are childish to the point of a babies babbling and to be honest I suspect you are aware of your mis-use of detail

Evolved solutions -These would be ‘traditional’ or ‘old things’ to which the Liberal Pary is instinctively antagonistic . The Nation State , the institution of marriage . Only a cretin would deny Conservatives this territory and we have taken considerable reverses for our position . The Liberals have not , they would not and this is the frustration .

No bullock , untrustworthy and unable to make choices .

Newmania,
thanks for the lecture.

I also find your grammar a distraction to the overall comprehension of your comments, not because it fails to conform with recieved notions, but because you are only consistent in choosing unsuitable grammatical methods for communicating any sense of meaning.

The result of your comments are to leave an heavy impression of personal style at the almost complete expense of substance – we get to know exactly where you are coming from, but we will never be convinced by what you have to say.

If you are correct in your political analysis and prescriptions then your inability to communicate effectively frustrates your chances of achieving your ends. At the same time you also prevent the possibility that you may learn your logical weaknesses and evolve an improved and more rigorous political outlook.

It is clear you are passionate about your subject, but passion alone can only go so far. I hope you’ll accept the offer of assistance and take on board valuable advice.

Excuse me ‘No bollocks ” , and have a few of these , ‘”"??? !!*(()’,.?? . Enjoy

Thomas , ha ha I can smell the sweat you put into that it reads like Hurree Jamset Ram Singh, the Dusky Nabob of. Bhanipur. Oh alright , I do have a living to make here though and not all day to set your knitting circle straight .

“Hunting Foxes for example, smoking in pubs, wishing to be consulted about handing the country over to unaccountable foreign bureaucrats, retaining marriage as the main institution of the country reducing immigration brining back capital punishment et al”

Way to reel off a bunch of issues that reside in moral and ethical grey area’s where different interpretations of liberalism can lead to different stances. Good job there. While you clearly have a view as to why you’re right and everyone else is wrong, some of us can accept these issues are matters of opinion, based on our own moral compasses.

Newmania,
whether or not I like the tone of your comments, I’m glad to see you are taking note of constructive criticism.

* is very impressed by Sunder’s comments *

That is all…

An aspect not discussed is whether those undertaking state intervention are any good. JK Galbraith said that if those on the left want to run more of the state than those on the right , then they would have to be better at running it. State intervention often involves politicians producing vast amounts of of legislation which is regulated by large numbers of civil servants whose abilities vary from the very good to very bad. The recent case of trading standards officers prosecuting market stall holders for serving goods in imperial measures and not metric comes to mind. The Police seem to spend vast amounts of time filling in paperwork and not patrolling the streets and then arrest people for irrelevant crimes and ignoring much more serious ones. A PCSO can earn £24k and can often be seen in pairs . A large physically tough officer patrolling violent areas on their own would probably be more effective at stopping serious crime and would be cheaper. CCTV does not appear to stop violent criminals for the following reasons1. poor quality image2, criminals wear caps and garments with hoods3 criminals in gang change clothes after incident reducing ability to identify them by witnesses. Therefore state can increase in size and take of GDP and still fails to do the job.

One example typifies poor government involvement. The Royal Ballet told the Home Office that few British applicants reached the reqired level of artistic excellence -only 2 of the company’s principals are British . So in a population of 55M with dance courses at colleges throughout the country, the state cannot still train enough dancers to high enough standards. This absurd but it does suggest that the state can be big and still not deliver the desired results..

In my view the ideal Liberal policy would be to have a small competent, wise state where poiticians and civil servants are well paid but are held accountable. Civil servants should be sacked where they are proved to be incompetent or not required. Regulations should be reviewed on a regular basis and repealed or ammended where it is shown to be counter productive. MPs first job is to hold the executive to account. Intervention by the state and employment of civil servants should occur where the situation requires it. Actions of the state should not undermine the ability and will of people to support themselves- John Bird( founder of Bg Issue) is very critical of the Welfare State in this regard. Local authorities should hold meetings where civil servants and politicians should justify their actions. The pay and total remuneration packages ( including holidays, flexi-time and pensions) of politicians and civil servants should be kept under close scrutiny. Civil servant should have more than 25 days holiday. We should not be at the situation where in the NE of England, 59% of GDP is government expenditure.

