LibDems take sharp turn to the Right

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While they're doing there usual trick of denying any left/right moves (just like they did with the leftward swing under Kennedy) methinks it's hard to dispute that the LibDems have taken a strong rightward turn recently...

Not only did candidates clearly on the right of the party take something like 77% of the vote in the recent leadership election, but the LibDems have just voted (and apparently by a big margin) to support privatising most of the Royal Mail... and then there's THIS...

An interesting development all told...

[Bono]

AWE-some.
Now that the conservatives have tossed aside any shreds of integrity they had left, by choosing Blair 2.0 as their leader, good to see there's hope on the horizon.

[afleitch]

B*gger....

[DanielX]

British posters, could you look at a possible theory I made and comment on it? I wonder if there's an effect like this:

1.  RESPECT and other wacko parties are stealing the more radical of the LibDem voters.

2. Folks disenchanted with Blair may be jumping ship from Labor to LibDem. This provides some more moderate members.

3. Europe in general is turning a bit to the right, of late, in part a reaction to muslim immigrants and the failure of the center-left to jump-start the economy.

4. The LibDem's way-distant ancestors, the Liberals, would be by today's standards extreme fiscal conservatives, especially in Britain. Despite the passage of over 75 years since the Liberals were in that position, there are probably still more conservative folks in the LibDem party.

All in all, it makes sense for there to be some rightward shift at the moment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, they're still to the left of warmonger Blair.

[Bono]

Well, they're still to the left of warmonger Blair.

*ducks for cover*

I shudder to think of Al's reaction when he sees that one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1.  RESPECT and other wacko parties are stealing the more radical of the LibDem voters.

No, no they aren't. Respect voters either didn't vote, voted Labour, voted for various far right Asian parties (JFK, PJP etc) or (in the case of certain parts of Bethnal Green/Stepney) actually voted Tory in '97 and '01 (because the then Labour M.P for Bethnal Green & Bow is Jewish). I can't think of a single constituency where voters have switched from the LibDems to Respect. Not one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fair few voters did jump ship, but that was a couple of years ago. They had generally been Tories before then, amusingly enough (ah... the ever shifting voting patterns of the Muesli Munchers...).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever any other country is doing, the U.K certainly hasn't moved to the right recently, not on the issues that actually matter anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our Muslims came over here decades ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The economy is pretty good, all told, over here right now. Not booming anymore (like it was a few years ago) but it's certainly not in the Godawful mess that Germany (for example) is in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear... right... very basic this... the 19th century Liberal party would be regarded as extreme fiscal conservatives these days, that's true. But so would most politicians before the fiasco of the early '30's (there's a reason why "small government" has never sold well over here since then) and the Liberal party always had more than just one wing; the so-called "New Liberals" (who believed in a small welfare state of some kind) essentially took control of the party in the early 1900's, leading it to the great landslide of 1906. The party was riven into pieces during, and especially, just after the First World War and actually split into two for a while. As this co-incided with the rise of Labour, their days were numbered and by the '30's had ceased to be a credible party of government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They certainly have always had a right wing, if that's what you mean...

[afleitch]

While the parliamentary party has a long standing right-wing (at least on economic terms) bloc that floats in and out of favour, of late the grassroots party members  are more to the left. However as in all parties, they have 'soft' supporters, who tend not to be as vocal or active as other members and are not as left wing as they would seem.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, they're still to the left of warmonger Blair.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... I realise that you don't want to hear this, but it just in't true. Since 1997 the Welfare State has actually expanded over here with a range of new social programmes being introduced... billions have been pumped into the public services... we finally have a minimum wage... in fact the current government has actually been the most re-distributive since Attlee (a fact that is hardly mentioned, but which should be shouted from the rooftops IMO).
On the other hand the most recent policy announcement from the LibDems is based around the idea that Single Mums are a bunch of leeches who should be forced to go back to work as soon as is possible. Bearing in mind the sort rhetoric Laws was using, I'm suprised that he didn't call for the return of the Poor Law...
I think you should try to stop seeing everything through Iraq.

[Bono]

I think you should try to stop seeing everything through Iraq.

Truer words are seldom spoken.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While the parliamentary party has a long standing right-wing (at least on economic terms) bloc that floats in and out of favour, of late the grassroots party members  are more to the left. However as in all parties, they have 'soft' supporters, who tend not to be as vocal or active as other members and are not as left wing as they would seem.

The grassroots members certainly have a reputation for being lefty, but it's increasingly looking like that's not really accurate (or isn't accurate any more). After all it was the grassroots that reduced Simon Hughes to the low '20's (quite a way down from his last leadership run) and voted for the Royal Mail thing. Suprised me actually; I think it suprised the left LibDems as well.

[Bono]

"small government" has never sold well over here since then)

Except for those 3 straight majorities in the 80s an'all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"small government" has never sold well over here since then)

Except for those 3 straight majorities in the 80s an'all.

The size of Government was never really an issue, even then, and it's not as though it was actually reduced much in those years; the % of people employed in the public sector was basically the same in 1990 as it was in 1979 and I think the size was about the same in most measurements. The changes in the '80's were more about the decline (bordering on collapse in places) of manufacturing and the booms in the financial sector.
Last time an attempt was made to significantly cut the size of Government was Philip Snowden in the '30's.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I heard the Lib Dems have two wings, a social liberal wing that is basically indistinguishable from much of Labour, and a libertarian wing that is basically indistinguishable from much of the Tories. So all they basically have become is a third party for those who are disenchanted with the two main parties and don't want to jump to the far left or far right. In that case policy changes wouldn't matter too much.

