British Politics Guide

[mèþru]

What about the Lib Dem leadership election

[Salmoneus]

There is one. Nobody much cares.


There are only two candidates: future leader Jo Swinson, and Sir Ed Davey. Swinson will win.

Swinson came to prominence in 2005, when she won a by-election to become the MP in the Commons at the time (25), and was immediately considered a future leader. She's always been one of the Lib Dems with the most media presence. She sat out the election two years ago in order to help care for her child - she now has an even younger second child, but presumably is more confident in her childcare arrangements than she was back then. She runs marathons for charity. She's currently Deputy Leader.

Davey has been working on Lib Dem policy since the late 1980s; he has a masters in economics and can be a bit wonkish on policy. He's been an MP since 1997 (minus the 2015-2017 liberal dark age, when both he and Swinson were out of parliament). He's held a range of top party jobs since the early 2000s. He was Energy Minister in the Coalition (Swinson was only a very junior minister). She sat out the election two years ago in order to care for his son, who has neurological deficits and speech difficulties, but he's since moved to a large house and found more in-home education for his son, giving him more free time. He once saved a woman's life by rescuing her from an oncoming train. He's currently Spokesperson for Home Affairs*.


Both candidates are seen as being from the right wing of the party, and as having been allies of Nick Clegg**. Davey, however, is much more to the right (in a liberal way) than Swinson, being a very strong advocate of free markets, and seems to be more policy-driven in general. He helped write the Orange Book.

However, that's not really the difference. It's more about style and strategy. Davey's offering himself as a safe pair of hands, a known quantity, someone who can roll up his sleeves and fight hard, and get dirty in policy debates with other parties. He wants to defend the Coalition, reminding people that the Lib Dems accomplished some things, while preventing the Tories from doing all the things they've done since. Implicitly, a Davey version of the party would be more appealing to Tories and would perhaps push harder to win over socially liberal and Remainer Tory voters alienated by the current direction of the Conservative party. I suspect his version of recovery is gradually regaining footholds throughout the country (particularly in the southwest), showing the party to be a viable, appealing alternative to the Tories. He positions himself in the mold of Sir Paddy Ashdown, the pragmatic, highly respected ex-military Lib Dem leader who guided the party through tough times in the early 1990s and returned the party to relevance. He's not particularly charismatic, but he does come across as prettty solid.

Swinson, on the other hand, is still relatively young, with more outsider cred. She wants the party to acknowledge its "failures" in the Coalition. Like Davey, she rules out an official electoral alliance with other parties or independents, but is much cuddlier in talking about cross-party co-operation, particularly on Remain issues. She's much cuddlier in general. She talks about wanting the party to be part of a "movement". Implicitly, a Swinson version of the party would be more appealing to Labour, and would perhaps push harder to win over young, cosmopolitan, Remainer Labour voters disillusioned by Corbyn; I suspect her version of recovery is making big gains in places like London. She is more charismatic than Davey, more energetic, but I think is a less reassuring presence, with less gravitas (and yes, partly that's an unfair prejudice that female politicians have to overcome - it's also because she's younger and less experienced, and because her approach and demeanour are more friendly).

Davey is probably the safer, more predictable course. Swinson has more risk, but also a lot more upside. Before the recent elections, it would have been overwhelmingly Swinson's race to lose, as the party was desparate to break through and willing to roll the dice, particularly because Farron and Cable struggled to get noticed, and Swinson's someone who gets invited on TV a lot (relatively speaking), whereas Davey's much more behind-the-scenes. On the other hand, since the party's currently on an upswing, there will now be more concern about mucking that up, and probably the idea of someone like Davey, who will be much closer to just carrying on what Cable was doing, and what seems to have been working, will be much more appealing now - if things are working, do you really want to "renew" everything?

That said, while I would imagine the gap between the two is probably narrower now, I would still be surprised if Swinson doesn't win.

It should also be said that while the two candidates have differences in both strategy and (presumably) policy, this isn't a particularly acrimonious election, and it's not exactly pitting two halfs of the party against each other (like, eg, Huhne vs Hughes (ultimately won by Campbell)).



