Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These last two posts have really helped me understand better the essence of the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. Essentially, the Lib Dems have a civil liberties based, local control based ideology that is left of center, while Labour has a Centralized Planning, top-down, mass movement based left-of-center ideology, and were disinclined to pay deference to the concept of the individual as the master of his own fate.
I'm left with only one question, and it comes to the root of how the Liberals managed to survive during the lean years. Why were their safe seats in Cornwall and Scotland safe, when they were getting so little of the vote? I suspect if at some point they had failed to get any representation in Parliament at all, that might have been the final nail in the coffin. If your party can't even provide a route to elective office it will lose its professional politicians trying to climb the greasy pole, (make what you want of that type of politician, but that's how politics works) and such a party ends up mostly as a home for dilettantes, cranks, and oddballs (insert the minor party you most loathe [here]).
So to answer my own question, I am supposing that the people in the far reaches of the country, Scottish Highlands and Cornwall, are far from London and are populated by the sort of people that are pretty determined to be left alone as best they could. That made Labour an unappealing choice with their command economy, and central control political model. So, why didn't the Conservatives take control of the Cornish and Scottish seats? What made the Tories anathema to these rural, far away regions of the country? Other rural areas are part of the Conservative base.
These last two posts have really helped me understand better the essence of the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. Essentially, the Lib Dems have a civil liberties based, local control based ideology that is left of center, while Labour has a Centralized Planning, top-down, mass movement based left-of-center ideology, and were disinclined to pay deference to the concept of the individual as the master of his own fate.
I'm left with only one question, and it comes to the root of how the Liberals managed to survive during the lean years. Why were their safe seats in Cornwall and Scotland safe, when they were getting so little of the vote? I suspect if at some point they had failed to get any representation in Parliament at all, that might have been the final nail in the coffin. If your party can't even provide a route to elective office it will lose its professional politicians trying to climb the greasy pole, (make what you want of that type of politician, but that's how politics works) and such a party ends up mostly as a home for dilettantes, cranks, and oddballs (insert the minor party you most loathe [here]).
So to answer my own question, I am supposing that the people in the far reaches of the country, Scottish Highlands and Cornwall, are far from London and are populated by the sort of people that are pretty determined to be left alone as best they could. That made Labour an unappealing choice with their command economy, and central control political model. So, why didn't the Conservatives take control of the Cornish and Scottish seats? What made the Tories anathema to these rural, far away regions of the country? Other rural areas are part of the Conservative base.
Which also explains why Labour have been responsible for most of the non-wartime attacks on civil liberties.
Which also explains why Labour have been responsible for most of the non-wartime attacks on civil liberties.
Whilst I would agree that the Blair/Brown government had not had a particularly good record on civil liberties (ID cards, some of the more extreme counter-terrorism measures, etc), I would have to disagree with this.
Although it is a close run thing at times, I would broadly say that Labour has been more friendly to civil liberties than the Conservatives.
Of course the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors have been the most consistent champions of civil liberties, but telling Labour governments have tended to take a friendly attitude to Lib Dem introduced Private Members Bills on civil liberties matters.
I am thinking here of the 'permissive society' reforms of the 1960's/1970's (liberalisation of censorship, abolition of capital punishment, legalisation homosexuality, no-fault divorce, etc), which all occured under a Labour Government (albeit under Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, who of course later became a Lib Dem!).
Even in the early Blair years, there were similar civil liberties measures, such as the repeal of Section 28 and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
I would say that the Labour Party's main historical failing with regard to civil liberties was their support or at least acquiescence to 'closed-shop' trade unionism, in the pre-Thatcher era.
Rather ironically, within the Labour Party, support for civil liberties is highest in the party's left-wing, which has been generally most opposed to economic liberty and in favour of significant government economic intervention.
Whilst I would agree that the Blair/Brown government had not had a particularly good record on civil liberties (ID cards, some of the more extreme counter-terrorism measures, etc), I would have to disagree with this.
Although it is a close run thing at times, I would broadly say that Labour has been more friendly to civil liberties than the Conservatives.
Of course the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors have been the most consistent champions of civil liberties, but telling Labour governments have tended to take a friendly attitude to Lib Dem introduced Private Members Bills on civil liberties matters.
I am thinking here of the 'permissive society' reforms of the 1960's/1970's (liberalisation of censorship, abolition of capital punishment, legalisation homosexuality, no-fault divorce, etc), which all occured under a Labour Government (albeit under Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, who of course later became a Lib Dem!).
Even in the early Blair years, there were similar civil liberties measures, such as the repeal of Section 28 and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
I would say that the Labour Party's main historical failing with regard to civil liberties was their support or at least acquiescence to 'closed-shop' trade unionism, in the pre-Thatcher era.
