Not for nothing do the editorials of mass circulation newspapers routinely whip up xenophobia,

When was this ever not true?

Uh-huh. So is it now finally time to bow to the inevitable and change the name of the site, Sunny?

Dave Osler is speaking for himself – as would imply for any website that runs comment pieces from a range of people. In this case I don’t agree with him. Am also going to write a review of the Demos paper, but working on something else for now.

And just to add, the ‘socialist left and labour movement’ don’t necessarily mean the Labour Party.

The truth of the matter is that the Lib Dems largely remain a protest vote to keep one of the other two out. They seem a ‘safe’ pair of hands. Whilst the Lib Dems like to big up how they would perform better under PR, the case is much more likely that they will dip in the polls, perhaps to their standing in the Euro Elections at 15% or lower. The chances are that the popularity of smaller parties (particularly the Greens) would be at around 10% and would eat into the Lib Dem protest vote. You’ll much more likely get a situation as in Germany where the big two dominates and there are around three or four smaller parties fighting in out in third place.

I serioulsy doubt a re-emergence of Liberal Britain.

“Uh-huh. So is it now finally time to bow to the inevitable and change the name of the site, Sunny?”

Even though earlier this very day there was an article praising the lib dems and slamming Cameron for stealing their ideas?

Not for nothing do the editorials of mass circulation newspapers routinely whip up xenophobia, while attempting to create the preconditions for public acceptance of two decades of austerity,

That is why are on the cusp of at least 10 years of Cameron governments, with the Hannanite Tendency growing in influence among grassroots Tories, and UKIP and the fascists also consolidating pockets of support.

As James says above, none of this is new. Cameron’s Tory party isn’t observably any more right-wing than their forebears and, in some significant respects, is definitely less so. The media is rabid and reactionary, but no more so than in the past. The BNP are a long way off the heights of popularity enjoyed by the National Front at their peak. UKIP’s signature policy – withdrawal from the EU – is one that was a mainstream view within the Labour party until the 1980s and hardly marks them out as the incarnation of evil.

Not to say that we should ignore the BNP, forget about UKIP and consider guiltily voting for the Tories, but I read a lot more on this site and others about how vile our enemies are, rather than what better alternative exists. There seems to be more argument about what ‘the left’ can tolerate – seemingly, not liberalism – and little thought about what the left might do to win support amongst the general public. More effort is spent in mocking Hannan and Dorries than is spent explaining how we might tackle unemployment or how a greener economy might come about. When we run out of home-grown enemies to poke fun at, we fixate on a bunch of loony Americans instead.

To people who aren’t immersed in ‘Politics’, this all looks hopelessly irrelevant. I’ve been arguing for ages that the negative tone on LC (and elsewhere) just ends up making the people who post here look bitter and spiteful, always happy to take the piss out of someone else but never too interested in explaining what they’d do if they were in charge (notwithstanding the fact that if you’re arguing in support of the Labour party, you at least have to explain what you’re doing to ensure that the party recovers its wits).

Personally, I’d describe myself as being ‘left wing’, but I’ve never had the level of certainty about politics that most bloggers seem to have. I’d like to know more about what a better Britain might look like and which policies and practices would bring that about, which groups and associations are agitating for those things, and how to support them. The Labour party, after a pretty damn good start in 1997-2001 seems to have run out of steam as a vehicle for further improvement, unwilling to reconsider its mistakes. The socialist left has never really articulated a coherent alternative. The Lib Dems, in my view (disclosure: I’m a card-carrying member) have got most of the big issues right over the last decade, would have done many of the best things Labour have done and would have avoided some of the most grievous errors (the Big One being, obviously, the Iraq war). At some point, that has to start counting for something.

If the Lib Dems displace Labour it will be because Labour destroys itself, much as the Liberal party did in the ’20s. If anyone can explain why we should prefer to have the Labour party, in anything like its present form, as the primary opposition to the Tories, I’d like to hear it.

@Paul, You mean the one by James Graham who isn’t a regular contributor, and who wrote the first avowedly pro-Lib Dem thing on this site in weeks, or quite possibly months?

Not that I expect you to be pro-LD, of course. I just don’t know why you’re so quick to leap to the defence of the word “liberal” as a part of your identity. It plainly doesn’t interest many of you much. The by-line “left of centre” has it more accurately.

