Neo-liberal democrats – lovely term. I teach Political Ideology to A2 Politics students, and we’ll look at this in briefly when we look at Liberalism (Social liberalism and Classical liberalism) along with Conservatism (where we look at neo-liberalism).

Erm, has anyone ever asked how radical liberalism actually is? Because the Orange Bookers are in a clearly liberal tradition – just not the same one that gives this site its (American-inspired) name.

@2

Well can you inform the LDs to stop harping on about being the Party of Lloyd George, Beveridge and Keynes then please? The sound of them spinning in their graves is keeping me awake.

@3,

I would do, but they pretty much are the descendants of that party, and they apparently like to sing about their history over beers (most of the Liberal Democrats I know are Welsh or Scottish, which might give a slightly odd view of social activities). Oh, and can you find anything they have done which is not actually in accord with Messrs Lloyd George and Beveridge (I’ll give you Keynes, but I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats have ever claimed to be Keynsian particularly).

But I prefer their descent from the ideas of John Stuart Mills myself…

@4

Hm well the most reforming PM pre-Atlee was Lloyd George and I see no such instinct from the yellows on the front bench at present, and Beveridge’s report helped found the welfare state which is currently being dismantled by the blue coalition partners. So no, I don’t think they’d be fond of their heirs at all.

And yeahuh I’ll agree kinda with JSM – civil libs is one of the things this Gov is good for – although I’d like to see them make some statements on drugs policy f’rexample… and are they going to repeal the 28 days detention law?

Beveridge said that it should never be possible for someone to have a higher income on welfare than in employment. Keynes reckoned the state shouldn’t ever be larger than 30 per cent of GDP. By today’s standards, THEY are radical neo-liberals.

@6

Well WW2 came along and blew the crap out of Keynes thinking. The fact remains that he helped to set up the same welfare state that the blues – with yellow support (or silence, which amounts to the same thing) – want to destroy. And tbh no-one thinks that you should be able to claim more out of work than earn when in. If you can find a politician who thinks that I’ll donate the next dole cheque I get to the Tory party.

Ok, next time we have to defeat a German war-machine, I won’t have a problem if Government GDP has to creep back up to 50 per cent.

Good stuff (y)

More seriously, the entire political and economic climate changed after 1945 and people started looking around and wondering what the heck was going on, hence voting in the only socialist government we’ve had (and voting out the greatest war leader we’ve had to boot) – people knew it was time for the state to step in and help sort out all the social problems that we were suffering from (Beveridge’s “five giants”) and the high-spending Labour Party were the only ones to sort it.

Anyway, all a bit off-topic now…

but as a side note I’d love to hear what Blair thinks of Atlee…

“Ok, next time we have to defeat a German war-machine, I won’t have a problem if Government GDP has to creep back up to 50 per cent.”

Would solve youth unemployment too

@6

Beveridge wasn’t around in a time where global communication and cheap air travel allowed for a global labour pool that could be paid at a a rate far lower than a local living wage, at a time when wealthy property speculators are artificially inflating house prices and rents. It’s not that welfare is too high, it’s that wages are too low, and/or living costs are too high.

6. Nick

‘ Beveridge said that it should never be possible for someone to have a higher income on welfare than in employment. Keynes reckoned the state shouldn’t ever be larger than 30 per cent of GDP. By today’s standards, THEY are radical neo-liberals. ‘

Well Mr Keynes will not have to spin in his grave because UK government spending is well under his 30 per cent. The UK public sector at 20% of jobs is smaller than ‘ small government America ‘. Moreover, it has been smaller throughout the twentieth century. Although what passes as reporting in the UK press will never tell you that.

There is no meaningful way to draw lines between private/public and taxpayers/ government to define the economy. Anyone who tells you different is selling snake oil. The belief that if the government becomes less then the private and the economy as a whole will be worth more is a fallacy.

Government spending as a ratio to GDP was 41% until the recession in 2007. As the private sector stopped spending and output fell this ratio rose to 48%. The OBR forecasts have it falling back to 40% by 2015/16.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tvshDVnXSLc/TCEv3wUZBDI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/yxIx22x-5io/s1600/balance+budget.jpg

However, it is wrong to describe all of the government budget as a percentage of national income. Of government tax revenue 28% is taxation exerted on government spending. Therefore, the government is around 25% of the economy. So Mr Keynes can sleep easily.

@10 Mr S Pill

It would be nice to think that at some point in the (hopefully) not to distant future the British electorate would wake up and realise that we need another pretty thorough going re-assessment a la 1945. I’m not holding my breath however.

The problem with the post 1945 analogy is that the reforms didn’t go far enough, and left far too much of the existing power structure and inequalities in place. Far from advancing towards a social democratic paradise, the progressive impulse (for all it’s achievements) failed in too many important ways: social, electoral, economic etc.

The Neo-Liberal democrats are little different in that respect from the Labour governments after 1945, or New Labour in the 1990′s and onwards: not radical enough, not progressive enough, and without the guts to take difficult decisions. Plus ca change…..

@14 Galen10

Agreed with that.

I just knew it had to be “The Liberal” – it’s time for the annual Ramm Ramp, in which the Editor of an obscure liberal arts magazine confects a publicity stunt for his vanity project. It’s normally parasitic on the LD conference, traditionally the only time in the year that there was a spike in media attention to things labelled “liberal”. Just google for previous voodoo polls, pop-up anti-leader “campaigns”,… The discussion now prompted here is decent enough, but if it had been “The Ex-Oxbridge Poetastic Periodical” that announced it was launching a “savage” attack would anyone have noticed/cared?

‘Neo-Liberal Democrats’ is spot on

You’ve been sold a pup here Newswire. Nobody reads the Liberal and it is nothing to do with liberalism or the Liberal Democrats.

I must set up a magazine called the Labouroid and do much the same.