New economic liberal group in the Lib Dems: A storm brewing for the party?

Cover of The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism

Since we formed the Coalition Government there has been a lot of focus on the Lib Dem party with accusations that the party has sold out, that people don’t know what the party stands for anymore and that the Lib Dems will be wiped out at the next General Election. Many in the party have also got worried and the Social Liberal Forum was set up to represent the views of those who felt social liberalism was not being represented. Now we have news of a new grouping representing the views of economic liberals. But are we talking too much to ourselves and not enough to the public making it more likely that the characterisations are seen as true?

The desire to form and join social groups is extremely powerful and built into our nature. Amongst other things groups give us a most valuable gift, our social identity, which contributes to our sense of who we are. Sub groups within a main group can enhance motivation and performance for the main group and as an example the Green Lib Dems or LGBT Lib Dems (DELGA)  are important groups within the Lib Dem party.

Just how readily people form and join groups is demonstrated by Tajfel et al. (1971) in the so-called ‘minimal groups paradigm‘. In their study boys who were strangers to each other were given only the slightest hint that they were being split into two groups. Even without knowing or seeing who else was in their group they favoured members of their own group over the others. The formation of the Social Liberal Forum gave a formal voice to certain views within the party which inferred an exclusion of other views; it was therefore almost inevitable that an economic liberal group would then form as a result.

Co-operation within group members is generally not a problem, however co-operation between groups can be very problematic. This is seen frequently by the main political parties. People may be individually co-operative, but once put in a ‘them-and-us’ situation, rapidly become remarkably adversarial.

Insko et al. (2001) had participants playing a classic game called ‘the prisoner’s dilemma‘ which they used to measure competitiveness. When on their own people were competitive 37% of the time but when they were in a group of three this increased to 54%. People easily become suspicious of other groups, reasoning that while their individual members may be ‘alright’, the group as a whole cannot be trusted.

The Green Lib Dems or DELGA have no direct or opposing views in competition with them. They are just seeking to change the people/views around them, which is called minority influence. The difference between these and the formation of social and economic sub-groups is that they are potentially in direct competition with each other. Just have a look at Wikipedia which directly pits them against each other or the publication of ‘Re-inventing the state’ which was published in part as a response to the Orange Book a few years earlier. The formation of these two groups poses potential problems as both are seeking minority influence.

Minority influence is most likely when people can make a clear and consistent case for their point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows uncertainty, the chance of influence is small. However, a minority that makes a strong, convincing case increases the probability of changing the majority’s beliefs and behaviors. Minority members who are perceived as experts, are high in status, or have benefited the group in the past are also more likely to succeed.

So while both groups will debate and produce new ideas for the party, which is healthy, we may also see both groups pushing repeated and defined ideas/policies and co-opting the big names of the day into their group. This could give rise to unhealthy group dynamics and give a view that the Lib Dems are indeed a split party as the media likes to characterise.

The question that comes to mind is whether their views are overlooked so much by the Lib Dem party that they need to form their own group? And if this is the case, then is this a failure of leadership to represent their views to avoid such formal internal groupings? But considering we now have these groups we need to make sure that unhealthy group dynamics do not begin to form, which is incredibly difficult, just look how other parties have tried: New/Old Labour was damaging to Labour, Pro/Anti Europe within the Conservatives was very damaging to them, One Nation Tory/1922 Committee poses significant problems for Cameron, and Blue Labour had significant resistance within the Labour party. All competing views and groups which was confusing for the voters and ultimately damaging for the party.

The leadership therefore need to manage the different groups well, with frequent communication, listening and airing of views, taking on board their views, making all groups work together and alongside each other to ensure the smooth running of the party as a whole – or we may end up with a repeat of our history.