A great many people are asking me why I am not leaving the Lib Dems. Well, I am a party member because of John Bright and John Stuart Mill. I am not leaving it because of a nonentity like Nick Clegg.
I am hugely angry over tuition fees. The policy itself, with the effective withdrawal of the state from university teaching and the reinforcement of social division, is a terrible disaster. The blatant display of political opportunism and bad faith by Cless and his ilk will poison politics for a generation.
But not only am I staying in the Lib Dems, I am seeking actively to recruit students. A very high proportion of the student vote went to the Lib Dems at the last election. Those genuine Lib Dem voters are absolutely entitled to join the party. They voted Lib Dem – this is not entryism from outside.
Every Lib Dem MP must win a majority of a vote of his local party members to be reselected.
Under clause 11.7 of the Federal Constitution if a sitting MP wishes to be reselected they have to either:
win a majority vote of the members present at a local party general meeting (conducted by secret ballot)
or
If that resolution is defeated then the MP can request a ballot of all members of the local party.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-time-to-end-the-special-treatment-for-sitting-mps-22319.html
I want to see many, many students join the party, in places like, oh, Sheffield Hallam, for example. The answer to the disillusion of students with our democratic system is for them to join the party and actively participate in, oh, Nick Clegg’s reselection vote, for example.
“And just because I happen to know what the BNP policies are, Suhayl, no it does not mean I am a BNP supporter.”
So, you’re not a supporter of the BNP just a furious defender of their policies.
Riiiiiiiiiight!
But Alfred, if you lived in the UK, would you vote for the BNP? My simple question remains unanswered. It is about actions rather than words.
Ruth, yes, I too thought Norman Baker’s (admittedly highly provisional) conclusion re. Kelly’s death somewhat odd. From reading his book, I suspect he’d been misled.
Angrysoba, yes, the responsibility that comes with (almost any sort of) power is heavy. Very few people, I think, really imagine that anyone can solve all their problems and create a utopia.
All the main parties act on behalf of big capital. I think that with the Lib Dems’ actions in Govt., this realisation may be sinking in.
It has nothing to do with critiques of Zionism. The ‘scapegoats’ in this case very clearly are the people of Britain who are busy losing their jobs and homes. Oh, and the people dying in unnecessary wars to which the Lib Dems have signed-up.
This thread, and many of the responses to Craig, sadden me.
The student fees policy, like the poll tax, is an absolute scandal. I was pleasantly surprised by the public reaction to the ill-named community charge in the spring of 2000, continuing through the summer, and the collapse in fortunes of the party responsible as a result. I didn’t see anyone opposed suggesting at that time that we (I was a student then) all rush to join the Conservative party.
So why would it help to join the liberal democrats now, who ARE responsible for this latest policy abomination because Clegg & his ministers could have voted against!
The poll tax was defeated by public protest, and public rejection of the party responsible for it at the ballot box. The student fees hike can be defeated in a similar way. It is called democracy in action… the people waking up and saying “enough!”
Whilst I can see your logic, Craig, what you suggest just won’t happen; the likelihood of students – of all people – joining a party that has betrayed and shafted them as never students have been shafted before is very, very, low. Even if a small number of students followed your suggestion, it would be perceived as acceptance of, and even agreement with, the fees policy. Also, Labour brought in fees, which was bad. If the rebranded party now do something good to help stop/reverse the fee rise (which other party is offering that?) they’ll get my vote.
I agree about Clegg. The lib dems should never have voted him in as their leader; I’m sure they wouldn’t do that now!
angrysoba at 7:13am: Precisely.
One has to ask, why won’t Alfred give me a straight answer to this very simple question? I’ve been asked all kinds of kooky things on these threads, such as, ‘do I support suicide-bombing?’, etc., etc. and I’ve had no hesitation in replying (in the negative). I don;t mind – my views are clear and are the same in public and in private.
So what is the problem here? Surely, if someone would not vote BNP, they’d readily say so. Alfred seems to find a way of introducing the BNP on almost every thread – and then blames others for harping-on about (another word he tends to love) genocide. And then he evades the central question, pretending not to support them while spinning (just like a New Labour apparatchik) positively for them.
