So, Phil left a comment here which he’s since expanded into a full post. I suppose I should respond before the expansion rate of his responses really picks up and it turns into a book, but be warned that this may ramble.

Phil is quite scathing of my suggestion that Labour and the Liberal Democrats could work together in the future, saying it “would evince heroic levels of chutzpah (and not in a good way)” on the part of the Lib Dems. In that, he’s probably right, but I’m an optimist about this sort of thing right now, and to join a party that’s not one of the big two in a FPTP system is taking a position where you know you’re going to need huge reserves of chutzpah if you’re going to accomplish anything. However, I’m not suggesting that the two new leaders should be getting together this year and agreeing a joint strategy for the next few years, just that given the situation both parties find themselves in, working alone isn’t going to help anyone.

And yes, for every “making five years of Tory government possible and laying the groundwork for another five” we could respond with questions about just how much responsibility Labour has for the ongoing chaos in the Middle East and enabling the re-election of George Bush in 2004. We all know the past is an important part of politics – one force that keeps political parties together is a shared understanding of their past, I’d argue – but I think there comes a point where you have to put that behind you. It may be that mutual distrust means nothing can be agreed, even informally, before 2020 – one of the things that made 90s co-operation easier was David Owen finally disappearing from the stage – but it feels to me that the actual facts of voter behaviour make it the best opportunity for both parties.

One thing I’ve been looking at in my dissertation research is the question of equidistance and the idea of a centre party in a two-and-a-half party system being able to switch between supporting either of the other two parties. The example normally given is Germany’s FDP, and that’s because it’s a phenomenon that doesn’t occur much in party systems, with the only other example I’ve found at the moment being Belgium from the end of WW2 to the break up of the parties along language lines. However, while in both of those the liberal party was a part of governments of both left and right, there was an additional factor present there – grand coalition governments where left and right worked together and excluded the liberals were possible. The political system of both countries in that period wasn’t a straight line of left-centre-right but a triangle with socialism, Christian democracy and liberalism at the three points and links between all three being possible.

Even for all the talk of Labservatives, that’s not the system we have here – and it’s not the situation they have in those two countries either. Belgium’s party system is now quite chaotic with multiple new types of parties split across linguistic divides, and Germany’s become much more multi-party with more distinct left and right blocs. Given the electoral kicking the Liberal Democrats have just received while running on an almost explicitly equidistance campaign, it might be safe to say that it’s not a workable strategy anywhere any more, if it ever was.

The point here is that if the Liberal Democrats have a future (and Dan Falchikov makes some good points on that) within the current electoral system, we have to pick a side. We may have to wear hairshirts for a few years to show our atonement for previous errors, but what’s more important is having an actual message and identity of our own, not a split-the-difference middle of the road one.

, , , ,

Worth Reading 61: The next minute begins

Not done one of these for a while, but people still continue to put interesting things on the internet.

Come write me down – Phil Edwards explains the phenomenon of policy-based evidence.
Reviewing through the Time Machine: Remembering Margaret Cavendish – Ro Smith on the 17th century female founder of science fiction. I’d honestly never heard of Margaret Cavendish or The Blazing World before this, but it sounds fascinating.
How I Lost My Fear of Universal Health Care – An expat American in Canada’s experiences of what it means to not have to worry about the cost of getting ill.
Money and the love of money – Excellent Ross McKibbin piece in the London Review of Books about the corruption of Britain’s political system.
Comment: Nightmare result for dream team – A very good analysis of what happened in the Olympic men’s cycling road race.

, , , , , , ,

Worth Reading 48: Last day under the bodhi tree

You can tell when the first couple of links were found, and then when the last three found their way onto the list, can’t you?

B-Movie Posters for Classic Films – Good stuff from Cracked readers, and some excellent artwork in there
Idiots – From Who Rules Where, “a table for idiots who think the death penalty is normal.”
Let’s not bring in the army – David Allen Green on why calls for the Army to be brought in to ‘sort things out’ should be resisted.
Just another country – A typically interesting post from The Gaping Silence on the riots
David Cameron’s new best friend – Wings Over Sealand discovers some disturbing information about the person behind the ‘support the Metropolitan Police’ group on Facebook

, , , ,