Gregg McClymont MP has an interesting post on Next Left about Keir Hardie’s acceptance of liberal ideas but rejection of the Liberal Party. The final point he makes about a party’s primal instinct being revealed as it approaches power is an interesting point. To quote:
“Again, there is an insight from West Ham. Led by Thorne, West Ham in 1898 elected the first ‘Labour’ Council in Britain. The governing Labour Group included several unaligned Liberal/Radical members and embarked on a programme which involved enlarging the municipal workforce and bringing it directly under public control so as to improve pay, conditions and job security. By 1900 the Labour Council was no more. It was defeated by an alliance of Liberals and Conservatives, who, aghast at the distributive consequences of municipal socialism in action, united in opposition to the common enemy.
This pattern would be repeated. Across the twentieth century the tensions between Labour and Liberal have been most evident at the local level. This is partly because it was only in local government that the Liberals could wield power – and only when close to power are the instincts and prejudices of a political party revealed.
Labour councillors around the country have been telling us this for years about Liberal Democracy. Now, with the Coalition, we see the same dynamic at the national level.”
There is something I find worrying about this. It’s not the historical analysis per se- McClymont’s credentials on the historical front are impeccable. It’s more the implications that are drawn in the final sentence above. There are two concerns I have: firstly, Labour has worked perfectly respectably with Liberal Democrats in devolved Parliaments and Assemblies as well as on constitutional reform in the early years of the New Labour Government. To allow ourselves to fall into a mindset that Liberal Democrats will always revert to classical or Manchester liberal orthodoxy will mean that fruitful opportunities for dialogue and engagement may not be pursued which could be an error.
And secondly, we are now getting a better insight into the Liberal Democrats from voices such as Richard Grayson who is at the head of the Social Liberal Forum and has written a Compass pamphlet (which was summarised in the New Statesman last week.) His point is that the Liberal Democrats are under-factionalised. There is an ideologically social liberal minority and a similarly ideological ‘Orange book’ tendency- also a minority. In between, there is a non-ideological majority and where they swing depends very much on which of the ideological wings are in the ascendancy and circumstance.
Labour faces a pluralistic political landscape where hung parliaments may become far more frequent if not the norm- especially if the next election is fought under AV. If it allows itself to fall into ‘they are all untrustworthy classical liberals really’ trap then it may fail to develop what could be a fruitful dialogue with Liberal Democrat elements who are broadly centre-left-liberal in their political philosophy.
And if you need any evidence of this then it is worth reading the Grayson pamphlet. Just take his perspective on poltical economy for instance:
“In developing new ideas which go beyond the latest manifesto, social liberals could be arguing for a new political economy, which puts issues of power in the workplace and the ownership of assets back on to the political agenda in the way that the Liberal Party once did.”
And what would be holding Labour back from joining in that discussion? It certainly feels like a more constructive discussion that a constant sticking to the ‘don’t challenge the market’ guns. I’d rather be looking at the power of the individual in the workplace and the market than just accepting economic orthodoxy and trying to make the best of a bad job. Sadiq Khan MP makes this point ably on Labour Uncut in his rebuttal to John Woodcock’s defence of labour market flexibility of last week. And if there are social liberals who wish to engage in that discussion also then great.
July 15th, 2010 at 15:47
One of the areas where liberals and Labour might be able to come to a shared view is around equity of treatment for workers, which goes along with the point about individual rights and control. It means uniting against nativism or preferential rights for British born workers as against foreign born ones.
This is important because ow we are in the EU and there is no reasonable prospect of us leaving it, foreign born workers will be able to come here and it would be iniquitous for them to be treated differently from other workers. This doesn’t come (or doesn’t just come) from a pro-European internationalism, but from the centrality of equal treatment to the liberal elements of Labour & the Lib Dem parties.