Well, Alfred, now I am calling on you to declare, once and for all, whether or not you would vote for the BNP, if you still lived in Britain.
Oh, but of course, Alfred, you’re a Canadian citizen, Not British. Not British at all, then.
It’s really a very good article,I learn so much thing from it,thanks.You are really a nice person.
I agree with your point,nice article,thanks.I will continue to read your articles.
“which other party is offering that?”
http://newsnetscotland.com/politics/1250-snp-confirm-no-tuition-fees-for-scottish-students
Re the BNP, they perform the useful function of persuading people that while they are fascist, the other British parties are not – it’s like that perspective trick they used in Lord of the Rings to make the hobbits look smaller than the humans.
Norman Baker suggested that the Iraqis had murdered David Kelly in case it has to be admitted that he was indeed murdered.
Some way up the thread, someone suggested that, by a “minority party” I meant the BNP. Just for the record, I was thinking mainly of the Green Party but am also aware of other small parties whose candidates seem to have integrity. Opposition to racism is a primary requirement for any party I support so I think that would rule out the BNP. I’d far rather vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party – in fact, students might find it easier and more enjoyable to join the Raving Loonies who would perhaps give their concerns a more courteous hearing and might even, should they be elected, carry out their pre-election pledges.
The RESPECT party is against the illegal wars, against the bankers and tax dodgers, against Trident, against tuition fees,etc. It pretty much stands for what everyone on the left stands for and yet it is still a small party. It shows the power of the MSM that to the wider public the only choice is between the 3 establishment parties – which by definition always represent the establishment and not its members.
Another LD who has been bought for a good salary and position. A comment on medialens –
Vince Cable…slippery as they come
Posted by Ed on December 21, 2010, 1:02 am
So, in one breath Vince Cable says:
“I have a nuclear option; it’s like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don’t have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out and bring the government down and they know that”
And in another he says:
“I have no intention of leaving the government. I am proud of what it is achieving and will continue to play my full part in delivering the priorities I and my party believe in, which are enshrined in the coalition agreement.”
Ok, that first statement was delivered to two undercover reporters but as far as he was concerned they were his constituents. However, if we are to believe that second statement then it would imply he had no problem lying to people he thought were his constituents.
Just another reason this jelly spined traitor should go.
a~
This slippery collaborator will be slipping around the dance floor on Christmas Day (Strictly Come Dancing). Now isn’t that nice for us?
Another LD who has been bought for a good salary and position. A comment on medialens –
Vince Cable…slippery as they come
Posted by Ed on December 21, 2010, 1:02 am
So, in one breath Vince Cable says:
“I have a nuclear option; it’s like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don’t have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out and bring the government down and they know that”
And in another he says:
“I have no intention of leaving the government. I am proud of what it is achieving and will continue to play my full part in delivering the priorities I and my party believe in, which are enshrined in the coalition agreement.”
Ok, that first statement was delivered to two undercover reporters but as far as he was concerned they were his constituents. However, if we are to believe that second statement then it would imply he had no problem lying to people he thought were his constituents.
Just another reason this jelly spined traitor should go.
a~
This slippery collaborator will be slipping around the dance floor on Christmas Day (Strictly Come Dancing). Now isn’t that nice for us?
Hello, LeeJ at 09:02am. Intriguing point re. the Respect Party. I will await a response from Alfred re. the BNP. It is night in Canada right now, but soon it will be morning. This question will not go away.
I am imppressed by Craig’s stoic spirit to want to influence/rebuild a party that has fallen on its knees at the first hurdle.
I am not so convinced of the Liberals’ glorious history.
In the eighteenth century they systematized political corruption and complacency, and in the nineteenth made a lot of noise about reform, mostly depending on the Tories to implement it.
Gladstone a more than honourable exception.
And why say students would be stupid to join Labour because they introduced tuition fees but sensible to join the Libs who tripled them?
The Labour party have some bad karma too of course, namely their addiction to state capitalism, but they do believe in investing in the public sector.
@dazed: if I were a student, I’d not be joining either party. I think I’d either vote for the Greens, or maybe Respect, or perhaps spoil the ballot in frustration.
