I rejoined the Liberal Democrats (British political party) so I could vote for Nick Clegg as leader. He won, though by less than 1% of votes cast after a campaign so aid back it looked like an attempt to apply Zen meditation to politics. There were perhaps good reasons for that, the main rival Huhne was evidently dying to turn it into a social (left) liberal versus Thatcherite contest. Sinc ehis vitory Clegg has returned to his good work in promoting a vision of liberalism rooted in a limited state, open markets, individual choice, localism, and voluntary action. He's opened up the possibility of cutting the overall tax burden.
He has marginalised attempts to commit to dumping British nuclear weapons, I don't love them but the negative impact on the international order would be more than any benefit gained. While the British place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is an anachronism, the international community is not remotely ready to work out how to restructure the Security Council. Since the other 4 permanent members have nuclear weapons the issues are linked, and let's forget about negotiating way British nuclear weapons until a clear program emerges for a new UN and international order, or attempt at order the worlds nations. This order, such at is, needs Britain's continuing commitment to UN military operations. It's hard to see how Britain's enormous role could be politically sustainable if the place of the Security Council went, I wish things were different but this is the real context . The Liberal Democrats (including the old Liberal Party back to Gladstone's time) have been the most internationalist force in British politics. Opting out of the nuclear club is not the way to continue that tradition.
Clegg has recently committed to substantially reducing the number of MPs in the British parliament. This is very important as we cannot reasonably argue for regional government within England and radically strengthened local government, and not offer a way of saving money and complexity with regard to the UK parliament.
The party's recent party conference has voted for a proposal for more private involvement in the National Health Service. There are very powerful reasons for this which come both from: strengthening private economic activity in Britain; and the more efficient delivery of basic public services to all, with the minimum burden of taxation.
These are early days for Clegg's leadership, but he has already taken big steps towards ending Liberal Democrat tendencies towards automatically taxing and spending more than the Conservatives and 'New' Labour (which has substantially increased tax and spending, and public borrowing). He has manoeuvred the party away from assuming that social welfare means keeping the private sector out of public services, and has successfully led it towards a very positive attitude to the sovereignty of consumer choice over producer interests.
What comes next? I would like to see Lib Dem acceptance of tuition charges for higher education under the current UK system where the government provides low interest loans. I think this is coming. The same applies to a general broadening of choice and competition in the provision of public services.
What is more remote is the use of private insurance funds in public health provision and more charges in the provision of public health services. This will be greeted by many as social cruelty on a level with throwing orphans in the snow. The reality is that the world2s top rated health service, in France, uses private funds and charges (often recoverable through insurance or waived for those on low incomes). It's very clear in Britain that free visits to local doctors means they are spending their time on trivial or non-existence complaints. Efficient allocation of resources needs some element of market forces, even if the overall pattern is one of guaranteeing health care for all who need it. Using private insurance funds as well as general taxation to fund public health services will realise more money overall flowing into public health services which will benefit everyone. A hospital which can invest using private funds will be able to make the results available for everyone, and şf we go so far as to put everyone in competing insurance funds with the poorest insured by the state, then everyone can clearly benefits from competition and market disciplines.
What are the current problems? The biggest issues for me are: a new form of soak the rich posturing; a default position for many party representatives of promising more public spending. The soak the rich issue has arisen in relation to 'non-doms', that is non-domiciled foreigners, though another group, British citizens who are only in the country for a maximum of 90 days in a year has been included in that debate. Resentment exists that foreigners, including billionaires, do no pay any tax on overseas earnings and investments. The issue for British citizens is that if they are not in the country for more than 90 days is that they have similar rights. Public resentment overlooks the fact that the non-taxed income and wealth is outside the UK. Taxing non-doms overseas income and wealth will not on the whole mean more money for the British state. It will mean very mobile people leaving who pay very large amounts of tax in Britain through indirect taxes when they spend money and direct taxes on money they make in Britain. These people are mobile and if they disappear than the British tax payer will be faced with a bigger burden. Britsh citizens who work a maximum of 90 days tend to be engaged in very highly skilled professional work, many in the financial sector. Great harm would be suffered by the financial sector including the Stock Market, and associated enterprises, if these people are frightened off. Again there would be a big loss for the British tax payer. Issues arise her eof tax havens which should be separated from non-dom status. I find bizarre Medieval left overs like Monaco and Lichtenstein, which make money from charging hardly any direct tax on wealthy foreign residents, artificial and absurd. The answer is a mixture of law enforcement with regard to assets hidden in these 'countries' and lowering of corporation taxes and taxes on wealth. The goal should be to increase the volume of tax revenue, not to impose high marginal rates of tax on the rich because it serves feelings of resentment and envy while deterring enterprise and creating huge incentives for shifting corporate registration and private wealth off shore.
