What is a Liberal Democrat? Answers on a postcard please.

"I've always seen us as a party of the radical centre", said the man sat on one side of the stage.
"No I couldn't disagree more, we are a centre-left party", responded the woman sat opposite him. This recent exchange between two members of the Lib Dems' campaigning base at an event in Manchester serves as a succinct demonstration of the party's central dilemma.

Bigger than the decision to enter into coalition with the Conservatives and more pressing than a question of individual leadership comes a much broader dilemma. What is it that the Liberal Democrats stand for? You must understand that this question isn't asked out of malice or blind partisanship. I should know. During my second year as an undergraduate I was an active member of the party's youth wing at the University of Manchester. Canvassing, leaflet dropping, campaigning, meeting MPs at party events, that was me. I remember well the excitement of election night and subsequently being glued to the 24 hour news channels, watching the drama unfold as the first coalition for over 30 years was formed.

But then disillusion set in, and not for the reasons you might imagine. Debate over whether the party had conceded too much in their bid to form the coalition agreement was of course a contentious issue. Had the party compromised on too many of their core principles? Being a student I couldn't help ignore the ire of my contemporaries as it emerged that one of the key platforms the party had run on, the desire to scrap tuition fees in higher education, had for the moment at least, been abandoned. The casting of Nick Clegg as pantomime villain wasn't entirely unjustified, even for me, a previously ardent supporter.

No, what started to bother me was a broader, more philosophical question. What in actual fact are the party's core principles? And what is it that differentiates the Liberal Democrats from the other two mainstream parties, parties which have grown out of two separate and distinct political traditions. The party might well claim that it is formed out of the twin ‘reformist’ traditions of liberalism and social democracy, separated from one another in the early decades of the last century. The problem here is that liberalism can be seen within the Conservative Party through its emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility, while Labour has cleaned up on the social democracy front. So what is left for the Lib Dems? On the back of the Lib Dem membership card is printed the following:

'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.'

This is all very well, after all words like liberty and community are very safe and comforting. But all that this really amounts to is a very vague attempt at describing liberalism. Liberalism itself, while a very powerful idea and one that I will always adhere to, is not enough of a basis for a political party to exist in 21st Century Britain. This is because it has already absorbed itself into much of the fabric of everyday life, with both the political left and right adopting elements of the idea. This leaves the Lib Dems in two distinct but untenable positions.

The first is that of the pressure group. What can be highlighted about the party is its consistency on a very small number of issues, such as electoral reform and gay rights. In the House of Commons whenever these two issues are discussed you can rest assured that from their benches the party’s MPs will always vote and campaign in a way that promotes both of these causes. In this sense the Lib Dems are just like Stonewall or Liberty, a group that will always push on very particular issues. While extremely admirable, this is not enough of a platform for the existence of a political party. Single-issue parties will never be able to aptly form a government.

The second role that the Lib Dems have played in recent years with relish is that of the receiver of protest votes. One issue, perhaps more than any other characterised this tendency whilst the party was in opposition and that was the Iraq War. Long gone are the days of voting Lib Dem as a lifestyle choice unfortunately. Under the stewardship of Charles Kennedy the party was undoubtedly one of the centre-left, outflanking Labour on its left side. Being in government has shown that the party cannot relax on this platform again for a long time if it hopes to be taken seriously by voters across the country and not simply students. This is not to say that the party is simply a bunch of contrarians and opportunists but they can wave goodbye to those quick by-election victories for a long, long time. Being responsible in government will mean an end to the indecision plaguing the yellows in their first year on the job.

Because the party is essentially the result of a marriage of convenience, whatever efforts are made to paper over the ideological cracks within the party will ultimately fail. In 1983 the relatively new Social Democrat Party, formed by Labour moderates out of frustration at the rise of the unelectable left within the party, formed an electoral pact with the Liberals, the remaining relics of the historic party of Gladstone and co, who at this point only numbered a smattering of MPs in parliament.

