Something that gets lobbed at liberals these days is that the reason we feel so befuddled is because politics has been inverted by Brexit and Trump, and that our confusion is simply us feeling what everyone else felt for several decades. I’ve tried to empathise with this position as much as possible, partly to understand the current era in greater detail, partly to understand where liberalism went wrong and how it can rebuild. But events keep getting in the way of this since it feels like those cheering on Brexit and Corbyn, the two great democratic forces liberals dislike, are constantly obscuring the obstacles their own projects are creating to the world they supposedly want to live in.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the current political era is the perception of lying by political figures. It became almost a truism for a period between the onset of the Iraq war and the start of the EU referendum campaigning period that politicians mostly lie, all of the time. In reality, during this period of 2003 – 2015, politicians, in Britain anyhow, hardly ever outright lied, ever. They bent the truth and certainly tried to obscure it when it wasn’t in their favour, but British political figures pretty much never actually lied during this long decade. It was too risky – if you were caught out, it was the end of your career. These days, politicians rarely tell the truth, and yet the public seems slightly (only slightly, but still) more trusting of what they have to say.
Take Brexit. Several items spring to mind from only the last twenty-four hours. A Telegraph piece regarding some polling they’ve done around attitudes towards Brexit, looking at the difference between Leave and Remain voters, is unintentionally revealing. 72% of Leave voters want the government to carry on as is – yet this result is highly skewed by there being another option on the menu: “government to pursue a ‘softer’ Brexit option”. How exactly is the government not pursuing a soft Brexit option now? What would a softer option even look like? This autumn, one of two things will be presented to parliament: either a fudge of some description which allows numerous interpretations according to personal Brexit level (the government’s preferred option) or a very, very soft Brexit (if the EU stands firm and offers the UK government not wriggle room). This isn’t a prediction on my part – this is what is objectively unfolding in reality. So, Rees-Mogg gives a speech saying May’s position will be imperilled if she presents a soft Brexit option to parliament. But surely he knows that May is toast after the Brexit negotiations are done anyhow, so this is the world’s emptiest threat. Also, the Prime Minister knows that Rees-Mogg will vote for this softest Brexit deal imaginable since to do otherwise risks both Brexit not happening at all and a Corbyn-led government – and he knows that she knows this. In fact, his mob voting against the final deal is probably the only thing in the world that could deliver both of these things.
Meanwhile, McDonnell goes on the radio this morning and announces that anti-Semitism will no longer be tolerated in the Labour Party without saying exactly what will happen to make this so – and then tries and “subtly” blame outgoing general secretary Ian McNicol for the whole problem!
“We woke up to it two years ago when it was pointed out to us, we launched the Chakrabarti report, they have not been implemented effectively. We have now brought in a new general secretary, they will be implemented.”
I can no longer work out what most Labour and Tory figures are doing any longer. “Playing the long game” has become so long and confused that I can’t work out what the game is any more. Thing is, I don’t think they can either.
M says
I can no longer work out what most Labour and Tory figures are doing any longer.
Trying to survive until tomorrow?
Chris says
“… Brexit and Corbyn, the two great democratic forces liberals dislike …”
Shouldn’t that read “the two great democratic forces Lib Dems dislike”? There is a difference, you know.
Nick says
1. The Lib Dems, in my opinion, are not particularly liberal in their current incarnation.
2. Most, I would go as far even to say the majority of Lib Dem activists do not dislike Corbyn and would prefer him as PM to any Tory.
3. You can certainly be liberal and pro-Brexit (although the vast majority of liberals are anti-Brexit, so my point stands). But you cannot support Corbyn in any way and consider yourself a liberal in any meaningful sense.
Paul W says
Nick –
Your point 2 rather confirms your point 1:
“1. The Lib Dems, in my opinion, are not particularly liberal in their current incarnation.
2. Most, I would go as far even to say the majority of Lib Dem activists do not dislike Corbyn and would prefer him as PM to any Tory.”
John says
Nick –
I find it astonishing that you claim the majority of Lib Dems aren’t liberals. I would wonder your reasoning for this. I am a Lib Dem and would prefer a Labour, even if Corbyn led, government over a Tory one. After all, we were formed by one party which was that of Beveridge and Keynes and another which was a split off from Labour.
I failed to see what is illiberal about their position. Sensible modern/social liberal economic policy as put on the table by Cable (a very much welcome change from the more classical liberal economic approach supported by Danny Alexander, David Laws and Nick Clegg). Foreign policy is also incredibly liberal – wanting to remain in the largest trading block in the world – and so is social policy – the legalisation of Cannabis a notable example.
I wonder how you would substantiate that the Lib Dems, in their current ‘incarnation’ are illiberal?
Paul W says
Since when has ‘remaining in the largest trading block in the world’ – a protectionist customs union which hurts both consumers and third world producers – and ‘the legalisation of cannabis’ – a potential public health disaster – had anything to do with liberalism?
John says
1. I was talking about the Single Market as well as the Customs Union
2. It is not protectionist, in enables tariff free trade between nations and reduces red tape for UK businesses so that they can operate in European countries. This notion that after Brexit we will be able to be ‘global Britain’ and open ourselves up to the world is so utterly bogus. India has said that in order for a favourable trading arrangement with us they would like more visas, something I’d surprised that the current government would accept, and if you think your going to get good trade deals with America (with its America first President) and China, you’ve got another thing coming. As part of a Customs Union we are able much better trade deals because all of the European nations together can create much better trade deals with other countries than the UK could on its own.
3. I’m afraid it is incorrect to suggest that the legalisation of Cannabis would be a “public health disaster” – the evidence suggests otherwise. What it means is that a) Cannabis can be properly regulated making it less dangerous for users and would get rid of the market of extremely dangerous legal highs, b) we would know who was using Cannabis wo we could actually help them, instead of demonising them and c) it would reduce money going to criminal gangs.
Steven Johnson says
“you cannot support Corbyn in any way and consider yourself a liberal in any meaningful sense”
Look I don’t support Corbyn, but find this claim utterly astonishing. Firstly, you could support Corbyn on social issues, on which he is liberal. Secondly, a lot of his economic policy is social liberal – although I would agree he does have some illiberal tendencies here, such as on the compulsory purchase of land. Thirdly, his foreign policy has always been very liberal – opposed to the Iraq War etc.
I think it would be justified to describe Corbyn as a social liberal in many ways.