
A major new series from Imprint Academic on the use of randomisation in education, politics and other public policy areas. Special discount prices for OurKingdom and openDemocracy readers.
Part of the openDemocracy Network
Sortition and public policyLabour After BrownFrom Milibland to Johnson land?: Jeremy Gilbert argues for Labour without neo-liberalism. Magical thinking on Britishness: Anthony Barnett critiques Liam Byrne on fraternity. Rule of law at risk: Geoffrey Bindman calls for a turn away from the marketisation of government. A new Bill of Rights for Britain?: Guy Aitchison analyses Parliament's proposed new Bill of Rights. Miliband - by our rights we will know you: Claire O'Brien puts forward a new progressive vision for Labour. NOT A DAY LONGER
England Awakes?England, Britain and multiculturalism: an OurKingdom exchange A mild awakening?, England's turn? by David Goodhart Just Commented
OK is reading
Email AlertsFill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).
OurKingdom TagsNavigation |
The World
Just Posted
They say about OK"the ever-stimulating OpenDemocracy"
Ekklesia "See OurKingdom to keep up" South Belfast Diary "...an essential guide to understanding the dynamic constitutional situation..." Peter Oborne "...becoming a daily read for me." Iain Dale "To make sense of it all, check out OurKingdom..." Matthew d'Ancona "Worth a look...it is, however, recommended by Matthew d'Ancona." The Wardman Wire "Fast becoming the best political website around" Tom Waterhouse, CEP "...attracting energy from a range of contributors." thenextwave "...looks very promising..." The England Project "The excellent new OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy..." The Green Ribbon "On the internet, I keep in touch with openDemocracy, a website on global current affairs, and its useful offshoot, OurKingdom" Andreas Whittam-Smith "thanks to the fine folk at OurKingdom, (who manage to communicate a variety of perspectives in the way that only a decent group blog can)" Nostalgia For the Future |
What way for the Liberal Democrats?Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Lib Dems matter, even if at the moment they matter in the way that they fail to matter. This needs to change if they are up to it. The issue is not just tactical, in the way that Peter Preston discusses, it is about setting the terms. Whether or not there is a hung parliament, a possible coalition, etc, the current strategic impasse Labour is facing, trying to demonstrate its "competence", and the likelihood that any Tory majority will be fragile, means that the next election could be one whose outcome the the Lib-Dems can frame. By this I mean whether or not there is a deal they could define what he country needs. I was trying to get at this (even if I went a little far) when I suggested that Vince Cable shows the Lib Dems could be "hegemonic". Now its getting personal, always a good sign. Thanks to James Graham I have learnt of a self-justification piece by 'Lord' Chris Rennard the party's most influential back-room boy. Don't dump me and all my works, he seems to be saying, as he feels the pleasures of influence slipping away. Jame is characteristically generous, Chris’ genius for campaigning is unsurpassed. More than any other single individual he can rightly claim the credit for our renaissance in the 90s and beyond. He has been the true brains and in many ways the real leader of the party. But he is a tactician, not a strategist. And when someone has been in the position he has been for as long as he has been, there is always a danger of going stale. The article is in Lib Dem News, though no link comes up. James gives a clear summary and reports Rennards as arguing, The reason for our success? Strict targeting and pushing issues that matter to people. In 1997, lest we forget, we fought the election on CHEESE (Crime, Health, Education, Economy, Sleaze and the Environment). Well, I didn't know about CHEESE until now, but whether or not it was Rennard's doing it stinks. The Lib Dems may think they did well in 1997 because they increased their number of MPs. In fact it was a tragic lost opportunity for UK politics. If they had not had an alcoholic leader whose removal well beforehand any "real leader" would have organised, if they had Ming, for example, when the Iraq war was a defining issue, they could have got close to replacing the Tories as the second party. Look at the poverty of aspirations in CHEESE: any mention of Iraq; or of Labour lying and trust, very different from 'sleaze'; or of the need for better and more efficient government; or how to manage globalisation? A CHEESY approach will always condemn the Lib Dems to being marginal. A party has to have a defining project: of what it wants to be and do as a party and what it wants the country as a whole to become. The good news is that the age of CHEESE may be over and a new leader will start to cook some main courses.
by Labour is worse than it looks « OurKingdom (not verified)
To take 2005 as an by jamesgraham (not verified)
Anthony]]> by ourkingdom (not verified)
You seem to be arguing by Nathaniel Tapley (not verified)
by 2008 Presidential Election » What way for the (not verified)
As it happens, I think you by jamesgraham (not verified)
Post new comment |