Rather ironically, within the Labour Party, support for civil liberties is highest in the party's left-wing, which has been generally most opposed to economic liberty and in favour of significant government economic intervention.
Prevention of Terrorism Act in the 1970s
Internment without trial in Northern Ireland
Compulsory wage restraint (illegal to get a raise)
Framing defendant in terrorism trials to get a "result"
Attacks on the right to a jury trial
Extension of police powers to detain
Attack on the right to a jury trial
Attack on the concept of double jeopardy
Recent "anti-terrorism" powers (used against Iceland during the financial crisis)
Increase in the numbers of armed police.
Folks, just a reminder that this is an academic discussion, not an advocacy discussion.
Compulsory wage restraint would fit in well with Labour's less open attitude towards economic liberty, and general pre-deliction to top-down economic management. It may not have been viewed as particularly pro-labour, but it was pro-state control.
Ajn your information about Roy Jenkins role in regards these 'permissive society' reforms of the 60s & 70s is very interesting.
I wonder where the Lib Dems come down on things like fox hunting. I would think a true liberal of the 30s through 70s would have been opposed to stopping the fox hunt as an issue of personal liberty. I wonder where they stand now.
Internment without trial in Northern Ireland
Compulsory wage restraint (illegal to get a raise)
I believe these first two were at various stages also implemented by the Conservative Heath government in the early 1970's.
Compulsory wage restraint is a rather interesting one. First of all it ended up proving ineffective at cutting inflation and most economists are now against such measures. However, at the time I suppose it seemed like a good way of cutting inflation without increasing unemployment.
It is also interesting as it is not clearly either a left or right-wing issues; on the one hand it is a state intervention in the economy (left) but also an attack on trade unions (right).
Whilst an attack on economic liberties I would not IMHO view it as an attack on civil liberties per se as they are commonly perceived (which is usually more of a law and order/social/moral issues thing).
Although, being an Australian, I can't claim to be an expert on British politics, I have read a fair bit about British politics in the 1970's and it would seem to me that the battle over wage restraint was not really government VS trade unions but instead about the power of the trade union leadership (who as a rule were more 'big-picture' with regard to wage bargaining) versus the power of shop stewards. This is why 'In Place of Strife' was supporting by Wilson on the left and opposed to Callaghan on the right (both had different ideas on the role of trade unions in left-wing politics.
One of the major problems that caused the 'British disease' of industrial unrest in the 1960's/70's was the power of militant shop stewards. Here in Australia, unions were just as powerful but behaved (comparatively) more reasonably because the trade union leadership had more institutional power to 'put the boot in' (so to speak) with militant local branches and enforce pay restraint.
'In Place of Strife' and wage restraint policies were an attempt by the British Labour leadership to move towards a more Nordic/continental system of industrial relations which combined highly powerful, centralised trade unions, with relative industrial peace compared to the UK (which was different of course than Thatcher's solution of achieing industrial peace by reducing the power of the trade unions themselves, rather than altering the way they operated.
Folks, just a reminder that this is an academic discussion, not an advocacy discussion.
Compulsory wage restraint would fit in well with Labour's less open attitude towards economic liberty, and general pre-deliction to top-down economic management. It may not have been viewed as particularly pro-labour, but it was pro-state control.
Ajn your information about Roy Jenkins role in regards these 'permissive society' reforms of the 60s & 70s is very interesting.
I wonder where the Lib Dems come down on things like fox hunting. I would think a true liberal of the 30s through 70s would have been opposed to stopping the fox hunt as an issue of personal liberty. I wonder where they stand now.
It is not advocacy. I am neither a Labour supporter nor a Conservative supporter. It is, however, good academic practice to support a position with facts.
I believe these first two were at various stages also implemented by the Conservative Heath government in the early 1970's.
Compulsory wage restraint is a rather interesting one. First of all it ended up proving ineffective at cutting inflation and most economists are now against such measures. However, at the time I suppose it seemed like a good way of cutting inflation without increasing unemployment.
It is also interesting as it is not clearly either a left or right-wing issues; on the one hand it is a state intervention in the economy (left) but also an attack on trade unions (right).
Whilst an attack on economic liberties I would not IMHO view it as an attack on civil liberties per se as they are commonly perceived (which is usually more of a law and order/social/moral issues thing).
