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.
My simple question is: Why does Britain have 2 Left of Center political parties? Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely?
I am well aware of the history of Britain's political parties and I will go over it, just so readers will understand that I don't need a basic tutorial on the parties.
The parties began with the Whigs and Tories in the 1700s, and developed into the Liberals and Conservatives in the 1800s which was the chief political rivalry until the 1920s. In the 1929 election, Labour, under Ramsey MacDonald, finally broke through in substantial numbers and broke the back of the Liberal Party. Under first past the post, Labour became the primary party of the Left, however, the Liberals did not disappear. (If someone with good historical knowledge would like to go into the Liberal collapse of the 1920s and the rise of Labour, I would not mind, but that is not my primary question.)
The result of this vote split on the left was that between the 1920s to the 1990s, the UK was governed by the Conservatives about 75% of the time. The Liberals couldn't get passed 20% of the vote and sometimes were held to as low as 3%.
In the 1980s a faction of Labour felt the party had gone too far Left, formed the Social Democrats as a separate party, went into electoral alliance with the Liberals as the SDLP, and then finally merged with the Liberals as the Liberal Democrats.
Still, the Lib Dems and Labour are both Left of Center parties. What is the fundamental separation between them? Some time ago, I asked this question and one of the responses was that Labour was not a left of center party. This answer was probably given by someone of the far Left who couldn't distinguish between his own position on the political spectrum and objective reality. If you want to argue that the Lib Dems have moved to the left of Labour I'm open to the idea, but Labour is still to the left of center. I am not looking for polemical or partisan responses. I am just trying to figure out why there are 2 broad based left of center political parties in the UK which has a first past the post political system that should have left only 2 serious parties contending for power. (For purposes of this discussion I'm ignoring SNP, Plaid Cymru and the parties and MPs of NI as none of these will ever rule in Westminster).
Is it class? Was Labour a left of center party of the working class while the Liberals were and are a left of center party of the professional class? Did Labour focus primarily on working class, union, pay, and government service, bread and butter issues, while the Liberals paid more attention to environmental issues and pacifistic defense policies that the working class didn't support and viewed as elitist? And if so, what were the Liberals focusing on in the 1930s through 70s, before these issue became significant?
Is it ethnicity? Was Labour in the early years unable to make ground in Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland, and thereby gave the Liberals a base of support to hang on during the lean years?
Is it personalities? Were the two parties divided simply because of a history of personal animosity between their respective leaderships?
Is it ideology? Was Labour significantly to the left of the Liberals in the 1930s to 1980s, so that fundamentally, the Liberals of this period were in fact not a Left of Center party but a mostly Centrist party?
Therefore, if the Post-Thatcher, Blairite Labour party is no longer avowedly Socialist, and the Lib Dems seem to have slid leftward, on Europe, Environment, and Nuclear Disarmament, what separates these two parties? Why do they exist as separate entities?
Thoughtful, non-partisan, non-polemical, objective answers would be appreciated. While if I were a UK citizen, I know exactly how I would vote, I'm not looking for a partisan political discussion during this election season, nor am I asking how you would vote.
A final summation of my questions:
Why does the UK have 2 left of center parties?
Why did the Liberals collapse in the 1920s?
Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely either because of electoral irrelevancy during the 30s-70s or through absorption into Labour?
In the current period do you consider the Lib Dems to be to the left of Labour? And if so, why did they move to the left of Labour and on what issues?
Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely either because of electoral irrelevancy during the 30s-70s or through absorption into Labour?
In the current period do you consider the Lib Dems to be to the left of Labour? And if so, why did they move to the left of Labour and on what issues?
1. As Britain moved into a post-industrial society, the traditional Labour supporting working class were replaced by a more socially mobile lower middle class. In addition, the Labour strife of the 1970s plus the lurch to the left of Labour in the early 1980s opened the door to a party that was more representative of the new salaried classes.
2. The First World War and the rise of a party that represented the manual working class.
3. The Liberals were able to survive in the agricultural fringe of British politics. Places such as Orkney & Shetland (Jo Grimmond) or the Borders. The rise of the Young Liberals in the 1960s (the kids that became the new salaried classes) helped make them increasingly relevant.