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Democrats. Show all posts
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Future of British Liberalism
Nick Clegg leader of British Liberal Democrats
A few hours ago Nick Clegg was elected leader of the British Liberal Democrats by a a few hundred votes. I followed the moment of announcement on the Internet, and since then I've been following reaction from Liberal Democrat bloggers on the libdemblogs feed. I rejoined the party, I never left it in spirit, from Istanbul to make sure I could vote for Nick Clegg. After a cautious defensive election campaign against Chris Huhne who grabbed every chance to appeal to party activists with a more left wing kind of liberalism, Nick Clegg just made it to victory. The margin is irrelevant, though I often found Huhne deeply irritating before and during the campaign due to his rather transparent attempts to ingratiate himself with the activist core, his concession speech was admirably gracious and supportive. He has proved he is a great political campaigner, against the advantage Clegg had from overwhelming media support and support of well known party members. To some degree Huhne was benefitting from a deeply inbuilt bloody mindedness amongst the activist core about receiving advice from the party establishment, but it doe stake campaigning and argumentative talent to take advantage. Clegg was annoyingly passive for most of the campaign, but at some moments he showed the mixture of passion and reasoned calm argument he is capable of, and the victory speech was such a moment. The understated campaign cannot be taken as indicative of his approach to inter-party contests, though clearly he does not go in for demagogy as a style.
Which Liberalism?
Another poll I took part in, and I find just as interesting is on Liberal Democrat Voice an activist run news and discussion site. It is a poll which continues on where participants want the Liberal Democrats to be on the political spectrum.
Results so far
As far as I am concerned the Liberal Democrats should be a party of 50% plus Social and Economic Liberals. That in itself covers a wide range of views from Hayek type almost-no-staters to those favoring a modest incremental shift towards open markets and choice in public services. I would place myself somewhere in between, at the point where anti-statist thinking and progressive welfarist liberalism border each other. Huhne's campaign was based on trying to colour even the most modest market based reforms of public services as dangerously right wing. My support for Nick Clegg was based on the belief that the party will move in that direction under his leadership, combined with his various leadership qualities. Clegg has not identified himself in such terms and would be unwise to do so, given that judging by this survey only just under a third of party members would define themselves in that way, though I am sure that is more than 1o years and even more than 15 years ago.
Where Clegg Should Go Further in Free Market/Limited State Liberalism
Certainly Nick Clegg is not calling for a reduction in the proportion of national income that goes on taxes and public spending. On the contrary he attacks the possibility that a Conservative government might reduce spending, though the Conservative leader David Cameron is vague on the topic. The accusation is in any case based on an ambiguity. Cameron has hinted at the possibility that tax/public spending might go down as a proportion of national income, this is not the same as a cut in spending or tax revenues. It is wholly compatible with increasing spending and tax revenues. A properly managed government can secure increased economic growth by reducing the disincentives to growth that are created by taxes.
Where Clegg is Already at the Right Point
It should be noted that the USA with a smaller proportion of tax/spending than the richer parts of Europe, is richer than those countries, has higher long term economic growth and spends at least as much in total public spending per person. Of course there are serious gaps in social provision in the USA, certainly the failure to institute universal health insurance is a scandal. Weaknesses in social provision is in large degree due to the very poor productivity and inefficiency of public services in the USA compared with Europe. Public services are heavily unionised in the USA, those unions have a lot of cash from very high membership subscription, and are brilliant talented lobbyists. We can see what happened in California where a popular persuasive governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was unable to get referendum support for proposals for very moderate public sector reform, such as increasing by one year the probationary period of employment. The public sector in California, and elsewhere, is full of inefficient working practices and staff who cannot easily be sacked regardless of financial circumstances or their personal performance .
Public Services in Britain
The UK, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has suffered from growing problems of that kind. Despite mythology about New Labour being the same as the Conservatives, the fact is since 1997, public spending has increased dramatically particularly in health and education. Apart from some politically high profile targets, such as reducing waiting lists for operations, the growth in spending has not been a success. State health services continue to be dogged by poor hygiene in hospitals, a high proportion of new spending has gone on wage inflation. State school education in Britain continues to be very inferior, particularly for low income groups, compared with private education in Britain and state education in other parts of Europe. Though there is not as much room for reform as in the USA, there is plenty of room for greater competition in the provision of public services and the greater efficiency which results from the kind of disciplines that exist in the private sector.