*The government has ministers; the Opposition has 'shadow ministers'. Other parties, like the Lib Dems, only have "spokespeople", although they may sometimes informally be known as shadow ministers, or as 'shadowing' a government deparment.

**The Lib Dems are primarily united by being liberals. But that means they vary quite a lot on other issues. This used to often be a matter of the conflict between the "Liberal" side and the "SDP" side, following the union of the two parties into one, but now it's broader. The right wing of the party are further to the right economically than most Tories, into full neoliberalism territory, while the left of the party are... well, left of New Labour certainly, if not to the left of Corbyn, but certainly well into socialist territory. The party leadership under Kennedy in the early 2000s took the party to be the most left-wing of the three main parties, while the leadership under Clegg in the early 2010s was in the centre ground. There's a tendency for the party to lean more to the left among the grassroots, but more to the right among MPs and particularly among the party leadership.

[Salmoneus]

Ten minutes until the result of the first ballot.

It's expected to be a massive win for Johnson.

Remember, however, that the objective here is just to end up one of the two candidates with the most votes from MPs. If Johnson does that, he's the overwhelming favourite in the final ballot. Although, of course, anything is possible, particularly with a candidate as erratic as Boris.

What this means, however, is that there's a key figure here. There are 312 MPs, which means that if Johnson gets 105 votes, he has more than 1/3rd of the total, which means he's on course to reach the final ballot (assuming, of course, that he doesn't cock it up in the next week or two and lose those votes too early). If he's at under 105, on the other hand, it means it's at least theoretically possible for the other candidates to organise to stop him. Although it's not looking likely.

That's probably the only important question today. It's far too early to know who his rival in the final vote will be - there are too many candidates for it to be clear whose votes will end up going to whom. Currently, apparently, Hunt is favoured, with Gove and Raab fading but Javid, who had a well-received launch, rising. Raab in particular seems to have shot himself in the foot (yet again!) with his threat to temporarily abolish Parliament and bring about a constitutional crisis in which the fate of the nation is in the hands of the Queen. (McVey is even more keen on this option).

Johnson is heavily favoured to beat anyone. However, different candidates have different options. Johnson vs Hunt is a landslide - Hunt would have supporters, as the token candidate of non-insanity, but it's too late for him to try to peel Johnson voters away from him, and there are more Johnson voters than Hunt voters. Gove has a much better chance - fewer people like him, but he has more of a chance of taking Boris' voters - his appeal would be "like Boris but not mad or stupid", which might work if Boris helpfully does something mad and stupid during the electoral period. Javid would be the most interesting and unpredictable candidate. He'll lose the vote if it's on Boris' turf, so he would try to make it about something entirely different. His two weapons in that regard would be a) his extreme right-wing views, which will appeal to activists, and b) his personal story - son of an immigrant Pakistani bus driver*, grew up having to share a bedroom with his parents and brother, became a very rich banker, etc. In an ordinary election, that should beat Boris - but Boris has Brexit, and he has the fear of Farage (a lot of Tories are taking the approach that Boris is a huge gamble, but is the only person who can prevent certain voters from leaving the Tories permanently and making Farage prime minister).



The other question today is who gets eliminated - probably most of them. But those people never had a chance anyway. It may be more interesting to see who DOESN'T get eliminated, of the also-rans. Stewart has been saying he has commitments from enough MPs to make it to the next round.

[KathTheDragon]

Boris got 114 votes. God have mercy on us.

[Moose-tache]

Looks like only Harper, McVey, and Leadsom are eliminated. Stewart, Hancock, and Javid are bruised, but survive to the next round. Hunt, Gove, and Raab combined fall short of Johnson's figure.

EDIT: Everyone take a moment to glance at https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde 's channel. Literary criticism and politics, what's not to love?

[chris_notts]

Both candidates are seen as being from the right wing of the party, and as having been allies of Nick Clegg**. Davey, however, is much more to the right (in a liberal way) than Swinson, being a very strong advocate of free markets, and seems to be more policy-driven in general. He helped write the Orange Book.