When it comes to 42 day detention, the main reason is Islamic terrorism. The French warned the UK about Islamic Terrorism in the early 1990s . If we had the wisdom to take their advice, our problems would probaly be greatly reduced. The committee running Finsbury Mosque asked the Police to remove Abu Hamza after he had taken it over with force . They were ignored.

When things go wrong politicians and civil servants want more power and money, rather than admit to their incompetence. This way the freedoms of the British are slowly erroded.

some of us can accept these issues are matters of opinion, based on our own moral compasses.

Then why not allow people to make their own decisions ? I `m not sure I would describe the dishonest sophistry of the Libs on Lisbon as a moral question ,incidentally , but the problem ,as I see it is more insidious .It is that because you are never called upon to do anything, a Weimarish habit of mind has developed .You think what you think is more important than what you do.
You may , for five minute , think Economic Liberalism is a good thing and you may think rediscovering Gladstonian laissez faire is plausible just so story( This territory was long ago ceded to the Conservative Party who took the flak but anyway…) You may think you can unearth some formula where this is consistent with “socialism” . To most people this is ,“Having your cake and eating it “.
What you ‘do’ is support the Labour Party fail to oppose encroachments on our freedoms and fail to oppose big state solutions . That is what Liberals have done , .W hat they” think” is matter of little interest in that it has to prospect of becoming a reality .

We need to sort out the sheep from the goats. Who is going to oppose Brown and who is going to stand at the sidelines talking about market socialism hot ice vegan crocodiles. We are in deadly danger of an untrammelled socialist government who take their action on the banks as opening up the possibility of the old dreams.
This is no time for sitting on the fence .

Alan:

if Clegg is such a top notch leader then why are his numbers so much worse than those of Charlie Kennedy

Um, they’re not?

The opinion polls being published at the moment are, palpably, bollocks. The most recent Comres poll asked how people voted at the last GE. Only 9% of respondents said they voted Lib Dem. Yet over 20% of voters actually did so. Thus the poll isn’t going to get a sensible result.

At the last actual votes cast election in May, the Lib Dems got 25% of the national vote and beat Labour into third place. Charlie got a slightly higher %age share IIRC, but he didn’t come 2nd.

Opinion polls don’t take into account the seat targeting the Lib Dems necessarily have to go through because they’ve got bugger all money and can only afford to campaign in areas they’re hopeful.

Polling 1000 people nationally gets you people in a lot of safe Tory and Labour seats, poll the Lib Dem held or target seats, you’ll get much higher returns.

“What you ‘do’ is support the Labour Party fail to oppose encroachments on our freedoms and fail to oppose big state solutions .”

A bit rich coming from a supporter of a party that has, and will, readily wade in with support for Labour actions that are incredibly illiberal while the Lib Dem’s sit there as the only people in true opposition.

A bit rich coming from a supporter of a party that has, and will, readily wade in with support for Labour actions that are incredibly illiberal while the Lib Dem’s sit there as the only people in true opposition.

Like ?

Let’s just go with Iraq war for starters, given (as Aaron has pointed out) Cameron’s recent slip sliding and spin away from that fact.

Sunder @16/17, on recognising class-based disadvantage…

It seem to me that comparing now to when Tawney was writing, the class-based barriers in society have largely gone. He would be disappointed that there is still such inequality, and perhaps surprised, too.

It is a characteristic mistake of the left to shoehorn all problems into a class analysis. And it is statistical fallacy to define a kind of “class” by educational achievement or skill etc, and then notice a correlation between class and achievement. And if it is not class, it is some other kind of identity group that is co-opted and represented. The terms left-wing and right-wing, it seems to me are primarily about which identity groups you seek to represent and which you oppose. (And it is not always the left representing the less well off.) This is not ideology, but mere tribalism.

