Rachel Sylvester writes in the Times today (£) about the need for a realignment in politics. Her piece is pretty much a puff piece for Lovefilm founder, Simon Franks’ new vehicle, United for Change, which will apparently launch in the Spring. she makes an astonishing statement:

It’s too soon to say whether this will become the vehicle for the much needed reconfiguration but there is clearly an appetite for something different. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s former Downing Street chief of staff, is also co-ordinating discussions about a new political party. The Liberal Democrats have indicated that they would happily be absorbed into another party that shares their values.

Excuse me?

The Liberal Democrats have indicated that they would happily be absorbed into another party that shares their values.

Caron Lindsay

Oh no, we bloody haven’t. Let’s be clear about that.

If any senior figure has said such a thing, then they have no right to do so. And they certainly can’t speak for our members who might have something to say about that.

The problem with these shiny new centre parties is obvious from a quick look at United for Change’s website:

Is there anything more vacuous than this:

BRITAIN IS GREAT, ITS POLITICS SHOULD BE TOO.

WE’RE BUILDING A PARTY PROUDLY BORN OUTSIDE OF WESTMINSTER.

Heavens. Donald Trump and Nigel Farage could sign up to something like that. What the hell do they stand for? The best thing I can say about it is that it didn’t put an apostrophe in the its.

The problem is that these sorts of centrist parties tend to be authoritarian in make-up and outlook. A member of such an organisation would have much less power than they would have as a member of the Liberal Democrats, where they could put forward ideas and vote on specific policy. Liberal Democrats are used to having much more say than I expect will be offered to supporters of United for Change.

Although note the similarities. Apparently UFC wants to sign up a whole load of supporters who will then get to vote for leader. Sound familiar?

My two biggest problems with our supporters’ scheme idea are that it’s a processy distraction from what we really need to be developing – our compelling and inspiring narrative of who we are and what we’re about and that it also distracts from the fact that we are a pretty open party that gives our members power.

UFC, from what I can see neither offers their members power nor has any compelling ideas. Two months before the SDP was formed, its four founders, Shirley Williams, David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Bill Rodgers, put out the Limehouse Declaration. It kicked some ass. 

We do not believe in the politics of an inert centre merely representing the lowest common denominator between two extremes.

We want more, not less, radical change in our society, but with a greater stability of direction.

Our economy needs a healthy public sector and a healthy private sector without frequent frontier changes.We want to eliminate poverty and promote greater equality without stifling enterprise or imposing bureaucracy from the centre. We need the innovating strength of a competitive economy with a fair distribution of rewards.

We favour competitive public enterprise, co-operative ventures and profit sharing.

There must be more decentralisation of decision making in industry and government,together with an effective and practical system of democracy at work.

The quality of our public and community services must be improved and they must be made more responsive to people’s needs. We do not accept that mass unemployment is inevitable. A number of countries, mainly those with social democratic governments, have managed to combine high employment with low inflation.

Britain needs to recover its self-confidence and be outward-looking, rather than isolationist, xenophobic or neutralist.

We want Britain to play a full and constructive role within the framework of the European Community, Nato, the United Nations and the Commonwealth.

It is only within such a multi-lateral framework that we can hope to negotiate international agreements covering arms control and disarmament and to grapple effectively with the poverty of the Third World.

And the Preamble to our constitution, which states that we believe in a fair, free and open society where no-one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity still moves me every time I read it.

Centrist parties tend to be significantly less friendly to immigration than most of us are comfortable with, too. They tend to be more this

the politics of an inert centre merely representing the lowest common denominator between two extremes

than anything else.

If there’s a choice between the gumbo of hundreds of years of liberal thinking and the frothy milk that UFC offers, I’ll go with the gumbo.

Nick Barlow (who, as an aside is seeking sponsors for his London Marathon attempt) has written about this today too. He describes such new parties as “political vapourware.”

That’s why all these ideas for Bold New Centrist Movements To Change Politics are political vapourware — when you look at any of them in depth, there’s no there there. Unlike existing and successful political parties there’s no unifying idea or principle there to bring people in and then hold them together. “Things would be great if everyone agreed with me” is all well and good until you find out that not only are you now in a party with people who all think that, they don’t all agree with you and they even have disagreements on what things being great looks like.

We Lib Dems will keep fighting for that fair, free and open society where no-one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity. That is one hell of a mission and we will not have it diluted.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron’s Musings