4. Labour is still more to the left in terms of economic policy because of their reliance on the traditional working class vote in Scotland, the North of England and South Wales. However, in many ways the Lib Dems are to the left of Labour in social policy. Roy Jenkins who was a wonderfully reforming Labour Home Secretary in the 1960s was one of the founders of the Lib Dems.
Just my 10p worth. I am sure that others will have a different perspective.
1. As Britain moved into a post-industrial society, the traditional Labour supporting working class were replaced by a more socially mobile lower middle class. In addition, the Labour strife of the 1970s plus the lurch to the left of Labour in the early 1980s opened the door to a party that was more representative of the new salaried classes.
That certainly explains the decline of Labour in late 70s and and particularly the 80s. Did this socially mobile lower middle class become a swing vote between Conservative and Labour, or did they generally move towards the Liberals and it was this movement that comprises the revived fortunes of the Lib Dems over the past 30 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
2. The First World War and the rise of a party that represented the manual working class.
Was it simply a case of war fatigue, and Lloyd George's management of the war the damaged the Liberals? Or was it some kind of social transformation caused by the war itself that destroyed the Liberal Party's base?
This answer also begs the question who were the manual working classes voting for before the rise of Labour and why? I believe that by the 1870s Britain pretty much had universal male suffrage, so the working classes had to be voting for someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
3. The Liberals were able to survive in the agricultural fringe of British politics. Places such as Orkney & Shetland (Jo Grimmond) or the Borders. The rise of the Young Liberals in the 1960s (the kids that became the new salaried classes) helped make them increasingly relevant.
By the agricultural fringe, are you essentially meaning the poorest, least productive agricultural areas as you would find in the harsh climates of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall? Otherwise, haven't the Conservatives always been the party of the rural areas, at least rural England?
So in a nutshell, during the 1930s through 1970s, the Tories owned the prosperous rural areas, and the prosperous urban classes, Labour owned the working classes of the manufacturing belt, and the rural poor felt they didn't belong to either of these parties and voted Liberal? Hmmm. Interesting. What I most remember 19th century Liberals for, is support for repeal of the Corn Laws on imported agricultural products that protected the rural economy and raised food prices for the urban poor. The poor rural areas and the Liberals don't seem like a natural historical fit. Was there any connection between residual support for the Liberals in Scotland and Wales with the Welsh ancestry of Lloyd George, and the Scottish ancestry of William Gladstone - essentially, my ethnicity argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
4. Labour is still more to the left in terms of economic policy because of their reliance on the traditional working class vote in Scotland, the North of England and South Wales. However, in many ways the Lib Dems are to the left of Labour in social policy. Roy Jenkins who was a wonderfully reforming Labour Home Secretary in the 1960s was one of the founders of the Lib Dems.
This prompts the question, why hasn't Labour co-opted the Lib Dems leftish social policy? Is there some part of the Labour party that rejects a social policy as left as the Lib Dems? Have the Lib Dems always had a leftward social policy or was this a relatively recent development of the 80s and 90s?
Responses from any and all with knowledge of this topic would be appreciated.
Some claim that Labour gave up being left of centre when they abandoned clause 4, which pledged to redistribute wealth, and dropped unilateral disarmament. The difference between the parties is actually quite small. Thatcher's Conservatives expanded the role of the state (particularly welfare) while in power, and despite claims of cuts, increased state spending. The Lib Dems have usually come up with radical sounding policies to try and differentiate themselves, but faced with the realities of office would probably not be much different. In a country where most laws are passed by unelected officials in Europe, or devolved to regions, with no capacity to increase budgets, the main difference between parties these days is tone; it's almost a charade to pretend what happens in Westminster makes any difference. The truth is they are all committed to a welfarism that most Americans would consider very left of centre.
My simple question is: Why does Britain have 2 Left of Center political parties? Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely?
I am well aware of the history of Britain's political parties and I will go over it, just so readers will understand that I don't need a basic tutorial on the parties.