I consider it offensive to be lumped into an identity group and expected to have political beliefs corresponding to the stereotype of that group. Amartya Sen is good on this point.

…

Taken literally and absolutely, “equality of opportunity” would demand that parents do nothing for their children, unless every single other parent is willing and capable of doing the same. This is absurd, parents should be praised not condemned for helping their children, and the system should simply do its part in maximising opportunity for everyone (often by getting out of the way).

Of course the bright kid from the poor background should be given every chance, but this is not a service to the rest of her class – raising the average achievement of people with poor backgrounds – because that is an arbitrary lumping together of diverse people.

Sunder, two very constructive comments, I thank you. Two points. I self describe, amongst the politically engaged, as a socialist. But with the wider public, socialism is perceived to be dead, linked to communism, etc. Which is why a lot of those I tend to agree with these days use terms such as mutalist, or similar.

Which is why I think Clegg used the terms he did—he was talking about what people generally understand Socialism to be, and responded by his view of liberalism as an alternative. And given he’s constantly talking about ‘progressiveness’, then by default he’s taking a left wing position, isn’t it? Progressive as opposed to conservative?

My sense is that Nick Clegg does, on the whole, favour both a public repositioning of the LibDems somewhat right (though, to some extent, the positioning difficulty arises from a not massively coherent or sustainable pitch for some ‘left of Labour’ space in the 2005 election – though you did get the prize of Brian Sedgemore!). In substantive policy terms, I think it is fair to judge his instincts to be somewhat to the right of those of Ashdown or Kennedy.

Except that I really don’t think that’s the case. He’s making a cleared pitch for Liberalism. Moving the party “down” the scale, not left or right. Trying to clearly sell the distinction between Tory vacillating/ Labour corporatism and genuine liberalism.

relatively weak on the importance of structural and class-based disadvantage.

I’m not sure that’s true though. Maybe in that speech, but I’m sure you’ll agree that one speech, for a specific audience, cannot convey the whole man. His strong support for policies such as the pupil premium, where schools get extra for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, his strong support for redistribution and a decent safety net, are all indicative to me that he does take structural issues seriously.

Let’s just go with Iraq war for starters, given (as Aaron has pointed out) Cameron’s recent slip sliding and spin away from that fact.

That was what I was thinking of and I think that’s fair enough. The Liberals Party also wanted to get rid of our nuclear weapons although Clegg held out. I think there is a place for Liberalism abroad although I supported our troops and the US myself. In general I admit Liberals can be good at ‘abroad ‘ good at opposing authoritarian governments , good at spotting injustice good where there is a battle we had a hundred years ago here , to be fought . The truth is that in the UK , as practically every social objective the Liberals wanted has been achieved it is noticeably more comfortable far far away. This allows it to avoid the fact that here it is a statist Party that would like to be Libertarian and is sadly confused

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?

Newmania, I actively called for an anti-Labour tactical campaign with a view to a coalition Govt in 2006. I no longer believe it’s necessary (Brown gave you lot the gift of unity, and Cameron’s vacillating has shown his liberal posturing was just that). There are many councils up and down the country where the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are in coalition.

Where I live, the Conservative administration is kept in office by Labour votes in order to keep the Lib Dems out.

You are, once again, talking factually inaccurate bollocks. Well done.

Oh, and I’ve already told you that the modern Conservative and Unionist party already contains a fair few liberals, what do you think Churchill was for a start?

Lee,

Let’s just go with Iraq war for starters, given (as Aaron has pointed out) Cameron’s recent slip sliding and spin away from that fact.

