As the Liberal Democrats prepare for what promises to be a fascinating autumn conference, it is perhaps a good time to step back and ask some questions about the future of liberalism. In particular, what are the prospects now for a liberalism of the left? Does the Coalition mark the end of the road for left liberals? How should left liberals respond to it?
First, a stab at definition. A left liberal, as I use the term here, is someone whose politics is centrally defined by three commitments:
(1) A commitment to radical democratic renewal of the state.
(2) A commitment to a generous and robust scheme of civil liberties.
(3) A commitment to economic egalitarianism (in something like the sense I discuss in this earlier post).
So understood, left liberalism is a perspective with a long pedigree, reflected in the writings of Liberals like Leonard Hobhouse and Labour thinkers such as R.H. Tawney and Tony Crosland, as well as being a major presence in contemporary academic political philosophy.
Given their commitments, left liberals resist the idea, presented by right-wing liberals such as Julian Glover, that we must be either for or against the state (or, for that matter, the 'big state'). As Sunder Katwala has argued, we should be for the state in some areas and respects and against it in others. We don't want the state to trample on rights of free speech. We do want generous public services and state action to secure a fair distribution of income and wealth.
This discriminating attitude to the state - for it and against it - is not confused or unprincipled. Rather, it reflects a clear-sighted appreciation of what is necessary to build a society of free and equal citizens.
So, if this is left liberalism, what are its prospects?
At first sight they look rather dim. Historically, the forces of left liberalism have been dispersed across Labour and the Liberal Democrats and their Liberal predecessors. Labour has had an edge on economic egalitarianism. The Liberals/Lib Dems have typically been better - at times much better - on democratic renewal and civil liberties. The hope I have always had is that the two parties could come together in a coalition and learn from each other. Then we'd finally get a left liberal government. (Note: I have been a member of both parties: Lib Dems, 1997-2002, Labour, 1995-97, 2002 - .)
This is why the Coalition is such a huge disappointment to left liberals in Labour such as myself - and to left liberals in the Liberal Democrats like Richard Grayson. Its the 'wrong' coalition!
And neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats now stand clearly and reliably for left liberal values. Labour remains tentative and conflicted on democratic renewal and has only begun a journey back from authoritarianism to firm support for civil liberties. The Liberal Democrats are moving further away from economic egalitarianism under the leadership of their Orange Book-tendency and the pressures of accommodating to Conservative priorities in economic and social policy.
No wonder that left liberals like David Marquand have started to look to the Greens for inspiration. The Greens, after all, tick all the left liberal boxes. In thinking about the parties involved in any left liberal government of the future, we should think beyond Labour and the Lib Dems and acknowledge the possible role of the Greens. A helpful discussion of this pluralist left of the future, with contributions from Jon Cruddas and Caroline Lucas, is the recent ebook, After the Crash, edited by Richard Grayson and Jonathan Rutherford.
However, we shouldn't think only in terms of the political parties. We need also to consider what's going on outside of them.
First, there is Take Back Parliament, a campaign for electoral reform (PR). Some of its supporters and activists were previously involved with Power 2010 and the Convention on Modern Liberty.
Second, we are now seeing the emergence of campaigns, many locally-based, against the Coalition's agenda of severe public spending cuts, such as Oxford Save Our Services with which I am involved.
Campaigns like TBP, and predecessors like CML, speak to the state-critical concerns of left liberalism. The campaigns against the cuts speak to the economic egalitarian concern.
Third, there are blogs like Liberal Conspiracy. Lib Con has many, diverse contributors, but I would argue that one thing that gives it a clear identity and ethos is that its contributors generally share the commitments I've defined as left liberal. Along with other sites, it offers a forum for a shared left liberal conversation that bridges not only party lines but initiatives ranging from TBP to campaigns against the cuts.
So perhaps the situation is not as bad for left liberals as it looks. While left liberalism is currently weak at the level of main political parties, it still exists and is even growing, albeit in a complex, fragmented way, as a campaigning force.
