History lessons
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditBy Gina Byrne
It has often been said that history repeats itself; nowhere is this more applicable than in the political arena.
Take a moment to cast your mind back and remember, if you will – and indeed, can – the 1990s.
Look past the incredible scientific advances which culminated in the first cloned mammal, the euphoric waves of democratisation spreading across the world, and the never-ending wonder and delights of your tamagotchi, to 1995.
Labour’s special conference in the spring of that year had been called to debate the future of Clause IV – the article of the Labour Party’s constitution which was effectively a commitment to nationalisation and public ownership – and saw a battle which the leadership, newly-headed by Tony Blair, won.
New Labour was born, and the left of the party retreated into the political hinterland, to wander the moors like Jane Eyre, pining the loss and betrayal of her Mr Rochester, seemingly never to return.
Mad wives in the attic aside, it was not just the rephrasing of Clause IV but also the weakening of union influence, the neutralisation of conference and the greater centralisation of power within the Party which crippled the left and allowed the leadership to retain such tight control over the direction of policy for more than a decade.
Bringing ourselves back to the present day, leaving all curtain haircuts behind us please, we see some possible hope for the Labour left. Those who have squirmed uncomfortably at some of the events of the past few years now have a chance of re-establishing themselves at the forefront of Labour politics as the party attempts to reinvent itself after electoral defeat with its first leadership contest for over fifteen years. The future, while not certain, certainly looks hopeful.
But as Labour is emerging from this process, the Liberal Democrats are at the pinnacle of their own Clause IV moment. They risk becoming, as Richard Grayson says in his new publication The Liberal Democrat Journey, “as hollowed out as Labour under New Labour.”
Certainly, many Liberal Democrat voters – and those on the left of British politics in general – feel betrayed by the coalition government. The support the Liberal Democrats have bestowed on Osborne’s budget of VAT rises, swingeing cuts in public services and a deficit reduction programme that falls disproportionately on women all the while claiming that these measures are truly “liberal” in nature, is a bitter pill to swallow. There is much anger and resentment amongst those who had switched their vote to the Liberal Democrats to gain a progressive future.
And yet, this support for traditionally Tory values within the Lib Dems has not come about overnight. Like all political parties, they have never been a group of people with completely identical views who agree on the detail of every policy.
However, Clegg’s rise within the party has given precedence to a centre-right faction that prioritises small state liberalism over social liberalism. This has been apparent ever since Clegg won the 2007 leadership contest, soon after which he revealed his backing for free schools and failed to commit to a protection of public spending which was raised in an amendment at party conference.
It seems that the 2004 Orange Book – featuring contributions from some of the most prominent members of the current government – was a turning point in the direction of the Liberal Democrat Party to the extent that Clause IV and the rise of Blair were for Labour in the 1990s. There has always been conflict between free-market liberals and those holding social liberal values, but the current party leadership has taken this to a new extreme; the small core of the leadership now dominates the party completely.
Just as Blair’s agenda rendered the Labour left powerless, Liberal Democrats who hold social liberal values are now being pushed to the fringes of party doctrine and risk remaining there for many years.
Grayson suggests that the Party itself is to blame, due to their readiness to remain blindingly loyal to any new leader who appears to have sticking power, especially after the setbacks they have experienced since 1999. Furthermore, he suggests, a lack of factionalism, so prevalent in Labour, has prevented any strong challenge to the agenda of Clegg, Huhne, Laws and Alexander – so willing to sacrifice their manifesto commitments to public spending and higher taxes for the rich in exchange for a share in government – which could bring social liberal issues back onto the party’s main agenda.
However, rather than point fingers of blame at the pragmatic and conciliatory process of decision-making within their party, the Liberal Democrats must take a history lesson, and quickly.
Those in the party who still hold social liberal values must draw from Labour’s experiences over the past two decades and not settle for anything less than their core beliefs. Social liberals need to resist the transformation their party is undertaking, and reorganise to become a stronger force within the Liberal movement; this is not only MPs but also party members who choose to remain loyal despite their possible disaffection with the path the leadership are choosing to take.
As we know from school, failure to listen in lessons can have dire consequences. If the Liberal Democrats do not pay attention to political history – especially Labour’s history of the past twenty years – then they will pay for it with a disaster and a huge struggle for social liberals to become prominent once more. Time is running out. They must act soon.
Failing that, however, there is always the Labour tribalist perspective to take on the Liberal Democrat quandary; they could at least think of an original way to ruin their party. Bloody Lib Dems.
Related posts:
Comments are closed