You said ‘readily’, so – with respect – I don’t believe one example is enough. I say this because a few people here seem of similar mind, in that the Tories are just as illiberal as Labour. If the Tories are as illiberal, it certainly seems of a different kind: their ‘illiberalism’ is less blanket, more targetted. I’m not sure Labour Ministers even understand the notions of necessity and proportionality – they seem totalitarian, and I don’t think the same can be claimed of the Tories, who may call for ‘stronger’ measures, but seem very careful about how legislation is worded, so that it isn’t as broad, as catch-all, as Labour’s.

On things that usually spring to mind about illiberal measures proposed by Labour, such as ID cards and detention without charge, the Conservatives and LibDems have acted well together. LibDems seem less equivocal, they seem more principled, more willing to stand against them in the first instance, rather than act accommodating at the beginning but later oppose. I can think of only one disappointment here with the LibDems – they seemed more supportive of RIPA than the Tories. But that is the only minor mark I can think of on an otherwise good record.

“You said ‘readily’, so – with respect – I don’t believe one example is enough. I say this because a few people here seem of similar mind, in that the Tories are just as illiberal as Labour.”

I wouldn’t call them more illiberal in the sense of individual liberties and rights, Labour clearly take the award for that. However in New Labour’s recent willingness to also abandon some of their more root causes (the recent welfare bill, also other tax measures tht disproportionately affect the poor) the Tories have also backed them most of the way (I think the second hand VED was the exception with Lib Dem’s supporting it for green credential points). I find this to be a different type of illiberalism which is just as important to keep track of.

The most obvious broad trend of the illiberal ConLab consensus is the arms race between Labour and the Tories over who can lock up and criminalise the most people (especially the most children). Lib Dems are aghast at this process (viz Clegg’s recent reference to the Jamie Bulger case and what it led to).

There’s also the inclination of both to call for benefit “crackdowns” (Caroline Flint on council housing, NuLab on incapacity benefit, Tories also on incapacity benefit, on locking up everyone carrying a knife and passim) rather than actually addressing the problems that lead to such a vast and unwieldy benefits system being necessary in the first place. As anyone who’s ever been caught in the system knows, the complexities involved in getting it right even with the best will in the world are enormous, and getting out is simply not incentivised in the right way. And the ConLab solution is to introduce bigger sticks.

That’s illiberal in two profound ways: one, it treats people as possessions of the state to be supported/punished as the state sees fit and two, in practice it just means the state has to do more and do more complicated things to produced the desired end. Both totally inimical to Lib Dems – two part-answers to the benefit dependency problem are the lowering of tax on the low-paid to give them more capacity to fend for themselves, and cutting off tax credits to the higher-paid (although to be honest I’d rather we just scrapped the monstrous tax credit system, so if, as I recall, the Tories do not support them, then that’s one small point in their favour). But there’s a lot more work to do here to find out how we got into this mess and what is a fair and liberal way of resolving it so that no-one is harmed – what we can say is that neither Labour nor the Tories are remotely interested in doing this work.

Oh, and I’ve already told you that the modern Conservative and Unionist party already contains a fair few liberals, what do you think Churchill was for a start?

Probably a mutual socialist or whatever you think you are this week ( anachronistic I think , ask Nicholas Soames ). I agree the Conservative Party has huge dollops of Economic Liberalism (unlike the Liberal Party when it matters ) It is quite Liberal in many smaller social ways nowadays as well . I am also aware that Liberal on occasion cooperate with Conservatives at local level but then that can have little to do with politics
Perhaps its my sensitive nature , but I am sure I detect a rancour between Conservatives and Liberals that I do not between Labour and the Liberal Party . It is certainly noticeable in my local paper and was in Islington. A Shirley Williams for example could be in either easily. I am hard pushed to think of Liberal who could slip easily into the Conservative Party other than Nick Clegg and he is (perhaps ) lying .

Still lets be positive .Are you are you saying that you actually agree with me in many ways ? Are you saying that despite appearances you actually have no insuperable objection to my political views ? Well I am gratified would you like to tell me what it is that I have a lot more right than , oooooo lets say a Sunny (red ) Hundal
I `m settled back, I have a large drink and I await your compliments after all I am a very moderate Conservative and he is a left wing New Labour acolyte so its more than a fair test

Well ?

