I’ve had many conversations about the lack of a liberal grassroots movement, the necessary prerequiste for a future liberal Government. Here’s where I admit I was wrong.
I was wrong… well, not wrong to say we need it. I was wrong to think it didn’t exist already.
There is a liberal grassroots movement, and joyfully it’s the, “Free Trade, Free Minds” sort of liberalism. It’s occuring independently and organically, without any help from the Lib Dems, which fills me with gushing buckets of hope: As long as the concept of liberty exists in people’s minds, so liberalism will just ‘happen’ – and it is.
Can the Lib Dems capitalise on it? Will they even be willing to acknowledge it? I somehow doubt it.
For me the spontaneous eruption of new political parties like the Social Liberalist Party and LPUK point not to a small minority but a critical mass of opinion desperately needing an outlet. Look at the distribution of political opinion online and you can see libertarians dominating – and this is because the hunger to debate and demand a sort of liberalism that was thought to have died out forever. I think it’s safe to say that this creed is not going to die and the days of political parties telling the public what “socialism” is or what “liberalism” is are over – people can work these things out for themselves and our party is institutionally unable to adapt or react quickly enough.
But just as our democracy as a whole tends to focus on the increasingly small number of people who still vote, causing a fatal feedback loop of pandering to a less and less diverse body of public opinion, so the Lib Dems highly democratic structure has the same flaw – policy is dictated by the membership, which creates another fatal feedback loop of our policies only ever appealing to people within the Lib Dem Party and alienating everyone else.
To get a policy through conference, it needs to be approved by social democratic members and the liberal members. So we can cut tax, but only for the poor. We can be economically liberal, but not if it involves deregulation, lowing the tax burden or removing barriers to entry. We support Liberty, unless it’s the liberty to do ‘bad things’ like smoking, drinking or driving. We can support Free Speech, but not the kind of Free Speech we don’t approve of.
I read this today:
Those who have come to us from the LibDems tell of horrific infighting, with the SDP controlled leadership squeezing the Liberal element out of the party, marginalising them at branch level and suggesting that there is no room in the modern LibDem party for them. The LibDems have lost their Liberal roots and become the Social Democratic party, set to continue where Brown leaves off. More of the same.
Now I can argue that we have MPs within our party that fall into the “Free Trade, Free Minds” school of liberalism, and clearly we’ve got a few bloggers on this side, too. But internally the party does feel dominated by lefties – I’ve been on the end of “why don’t you f**k off to the Tories then?” rants myself – which vote for policies that reinforce the perception of us as a Social Democratic rival to Labour, which causes people like me to leave, which means they win the votes easier.. and the result is a smaller and smaller political party representing a narrower and narrow range of opinion.
I’m not advocating entryism. Entryism sucks… but I am advocating leadership and empowering the leadership of the party to make decisions and set policy, so that the party can embrace a genuine grassroots liberal movement that, at the moment, would rather gouge their own eyes out than vote for what is supposed to be liberalism’s main representatives in Britain.
This is our “Clause 4″, this is what needs to happen if the Lib Dems are ever going to be anything more than “Lib Dems: The Party for Lib Dems.
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:27 am
* pokes you *
How many times do I have to tell you that “liberal” and “left” are not mutually exclusive terms?
Darrell said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:30 am
Seems to me your theory we are alienating everybody else is woefully contradicted by upwards creeping poll ratings.
As far as I can see the leadership are empowered. They lead; they are the ones that have formulated the recent tax package which is 90% redistributive (still waiting for somebody to defend the extension of NIC’s to multiple jobs)….this is a bit ironic Charlotte when people are deserting Labour in their droves because their members have no stake in their party….if you want a model of what happens to a political party when the leadership has absolute power then look further than the party that governs this country and wont be for much longer…..
Agent Orange said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:30 am
I probably agree with you, but what actual changes are you advocating?
Nick said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:44 am
I’d love to know where this ‘horrific infighting’ in the party is taking place, with ‘the SDP controlled leadership squeezing the Liberal element out of the party’ – at which branches are they being marginalised?
All that sounds like to me is the usual style of defectors/switchers elevating every minor disagreement (Shock! Horror! Members of political party don’t agree on absolutely everything!) they had into a narrative of persecution and marginalisation. People who join a new party tend to denounce their old one, and it’s in the interests of their new party’s leadership to encourage that.