This is why I won't vote Lib Dem in a general election. The Orange bookers betrayed the majority of Lib Dem voters in the days of the coalition and destroyed any trust I had in the party. They're consistent on social issues, but their big split is on the thing that actually matters the most, the economic side. How can you vote Lib Dem when you're not sure if you're getting a centre-left party or yellow Tories in disguise?

I'll vote Lib Dem when their leader publicly burns a copy of the orange book and banishes its followers and authors from all positions of authority.

Edit: I guess that should be orange Tories, but the colour in the actual logo always looked more yellow to me.

[Salmoneus]

Both candidates are seen as being from the right wing of the party, and as having been allies of Nick Clegg**. Davey, however, is much more to the right (in a liberal way) than Swinson, being a very strong advocate of free markets, and seems to be more policy-driven in general. He helped write the Orange Book.

This is why I won't vote Lib Dem in a general election. The Orange bookers betrayed the majority of Lib Dem voters in the days of the coalition and destroyed any trust I had in the party. They're consistent on social issues, but their big split is on the thing that actually matters the most, the economic side. How can you vote Lib Dem when you're not sure if you're getting a centre-left party or yellow Tories in disguise?

Well, on the issues that are most important - i.e. liberalism - they're very consistent. In an era when it increasingly seems as though the only permissable political discussions are whether the banners of autocratic state should be painted blue or red, that's more important than ever. You may disagree, of course, but then you're not exactly the target audience - if you don't care about liberalism, then no, the Lib Dems probably aren't the part for you. The name kind of gives it away.

It helps, of course, that the economic views of the party are irrelevant, because they won't be in power - their role is as a pressure group in parliament to articulate a liberal platform, and they do that consistently. It's not like they're ever going to be in a position to draw up a budget anyway, so their views on taxation don't much matter.

But in any case, I don't agree with the premise. I don't think politics is at its healthiest when we have to choose between a monolithic team of fanatical Marxists and a monolithic team of fanatical neoliberals, each one purging from their ranks anyone who doesn't fully confirm to their one-dimensional view of economics. On the contrary, I think it's not a bug, but a positive feature, that the Lib Dems seek nuance, evidence-based economic policies, and that their members comprise both those who understand the virtues of neoliberalism AND those who understand the virtues of Marxism. They're a liberal party - of course they're a coalition of divergent views held together by compromise and argument.

I'll vote Lib Dem when their leader publicly burns a copy of the orange book and banishes its followers and authors from all positions of authority.

Again, if book burnings and ideological blacklisting are what you want from politicians, then clearly you're not the target audience for any party with "liberal" in its name...

[chris_notts]

Well, on the issues that are most important - i.e. liberalism - they're very consistent. In an era when it increasingly seems as though the only permissable political discussions are whether the banners of autocratic state should be painted blue or red, that's more important than ever. You may disagree, of course, but then you're not exactly the target audience - if you don't care about liberalism, then no, the Lib Dems probably aren't the part for you. The name kind of gives it away.

I am broadly speaking socially liberal. I'm in favour of sexual, racial, LGBT... equality and all the other socially liberal goodness they offer. But all of that stuff is useless if we're living in some crapsack economic system where 99.9% of the population have an equal opportunity to suffer the gradual crapification of everything inflicted on us by the free market and its advocates. Free market economics is fundamentally incompatible with human dignity, so a party that simultaneously advocates human rights and free market solutions to everything is peddling inconsistent policies.

But worse than that is that they lied. It would be one thing if their manifesto said "we don't really agree on this economic stuff, so ask your local candidate if you want to know their views". But what they actually do, or at least did, is put together a manifesto and a campaign suggesting they believe one thing, and then do something completely different when they had the chance to influence policy. If the party can't formulate an economic ethos and approach that you can trust them to stick to, even if the specifics change with circumstances, then they don't deserve to win.

Again, if book burnings and ideological blacklisting are what you want from politicians, then clearly you're not the target audience for any party with "liberal" in its name...

You realise that that was hyperbole, right? What I actually meant was: when the Lib Dems can give a completely clear, unambiguous and believable commitment that they're an economically left of centre party, not a wild card. One way to do it would be to repudiate the orange book, but I'm sure they could think of other ways.