Clegg's Promising Policies
Clegg was rather quiet about it during the leadership campaign, but at some points he made clear that he favours consumer choice in public services, and importantly money following the choice. He hinted at a move away from party policy on favouring free university tuition There is nothing socially progressive n levying taxers on low earners to pay for the relatively week off to go to university and become more valuable commodities on the job market. Making soft long term loans guaranteed by the state creates a reasonable balance between keeping down taxes and making higher education widely available. He has ruled out private insurance funds as contributing to state health services, but past remarks suggest he is open to any reform which would leave health care universally available and free at the point of use. Sıme substitution of competing private insurance funds for general taxation would not block universal access.
Clegg seems to be taking long standing Liberal Democrat committments to localism seriously, he has said his leadership will be active in the localities. Tying this into clear policies to shift taxation and control of public services to the local level could producer a great shift away from central state power, and Clegg has clearly supported such a position. He has shown a committment to reducing unnecessary legislation, as in his proposal for repeal of unnecessary laws, the Great Repeal Act. This proposed title echoes the Great Reform Act of 1832 which spread voting rights and reformed electoral practices, and was a very serious shift away from the previous system of a Parliament of oligarchy, patronage and landed interests, a great moment for liberal reformism.
Summary
My idea of the best results from the Clegg leadership are as follows:
A few hours ago Nick Clegg was elected leader of the British Liberal Democrats by a a few hundred votes. I followed the moment of announcement on the Internet, and since then I've been following reaction from Liberal Democrat bloggers on the libdemblogs feed. I rejoined the party, I never left it in spirit, from Istanbul to make sure I could vote for Nick Clegg. After a cautious defensive election campaign against Chris Huhne who grabbed every chance to appeal to party activists with a more left wing kind of liberalism, Nick Clegg just made it to victory. The margin is irrelevant, though I often found Huhne deeply irritating before and during the campaign due to his rather transparent attempts to ingratiate himself with the activist core, his concession speech was admirably gracious and supportive. He has proved he is a great political campaigner, against the advantage Clegg had from overwhelming media support and support of well known party members. To some degree Huhne was benefitting from a deeply inbuilt bloody mindedness amongst the activist core about receiving advice from the party establishment, but it doe stake campaigning and argumentative talent to take advantage. Clegg was annoyingly passive for most of the campaign, but at some moments he showed the mixture of passion and reasoned calm argument he is capable of, and the victory speech was such a moment. The understated campaign cannot be taken as indicative of his approach to inter-party contests, though clearly he does not go in for demagogy as a style.
Which Liberalism?
Another poll I took part in, and I find just as interesting is on Liberal Democrat Voice an activist run news and discussion site. It is a poll which continues on where participants want the Liberal Democrats to be on the political spectrum.
Results so far
- A socially liberal and economically liberal party
- A socially liberal and economically centrist party
- A socially liberal and economically left-of-centre party
- A socially conservative and economically liberal party
- A socially conservative and economically centrist party
- A socially conservative and economically left-of-centre party
As far as I am concerned the Liberal Democrats should be a party of 50% plus Social and Economic Liberals. That in itself covers a wide range of views from Hayek type almost-no-staters to those favoring a modest incremental shift towards open markets and choice in public services. I would place myself somewhere in between, at the point where anti-statist thinking and progressive welfarist liberalism border each other. Huhne's campaign was based on trying to colour even the most modest market based reforms of public services as dangerously right wing. My support for Nick Clegg was based on the belief that the party will move in that direction under his leadership, combined with his various leadership qualities. Clegg has not identified himself in such terms and would be unwise to do so, given that judging by this survey only just under a third of party members would define themselves in that way, though I am sure that is more than 1o years and even more than 15 years ago.
Where Clegg Should Go Further in Free Market/Limited State Liberalism
Certainly Nick Clegg is not calling for a reduction in the proportion of national income that goes on taxes and public spending. On the contrary he attacks the possibility that a Conservative government might reduce spending, though the Conservative leader David Cameron is vague on the topic. The accusation is in any case based on an ambiguity. Cameron has hinted at the possibility that tax/public spending might go down as a proportion of national income, this is not the same as a cut in spending or tax revenues. It is wholly compatible with increasing spending and tax revenues. A properly managed government can secure increased economic growth by reducing the disincentives to growth that are created by taxes.