Roger Thornhill said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:57 am
Jennie,
Liberal and Left are very different, it is just that “The Left” have managed to re-write the meaning of the term “Liberal” in the minds of some people so they can hijack it .
“The Left” are at heart authoritarian and involuntarily collectivist. How is that “Liberal”?
The problem occurs when you confuse wanting to change things for the good (as one sees it) and so drumming up support for it (a more Liberal view) with demanding things are changed and then forcing people to change and/or pay for it (more commonly a Left/Socialist view).
It is all about consent vs coercion. Libertarianism is all about increasing consent and minimising coercion. Many Libertarians want people cared for, housed, fed, safe. To achieve that via coercion rather misses the point, no? Enforced charity is not charity at all. Oh, and “consent” via the ballot box is disingenuous. It is meaningless to derive a mandate for one policy when it is lumped in with hundreds of others, held in comparison with an opposing set of other polices which might contain a single deal breaker (like the death penalty) and even after that, throwing in the Tyranny of the Majority. Here, the Libertarian stance still survives, because it reduces the Tyranny of the Majority and enables people to voluntarily collectivise to solve problems they think are important. So even if a Libertarian government came in and did not support that cat sanctuary you wanted to see funded, nobody is stopping you working to raise funds for it.
patently said...
21 Apr 09 at 10:58 am
Charlotte,
Whenever you explain what liberalism means to you, I get confused. It always leaves me uncertain as to whether you’re really a Conservative who just thinks she’s a Liberal, or I’m really a Liberal who just thinks he’s a Conservative.
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:06 am
Roger: go back to On Liberty and show your straw man to JS Mill. Your cariacature of what left means is not what left actually means to many of us who self identify as lefties.
wayne said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:24 am
@patently,
Jennie accuses Charlotte of a strawman fallacy in the post below yours. But she fails to notice the glaring strawman in your post. What is it with the left that always seeks to discredit as its first avenue of debate.
On this basis, one could ask if are really a labourite who just thinks….. etc
@Jennie
Review Roger Thornhill’s comments, which are bang on the money.
@Charlotte
Keep up the libertarian fight, particularly against the illiberal elements with our own party. I have also noticed the libertarian groundswell out here in the real world. I don’t think the electorate as a whole are ready for “real” and unfettered (i.e. non-pink) liberalism, as they are too used to being pork barrelled with their own money (or some other poor taxpayer’s, as the case may be), but people are increasingly uncomfortable with the fascist nonsense we’re being subjected too.
Love your work.
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:27 am
Wayne: -1 for reading comprehension. I accuse ROGER of straw manning.
Matthew Huntbach said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:30 am
I was one of the small number in the Liberal Party who voted against the merger with the SDP.
The anti-merger people were almost all lefties, not economic right-wingers. Many of them disagreed with the SDP because they thought its leadership was getting too enthusiastic for free market economic social policies.
The rewriting of history to suggest it was the other way round is worthy of the worst of the Soviet Communist Party. Those who are putting it this way are LIARS – trust me, I was there, they weren’t.
wayne said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:34 am
Jennie,
Actually it’s -1 for error of attribution rather than comprehension.
But thanks for pointing it out. Consider this as a correction.
Tristan said...
21 Apr 09 at 11:46 am
I too am fed up with the ‘fuck off to the Tories’/'you are an evil Tory’ (according to one LibDem MP that is) attitude…
I consider myself to be to the left of most LibDems, happier with Proudhon, Bastiat and Tucker than Keynes and Hobhouse, so I find that particularly depressing and amusing (in about equal amounts).
Really I find the majority of the party rather conservative, at least in terms of electoral politics (in social values and non-electoral politics there’s a radicalism which is lacked by the Tories especially, and also Labour in my experience).
Tristan said...
21 Apr 09 at 12:07 pm
@Jennie:
Absolutely. The Left is more than the authoritarian idiots of state socialism.
The original left was the free marketeers and the liberals, the anti-authoritarians. The change came when some on the left decided that the authoritarian methods of the right could be used to bring about their aims (then the right partially adopted liberal rhetoric to justify their unjustly gained positions).
