Rupert Read (Norwich, The Green Party): I knew and worked with Chris Huhne long ago, back as a student in Oxford in the 1980s, when we were both in the SDP. He always impressed me, and he would have been a serious Leader for the Lib Dems. But not for me: I left the Lib Dems eight years ago, terminally dismayed at their (lack of) direction. The critically important thing, from my perspective as a Green, was that the Lib Dems, like New Labour and Cameron's ‘New Tories', had become thoroughly committed to neoliberalism and to globalisation. That is why it didn't really matter to us whether Clegg or Huhne triumphed today. The differences between them in terms of underlying political economy are negligible: <!--more-->Clegg is marginally more right-wing, marginally less green, and marginally more vacuous - but the key word here is "marginally".
Similarly, that is why Cameron's call at the weekend for a ‘progressive alliance' between Tories, Lib Dems and Greens sounds so strange: so laughable, really, to us. It is not just because of the Tories' rampant non-progressiveness. It is also because the three grey Parties now have so much in common that it matters very little which of them governs: they might as well all do it together. The only real opposition is provided by the likes of us: only we question whether further economic growth will actually improve quality of life or diminish it; only we stand for localisation as opposed to globalisation; and only we in the Green Party propose to protect the local, globally, rather than allow neoliberalism to run riot and continue trashing our planetary life-support system - our atmosphere, our climate.
Now that Nick Clegg has won, albeit so narrowly, there will undoubtedly be a rash of newspaper articles suggesting that we may see a Lib Dem resurgence. New Labour has allegedly abandoned the ‘liberal tradition' of British politics, and Clegg is using the word ‘liberal' over and over again, in an attempt to inherit this tradition for himself. This tactic may have some mileage. But this liberal tradition consists principally of two components: the first, political and juridical liberty, has indeed been massively undermined by Labour. The second however, economic liberalism, has been massively embraced.
The Lib Dems support both parts of this liberal tradition. But an era in which the overriding political issue of the time is the human race bursting through the ecological limits of the planet that sustains it is not an era well-suited to a liberal approach to economics and consumer choice. The Lib Dems' staunch liberalism will stand directly in the way of their alleged commitment to taking green issues seriously. For example? A totemic issue: there should be no ‘right' to use high-energy lightbulbs; they and their ilk should simply be banned.
The new Lib Dem Leader may energise their Party for a while. A leadership contest can do that. But there will also be a leadership contest for the first time ever in Britain's 4th political Party, the Green Party, next year, now that the Greens' members have decided to adopt a formal leadership structure. And the Green Party, not the Lib Dems, is best-suited to be the real opposition in a decade which will see the climate crisis rightly trump many reactionary calls for individual liberty, of the like Clegg majors in. So long as Clegg's Lib Dems go on about ‘liberty' and being ‘liberal', they will always miss this point.




Comments
Spot on, Rupert. I saw Nick Clegg on Newsnight tonight. The best he could come up with was complaining that we have 'abandoned the liberal tradition'. Yes, we should oppose ID cards. Yes, we should defend civil liberties. Yes, SOCPA is a disgrace. But a nostalgia for 1940's Churchillian liberalism seems to be the sum total of the Lib Dem vision. Pathetic.
Round here the LibDems only get in (at council level) because they are not the Tories or Labour, both of whom are hugely disliked. LibDems have success because of what they are not, not because of what they are - which no-one really seems to know!!
Further to this discussion, check out the letters in yesterday's _Indy_, at http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article3266532.ece , on the sam topic. The first such letter, 'A bad time for Clegg's liberalism', by myself, takes up the same vein as the piece here. A little further up in the letters, there is a lovely contrast between the radicalism of Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, and a degree of low horizons from Chris Davies, LibDem, on the question of whether we should move to coal, or alternatively press for lower energy demand, decentralisation of energy sourcing, and big growth in renewables.
The problem with the above comment is that the Lib-Dems don't promote anything much different from the status-quo.
The Greens have always believed that the best approach is to allow the state intervene where needed to make society more equitable. This does not mean we cannot support those wishing to set up their own business or those that have aspiration.
The Lib-Dems espouse one theme and then contradict it on the other hand, they go on endlessly about devolving powers from central government to councils and communities. Yet when it gets to the local economy that would be needed to fit with this new localism, they fall flat on their face.
What the Lib-Dems must confront if they are to have a principled view on this, is that when you start being too economically liberal, you loss the democracy part. Big business that slams small firms, has owners that live in tax havens and brainwashes our children into thinking they need every new toy. This can only be authoritarian and undemocratic.
The state isn't everything but it is an important net for those that are stuck in the slow lane. Giving people choice is all fair and well, but real choice, consumerism is not. People get told they need something because multinationals promote that they need it, their friends have it so they need it.
The Green party grasps the importance that both the state and strong local economies have in giving people the choice to live differently
Of course your right. More bland consensus neoliberalism. Mittel Ingerlund may buy it out of desperate lack of alternatives but they'd be fools to do so.
Lib Dems = Blue Labour Lite.
The Lib-Dems do miss the point and not only because of what Rupert said. If you look at what has made the Lib-Dems successful in the past 5 years if was basically two things.
One, they had a leader that was popular and seen as someone to have a few pints with (CK).
Two, they were to the left of both Labour and the Tories.
The second of those reasons sore them storm to victory in the intellectual seats of Cambridge, Bristol West and Cardiff central. Whether you explain this through, tuition fees, Iraq or Foundation hospitals, they apposed these from the left.
For a brief moment the Lib-Dems were high in the polls and popular with the masses, not so different from the SDP.
However as the SDP eventually fell, merged with the Liberals and sore the Greens trampel all over them in 1989. So now the Lib-Dems caught a moment of passion with the electorate just as they had with the SDP all those years ago.
The problem for the Lib-Dems is that Liberalism doesn't always unite whereas the future of out planet must.
There ain't none so blind as those who won't see. Neither socialism, nor the English Green Party, have any respect for the needs or rights of individuals - because they both see the prime concern of the state as coercing the nation to behave in the way their respective ideologies dictate.
A recognition that things are better when people are free to decide how to act - subject to limitations on harm to others (including those who will inherit the planet from us), coupled with an open and consultative attitude to decision-making, and a recognition that decisions are best made when they are made at the most efficient level possible (either supra-nationally, nationally, regionally or locally) - and that different decisions may better suit different areas, mark the Liberal Democrats out from the other authoritarian parties.
And the neoliberalism you discuss is a straw man - liberals recognise that the market isn't everything, but equally that you would be wrong to be dogmatically opposed to it.
Post new comment