Luke, even at 15% the Lib Dems would take ~100 seats in the HoC in a proportional system. We would have to dip below 10% for us to actually be worse off in terms of seats in the Commons than we are now.

Of course, many Lib Dems, I hope most, are ‘for’ PR not because it would get them more votes, but because it would actually result in a better and fairer democracy. Personally, I would be quite happy to get PR and for the Lib Dem vote to then collapse, because it would mean that people were actually voting for the party they thought best represented their views.

The Lib Dems might not be better off under PR, but liberal democracy almost certainly would be

but I read a lot more on this site and others about how vile our enemies are, rather than what better alternative exists

There is no doubt attack blogging here, but there’s also plenty of alternatives offered. I’m not sure why you’d think we spend all our time just doing attack blogs.

and little thought about what the left might do to win support amongst the general public

See, it seems to me the problem isn’t necessarily about winning support amongst the public. Most economic and social policies advocated here would get broad public support. Apart from the Daily Mail crowd sometimes.

So the point then doesn’t become about influencing the public (the audience is limited because of the hardcore politics nature of the content) and more about influencing and getting the hardcore politicos.

If you’re political blogging for the mass market – forget it. It’s not going to happen. Not unless one is willing to run pictures of Katie Price and Peter Andre’s divorce alongside policy arguments.

The audience will remain at hardcore politicos, activists and those interested in current affairs. Also, from an editorial perspective, a positive site pushing forward its policies won’t get as many readers as a site that also offers some news and opinion about ‘the enemy’ that readers can rally around. So I feel you’re being rather naive here.

The socialist left has never really articulated a coherent alternative.

Well, they have an alternative, it’s just not a very coherent or populist one.

The Lib Dems, in my view (disclosure: I’m a card-carrying member) have got most of the big issues right over the last decade, would have done many of the best things Labour have done and would have avoided some of the most grievous errors

Possibly, though it’s easier saying that from the sidelines. But this still doesn’t explain why, even at the depths of Labour’s decline, they’re still about 10% ahead in the polls.

are the ‘basic reflexes’ of Labourism – said to be ‘central state activism, hoarding power at the centre, and top-down government’ – really so out of touch with a world in which we think we’re so clever and classless and free?

Yes, they are. That’s why so many people want rid of this government. The problem people have is that these appear to be the ‘basic reflexes’ of both the other parties too.

Resistance – if there is to be any resistance – will be organised by the socialist left and the labour movement.

No it won’t. The resistance from that quarter ended with the miners in the eighties. The coming struggle will be between the state and those individual citizens who do not want to be shackled by it and who value their freedom sufficiently to challenge the instruments by which it wields power.

To continue to view future dynamics in terms of left and right is ridiculous.

The catalyst for resistance will not be the continuing fact that that the poor are oppressed by the rich but will come from the increasing consciousness that everyone is oppressed by the state.

a call for the eradication of any organised working class input into mass democratic politics

Of course that’s right. There isn’t any organised middle class input into mass democratic politics.

You seem to think that the only class that should be represented is the working class. Of course, if you actually support the old eradicationist Marxist aim to create a society without class divisions by getting rid of everyone on the “wrong” side of the divide, then I guess that might make sense. Some of use don’t like eradicationist rhetoric, it’s really not nice.

You mean the one by James Graham who isn’t a regular contributor, and who wrote the first avowedly pro-Lib Dem thing on this site in weeks, or quite possibly months?

Uh, no, he meant the one by me, James Hooper the utilitarian socialist who can’t recall ever voting for the Liberal Democrats.

I’d like to add that within my memory the Daily Mail was at its anti-foreigner worst in the mid/early 2000s, which were hardly years notable for their devastating recessions.

‘What is rather more worrying is to hear Clegg speak of his ‘determination to replace Labour’, which translates to a call for the eradication of any organised working class input into mass democratic politics.’

> Chortle Chortle <

“I suspect Clegg’s prediction is going to prove just as wrong as David Steel’s proved after 1981.”

In fairness to Steel, the Alliance were ahead in the polls in 1981 due to the unpopularity of both the Tories (high unemployment) and Labour (hard left in command).

For the most part I have to agree with comment 6.

So far, and I for one am getting totally bored with it, is that I see those who still defend NuLab saying how bad it is going to be under the Tories so vote NuLab.

Well that’s bollox!