..I `m sorry I didn’t catch that Matty , are you having difficulty finding words to express the love ?

“to be honest I’d rather we just scrapped the monstrous tax credit system”

doing so would absolutely hammer millions of people living on low incomes and increase the number of people who are worse off in work than receiving out of work benefits, Reform and improve tax credit system, yes, but scrap it, not so good.

I am, naturally, completely at your beck and call, and will respond to every question you ask immediately, regardless of other demands on my time such as eating, working, childcare, etc.

I don’t have objections to most political views. I have disagreements with them. I’m a Liberal, that means I like reasoned debate.

As to agreeing with your views? I have no clue, your incoherence and lack of clarity makes it impossible to understand what they are. If you could manage coherence on occasions I might be able to come to a decision.

I do agree with you that rules of spelling and grammar are pointless and outdated. But understanding why they’re there is useful. Clarity is king, if you’re going to write multiple paragraphs worth of text, what’s the point if no one can understand what the hell you’re trying to say?

I am hard pushed to think of Liberal who could slip easily into the Conservative Party other than Nick Clegg

That’s obviously because you can’t think. Ask George Osborne who he’s tried to headhunt (I can name two of our shadow cabinet, but won’t as it was in confidence). Ask Alan Duncan who he’s said he thinks he can work with.

But for as long as you and yours give prominence and exposure time to the likes of Dorries and the rest of the Cornerstone headbangers, none of the Lib Dem MPs would even consider jumping ship. If Clegg was the unprincipled careerist some seem to think he is, he wouldn’t be in the third party in the first place, neither would Huhne, Laws, Cable, Goldsworthy, Featherstone…

In fact, pretty much all of our shadow cabinet is more talented than most of yours, with the exception of Hague, Willets and Grieve, who in your cabinet has half a braincell that functions? It certainly isn’t Osborne.

Now, I have other things to do with my time, I’m not going to bother repeating myself again for the hard of thinking.

Don: Many of those eligible for tax credits don’t claim. I include myself and Jennie in that. The system is quite simply horrible, and increases the marginal withdrawal rate (Jennie was better off before I moved in and was working pretty much full time, now my work has dried up she’s much worse off, due to the tax credit monstrosity).

Replacing the tax credit system with something that isn’t horribly bureacraticm and increasing the tax threshold to take those currently claiming it out of income tax completely, would be much more effective. Working Families Tax credits require you to actually be working. You work, pay tax, then go to the same department to claim it back, thus paying two groups of public servants to administer the system.

Why not simply ensure basic benefits are good and up the tax threshold to a sane level? Many liberals favour a citizens basic income (or a negative income tax) as a medium to long term objective, that’d be much more equitable than the current bureacratic mess.

Newmania,

You would have to spell out what you believe in, if you want it to be commented on. Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism, and socialism is (all too often at least) another kind of conservatism perpetrated on behalf of a different vanguard/elite. Fit yourself into that spectrum.

Clegg is saying nothing very different to what the rest of the Lib Dem party is saying. This strategy to paint Clegg as a Tory and the rest of the party as socialists, is just Tory wishful thinking and spin.

This site is, of course, largely misappropriating the word liberal, and I have criticised it for this in the past. The left believe in expansion by co-opting identity groups, and, for some, this is probably their attempt to co-opt “liberals”. A bit like your line on Clegg, perhaps.

Which is fine. All’s fair in love and war etc. It’s an assault on the English language, but I think our American friends have done more harm to the meaning of the word liberal than anyone else. Socialism, left-wing, right-wing are also on the verge of losing all meaning. Conservatism too, obviously, if there are any liberals in the conservative party, has lost all meaning.

I have no clue, your incoherence and lack of clarity makes it impossible to understand what they are.

