Skip to main content

Lib Dem disappointment

Now I have had time to consider the Liberal Democrat conference as a whole I must confess to feeling rather... underwhelmed.

The fact is that the party is falling into the same old habits as the other two. The characteristically over the top treatment of the Leader- fireworks, marching bands and all that is expected at the time of his speech, seems now to become an all purpose creep-fest for the entire conference all the time. Far from a genuinely interesting program of debates- with all the disagreements of the old Liberal Assemblies, we now have a uniform blandness and a display of unrelenting toadyism.

It is not particularly Liberal and it is not particularly convincing.

The manufactured unity of the conference does reflect a lot of like mindedness among the party membership, but frankly it also reflects the fact that the party seems to have forgotten its purpose as the focus for new thinking about politics. Our country IS in a crisis and yet there is not only unanimity among ourselves, but beyond the superficial posturing of Tim Farron, pretty much equal unanimity with our coalition partners. The party that demanded reform of our constitution to create greater democracy seems set to hand over more power to our own un-elected SPADs and party bureaucrats. I notice that the Daily Telegraph Top Fifty most powerful Liberal Democrats includes  12 such figures, and even the leader's wife, famously rather detached from British politics is said to be more influential than most of the party's MPs. 

Where is the debate? Where is the determination to avoid conformity that is supposed to lie at the heart of our political agenda? Where is the diversity of ideas? Where, in short, is the Liberalism?

It is quite clear that we need a lot of new thinking about the nature of capitalism, the power of the state, and its long term role. What we got was a boast about hiring 2000 new tax inspectors- a boast that for sheer fatuousness is hard to beat. We don't need new tax inspectors, we need a root and branch revolution to simplify and slim our tax code. We don't need empty threats to prevent reform of the NHS: we need actual reform of the NHS, before it goes broke. We don't need the puerile slogans of pavement politics, we need a genuine attempt to reconnect the British people to their political system and a national debate about where we can go from here.

The failure of Liberal Democrat ambition is what disappoints me the most. 

We need to work towards a new politics, which is not the use of new media to sell our existing, rather discredited message, but to create a whole new politics: Politics 2.0. 

Sure, our political rivals are not thinking too much about this. Labour are -judging from from the unhappy opening of their own conference- in particular trouble, but as political membership continues to fall, it is even more incumbent upon the Liberal Democrats to explore and develop new ideas.

The 2011 Federal conference looked like a great time to meet old friends and cheer on the party- it did not look like a group of people who were genuinely considering ideas, still less ideology. It was stale and rather boring.

That is not good enough any more. Politics is becoming not just irrelevant, but actively malign as poor decisions undermine our economic strength and social cohesiveness. If the Liberal Democrats choose to become simply an adjunct of the political class then they will be punished and rightly so.

Non-Conformist, Radical, Reforming, Liberal. 

We need to remember what these concepts really mean and forget the idea of conference as a lick-spittle creep-fest.    


Liberal Neil said…
While our modern conferences are not as free-ranging as Liberal Assemblies of old, I think a conference that included debates on radical reform of drugs policy, and which questioned the civil liberties implications of the new accreditation system deserves some credit.

And the Telegraph list of 50 most influential Lib Dems reflects the Telegraph view of politics, not our own!
GHmltn said…
I think there is much in what you say.

Not whether the conference was a success - I don't know, I wasn't there - but about the development of a new politics.

The post war assumptions are turned on their head. Capitalism, what services can be provided free at the point of delivery. Support of the young, support of the middle aged coming up to pension age all face a new landscape.

For the party to grow and prosper in the future it must start from an intellectual re-invigoration. Setting a clear idea of core philosophy and idealology then an analysis and policy platform from a blank sheet of paper.

Good positive ideas about the way forward are vital.
GHmltn said…
Saw your comment on Liberal Thought

Have you picked up that we are indeed setting up a Scottish LibDem supporting group blog.

It is in a pre launch test site.

Have a look and see who is involved. Drop me a lin and tell me what you think it if you are willing to contribute.

The idea is to launch more formally mid October to tie in with the Scottish Conference.


Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…