If you live in some sort of dream world where NuLab are the answer – I pity you. Clegg may not be right on many things – but at least the LibDem’s have come out and said what they want to do – what have NuLab done? The min wage, great piece of policy, SureStart, great. Investing in the NHS (mostly) great.

NuLab are leaderless, defunct and whimpering. The British people don’t want them in power – whether you put that down to tabloids’ attack – that is up to you – but it is the people who are sick to death of them.

This coming election is one where the electorate will vote with gusto in electing NuLab out of power – and to be honest I don’t think they really care who is going to be the government. They know that it is going to bad – but as an opposite to ‘can only get better’ – ‘will it be any worse’? For me that is the mindset of people, at least those I have spoken to. I even asked a question about what would make people vote FOR NuLab – the response was they wouldn’t – even if there was a radical change to the left, right or a camp site in the middle.

As for the Tories being in power for 10 years – well that is up to a “LABOUR” party to re-emerge. After the GE the Labour movement have 3 years to get its act together to stop that. And if it comes back with a Blairite New NuLab – then it will be 15/20 years rather than 5.

Mandleson, Purnell, Balls, Milibrand Inc?

Make no wonder there isn’t any fight in a Labour movement.

Even Luke says of the LibDems “They seem a safe pair of hands.”

It may have been a Feudian slip, but the view tha the LibDems do have a better idea than New Labour or the Tories of what nedds doing in the mess we are now in; and tha they will look after the vulnerable; seems to spreading everywhere these days.

Yes, they are. That’s why so many people want rid of this government.

No, state intervention isn’t out of fashion – and the polls will prove that. But I do think there’s an argument to be made that state intervention in many cases and targets has been pretty ineffective.

If state intervention was so out of fashion people wouldn’t be supporting the Tories.

@James,

I’m sorry, can you give me a link? The only things I can see above James G are Sunder and Dave and now Sunny.

Alix – https://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/09/17/nick-clegg-the-strange-resurrection-of-liberal-england/#comment-64512

Eh? That’s a link to your first comment.

He’s being sarcastic, Alix.

You say: I just don’t know why you’re so quick to leap to the defence of the word “liberal” as a part of your identity.

I’ve explained this like a million times – it’s a brand name. An ironic one, and one that people can choose to project however they want. I don’t know any other website where so many people come just to tell us purely we’re not sticking up for their version of liberalism while not accepting the point of why ‘liberal conspiracy’ was actually chosen.
Isn’t that ‘why haven’t you guys started calling yourself ‘Labour Conspiracy’ schtick getting a bit repetitive now?

@Alix, I’m pretty sure this discussion on the Liberal Conspiracy vs Labour Conspiracy has been going on for some time and there’s little I can add.

But when did the two terms become mutually exclusive?

New Labour’s record on civil liberties has been reprehensible but people like Sunny Jeremy Corbyn or Sunder can easily be described as liberal as well as labour leaning or supporting.

Labourism is part of Liberalism too.

(I appreciate it’s tongue in cheek, but are you going to change the People’s Republic of Mortimer’s name? commie!!!)

Yes Alix, Rob said “As James says above, none of this is new.” and above in this thread I ask, rhetorically, whether this is a new development. This leads me to believe that he was referring to my comment, but I could be wrong. Let us see what Rob says.

Sunny @17:

No, state intervention isn’t out of fashion – and the polls will prove that. But I do think there’s an argument to be made that state intervention in many cases and targets has been pretty ineffective.

Certain kinds of intervention are out of fashion. Micro-managed targets and incentives for schools and hospitals are out of fashion and for good reason. Intervention in the economy is more fashionable now than before. Intervention in foreign countries is becoming increasingly unpopular. And so forth.

This reminds me a bit of the debate about spending. A lot of people argue in principle against spending cuts, even thought there is lots of wasted spending (Trident, ID cards, regional development agency budgets, pension relief for high-rate tax earners, tax credits/fuel allowance for people who don’t really need them) which should be cut even if there wasn’t a recession on. In the shouting match that follows, we often forget the simple solution of cutting back ruthlessly on those elements of spending which are unnecessary and protecting the core operations of government (which includes fully funding healthcare and education).

Likewise, it’s not sensible to have a debate about the overall levels of state intervention. Instead we should decide which individual interventions are worth keeping and which are to be ceased. Only extremists on either side would make a blanket claim about what we should do.

Likewise, it’s not sensible to have a debate about the overall levels of state intervention. Instead we should decide which individual interventions are worth keeping and which are to be ceased.

