Monday, 6 October 2008

Jaded secterianism

. According to Charlotte Gore;

"our constitution, in the Preamble, which I have read tonight for the first time in years, clearly sets out our stall as, in effect, a Social Democrat Party."

I have read the preamble and to be honest there is nothing there which says anything of the sort. What it does in fact represent is what we already knew; that the Liberal Democrats as a party represent a coalition of interests. On the one hand there is the liberal wing and on the other a wing that is more inclined towards social democracy. The preamble embodies that with statements like;

"We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary."


"We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly."

Speaking personally I am economically inclined far to the left of the party, see the market and capitalism as fundamentally flawed and economically speaking am a socialist. However, when it comes to liberties and democracy though I have less in common with socialism which has tended to downplay or even ignore the importance of these issues and more in common with liberals.

This is essentially why I am happy to call the Liberal Democrats my home; I am well aware that within our ranks their are true believers in the power of the markets and so on and so forth but share enough in common with them to lay aside differences, fight my corner on the ideas, but still at the end of the day be in the same party. Our diversity is our strength, as another of our prominent bloggers, Alix Mortimer says;

"There’s absolutely nothing sacred about the idea that a party must demonstrate total unity or be considered weak. "

Calls for a 'rewrite' are revealed for what they are by the comment that;

"The UK does not need two Social Democrat parties."

In other words they are a call for a jaded sectarian 'rewrite' that does not give us any more purpose but in fact rid's the preamble of anything that looks even slightly social democratic.


Charlotte Gore said...

Hi Darrell,

I'll hope you'll forgive me for not debating the ins and outs of preamble here (I'm not ready for it yet!!).

I'm sorry you think I'm being sectarian. I probably am, but that's not what the 'end' for me, rather an unfortunate consequence of seeking to the questions I have.

If everyone thinks I'm wrong then that's fair enough :)

Oranjepan said...

I dunno about a _rewrite_, but I remember the one time I pulled out my membership card on a doorstep while canvassing to show the quote to a woman.

She said "that's a bit of a mouthful"

I felt very hesitant about trying to ram it any further down her throat.

We would definitely benefit from a less cumbersome piece which was a bit more snappy.

Darrell G said...

Hiya Charlotte :),

My charge of secterianism stems from the fact that it does seem to me to be your intent to 'weed out' all the social democratic bits of the preamble....

As I have said I think this is damaging and wrong; the consequence would be a needless rupture in the party....


I have no problem with making it a bit snappier....what i have a problem with is the above :)