Anonymous said...
Stephen this is a pathetic letter. The debate between the left and right of the party matters quite a great deal in respect of which future liberal voters or otherwise we will be able to attact.
The right of the party believe that the best coalition is of social and economic liberals, that tends to include a lot of left-wing Tories and disgruntled centrists who currently vote for Labour. The left of the party belivee the best is one of social liberals, social democrats and liberal socialists, broadly a coalition of the left or charitably a progressive coalition. What you can't have though is a sort of catch-all spanning the lot. socialists and eocnomic liberals are opponents on most tax and spend matters.
They can agree tactically on civil liberties, but that's rather small beer in the policy portfolio of a future government compared to doing a budget.
In fact it's wet centrists like you sitting there whining passively about why we can't just all get along, rather than taking difficult decisions is precisely why we are in this situation today. The leader being the worst offender.
Oxford Liberal (aka Stephen Tall) says...
Good lord, it's a long time since I've been called a wet centrist! I'll remember that next time someone takes me to task for supporting the legalisation of drugs or the necessity of university top-up fees.
Your comment makes my point for me. No-where have I said, or would I say, that we should avoid a debate which requires difficult decisions (tip: read my article).
What I do want is a debate on our own liberal terms. By unwrapping the useless and unhelpful terms, 'left' and 'right', you've indicated the kind of debate we should be having. (Though I'd suggest ditching the word 'pathetic' and not posting anonymously might be a yet more grown-up approach.)
But that is not the debate which is raging on the letters page of Lib Dem News right now. There the argument is (I paraphrase only slightly): we need to be more left/right-wing to win over Labour/Tory voters. That kind of simplistic logic is what made me despair, and prompted my letter.
Finally... to imagine, as you appear to, that there is no common ground between 'economic liberals' and ' socialist liberals' - other than civil liberties - is a mistake. Opening up markets to competition, and enabling the poorest to take advantage of those markets, are two concepts which can co-exist happily. There are many instances of co-operative societies and not-for-profit trusts where these find practical expression, and unite those with differing ideologies.
You don't always need to pick a fight to win an argument.
3 comments:
Stephen, did you welcome the arrival of Brian Sedgemore in the party or did you feel, like some of thus that this was opportunism gone mad?
Anon: I hope I would never sit in judgment on the membership application of an individual I've neither met nor spoken to... I'm not going to make an exception for Brian Sedgemore.
As PR propaganda it probably didn't help us much. We should have ensured we had a prominent-ish Tory to parade at the same press conference. But it would have been odd not to announce the fact that a long-standing Labour MP was defecting principally because of this Government's illiberalism.
Ranald - I can't agree. I'm delighted you know exactly what you mean by 'left' and 'right', but the reason I deprecate the terms is simple (not silly, still less dishonest): the moment anyone starts to define what they mean the more it becomes clear how definitions vary.
Let's take your definition of 'left'. You are saying that what defines the 'left' is that more tax must be paid by the rich to fund public services. But at what point would you say enough tax has been raised to pay for the level of services you think proper? Are you still on the 'left' even if there are other people who argue for yet more tax increases beyond those you support? Do you then, by default, become right-wing?
What about someone who believes taxes should be higher, but that the NHS should be broken up so that management is under local, not central, control? Are they right- or left-wing?
What about someone who believes taxes can be cut because they would scrap Trident? Are they right- or left-wing?
And is tax-and-spend the only way of distinguishing 'left' from 'right'? What about those who believe in higher taxation, but support capital punishment? Are they right- or left-wing? Or someone who believes in lower taxes, but thinks ID cards are essential? Are they right- or left-wing?
These are not silly or dishonest examples. They are illustrations of why a left-right paradigm is too simplistic to have any real meaning.
You are doubtless correct to state that voters would frequently place themselves on the 'right' or 'left' (or more often in the 'centre'). But if you asked them their views on a variety of issues, economic and social, I suspect you would often come up with results which bore no relation to voters' self-identification. That's not because they're silly and dishonest, but because politics is way too complex for binary definitions ever to be more than a crude, misleading over-simplification.
Post a Comment