Being left wing today is best characterised as being concerned with a broad group of social problems and includes authoritarian (sadly dominant) and anti-authoritarian wings.
It is hard to place someone like Benjamin Tucker, or his intellectual descendants like Joe Peacott and Kevin Carson as right wing, but they are radically anti-authoritarian. Likewise with the intelligent anarchists (eg the Libertarian Communists – no matter how much I disagree with them, they are fundamentally anti-authoritarian).
patently said...
21 Apr 09 at 12:14 pm
Wayne, there are many ways to avoid a real debate on a given subject. The current one is, I see, to accuse someone of setting up a strawman argument – wave the magic wand of a strawman accusation, and the matter is seemingly dealt with.
There was no straw man in my post; nor am I from the left. Indeed, I approach political issues quite firmly from the Right (and also, I think, the right). My post sought gently to make the point that I identify far more with Charlotte’s interpretation of Liberalism than that of the Lib Dems. That was all.
wayne said...
21 Apr 09 at 12:18 pm
@Jennie
“…cariacature of what left means is not what left actually means to many of us who self identify as lefties”
Can you detail, or provide a link of previous discussion, of what it means to be a liberal lefty to you, please? (This is a genuine question)
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 12:20 pm
Tristan’s comments do an admirable job for the moment.
Stu said...
21 Apr 09 at 1:18 pm
Charlotte’s done an admirable ‘light the blue touch paper and stand well back’ job here, hasn’t she
Most of the above thread could happily be relocated to the p’edants corner.
patently said...
21 Apr 09 at 1:39 pm
@Stu; I think you mean much of the thread could be relocated to the… oh, err..
Julian H said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:13 pm
I agree with Jennie, and consider myself quite radically left wing.
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:17 pm
Stu, not deliberate, v busy
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:18 pm
Yes, was wrong to say, “lefties” – meant “statist authoritarians”
Julian H said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:18 pm
Matthew – you’re spot on (re: the Liberal / SDP history), but the only person I can see who’s made the error is Devil’s Kitchen (who is, obviously, not a Lib Dem). Over the past few months you’ve suggested that Lib Dems have been “rewriting history” in this way, but I haven’t noticed any LDs doing so. Can you cite?
Julian H said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:34 pm
Btw, Darrell, what upwards creeping poll ratings are you referring to? I thought the general consensus is that we rode a huge anti-Iraq wave and have been slipping down since. Recently polls have shown possible bounces – do you refer to these?
NB. said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:44 pm
The people that are pushing for libertarianism/classical liberalism (for want of better terms) and are likely to have an effect for the most part will never trust the lib dems. Complete non-starter.
Ian B said...
21 Apr 09 at 2:55 pm
I used to think I was on the Left too. I thought that because I certainly wasn’t on the Right- a conservative- so by elimination, and believing as it is presented that all political opinion can be measured on a single dimension, I must be on the Left. I think quite a lot of people think they’re on the Left because they’re not on the Right. I think this is exacerbated by the fact that the organised Left is very good at cultivating an illusion of being socially liberal and attracting social liberals, even though the Left itself never turns out to be socially liberal when it gets into power; New Labour demonstrates this as clearly as can be.
Liberalism- a society based on individual consent- is neither Left nor Right in modern terms, whatever Left or Right may have meant historically. There is very little ideological difference between the modern Left and Right, at least at the practical level. Both want a big government that decides what society should be like and how people should live their lives. Neither has any faith or confidence in the mass of ordinary people to manage their own affairs adequately. Both believe in dominance of the polity by special interest groups, even if they disagree about which ones. Both believe in government as arbiter of morality, even if their moral opinions sometimes diverge. Perhaps the only major difference is that the conservative thinks he is capable of managing his own affairs, but nobody else is capable of managing theirs, whereas the leftist doesn’t even believe themself capable of managing their own affairs, let alone anyone else.
I used to think I was on the left, though I never voted socialist (I used to vote Lib Dem, though I admit as a “none of the above” option rather than genuinely supporting the party). But once I came to appreciate that I am a liberal, I came to realise that I was not on the Left. I certainly wasn’t on the Right. There is no home for liberals among conservatives either, even if they did once flirt with a small degree of economic liberalism under Mrs Thatcher. Liberalism really is “neither of the above”.
Stu said...
