The BBC. This is just cruel. “Labour MPs Ponder move to Lib Dems if Labour loses election” says Paddy Ashdown, being played for a complete idiot. If Labour MPs are talking about going to the Lib Dems, it’s because they’re trying to embarrass Gordon Brown and scare him into doing something. That’s the story here.
Paddy, however, has taken it all on face value and thinks this announcement is helpful. What? Labour’s MPs – the political equivilant of radioactive leper paedophiles – are going to defect on mass to the Lib Dems, thus ensuring that if Labour goes down “the f**king liberals are coming with us” and that’s helpful?
Someone’s misreading the public mood.
Even if we take it on face value, another intake of authoritarian collectivists is the last thing this party needs.
See, I’m trying to help save our MPs with wafer thin majorities like Jeremy Browne, who wrote this:
There is no such thing as ‘liberal socialism’. There is liberalism and there is socialism.
… which is something that needs repeatedly banging into people’s heads, over and over. And then once more for luck.
If economic liberalism has a future in the Lib Dems, it’s by having more MPs that understand this, that understand that you can’t ‘free’ people by controlling their money, you don’t ‘free’ people through regulation, you don’t ‘liberate’ people through censorship and oppression.
Perhaps I missed an internal party memo, but even Alix Mortimer, who’s usually bang on, misfires here:
With all our imperfections – and I’m far from happy with some areas of policy – the Lib Dems are now, quite clearly, the natural home of progressive politics (in itself not a phrase I use lightly). Labour voters, supporters, media commentators and even Labour MPs should get behind the Liberal Democrats, examine their programme for government critically, point out the flaws, trumpet the glories, recommend them to the nation and vote for them.
I don’t even know what “progressive politics” means. In Ireland, the Progressive Democrats were a bunch of economic liberals. I’d quite like ‘progressive’ in that sense. In America, Progressive is a new euphasism for Socialism. That’s becoming the dominant meaning over here too… and that would be very bad. Perhaps she’s been very clever here and I’ve missed something, but this does leave me baffled. (UPDATE: Alix is basically showing what Polly Toynbee should do if she is to follow her logic. Quote, “I couldn’t give a shit whether we attract Labour supporters or not.”)
Trying to pull people out of the Labour Party – journalists, voters, supporters, members and MPs – those poor oppressed, battered creatures with heads full of collectivism, loyalty and talk of ‘traitors’ is a complete waste of time and energy, and if successful would be the very worst sort of entryism imaginable. Some people just can’t be unplugged from the matrix, you know?
Just let Labour die peacefully. Let’s not go looting its corpse – that’s not how I roll, yo.
Alix said...
2 May 09 at 12:26 pm
Woah there. I couldn’t give a shit whether we attract Labour supporters or not. I am just continuing Polly’s assertion to its logical conclusion. If she wants to stop the Tories, she has to back us. That’s the only way it’s going to happen now. Simple enough.
As for the dreaded “progressive” politics, see my comment to Dave B below the post. What I’m talking about (and should have said I was talking about) is the only definition of “progressive politics” that really makes any sense – the reductio ad absurdam sense of “not being built around the interests of any minority”.
James Southern said...
2 May 09 at 12:38 pm
That picture is absolute genius!
However I disagree with you on one minor point.
You say: “you don’t ‘free’ people through regulation” but, this really depends on the type of regulation.
So a regulation that prevents swimming on tuesdays does not make people free.
But a regulation which prevents arbitrary locking up of individuals you don’t like does.
A regulation which prevents monopolies also protects freedom.
I’m sure you’re aware of this but I thought it a point worth making as I think this distinction shows where capitalism and liberal economics needs to go after this big crisis.
We need to move away from the idea that ‘no regulation is best’ (tories & New Labour) AND away from the idea that ‘centrally planned decisions are best’ (labour & new labour).
And instead move to strong central regulation that enables locally directed decisions to provide the solutions.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 May 09 at 12:44 pm
Alix, ah, yes, that makes sense. My relief is palpable.
James, yes, some rules are pretty important. I’m not an anarchist.
Lee Griffin said...
2 May 09 at 1:13 pm
It depends who the MPs are. There are at least 20-30 Labour MPs that could find a natural home in the Liberal Democrat party, and to my mind the parliamentary house would be lesser for them (and their experience) not being there. They’re the MPs that have generally stood up against their party on issues of liberty and human rights and it would be simply crazy to not accept them in to what would be a better fit for them.
Simon said...
2 May 09 at 1:30 pm
Labour MP’s would probably feel quite at home amongst anti free speech people like Chris Huhne. Also the pro EU, renege on your promise for a referendum will probably strike a chord and make them feel welcome. Just goes to show how small the differences between the parties are.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 May 09 at 1:39 pm
Simon, I wouldn’t disagree with that. The abstention was a huge error, with hindsight – especially as, to this day, people still keep mentioning it as something they’re really pissed off about.
Chris Huhne’s attitude to Free Speech is appalling. The whole point is that this sort of stuff needs nipping in the bud permanently – no more contradictions, no more illiberal announcements and policy ideas.
