imageAptly enough for an event held in a sometime fetish club there was a fair bit of self flagellation happening at last night’s Mutiny event in the Resistance Gallery, Democracy on Trial. Several Liberal Democrat voters made their humiliation public. They hadn’t expected that those nice Lib Dems could do something so horrid.

Who lives may learn. But not always.

It may sound like old school Leninism but Liberalism is synonymous with vacillation and lack of principle. Have the words “utterly principled Liberal” ever been used in that order in a sentence? Of course not. You expect them to cave in, sell out, tells lies and change message. Even their in house lefty firebrand Simon Hughes has become a big fan of the “new politics”.

For a few cabinet posts the Lib Dems have locked themselves into a five year government with the Tories. Their representatives were publicly crowing over the ditching of their amnesty for migrants policy; they will be supporting Trident and immediate public sector cuts that only a few weeks ago they were arguing would cause a double dip recession

On the day that David Cameron’s and Nick Clegg’s took power unemployment in Britain rose to 2.51 million. In a lot of cultures that would be taken as an omen. It is.

The new British government has a class struggle programme against the working class, the powerless and immigrants. Within months it intends to shave £6 billion off public spending and raise VAT. The first measure will see services to the most vulnerable pared back to legal minimum requirements. The second will take extra money out of the pockets of working class people every time they go a shop. It is the most reactionary form of taxation. No wonder that bankers were shown on television toasting the “new politics” on its first day. This is a government of the rich and powerful for the rich and powerful.

New Labour had thirteen years to reshape British politics. It left behind a society which is now as unequal as the Victorian era. To emphasise the point two interchangeable public school educated Oxbridge men are now running the country.

The first time voters in the Resistance Gallery last night could be forgiven (through gritted teeth) for their misjudgement. They thought they were voting for nice things like scrapping Trident, electoral reform and subsidised muesli. Older numpties who were calling for tactical voting have no such excuse.

There is some chatter on Liberal sites about how individuals should consider joining the Labour Party to register their disapproval. So the one good thing that may come out of their coalition with the Tories is the withering away of the Liberal Democrats or better still they’ll be eaten alive. Boris Johnson wasn’t wrong when he said that the bulldog is lying down with the Chihuahua.  

Eager as ever to adduce even the flimsiest of arguments in support of an earlier assertion let me point out that the closest thing last night’s audience had to a heroine was  Caroline Lucas. She was featured in a well received short film and her party’s press officer got a big round of applause for her eulogy to the first Green MP.  Maybe next time the flagellants might think twice about supporting the party whose colour is yellow.

7 responses to “Bulldog beds Chihuahua”

  1. ‘The new British government has a class struggle programme against the working class, the power and immigrants.’ Presumably you mean ‘powerless’?
    Good article. The Lib Dems will live (or maybe die) to regret their decision to bed down with Tories to make a Con Dem government.

    Like

  2. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    I think to stand aloft and crow at those who voted Lid Dem that you where trying to tell them all along how evil they were is a tactical mistake.

    The national platform that the liberal democrats fought on didn’t just have a few nice woolly items. On almost ALL of its points it was to the left of the national platform Labour fought on.

    Thus people who voted for them weren’t just being blinded into supporting a pro-capitalist party by a few shiny polices – rather they where voting for what appeared to be (especially in comparison to the crap Brown was coming out with) a left-of-centre platform.

    Rather then saying ‘we told you so’ – we should be saying ‘you where betrayed’!

    There are also a lot of lazy assumptions going on that this proves the essential nature of ‘liberalism’ – as if we can simply read this as the natural progression of a school of thought.

    The truth is more complicated.

    So far the stuff that is being proposed is not a million miles away from what Labour could be imagined as doing, at best they would just be letting us have a year of grace before they started. So the idea that the Labour party embodies a tradition that is distinct and pure in comparison to the dirty yellow is crap.

    Like

  3. I agree with Joseph. Yes, the Lib Dems did stand on a genuinely mostly-slightly-left-of-Labour programme; no class politics (well, no working class politics), but you don’t get any of that from Labour these days either. And yes, the message to leftish Lib Dem voters is “you were betrayed”. I’m angry with Nick Clegg in much the same way that I was angry with Tony Blair in 1997, because he’s taken a fairly dismal picture with some genuinely progressive elements and completely trampled on the progressive parts – and then gained power, thus ensuring that the progressive elements stay trampled on (because hey, this way works!)