Well there’s a surprise , amazingly you are unable to find any single issue about which you agree with me more than red Hundal , my flabber is ghasted ,and if you think that pathetic cop out about being to fuckwit dumb to understand the question allow me to disabuse you . You are not that stupid, no-one is .
I did not say spelling and grammar are outdated. I described the pitiful snobbery you were invoking and along the way demonstrated I know more about it than you ever will which , it so happens , I do. You seem incapable to following that as well and in this case plausibly .
Still there is plenty of time in the future for you to tell Sunny how far short he falls of the good sense of the Conservatries Party , I look forward to it. Now you run away to your vital titting about which if it was real job would not be mixed with child care would it .

Newmania,
would you say you are a typical Conservative? Are the other members similar to you?

As someone who is interested in finding out more about each of the parties it is only fair to give you the opportunity to explain why I might consider joining the Conservative party as a viable option.

What would I get from membership of the party, what would be expected of a member and what role would be open to play in the party processes? How does the average member contribute to the policy-making? How wide-scale is internal consultation on voting matters at parliamentary and local council levels?

What political activities do conservatives engage in, other than of course haranguing non-conservatives?

Doh, put this on the wrong thread:

@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.

Well I `m not sure just how Liberal you mean .As I have pointed out many people in the UK disagree with the Liberal Party , most in fact . It would be illiberal to deny them a proper expression of their freedoms.
The Conservative Party is not foaming about gays women immigrants and so on .It is trying to balance the competing concerns in as free a way as possible . On the advancement of the state the assault on civic rights we are squarely opposed , on economic Liberalism we remain the only Party to stand up and be counted . We are the only really low tax Party (by choice ) and the only one which does not have to boss every one around all the time . The funny thing is that although Conservatives were supposedly anti gay it has always been stuffed with gays who were happy with the old Conservative position “Your business is none of mine “ . That shift is long ago now but it was an easy one to make .

Perhaps this is not the place to find Liberal Liberals and should be renamed New Labour and its fawning Labour-lite acolytes .If it is truly to include Liberals then as many Conservatives should be here as anyone else .Or Nick Clegg is lying about his ability to remain equidistant and the Liberals Party is , as many suspect , a covert ally of Brown , Red Hundal and their terrifying authoritarian future

Thanks for the response Newmania.

Please would you address the questions I asked, it will probably go a long way to deciding whether I do join a party, as currently I still have an open mind.

“It would be illiberal to deny them a proper expression of their freedoms.”

Of course. As it would be anyone.

“The Conservative Party is not foaming about gays women immigrants and so on ”

Not at all bollocks. I disagree on the rank and file, who foam plenty, but the Tory blogosphere usually doesn’t, no. And yet, above: “which if it was real job would not be mixed with child care would it .” Either this is knowingly and deliberately obtuse or it’s the clumsiest and most melodramatic slipping of the mask of “liberal conservatism” I have ever had the privilege of witnessing.

“economic Liberalism we remain the only Party to stand up and be counted”

Bollocks. I refer you to pretty much every announcement made over the last three months. Your guys don’t understand the first half of “economic liberalism”, never mind the second. There are plenty of decent economists in the party, I’m sure, and I think the reason they don’t set policy is because you all know they’d terrify the living shit out of the electorate (I’m thinking mainly of El Redwood here). So “standing up and being counted” (whatever you think that means) is just not an option for you economically at the moment.

“We are the only really low tax Party (by choice )”

Bollocks. You DO NOT have a policy to lower the basic rate of tax AND raise the threshold at which basic rate becomes higher rate. The Lib Dems do. Too easy. Next.

“the only one which does not have to boss every one around all the time”

Bollocks. You want to give tax incentives to one particular model of living and give everyone counselling so that they’re more likely to live up to it, you want to throw everyone who carries a knife into prison and you want to make it easier for the police to spy on people and follow people. You can’t help being bossy – it’s what you do. The only area where you have a hope in hell of approaching liberalism is your education policy – and the Tories and Lib Dems both essentially took that from the same PolEx paper. David Davis’ civil libs stand was pretty honourable, and for the moment the rest of you are making the right noises. I would be horribly, horribly unastonished if Cameron ditched the commitment to scrap ID cards once he’d got into office. I long to be pleasantly surprised.