Whatever party you are in, I think a priority for left liberals now is to get involved in these cross-/non-party campaigns. The stronger these get, the greater the pressure on Labour and the Liberal Democrats to respond to left liberal concerns.
And hopefully - one is entitled to dream - this will bring closer the day when we get a left liberal government.
Postscript: this post draws on some ideas that I develop at more length in an article, 'For and against the big state: can we build a left liberal coalition?', which will be in the next issue of Renewal.
5 comments:
I pretty much agree with our definition, but wonder about what you mean by egalitarianism for (3), it seems to mean different things to different people.
I want to lower barriers to entry, to ensure everyone has decent economic opportunities, to break up the oligopolies and encourage mutualist enterprises.
I don't want some sort of homogenous economy where we're all 'equal' in all things, we need to understand, and work towards, the principle of Comparative Advantage, and ensure everyone gets the chance to make a living doing what they're best at.
"The hope I have always had is that the two parties could come together in a coalition and learn from each other"
And I. Unfortunately, it was Labour in office that sold that idea down the river, and the marginalising those that favoured it (such as the under promoted Ben Bradshaw who should've hit Cabinet before either Miliband or Balls did).
Your next paragraph is utterly confused and counterfactual.
"neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats now stand clearly and reliably for left liberal values. Labour remains tentative and conflicted on democratic renewal and has only begun a journey back from authoritarianism to firm support for civil liberties."
This is completely true. The Labour party that wrote the 1997 manifesto was one I'd have happily joined if I'd lived in a different part of the country. The party that created the 2005 and 2010 manifestos is something I barely recognised.
" The Liberal Democrats are moving further away from economic egalitarianism under the leadership of their Orange Book-tendency"
Have you actually, y'kno,w read the Orange Book? It's all about economic egalitarianism, lowering barriers to entry, etc.
"and the pressures of accommodating to Conservative priorities in economic and social policy."
No, untrue. The policy position of the Liberal Democrat Party has not changed. The position of the Coalition is to the right of the Liberal Democrat party position, but to the left of the Conservative party position. Concessions have been forced, funds have been made available, taxes on the wealthy have been increased, tax breaks for the married middle classes have been sidelined.
But the party has not changed position. It's a compromise, and in a compromise, the junior partner has to move more For that compromise.
If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with LAbour, either in 1997 or in 2010, it would have been a predominant Labour policy agenda based on the votes cast. That is right, proper and democratic. The Coalition thus formed would have been significantly more authoritarian and less liberal than the Lib Dem preferred position.
That does not, however, change the Lib Dem preferred position, but does reflect a compromise.
"The Greens, after all, tick all the left liberal boxes"
Do they bollocks. Substantial increases in 'sin taxes', which disproportionately hurt the lowest paid? Substantial increase in taxation generally, including on the lowest paid?
Slow down in economic growth, despite all the evidence showing it is growth and education that makes the most improvement in emissions now we know what we're doing?
I, sincerely, hope for a left liberal government, and I suspect it'd be looking at doing similar things.
(contd, too verbose)
...
And there's a chance that the Greens might be the best hope for that, but it'd mean injecting enough new members into them, and their policy process, to force them to dump their economic illiteracy.
My preferred option is actually, after we get a change in the electoral system, for a new party to form out of elements of both the Lib Dems and liberal Labour, with some of the Greens as well. It would need to exclude, for example, the likes of Andy Burnham, whose dog whistling over some issues during the leadership campaign I don't think I'll ever be able to forget.
But, seriously, the Lib Dem party position has not changed. It probably should, as the big problem is not enough people voted for it, and too many people voted Tory.
MatGB: thanks for the thoughtful comments, I'll try to reply more fully over the weekend.
For the moment, this is just to say that to clarify what I mean by 'economic egalitarianism' - which I agree can mean a lot of things - I have added a link to an earlier post I did on this topic.
Great post Stuart. Do you see an Ed M victory as (most) likely to move Labour (closer) to the left-liberal position that you (and I) would like?
Post a Comment