Liberal might be in the name, but the whole point of having political parties is that you have some consistency and you know what you're getting as a voter. If the "Liberal" in "Liberal Democrats" means "our party contains all view points and doesn't believe in having a policy and sticking with it as a block" then the party might as well disband now and run as independents.

[chris_notts]

Further proof of the rottenness of the Lib Dems is that they've now got Chuka in their midst. Jo should expect an attempted coup within a year...

[Moose-tache]

Liberal might be in the name, but the whole point of having political parties is that you have some consistency and you know what you're getting as a voter. If the "Liberal" in "Liberal Democrats" means "our party contains all view points and doesn't believe in having a policy and sticking with it as a block" then the party might as well disband now and run as independents.

But they stand for "liberalism," you see! As in, the 18th century movement that largely grew out of opposition to the landed aristocracy and was later rejected by radical left-wing ideologies. It's best represented by the likes of Rousseau and Locke, and was also a major influence on the humanist rhetoric of the American republic. Surely these high-minded historiographical and taxonomic questions are the basis for voting decisions, right? That's how people behave, surely. I mean, people vote for the Tories because they're rentier capitalists, and for Labour because they wake up each morning singing the Internationale. So it stands to reason that the Lib Dems get their support from people whose chief concern is the repeal of the Corn Laws.

[Salmoneus]

Further proof of the rottenness of the Lib Dems is that they've now got Chuka in their midst.

You say "rotten", we say "multicultural".

But if you're disgusted even by Labour MPs, I'm not sure what the point of even pretending that voting for a party like the Lib Dems was ever an option for you. But the Socialist Worker's Party is right that way...

[Raphael]

[...]But if you're disgusted even by Labour MPs, [...]

I completely agree with you on this point, Sal, but it's interesting that you're now back to calling him a "Labour MP". I remember when you were calling everyone in The Group That Keeps Changing Its Name crypto-Tories.

[Salmoneus]

Meanwhile (and I was writing this while Raphael was posting, honestly!) Change UK are indeed rebranding again.

You may remember that they were The Independent Group, then became Change UK (The Independent Group), then became for electoral purposes Change UK - The Independent Group, and then seemed for a while to be known as Change UK (the former Independent Group), until half of them left to form an independent group, which Chuka Umunna then left to cease being independent and become a Liberal Democrat.

Anyway, they're officially still known as "Change UK - The Independent Group (CUK/TIG)", but they've now applied to change their name to "The Independent Group for Change".


This isn't the result of a genius marketing decision, but rather of legal necessity. They were threatened with legal action by popular website Change.org, which claimed that CUK was trying to illegitimate exploit the website's brand for its own purposes. Since they're just a couple of MPs and don't have much in the way of staff, or lawyers, they ended up in a bind before the election: they were registered for the election under that name, and it was too late to be allowed to change it and use another, but Change.org could have acquired an injunction against them that prevented them from using that name (even if CUK won the eventual trial), meaning that they might not be able to stand for election at all. So they signed a binding agreement with the website before the election, promising to change their name after it, which they're now grudgingly doing.

It didn't help that their spokesperson, now leader, herself got confused and referred to her own party, in Parliament, by the name of the website...

[Salmoneus]

[...]But if you're disgusted even by Labour MPs, [...]

I completely agree with you on this point, Sal, but it's interesting that you're now back to calling him a "Labour MP". I remember when you were calling everyone in The Group That Keeps Changing Its Name crypto-Tories.

The world is complicated, and descriptions are relative.

Chuka was a Labour MP, and a member of what was until very recently not only the dominant, but virtually the overwhelmingly dominant strain of thought within the Labour Party. He was, and still is, on the left of the political spectrum compared to British contemporary politics as a whole. When Davey and Swinson were in the Coalition, he attacked them from the left, and has since attacked the Lib Dems as "enablers" of Tory "austerity" (right-wing policies), much as chris has done here. He nominated "Red Ed" Milliband and his promise of taking Labour back toward the left. He's a mainstream social democrat.