If I had to pick red or yellow, it would be yellow. Aside from the issue of the Blair wars and the Miliband/Straw torture, the internal democracy in the Labour party is pretty rotten anyway. With the Lib Dems on the other hand, party democracy is quite good, which is presumably why Craig would like to encourage more of it in Sheffield Hallam.
As mentioned earlier on this thread, it is a risky strategy: if it doesn’t displace Clegg, the Lib Dems can say “look at all these students who approve of our policies”. But perhaps local activists who are minded like Craig can offer a deal: “Student-discounted membership fees, and free clothes-peg for your nose”!
Suhayl, Alfred (as Alfred) posted at 6.26am on the next thread. (Which suggests what? Is he avoiding you here, or is he thinking of coninuing with two handles?)
Jon
Your points are well made. I don’t know who I’d vote for. And if the libs are democratic internally that’s good.
I just take issue with their heritage, or underlying ethos being of value. I think Clegg’s vacillation is not untypical.
@Clark
@Craig – a question
“But if you’re really interested in an education, why do you need years of socializing at uni at public expense? No reason to distrust the printed word. Just use the resources of your local library”
Can’t. It’s being closed by a bunch of neoliberal Tory racketeers, supported I’m sure by an array of of quasi-blue Libs with a yellow streak. Half the local libraries in my county are being closed (and we’re not the only ones judging from the web). Our nearest library also doubles as the library for the nearest school (that is, it seems the school will loose its library when the area does).
I’ve always had (and still have) great respect for Craig. But join the Lib Dems? I’d rather do everything I can to destroy them and have another party take their (third) place: the Greens preferably. That and campaign for AV (I’d rather STV/MMC, but that’s not on offer).
The students have got this right: resist, occupy, make a lot of noise and join up with very one else under threat. Stick it out and don’t go quietly but kicking and screaming:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/12/16/video-15-year-old-tells-uk-government-why-it-has-radicalised-a-generation/
(scroll down to video)
A question to Craig. Do you still think the ConDems are just rolling back spending to 2006 levels? Even if numerically true, does looking at what they are cutting rather than how much still mere this out?
It looks to me more like they are using a financial crisis as an excuse to roll-out South American style neoliberal policies across the country. I note that they don’t appear to be pushing for any measures that would stop the same happening again. Nor has there been even a nod towards re-evaluating presumed truth or desirableness of Milton Friedman’s extreme form of capitalism (the one we are living in, though that is near actually pointed out). The ‘we’re all Keynesian’s now’ mantra last about long enough to Wiki-up ‘John Maynard Keynes’.
They talk about ‘austerity measures’ and then go on to talk about the ‘big society’ – or BS, as I like to call it. Well which is it? Are these temporary but necessary measures? If so, when will they be reverted? But they never will be, of course (under the ConDems). Why, in the name of Nye, is *nobody* bothering to ask this question? The media seems to have bought into the BS wholesale.
New ‘Labour’ was the take-over of Labour by a group of people more economically right-wing than the Tories. Why should anyone assume that what we are seeing now is anything other than the same happening to the LibDems?
The ConDem ‘BS’ policy comes down to this: ‘You want it? Go pay for it out of pocket. (But keep paying the taxes.)’
dreoilin, at 10:44am: yes, thanks, I noticed that. Fascinating.
Great post (10:54am), Paul! Andy Worthington is the excellent journalist who documented the Guantanamo prisoners in his book on the subject.
Yeah, good post Paul – though I am not sure about ‘destroying’ the Lib Dems. The proper Left has wanted to create a genuine Labour party for years, but this has come to naught; there seems little space for new parties these days. Perhaps it’s laziness on the part of the electorate, or bias from the media, or cynicism on the part of both. But creating a new party these days seems harder than ever, just like getting an indie into Parliament.
I forgot to say before. Naomi Klein’s book ‘The Shock Doctrine’ is an excellent account of the rise of neo-liberal economic ideology, its spread across the global, and damage it was caused. It is remarkable how widespread and pervasive this ideology is in government, media and contemporary thought – yet it is hardly ever even named.