21 Apr 09 at 3:57 pm
You know, something just occurred to me. Charlotte wrote a post about ideology and standing up for liberalism etc etc, and the second comment said “Seems to me your theory we are alienating everybody else is woefully contradicted by upwards creeping poll ratings.”
Surely that’s a complete misunderstanding? Who cares whether polls are creeping up or down? First of all, polls are as useless as weather reports and no better at predicting the future, second of all, the whole point of the original post was that the Lib Dems shouldn’t be flailing backwards and forwards chasing after polls, but instead engaging with what grassroot Liberals want.
…Just sayin’.
wayne said...
21 Apr 09 at 4:04 pm
@patently,
I misread your comment. My apologies.
-2
Darrell said...
21 Apr 09 at 4:17 pm
Julian H,
Well I could cite the most recent MORI poll and will and also the fact we are averaging around the low 20% mark as opposed to the mid-teens….
Julian H said...
21 Apr 09 at 4:42 pm
Oh come now, Darrell. You can’t cite one poll as evidence, especially not one from bloody MORI which involves an extremely suspicious swing.
Our polls for March average out at 18%, and this month I believe ICM have had us at 19%.
Further, we can’t assume there’s a link between any potential poll improvements and LDs proposing social democratic policy. Any recent improvements (if they exist) could be a result of anything – hell, even, perhaps, our more libertarian policies (on civil liberties, for example) or even simply growing anti-both-Tory-and-Labour sentiment.
MatGB said...
21 Apr 09 at 5:12 pm
I do love the LPUK post—I didn’t bother to go to DKs to comment because I’ve stopped doing that, but most of the traditional left within the party harp on constantly about the evil Orange Booker takeover, but apparently according to the defectors to the party that hasn’t, to my knowledge, managed to stand a single candidate in any election yet are convinced we’re being taken over by the SDP types.
The merger happened 21 years ago FFS, and most of our current membership joined since then (I wasn’t old enough to join when it happened, and I’m older than a lot of blog commenters).
To be effective, a party needs to be a broad church. So we’ve got the rump liberal remnants, SDPers, right leaning liberal/libertarian types and mutualists, etc.
Many within the party aren’t as liberal as I’d like, and there will always be those who get involved in one party solely because we’re not whichever party they dislike.
But LPUK and others are a sideline waste of time in electoral terms.
Charlotte, you’re right though, that they’re there is evidence that the party, overall, isn’t doing enough to reach out, and when it does, it does so in too partisan a manner far too often. Think that needs to change in some way—will talk about it next time I see you, we’re plotting something.
Darrell said...
21 Apr 09 at 5:25 pm
Julian H,
Well, I do agree that the MORI swing is rather too large to be totally credible but as Anthony Wells rightly says on UK Polling Report it is part of a trend so I think my point still stands….
As to Stu’s point; yes that is a brilliant idea…an ideologically pure sect; that will take us all the way to government….
Andrew Hickey said...
21 Apr 09 at 5:55 pm
So you want to empower a grass-roots revival by taking power away from the grass-roots and giving it to the leadership, who you want to be allowed to lead because currently the SDP-dominated leadership are squeezing the Liberals out? I honestly don’t understand what your point is (normally I’d assume that was a fault of the writer, but you’re usually coherent enough that I’ll put it down to my own poor comprehension…)
Mat’s right in his comment, incidentally (though I’ve not been invited to join in any plots. Hmph.)
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Apr 09 at 6:29 pm
Ah, Andy, this time it’s my fault for quoting dk without explicitly stating that I didn’t agree with the sentiments expressed. It’s just meant to be evidence of the perception of our party as not liberal.
The leadership are not SDP controlled, nor do they have real power anyway – they just have a slight headstart for getting policies through.
I’m aware it seems bad to want to limit the party democracy to increase the functional representation of the party. If someone else has a way of breaking the catch 22 without increasing the leader’s powers or entryism I’m all ears. Chicken or egg?
MatGB said...
21 Apr 09 at 6:29 pm
Well, that’s because we only started plotting yesterday, so haven’t got beyond the “is this a good idea” stage yet. Well, we have, now we’re at the “can we actually be arsed, and if so who” stage. Which’ll likely not last too long either.