For the contrary argument. I refer you to Clegg’s speech on Monday, and perhaps to the Times editorial which summarises aspects of it quite well:

“Power, said Mr Clegg, should rest with neither corporations nor the State, but at the lowest appropriate level. Large monopolies should be broken up. Individuals may require help before they can live independent lives, but there should be no assumption that the State runs large tracts of the public realm. At a time when ministers have argued that their intervention in the economy warrants greater state protection, this is a salutary prospectus.

Mr Clegg has also, in his year in charge, subtly shifted his party’s policy position. They are no longer tax raisers and they want to cut tax for the least well-off. The default Liberal Democrat position is now to call for reductions, rather than increases, in spending. The timing of these changes was inauspicious but, if Mr Clegg can hold the line through the recession, he will emerge in the right place. Under David Laws, the party has abandoned its echo of the teaching unions and is committed to schools reform and a premium budget for poorer children. The Liberal Democrats have advocated individual patient budgets in mental health and signalled that the principle should be extended further through the NHS.”

This isn’t the whole story, of course, and to some extent the Times is picking out what it likes hearing. The new Green Road plan is avowedly Keynsian in its intent. I’m not sure I’m happy with the messaging, myself, but I’m certainly happy that it’s a better way of spending 12.5bn than on a small and temporary VAT cut. I think it quite nicely underlines the principle that what government spending there is has to be (1) investment-based, (2) meaningful at a local level and (3) a bloody good enough set of ideas to justify taking the cash off the taxpayer.

You say that, but you are content to use the class basis of the system to deny democratic expression to the desire to lower immigration step sway from the EU and any numbers of issues where working class and ordinary Conservatives find common ground . You were happy to ban fox hunting, which hurt no-one .Smoking as well and you are usually in the anti car camp which has entailed a lot more restrictions which are very unpopular outside the rather middleclass confines of Lib Demory . You seem to be immune to the Libertarian objections to the use of climate scare mongering to justify further restriction s on individual choice. I could go on…

As for nurturing Matty , I enjoyed your PC horror but you take me out of context .The context was of a string of conceited pompous little me-isms ending with the claim to have more important things to do when he had made a prat of himself. .I suspect he is not actually doing anything much and is actually sitting around at home , that’s all ; (probably knitting .. in a dress….drinking babysham …like a big girl )

By stand up and be counted I mean things like being prepared to take on the Unions and lose ..and then win. Defeat Nationalisation despite a virtual civil war. Where were you? Oh yes mostly in the Labour Party of Michael Foot. Your suggestion that Liberals will fight it out with the NUT is frankly comical . They are the Liberal Party

On tax a 50% top rate , will not collect any money ( We have recently gone through the IFS figures ). The whole thing is a fiction really . There is also the local income tax which means endless sneaky raises and above all as this “Policy” will never happen .Its chief use to be presented as whatever you want it to be. This is not how it works .Most politics take place after elections and Liberals show no stomach for cuts that I have noticed .

I do not , in any case ,believe think tax cuts are a realistic option without unacceptable suffering the Liberals are only worried about being under attack in Conservative seats having been to the left of New Labour for so long . They have to overcompensate for the abiding impression that they are meddlers and tax raisers by instinct . Its not policy, its advertising.

