The other Lib Dem-Tory talks

Facebook friends and enemies.

Until last Friday, my Facebook newsfeed had been pretty tedious. I've been a Liberal Democrat for 20 years, and most of my Facebook "friends" are in the party. They spent the election using the social networking site to vie for supremacy in pavement politics: one would update his status to "has knocked on 10,000 doors in this election", to be bettered minutes later by someone who had "knocked on 20,000".

But as coalition talks continue, the newsfeed has become a lot more interesting.

As proportional representation slips down the list of priorities put forward by Nick Clegg (behind economic stability), there is a sense of real unease among many members. "Stick to the bottom line -- implemented & genuine PR, not just some claptrap commission . . . Lib/Lab/Others is over 50 per cent of the popular vote -- not exactly shabby," goes a typical post.

"We must insist the new parliament introduces a fair voting system and a new election under new rules within a year," is the rallying call by another, pushing a demonstration at Reading Civic Centre.

These posts get plenty of "Likes". And listening in on the social network exchanges, Clegg clearly has a problem here. In an election where "Labour with 8.0m votes; LibDem with 6.3m; Labour get nearly FIVE TIMES the seats", the sense of unfairness is raw. Oddly, Clegg would have had a freer hand here if 80 Lib Dem MPs had been returned.

Scores of "Friends" are now members of competing Facebook pages backing electoral reform. "We want the Liberal Democrats to insist on Proportional Representation", has approaching 2,000 members. "Every vote counts" is also popular, as is "We want proportional representation".

As they rally to these, Lib Dems who are still hurting from the result, still looking at options they know will split either the party or its support base, are the target of Tory "friends". A thread starts in good humour, maybe with an expression of sympathy, or musing about what happens now, but soon the mood changes.

The comment thread from an MP who lost lost last Thursday is typical. One "friend" posted "Sorry for the loss of the vote", and followed up with a plea to be careful about a tie-up with the Tories. It quickly got ill-tempered, with one "friend" saying it would be "unfair and undemocratic" for Clegg to "prop up the losers"; and we're quickly back into a debate about whether Thatcher "f*cked us over good and proper".

"It's going to happen Ed. Accept political reality," hectors one of my oldest friends. "Recognise that constructive engagement on a pragmatic centre-right basis is what you've ended up with, rather than hankering after Labour and a referendum on PR that will likely be rejected by that public. Your party won't be forgiven at the polls in six months." This followed a link I'd shared to a long, moderately worded article by the academic and former staffer Richard Grayson that urged a Lib-Lab tie-up.

That kind of finger-wagging is common, and Tory friends have been most active on Lib Dems' Walls. "If they turn down a deal with the Tories and go for a Lib/Lab pact, they run the gauntlet and deserve everything they get," writes another in response to a post by former staffer: "I voted Lib Dem for a number of reasons. One of which was to keep the Tories out."

What does all this show about how a coalition decision would play out in the Lib Dems? The Facebook chatter shows that by letting PR slip further down the list of priorities, Clegg will be putting himself in hot water with the membership.

The postings from Tories also tell us a great deal. Cameron and his team have been appropriate, measured and sensible -- but beyond those Cabinet Office negotiations the Tories aren't playing so nicely.

And do we detect in the shrill tone from Tory supporters a hint that, if this deal falls through, their anger will have to turn inward?

Eduardo Reyes was vice-chair of the Student Liberal Democrats. He worked for the Liberal Democrats from 1995-98, and has been a party election agent and council candidate.

Getty
Show Hide image

New New Labour: forget ideological purity – Jeremy Corbyn is building a mass appeal party

Rather than a Seventies revival, the Labour leader is creating a social democratic party giving opportunities to all parts of the population.

Does the general election result signal a new political and, dare I say it, public relations phase for Labour?

There is a consensus among commentators and MPs across the political spectrum that Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has been a continuous struggle to revive the party’s ideological purity and rekindle its cultural and political relationship with the trade unions.

The Economist cover depicting Corbyn as Lenin with the caption “Backwards, Comrades!” encapsulated the mood about a leader thought to only offer old and sometimes toxic solutions to new problems such as the gig economy, Brexit, fintech and corporate taxation.

Criticisms about militant left politics and Seventies nostalgia exist in a political and cultural framework constructed and passionately preserved by New Labour and its proponents. New Labour was the mark of a newly reformed party that had detached itself from the politically and electorally incapacitating idea of common ownership of the means of production (known as Clause IV), and endorsed competitive market economics.

The 1996 manifesto “New Labour, New Life for Britain” set out the party’s “third way” approach to realign the free market with social justice. For New Labour, the state’s minimised role in the economy, the liberalisation of financial services and public-private partnerships can and will lead to an effective taxation system and investment in health, housing and education.

The intellectual architects of New Labour cast this ideological departure as a necessity for denouncing an alleged anachronistic and unrealistic socialist way of thinking, and effectively regaining the trust of the electorate.

Whereas Tony Blair’s New Labour embraced the free market for communicating the party’s modernisation, Corbyn subverts the logic of the free market for the same effect – to present a party fit to govern in the 21st century.

Corbyn’s leadership cannot and should not be perceived as a nostalgic return to a strong state thriving on high taxes and the provision of welfare at the expense of social mobility, entrepreneurship and ultimately electability. Instead, Corbyn’s leadership is an attempt to develop a New New Labour based on the premise of participatory democracy.

As we approach the tenth anniversary of perpetual financial crises, political volatility and consolidation programmes, citizens in the UK and across the world are frustrated with the lack of political imagination and determination.

The conviction of the efficiency of an independent market in every aspect of social life including health, housing and education prevents political leaders and policymakers from implementing radical ideas. Corbyn’s leadership and political programme highlighted the limitations of New Labour in times of crisis and distrust. New Labour has grown old, and the disbelief in socialism appears as a conservative dogma that only contributes to an ever-greater disparity between citizens and parliamentary politics.

The 2017 Labour manifesto, “For the Many Not the Few”, envisions a productive role for the state but such a role is neither restrictive nor a top-down affair. Corbyn’s New New Labour regains its legitimacy as a social democratic party – and the electorate’s trust – by striving to create opportunities on both national and local levels for all members of the population to make meaningful contributions to policymaking, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to these opportunities.

From crowdsourced Prime Minister’s Questions, massive mobilisation of activists inside and outside the party’s structures to the understanding of wealth creation as a collective endeavour, the Labour party has the potential to become a creative platform upon which membership, participation, individual ideas and anxieties do matter.

Progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth and nationalisation of key industries are nostalgic musings about lost political battles as long as there exist rigid boundaries between the citizen, politics and the economy. The restructuring of Labour and the redefinition of activism according to the principles of participatory democracy have enhanced the meaning of deliberation and proven that social democracy is capable of dynamic reform and renewal.

What does the future hold for Labour and its multiple ideological orientations? Condemning Tony Blair’s New Labour and praising Corbyn’s new kind of politics after beating expectations in the election is not enough. It should be the duty and aspiration of each Labour leader to formulate a New New Labour for a party that is faithful to its social democratic values and is able to govern by offering new solutions to new problems.

Dr Kostas Maronitis is a cultural and media sociologist, and lecturer at Leeds Trinity University. He is the author of “Postnationalism and the Challenges to European Integration in Greece”.