That said, it goes under many guises: neo-liberalism, Friedmanism, Chicago Boys economics, Reaganomics/Thatcherism, neo-conservatism. An ideology with many cloaks.
The reason why no other party but lablibcon gets a look in is because of their lovein with the mainstream media.
Other parties now have other options for getting their message across… they need to dare to think out of the box (or bubble!).
Shame that the students were sucked into Clegg’s specious claims about tuition fees. Perhaps next time they might support UKIP who promise the abolition of tuition fees and bringing back student grants. Leaving the EU and reducing immigration would also help British students find a skilled job in future.
The wheel of history is like a ratchet – it tends to turn in the same direction in small irreversible increments. Change tends to be in the direction of democratic advance and mostly comes about as unintended consequences of power play between elite factions. The modern myth of popular sovereignty was invented as a way for the nobles to wrestle power away from the monarch (‘the Sovereign’). The logical contradictions within this myth have been exploited ever since and have opened the way to advances such as universal suffrage and so-called representative democracies of today. The process continues still and there are plenty of internal contradictions in the myth of popular sovereignty left to exploit. One of these is FPTP. Its replacement with something more proportionate is the likely next incremental democratic advance here in the UK.
It is in the LibDems party interest to dispense with FPTP and replace it with PR or as close to PR as possible. The gain to the party from this has to be weighed against the penalty of losing popularity ratings but these ratings do not translate linearly into seats in Parliament under FPTP, in other words it is probably worth the risk. LibDems may be playing a rational game of trading short term loss of popularity for long term gain of electability.
In fact all political parties other than Lab and Cons are in the same position.
In the short term, we as a society lose the benefit of socialised costs of education. This however is reversible in practice provided enough voters consider it to be a priority. In the long term and in return, we may get an incrementally more democratic system of representative democracy which will be very hard to roll back.
I think the game is worth the candles but of course somebody else paid for my education.
Interested in your posts, Paul.
Another good book on neoliberalism is Andrew Gamble’s ‘Spectres at the Feast’ which is basically a primer on the history of economic theory since capitalism got into its stride nearly two hundred years ago.
As for education: despite all the money thrown at it by Mr Blair we now learn that we are 26th in the international league table.
Education has been designed for some years to accord with the needs of employment and industry, inculcating a tick box mentality.
This somehow goes along with neoliberalism in which all countries are forced to sign up to a homogeneous economic game in which making money is an industry in itself. You don’t want to play? You get no aid.
Gamble in his book offers no answers though, and most people don’t.
In my opinion the economic thinking of Rudolf Steiner is worth a look. Nearly a hundred years ago he wrote a book called ‘The Threefold Social Order’, otherewise known as the ‘Social Commonwealth’ which in many ways emulates Marx in its critique of capitalism, but not in its solutions. The solutions are moe to do with giving industry its head but making sure the government protects people’s rights. Education, culture and religion should not be interfered with by either government or industry.
If anyone’s interested, this is a good summary. http://www.rudolfsteinerweb.com/Rudolf_Steiner_and_Economics.php
Dear Craig
“I want to see many, many students join the party, in places like, oh, Sheffield Hallam, for example. The answer to the disillusion of students with our democratic system is for them to join the party and actively participate in, oh, Nick Clegg’s reselection vote, for example”.
Love this paragraph.
Merry Xmas and a happy new year.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
@dazed
Re ‘Spectres at the Feast’ and ‘The Three-Fold Social Order’. Thanks.
I’ll look them up. (Though possibly not at the library; we may not have one here by the time I get a chance.)
I hear what you are saying on sovereignty Evgueni, those countries who had theirs disrupted by crude military means might not agree about its shallowness.
What would Switzerland say if amalgamated into Germany, an autonomous region, but under German jurisdiction and banking laws? leaving the cantons to carry on making their decisions, locally and nationally, as long as they support the idea of national unity with Germany. They were there once before, well, close by.
If the Lib Dems really wanted to better democracy and their standing, they would have been more subtle during the coalition talks. Good ol choice does ring a bell with libertarian conservatismn and given a few more days, the position on electoral reform might have looked completely different.
