Earlier I published the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference Agenda. In it are all the usual things you would expect – a rally, a Q+A with Nick Clegg, speeches from various party luminaries, all rounded off by the leader’s speech. However, buried in there, on Saturday evening, is something rather interesting:
Seemingly not content with the rise and over influence of the Socialist Liberal Forum, the usual suspects of Linda Jack, Richard Grayson and Jenny Tonge have decided to form their own leftist faction. Their simple agenda – opposition to the coalition. The coalition that, you might remember, was overwhelmingly democratically endorsed by the Lib Dem party membership that these people seem to think they are the saviours of. The name of this new grouping hardly leaves much to the imagination, but it will be interesting to see how close to the ‘Liberal’ they stay. I suspect they are more interested in the ‘Left’.
It is worth noting that both Grayson and Jack have been working with Labour policy groups, and rather proudly so. Furthermore, all those involved in this group signed the letter to the Guardian endorsing Compass Plan B. While I am all for political plurality, formal integration with, and endorsement of, Labour policy does rather lessen their credibility within their own party.
Despite having no website, and no formal organisation as yet, but they seem to have been able to finance a fringe event at conference…
I had heard rumours that this organisation was going to appear, and those rumours seem to have been borne out. The exercise, happily, seems likely to be a rather futile one. Polls of Lib Dem members on the Lib Dem Voice blog continually and reassuringly place the membership broadly on the centre ground. The IEA’s Mark Littlewood and Conservative Justice Secretary Ken Clarke even took 1st and 3rd respectively in the site’s Liberal Voice of the Year poll! While of course only a minority of the party participate in such things, it hardly indicates a membership desperate to be led to the left.
The Socialist Liberal Forum will no doubt try and claim that the emergence of such a group further proves they are the moderate mainstream of the party, but that would be patently untrue. The SLF continually try and push Lib Dem policy away from the centre ground, and towards higher levels of tax, spending, and state nannying. Liberal Left are likely to pursue such an agenda to the extreme. We can only hope that more sensible party members push back against this pincer movement.
Liberal Left just seems like the desperate last ditch attempts of a group disillusioned activists who are probably in the wrong party. Your Labour membership cards are in the post, comrades.
Politics is changing. The way we communicate with politicians, and engage in the political process, is changing.
Digital Politico follows, and comments on, these changes. We highlight the tools that are available, and give advice to politicians and campaigners.
Furthermore, this site puts in one place much of the online media put out by Government departments and political parties that help people engage with our political system, but is often hard to find.
Follow us on
This attitude is exactly why I left the Liberal Democrats. What happened to the spirit of debate? Should Charles Kennedy be kicked out of the party for not supporting the coalition? Should John Leech, Simon Hughes and countless others who rebelled against the coalition whip also be removed from the party?
Can you see how stifling this debate not only alienates members and voters, but will also ensure that in 2015 we lose all our seats that aren’t London or South-West based?
I honestly expected better of you, Charlotte. You seemed so… nice.
Instead of calling us Labour, perhaps you should start calling yourself a Tory.
Speaking as Vice-Chair of SLF east midlands regional steering committee, I have to respond to your comment on SLF.
The consensus in East Midlands SLF is certainly not inherently antagonistic to the party leadership, nor is it “pushing toward higher levels of tax, spending & state nannying”.
In fact, East Midlands SLF (and the SLF as a whole) made a conscious decision to work with the party leadership on reviewing the achievements of the party in coalition as we approach the midway point of this parliament.
East Midlands SLF committee made a decision to make focusing on mutuals & co-operatives – part of “left-wing” politics which Labour have ignored and belittled even when Gordon Brown, a Labour-Cooperative MP, was Prime Minister.
We have since been very pleasantly surprised by emerging coalition policy on mutualism & cooperatives, starting the day after we took the decision to focus on mutuals, when Nick gave his excellent speech on promotion of a “John Lewis economy” – one in which people have a real stake in the success of the business.
I’ve also been fascinated to read of Ed Davey’s apparent priority to bring mutual bargaining to local communities for utility provision, which is a real world benefit to thousands of people *and* a fantastic environmental policy.
Do I get accused of joining the Green Party at this point?
As a member of the SLF my focus is on *Liberal* social policy. Yes, that makes me focus on priorities which are outside of the main thrust of the coalition government, because the coalition government has to deal with the ruinous legacy left for us by the Labour Party. But I certainly don’t want to join a Labour Party which can’t accept its own responsibility for the failings and persistently blames us for the effort of fixing things.