The parties began with the Whigs and Tories in the 1700s, and developed into the Liberals and Conservatives in the 1800s which was the chief political rivalry until the 1920s. In the 1929 election, Labour, under Ramsey MacDonald, finally broke through in substantial numbers and broke the back of the Liberal Party. Under first past the post, Labour became the primary party of the Left, however, the Liberals did not disappear. (If someone with good historical knowledge would like to go into the Liberal collapse of the 1920s and the rise of Labour, I would not mind, but that is not my primary question.)
The result of this vote split on the left was that between the 1920s to the 1990s, the UK was governed by the Conservatives about 75% of the time. The Liberals couldn't get passed 20% of the vote and sometimes were held to as low as 3%.
In the 1980s a faction of Labour felt the party had gone too far Left, formed the Social Democrats as a separate party, went into electoral alliance with the Liberals as the SDLP, and then finally merged with the Liberals as the Liberal Democrats.
Still, the Lib Dems and Labour are both Left of Center parties. What is the fundamental separation between them? Some time ago, I asked this question and one of the responses was that Labour was not a left of center party. This answer was probably given by someone of the far Left who couldn't distinguish between his own position on the political spectrum and objective reality. If you want to argue that the Lib Dems have moved to the left of Labour I'm open to the idea, but Labour is still to the left of center. I am not looking for polemical or partisan responses. I am just trying to figure out why there are 2 broad based left of center political parties in the UK which has a first past the post political system that should have left only 2 serious parties contending for power. (For purposes of this discussion I'm ignoring SNP, Plaid Cymru and the parties and MPs of NI as none of these will ever rule in Westminster).
Is it class? Was Labour a left of center party of the working class while the Liberals were and are a left of center party of the professional class? Did Labour focus primarily on working class, union, pay, and government service, bread and butter issues, while the Liberals paid more attention to environmental issues and pacifistic defense policies that the working class didn't support and viewed as elitist? And if so, what were the Liberals focusing on in the 1930s through 70s, before these issue became significant?
Is it ethnicity? Was Labour in the early years unable to make ground in Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland, and thereby gave the Liberals a base of support to hang on during the lean years?
Is it personalities? Were the two parties divided simply because of a history of personal animosity between their respective leaderships?
Is it ideology? Was Labour significantly to the left of the Liberals in the 1930s to 1980s, so that fundamentally, the Liberals of this period were in fact not a Left of Center party but a mostly Centrist party?
Therefore, if the Post-Thatcher, Blairite Labour party is no longer avowedly Socialist, and the Lib Dems seem to have slid leftward, on Europe, Environment, and Nuclear Disarmament, what separates these two parties? Why do they exist as separate entities?
Thoughtful, non-partisan, non-polemical, objective answers would be appreciated. While if I were a UK citizen, I know exactly how I would vote, I'm not looking for a partisan political discussion during this election season, nor am I asking how you would vote.
A final summation of my questions:
Why does the UK have 2 left of center parties?
Why did the Liberals collapse in the 1920s?
Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely either because of electoral irrelevancy during the 30s-70s or through absorption into Labour?
In the current period do you consider the Lib Dems to be to the left of Labour? And if so, why did they move to the left of Labour and on what issues?
This is a very interesting question that you ask.
I'm Australian so I can't claim to be some sort of expert on British politics, but I'll put in my own opinions and try and relate it to Australian politics (and others can perhaps tell me if this is similar in British politics).
In Australia we have two main political parties: Labor (note the Americanised spelling!) and Liberal (which is actually Tory).
Until the 1970's, there was a group of Liberals who are what we term 'small l liberals', who were present within the party. These people are basically economically centrist and socially progressive. They are strongly represented in the salaried middle/upper-middle class. This group was basically progressive, but were attached to the Oz Tories for what might be called cultural/tribal reasons, ie 'we're respectable middle class people and we don't vote for the working class trade unionist party'.
However, the social upheavals of the 1960's/70's left this group increasingly uncomfortable in the Tories, until in the late 1970's they split and formed the Australian Democrats, basically the Oz equivalent of the Liberal Democratss and very similar in policy too.
