What should be the Liberal Democrat red lines?
Whatever comes of the current somewhat awkward and half-public courtship rituals between the Liberal Democrats and The Independent Group (with the latter having a weakness for negging*), it is likely that at some point there will be some serious talking to be had.
I’m currently running a survey (link here to take part) on what party members would like the outcome of such talks to be, and also what they expect it to be. But alongside that… what do you think the Liberal Democrat red lines should be when it comes to policy?
Backing major changes to our democracy is run, including the voting system, is a likely obvious one. But what else?
Fire away…
* Top tip for any TIGers reading this: remember to call us Liberals for double negging points.
voting reform might be the ‘obvious one’, but our negotiators need to understand that it is THE most important one.. probably the only important one.. everything else falls away as less significant when you realise that, in order to have a real democracy we need a democratic voting system.
Introducing PR/STV, any system more fair that the one we have, will immediately start to change the political playing field; voters will approach the ballot paper differently and start to make proper choices; that in turn will make candidates think differently about how they promote themselves; the ‘broad church’ groupings of Labour and Conservative will divide into their natural parts, and government will for ever become a consensus, of groups forming coalitions; so the whole attitude of the public to politics will change as they start to see that their vote does count; and the press will have to start to take the whole thing more seriously.
So in answer to your question, I might think education, the NHS, funding public services and local authorities, introducing LVT, are all very important, but they will only gain their rightful importance by the voters becoming enabled to influence government directly via such reform. At present the Govt can do the opposite of what they promise(as we have seen) and there is precious little that the voter can do about it in our present system. The present system promotes tribalism, which can only be eroded by breaking up the broad churches.
With a better formulated House of Commons then we would inevitably get to a reform of the whole of our governance system.. – what’s not to like..
only one red line.. voting reform, tied to a commitment to a General Election within a year.
Surely we first need to know if the TIGs are even remotely interested in cross party working? So far their public utterances are ‘Lib Dems should leave their Toxic Party and join us’. I knew people like Mike Gapes and Angela Smith in Parliament and they are -or were -unreconstructed Labour tribalists. Jumping ship because they faced de selection does not necessarily change that attitude.
Then there is today’s newspaper speculation about Chuka doing the ‘chicken run’ to Richmond Park and Chris Leslie to St Albans -both as it happens LD Targets with good LD candidates in place.
The central matter in Britain now, as it has always been, is where does power lie. Despite the Devolution Settlement for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ( postponed at present!) and limited and pretty weak devolved arrangements in England, Britain remains a centralised state. Certainly post Brexit there is a urgent need for a Written Constitution, Federal UK, regional assemblies in England, elected second chamber and voting reform. Have to say even the LibDems have gone off the boil on much of this. Devolving more to local authorities is fine but not if the purse strings (power) remains with Whitehall and Westminster.
The first line is active enthusiasm for the whole package of Constitutional Reform, PR & Devolution especially. Simply agreeing to do stuff is not enough, I want evidence that TIG will campaign for Reform.
The second is enthusiasm for diversity in general & Immigration in particular.
I am presuming that TIG will already be for fighting inequality, particularly through Education.
The way we elect MP’s needs reforming to a PR type of scheme but sadly whilst the Tories are in power will never happen as they K ow they would permanently have to face coaltion government which would stop them pursuing far right plans. A lot of Tory members, make and female in particular have some dreadful prejudices against all sections of our community.
Red lines are not a good idea – look at the mess Mrs May has got herself into because she was to quick to state them and too inflexible to edit them. Even if we have red lines I do not think they should be stated publicly at this stage, and so I will not specify my thinking here. I would rather see a first round of general discussion take place behind closed doors to see what each side is willing to put on the table, where there may be similarities and differences, and what are the hopes and fears, and wishes and expectations, of each side that may emerge. We have the advantage of having a clear manifesto on which we have based our appeal to the electorate, and which will form the basis of our appeal in the May council elections. It is not clear to me what stance the IG may adopt in relation to the May elections, and whether indeed they have considered their participation if any. It could be the case that they are amenable to provide some kind of support to candidates of the centre as a starting point for establishing a basis for wider cooperation. It would also be useful to explore their position wrt the forthcoming Parliamentary by-election – would they seek to nominate their own candidates (may be too early for the next one) or, again, be willing to campaign on a ‘centre’ ticket? All these issues could contribute to a good starting point for discussions.
I agree that the introduction of the STV voting system will revolutionise the way politics is done in this country and will vastly improve the way people are represented in this country. This has the be the main redline; I would be happy if it was the only red line as so much change for the better will flow from this one reform. One of the most painful aspects of the whole sorry Brexit saga has been the total inability of Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to reach out to and engage with people of different political opinions. In most grown up democracies, around the world, political leaders are so much more skilled at doing this, because its part and parcel of normal politics; this is a consequence of their more proportional voting systems.
Peter and Paul, One of the first things the Lib Dems did Coalition was to break their very substantial election promises on student fees. Now whether this supports Peter’s comments regarding Government doing what it wants regardless of what was promised I am not sure. To my mind as someone who has voted Lib Lib Dems for close on 60 years it did make the Lib Dems, for me, what Paul has referred to (Not his quote) as a Toxic Party. I go along with Dr Paul, talk and explore and see what there is.
My red line would be on policies that lead to more empowerment, freedom and fairness within communities of all sizes and to individuals that makes our governance a fairly important issue.
Let’s not forget the sorry business of making Manifesto “promises” when the likelihood is that we would again be some part of a Coalition
Even years later the student fees issue still haunts us!
STV and PR for Westminster. After that tbd based on OUR Party policy.
STV and Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing, Housing.
Proportional Representation by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
We’ve blown it twice (David Steel failed even to ask for it from Callaghan in the Lib-Lab Pact; then we allowed ourselves to be out-manoeuvred in the 2010 coalition) We must learn from history.