The idea that we could happily assimilate Labour MPs without too much trouble is profoundly awful, going as it does in exactly the opposite direction to what’s needed.
Paul Ankers said...
2 May 09 at 2:13 pm
I thought the story was a load of bollocks. Charlotte may be right that it is some game theory by Labourites. It would be the end for them if we ever over took them.
Let them sink with their ship, eh?
Simon said...
2 May 09 at 2:20 pm
Charlotte, The trouble is that all the parties are the same now. Look at Boris in London. Went about the place masquerading as a Libertarian Conservative and the minute he gets elected the first thing he does is ban booze on the underground. There is no one to vote for if you want the State / EU off your back.
Laurence Boyce said...
2 May 09 at 2:26 pm
Yes, let’s just go back to being Whigs and Tories again. This whole “Labour” thing has been something of an aberration. Marx has much to answer for.
Lee Griffin said...
2 May 09 at 2:30 pm
I can’t help but feel there is a lot of partisan generalisation here, that all Labour MPs are somehow as bad as their administration.
Jennie said...
2 May 09 at 2:53 pm
Charlotte? Partisan? SHOME MISHTAKE SHURELY!
Andy Hinton said...
2 May 09 at 4:16 pm
Nit-picky terminology point:
Well no, but there are a family of things which go under the umbrella of libertarian socialism. Some of them are even Not Completely Insane (eg. Mutualism). Socialism is one of those words which has a much narrower meaning now than it used to. State socialism certainly isn’t the same thing as classical liberalism. I’m not sure it’s completely obvious that someone can’t be a socialist and a liberal.
Darrell said...
2 May 09 at 4:23 pm
The story is kite-flying but you obviously mis-read it because if you had then you would realise this is a putative right, not left, wing split from Labour.
You could conceivably argue Blairite third-wayism is close to liberalism. Authoritarian twists like ID cards etc came in after the ‘war on terror’ started and would have been pretty much the response of any governing party, actually any *state* formation following what actually happened so errr ye, don’t really see why it’s an issue…
Laurence Boyce said...
2 May 09 at 4:35 pm
I would say that socialism and liberalism are in complete opposition to each other as trends. The more socialism we have, the less free we are as individuals. But in reality, everything is a matter of degree, and so socialism and liberalism are freely combined in ways that might irritate the purist. Thus Margaret Thatcher, who never privatised health or the railways, could be viewed as a bit of a crypto-communist.
Darrell said...
2 May 09 at 4:49 pm
Laurencen and Andy pretty much have fair points…there are so many things to consider when using these lables like the historical conotations and the fact that any lable, like any political party, tends to be something of an umbrella….loving the picture though…very arty
Charlotte Gore said...
2 May 09 at 4:58 pm
Thatcher was *so* a Socialist.
Darrell said...
2 May 09 at 5:01 pm
Incidentally, Charlotte, how can you condemn the Labour Party for having a traitorous climate and then in the very next breath condemn Chris Huhne as a traitor?
Stu said...
2 May 09 at 5:42 pm
You’re not stealing Thatcher! She’s still the pin-up girl for the free-market economist.
Oh. My. God… I’m so sorry I created that image in everyone’s head. So sorry.
Oranjepan said...
2 May 09 at 6:22 pm
I think it’s a bit of wishful thinking to hope that any political party or movement will go out with a whimper.
And I would take no pleasure in putting Labour down humanely. I want to watch them kicking and screaming as they admit they are wrong, get them to highlight the areas on which they have been wrong and listen to them as they tell us what they are going to do help clear up the messes they’ve caused.
But any suggestion that Labour MPs are prepared to take the first step down that road ought to be encouraged.
In the meantime let’s give a big mention to all those Cooperative MPs who are only prepared to cooperate with Labour.
An independent Cooperative Party prepared to cooperate with any side which has mutual shared interests would be to the benefit of the country, be more consistent with their declared principles and help mitigate against the damage likely to be caused by any future Conservative regime.
asquith said...
2 May 09 at 6:44 pm
“You could conceivably argue Blairite third-wayism is close to liberalism.”
Disagreed- argued against this in my comment on your blog. It is an assumption which should have been killed off after liberals’ realisation that they had been betrayed by the Blair alliance.
Fascinating statements by Oranjepan as, in fact, co-operative & mutual organisations are supported by liberals & have nothing to do with state socialism in fact. I am disappointed to see these “Labour Co-Operative” MPs- it must be realised that liberals & conservatives see the virtues of mutualism.
Spot the following positive conclusion being reached from both strands of the right- both conservatives & libertarians in agreement on this matter:
http://tinyurl.com/c5fqhg
I take the view that there are liberals on the left- I define myself as being left-wing, as much as it will probably earn me a lynching from some. Let it be remembered that the Labour Party was formed as a working-class movement of independent working-class organisations which not only wasn’t statist, it opposed state power as state power was being used to back up authority & privilige (which it is now).
Lots of good business being discussed here. But it should be made clear that Blairism is an ideology to be rejected outright & those who once espoused it had better make a staggeringly good retraction ere they join a liberal party.
Joe Otten said...