I am neither in favour of the smothering, paternalistic statism of the Labour Party, nor the predatory, callous harshness of the Conservatives.
I am a Liberal, and I seek to empower the individual over either the state or the private sector.
But hey, at least being called a Labourite makes a change from being called a Tory.
ACMG
Whenever anyone says “this is why I left the party”, I always want to say “Bye, then. Shut the door on the way out.”
How nice and liberal.
I do think there is a bit of a double standard on this that Charlotte is right to draw attention to.
If similarly high profile members to Linda Jack and Professor Grayson had engaged with and developed policy for the Conservatives when they were in opposition, people on the left of the party (and by that I mean some members of the SLF – but not necessarily the organisation as a whole) would have denounced it. And rightly so.
What a very disappointing article. Plurality, democracy and open opinion are principles of Liberalism right?
whether you agree with people spreading a positive, progressive message across all parties or not, we shouldnt slam people for expressing their views and inviting them out of the party. Instead lets listen and understand. Saying people who disagree with you arent “sensible” is ridiculous and exactly why people, especially young people, are so turned off by the tribalism of politics. If anything, i think this Fringe is healthy to show that there remains a plethora of opinion on the coalition and that we must fufil of government duties with our eyes wide open and not be in a blind government, purely to hide dissent or party opinion.
Will be interesting to see the turn out at the Fringe….
Yes, but these Liberal Left people have formally started a group that is opposed to what our own ministers are doing in government. Our own ministers!
[predictable comments alert] – I know that you know that the S in SLF stands for Social not Socialist, just thought I’d remind you
Also:
Citation required…
more generally, I have very little problem with plural debate, which should be encouraged and fostered (hence the F in SLF standing for Forum…), provided it’s considered and informed debate on the issues not personalities.
I would hope that those who hold different views to SLF, Liberal Left and whoever else will engage on the issues rather than sit on the sidelines and complain about factions and so on.
See you in Gateshead
I am not a member of the SLF but I think in making such a broad generalization of the group and falling into the Labour trap of petty nicknames you risk alienating those with SLF sympathies and doing the job of the likes of Linda Jack for her.
Pieces like this also give credit to the rising belief of some that the “Right” or “Orange Bookers” are trying to turn the Lib Dems in to Tory lite and silence the voice of the left.
Whatever is happing to the old Lib Dem tradition of its members being able to hold different views and still get along?
Having said my piece I still very suspicious of a person who happily works on Labour policy for them.
Pingback: Liberal Vision » Blog Archive » Liberal Leftovers
Wow. I mean, really, wow. I hope this article isn’t a precursor of things to come. SLF have always been incredibly scrupulous about not abusing other people within the party as Orange Bookers, right-wingers, etc., but you talk about the ‘Socalist Liberal Forum’. Perhaps, rather than throwing around slurs and innuendos, you should explain why exactly you think that the ideas that SLF are talking about – thinks like mutuals, land value and capital taxation – are socialist rather than liberal.
I have limited sympathy for Grayson, Jack et al, because I think that they made a terrible mistake in engaging with Labour, partly because it’s the bloody Labour Party who wouldn’t know fairness or social justice if it bit them on the arse, but also because it can be used as a stick to beat the SLF with by people like you. And I am, despite it all, pro-Coalition. But I think they deserve better, after years of good service, than being told to leave the party.
I might add that leftish candidates regularly do well in FPC and FE elections, and the health votes in Spring and Autumn last year showed the strength of ‘social liberal’ feeling, even if there wasn’t quite the requisite 2/3 majority in Birmingham to suspend Standing Orders. To use another metric, the Social Liberal Forum has 950 likes on Facebook, whereas Liberal Vision has 49. Perhaps this isn’t a fair comparison since most economic liberals I know think that Liberal Vision is mad as a box of frogs, but it is suggestive of something, as is the fact that the SLF has managed to start branches in most of the English regions and in Scotland. You might argue that this is representative of conference reps and activists rather than members, of course, but without a left-right leadership contest (which 2007 definitely wasn’t) or an all-member ballot (which we’ve never had) it’s rather hard to gauge opinion.
Whilst I think very public criticisms of the Lib Dem contributions to government should be discouraged as unjust and counter productive, and whilst I instinctively anticipate much of what is said by the identified speakers at this event is not something with which I would agree, I’m not against the group’s ability to form, not its members’ continued membership of the broader Lib Dems.
