I don’t know where or when the term ‘Liblabcon’ came into being. The American equivalent ‘Republicrat’ has been used for years in American politics.
Searching in Wikipedia; It is “…a pejorative term used by those who allege the policies of the two parties are in practice indistinguishable.” The entry continues, “An equivalent term used in the United Kingdom is LibLabCon, a pejorative portmanteau referring to the three main political parties.”
The word articulates the growing perception that Britain’s three establishment political parties are fundamentally indistinguishable. It’s an idea that strikes at the heart of the status quo. The ‘difference’ is their justification; if they’re all the same what exactly is the point of Libs, Labs, and Cons?
The mass media and the mainstream political parties have a symbiotic relationship that runs on the energy produced by what they call ‘the political debate’. The politicians provide the entertainment, the media talks about it, and the liberal establishment lives happily ever after. It’s part of the process of maintaining the status of those currently running the show; the effort always is to restrict political thinking to the establishment-approved choice. The media makes a big fuss about the trivia that differentiates Lib, Lab, and Con and presents it as confirmation of choice. At the same time it avoids the fundamentals they share and thus removes them from the political process; the idea is to have us not seeing the wood for the trees.
Liblabcon says that the Lib, Lab, Con thing has lost its momentum, that the establishment-approved choice is no choice, and that the establishment parties have become a political class which now acts primarily in its own best interest. …….it’s only recently that the parties have been seen as fundamentally indistinguishable. The melding of Lib, Lab, and Con began with the post WWII liberal consensus and continued to the point where now they share an almost identical world view and differ only on the minutiae. The term Liblabcon is recognition of this and a means of communicating it.
Britain is as it is today because of the sameness of the establishment parties not because of their difference.
The survival of the ‘big three’ is a function of their ability to maintain an impression of separateness. This is what they spend much of their time doing, telling us how different they are, and the mainstream media supports them in this by presenting them as feasible political choices. They don’t like to talk about what they have in common both because it threatens their viability as alternatives and because it brings to the fore their shared ambition for Britain, which they prefer to keep to themselves.
Yet it seems now that their cover is blown and everything they do to convince us of their difference convinces us of their similarity, exquisitely illustrated by David Cameron’s appeal for ‘new people to stand for the Conservatives - even if they’re not Conservatives’ M.Harriot