For all its ludicrous ‘New’ prefix, Labour remains a corporatist political Party: a believer in Big and On Message and hubris-fuelled promises that quickly become a hostage to fortune. It likes One Size Fits all and universal largesse – both of which reflect the movement’s fundamental inability since 1997 to recognise the difference between the deserving and the desultory. It is this lack of discernment which lies at the heart of its abject failure to deal with the current fiscal, economic and human crisis.

The Party which belatedly dumped Clause Four clings still to the principle of No Means Testing. In practice, what this means is a Government genetically unable to accept the idea of targeted relief. This is a pretty fundamental problem given that in the current crisis, if Britain is not to finish up both morally and financially bankrupt, targeting should be central to relief strategy.

The Liberal Party as was wanted Britain’s class system surgically removed not by wealth redistribution, but by a degree of shared ownership and better education. It also believed individuals should accept more responsibility for their actions, and not be encouraged towards handouts: it saw the welfare system as an occasional crutch, not a permanent walking-stick. When tackled on TV in 1959 about being ant-welfare because of this belief, the then leader Jo Grimond spluttered, “Anti welfare? My dear boy, we invented it.”

The Liberal Party were the first to say our electoral system was unfair, and needed radical overhaul. Further, the old Liberals distrusted the Americans; as early as 1971,Thorpe referred to the ‘special relationship’ as “humbug”. From 1955 onwards they argued passionately for being in the emerging ‘Common Market’ on the continent – as by doing so. we could be in on the ground floor and help make the rules.

During the 1960s, the Party expanded its anti-globalism towards a more positive communitarian vision of the future. Smaller, community-level targeted relief and growth-support policies carried out by devolved and accountable government was, it felt, far more likely to build community bonds in the future.

As long as they held these views, there was no chance of me supporting any other Party. Looking back today, I see all of them as almost entirely correct. I would still support it today if it held those views, but it doesn’t. Today it’s called the Liberal Democrats, but in terms of ideas it’s largely the old SDP – ‘Labour lite’ as David Cameron might say.

The real Liberals would’ve hated Brussels supra-nationalism, Globalism, City greed, bourse financing, crooked and deregulated banks, and the demutualization of many building and insurance societies. Vince Cable now goes on about the banks, but his solution on Northern Rock was to nationalise it. The old Liberals would’ve said “Save the savers, transfer the debtors and close the institution. Vince isn’t a Liberal, and he never was: he joined the SDP and then got merged. As for the rest of those aspects of contemporary life outlined above, Nick Clegg supports most of them. He would: he’s a former Eurocrat.

Only drastic spending cuts and rigorously targeted welfare/banking support will give the best opportunities for the most deserving businesses and individuals going forward. The LibDems lack both the instincts and the balls to carry that out- as does Labour.

If these two Parties were really honest – as opposed to just swapping the roles of tart and predator as the polls see-saw up and down – they’d rebrand as a single force – but this time do it properly.

They should get married and become the Social Democrats. Then we’d all know where we stand.