I would offer the group one piece of advice, which neither Labour nor the SLF have really exhibited a grasp of – the boy who cried wolf received no attention when a real wolf was coming – all the noise and hyperbole where unjustified simply desensitises a potential audience to future valid points more reasonably made.
Charlottte I’mvery disappointed at your clear distortion of the Social Liberal Forum. This is not the first time in recent memory that you have mistaken what it means to be a social liberal member of our party. I recall the attempt you tried, and failed, to correctly identify the former SDP and Liberal party contributions in the early days of the Lib Dems.
Distorting the SLF as state nannying when many of the members stood out for liberty from the Conference Committee over zealousness at last conference certainly is a rather mixed up way to describe things. As for the SLF being the only tax raising element in the party, it wasn’t that long ago that party manifestos actually talked about a 1p raise in income tax to do away with tuition fees.
Indeed the manifesto that all of us who stood in 2010 stood on talked about fairness in so many areas. That fairness means not talking the bottom rungs away from the ladder that some do actually find themselves on while others on the upper rungs are giving less to support those further down the ladder than those who are further down the ladder. If fighting for fairness has suddenly not become what this party that I’ve been a member of 23 years then something is seriously wrong.
“SLF have always been incredibly scrupulous about not abusing other people within the party as Orange Bookers, right-wingers.”
Oh really?
“To use another metric, the Social Liberal Forum has 950 likes on Facebook, whereas Liberal Vision has 49.”
Actually, our Facebook Fanpage is a very, very recent addition so you’re right, it is not a fair comparison at all.
“most economic liberals I know think that Liberal Vision is mad as a box of frogs”
Casts the first quote I pulled from your comment in a new light…
I have no problem with pluralism and debate within the LibDems, however, this article is completely justified. Linda Jack and Richard Grayson signed a letter to the Guardian backing the economic policy of Compass, a group formally associated with the Labour party. This is the equivalent of members of Liberal Vision writing to the Daily Mail arguing that we should follow the policies of the Bow Group.
Plurality is one thing. Overt separatism is another…
Pingback: The current underlying tension of the Lib Dem Blogosphere *FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT*
Ron Beadle, the chair of this event, has been outspoken on the coalition being a mistake and is also working with the Labour party on it’s policy. Interestingly this is the first time he will have surfaced in Lib Dem circles locally since the GE 2010. He hasn’t attended a single conference, regional or national, since. I may pop along to this event just in case they are deluded enough to think they are speaking for the silent minority. BTW Ron has repeatedly called for all Lib Dems who voted for tuition fees to be deselected – so we should deselect all of the members of the government, David Laws, Alan Beith, Ian Swales etc etc
I’m a member of the SLF. I’m also a member of Compass (though I won’t be renewing my membership). I’m also an economic liberal.
I have no interest in socialism, or conservatism for that matter – my interest is social justice in the context of liberalism.
And, to be honest, I’m a bit disappointed that someone like you Charlotte, who I’ve met on quite a few occasions and liked as someone who seemed perfectly reasonable, seems to think it’s acceptable to use such stringent and inflammatory language against other members of the party (one of whom is myself) simply because we are members of the Social Liberal Forum or, god forbid!, think that maybe the coalition isn’t all sunshine and sparkles and magic unicorns.
But no, I suppose you’re quite right and people like me should eff off and join the SWP. After all, from your blogpost, it sounds like the SLF and SWP are practically the same thing anyway.
Prateek, of course the author knows what the initials of the SLF stand for (but you knew that). She is simply engaging in the sort of pettiness where our opponents call us ‘Liberals’ in the hope in rankles (it doesn’t, it just reminds me of their stupidity) or Limp Dumbs, or where our colleagues used phrases such as ‘ZaNu Labour’.
That sort of (lack of) vocabulary is usually a sign that the author has already lost the argument.
Pingback: Liberal Left go live | Digital Politico
Pingback: Liberal Left break cover | Digital Politico
Dear Charlotte,
Congratulations on having an opinion and on expressing it. Maybe not on the *way* you express it (which appears to have upset a great many sensitive souls in the SLF) but a welcome opinion all the same.