So, if chris thinks that Umunna is not just right-wing, but SO right-wing as to make any party that accepts his vote "rotten", then chris is clearly far too far left to ever seriously be considering for the Lib Dems (a liberal, social-democratic, centrist and moderate party) in the first place, and I can only assume abstained from voting for anybody in any election (where the SWP wasn't standing) between 1983 and 2017. And it's not like even Corbyn is THAT much further to the left than Umunna on economic issues.


However, none of that has anything much to do with larger questions about the general alignment of British politics, or about the electoral strategic evolution of the Labour Party. In broader politics, New Labour was part of a shift of the competitive space toward the right, and a lot of New Labour's strategy was indeed to run as, by the standards of the 1990s, "the Conservative Party but not evil or laughably incompetant". In that sense, the Blairite movement were indeed "crypto-Tories". And a lot of the struggles both with the electorate and indeed with their own membership in the 2010-2019 period have indeed been precisely because that image became central to their identity - not, necessarily, that none of them ever wanted to do anything the Tories wouldn't do, but that any thought any deviation from Tory orthodoxy had to be defended and compromised on, and they didn't really know how to disagree with the Tories when they weren't being obviously evil or stupid.


So, in 2010, Umunna was on the left of the Labour party (at least, the PLP). Now, he's on the right (or was, when he jumped ship), because the party has moved underneath him. Within the context of debating what Labour's policies should be, either morally or electorally, it's fair, I think, to criticise Umunna as being too far to the right on policy, and too timid in messaging. In particular, the main reason I was criticising the Blairites before was what I perceived as the stertility of their assaults on Corbyn, and the delusion of their belief that they were fundamentally more electoral than he was, which I believed was predicated on an outdated view of British politics: they thought that "like Tories but not so much" was a winning strategy, and that even on issues where they were to the left of the Tories, they shouldn't admit it publically, as though being in any way left-wing was some electoral poison. [which, to be fair, it is, but not to the extent they thought]. And specifically, in doing so, they were left not putting forward any substantive, inspiring ideology of their own*.


But at the same time, Umunna is still on the left of politics overall, and to the left of both candidates for the Lib Dem leadership. Adding Umunna to their frontbench team would move their frontbench further to the left (although there are certainly large parts of the party that are to the left of him as well). We're not talking about a Tory or a UKIPer joining the party, we're talking about an until-recently-mainstream-if-not-left-leaning Labour MP, and that's kind of weird for a left-winger to be disgusted about.


It would be like an American Democrat being disgusted at how "rotten" the Republicans had become if they accepted Obama as a member. Yeah, sure, he's to the right of a lot of Democrats, but he's not to the right of the Republicans! In this case, Umunna going from Labour to Lib Dem (like Obama going from Democrat to Republican) makes BOTH parties, on average, more left-wing, which surely chris would agree is a good thing.

[chris_notts]

It wasn't his politics I was calling rotten, but his serial backstabbing and self interest. He spent years formenting trouble in Labour in a semi-open rebellion that mostly seemed aimed at satisfying his own need for position and importance, and has now backstabbed his "friends" who presumably thought Change UK was a suicide pact not a temporary home while he negotiated a better offer. It wasn't that long ago that he was one of the authors of the hardline rejection of any cooperation with the LibDems except on Change Uk's terms.

I was in fact broadly happy with the domestic elements of Labour's last manifesto. It's their gradual meltdown and inability to agree a credible position on the biggest issue of the day that's increasingly putting me off. Given that the Lib Dem manifesto isn't worth the paper it's printed on, probably my only other option now is to vote Green.

[chris_notts]

My central issue with the Lib Dems is not that they're not the Socialist Workers Party. My central issue with them is that, especially prior to the coalition, they were dishonest about their values. Of course policies change due to circumstances, but they campaigned as the SDP then what people got was Liberals who had no problem signing off on the most retrograde economic policies of the Tories. Oh, and they were also politically incompetent enough to achieve none of their major goals. Voting reform? No. House of Lords reform? No.

If you voted Lib Dem in that election, as I did, then you got betrayed by a bunch of two faced incompetents who sold their souls and didn't deliver anything you voted for. That's why I won't vote for them again easily, and they'd need to take drastic measures to convince me that their word meant anything even if they did go back to campaigning as a left of centre party.

