The Labour party of 1997 – at least, the driving force behind it – grew up in irrelevance. Muted by the dogma of the 1980s, walking into campaigns with electoral suicide notes; it is little wonder that Tony Blair considered leaving politics completely.
1997 ‘happened’ partly because the country was tired of the Conservative party. But it was all the more welcoming of change because the project of modernising the alternative came to fruition under Tony Blair. His inner circle had all been witnesses to the disastrous politics of the 1980s, prompting a steely determination to change the fortunes of the Labour party. It is what drove them to modernisation; the inherent belief that Labour could be so much more for so many more people.
That sense of social justice with individual responsibility is what marks many of our shared political beliefs in today’s Labour party. It is no longer a party obsessed with left or right. Because of New Labour, our party is no longer challenged by dogma and irrelevance. The efforts of Blair, Brown and Mandelson mean we cannot return to the political incompetence of the 1980s.
New Labour liberated the modernisers of the Labour party. But it isn’t a phenomenon that can only occur once, and in one party. We should be wary of what growing up in defeat means for those of other colours, too.
Witnessing the collapse of the Liberal Democrats delivers a mixed bag of emotions; schadenfreude of course, but sorrow and worry too. Robert Philpot, in the June edition of Progress magazine, pointed out the electoral hazards should the Lib Dem wipeout continue into the next general election. There are repercussions of Lib Dem collapse further into the future too.
Liberal Youth membership fell by 50 per cent in 2011. While Labour Students chalks up some brilliant successes, the Lib Dems are losing presence in universities, at grassroots levels and in campaigning strength. Once the party of gross opportunism, they have become a hollow and indefinable mess.
They are losing those who might otherwise have made up a future generation Liberal Democrat party. But it also means we have to consider those who have stayed. There will be, as in every party or movement, a core of modernising activists waiting.
The Liberal Democrats of 2010 and onwards – this current crop of Liberal Youth members – will be driven by the failures of their party’s leadership. They will face criticism that their party is out of touch, not liberal enough, not fit to govern. Outdated, poor communicators, no sense of leadership.
All these claims ring true. It sounds like the Labour party of the 1980s. And like the generation of Labour politicians and activists who grew up in the shadow of the wilderness years, the Liberal Democrats who have chosen to stay are clearly determined to cling onto the hope of a brighter liberal future.
It means that, in a party which looks comfortable with supporting conservatism, the modernising urge will be to get away from the Tories. It doesn’t mean they’ll run to Labour either – this will be a Liberal Democrat party with have no qualms about taking up their old position of equidistance between red and blue. They will take votes from us in marginals and the south; letting the Tories back in, eroding our share of the vote.
Talk of a coalition in 2015 should be taken seriously should the mathematics require it. We are progressive, and so are they when they want to be genuine.
But the fact remains that the chance for a truly progressive realignment of British politics has long passed; a long and drawn-out death of the liberal politics they said made them different. The resistance – on both sides – to accommodating the Liberal Democrats into a New Labour cabinet was swiftly vindicated as they returned to opportunism, sinking back into opposition – their natural home.
And the failure to distance themselves from the Tories is a threat they must run from. A core of the party, a true Cleggite band, might remain supporting conservatism with a smile, comfortable with the environment of coalition. A disaster waiting to happen, but a scenario already played out with the FDP in Germany.
We should be clear about the timeframe. This will only come about in a generation; when Clegg, Cable and Hughes are replaced by serious, less accommodating liberals. The fact that so many are disillusioned with their leadership means they’ll only pursue their aims with more vigour; a chance to prove themselves as a real opposition alternative.
We should ensure that we are equipped for a rebuilt Lib Dem party. Early campaign planning for by-elections, as proposed by Richard Angell and me, must be fully functional by the time the Lib Dems start fighting them again. We have to make progress on local election gains with policies appealing to every part of the electorate.
Are the Liberal Democrats out of serious power for a generation or more? Definitely. Off the political landscape? Never.
—————————————————————————————
Alex White is a member of Progress, writes for the Young Progressives column, and tweets @AlexWhiteUK
—————————————————————————————
Irony of ironies, the Liberals reinvented themselves and shifted to the right, led by a secretive cabal of careerists, happy to do deals with big businesses; they also wrote a book named after a primary colour – does any of this sound familiar, anyone ?
Yes, a liberal collapse will benefit the Tories more than us:- and whilst a coalition is a possibility, and we should be aware of this, we should under no circumstances pander to the Liberals in any of the work we do. I can see why Progress might find this attractive, as there’s a considerable overlap between careerist rightwingers in any party.