If you are saying Conservative s have no ideological loathing of the state you are right . Yes we housed the country after the war and yes we want to solve the third world conditions of Labour’s Heartlands I `m not ashamed of that . We must be one nation agai and it sickens me that the chance has been wasted . The end is always a free and civil society , not a state utopia

I do not believe if they thought they might be in power they would say any such thing As for subsidising some life styles that is arse about face . Marriage , if that’s what you mean is currently subject to considerable tax disincentive . The attempt to keep the young out of prison started under Margaret Thatcher .I am, not sure it works but if people who carry knives get slung in a hole I cannot say I would lose any sleep. I daresay you think its all societies fault

For all that I do agree with you that Clegg has stuck to his guns is shifting right and has done so despite the poor timing of it . I am not sure it can be believed but if it can then you are far close to me that Red Hundal . Few of your fellow Liberals seem to agree

Looks like I have made two little friends. Great

“You say that, but you are content to use the class basis of the system to deny democratic expression to the desire to lower immigration step sway from the EU and any numbers of issues where working class and ordinary Conservatives find common ground . You were happy to ban fox hunting, which hurt no-one .Smoking as well and you are usually in the anti car camp which has entailed a lot more restrictions which are very unpopular outside the rather middleclass confines of Lib Demory . You seem to be immune to the Libertarian objections to the use of climate scare mongering to justify further restriction s on individual choice. I could go on…”

Indeed you do keep going on, about the same old irrelevancies every time someone calls you on your inconsistencies.

“I do not , in any case ,believe think tax cuts are a realistic option without unacceptable suffering the Liberals are only worried about being under attack in Conservative seats having been to the left of New Labour for so long .”

And yet just a few comments ago you were applauding the supposed tax cutting policies (non-existent) of the Tories?

“On tax a 50% top rate , will not collect any money ( We have recently gone through the IFS figures ). The whole thing is a fiction really . There is also the local income tax which means endless sneaky raises and above all as this “Policy” will never happen .”

Have you actually read a Lib Dem policy paper produced since 2005?

What’s the evidence that “People are pig sick of the nanny state”? CCTV is overwhelmingly popular, ID cards (which are a truly terrible idea) are supported by about half, Labour has gone up in the polls since it swung to greater levels of economic intervention and started nationalising stuff, welfare reform policies which involve far greater intrusion into people’s lives get 90% support – I struggle to think of an example of a policy which involves greater state intervention, has been introduced in, say, the last five years, and is massively unpopular.

This puts me in mind of a parallel from my working life as a software architect. One of the great unconquerable challenge of software design is the ‘requirements’ problem, and the tendency of projects to expand far beyond their brief (this is known as ‘feature creep’ in the parlance of the industry). Whole forests have been felled in the quest to record every conceivable means of tackling the problem, and conferences around the world take place on a regular basis, where well-meaning and intelligent people lament the incredible difficulty of finding a way of doing something incredibly simple: figuring out what a piece of software should do, how it should do it, and then making it do exactly that.

The current vogue is for ‘agile’ development, which stresses a need to be reactive to customer demands, even as these change. But, when implemented naively, this attempt to constantly canvass the views of the end-users of the system results in a huge list of demands. The art of project management is in working out what’s achievable, and persuading all involved that this is what should be done.

The biggest problem is that people will, without fail, almost always answer ‘yes’ to whatever they’re being offered. Do you want to be able to send email from your word processor? Why yes, that would be great! What tends not to be pointed out at this point is that this commitment now means that a) that time cannot be spent on, say, fixing what’s wrong with the current software or b) developing alternative features.

The point of my long-winded aside is to say that the fact that, when asked, people seem to think that CCTV is a good idea does not in any way whatsoever imply that, if fully appraised of the trade-offs involved, they would actually favour it in reality. The question is not “ID cards or no ID cards” but “ID cards or whatever else the time, money and effort required to implement ID cards could be spent on”. The liberal critique of schemes like ID cards involves pointing out that they don’t really offer us much in the way of security, but cost a hell of a lot of money and inconvenience. That money could be better spent elsewhere and the inconvenience would be better if it could be focussed on people who’ve actually done something to deserve it.

Stay tuned for part 2 of my misguided series of analogies between software development and politics in which I explain modern government by reference to the CADT model!