    On the other hand, I agree with Liam. The point isn’t that it’s the essential nature of Liberal policies to be right-wing; the point is that it’s the essential nature of Liberal politicians to be spineless equivocators who can’t be trusted for more than five minutes. (Even the Tories discovered this last weekend – “what do you mean, they were talking to Labour all along?”) Labour may sell you out 90% of the time, but the Liberals will always sell you out. You wouldn’t have thought they could make even New Labour look principled – you wouldn’t have thought anyone could – but apparently it can be done.

    Like

  4. Jane – you are right on the typo.

    Joseph – the people who voted Lib Dem were a lot harsher on themselves than I would have been. As Phil says they felt that they’d been duped and were kicking themselves. They were pretty young and there was nothing in Labour’s record in their lifetime which would have encouraged them to support it. And while we’re on that subject I challenge you to find a paragraph praising Labour on this site which I’ve authored.

    Here’s something I have to get out of my system.

    Over the next day or two I’ll be posting a few videos from a meeting at which Jerry Hicks and Paul Holmes spoke. Even if neither is elected general secretary of his union they are both certain to win several thousand votes.

    One of the far left’s comedy general election candidates who won the support of 109 electors (0.3%) despite being a very personable individual spoke. Even though he’d been told that union density in some parts of the public sector was 12-15% insisted what we need tomorrow is a strike of all those unions.

    Should you laugh or cry at bombast like that?

    Like

  5. Commiserations to all comrades in England, Wales, Scotland and occupied Ireland – but there’s some interesting parallels with Australia that might offer some medium to long term hope.

    Here, 13 years (spooky, eh), of a neo-liberal Labor government was overthrown by the local Tories in 1996 (and while Blairism was shaped by Thatcherism it should be remembered how much the Blairites learned about social-liberal versions of privatisation, deregulation and welfare “reform” from Bob Hawke and Paul Keating as well as Bill Clinton). The Liberals, so-called, had a lower house majority but until 2004 had to rely for an upper house majority on the local analogue of the Lib Dems, the Democrats. Minor amendments ensured the passage of many unpopular moves (generally not mentioned pre-election) such as a consumption tax.

    Directly due to this, the Democrats went from their glory days in the late 90s, with 9 out of 80 senators, to an acrimonious split and a reduction to a pathetic rump without a local council seat now. They were even beaten by Socialist Alliance in one seat in the 2007 election.

    Over the same time, the Greens have gone from 25 to 10% of the national vote, 1 to 5 senators and something like 3000 to 10 000 members. They’re far from what’s required, or even currently possible, in terms of working class representation, but they seem more consistently leftist and pro-union than the Brit Greens. And certainly an improvement from the previous third party.

    In any case, the space for an honest broker, “better politics”, a bit of mushy liberalism type of party was utterly destroyed.

    Like

  6. Sorry, typo, that’s a 2% to 10% national vote increase for the Oz Greens from 1996 to 2007.

    Like

  7. Isn’t there a great deal of hypocrisy from those bemoaning this coalition, and denouncing the Lib Dems for not forming a ‘progressive coalition’ with New Labour, which would have been just as bad – if not worse?

    Let me remind you that New Labour insisted on retaining ID cards and all their attacks on civil liberties, Trident, detention of immigrant children, just to mention a few things. And of course, cuts would have been just as much on the agenda if this ‘progressive coalition’ had been formed, just as much with the present coalition. The only difference being one of timing.

    Presumably, those who denounce the Lib Dems for not forming a coalition with Labour have no problem with those things.

    There was no class ground to support New Labour in this election, any more than the Tories. One could, however, envisage a tactical vote for Lib Dems vis-a-vis Tories or New Labour, since the more seats they got, the more leverage they would have had to screw proportional representation out of the two main parties. That is something the genuine left has a common interest with the Lib Dems in achieving.

    Unfortunately, the Lib Dems were cheated yet again by the existing electoral system, and despite obtaining more votes than last time around, got less seats.

    It was stating the bleeding obvious that if the Lib Dems held the balance of power, they would have formed a coalition with someone, either Labour or Tory. If they had a full grip on the balance of power, however, they would have been able to insist on PR. Unfortunately, they did not quite have enough seats to have a firm grip on the balance of power. Their grip was tenuous, and a coalition with Labour was not numerically viable.

    Pity, but that’s the electoral system we live under. I assume those who are denouncing Lib Dem voters for not voting for New Labour scum (for that is what they are) are quite happy with the electoral system we have. Because if you are not, then your criticism makes no sense at all, and amounts to completely unprincipled touting for New Labour.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending