Filter By

There is more to a Liberal Democrat than a chameleon in a hat!

Simon Beard responds to recent Disraeli Room posts painting the Liberal Democrats as shape-shifting anoraks

There has been some criticism of the Liberal Democrats on this blog in recent days, and the Editor has kindly offered to let me post a response from the perspective of a committed Lib Dem.

Reading many comments about the Lib Dems since the election, it seems to me that public opinion about us could be summed up in the phrase ‘chameleons in silly hats', and this is a view I think needs challenging.

Let's start with the hat. It is immediately apparent to anybody looking at UK politics where the Lib Dems stand on certain issues, and we hold positions on them that make us very distinctive, as if we were all wearing bright yellow hats. Electoral Reform is one of these, and in particular a commitment to replacing our current voting system, with a strong preference for the Single Transferable Vote system. Another is civil liberties, defined quite broadly so as to capture everything from the right to protest in parliament square to drugs policy reform. Historically free trade has formed the third horn of the hat, but this is less relevant now that it is the default policy of almost everybody, nevertheless it is still represented by our strong support for the EU and for the rights of migrants, both economic and political. It is quite a natty hat, and many non Lib Dems are tempted to try it on, especially when trying out a new set of policies, and whilst some snigger at its boldness the hat is generally respected. Hats are cool.

However, no matter how important these particular issues are to Lib Dems they are rarely those that the general public care about most. Instead they are far more interested in the wealth of services provided by the state, how they are run and how they will be paid for. In these areas the Lib Dems are far less distinctive. Moreover we have a tendency to appear to change our stance depending on who we are talking to. When the Lib Dems were seen mostly against a backdrop of disaffected Labour voters our commitment to free higher education, progressive taxation and social housing gave us a deep red tinge. Now that we are in coalition with the Conservatives our belief that public money should follow individuals, that markets can be used to drive reform and that the poorest should pay less income tax turn us a deep blue, and make it look, as Adam argued recently, as if we ‘simply dissolve into Thatcherism when mixed into a Coalition'. Hence the perception that, despite our bright yellow hats, the Lib Dems are political chameleons.

Naturally this is not how we see ourselves. The first thing to realise is that Lib Dems have always stood for free higher education, progressive taxation, including tax cuts for the poorest, social housing, individualised public services and free markets, and that we still do. None of these things is actually inconsistent with the rest. However political realities mean that we cannot get all that we would like, firstly because we must form a coalition to get into government (after all, who really wants to elect somebody wearing a silly hat!) and secondly because there simply isn't the money to do everything we want.

However, much more importantly, the Lib Dems are not just a random mixture of red and blue, but represent a cross-cutting ideology that takes what it sees as the best of both worlds and that shares both the values of the right and the left. We want higher education to be free because this helps ensure that it is available to everybody who wants it. However, if this can be achieved by other means, we also feel that there is something perverse in poor-non graduates paying for the education of rich graduates and whilst we want public services to be well funded we also believe that money is better allocated when it follows individuals rather than being distributed by a faceless and unresponsive bureaucracy. Whilst we see increasing the social housing stock as a key means of reducing homelessness and social depravation we are also motivated to do it because there are clear signs that without government intervention the market is bound to overheat. Our commitment to progressive taxation is sincere, and we are still opposed to VAT on principle, however the taxation of low income individuals is probably a greater evil as it makes work less profitable, discourages saving and so re-enforces the poverty gap.

For me the best illustration of this cross cutting ideology is our approach to income tax. In 1997 the Lib Dems argued for an extra penny to be raised on income tax, in 2001 this had changed to a new higher rate of 50%, in 2005 we wanted to redistribute the tax burden and at the time of the 2010 election we were arguing for a tax cut for the poorest. The public narrative has been that these moves represented a gradual shift to the right amongst Lib Dems, however from my perspective it felt much more like the Lib Dems stayed rock steady and New Labour raised more and more money through regressive stealth taxes until the tax burden became too high, were once it was clearly too low.

In truth it is the same material from which our bright yellow hats are made that the entire Liberal Democrat party, or at least the vast majority of it, is woven. However, because this fabric is neither red nor blue, people only ever see it as a mix of both. There is a consistent core of liberalism that explains all of our policies, and the disagreements we have about them. Naturally when we are in coalition it is those policies that are most amenable to a right wing audience that get implemented, on the other hand when Labour and the Lib Dems were considering a coalition prior to the 1997 election it was the red policies that came to the fore, and stayed there throughout the ensuing period of Labour government, but the party has never changed its colour. It isn't red, it isn't blue, and it isn't purple - it's yellow through and through.

Comments on: There is more to a Liberal Democrat than a chameleon in a hat!