Agreed. I’ve never argued there should be a blanket policy on state intervention. One of this site’s regular contributor is the small-state Chris Dillow. Yet I’ve never seen Alix (or other Libdems) come here when he writes and say this site is now a Libdem supporting site.

Then, what’s the function of the sarcasm? When my whole point was to underline that the only pro-LD thing on here in months was by a Lib Dem member who isn’t a contributor?

LeftOutside – you’re dead right, the “People’s Republic” bit is completely tongue in cheek. It is directly ironic in a way that “Liberal Conspiracy” isn’t, because I am in favour of anything but a People’s Republic and all that that entails. Liberal Conspiracy was chosen as a mischievous response to the perpetual right wing cry of “There’s a liberal conspiracy running Britain”. It wasn’t chosen because you are in favour of anything but liberalism (or so you keep telling me). That’s not irony. The equivalent to PRoM would be if you were calling yourselves Liberal Conspiracy but were actually all right-wing fascists.

You’re also dead right in saying that there are liberals posting on LibCon. But the common denominator between the contributors here is not liberalism, and it’s not Labour either, it’s being on the left. That’s why it still puzzles me. Why not Lefty Conspiracy? That would genuinely link all the contributors. I wouldn’t contribute to a site called “Fascist Conspiracy” if the editors told me, it’s ok, we have some liberal contributors here too.

Sunny, I’ve seen this particular defence from you – “it’s just a brand name” – before. It also puzzles me, because I would have thought you would collect from the large numbers of people querying it/not understanding it/arguing about it that it’s not a terribly successful brand name on some level.

@24 a very good argument. However, I think it is the whole discussion on “spending cuts” that is the problem.

Scrapping trident, or ID cards or various forms of tax relief are not “spending cuts” per se. They are policy changes, and large ones at that too.

“Spending cuts” can, do and will manifest as policy changes but it is usually a code word for shrinking the welfare state, cutting benefits, and stigmatising those in receipt of aid from the state.

It’s difficult to discuss, because although there is a lot which could be cut that should be, this is not usually being discussed when someone mentions “spending cuts”

Rob, I should point out before he posts his next magnum opus, is sitting next to me on the sofa and he says “What?”

I would have thought you would collect from the large numbers of people querying it/not understanding it/arguing about it that it’s not a terribly successful brand name on some level.

First, 90% of people who challenge it are Libdems who think the word ‘liberal’ should only apply to them. Secondly, it’s successful in the sense people know of the site – whether they agree / disagree with editorials is an entirely different issue. Some people wouldn’t see me on the left either because I’m not anti-capitalist. And lastly, it’s a brand-name that’s stuck. I’m not changing it despite however people keep coming here to make smart-alec remarks.

Yes Alix, Rob said “As James says above, none of this is new.” and above in this thread I ask, rhetorically, whether this is a new development. This leads me to believe that he was referring to my comment, but I could be wrong. Let us see what Rob says.

I think we have some wires crossed. My comment is totally irrelevant to the discussion you’re having with Alix. That discussion is:

1) Original post by Dave
2) Alix questioning whether the site can still be called ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ and run articles debunking liberalism
3) Paul Sagar responding to Alix saying that LC also runs pro-Lib Dem pieces
4) Alix responding to Paul by saying that the piece
he was referring to – by James Graham here is relatively unusual and doesn’t prove anything much

Neither my comment nor yours really had anything to do with it. I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick in assuming that Paul and Alix were talking about your comment, when in fact they were talking about James Graham’s post.

A case in favour of threaded comments, I think!

*chuckles* I did enjoy Jackie Ashley’s piece in the Guardian urging Clegg and the Lib-Dems as the new Left. Isn’t this sort of talk older than I am? It’s the typical lack of proportion of the liberal intelligentsia at play; ignore them, let them faff about all they like with Op Ed pieces and so forth. Short of something truly catastrophic, the Lib Dems are never going to be the second party again.

So let them waffle. Probably better for the collective blood pressure of we few remaining left-wingers that read the Guardian, bearing in mind just how much in love with Cameron that bunch of numpties have become.

“First, 90% of people who challenge it are Libdems who think the word ‘liberal’ should only apply to them”

Lib Dems, Sunny, as you well know, simply disagree with the left’s most frequent definition of the word “liberal”, which is “things we like”.