Where Clegg is Already at the Right Point
It should be noted that the USA with a smaller proportion of tax/spending than the richer parts of Europe, is richer than those countries, has higher long term economic growth and spends at least as much in total public spending per person. Of course there are serious gaps in social provision in the USA, certainly the failure to institute universal health insurance is a scandal. Weaknesses in social provision is in large degree due to the very poor productivity and inefficiency of public services in the USA compared with Europe. Public services are heavily unionised in the USA, those unions have a lot of cash from very high membership subscription, and are brilliant talented lobbyists. We can see what happened in California where a popular persuasive governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was unable to get referendum support for proposals for very moderate public sector reform, such as increasing by one year the probationary period of employment. The public sector in California, and elsewhere, is full of inefficient working practices and staff who cannot easily be sacked regardless of financial circumstances or their personal performance .
Public Services in Britain
The UK, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has suffered from growing problems of that kind. Despite mythology about New Labour being the same as the Conservatives, the fact is since 1997, public spending has increased dramatically particularly in health and education. Apart from some politically high profile targets, such as reducing waiting lists for operations, the growth in spending has not been a success. State health services continue to be dogged by poor hygiene in hospitals, a high proportion of new spending has gone on wage inflation. State school education in Britain continues to be very inferior, particularly for low income groups, compared with private education in Britain and state education in other parts of Europe. Though there is not as much room for reform as in the USA, there is plenty of room for greater competition in the provision of public services and the greater efficiency which results from the kind of disciplines that exist in the private sector.
Clegg's Promising Policies
Clegg was rather quiet about it during the leadership campaign, but at some points he made clear that he favours consumer choice in public services, and importantly money following the choice. He hinted at a move away from party policy on favouring free university tuition There is nothing socially progressive n levying taxers on low earners to pay for the relatively week off to go to university and become more valuable commodities on the job market. Making soft long term loans guaranteed by the state creates a reasonable balance between keeping down taxes and making higher education widely available. He has ruled out private insurance funds as contributing to state health services, but past remarks suggest he is open to any reform which would leave health care universally available and free at the point of use. Sıme substitution of competing private insurance funds for general taxation would not block universal access.
Clegg seems to be taking long standing Liberal Democrat committments to localism seriously, he has said his leadership will be active in the localities. Tying this into clear policies to shift taxation and control of public services to the local level could producer a great shift away from central state power, and Clegg has clearly supported such a position. He has shown a committment to reducing unnecessary legislation, as in his proposal for repeal of unnecessary laws, the Great Repeal Act. This proposed title echoes the Great Reform Act of 1832 which spread voting rights and reformed electoral practices, and was a very serious shift away from the previous system of a Parliament of oligarchy, patronage and landed interests, a great moment for liberal reformism.
Summary
My idea of the best results from the Clegg leadership are as follows:
- A clear shift towards a party that is Socially and Economically Liberal, in other words leaning towards a limited state and free markets.
- Reduction of tax and spending as a proportion of national income in order to encourage economic growth and consequent increases in total public spending.
- Seeking to repeals laws and regulations where the costs outweigh benefits.
- More competition and choice in the provision of public services.
- More privater providers of public services.
- Use of private health insurance funds as a partial substitute for general taxation in funding universal services.
- A big shift towards localism in tax , spending and provision of services; and in the whole political culture.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
More Courage of Nick Clegg
I have to revise yesterday's comments about Clegg not saying as much as I'd like about his attitude to public services. In an interview with 5 prizewinning Liberal Democrat Bloggers (Alex Wilcock, James Graham etc), Clegg was clear and established consistency with past statements. He's in favour of choice in public services, particularly schools and health. he sees them as being funded by general taxation. In health he wants patients to 'own' a financial pot which can be transferred between providers, on schools he wants choice and he wants poor families to bring money with to any school their children attend. He clearly excluded health insurance and educational vouchers. This is consistent with previous pronouncements though those did leave the door open for what he has now excluded. His early speeches in the campaign did not exclude these possibilities either. Still given the necessary flexibility of anyone with a political career this is a consistent record. Clegg may or may not be pondering more radical market orientated measures, if he is he can floatr them later and wait for the reaction. He cannot force them on the party which does decide policy at conference after a consultative process.