A referendum on an electoral system already chosen by exec. decision, take it or leave, you’ll get no choice, is an ultimatum, not something the core Lib Dem party ever wanted.
As yet it is not too late to organise a referendum that is fair, open choice between all common electoral system, incl. FPTP, not just some rare tiger shit like AV.
offer us what you offered the Scots, Irish and Welsh, are we not good enough to be allowed choice and the options of PR systems?
Now what would happen, if, after all this hot air about AV and how good it all will be under its top up system, should there be one, when the public is slowly beginning to believe it, the powers to be just slip in choice as an add on, because they know that they will have the support of three parties and many pundits, they could risk running the referendum on a choice basis and still win it for AV.
Now the latter would be the worst of all worlds, because after such a downfall, nobody would ever dream vote for PR systems, would they, after all the effort, the daft public would have chosen the system the pthree main parties campaigned for.
reverse psychology
That said, students could do some research and find out who the leading independent thinkers are in Sheffield Hallam, a single well advertised open candidature meeting, including those who are known already with other choices, should make for a mean and fast way for selecting a candidate the meeting agrees campainging for, the latter most important, the diference between success and mediocracy.
Who needs three main parties, Jons idea of the Greens and Respect is fine as well, although I both Respect and Greens need some more experience and pragmatism.
Comments on some of the contradictions within the 2010 UK student movement and its claims for a ‘right to education’:
http://libcom.org/news/hope-against-hope-necessary-betrayal-15122010
The sophistry to defend Lib Dem MPs over the signing of the NUS pledge is beyond me, but nevertheless Craig is right. It is depressing as a former student leader myself to see supposedly intelligent students jumping to the tune of the Labour Party front organisation, the National Union of Students. It wasn’t hard in my day to keep our student union from the NUS but then at that time NUS was led by the delightful Phil Woolas (whatever happened to him?). Why any self-respecting Liberal candidate would ever sign anything from the NUS is utterly beyond me.
Of course students should vote Lib Dem because it is, despite all the huffing and puffing of the last few weeks, the only party still committed to fund education out of general taxation and bizarrely has achieved a result more like a graduate tax (which the NUS allegedly supports) than the propositions of either of the two big parties. It’s not a great system but it is not the huge betrayal that the NUS are complaining about. When Craig and I graduated in the mid-80s from our free education the marginal rate of income tax was 33% — not many new graduates will incur that even with the new fee structure. So students all voted Lib Dem and they were betrayed? Well it’s a pity they didn’t come out in enough numbers to re-elect Evan Harris in Oxford West or to elect Katy Gordon in Glasgow North to name but two… if students had elected more Lib Dem MPs they’d have had a much bigger dose of Liberal education policy. Unfortunately we didn’t get what we wanted, but perhaps some less self-interested students might respect other things like ending child detention or reducing the tax burden on the truly poor. I can’t pretend to be anything other than appalled about the stupid way Lib Dem MPs have stitched themselves up in the PR around this, but the idea that rank and file Liberal MPs have betrayed them is such ludicrous bollocks, which just does not stand up to any serious analysis whatever.
dazed and confused at December 21, 2010 10:10 AM wrote “The Labour party have some bad karma too of course, namely their addiction to state capitalism, but they do believe in investing in the public sector.”
What nonsense! Ever heard of PFI and PPP?
“Behind all of the fancy jargon the set up is simple. Instead of investing in the construction of new hospitals, schools, bridges and military projects directly, the government gets a bunch of spivs to build the stuff for them, rents it off them for five or ten times as much as it would have cost to build it in the first place and at the end of the 30 year contract the spivs get to keep whatever they built. This way the government can divert billions of pounds of tax revenue directly into the pockets of their rich buddies and give them control of public infrastructure too.
From the spivs point of view the PFI scam is vastly superior to plain old fashioned privatisation because in the olden days under more fair minded leaderships such as the Evil Thatcher Junta, spivs were made to pay a token fee for control of huge slices of public infrastructure, typically a tiny proportion of the value of the assets. Under PFI the government is obliged to pay the spivs five or ten times the value of the assets in rent during the privatisation process.”
— uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/PFI