However, by the early 21st century the Australian Democrats had faded away and this group of 'small l liberals' had basically been absorbed into the Labour party 'base' (although they can tend to be swinging voters), due to our form of 'New Labour' (which actually started in the early 1980's, rather than the 1990's).
The only significant third party in Australia now are the Australian Greens, who are a hard-left environmentalist party (so therefore not really the equivalent of the Lib Dems).
I'm not sure what UK members might think, but I think that the British equivalent of this term would be 'One Nation Tories' or 'wet Tories'.
Perhaps the reason for the continued existence of two moderate centre-left parties in the UK, is that in Australia, Labor was more successful in 'shifting' the small l liberals into its base during the 1980's/90's, than the UK Labour were at doing the same with One Nation Tories (thereby meaning there is still a place for the Lib Dems in the UK political spectrum, whereas the same might not be able to said for the Australian Democrats).
Hope I haven't confused the issue even more, by comparing the UK situation with the Australian situation!
Until the 1970's, there was a group of Liberals who are what we term 'small l liberals' ... These people are basically economically centrist and socially progressive. They are strongly represented in the salaried middle/upper-middle class. ... were attached to the Oz Tories for what might be called cultural/tribal reasons, ie 'we're respectable middle class people and we don't vote for the working class trade unionist party'.
... they split and formed the Australian Democrats, basically the Oz equivalent of the Liberal Democratss and very similar in policy too.
However, by the early 21st century the Australian Democrats had faded away and this group of 'small l liberals' had basically been absorbed into the Labour party 'base' ...
Perhaps the reason for the continued existence of two moderate centre-left parties in the UK, is that in Australia, Labor was more successful in 'shifting' the small l liberals into its base during the 1980's/90's.
This is just a supposition on my part, but could it be that Australian Labor was able to absorb the Australian Democrats wing of the Australian Liberals because Australia is a more fluid and egalitarian society? Therefore, the ADs could more easily move into a working class party of the Left, because the tribal politics of class, of "Working Class" vs. "Middle Class" just aren't what they are in the UK?
This is just a supposition on my part, but could it be that Australian Labor was able to absorb the Australian Democrats wing of the Australian Liberals because Australia is a more fluid and egalitarian society? Therefore, the ADs could more easily move into a working class party of the Left, because the tribal politics of class, of "Working Class" vs. "Middle Class" just aren't what they are in the UK?
I would say that your supposition is broadly correct. To use a quite interesting example is how British Labour leaders, even those on the right-wing of Labour would speak publicly about 'socialism' (and indeed use that actual term). I remember reading a quote from a speech made by Tony Blair on a tour of Australia in the 1980's (back when he was bachbench MP) and he talked quite extensively about socialism.
In Australia, even prior to the 1980's, when Australian Labor was definitely 'Old Labor', it was rare to hear an Australian Labor talk of socialism, or even 'democratic socialism'. 'Social democracy' was perhaps the furthest it went and even then there was a desire to not talk in ideological terms.
Another reason for the fuller absorption of the Australian Democrats into Labor, is because of what I might call the more 'root-and-branch' New Labor-isation of the ALP compared to British Labour. I was discussing this on another forum and it was pointed out (I'm not sure that you would agree), that British New Labour was a very leader-oriented process, first with Kinnock, then Smith, then finally Blair. It was basically the leaders 'hijacking' the party for electoral pragmatism purposes.
In Australia, this transformation was more 'holistic' (hate to use such a trendy word!), with roots not just in the leadership, but also in the sub-branches/constituency parties and the trade union movements. This has been happening very slowly in Australia since the late 1960's.
The middle-classing of the ALP was probably closer to what occured in the same time period with the US Democrats. A major factor different Australia from the UK at during the late 1960's/early 1970's was the Vietnam War. It was the very middle-class based anti-war movement that first precipated the move of theAustralia progressive middle class away from their tribal attachment to the Liberals (who were staunchly pro-Vietnam War) to either supporting the ALP or the Australian Democrats (and therefore over time in many cases, to the ALP.)