I would probably still vote for them though, just because I still can't stand Blair, and it's not like the Tories have any chance of a comeback in the forseeable future anyway.

[Peter]

It is interesting how they appear to have either picked the fudge candidate or the right candidate recently (my personal jury is still out on this). Most of the OULD people I talked to during the course said that they felt the best choice electorally was to go left and thus voted Hughes. Personally, I agreed.

The argument in the 80s was not over the size of the government, but over how to run the economy - Keynesian or monetarist.

There are various strands of the liberal democratic tradition:

1. The Community Liberal tradition, epitomised by Alan Beith (and before him Meadowcroft). Best described as having a slight social conservative lean, whilst generally working to benefit the community. Should really be in Labours populist wing, but like most British politicians from the 70s, its a tribal thing.

2. The Orange Book tradition, e.g. Oaten and Cable. Wrote the Orange Book - free traders, 'slash and burn', small government. More socially liberal than Tories, also tended to be the Jenkinite SDPers.

3. The Beveridge Group tradition, e.g. Carmichael, Menzies Campbell. The social liberals - big on civil liberties, more embracing of the welfare state than their orange book counterparts. Much less populist than "New" Labour, mostly because of civil liberties.

4. The Left Wing Activist tradition, e.g. Hughes. This doesn't have a cool name I'm afraid. Is what it means and is where there support was at the last election in the country, even if they weren't party members. Have some populist tendencies. Most in common with Labour in terms of its left wing.

The LDs Parliamentary Party is dominated by Orange and Beveridge, though there are some examples of Community and Left.

There used to be a 5th group, the Owenite SDPers, or to put a finger on it, me. They do still exist to small degrees within the LDs, but have mostly folded into the Wet Tory wing or joined the New Labour project.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. The Community Liberal tradition, epitomised by Alan Beith (and before him Meadowcroft). Best described as having a slight social conservative lean, whilst generally working to benefit the community. Should really be in Labours populist wing, but like most British politicians from the 70s, its a tribal thing.

And from a slightly earlier age, Richard Wainwright (although he was in politics 'til the '80's). O/c Meadowcroft never joined the LibDems and Bill Pitt (another good example) eventually joined Labour (although he was basically out of politics by then). The Oborski's in Kiddy (also part of the continuity Liberals) are a bit like that IIRC.
Most LibDem voters in the West Country are also like that, although most LibDem M.P's (or councillers come to think of it) based down there certainly aren't (there are some very obvious exceptions, like Breed, though). One of these days they'll be trouble...

[minionofmidas]

Well, they're still to the left of warmonger Blair.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... I realise that you don't want to hear this, but it just in't true. Since 1997 the Welfare State has actually expanded over here with a range of new social programmes being introduced... billions have been pumped into the public services... we finally have a minimum wage... in fact the current government has actually been the most re-distributive since Attlee (a fact that is hardly mentioned, but which should be shouted from the rooftops IMO).
On the other hand the most recent policy announcement from the LibDems is based around the idea that Single Mums are a bunch of leeches who should be forced to go back to work as soon as is possible. Bearing in mind the sort rhetoric Laws was using, I'm suprised that he didn't call for the return of the Poor Law...
I think you should try to stop seeing everything through Iraq.

Well it's certainly possible to get the impression that there#s a kind of corrupt bargain around ... Blair helps the Socialists win elections allowing them to redistribute money in sensible ways, an issue he doesn't care about one way or the other, and in turn they allow the little Tory twat to call himself Prime Minister and go on moral crusades/killing sprees all over the world.
A gross distortion of course, but it's sometimes hard to shake the impression that there's *some* truth to it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well it's certainly possible to get the impression that there#s a kind of corrupt bargain around ... Blair helps the Socialists win elections allowing them to redistribute money in sensible ways, an issue he doesn't care about one way or the other, and in turn they allow the little Tory twat to call himself Prime Minister and go on moral crusades/killing sprees all over the world.
A gross distortion of course, but it's sometimes hard to shake the impression that there's *some* truth to it.

And it's impressions that count most of the time isn't it? Part of the reason for that is the fact that Blair hasn't really been honest about his beliefs and how long he's been involved in politics (I won't say he's lied about it, he hasn't, he just tends to dodge the questions, even though it's quite easy to find out the answers to them by other means)... most people are not aware that he was involved in local politics in Hackney in the early '80's or that he was the Labour candidate in the Beaconsfield by-election in 1982 (he polled 10% and lost his deposit). While most people know that he was an unsuccessful lawyer before entering Parliament via one hell of a fluke, most people don't seem to know what branch of the law he specialised in (labour disputes and so on). Ideologically speaking he's basically a Hugh Gaitskell clone (note that Gaitskell tried to remove Clause IV in the early '60's)... and his political style is strangely similer as well, although the worst aspects of Gaitskell are basically replaced by the worse aspects of Wilson) o/c. Not that he's made as much of that as he should have.
Obviously that the above (and countless other stuff...) is not well known is entirely his own fault, although he doesn't seem to have realised that the fact that suprisingly little is "known" about him is politically damaging, and has been for a few years now. Or maybe he has, but doesn't really care about politics anymore.