According to Dizzy, LibDem Youth & Students is about to change its name to Liberal Youth. Not LibDem Youth, Not Liberal Democrat Youth, but Liberal Youth. Couple this with Nick Clegg's constant use of the word 'liberal' in his speeches, I just wonder if he is subconciously preparing his party for a name change back to the Liberal Party. What would our LibDem friends think of this, I wonder?
UPDATE: Those in the comments who have pointed out that a Liberal Party already exists are of course right. However, I thought it had been wound up when its leader Michael Meadowcroft joined the LibDems recently. Even if it hasn't been consigned to the political grave, the LibDems could just call themselves The Liberals, I suppose.
37 comments:
It would certainly be a "clause 4" moment!
Would he also embrace liberal policies?
Would the electorate once again be offered a real chance to vote for a socially and fiscally liberal party?
It would certainly get the economist excited.
Good spot Iain !!!
This is VERY significant - he wants to remove any vestiges of the Lib Dems being a party containing one wing of losers and one wing of Labour disaffection.
He is sounding very good on the stump as well. There could a few votes coming his way if he stands up to the appalling 'management by committee' prejudices of the Lib Dem Alliance, and takes the party by the scruff of the neck.
The Social Democrat contingent of the LDs will not be terribly happy. If he does this it will be impressive considering how close his vote was to his SD opponent.
Furthermore, what would the existing Liberal Party make of it?
I'm sure the Electoral Commission would have something to say about it.
Hhhhmmmm. Surely the exosting Liberal Party (those Liberals who refused to join the LibDems post Lib-SDP merger in 1988) would have something to say about this.
Given that they are already a registered political party with the Electoral Commission I very much doubt Clegg would not be able to do this even if he wanted to.
Gordon Brown always refers to them as "The Liberal Party" at PMQs. I thought he was either being derisive or behind the times, but perhaps he was prescient all along! (A rare feat for Brown, of course.)
Not allowed. There is already a Liberal Party and the Electoral Commission would go up the wall.
Besides, the LibDems aren't a liberal party.
He is taking the party to the right - which will destroy it and move it back to the 20 odd seats it used to have
Well , they're not liberal and not democratic so losing the "Democrats" bit will simply be honest .
All he has to do then is work on the " Liberal " bit and go straight for what their hearts really lie
ie The Metternich Party .
Interesting - Gordon has been insulting the little Lib Dems at every PMQ by referring to them as the Liberal party also. (Perhaps Gordon can't bring himself to mention the names of the traitors who left Labour).
Of course there already is a Liberal party in the UK. I wonder what they think about it - and what the electoral commission thinks.
See also http://www.liberal.org.uk/
And what would the Liberal Party, who do actually still exist, think of this? Do they not have the name registered?
There's a rump "Liberal Party" registered with the electoral commision(Michael Medowcrofts lot). Presumably they have the rights to the name. One for our learned friends!
If Nick Clegg had any common sense he'd join the Conservatives.
Whilst I would love the party to change names and become the Liberal Party, I doubt Nick would be able to change the name back, because the Liberal Party still exists, so unless there was a merger it is unlikely to happen.
Nice idea Iain. Unfortunately the name is already registered by somebody else http://tinyurl.com/2tl2xd
he can not do that for the very simple reason that there already exist's a political party registered under that name
http://www.liberal.org.uk/
He's making all the right noises so far.
Of course, as Dizzy pointed out, the name "liberal youth" was not chosen by nick Clegg, so that may rather spoil your argument.
What about if, in true Cameroonian style, he re-named the party: "Nick Clegg's Liberal's".
Or would they just save that name for any future by-election in Southall?
"I just wonder if he is subconciously preparing his party for a name change back to the Liberal Party."
How about the "The Labour Party - Prop-Up Division"?
I haven't seen anything or heard anything that would disabuse me of the notion that they are just a fringe looking to prop up Labour in power.
Interesting thought...The Liberal Party want to come out of the EU...Is Clegg about to make themselves very VERY popular?
Clegg is not impressing me as his party's leader. He sounds like a schoolboy senior prefect, hectoring, self-righteous, slightly petulant, lightweight, annoyed that people don't yet seem to be taking the right kind of notice of him. Falters when he tries to think and talk on his feet. I don't think he'll last long.
