• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Social Democratic Party Dick Newby examines the legacy of the SDP to the modern-day Liberal Democrats, in terms of policies, procedures and people. What did the SDP bequeath to the Liberal Democrats? t is a measure of the success of the Liberal at the time – what he thought. ‘We’ve got a liberal Democrats in bringing together the SDP and [or possibly Liberal] party’, he said, ‘with an SDP Ithe Liberal Party, that it has taken quite an constitution’. effort of will for me to even begin to answer the Where does the truth lie? I’d like to look at this question of what contribution the SDP made to the under the three headings of procedures, policies Liberal Democrats. Twenty-eight years after the and people. merger and thirty-five years after the formation of the SDP is definitely a long enough period to ena- ble one to attempt an answer to the question, but Procedures equally, it is also long enough to forget some of the The predecessor parties were organised in quite salient characteristics of the pre-merger parties. different ways. The Liberal Party had grown At the time of the merger, Sir Leslie Murphy, organically over a long period. Its membership one of the SDP trustees and a former chairman criteria were in places quite vague – the West of the National Enterprise Board, said bleakly Country, for example, boasted many ‘seedcake’ ‘There’s no such thing as a merger. There are only members, i.e. people whose contribution to the takeovers.’ And he was in no doubt that the SDP party’s resources came not from paying a sub- was being taken over. In their magisterial book scription, but in helping at social functions to about the SDP, published in 1995, Ivor Crewe raise funds. Membership records were kept only and Tony King were equally stark: ‘The Liberal at constituency level and there was a deep suspi- Democratic Party differs very little from the old cion of the national party getting anywhere near Liberal Party’. And in thinking about this article I them. It had long-established and largely autono- asked Tony Greaves – a fierce critic of the merger mous Scottish and Welsh parties and variably 4 Journal of Liberal History 91 Summer 2016 What did the SDP bequeath to the Liberal Democrats? strong regional parties in England. Its policy- took up most time and energy proved to be tran- making was undertaken by a large annual Assem- sitory. The first related to the name of the new bly, attendance at which, though linked to local party. The name finally chosen – Social and Lib- party membership, was effectively open to all eral Democrats (witheringly described as ‘Salads’ members. In between, it had a quarterly Council, by the media) – only lasted until 1989. The issue of comprised of about two to three hundred mem- whether there should be a reference to NATO in bers and having a somewhat ambiguous role in the preamble (on which the SDP negotiating team formulating and commenting upon policy and successfully dug in their heels) became largely strategy. These structures were cherished by irrelevant after the fall of the Berlin Wall and was many of those who took part in their delibera- duly dropped. And the initial policy statement – tions, but to outsiders often looked rather chaotic. the so called ‘dead parrot’ document (see below) The SDP by contrast was a party formed by – didn’t even survive the negotiating process. Its a national initiative whose first members were anodyne successor was soon superseded and even largely gleaned from a national newspaper ad (in more quickly forgotten. The Guardian on 5 February 1981). It wanted to The constitution which emerged had a number look dynamic, professional and modern, and a of features which reflected previous Liberal Party national computerised membership system with practice. This is most noticeably seen in the provi- membership payments by credit card were seen as sion for Scottish, Welsh and English parties, where embodying this. Its leaders were used to ministe- provisions from the Liberal constitution were rial power and a hierarchical manner of working. largely transposed. There was a row about the The SDP was a unitary GB-wide party and its role of English regions, with some wanting them Scottish, Welsh and English regional structures to have the same powers as the Scots and Welsh. were relatively weak. Its policy-making body – In the end, this matter was resolved by allowing the Council for Social Democracy (CSD) – was them to apply for state party status if they wished. elected by local parties and was relatively small: To date none have done so. There was also strong some 400 members. It met three times a year. It Liberal resistance to positive provision for women determined policy in a deliberative way, with and this was largely successful – with long-lasting Green Papers produced by expert groups followed results. And the constitution’s preamble – a power- by White Papers, which became the basis for pol- ful if little read document – bore a strong relation icy. It was keen to promote the role of women to its Liberal Party predecessor. and had entrenched positions for women on its The SDP did however leave its mark on the National Committee and on candidate shortlists. constitution in a number of crucial respects: (A proposal to require equal male/female repre- • The new party adopted the SDP’s national sentation on the CSD was however lost following computerised membership system. At the a tied vote at the CSD and its rejection in a sub- time this led to many of the informal Liberal sequent all-members’ ballot.) It was keen on all- Party members disappearing as members. member elections conducted by post. The system has nonetheless proved its worth, Many of its features were a response to the per- enabling the party to communicate directly ceived failings of the Labour Party constitution, to members, however weak the local party which to the SDP leaders had enabled a combi- might be, and to have an efficient method of nation of dedicated activists (often Trotskyite collecting subscriptions and raising funds. entryists) and union bosses to take decisions at the It is noticeable that the surge in membership expense of ordinary members. after the recent general election happened These different approaches formed the basis of almost entirely online. Having a longstand- Left: platform at the many and various disagreements which had ing national membership system in place Council for Social to be resolved during the merger negotiations enabled the party to transition relatively Democracy meeting, in the autumn and winter of 1987–8. It is note- smoothly to the digital age. If it hadn’t been Kensington Town Hall, worthy that the three conflicts which almost led in place from the start it would have surely May 1985; at right, to the collapse of the negotiations and certainly had to be introduced at some later stage Dick Newby Journal of Liberal History 91 Summer 2016 5 What did the SDP bequeath to the Liberal Democrats? • All-member elections. The party’s leader and had unconstrained debate on the party’s stance in president are elected via all-member postal government, which in the case of the Health and ballot and lay members of the party’s federal Social Care Bill of 2011 led to Lib Dem ministers bodies are elected by postal ballot of con- securing major changes to the Bill. These pro- ference representatives (now changed to all cesses cannot of course be simply ascribed to SDP members). Although costly, there can be little influence – a stand-alone Liberal Party would doubt that this system leads to a higher level have no doubt undertaken broadly similar steps. of participation than any plausible alternative But the party did behave in an extremely sober and allows all members to (rightly) feel that and disciplined manner – which was exactly what they have a say in who runs the party. the SDP negotiators were hoping for in 1987. • A clear and deliberative policy-making sys- tem. The party largely adopted the SDP’s two-stage policy-making approach. Under Policy it, a working group is typically set up to con- It could well be argued that the SDP’s most dis- sider a policy area. It produces a consulta- tinctive contribution to the policy of the Liberal tive document which raises the key issues Democrats was via the changes it made to the Lib- and sometimes offers suggested responses to eral Party’s policy-making process, rather than to them. This is discussed at a consultative ses- individual policies or to the overall policy stance sion of conference. At the next conference, a of the party. final draft document is produced and voted It has to be remembered that the single big- upon. It differs from the SDP approach in gest impetus for the creation of the SDP was not that the first stage of the process typically over what is conventionally described as policy. raises the key issues for debate without offer- It was over the decision of the Labour Party at its ing a proposed answer whereas SDP drafts January 1983 conference to give the biggest share were more like government green papers of votes for the leader of the Labour Party – some which set out clear proposals and ask for 40 per cent – to the unions. This was thought to comments. The current approach has the be anti-democratic by the putative leaders of the twin advantages of allowing the maximum SDP, who saw it as being the means by which the number of party members to participate in unions could effectively decide who any Labour the process – either by joining the working prime minister was going to be.

Load more

  6

Copy Link