Gravatar Simon Beard 20 January 2011
Nishma and Keith

Much of what I would say in response to both of you is really far to party political for this blog, but I am sure you have heard most of it already.

Adam

I really must disagree with the thrust of your comment. What I have tried to argue here is that the Lib Dems are keeping their destinctiveness, its just that this is not simply a matter of being more left wing. I think the problem is simply that people don't really see it, because they haven't 'learned' to spot its distinctiveness. For me the next five years will be a matter of teaching people to look at politics in three dimensions, and I think things are going to get better as they start to get the nack of it. I doubt we will get back to 23% any time soon, but Lib Dems have always played a long game, and let's not forget that in 1990 we were on 6% of the vote (behind the Greens), seen as having betrayed our supporters through merger with the SDP, and famously dismised as a dead parrot by Lady T.

I really look forward to opening peoples' eyes to the liberalness of this government and proving, by 2015, that we are more than just chameleons in hats.

S
Reply
Gravatar Keith Turner 20 January 2011
What I completely fail to understand about the Liberal Democrats is how they can change their stance on several issues almost overnight after asking the electorate to trust them with their vote at the last election.

Whilst accepting that we must have government, no one actually voted for a coalition. How they hope to work effectively with the Tory party after David Cameron described Nick Clegg as his favourite political joke is also beyond me. The coalition has all the appearance of a shotgun wedding that fell apart at the reception.

The only matter that I see the Lib Dems being consistent on is reform of the voting system. They want it to support their bid to form a Liberal Democrat government.

I believe that the Lib Dems should face up to the high level of criticism levelled at them, put their own house in order and fight to regain their lost credibility before the Coalition collapses or the five year government term runs its course. To do otherwise is similar to a turkey voting for Christmas.
Reply
Gravatar Adam Schoenborn 20 January 2011
Keith,

I won't try to answer this for Simon - but I will point you to Matthew d'Ancona's answer in the Telegraph:

At the end of last year, Richard Reeves, Nick Clegg’s astute special adviser, delivered a presentation to a gathering of senior Lib Dems. David Laws and others listened to Reeves’s argument that the party’s strategy for this parliament needed to be divided into three phases. First, the Lib Dems had to establish their credibility as a party of government, and a reliable partner in a coalition acting in the national interest. Second, around mid-term, it would be necessary for the party to “renew”, to freshen up its appeal and its identity. Third – in April 2015, and not before then – it should explicitly differentiate itself from its Conservative partners and campaign as a distinct party in the general election.

That would certainly would offer insight into to the points that I raised in my blog last week and Simon and you have addressed above, about the appearance that the Lib Dems lack, or are unwilling to defend, their distinct values. This seems like a bold strategy and an interesting reaction to the 24 hour news cycle, but will it work - and is it actually in the national interest?

Reply
Gravatar Nishma 19 January 2011
Simon - Firstly, you're right, hats are cool - but not all of them.

While you may argue that the core principles of the Liberal Democrats are upheld, I still feel as though Lib Dem policy remains inconsistent. For example:

You mention that "there simply isn’t the money to do everything we want" - there is ample evidence that there is. Firstly, we have a deficit because we have assets (two big banks). These assets work as leverage so we can borrow more and retain our current credit rating. Secondly, if we did rein in our tax avoiders and put a few more restrictions on revenue made in the UK, we would be able to cover our debts quite well. There is money - it's just that the Lib Dems don't want to see it.

You also state that it is "perverse for poor-non graduates paying for the education of rich graduates". Surely it's more perverse that more poor youth will no longer attend university (or even think about it) because they cannot afford to. This would only increase inequality as only the rich will be able to pay for their education (I know you pay it back after - but it's still a disincentive). Secondly, the more investment in education, the broader the prospects of society. Through education you learn about life, not just set yourself up for a career.

On public services, how does a private organisation that replaces that public service (such as a library) not have "a faceless and unresponsive bureaucracy"? I don't think there is much defence anyone can have for cutting public services, especially when it comes from cutting DLA - which you and I know many people require just to get by.

Finally, on "free markets" - hasn't the banking crash shown how free markets DON'T work? Regulation prevents crazy speculation, and it could be stopping the rise of food prices at the moment, but there's no regulatory framework for OTC transactions. Free-Trade has only helped the rich get richer - the pharmaceutical industry being the prime example. Don't assume that everyone takes it as a given; a lot of us disagree.

I'll not go into detail about how the LibDems voted AGAINST an ammendment to the May vote on AV (which isn't parliamentary reform, it's electoral reform)

In all of these, how are the Liberal Democrats still representing the view of a liberal party?

P.S. Sorry for the essay
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

Date Published
19 January 2011

About The Authors