As John Dixon reported already last June, he had heard a rumour going on in the Ealing Southall by-election, that "There's a long term plan within the party to change our name back to the 'Liberal' party."
However, this could be difficult, because Michael Meadowcroft started a continuity Liberal Party in 1989, which still occupies the name.
If the Lib/dems are re-joining the Liberal Party, they must be aware
that the Liberal Party is in favour of an English Parliament.
BTW, did the Liberal Unionists protest much when the Conservative and Unionist Party reverted to Conservative Party?
I think that the Social Democrats didn't have a long tradition enough to really miss it, and many of the current Lib Dems have joined after the merger.
Iain, he would have difficulties given that the Liberal Party still exists. The party is the rump of liberals who opossed the merger with the SDP in 1982.
What would have to happen is the Lib Dems would have to join en-masse, the Liberal Party, and since the Liberal party has different views on a great deal and their own party leader, adn field their own candidates, I see this as impossible.
go to www.liberal.org.uk
The current leader of the Liberal Party is Steve Radford, who is very anti-LibDem, like his comment in this comments thread of the Liberal Democrat Voice proves.
The current Liberal Party is also very anti-EU, and supports for instance the renationalisation of the railways, which might cause problems were the two parties to reunite, especially now that Clegg seems to be driving the Lib Dems towards a more market liberal direction.
The social democrats were a bunch of dorks, like Danny Finkelstein, who either sodded off to the Tories, joined NuLab or killed themselves. Pity. Would be very happy for the party to rebrand as "The Liberals".
As for "propping up Labour" - why don't you compare the stats on the Tories and LibDems voting with the government, may disabuse of you of that impression.
There's something about this story that's either untrue or a sign that Liberal Democrat Youth & Students hasn't got a clue on this.
Whilst their current acronym can be pronounced "Lai-dies", the new one would be pronounced "lie". This would be the stupidest act of party naming since the Canadian Reform become the "Conservative Reform Alliance" and had to have the media tell them what happens when you add "Party".
I notice that - as in his inauguration speech - Cleggie performed in front of a plain background. Is Libby about to be turfed out as predicted here four weeks ago.
Anonymous @ 9:50 PM
"As for "propping up Labour" - why don't you compare the stats on the Tories and LibDems voting with the government, may disabuse of you of that impression."
Do you mean like these figures?
Oh dear another LibDem attempt at asserting something that is patently untrue.
But then you are more focussed on attacking the Conservatives than the unpopular sleaze ridden Labour Government.
If the SozialDemokrats hadn't had such big egos the Party could have retained its name, and this problem would have been avoided. It's the Chinese problem of PRC/ROC all over again. If you don't keep the name, someone else can grab it (or hang on to it) and any residual legitimacy that goes with it.
Anonymous said...
"The social democrats were a bunch of dorks, like Danny Finkelstein"
No. Danny Fink is a dork. Most people in the SDP were nothing like that prat. Of course, the hopelessly incompetent SDP leadership were very keen on dorks, many having been to Oxbridge.
Anonymous @ 1:07 AM, do I have to remind you that Conservatives have supported Labour government on the really important matters, like the Iraq war? Tories are also johnny-come-lates in opposing ID-cards, Michael Howard initially supported them. It seems that the Tories must first see that the majority is against the government proposal in the opinion polls before they begin to oppose it.
I think a perfect name for the Libbies would be 'The Golden Shower'. Nuff said.
Anon 1.07 - those figures are from THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT you idiot!
Maybe he should drop the 'Liberal' part of the name, and let them become the Democratic Party / Democrats. They might be able to ride on the coat tails of the DP in the United States. Or they might sink into complete oblivion.
Perhaps it would be better to be honest, and just become the 'Protest Vote' party or the 'Anyone but Labour or Tories' party.
Anon 10:32 - "Anon 1.07 - those figures are from THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT you idiot!"
Yes and?
They are figures.
I haven't seen any supporting the assertion that the LibDems vote more against Labour than the Conservatives do.
Evidence dear boy, evidence.
Post a Comment