I was discussing this on another forum and it was pointed out (I'm not sure that you would agree), that British New Labour was a very leader-oriented process, first with Kinnock, then Smith, then finally Blair. It was basically the leaders 'hijacking' the party for electoral pragmatism purposes.
Actually, I would entirely agree with New Labour being a top-down reformation of the British Labour Party. That's one reason why I never subscribed to the idea (referenced in my first post) that New Labour was now a centrist rather than a left-of-center party. The core of UK Labour is still on the left.
Well historically the differences are that the parties approached government with a different ideology; Labour a mix of social democratic principles and democratic socialism (yes they are different things), the Liberals with a blend of classical liberalism and progressive liberalism. Similar conflicts occurred in the Conservative party but you didn't ask about that so I'll leave it.
To answer the question, the Liberals are there because they are different enough to Labour to win votes (mainly middle class demographic) and because they are an historic party that has been around for centuries. They have safe seats just like the other parties and until the voting system is changed they are likely to remain a smaller but relatively permanent third party (unless this election really shakes things up, as it is promising to).
On policy, they may be left of centre (at least by current (and American) standards) but the linear view of party politics is not really that accurate. For example, they are far stronger on individualism than Labour are - they opposed the ID card scheme, 42 days detention, anti-protest laws etc. They also opposed top-up fees (making people pay to go to university), the war in Iraq and have been very critical of the tax system. In my view, this makes them different enough to attract a unique type of voter - as opposed to just generic left-leaning ones.
Many people say that the parties are all the same, but if you look close enough then differences can be found. Broadly speaking, all three parties are a mesh of different ideologies picked up from the past and influenced by their leaders, but Labour on the whole remain vaguely socially democrat, the Liberals progressively liberal and the Conservatives conservative. There is a great overlap in many areas of policy but the dichotomies that do exist are distinct enough for people to identify themselves as one of the three, and thus support three parties, two of which are centre-left.[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
To answer the question, the Liberals are there because they are different enough to Labour to win votes (mainly middle class demographic) and because they are an historic party that has been around for centuries. They have safe seats just like the other parties and until the voting system is changed they are likely to remain a smaller but relatively permanent third party (unless this election really shakes things up, as it is promising to).
I would say that this is a very correct observation. One of the reasons for the Lib Dems continued existence, even during 'hard times' (such as the 1950's and 1960's) when their national vote share was lowest, was the fact that they always had a base, albeit small, of relatively safe rural seats (Cornwall/remote Scotland, etc).
This is a major difference between the Lib Dems and the Australian Democrats. The ADs never had any safe seats; in fact they never won any seats in the Federal House of Representatives (our lower house). They only managed to achieve represenation in the Senate (our upper house) due to the proportional representation used there. Both the Lib Dems and the ADs suffer the problems associated with having a widely distributed vote, but at least the Lib Dems do have a small number of areas which are safe seats for them.
Quote:
On policy, they may be left of centre (at least by current (and American) standards) but the linear view of party politics is not really that accurate. For example, they are far stronger on individualism than Labour are - they opposed the ID card scheme, 42 days detention, anti-protest laws etc. They also opposed top-up fees (making people pay to go to university), the war in Iraq and have been very critical of the tax system. In my view, this makes them different enough to attract a unique type of voter - as opposed to just generic left-leaning ones.
Many people say that the parties are all the same, but if you look close enough then differences can be found. Broadly speaking, all three parties are a mesh of different ideologies picked up from the past and influenced by their leaders, but Labour on the whole remain vaguely socially democrat, the Liberals progressively liberal and the Conservatives conservative. There is a great overlap in many areas of policy but the dichotomies that do exist are distinct enough for people to identify themselves as one of the three, and thus support three parties, two of which are centre-left.[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
I agree with this too; even when their policies are relatively similar, there is still enough difference between the base ideologies of the 3 parties to give them a different 'feeling' from each other (imprecise term I know, but I'm sure you get what I mean.)
I would say that the main difference between Labour and the Lib Dems is that to some extent many in the Labour party would still view state intervention as a good in itself, whereas Lib Dems would tend to view state interference only good to the extent that it assists individual freedom (such as assisting equality of opportunity).
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.