2 May 09 at 6:55 pm
“Progressive” is perhaps just an umbrella term for “not Conservative”. And we need a similar umbrella term for “not Labour”. And, for that matter “not Liberal”, broader than “authoritarian”.
If we were all perfectly rational, this sort of terminology would be neutral, but in practise any lumping together of different groups using these umbrella terms, fires off the Us v Them instincts in many people. And this is their appeal.
Shaun Pilkington said...
2 May 09 at 7:31 pm
With the perfectly foreseeable SNP cleanslate in Scotland, a Lib-Dem/Tory wipeout in central and southern england with a pushback in Wales and the BNP hollowing out the traditional white working class socialist vote (they do, after all, want to nationalise everything in the name of the – white – workers!) in northern England, I consider it quite foreseeable that Labour are reduced to a rump of 60-100 seats. And then, as the liberal party found in the 20s, it’s goodnight. And, frankly, good riddance!
Charlotte Gore said...
2 May 09 at 7:47 pm
Oh don’t, you’ll get me excited. Labour with 100 seats is still 100 seats too many though.
asquith said...
2 May 09 at 7:52 pm
Doubt whether the BNP can make that much inroads into the socialist vote- Labour will prove as resilient as they were in the 80s in areas like this. I see more or less zero chance of my seat & those like it falling out of Labour hands.
It is at the very least 150 for them- probably not even as bad as the Tories in 1997.
Now, a party which really should be bricking it is the Republicans in the USA
Charlotte Gore said...
2 May 09 at 8:01 pm
Actually the ‘one term only’ factor of Labour – where their failure to achieve Victory For The Workers could be merrily put down to lack of time, or unfortunate circumstances.
There was always that sense of, “what would happen if they got a proper run at it?” and unfulfilled potential.. now they’ve had a proper run at it and still managed to bring the economy to its knees (again).
A fast swing left post-General Election as the Blarites are felled will leave a party appealing to less people than they appealed to in 1983.
Who emerges as the proper voice of opposition to the Conservatives depends entirely on what the Conservative Government ends up being like, I think.
Darrell said...
2 May 09 at 8:08 pm
It depends on what happens to the economy and how long people are actually prepared to live in an ‘age of austerity’….if the economy turns round relatively quickly and people start to feel good (and there are indicators of some kind of feel good returning even now, though I think thats more ‘the worse is over’, rather than things are great) …this isnt 1983…if the economy spikes pretty quickly peoples toleration for ‘austerity’ will quickly vanish (in relative terms, im thinking more this is a second term problem for the Tories) and there will be a clear space for a centre-left opposition….
Shaun Pilkington said...
2 May 09 at 9:00 pm
“Doubt whether the BNP can make that much inroads into the socialist vote”
Why Asquith? The BNP offer a socialist economic platform of nationalisation of the economy’s commanding heights. Even the Nazis were National SOCIALISTS which tips people off to their broadly leftist outlook, just with a racial credo grafted on for sh*ts and giggles.
Tristan said...
2 May 09 at 10:04 pm
James, yes, some rules are pretty important. I’m not an anarchist
You abuse the term anarchist – anarchism is consistent with rules, it depends upon them. It just does not support the arbitrary rules of the state. Locking people up arbitrarily is something states excel at thanks to the massive concentration of power and inequality of authority they necessitate.
As for the socialism/liberalism thing – socialism as the term is used for the most part today is not compatible with liberalism, but socialism as it stood originally had a liberal wing. For example Benjamin Tucker was both a socialist and a ‘consistent Manchester liberal’ and stood firmly against the authoritarian socialisms of the Marxist – see his essay State Socialism and Anarchism (incidentally this copy is at the Molinari Institute, Molinari being one of the great French liberals).
MatGB said...
3 May 09 at 2:04 am
I agree with Andy and Tristan, unsurprisingly. Socialism got co-opted by marxists, statists and social democrats. It used to be a lot closer to anarchism and has strong liberal roots, what with JS Mill unfortunately dying before he could finish “On Socialism”, which he planned as a rebuttal to Marxism (and told Karl such IIRC).
Also agree with Oran Jepan—if the Co-operative Party were independent of Labour, I’d be a mmember, but it’s not, as FPTP requires large parties. I’d love to argue it should disaffiliate and join us instead, but I think we’d need to get electoral reform first.
Overall, as I said at LDV, a few more “soft Labour men” won’t hurt us, half the ones we’ve got were rump Liberals anyway—the more seats we’ve got, the closer we are to electoral reform, and that’s the real goal.
Worth noting the planned timing is after a General Election, for some obscure reason I don’t understand.
DavidNcl said...
3 May 09 at 8:03 am
On the off chance that someone might be interested in exploring what progressivism is you could do worse than start here (lefties will find much of this material upsetting): The American Roots Of Fascism
KeithML said...
4 May 09 at 3:59 pm
“In Ireland, the Progressive Democrats were a bunch of economic liberals. I’d quite like ‘progressive’ in that sense.”
And of course, they were so successful electorally that they wound up the party earlier this year…
Frankly, as long as people who sign up accept our general political position as outlined in the constitution, I don’t care which party they come from (and I suspect there will be more from the Blairite section of Labour who are closer to the libertarian wing of our party than most of the current members!)