To all the people saying “we are a diverse party” and then telling Charlotte she can’t have her opinion – do you not see the contradiction in what you are saying?! It’s perfectly fair to say that the Party does not belong to the SLF and to express some alarm at the way all the internal debate at the moment appears to be being forced from one quarter. (Maybe not *is* but *appears*.) Yes, the satire may be a little unsubtle, but have a sense of humour about it – we’re Liberals, after all!
As for Liberal Left, I have to say I find the idea of working with the Labour Party before they have *massively* revised their policies – the party of i.d. cards, detention without trial, DNA databases, sofa government, tuition fees (yes, tuition fees, they had a majority, the two faced so-and-sos), and of course Iraq – UTTERLY NAUSEATING. I wouldn’t touch the Labour Party with ten foot pole if I was in a biohazard suit and equipped with a gallon of domestos.
I am not surprised that you’re roused to anger, Charlotte. I’m pretty angry about it myself. I think the party benefits enormously from the presence of Richard and Linda, but they are dead wrong.
Pingback: Opinion: There is one coalition that needs to last
Sara Scarlett It wasn’t very long ago that many people in the Lib Dems (myself included) thought that positioning ourselves “to the left of” Labour, was the principled and likely to be electorally popular line. I remember Nick Clegg, in what were perhaps early stirrings of his bid for the leadership, saying a number of times that he wouldn’t allow that to happen, and we had to make sure we were moved in perception to the right. Well, you have to hand it to him, he has certainly managed that!
This is relevant, in that Compass, which although it started life as a faction of Labour, is now a much more non-aligned radical group. So to work with Compass these days is certainly not to declare an allegiance to Labour. I am not sure, btw, whether you have it correct that Compass is now “formally” associated with Labour, or that it was “formerly” so linked. I cannot for the life of me see why Liberal Vision would want to work with the Bow Group (I didn’t know they were still active) in the Tories. I would have thought their more natural allies would have been the No Turning Back Group or similar.
Pingback: Opinion: The good, the bad and the ugly of the Lib Dems
Pingback: Welcoming the debate that Liberal Left brings to the table
Pingback: Liberal Left | Liberal Ramblings from Petersfield
I just wanted to raise a question I’ve not seen mentioned yet.
Perhaps some in the party see the possibility of dissent as dangerous and I can certainly see that could be a by-product, but there is a far greater advantage in having open debate.
At present, amongst ordinary voters, LibDems in the coalition are not being seen as distinct from the Tories. With the exception of Chris Huhne (gone) and Vince Cable (silenced), voices of dissent have not been been heard by the general public and appear to have disappeared. The u-turn by Nick Clegg in “changing his mind” over tuition fees only persuaded voters that he was/is David Cameron’s poodle. (I only have anedotal evidence for this. – i.e. people telling me they’ll never vote LibDem again.)
It seems to me that disaffected LibDem voters want to hear that LibDems in government are trying hard to temper the worst of the Tory excesses. How can that happen if the same type of debate isn’t tolerated within the party, between existing party members? Surely this is a way of attracting natural liberal voters and ex members back to the party, or is the coalition agreement really just a governmental gagging order?
I’ve seen a lot of replies from the LibDem party “faithful” on comments from people describing themselves as former or ex-LibDem members stating that their opinion doesn’t count and “they should shut the door on their way out” or “join the Labour party”. Perhaps these people are commenting on a LibDem related website precisely because they care, IMHO, this failure to recognise that the party is losing members and voters (again anecdotal evidence only) is the sort of attitude that will result in the parliamentary party disappearing into the political abyss. (Something I hope does not happen.). My natural politics lie with the LibDems, but for the first time in my life I am unsure of how I will vote next time. Shouldn’t you be trying to attract me and other natural liberal voters back to the party by encouraging debate and appearing distinct from the Tories?
I won’t be joining Liberal Left because I share to the letter Richard’s feelings about the Labour Party. It is perfectly entitled to exist, though, and its members, including Linda Jack and Richard Grayson should not be subjected to personal abuse and questioning of their right to be in our party.
I am, however, a supporter of the Social Liberal Forum because they represent pretty much where my instincts lie. I’m not a socialist, never have been and never will be.
This party needs good quality debate because we have a challenge to develop good quality policy fit for the age of austerity.
On the old linear spectrum, Nick Clegg is way to the right of me, but his instincts on things like mental health,social mobility and enabling families to make decisions on parental leave that suit them are absolutely brilliant.
We need to listen to each other as we debate the issues not call each other names just because a group we may not like has been set up.