This arrangement worked for a while due to the two parties’ agreement on a small number of policy areas, such as electoral reform. However, since the formal creation of the Liberal Democrats as a single party in 1988 there have been two distinct wings balancing delicately over the ideological schism. Those who identify more with the Social Democrats, the moderate and in practice right-leaning side of the party, will never fully be able to reconcile themselves with the more left-ish elements within, characterised nowadays by the likes of Tim Farron.

All this amounts to a political party built on shaky foundations unable to make its mind up about what its ultimate purpose is. Of course parties can inevitably change their policies over long periods of time, we have seen this with both Labour and the Conservatives. But there is still a solid tradition and ideology for both to build on, which are unfortunately lacking with the Lib Dems, leading them to argue amongst themselves like they did at the beginning of this page.

Social Democrat? Liberal?

I'm in the midst of a great dilemma. With six months already behind it the coalition shows no signs of collapsing yet. The first major flashpoint between the partners, and within the Lib Dems is the issue of Tuition Fees. Haunted by photos of themselves signing pledges presented to them by the National Union of Students, promising to campaigning against a further increase in fees, its decision time for many Lib Dem MPs. Will they support a package which includes raising the cap on fees to £6,000 (and £9,000 in some cases but with conditions attached)? Several Lib Dem backbenchers, like the MP for Manchester Withington John Leech, have spoken out promising to stick to their pre-election pledges to vote against fee increases.

This issue, amongst a number of others have raised a very important question for yours truly. Yes, I am a Lib Dem but which wing of the party am I on? Am I a Social Democrat or an Orange Book liberal? There are elements of the two traditions that I can see the merits in. Is it possible to be both?

Broadly, I would consider myself a Social Democrat. However, certain ideas strike me as being very sensible that could be considered as being on the centre-right. Over the next few posts I hope to explore this question in depth, and hopefully I will find a clear answer?

For my two cents, on the issue of funding for higher education, I believe the choice is very, very simple. Either we have tuition fees, the only sustainable way of financing universities, or we go back to making university free, that is paid for solely by the tax payer but have less people go to university. I don't believe that the builder of today should pay for the banker of tomorrow (dismissing the argument that an individual's university education benefits society).

Political orthodoxies are being turned on their head and have been since the dawn of New Labour. Therefore characterising oneself on the classical political spectrum is much harder than it once was. The economic situation aside, the principle of consensual government is one I find extremely appealing, as I suspect many others do too. Let's see if this view still holds in two or three years time, when the effects of the government's spending cuts are clearer to see.

CtF

Now there's some leadership

At Lib Dem Conference Nick Clegg pulled no punches, if you'll excuse the worn cliche.
Refreshingly, he has made the party realise that finally being in POWER, involves taking and defending tough decisions and the message is clear, 'Man up, or ship out'. Speaking to The Independent the day before his speech he spelt out that there is no future for the Lib Dems as a left-wing alternative to Labour, a diet coke Labour party.

Clearly this will disappoint those within the party who would much rather that the party continued to sit on the sidelines throwing tiny stones at those in power. It will most probably lead to the exodus of many who joined the party solely due to their position on the Iraq war, for example. But Clegg is taking a risk, which may pay dividends come 2015. It might not, but there's only one way to find out!

Getting rid of deadwood is nothing new to the party. When the Lib Dems were formed after the merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats the collected leadership of those two parties before the merger was greater than the number of members of the single party after the merger.

As long as Clegg can clearly show that the party is making a positive impact on the coalition then he won't really have to worry about low opinion poll numbers right now, what with it not being election time.

If the AV referendum next May fails a reassessment will be in order, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now Mr Clegg is giving a much needed kick those complacent moaners within who'd like nothing more than to have the luxury of opposition right now...

Graduate Tax? NEVER NEVER NEVER!

I hope I didn't scare you by invoking Ian Paisley there but this is important goddammit. Here's why the Graduate Tax should not be implemented!