Lib Dems, Sunny, as you well know, simply disagree with the left’s most frequent definition of the word “liberal”, which is “things we like”.

That’s ‘progressive’

Left Outside @27:

Scrapping trident, or ID cards or various forms of tax relief are not “spending cuts” per se. They are policy changes, and large ones at that too.

Policy changes which, absent any other policy change to increase spending in other areas, would result in an overall spending cut, surely?

“Spending cuts” can, do and will manifest as policy changes but it is usually a code word for shrinking the welfare state, cutting benefits, and stigmatising those in receipt of aid from the state.

This would all be a lot easier if we used words and phrases to mean what they actually say, rather than what they might be ‘code’ for. You’re almost saying that we can’t even discuss cutting Trident because it will somehow end up harming benefit recipients.

It’s difficult to discuss, because although there is a lot which could be cut that should be, this is not usually being discussed when someone mentions “spending cuts”

This puts me in a bit of a pickle, because I want to discuss spending cuts without people assuming I want single mothers to starve.

I’m sorry if I’ve misinterpreted what you mean, but I think it’s one of the following:

1) There are ‘good’ cuts that could be made, but even admitting the possibility of cuts cedes rhetorical ground to those who want to make ‘bad’ cuts, therefore we can’t do it.

2) There’s no need for any overall reduction in government spending at all, and therefore it’s wrong to call cancelling Trident a ‘cut’ as it would simply be a ‘policy change’ that results in the Trident money being spent on something else, with the overall spending level staying static or rising.

I’m not sure that I agree with either. I’m not an economist, but the need for some cuts in public spending seems inevitable – though I’d like to hear some arguments about why that’s not the case (and if we don’t have to cut spending in the next few years, under what circumstances would we have to cut spending? How bad would the public finances have to get?).

Given that, I’d rather focus on identifying those things that should be cut anyway. What happens to the money gained by cutting spending on the things I identified (most of which is taken from Vince Cable’s list) is a matter for debate that should be made by people who know more about economics than I do. If it really isn’t necessary to cut the national debt then I’d like to see the money directed towards education and welfare reform (uh-oh, I’ve used another code word…), but I assume we’re going to have to start reducing the debt at some point, if not now then at some point in the future.

@Alix, I’m pretty sure this discussion on the Liberal Conspiracy vs Labour Conspiracy has been going on for some time and there’s little I can add.’

I took the title to be ironic. The Right always accuse the media of being part of a ‘liberal conspiracy’.

‘Labour conspiracy’ doesn’t have the same currency.

I think it’s a great title. I mean, what does ‘pickled politics’ mean?

No worries, Rob, the error is entirely mine and doubtless stemming from immense quantities of egoism or something. Read Paul as Rob or Rob as Paul or whatever. Ah well.

Has Clegg ever spelled out how many extra begging-bowl Somalis and Kurds he feels our poor overcrowded Anglistan needs?

We ALL know he thinks we need LOTS more!

“it’s just a brand name”

Brands stand for values, so the name does matter.

Parties or websites or companies can describe themselves as all sorts of things but it they don’t resonate with the wider public audience then support declines.

‘Labour’ is in decline because they have consistently denied the value of labour, while the inability of the Conservatives to poll at a level to see a swing required to gain a secure majority stems from suspicion about how Camerons ‘progressivism’ denies conservative values. All this can be seen in how it results in a leaking of membership, donations and support to other parties.

For all the hoohah from the libertarian and left-liberal wings about how the LibDems don’t represent liberalism it seems this is denied by their steadiness at all levels.

My worry about this site is not that the brand is bad, but it isn’t accurate enough and this is holding it back from doing better. The criticisms about how the stated values aren’t consistently represented in practice should therefore be a serious cause of concern.

Are the attack posts philosophically coherent with these values? Do they offer enough scrutiny and balance, or are they in fact too polemical?

I’d be interested to see a series of articles discussing what liberalism means today so that participants can tease out these brand issues and help move this site forward.

LC has a built a platform from which it could have a much more significant influence, but the pessimism about the potential for reaching a mass audience is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Q: When will we see progress?
A: When so-called progressives start putting their words into action.

I demand that the Liberal Democrats change their name because their use of the word ‘Liberal’ is not the same as mine.

I would suggest ‘Middle-class Ineffectual Nobodies in Government and Economics’, but I fear more scurrilous types would condense the name to ‘MINGE…