Pay the top, squeeze the lot – the intuitive definition of Toryism

It is indicative that the 'Welfare Bill' made a news splash mainly for the Labour Party's disarray "now we vote, now we won't". Otherwise no emotions shown or played, no questions, no strong public reaction. (With the exception of Tim Farron's speech). The conclusion? Business as usual.

Tom Farron MP with George Smid

At the other end of the political spectrum, Labour is leaning left - we do not know the policies yet but the move is apparent. Whatever the result of the Labour leader's election it will be 'business as usual'.

What it shows is that Labour and the Tories are reverting to their stereotype. During my hustings as a PPC for South Holland and Deepings I argued that we cannot rely on 'business friendly Labour' and 'working people Tories'. I reasoned that if and when they are put under pressure, if and when they have to make a decision in face of uncertainty, they will retort to their 'intuitive reaction': so the Tories will cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor and the Labour expresses preferences for Jeremy Corbyn.

There might be sophisticated verbal narrative to justify the decision. For Conservatives rewarding boardroom directors, the bankers, the fund managers is 'attracting talent'. If you are not the top and want to keep your wages and benefits this is classified as 'loss of competitiveness'. 'Pay the top, squeeze the lot' is a default position for Conservatives. For Labour a large public investment program, redistributing wealth through the tax regime, and prescriptive economic policies are the self-evident answer to all problems. 'Soak the rich' is the default.

The intuition works both ways though. It is the same "intuitive understanding" which makes large number of voters vote for a party. Put it in another way: regardless of the manifesto, the people who vote for the Tories or Labour 'intuitively know' what they are voting for. This is of utmost importance for the Liberal Democrats - no manifesto can rationally explain all political eventualities in the future five year term of the parliament. People do need intuitive understanding of what they can expect in unforeseen circumstances. We cannot rely on the rationale of manifestos.

We therefore need the public to recognise our identity 'intuitively'. The Tories are the party of 'the business', Labour have 'the workers'. I would suggest Liberal Democrats will identify themselves with 'the commons'.

The 'commons' have always provided free, specified and regulated usage for all - regardless of the ownership. (The 'common land' could be owned by a community or a single person but always allowed for free grazing, access, foraging). Later 'the commons' came to represent the resources accessible to all. 'Free air' is a text book example. Presently 'the commons' are again at the forefront of economic, social and political discussion - for the necessity of having it (climate warming) and the danger of guarding it (the tragedy of commons - overfishing).

So Liberal Democrats have the opportunity to specify 'the commons' of their own: education or unrestricted web access or indeed 'social and culture norms', all these can be defined through Liberal attitudes as fighting against the abolishment of collective rights in favour of private property. Land Value Tax which will stop appropriation of private profit from public expenditure is another example.

Allying ourselves with 'the commons' would give us the narrative and the collective recognition, it would indicate what our 'intuitive reaction' is going to be when faced with bailing out banks, arguing about EU membership or facing industrial discontent …

Instantaneous identification, immediate intuitive recognition - the party of 'the commons'. Why not?

* George Smid was the Liberal Democrat candidate in South Holland and the Deepings in 2015. He is a member of the East Midlands Regional Executive, the English Council Executive and is a former European candidate for East Midlands