Manifesto Promises

Accusations from audiences on BBC's Question Time have voiced a belief that many seem to hold, that Liberal Democrats haven't been fulfilling their promises. Usually this revolves around two factors:

+ Liberal Democrats going into a coalition with Tories;

+ and the highly publicised choice of Lib Dem government ministers to drop their opposition to tuition fee rises as part of the coalition agreement to get other policies;

The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they are counting on being able to demonstrate what they got in return for compromises - in return for dropping student fees - at the end of a four year plan (Daily Mail, 2010).

'Maybe in three or four years time, people will look and say they were a little bit harsh to the Liberal Democrats'
-Paul Scriven, the Sheffield Lib Dems leader (Guardian, 2011)

Amongst those achievements will be the increase in personal allowance on tax to an eventual £10,000, deferring Trident weapons spending and encouraging a green investment bank. They may also stress that the party gave people a choice on a voting system with the AV referendum, even if those people rejected the proffered system.

The full extent of hits and misses by both partners in the coalition can be found at The Guardian site, plus policies committed to but not yet presented to parliament.

In terms of policies the Lib Dems have offered a lot of results considering they came third in a general election. But is that a good enough measure? Will that salve the wounds of those that voted Lib Dem on the issues that were dropped?

I fear the Lib Dems risk falling into the trap of judging means by ends. The party leaders could have, and should have, been clearer about the nature of negotiations and what could be given up and what might be gotten in return (Watt, 2010).

This goes for all parties.

Labour have made noises about a number of issues, in particular EMA and social housing, with Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Chris Bryant, describing the government's social housing policy as 'sociological cleansing' (BBC, 2010).

It is with some interest then, that we can see the same policy appear in the Labour manifesto for the most recent election (Labour, 2010). Furthermore, Labour backed AV for elections and yet failed to support it wholly in the referendum and for a progressive party are acting in suprisingly anti-Europe ways (D'Arcy, 2011).

This forces me to ask: what exactly is the purpose of, and the point of, a manifesto that we must treat as unreliable?

==========
References:
==========
+ Daily Mail's 'Clegg admits it will take four years to "rebalance" Britain but tries to offset fears about savage cuts'; 9 September 2010;

+ Polly Curtis, Patrick Wintour & Helene Mulholland's 'Liberal Democrats have taken "big knocks", says Nick Clegg'; in The Guardian; 6 May 2011;

+ Nicholas Watt's 'Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge'; in The Guardian; 12 November 2010;

+ BBC's The Record covering Labour accusing the Coalition of "Sociological" Cleansing; on YouTube; 27 October 2010; from DPMQs, '...How does he propose to make electoral provision for those displaced people?'; 26 October 2010;

+ Labour's 'Living Standards - Prosperity for all not just a few'; Chp 2, Pg 3; in 'Labour Party Manifesto 2010 - A future fair for all';

+ Mark D'Arcy's 'Labour vote against more IMF funding raises questions'; in BBC; 6 July 2011;
   Mark D'Arcy's 'Surprise timing helps IMF funding passes Commons'; in BBC; 12 July 2011;

Majority Politics

Disagreements in the coalition are once again in the news, in response to the English Riots (Helm & McVeigh, 2011). This is just the latest split: from Cable on Murdoch to Lib Dem backbenchers on Health Reform, the struggles within the government have been highly visible. There have been claims that this is the most transparent government in history, which seems fair considering how often the coalition's dirty laundry has been aired in public.

Yet there is something satisfying about seeing the two parts of the government challenging one another in the public eye, then having to work together and stand by collective decisions back at the office. Considering the social issues gulf between liberals & conservatives, it's a wonder that the centre and left parties failed to find as much in common to tackle in government.

It may be that some senior figures in the Labour Party where not yet willing to give up the party's internal struggle to find policies with which they can monopolise the entire bredth of leftist & moderate supporters. With Mr Blair & his heirs having departed, the internal wrestling has moved on too; focusing on how to claim that monopoly. These contests are not new to Labour. For instance, the party once saw a struggle between the left-wingers aligned with Mr Tony Benn and Social Democrats.

Today's struggle is between the New Labour we have come to know; business friendly and big spending; and the new contender, Blue Labour, described as more conservative, more hands on and more antagonisic (Fabian Society, 2011). Blue Labour has already antagonised its opponents enough to inspire Mr Peter Mandelson, an important figure for New Labour, to accuse the movement of clutching 'at straws and grab[bing] at any passing sentiment' (Wintour, 2011).

Fragmented Majorities

The reality is that political parties are themselves coalitions, groups of similar groups, all with their own policy agenda, all trying to get to the top of the party pile. And every party has this baggage; the factional strife & dealmaking is not the reserve of formal coalitions.

The Conservatives, the epitome of a Unionist party, has its own factions and tensions. Shortly following the 2010 UK general election, Mr Cameron muscled his way onto the 1922 committee, a Tory backbencher's group, in a way that made some senior party members rather upset (Tebbit, 2011).

Even the Liberal Democrats are not immune to a bit of intrigue. The Liberal Democrat Party developed out of an alliance between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (many of which where the same social democrats who had vied with Labour's left-wingers). Since then, that divide has been replaced by two major factions in the party, the Orange Book group and the Social Liberal Forum.

The senior party members at present, such as Messrs Clegg, Alexander, and Laws (Assinder, 2008) are broadly supportive of the economic liberalism focus of the Orange Book (2004) - that is low taxes, free markets & less state intervention.

