02.06.2004

Yellow opportunists

Despite the fact that the Socialist Workers Party allowed Charles Kennedy to speak from the platform of the biggest anti-war demo in British history, the Iraq war does not feature too prominently on the Liberal Democrats' website - no wonder if one considers how inconsistent their opposition to the war was, says Phil Hamilton in this week's Around the Web

The decision of the Socialist Workers Party to allow Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy to speak from the platform of last year's February 15 mass anti-war demonstration was undoubtedly a tactical blunder. Though the SWP batted away criticism at the time, claiming that his appearance would have negligible effect, now we have the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Democrats posing as the most deserving recipients of the anti-war vote (with every likelihood they will pick up a large part of it), whereas Respect does not even register on most opinion polls. Perhaps the SWP may be more careful in future, but, judging by past form, I would doubt it.

Congratulations are due to the Lib Dems' web admin though, for managing to make the site's yellow colour scheme slightly more palatable than their sham anti-war posturing. Perhaps in view of their inconsistency over Iraq, the issue is not too prominently featured. Scrolling down 'Latest headlines' yields a couple of relevant items, however. The first sees Lib Dem London mayor candidate Simon Hughes accusing the Tory hopeful, Stephen Norris, of "brazen, naked, cynical, desperate opportunism" after the latter called for UK troops to withdraw. Hughes should be careful about using such words, considering his party's own support for the invasion when it finally happened.

Indeed, the Lib Dems' anti-war opportunism is shown up in the next item, which looks at the cost of the war. It states that money would have been saved if the war had had United Nations backing. So here it is straight from the horse's mouth: if the war had been endorsed by the semi-beatified Kofi Annan, enabling the government to save a few pennies, then the slaughtering of thousands of Iraqis would have been okay by the Lib Dems. I must remember to ask the next Lib Dem canvasser I see about this.

With an obvious eye on the European elections, the site's most prominent feature is 'Making Europe work for you'. Featuring Kennedy, Hughes and Lib Dem poster girl Sarah Teather, this article consists of a pot pourri of pro-EU nostrums. Clearly the hysterical Europhobia of the likes of the Daily Mail and the UK Independence Party have made themselves felt, as there are no favourable mentions of the EU constitution or the euro. Instead we are treated to far softer, pragmatic arguments. For example, the piece advocates unspecified democratic reforms of the EU, that would help cut down on "waste and inefficiency". Simultaneously it is committed to retaining a national veto on troop deployment, budgets and tax, and pay and social security. All this is set against a fluffy backdrop of a Europe where "shared problems" are tackled and "shared values" are upheld. We are then invited to download a copy of the party's manifesto, which is very well designed and provides plenty of policy detail, despite the useless politics. The left would do well to try and emulate its example.

The 'Local elections' page claims the Lib Dems will be fighting on the basis of "local issues" - so why blather on about the war then? The big emphasis is on the flagship 'Axe the council tax' campaign. The relevant link takes us to a dedicated website where viewers are invited to use the online facilities to calculate how much they would pay under the proposed 'local income tax'. I could not resist giving it a try, and discovered I would be saving an amazing £791 a year under the Liberal Democrats! Large savings are made by everyone who receives up to just over average wages and tax bills, according to this calculator - so how are they to be funded? It is doubtful whether increases on wealthier payers would be enough to cover the cost of cheaper bills for the rest of us. Do not expect any answers here, though I can hazard a guess. As Alistair Tice in the latest issue of The Socialist points out, wherever Lib Dems have gained power locally, they pursue the same miserable "Tory policies of cuts and privatisation as New Labour" (May 29).

The 'Tackling crime' section attracted my attention, if only for its "the case for tough liberalism" subtitle. Clicking on the link accesses a keynote speech in which Kennedy flexes his social theorist muscles. He claims society is dominated by a 'new liberalism' (with a small 'l'), where increasing tolerance is the order of the day. This means that left-right divisions have been superseded by a new distinction between the liberal (small state, tolerant, trusting the people) versus the illiberal (big state, intolerant, socially authoritarian). However, despite Blairite-sounding noises over the need to balance "protection and liberty", Kennedy's "tough liberalism" advocates spending the billions earmarked for New Labour's ID card scheme on "expanding the police, MI5 and the intelligence services".
What was the difference between 'liberal' and 'illiberal' again?