I think Alex White is wrong on the future of the Liberal Democrats on many points. Firstly, the Liberal Democrats will go down in 2015 which will benefit the Labour Party in Tory/Lab marginals but also seats which the Lib Dems hold but Labour are second place, but also give the Tories some consolation by allowing a few victories in places like Solihull, Wells and Cheadle. They will probably end with the lowest amount of seats they have had in a generation and if the boundary changes go ahead then they will probably have seven MPs. But whatever happens they will be destroyed as a national party and will be tainted. If Tim Farron replaces Nick Clegg, then they will shif to the left and return to their progressive radical tradition and will distance themselves from the government they used to be part of. It is very possible they will say that all they did in Government was a mistake and give a grovelling ‘mea culpa’. If they elect Ed Davey I think they will stay down a route which is to the centre of the Liberal Democrats basically a little to the left of Clegg but with a new leader. If they elect David Laws then they might turn into becoming a centre-right party which will work with the “modernisers” in the Conservative Party run by the Littlewood/Lord/Marshall tendency in the Lib Dems. That will probably be their only route to revival.
So, Purplebooker, the only way to win elections is to work with the Conservatives and drift to the right ? I dare say you and your ilk would be as happy with a wet Conservative administration as a Labour one – perhaps more so. I do wonder why you persist in the Labour Party at all.
I’m sorry, Milan but can you actually read. I was talking about the Liberal Democrats. I mean there is a trait I have found with hard-left “unelectables” that love trolling LABOUR sites and that is that you never read comments or posts but you have selective memories, make up lies and just love trolling. I am very happy in the Labour Party, I’m not sure whether you are?
Typical Labour rightwinger – when on shaky ground, insult the poster. Yes, I can read. I am not a troll (check out my other offerings if that isn’t too much work), I am contributing to the debate.
The party to watch out for are The Greens. They are our Coalition or rather parners on Lancaster City Council that enable us to Control The Council in accordance with a partnership agreement. By undertking this partnership agreement we keep the Conservatives and Independents( Conservatives Really) out of power. Working with The Greens provides The Labour Group with some challenges however we manage to get our policies thorough depite minor disagreements.
I do however agrgue that on a national scale the party to watch out for are The Greens. They are new, fresh and are not contaminated by spin or career politicians. How many of us are aware of collegues within The Labour Party who are in The Labour Party for a career?
I guess a few of us. A Career politician will be identified by voters. In our role as a democratic party we need to be more appealing to working people in regard to attracting new members. We are controled by Career Politicians and people who have never experienced the real world. Our danger is not The Lib Dems but The Green Party. The Green Party have alternative left wing policies that will be appealing to our voters. The Green Party do not have career politicians pulling the strings. The Lib Dems are finished for a generation but we need to be aware that The Green Party could take over their role and make progress within local Government.
Whilst this has a limited application in local government, what are the chances of there being more than 1 Green MP under the present electoral arrangements? My experience of the Greens locally is that they are instinctively more likely to vote with the Lib Dems and the like than with Labour. They even propped up a Tory administration in Leeds.
The Greens, outside of a few areas, have a low enough profile not to affect the Labour vote; whilst this may change – my experience is that Green and Labour voters are not naturally the same group.
Did not know they propped up a Tory Administraion. I will have to read into this.
I doubt it. Their share of the vote in the last election fell and in Brighton they are not as popular. They pledge no cuts and no rises in council tax. What they then did was increase council tax and make cuts to services in Brighton.
The Labour Party, says Alex White, ” is no longer a party obsessed with left or right”.
I think what he means is that party members do not define themselves and do not define other party members as left or right, but, if they do make such definitions, it is done non-obsessively. And I suppose “non-obsessively” means doing something in a matter of fact way, perhaps without any value judgement.
To unpack Alex’s idea a little further, he is therefore saying that some (or most) members don’t use the “left-right” label. Others do use it, but without attaching a value judgement (or a major value judgement). This last point doesn’t make sense: if I use an adjective there is inevitably some value judgement attached to it.
But it is true, in my limited experience, that the left-right label has fallen out of common use. And about time too. It’s an anachronism that described the location in the French post-revolutionary assembly of monarchists and republicans relative to the Speaker.
In some debates, yesterday’s ‘left’ has become today’s ‘right’. For example, it was considered left-wing to be anti-EU – but today it’s considered right-wing.
This means we just have to label people one issue at a time. The apparently obvious label is “right/wrong” but it is not at all useful. In the Commons, it becomes yaboo politics.
Tony Blair mused in his autobiography with the distinction “open/closed”. But open or closed to what? He doesn’t really say. The implication is: are you open or closed to new ideas and approaches? The trouble is few members would confess to being closed to the new.
So maybe we need an end to such dichotomies. Instead we can ask questions about Labour values. Is our central value idea one of the need for social justice? If so, how does your support for a given policy favour social justice? This then leads to arguments that you are logical / illogical (with its attendant value judgement).
This may not be as glamorous as waving flags – red, green, rainbow or national. But at least it is grown up.