Andrew Hickey said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:05 pm
I get your point now. So what you’re effectively saying is you want the Lib Dems to become less democratic so they’ll start to support policies that you support but the majority of party members don’t? I disagree, *very* strongly, in that case… if your case is strong, you should be able to convince the membership to go along with you. Asking for your ideas to become policy through non-democratic means seems to me like a tacit acceptance that they’re not strong enough otherwise…
MatGB said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:33 pm
Charlotte, I think the current system is a nice balance. The leader is elected by the membership, and as part of the job chairs Federal Policy Committee. Each local party elects voting reps to attend conference, who also get to vote in the elections for FPC and Federal Conference Committee, which sets the agenda for conference.
The leader has a lot of say in the creation of policy, but must bring the voting representatives with him, which tends to be easier due to a desire to not cause negative headlines, but it’s not unknown for the leadership to get voted down.
Sometimes, the leadership (or at least Vince) is defeated when they back what most of us think are illiberal proposals—Vince strongly argued for leaving faith schools alone completely, and the amendment he backed was resolutely defeated at Harrogate.
It’s worth noting that generally most parties don’t get all their reps to attend, I know Calderdale doesn’t, so if you’re going to conference odds are very good you could get substitute rep status.
It’s not a wholly democratic system, but it does mean we can stop the leader being eggregiously stupid, and that Nick can’t do as Cameron can and just wake up and decide he wants something to be policy, he actually has to persuade people of the case; he’s quite good at it, but it does mean his proposals have to actually be good ones, not back-of-a-fag packet “this’ll get us X votes in Y marginals” crap.
Make it Happen was passed at Bournemouth, and I’ve no doubt the pre-manifesto document will be passed, with a lot of wrangling and some close votes, this year as well.
MatGB said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:35 pm
And my first two paragraphs are horribly patronising in tone aren’t they? Sorry, wasn’t intended.
Oh, Andrew, make sure you and Holly are free next Thursday evening, it’ll save you the postage and we can plot with Mortimer.
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:36 pm
Charlotte, we can offer you a lift to devious plotting, er, I mean Liberal Drinks if you like?
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:40 pm
Oh, no doubt that from empowering existing members of the party the current system works, but I remain to be convinced that it’s ever going to be possible for such a party to be electable.
The problem is that people joining the party are attracted by the decisions already taken – it stands to reason these people will be inclined to vote for similar policies along similar lines.
If the party can only attract people that agree with the status quo within the party, how can the party ever change… or is that the point, to lock in how we do things now forever and ever? How can the Lib Dems ever dig themselves out from third place if we’re always going to be pretty much exactly like this?
Truth is I think most lib dems are rather more keen on the power they have within the party than they are on seeing the Lib Dems form a Government.
Where is the agent of change going to come from? Do we just have to wait until there’s a spontaneously occuring outbreak of Lib Dem style liberalism out in the country… because I just don’t see that ever happening, not when that’s so close to the offering by the Tories and Labour.
The fact that people feel that the Lib Dems are a suitable alternative for Labour voters says it all really.
Charlotte Gore said...
21 Apr 09 at 7:40 pm
Oo yes devious plotting please
Andrew Hickey said...
21 Apr 09 at 9:29 pm
I’ll be at the devious plotting – Holly won’t be, she’s working a late shift at her Evil Socialised Government NHS job. She might possibly come along after she’s finished robbing the taxpayer though.
Where is it? I’m not on the young persons’ Facebook, and Alix hasn’t emailed me.
(Not to derail Charlotte’s comments or anything
)
Jennie said...
21 Apr 09 at 9:31 pm
I shall drop you an email, Mr H.
Roger Thornhill said...
22 Apr 09 at 10:29 am
@jennie: “Roger: go back to On Liberty and show your straw man to JS Mill. Your cariacature of what left means is not what left actually means to many of us who self identify as lefties.”
Why should I go back to someone 200 years ago and try and argue with him what you think you are?
The problem is you “self identify” with a term that is hijacked – “left” and “left liberal”. Not by you, but by others.
Anyhow, IanB has also touched on another point.
Left != NOT(Right)
Right != NOT(Left)
NOT(Left OR Right) != Centre
Politically speaking, that is.
Roger Thornhill said...