Although, being an Australian, I can't claim to be an expert on British politics, I have read a fair bit about British politics in the 1970's and it would seem to me that the battle over wage restraint was not really government VS trade unions but instead about the power of the trade union leadership (who as a rule were more 'big-picture' with regard to wage bargaining) versus the power of shop stewards. This is why 'In Place of Strife' was supporting by Wilson on the left and opposed to Callaghan on the right (both had different ideas on the role of trade unions in left-wing politics.
One of the major problems that caused the 'British disease' of industrial unrest in the 1960's/70's was the power of militant shop stewards. Here in Australia, unions were just as powerful but behaved (comparatively) more reasonably because the trade union leadership had more institutional power to 'put the boot in' (so to speak) with militant local branches and enforce pay restraint.
'In Place of Strife' and wage restraint policies were an attempt by the British Labour leadership to move towards a more Nordic/continental system of industrial relations which combined highly powerful, centralised trade unions, with relative industrial peace compared to the UK (which was different of course than Thatcher's solution of achieing industrial peace by reducing the power of the trade unions themselves, rather than altering the way they operated.
Sorry, for side-tracking the discussion!
You are correct on internment. My mistake.
It is a very thin line between economic liberties and civil liberties. As such, I maintain my contention that the Labour party is largely hostile to the notion of individual liberty while supportive of the notion of collective liberty such as trade unions.
Folks, just a reminder that this is an academic discussion, not an advocacy discussion.
Yeah, sorry about that, LOL! It is very easy for politics-oriented discussions to get side-tracked into heated debates!
I think the point that I was trying to make, which I think is relevant toh the discussion, is that I definintely think one of the defining aspects of the Liberal Democrats has been their consistent support for civil liberties.
However and this is where the contentious point was, IMHO Labour has out of the 2 main parties been generally friendly to many civil liberties policies supported by the Lib Dems and their predecessors since the 1950's.
Whilst many Labour politicians are certainly not concerned about these issues, the Tories are more likely to oppose the Lib Dems on these issues. For instance on moral issues, their is what might be called the 'Mary Whitehouse' or 'Tory Taliban' tendency within the Conservatives, that has no parallel within the Labour party.
This is why (and this is how my point relates back to a more academic rather than advocacy view of things) in the political spectrum, Labour and the Lib Dems have been always been viewed as natural potential coalition partners. Most Lib Dems are of the view I would assume, that even if Labour would not naturally support many of their policies, they are more likely to be willing to negotiate with them on these than the Tories.
The point about coalitions is interesting, given the possibility of a hung parliament in the 2010 UK General Election. Whilst I am viewing it all from afar here in Australia, having read a large range of British media (everything from The Guardian to The Daily Mail websites, I like to get a broad view!), everyone , both the commentators and the general public, seems to be of the opinion that whatever the Lib Dem leadership say about negotiating with either party, they will untimately form a coalition with Labour in the event of a hung parliament (although they may demand the removal of Gordon Brown as Labour leader as a condition of coalition).
Yeah, sorry about that, LOL! It is very easy for politics-oriented discussions to get side-tracked into heated debates!
I think the point that I was trying to make, which I think is relevant toh the discussion, is that I definintely think one of the defining aspects of the Liberal Democrats has been their consistent support for civil liberties.
However and this is where the contentious point was, IMHO Labour has out of the 2 main parties been generally friendly to many civil liberties policies supported by the Lib Dems and their predecessors since the 1950's.
Whilst many Labour politicians are certainly not concerned about these issues, the Tories are more likely to oppose the Lib Dems on these issues. For instance on moral issues, their is what might be called the 'Mary Whitehouse' or 'Tory Taliban' tendency within the Conservatives, that has no parallel within the Labour party.
This is why (and this is how my point relates back to a more academic rather than advocacy view of things) in the political spectrum, Labour and the Lib Dems have been always been viewed as natural potential coalition partners. Most Lib Dems are of the view I would assume, that even if Labour would not naturally support many of their policies, they are more likely to be willing to negotiate with them on these than the Tories.
The point about coalitions is interesting, given the possibility of a hung parliament in the 2010 UK General Election. Whilst I am viewing it all from afar here in Australia, having read a large range of British media (everything from The Guardian to The Daily Mail websites, I like to get a broad view!), everyone , both the commentators and the general public, seems to be of the opinion that whatever the Lib Dem leadership say about negotiating with either party, they will untimately form a coalition with Labour in the event of a hung parliament (although they may demand the removal of Gordon Brown as Labour leader as a condition of coalition).
You are correct that the Conservatives like to talk tough on moral matters (and then usually get caught with their trousers down). However, they have never actually followed that talk with legislative action. My contention is that Labour has legislated attacks on civil liberties to a much greater degree than the Conservatives. The jury is still out on the Lib Dems as they have never actually had any legislative power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