I would prefer to see private insurance funds coming into health, with the government paying premiums for the poorest and everyone obliged to have insurance on a drivers' insurance model. Where services are provided by a public body it is reasonable to charge for morfe routine purposes, exempting hose on state benefits. Everyone knows that General Practioners (geenral service doctors in Britain) have a lot of people coming to 'surgeries' (open time) who do not have a problem or not one the GP can address. Education 'vouchers' are good if what that means is that parents choose between a multitude of publicly funded providers. That meaning has been given to vouchers, though I would have thought strictly speaking it could only apply to government issued vouchers which can be redeemed against fees at private schools.
Clegg is not running on the measures I favour but his committment to choice is important and does take some courage at this point. There are a lot of public sector professionals in the party who may be inclined to stick to a point of view based on producer monopoloy. This is referred to as 'universal service' and is supposed to be egalitarean. In reality it means inefficient services which disproportionately benefit the middle classes. Witness east London, a low income area where Medecin sans frontieres has moved in because National Health Service provision is so useless for local working class people. That is adter 10 years of increased spending on health and higher salaries for public sector workers, on top of a pension regime much more favourable than what most get in the private sector.
I would prefer to see private insurance funds coming into health, with the government paying premiums for the poorest and everyone obliged to have insurance on a drivers' insurance model. Where services are provided by a public body it is reasonable to charge for morfe routine purposes, exempting hose on state benefits. Everyone knows that General Practioners (geenral service doctors in Britain) have a lot of people coming to 'surgeries' (open time) who do not have a problem or not one the GP can address. Education 'vouchers' are good if what that means is that parents choose between a multitude of publicly funded providers. That meaning has been given to vouchers, though I would have thought strictly speaking it could only apply to government issued vouchers which can be redeemed against fees at private schools.
Clegg is not running on the measures I favour but his committment to choice is important and does take some courage at this point. There are a lot of public sector professionals in the party who may be inclined to stick to a point of view based on producer monopoloy. This is referred to as 'universal service' and is supposed to be egalitarean. In reality it means inefficient services which disproportionately benefit the middle classes. Witness east London, a low income area where Medecin sans frontieres has moved in because National Health Service provision is so useless for local working class people. That is adter 10 years of increased spending on health and higher salaries for public sector workers, on top of a pension regime much more favourable than what most get in the private sector.
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
The Courage of Nick Clegg
I've been tracking the contest to lead the British Liberal Democrats as closely as possible from Istanbul. In particular I've been following the Lib Dem Blogs aggregate. Inevitably this is a self selected group of the over opinionated (just like must myself) but overall I think it gives a reasonable idea of how Liberal Democrats are thinking.
This point is partly in response to some of the bloggers, but also to growing general perceptions of Nick Clegg. It has to be said that Clegg's campaign has been strikingly bland after an impressive launch in Sheffield where he emphasised the limits of the state and promised to take the party out of its comfort zone. There was an obvious contrast with Chris Huhne's more abrasive style. Things came to a head on BBC TV on Sunday when a presenter produced a Huhne campaign team dossier labelled 'Calamity Clegg'. Huhne disassociated himself from the document but then proceeded to talk over Clegg and the presenter making very aggressive accusations. One of his accusations was that Clegg supported school vouchers (not an idea I find intrinsically dreadful). Clegg has said in public and apparently in a recent private conversation with Huhne that he does not support vouchers. Indeed he has supported another way of increasing choice in schools by suggesting that low income families should carry money with them to any school they choose.
Most bloggers, and probably most party members, found Huhne's attitude unacceptable. Hardline Huhnites defended Huhne as telling it as it has to be told. A few neutrals took the view that Huhne was abrasive but Clegg is too bland and lacking in nerve
Clegg not a Coward
Very recently Clegg took a lot of flak from outside the Lib Dems on two policies:
1. Amnesty for illegal immigrants who've been in the country for 10 years or more
2. Evidence based public policy on drugs including alcohol, misrepresented in some quarters as a call for prohibition of alcohol. The point in the latter case is to approach the issue in health terms not criminal law.
Earlier radical proposal
Great Repeal Act, to dispose of unnecessary legislation. Could be just tidying up but I think it has to be taken as a plan for limiting the state by seeking out over interventionist legislation.
Clegg's Problem
After making a bold start by referring to limited state liberalism, very striking for the left inclined Lib Dems, Clegg has retreated into vagueness. He certainly does not want to say much what he favours for public sector reform. Under questioning from bloggers he's said he wants individual National Health Service accounts which would give a choice of providers. He's not really following up on the speech though or on earlier indications that he's interested in forms of funding health services other than out of general taxation. Huhne makes this sound like the bench mark of good health services for all, but the reality is that France has what is widely believed to be the world's best service. There are many private hospitals and charges, those who need reimbursement or free services in the first place get them. I don't see many French coming over to Britain to use our health services, Sarkozy has acted to make less easy for British ex-pat retirees to have free access.