22 Apr 09 at 10:30 am
The above was meant to have the “not equals” sign, but all it gives is a “?”. Bugger.
Charlotte Gore said...
22 Apr 09 at 10:42 am
As if by magic…
Matthew Huntbach said...
22 Apr 09 at 11:47 am
Julian
Matthew – you’re spot on (re: the Liberal / SDP history), but the only person I can see who’s made the error is Devil’s Kitchen (who is, obviously, not a Lib Dem). Over the past few months you’ve suggested that Lib Dems have been “rewriting history” in this way, but I haven’t noticed any LDs doing so. Can you cite?
If it was an isolated case I would not have written as I did, but it’s something I’ve noticed coming up in several places recently. I’m not saying, as you seem to be suggesting, that Lib Dems in general are doing this.
It does seem to me there’s a strong push from people of an “economic liberal” persuasion at the moment to try and claim the word “liberal” all for themselves. Some of these may be Lib Dems, some may not. As part of this they do seem to be looking for stronger antecedents for their politics than are easily justified. This means, for example, emphasising some elements of historical liberal figures and de-emphasising others, or taking their remarks out of context. I do not myself see the straight “the state and taxation are evil and the prime duty of liberals is to minimise them” line as quite so apparent in 19th century liberals as others suggest – it comes out sometimes yes, but it’s not the prime motivating factor.
Sure, we all do this with history – pick the interpretation which best suits our views. It only becomes “rewriting” when it’s blatantly not in accord with the recorded facts.
With the Liberal/SDP merger the re-writing used to involve over-playing the role of the SDP and underplaying the role of the earlier Liberal Party revival. This rewriting was to a large extent due to the grossly distorted way it was written up in the media at the time. Essentially, the SDP was Westminster/establishment based, so had the media contacts, so got everything written up in their favour.
Now, however, I’m seeing from people who have been convinced that “Liberal” means “economic liberal”, the supposition that the Liberal Party – SDP debate in the 1980s was around the “economic liberal” v. “social democrat” divide – it wasn’t. I use “economic liberal” here just as a shorthand, for people who think of “liberal” as primarily in terms of unleashing businessmen to do what they will. The reality is that it wasn’t like that, I know because I am someone who was very anti-SDP at the time, yet my opposition to it – and the opposition from almost every other Liberal Party member at the time who didn’t like the SDP – most certainly was NOT that we were all mad-keen “economic liberal” types in the, well, Charlotte Gore mode. I didn’t know anyone in the party at that time whose politics remotely resembled Charlotte’s. People who thought that way were naturally in the Conservative Party, maybe grumbling a bit about the residual old-schools Toryism in that party, but otherwise finding it a much more congenial home than the Liberal Party or SDP.
Re-writing history works when not only those consciously doing the rewriting do it, bu they manage to convince others to use those assumptions. I think this is happening now. I’m a liberal, I’m against that sort of thing.
Julian H said...
22 Apr 09 at 1:21 pm
Thanks for the response, Matthew. Firstly, my syntax was poor enough to suggest that I was reffering to a claim of Lib Dems in general re-writing the LD-SDP merger. This isn’t what I meant–rather I was questioning if any Lib Dems have been claiming that the Liberals in the 80s were “economic liberals”, and that they were infiltrated by far more socialist SDP folk.
As we both understand, this wasn’t the case, and the Liberal party had for a while been quite, for want of a better term, social-democrat-leaning.
My question is – where have any economic-liberal LDs made this false claim about the Liberal-SDP merger?
I ask simply because I don’t recall seeing any such mistakes from LD members (as opposed to Devil’s Kitchen).
Matthew Huntbach said...
22 Apr 09 at 5:52 pm
I can’t remember where I’ve seen it, or whether those saying it are LibDem members or not, but though “Devil’s Kitchen” is more explicit about it than I’ve seen before, I do recall the assumption being made in a number of places. Sometimes it’s from people who aren’t old enough to remember the merger so are assuming it was from the use of the terms “liberal” and “social democrat” by present day “economic liberals”.
You say the Liberal Party pre-merger had “social-democrat-leaning”, as it did, and there were plenty in it who regarded themselves more or less as “social democrats”. There were plenty, like myself for example, who did not regard ourselves as “social democrats” yet regarded what is now called “economic liberalism” as something even worse. We regarded ourselves as “liberals”, and felt that meant being primarily interested in devolution of power. But we did not feel that was best done by monetary/market mechanisms – the concern as ever was that that led only to more power for the wealthy and would not devolve it in reality at all.