The more left-leaning Social Liberal Forum, who's ideas are heavily influenced by Brack, Grayson & Howarth's 'Reinventing the State' (2007), have been visible of late due to the SLF's involvement in opposition to the planned Health Reforms, led by member Dr Evan Harris.

And let's not forget either that Labour sit in parliament as an American-style caucus - being formally two parties that sit as effectively one, due to an electoral alliance with the Cooperative Party.

Consensus Politics

The reality of majority politics is that it, and not coalition politics, is politics behind closed doors. Majority politics is the system where news breaks six years after the fact of suspected plots & schemes within parties (BBC, 2011).

Labour have shown what happens when you are unwilling to cooperate or compromise. This stubborness can be found at the heart of the party splits of the 70s & 80s, and the fragmentation of worker's parties, not to forget Labour's inability to keep office in a hung parliament following the 2010 UK general election (Wintour, 2011).

It is a stubborness that breeds an extreme all or nothing mentality, that Alan Moore's (1986) famous creation Rorschach symbolised:

'No. Not even in the face of armageddon. Never Compromise'

The left has always had divisions. The competition of ideas is key to scientific progress in politics. But these debates must stay above the gutter level rhetoric, the 'us-or-them' mentalities; the fear & blame tactics that created our polemicised left-right political culture.

In order to overcome the alienation produced by this system, the left could learn something from the coalition and the code of Cabinet Collective Responsibility. Plural parties of the left can support choice from plural interests, while still allowing for a united front in the face of intolerance & injustice and in support of common ideals. The Labour leader sharing a platform with representatives from the Green Party and Liberal Democrats to campaign for AV was a good start and a bold, new direction for the left in regaining the interest of voters.

==========
References:
==========
+ Toby Helm & Tracy McVeigh's 'England riots: coalition row grows over "kneejerk" response'; in The Guardian; 13 August 2011.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Peter Mandelson lambasts "anti–immigrant, Europhobic" Blue Labour'; in The Guardian; 26 July 2011.

+ Norman Tebbit's 'The scandal of the 1922 Committee putsch'; in The Telegraph; 20 May 2010.

+ Nick Assinder's 'Clegg's orange revolution'; on BBC News; 14 January 2008.

+ Paul Marshall & David Laws' (ed.) 'The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism'; Profile Books, 2004.

+ Duncan Brack, Richard Grayson & David Howarth's (ed.) 'Reinventing the State - Social Liberalism for the 21st Century'; Politico's, 2007.

+ BBC's 'Leaked memos: Ed Balls denies plot to oust Blair'; 10 June 2011.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition hopes end in recriminations'; in The Guardian; 11 May 2010.

+ Alan Moore's "Watchmen"; Titan Books, 1986.

Numbers count for something

Socrates once complained that 'thorubos', the 'tumult, baying, shouting, the acclamation of the rabble' - disrupts the course of justice (Hughes, 2010). But what of organised mass action?

As opposed to the 'tumult of the rabble', organised protests have proved a powerful means of improving the way the world works. From Gandhi to Dr King to the women's suffrage movement, organised peaceful protest can be an excellent vehicle for change.

In that spirit, movements have been made in the Lords to repeal rules preventing protests within 1km of parliament. Lord Tyler's private member's bill seeks to break down the barriers that prevent the powerful hearing the voices of demonstrators. While protests are well coordinated campaigns, such as the Avaaz involvment with anti-Murdoch & anti-News Corp protests (Kingsley, 2011), demonstrations and strike action can withstand the calls of reactionaries for continued suppression of mass action.

Charlie Gilmour's imprisonment, along with other incidents resulting from recent protests, has shown us that violence is always a risk when demonstrating. And when violence occurs, it not only sullies the name of mass action, but can overshadow the purpose of the event itself. In the Westminster cuts and tuition fees protests, the causes behind them became obscured by so-called teenage 'anarchist' window smashing. And in the past week we have seen a matter of police conduct in Tottenham completely drowned out by arson & looting - more violence that can be used as justification for anti-strike & anti-protest regulations.

This is no new debate. It is Dr King or Malcolm X; it is Suffragists or Suffragettes; it is non-violent civil disobedience or the use of violence to advance a cause.

The women's suffrage movement in particular is a fine example of this violent versus non-violent conflict. The Suffragettes have become the better known group, but for all the wrong reasons; that is they are known primarily for the militant extremism that led some members to lose their lives. Yet they failed to achieve the aims of their cause. The larger, more organised and more peaceful Suffragists, backed by women & men alike, engaged in peaceful protests & debates. Eventually they tipped the balance of the argument in their favour, thanks largely to the widespread involvement of their members in taking over previously 'masculine' jobs during the Great War.

For years, organised protests, demonstrations and strikes have been an effective way of displaying public consensus on an issue, often in opposition to majority elected members; and acting as a check & balance that keeps both sides honest. Where we can overcome Socrates' 'thorubos', mass action plays an essential role in the democratic life of a nation.

But when we act we must always consider what our actions will justify and legitimise.

What past incidents will my actions be used to justify? What future actions will I legitimise? The fact is that numbers count for something - but for what will you make them count?

==========
References:
==========
+ Bettany Hughes' 'The Hemlock Cup'; Cape, 2010.

+ Lord Tyler's second reading of 'Demonstrations within the vicinity of Parliament Bill' to the House of Lords; 10 June 2011.

+ Patrick Kingsley's 'Avaaz: activism of "slacktivism"?'; in The Guardian, 20 July 2011.