Neither a Left Liberal nor a Right Liberal, Just Liberal

I see that Liberal Left have launched their website today, which includes a look at their values. To be fair after my tirade at Charlotte Henry last night I'm going to look at those values against the party's constitution and other sources.

Bearing in mind that my membership of the Social Liberal Forum already in the eyes of some places me to the left of the party. If I really wanted to work closely with Labour I would already have taken up one of their many invitations to work for them. Therefore I've taken a look at the entire values of Liberal Left and at times (in red and italics) compared them directly to the preamble of the constitution.

Liberal Left is initiated by Liberal Democrats who oppose the party’s membership of the Coalition.  It is open to all who seek co-operation across the liberal left in order to provide an alternative to the current government. The point has been made numerous times before that the maths of such a progressive left was not there in 2010. In all possibility a minority government would have led to fear in the markets and possibly a failure of the UK economy, leading to another election which the Conservatives would have won by now. So the alternative such an alignment would have resulted in would have been a Conservative majority Government by the end of 2011.

From the party constitution the party "seeks to promote a sustainable economy" and also "ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions." While the election of May 2010 didn't issue a clear result, one thing it did indicate was that the Conservatives had more support for how to deal with issues than Labour. Not a majority opinion, but a stronger votes supporting that opinion. To then keep a party in power that had failed to retain the support of the people how is that "just". I know the phrase relates to voting system change, but under the current system how would that appear to be just or representative?

Liberal Left articulates policy positions within the Liberal Democrats which should be central to a radical party.  Such views have informed recent general election manifestos on which our candidates have stood, and on which our MPs have been elected.  These views are not currently being voiced effectively in a party whose radical traditions have become muted in government, and whose leaders have taken the party’s policy position to the right. We are now part of a Government which is Eurosceptic to be fair here Nick did break his silence regarding Cameron's veto, neo-liberal and socially conservative.

The Economy and Public Policy

The Liberal Democrat leadership has argued that Coalition was necessary to eliminate the structural deficit in a single parliament.  It is now clear that this objective will not be achieved. Whilst the right of the party will use this failure to argue for a continuation of Coalition policy into the next parliament, Liberal Left believes there are different lessons to be learned.

The Liberal Democrats argued during the 2010 General Election that Conservative plans to eliminate the structural deficit in a single parliament would remove growth from the economy and that their impact would fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them, increasing the gap between the rich and poor and further dividing the country.  This is exactly what has happened

We support a different economic strategy – one that does not involve blaming the country’s problems on the demonised poor, nor on apparent ‘overspending’ by the previous government (spending which Liberal Democrats did not say should be reduced).  Such a strategy should involve the budget deficit being reduced more slowly, with hardships falling squarely on the shoulders of those who benefited from government bail-outs.  That would be in line with the scope and timing proposed by the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto.  It should also involve prioritising investment in public works, especially green jobs, to boost employment.

This sentiment comes straight out of the preamble:

"We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all."

However Liberal Left have failed to look at the erosion of some of those means by the previous Labour government. Taxing of the minimum wage, increasing employee National Insurance contributions, failure to link pensions to the rate of inflation. The fact that in the current coalition we have pushed to lift the threshold for personal taxation toward the NMW, restored the link between state pensions and RPI are steps to lifting some of that those hardest hit out of poverty. I admit there were failing in the Welfare Reform Bill in recent days.

But there are wider issues at stake than public policy responses to the economic crisis. Liberals have long argued against concentrations of power and resources, whether in the hands of the state or of private institutions.  Social Democrats have long argued that inequality in wealth, income and esteem undermine social cohesion. The financial crisis is the result of decades of neo-liberal ideology and politics which has ignored these lessons. Instead public policy has allowed financial markets to consolidate power in the hands of unaccountable institutions, has disempowered communities, undermined local economies and has redistributed income and wealth from the bottom to the top.  The crisis has also allowed a rebirth of social conservatism as those on the right try to blame the nation’s ills on the poor, the public sector, and a decline of family values.

I agree with the final line of the above. The fact that Cameron and Osborne are also failing to lay any of the blame on the private sector, especially the banks is a farce. Although there is the permanent levy on banks, something which Ed Miliband and Labour seem to constantly ignore.

Although the language above does tend to go a little too far in the other direction. Bear in mind the the constitution of the party also says:

"We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary."

People understand this.  The popularity of progressive single issue campaigns shows a genuine appetite for progressive politics.  We believe that Liberal Democrats should be part of this politics, not its target. This is a time for Liberals and Social Democrats to work together for a fairer and more democratic Britain in which people and communities are empowered to build a sustainable future and in which disparities of income, wealth and power are reduced.  We must also work together to promote our shared approach to public services and attitudes towards social justice.  We believe the state has a clear responsibility to enable people to make the most of their own lives, in contrast to the coalition’s mission to slash the role of the both local and national government dramatically.

Again from the constitution:

"We believe that people should be involved in running their communities."

and

"We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs... We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable."

While this does back up some of the above it also runs contrary to the stated claim to be an opposition to the current government, which when you look at it was determined by the will of the people, whose self determination and votes went towards it.

Political Strategy and Public Trust

The political result of the coalition has been disastrous for the Liberal Democrats. The party has haemorrhaged support, activists, members and councillors.  The effectiveness of our policy gains such as increasing tax allowances at the bottom of the income scale and the partial implementation of the pupil premium, have been dwarfed by the impact of others, including the rise in VAT and loss of standards funds in education. The party’s volte-face on tuition fees has fundamentally undermined our trustworthiness. 

Not one of these comments I disagree with. However, having worked and campaigned in Labour heartlands people were prepared to vote for me because I was neither Labour nor Conservative, but different. Not at the behest of unions nor business but there for the people, all people not just those who were unionised. 

If there is to be any future for the liberal left in British politics, we believe that there must be overt and public dialogue between Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens and others on the democratic left.  There is a centre-left majority in the UK but it all too often fails to be expressed because of parties not being clear in advance of an election about who their preferred coalition partners would be.  Many of the political problems faced by the current coalition flow from it being a government which most Liberal Democrat voters did not want.  It is ideologically unsustainable and without a mandate.

A future coalition with Labour and others on the liberal left is more likely to secure Liberal Democrat goals than a further coalition with the Conservatives I thought a Government where Liberal Democrats were the majority was the most likely way to secure those goals and we should actively work to make that possible.  If that is ever to happen, future centre-left co-operation must not founder on personal hostilities, and policy differences/similarities must be fully understood having worked in Scotland and Northern Ireland I know that policy similarities do come from all points of the political spectrum.  If coalitions are to become more common, then voters cannot be left in the dark over what parties are likely to do (or not do) from their manifestos if they co-operate They weren't left in the dark this time, Nick said he would start talking to the party with the greatest mandate that is what was done. However, in coalition the manifesto is a thrust of what the party is expecting to do, the Lib Dems have gone some considerable way to implementing a lot of their's.  The public deserves to be given a clear idea of what co-operation between Liberal Democrats, Labour the Greens and others would mean in terms of public policy if they are to be expected to trust such a government. 

Some of the arguments that are made seem valid, but most of the conclusions are in my opinion flawed. Yes in the past I have been more than willing to work with Labour, Greens where our policies match up. But the same is also true with parties to the right Unionist Parties in Northern Ireland or the Conservatives. It was Paddy Ashdown who as leader in 1995 led the party to end its policy of "equidistance". This closer association with one party over the other only led to an increase of 8 seats from the 20 held previously. Most of our gains since then have come when not associated with one party or the other but opposing both when we have to and agreeing with one over the other when we can.

Just as I don't want to see the party consumed into a permanent coalition with the Conservatives, nor do I want to see us as continually only able to operate with the broader left. Both scenarios limit our ability to be radical, both scenarios bind our hands in different ways and fail to allow us to find the best solution for any given. If bound to the Conservatives we would be looking out for business all the time to the neglect of the workers, if the other way we'd be at the beck and call of the unions and not the employers.

I leave the final argument to the preamble of the constitution:

"We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary. We will promote scientific research and innovation and will harness technological change to human advantage. 

"We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all."

That is neither the perogative of Liberal Left, nor Liberal Right! That is what it means to be Liberal.