I can accept there was some naivety about what we really wanted, and the challenge of confronting “economic liberals” has toughened me up a bit in considering what is truly “liberal” and whether that is a position I really want to be. However, fundamentally I don’t think my politics have changed since then, but the party seems to have with this development of an “economic liberal” wing, which sorry, in my days would have been seen as something more suitable for the Conservative Party.
Ian B said...
22 Apr 09 at 6:05 pm
Matthew- I am, perhaps, primarily interested in social liberalism, i.e. everyday freedom. I am also an economic liberal, but that came later when I thought and then studied a lot about economics. But I think a central argument for economic liberalism is simply this: you cannot have general freedom, that is, independence of action, without economic freedom. Economics- money, finance, work, trade etc, are such a major part of life that anyone who seeks a general or social freedom cannot hope to attain that if their economic life is rigorously controlled by the government. It’s simply useless to hope for any real devolution of power when that which has so much power in your life- your money- is controlled by someone else.
The flipside of that argument is that, in order to control money and trade, the government has to control everything else, because everything else is intertwined with the economic market. This is why we are increasingly moving back to a society in which- rather than being free to do all which is not specifically prohibited- we are only allowed to do that which is specifically authorised. Regulation extends into every nook and cranny of our lives. The hope of then “devolving power” in anything more than a tokenistic way is hopeless.
So I contend that you can’t be a social or political liberal without being an economic liberal, and vice versa.
Matthew Huntbach said...
22 Apr 09 at 10:32 pm
Ian
Try reading what I wrote:
I use “economic liberal” here just as a shorthand, for people who think of “liberal” as primarily in terms of unleashing businessmen to do what they will.
I did not say I was opposed to any sort of freedom of people in economic matters. I just said I am not the sort of person who focuses on that to the exclusion of anything else.
You write as if there is no alternative to either gung-ho complete low-tax minimal state spending government, and soviet-style rigid state control. That is rubbish.
MatGB said...
22 Apr 09 at 10:42 pm
Matthew, I don’t know of anyone, and have not encountered anyone in the party, who thinks that would be a good idea. I don’t know of a single liberal economist who thinks completely unregulated free-for-alls create good results.
Can you point me at someone you think does so I can confirm or read what they’ve said?
Because if that’s who you’re talking about when you talk about those evil economic liberals, I think we’re safe from them. You might want to give them a different label, as those of us who find it difficult to comprehend being liberal without believing in competition would rather you didn’t use the term “economic liberal” when you mean “economically illiterate idiot”.
Matthew Huntbach said...
23 Apr 09 at 11:16 pm
MatGB
Matthew, I don’t know of anyone, and have not encountered anyone in the party, who thinks that would be a good idea. I don’t know of a single liberal economist who thinks completely unregulated free-for-alls create good results.
Good, so what are we arguing about?
I think it is about where the balance lies, and some, Charlotte is a good example, seem to have a position where those aspects of liberalism deemed “economic” are given a hugely greater weighting than others. As I keep saying, I do feel that people who own nothing and aren’t particularly skilled or intelligent are forced almost into slavery by the sort of “economic liberalism” the likes of Charlotte want. I know you’ve raised CBI paid by LVT as a solution to this, but I’m not sure everyone who calls themselves “economic liberal” would support such things rather than just denounce them as more evil taxation and state handouts. I haven’t heard a convincing reply to my point from Charlotte, just a claim she’s insulted because I point out the final consequence of what she wants – selling your kids into prostitution in order to stay alive – that DOES happen in some parts of the world.
IanB’s response to me was ridiculous, because it seemed to assume that anyone who felt there must be a balance between econmic and other aspects of liberalism must be some sort of evil commie. Just because I’m critical of an unbalanced economic approach to liberalism which ignores all other factors doesn’t mean I don’t recognise that free trade and freedom from excessive taxation aren’t important aspects of liberalism.
If we are to take Ian B’s argument seriously (and Charlotte took it so seriously she proudly reproduced it as a new article of her own), then we must suppose that those countries in Europe which have higher taxation and state spending than ours must be evil illiberal hell-holes, just like the USSR.
