Liberalism, Pluralism, and Tribalism

Last week I had the fortune of going to a very interesting fringe hosted by Centre Forum and The Fabians at the Lib Dem conference. The event discussed whether the Liberal Democrats and Labour would be happy to work together in the event of a future hung-parliament.

It was an interesting event, evenly balanced with two Lib Dem parliamentarians, Norman Lamb, and Julie Smith, and two Labour MPs - Ann McKechin and Tom Greatrex.

There were moments that reminded me how close the Lib Dems and Labour can be: both parties are pro-European, and both parties claim with honour the 'progressive' label. We should also remember that the Liberal Democrats are a successor party to the SDP, themselves born from the Labour movement.

But there is a catch. Whilst the Tory party's hunger for power means that they were ready to compromise in 2010, I detected no such lust from Labour. Instead, there seemed to be a drive for ideological purity. On the one hand this is not surprising (This is a stand alone point - there is no on the other hand. ed.) It's this drive that gives rise to so much of Labour's objection to the current coalition. Labour's refusal to compromise enables them to state that the Lib Dems have betrayed the progressive cause through joining the Tory party in coalition.

Norman Lamb pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are instinctive pluralists. We are happy to work with any other party in the national interest - and will do deals, in order to implement as much of our manifesto as possible. There are obviously some red lines over which we would refuse to join a government, but these tend to be based on policies we will reject (an extreme example being capital punishment) rather than policies we must have. I'd argue that the purism (and ideological zeal) emanating from the Labour panellists precludes an embrace of pluralist politics.

The discussion then turned to tribalism. Would tribalism stop any future coalition? Could the panel name any policy achievement of the other party of which they approved? An interesting question: I would hope any Liberal Democrat could back the minimum wage, the introduction of civil partnerships, the Human Rights Act - and many other achievements of the last Labour government. Would Labour MPs be prepared to do similar? The answer, surprisingly (at least to me), is yes. Tom Greatrex pointed out the fact that the Lib Dems have fought for the environment in coalition, with at least some success, and a favourite policy of his was one of ours: safe standing at football matches. (I should point out that Tom also spoke clearly about his over-riding wish for a Labour majority - I don't want to do him a disservice with his own party by claiming he supported the Lib Dems!)

So, Labour is not always tribal (the Lib Dems can have policy achievements), but a large sector of the party does seek ideological purity (the only achievements Lib Dems can have are the policies which match Labour policies, or at least don't contradict them). It's an approach which says that the Lib Dems are fine in existing as a separate party, providing they do what the Labour party want. It's not the most consistent approach!

So - can the Lib Dems and Labour work together? I don't know. The Liberal Democrats are more than just Labour plus civil liberties. Labour need to accept that an independent party with different policy goals and ideas can be progressive.

Finally, though, I want to turn the argument on its head. I've argued that Labour is not necessarily tribal, but that it is not pluralist. I want to suggest that the Lib Dems, though definitely pluralist, can be tribal. Everyone has their own experiences, but I've certainly met more than a few tribal Lib Dems. I know I can be tribal - I know the "my party, right or wrong" feeling. And that's a bad thing. We all need to do better. The voters demand it. I'd argue that the desire for politicians to work together that was so evident in 2010 came from people detesting tribal politics, and politicians flinging muck at each other in the hope that at least some of it would stick. The 21st century will see more hung parliaments, and we won't be able to get away with the old tribal politics much longer - irrespective of which party we are in.