What about the Lib Dems?
Declan O'Neill
Just before last year’s general election Mark Steel wrote:
“There are many ways of voting without rewarding Blair or Howard. There are anti-war Labour MPs, credible independents, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Greensand Respect I would rather vote for the Liberal Democrats than a pro-war servant of New Labour. Your vote can't be misinterpreted, and you don't have to walk home from the polling booth feeling sullied.”
As the local elections approach the temptation of voting Lib Dem as a good way of registering a protest vote against the right wing politics of the New Labour government is still there. Labour, without any intended irony, continues to attack the Lib Dems for being soft on drugs, criminals and terrorists, and wanting to recklessly increase the tax burden. These attacks have always said more about the politics of New Labour than those of the Liberal Democrats, but recent events have highlighted how little there is to choose between the three “mainstream” parties.
The Lib Dems have a history of saying whatever is necessary to get elected, forming coalitions with Tories in local government where it suits and happily implementing cuts with all the enthusiasm of any New Labour hack. In Liverpool, for example, which the Lib Dems have controlled since 1998, they have slashed the workforce by 4,000 to 19,000. and have balanced the books by a massive sale of municipal assets. ASBOs they oppose nationally, but implement locally. Similarly although Lib Dem supporters at national and local level have verbally opposed Labour's public finance initiative programme (PFI), Lib Dem councils in several cities have used PFI in education, housing and health services.
Things are not likely to improve under the new leadership.
While Charles Kennedy was never on the “left” the election of Ming Campbell signifies a more open rightwards lurch and the increasing influence of the “Orange Book” tendency. Perhaps not surprisingly in his inaugural address as leader Campbell aped the vacuous politics of Blair and Cameron in talking about "modernising the party” and making the Lib Dems the “the party of ideas and innovation". We have already seen what this “modernising” means; the first significant policy decision of the new era has been the decision of the LD conference to endorse the part-privatisation of the Post Office.
Does it then matter which of the three leading parties “wins” the local
elections? A disastrous result for Labour just might hasten the departure of
Tony Blair from Number 10, but would a takeover by Gordon really signify
anything different? A bloody nose for Davis Cameron might help wreck the
façade of Tory unity around “compassionate Conservatism”, but any advances for
the LDs will not be good news for the Left. The reality is that the Liberals,
if they hold the balance of power after the next election are just as likely
to prop up a Cameron Government as a Brown one. Even more depressing is the
thought that any differences between these two possible outcomes will be hard
to spot. The need for a strong Left challenge has never been greater; the
tragedy is that in most areas of England socialists will have no candidates
worth voting for.
Postscript:
And just to confirm the rightward lurch of the Lib Dems they have elected Vincent Cable as their deputy leader. Cable is closely associated with the infamous "Orange Book" mentioned above and is certainly not seen as part of the progressive or left leaning tendency in the party.
It seems that whilst it was
electorally expedient for the Lib Dems to pose left at the general election,
or at least left of Blair, they have now decided their main targets for votes
will be from the Tories, thus the step towards clearly free market policies,
like the part privatisation of the post office.
March 2006
> > home page > >