htttp://bit.ly/hQWS0z

It is certainly my view that aside from a few honourable exceptions, the larger part of the ministerial group is drawn from the right of the Lib Dems (Vince Cable as we know is capable of some amusing fireworks, but he is not these days on the left economically). Chris Huhne can also make some good speeches and combative statements, but is also not a great deal to the left of Nick Clegg.’

Back in 1992 when the Lib Dems had about 20-odd MPs there wasn’t a single one that didn’t come from the centre-left of British politics. People like Sir Menzies Campell and Alan Beith were at the time described as right-wing Lib Dems although they are nothing of the sort (and never have been)

It was only in 97 – with the election of people like John Burdett, Ed Davey, Mark Oaten, Sir Robert Smith and Vince Cable – that the Lib Dems showed that they had any MPs who weren’t from the centre-left. Their numbers have grown over elections since then with the election of people like Norman Lamb, Danny Alexander, Jeremy Browne, and of course, Nick Clegg.

You’re right that it’s the election of Clegg that has done most to move the party to the centre but I can’t think of one right of centre Lib Dem who lost their seat at the last election, whilst plenty from the left including Evan Harris, Richard Younger-Ross and Paul Holmes weren’t so fortunate.

Of course those on the left still outnumber those on the right, but considering the right didn’t even exist at a parliamentary level before 1997, the balance is being redressed, hence my comment

It is certainly my view that aside from a few honourable exceptions, the larger part of the ministerial group is drawn from the right of the Lib Dems (Vince Cable as we know is capable of some amusing fireworks, but he is not these days on the left economically). Chris Huhne can also make some good speeches and combative statements, but is also not a great deal to the left of Nick Clegg.

It seems to me that the leadership has gradually moved to the right, esp on economic matters, since the demise of Thatcher. In the 80s, the Alliance was able to occupy a position utterly opposing her cuts and “reforms”, but since there has been a rather parallel movement to NuLab, where an accommodation with the post Thatcher “consensus” has been made. The broad economic principles of the coalition have (seemingly) accepted that. It would have been an interesting conversation had the parts of the Lib Dems outside that consensus (still some MPs and many active members) tried to negotiate a deal with the Tories.

It did rather surprise me when we all spoke about the need for “change”, and “the new politics”, when “back to Thatchernomics” seems to be the order of the day. Perhaps “change” just meant “get rid of Gordon Brown”? I suppose I had better suspend judgment just yet, but the signs are not good that we seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker talk about the deficit being the worst in the universe’s history, and that the UK public sector is a main cause / needs to take a major hit. Yes, some of the economic and environmental changes necessary may be quite difficult, but if you are in favour of change you had better take on the tough targets as well as the powerless!
Rant over!

This will have been before 1993. In 1989 Labour seats were:

Reigate East
Reigate South
Guildford North
Giuldford West
Chertsey
Walton-on-Thames
Stanwell

In 1993 Labour actually lost Reigate East and Guildford North to the LDs, but compensated by picking up Godalming North, Molesey West, and Camberley West. So ended up on 8 seats.

In 1997 Labour lost Walton to the Conservatives (Rachel lake), ditto camberley west, but held onto everything else. So then on 6.

Stanwell of course is now the only labour seat left. Spelthorne has been compared by some as the Surrey Broxbourne (unglamorous but Rightwing), if so, Stanwell is its Waltham Cross South, a resolute labour corner on the border with london.

As I understand it, in his speech today Vince Cable is advocating that the Government should provide a framework within which true liberal capitalism, with competition, can be sustained, whereas today’s debased capitalism is full of monopolies. It is a well-known fault of liberalism that it contains a postitive feedback loop, left unregulated, whereby the rich get richer. But people are seeing Cable’s stance as an attack on capitalism like that which might be made by somebody with a different economic and political philosophy, like socialism. Cable’s stance isn’t this, even if it should be.

Whether liberalism, which in its purer forms has repeatedly failed (1980s, 1920s, 1930s etc.), can be saved intellectually along Cable’s lines is another matter. I personally don’t think they can be, But at least he is thinking, and trying to address core problems. Even PR and Trident are details, albeit important ones, in the sense that they do not address core political philosophy.

There are in my view fundamental problems in that economic liberalism, which is what the LibDems are bringing to the ConDem coalition (via Clegg and Cable) is incompatible with social liberalism. Which is beginning to bring tensions to the LibDems, ones which I expect to get worse.

It is rather alarming that the press, the public, and much of the political extablishment should find it so hard to understand what Cable is on about.

You and me both Joe

I don’t agree with Lib Dem positions on PR, Europe and Trident and I particularly dislike their extreme liberalism in social policies – their support for abortion on demand, their proposals for gay marriage, allowing prisoners to vote and their general weakness on law and order issues

But there’s even more things I dislike from the Conservative and Labour parties – and I think the current government benefits from having them within it

To ne fair as a parliamentary groupoing the current Lib Dems MPs are a lot clkoser to the centre than their counterparts in previous Parliaments – especially most of those within governent (notwitthstanding exceptions like Steve Webb and Norman Baker)

I used to do this. In the days before the internet I used to travel to various town and county halls and with Surrey CC being in Kingston I visited that while I was doing various South West London boroughs. I think the first time I went I remember that Labour had 7 seats – 2 in Reigate, 2 in Guildford plus Chertsey, Walton and Stanwell, so this would have been before 1993, possibly before 1989.
I didnt get election results but just this booklet you described which had photos of the members. I particularly remember the Surrey one because they had stamped ‘DECEASED’ over the photos of one of the Tory councillors, which I found both distasteful and slightly amusing.

But I still think/hope we have it under control, and am reasonably optimistic.

but there’s no point in scratching away when there’s an important job to be done – coalition is doing quite well, boosting the private sector, and cutting this awful debt.