[Raphael]

It wasn't his politics I was calling rotten, but his serial backstabbing and self interest. He spent years formenting trouble in Labour in a semi-open rebellion that mostly seemed aimed at satisfying his own need for position and importance, and has now backstabbed his "friends" who presumably thought Change UK was a suicide pact not a temporary home while he negotiated a better offer.

Ah yes. He's a backstabber. In other words, he's a traitor. He's disloyal. He's turned against the people he was supposed to stick with.

You know what? Fuck that shit.

As far as I'm concerned, loyalty might well be the single most overrated thing in the world. It's almost certainly the most common reason why otherwise good people commit, or become complicit in, horrible acts. It causes people to support the horrible actions of their "friends", to participate in these actions, or at least to look the other way when it comes to these actions.

I have a ton of respect for people who did the right thing even though it meant turning against those who expected their loyalty, knowing fully well that this would lead to some or many or all of their friends abandoning them.

I have zero respect for people who did the wrong thing out of misguided loyalty.

Under the "Treason bad, Loyalty good" paradigm, when an institution, religious or secular, contains a lot of rapists or child molesters, anyone who speaks out about this is a "traitor", while anyone who does everything in their power to cover it up commits a praiseworthy act of loyalty.

And that's before we even get to the fact that the worst kind of right-wingers routinely call everyone they don't like a traitor.

So, yes, when I see someone accused of treason or disloyalty, then, other things being equal, my first instinct will be to sympathize with that person. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

[alice]

Oh, and they were also politically incompetent enough to achieve none of their major goals. Voting reform? No. House of Lords reform? No.

And these were otherwise achievable by the very much junior party in the coalition how?

[chris_notts]

Oh, and they were also politically incompetent enough to achieve none of their major goals. Voting reform? No. House of Lords reform? No.

And these were otherwise achievable by the very much junior party in the coalition how?

Nobody forced them to go into coalition. If the price was too high, it was perfectly possible to say no, or to sign a minimal confidence and supply deal. It was also possible, when the other side didn't hold up their end (e.g. when the Conservatives failed to go through with the House of Lords reform they promised) to either extract concessions elsewhere or to terminate the arrangement. Instead, they were just either useful idiots or willing collaborators for Cameron who'd take whatever punishment he dished out and come back for more.

[chris_notts]

Ah yes. He's a backstabber. In other words, he's a traitor. He's disloyal. He's turned against the people he was supposed to stick with.

You know what? Fuck that shit.

As far as I'm concerned, loyalty might well be the single most overrated thing in the world. It's almost certainly the most common reason why otherwise good people commit, or become complicit in, horrible acts. It causes people to support the horrible actions of their "friends", to participate in these actions, or at least to look the other way when it comes to these actions.

I have a ton of respect for people who did the right thing even though it meant turning against those who expected their loyalty, knowing fully well that this would lead to some or many or all of their friends abandoning them.

I have zero respect for people who did the wrong thing out of misguided loyalty.

Under the "Treason bad, Loyalty good" paradigm, when an institution, religious or secular, contains a lot of rapists or child molesters, anyone who speaks out about this is a "traitor", while anyone who does everything in their power to cover it up commits a praiseworthy act of loyalty.

And that's before we even get to the fact that the worst kind of right-wingers routinely call everyone they don't like a traitor.

So, yes, when I see someone accused of treason or disloyalty, then, other things being equal, my first instinct will be to sympathize with that person. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Firstly, almost everything has a good side and a bad side. It's true that loyalty can lead to bad things, but so can almost everything else. Human society is built on trust and loyalty, and when those values erode in favour of legalistic individualism then the whole system breaks down. It's inefficient if everyone has to constantly guard against everyone else.

Secondly, if you want to talk about the right thing, it would have been for Chuka to resign. He was selected as the Labour candidate for his constituency and won the election on the basis of that endorsement. If he didn't want to be a Labour candidate anymore, the honorable thing would have been to fight a by-election as an independent. Anything else is him claiming to represent people who chose him based on a misrepresentation.

Thirdly, you're massively exaggerating to make your point. We're not talking about defying the nazis here. We're also talking about a pattern of behaviour: abandoning one group could be incidental to his character, but this is his third political party within a year.