Whenever the topic of student finance or student debt is discussed in the media, newspaper articles, television news bulletins, and political speeches are imbued with phrases like 'students are saddled with (so and so) amount of debt coming out of university'.

The average student now leaves university with on average between £25,000 and £30,000 of student debt. I know this because in little under a years time i will add to this seemingly daunting statistic. While i would hesitate at describing myself as an 'average' student (I do lots and lots of work yer know!) I will myself be in a situation where upon graduating I will be in debt.

The word debt scares a great many people these days and understandably so, considering the collective brutal hangover that our public and personal finances are nursing.

However, the entire point of our current system of financing higher education, which many politicians like to forget (at least in public anyway), is that the debt:

A) does not have to be paid until the graduate is in a job that pays AT LEAST £15,000 p.a.

B) is charged at an interest of 1.5% and pegged to the rate of inflation (for now at least)

C) is written off completely if the graduate is not in a job paying £15,000 p.a. after a certain period of time.

What does all this add up to? Well what it means is an effectively "free" loan with very generous conditions. This is a humane and FAIR (the watch word du jour) way of financing higher education.

Let's not forget that university graduates already pay a graduate tax; it's called INCOME TAX. One of the initial findings of the Browne Review, which has now taken on a near-mythical status, is that the current level of fees for HE, while far from perfect, has not deterred potential student from enrolling in courses.

The main objection to the proposed 'Graduate Contribution' or Tax, is that it would turn the student loan into one you would never pay off. Regardless of the cost of your course, you would be paying back several times the the original cost of tuition.

Studies have suggested that a university education can on average add £100,000 to your income over your lifespan. That seems a great amount but let's examine this more closely shall we? If you retire at the age of 65 having graduated from university or FE college at the age of 22, then if we use the example above you've added approximately £2300 to your yearly salary. While this example ignores any number of variables and is only an illustration of the 'average' the fact remains that a Graduate Tax would penalise you disproportionately.

Now that really isn't not FAIR and it serves to do nothing more than to stifle ambition, not to mention penalising those from poorer backgrounds who have benefited from a university education. The system as it is only needs to be tweaked to help those in further need. Not reformed wholesale to punish those who move up the ladder as a result of their education. BOOM.

I realise that the official Lib Dem stance has always been one of opposition to tuition fees (a position i could not disagree with more) and that by implementing a graduate tax they could say that they have abolished top up fees but this would simply be an illusion.

This whole debate really taps into a more fundamental issue that our country faces when it comes to higher education. Nowhere near enough is done to promote other equally valid and important forms of higher education other than academic study. A rise in apprenticeships, vocational and technical qualifications would do so much to help strengthen our skill base. And must I mention inexorable good it would do the country to have a more varied and equally geared economy. Here, apprenticeships and technical college qualifications do not enjoy the respect and equal status with academic qualifications that is seen in some of the most dynamic and prosperous countries in other parts of Europe like Germany and Switzerland. Sort it out.

Now I'll leave you in peace to enjoy your chips.

CtF

The Yellow Brick Road

We live in exciting times. With the advent of the first coalition government this country has seen for several decades, it seems a fitting moment for me, a Lib Dem, to (self-indulgently) chronicle my thoughts about the events and trials that will define The Coalition™ in the months ahead. Another more selfish reason for this blog is that I am an aspiring journalist and so here I also aim to document my experience in breaking down the doors to my chosen profession. So, here goes...

I am a card carrying Liberal Democrat and in the months leading up to May's general election I was Lib Dem party activist in the North West, and more specifically around Manchester. I say 'was a Lib Dem party activist' because I do not know if this is something I will aim to continue doing.

Which brings us on to the title of this, my illustrious little blog, Crossing the Floor. This refers to my ongoing dilemma regarding what I see as the party's difficulty in carving out a specific political identity for itself as the flag-bearer of liberal politics. What does it mean to be a liberal today? Here I hope to thrash out these questions and you’re more than welcome to come along for the ride…

CtF