Ian B and Charlotte see no difference between, say The Netherlands or Sweden than the old USSR and North Korea. I think there is a difference, and that the Netherlands and Sweden are fairly liberal countries.
Matthew Huntbach said...
23 Apr 09 at 11:18 pm
Argument rather spoilt by the double negative – I meant:
“Just because I’m critical of an unbalanced economic approach to liberalism which ignores all other factors doesn’t mean I don’t recognise that free trade and freedom from excessive taxation ARE important aspects of liberalism”.
Ian B said...
23 Apr 09 at 11:29 pm
Matthew, I don’t believe my answer to you was “ridiculous” and I don’t believe you’ve quite appreciated my point, which was that social, political and economic freedoms have to go together. You can’t have a lot of one and little of the others, because society and economics are fundamentally entwined; there isn’t a boundary between them to draw. Your work, and the trade you participate in, are social activities, and social activities you participate in are part of the economy.
So I think you’re being “unabalanced”. You’re hoping that somehow society can be liberal while the economy is authoritarian, and my position is that that cannot be done. To control the economy, one must control society- and to control society, one must control the economy. To free either, to whatever degree you may desire, requires freeing both.
Charlotte Gore said...
23 Apr 09 at 11:34 pm
Matthew, you said my political beliefs meant I advocated paedophilia. I have no interest in anything else you might have to say.
Miller 2.0 said...
24 Apr 09 at 1:23 am
In my view there is quite a simple explanation for the lack of a libertarian movement in the wider community.
There is no material interest in it.
Those who want to be free from the state to make money are far safer with a lot of hanging and flogging going on, and without an organised movement of the disadvantaged to hold them back (so it is convenient to feed out divisive narratives on identity politics to stop the organisation happening).
Those who want freedom from sickness and insecurity want a bedrock there to protect them and advance their interests. This is usually expressed through the state.
Both of these groups have real things incentivising them do believe in what they do, and to make it happen. Both also contain a spectrum of opinion, of course, but the point is that there is an underlying interest.
In fact, only the vulnerable side really have a grassroots presence. But the wealthy side doesn’t need one, it has the daily mail, and can afford stamps and printing costs.
Matthew Huntbach said...
24 Apr 09 at 11:41 am
Ian B
You’re hoping that somehow society can be liberal while the economy is authoritarian, and my position is that that cannot be done.
Where am I hoping that? Simply because I feel that there are some whose views on what is “liberal” give an over-emphasis to some aspects at the cost of ignoring others, does not mean I want a rigidly controlled “authoritarian” economy.
If we can agree that freedom does require at least some sort of state funded by some sort of taxation, we can argue where the balance might lie. I am happy to accept that getting the balance wrong either way results in a reduction overall of freedom. You seem to believe that adopting any position whereby one thinks the balance might be a little too much towards the “economic” means one must want an “authoritarian” economy.
As I’ve already said, I’m not opposed to freedom to trade or freedom from excessive taxation, I regard these as important freedoms. I just don’t regard them as the only freedoms it’s worth bothering about.
Matthew Huntbach said...
24 Apr 09 at 11:53 am
Charlotte
Matthew, you said my political beliefs meant I advocated paedophilia. I have no interest in anything else you might have to say.
No, I did not say that. I was simply taking to the limit – boundary testing as we computer programmers call it – the argument that taxation and government legislation are evil restrictions on freedom and nothing else is an evil restriction on freedom.
I note that we are born owning nothing but our own bodies and our own minds. If we do not acquire the necessary sustenance to live, we die. If we own nothing but our own bodies and our own minds, we do not own the necessary sustenance to live. Being forced to die, is, I think, the ultimate restriction on freedom. So, what is someone who owns nothing but their own body to do? You say it is evil for the state to take wealth from others in order to support them. Very well, so what to do in desperation? Sell one’s body, if there is no alternative, in a crude and literal way. If you will at least admit that someone forced through owning nothing else to do that is having their freedom restricted, you will at last have acknowledged that which so far you have refused to acknowledge – that there are other restrictions to freedom apart from taxation and government legislation.
NB. said...
24 Apr 09 at 12:15 pm
@Matt
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.”