Comments on: Democracy is such a nuisance

By: Green's Diary » Blog Archive » Green’s 5 A Day – Tuesday

Green's Diary » Blog Archive » Green’s 5 A Day – Tuesday — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:04:02 +0000

[...] Letters From A Tory agrees with me about the Lib Dems [...]

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:41:30 +0000

Shaun, lol. I think you’d get on well with the Liberal Vision crowd.

By: Shaun Pilkington

Shaun Pilkington — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:56:24 +0000

“Which means that a fair proportion of the party looks on bemused (or sits in the pub) whilst the policies move constantly further left and alienate yet more voters.”

Well if you were a classical liberal or of a libertarian bent and you knew that, at absolute, almost unbelievable, best your party could maybe become the largest opposition party but stood no chance of forming a government, would you not consider it sensible to have a few beers and just let the chips fall where they may? TBH, having read that is *almost* enough to get me joining the libs!

Where does the right wing of the Conservative party go as Dave moves leftwards to the center? Do they grab their Daily Mail’s and head to the local High Anglican Church for a spot of prayer? Seriously, the pub sounds a lot better to me!

By: Ollie Cromwell

Ollie Cromwell — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:45:11 +0000

Some conference silliness, Nick Clegg's savage cuts before and after.

By: LFAT

LFAT — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:19:07 +0000

Patently, I didn’t mean it in a climate change sense – I was getting at Cameron’s decision to make environmental policy his centrepiece when the grassroots were far more interested in tax, immigration, the EU etc. It was an extremely bold move by Cameron and one which baffled / annoyed many party activists, even though the environment is obviously a worthy cause.

Stu, I appreciate what you’re saying, which is why I think the word ‘liberal’ is very disingenuous in the party name. There is very little truly liberal about the Lib Dems in their current guise. Their economic policies are about as liberal as Neil Kinnock.

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:12:50 +0000

Well, briefly, this is what I mean: there seem to be a lot more ‘classic’ liberals in the Lib Dems than at first seems apparent, but – and this is the real kicker – the die-hard activists are the only ones who end up actually going into the conference hall and voting on the policy motions, and they’re overwhelmingly social democrat. Which means that a fair proportion of the party looks on bemused (or sits in the pub) whilst the policies move constantly further left and alienate yet more voters. So I met loads of Lib Dems who were very vocally opposed to the Jo Swinson ‘airbrushing ban’ outside the Conference Hall, and yet the motion was carried with only a handful dissenting votes (there may have been as many as five).

So, yes, you’re absolutely right – and indeed forthright – but anecdotally I think the problem runs even deeper than you suggest. It’s not just that democracy isn’t really a great way to decide policies that make the party electable, but also that the democratic approach to policy formation is hurting the Lib Dems as more of their number become disillusioned and ostracised from the process, and consequently don’t bother voting at all, leading to the party moving further left in a vicious circle. Clegg can gain support amongst Lib Dem voters (I wouldn’t know for certain whether he is or not), whilst simultaneously losing the battle with the activists at conference over what policies go in the manifesto. Which seems to be exactly what is happening.

It’s a bit like the entire British political system, in microcosm.

By: patently

patently — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:39:33 +0000

Do you reckon Conservative voters are really progressive environment-loving centrists?

Are you equating a refusal to go along with the prevailing adherence in media and political circles to the hypothesis that Climate Change is (a) unusual, (b) man-made, and (c) controllable by man with hating the environment?

Is it not possible to love the environment, but disagree with the means by which it should be protected?

By: LFAT

LFAT — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:45:00 +0000

Alistair, interesting you should say that party leaders are constrained because I think Cameron did an incredible job of leading from the front and party faithful have followed (although reluctantly in some cases!).

Stu, I thought I was being pretty forthright but feel free to continue the debate!

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:17:38 +0000

Actually, in many ways it’s a lot worse than you make it sound. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to write something later.

By: alastair harris

alastair harris — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:00:37 +0000

Its a good point. BUT the party leader is constrained by the underlying things the party stands for. The Lib Dems have a problem with this – what do they stand for?