Huhne the Thug
Some, and not just Huhne fans, thinks he showing he's got what it takes in the political battlefield. This misses the point that an inner party leadership battle is not the same as a contest between parties. Generally Clegg has recognised this, and certainly more so than Huhne. Clegg can turn on the rhetoric when he wants to, his different style in this contest does not make Huhne a better battler. I don't think the electorate are looking for a cynical aggressive power mad type, or at least they expect politicians to keep it hidden. Huhne's fans find criticisms of Huhne unfair but think their man should grind Clegg into the ground. All this shows that given the chance he will portray Clegg as destroying the health service, and all public services. Clegg has put off the debate about public sector reform. Since in the Lib Dems the party conference really does make policy, that doesn't mean Clegg will spring some package on the party straight after being elected.
Nonsense about Huhne's Level of Support
I'm not sure it it's the result of Huhne's briefing or lazy journalism but some media, particularly the Guardian/Observer newspaper have claimed Huhne has more party support than Clegg.
What are the facts?
1. Clegg has many more MPs backing him
2. Clegg has many more supporters on his website
3. Clegg has many more Facebook supporters
4. A recent survey of constituency chairs showed more support for Clegg.
That last point is probably the most important in showing how party members will vote. party chairs are local people who will know what members are thinking and will be in tune with that.
Predictions are dangerous but I'm jumping in
Clegg will win
Clegg will be bold.
Clegg's pleasant manner will make him the right person to explain bold policies
This point is partly in response to some of the bloggers, but also to growing general perceptions of Nick Clegg. It has to be said that Clegg's campaign has been strikingly bland after an impressive launch in Sheffield where he emphasised the limits of the state and promised to take the party out of its comfort zone. There was an obvious contrast with Chris Huhne's more abrasive style. Things came to a head on BBC TV on Sunday when a presenter produced a Huhne campaign team dossier labelled 'Calamity Clegg'. Huhne disassociated himself from the document but then proceeded to talk over Clegg and the presenter making very aggressive accusations. One of his accusations was that Clegg supported school vouchers (not an idea I find intrinsically dreadful). Clegg has said in public and apparently in a recent private conversation with Huhne that he does not support vouchers. Indeed he has supported another way of increasing choice in schools by suggesting that low income families should carry money with them to any school they choose.
Most bloggers, and probably most party members, found Huhne's attitude unacceptable. Hardline Huhnites defended Huhne as telling it as it has to be told. A few neutrals took the view that Huhne was abrasive but Clegg is too bland and lacking in nerve
Clegg not a Coward
Very recently Clegg took a lot of flak from outside the Lib Dems on two policies:
1. Amnesty for illegal immigrants who've been in the country for 10 years or more
2. Evidence based public policy on drugs including alcohol, misrepresented in some quarters as a call for prohibition of alcohol. The point in the latter case is to approach the issue in health terms not criminal law.
Earlier radical proposal
Great Repeal Act, to dispose of unnecessary legislation. Could be just tidying up but I think it has to be taken as a plan for limiting the state by seeking out over interventionist legislation.
Clegg's Problem
After making a bold start by referring to limited state liberalism, very striking for the left inclined Lib Dems, Clegg has retreated into vagueness. He certainly does not want to say much what he favours for public sector reform. Under questioning from bloggers he's said he wants individual National Health Service accounts which would give a choice of providers. He's not really following up on the speech though or on earlier indications that he's interested in forms of funding health services other than out of general taxation. Huhne makes this sound like the bench mark of good health services for all, but the reality is that France has what is widely believed to be the world's best service. There are many private hospitals and charges, those who need reimbursement or free services in the first place get them. I don't see many French coming over to Britain to use our health services, Sarkozy has acted to make less easy for British ex-pat retirees to have free access.
Huhne the Thug
Some, and not just Huhne fans, thinks he showing he's got what it takes in the political battlefield. This misses the point that an inner party leadership battle is not the same as a contest between parties. Generally Clegg has recognised this, and certainly more so than Huhne. Clegg can turn on the rhetoric when he wants to, his different style in this contest does not make Huhne a better battler. I don't think the electorate are looking for a cynical aggressive power mad type, or at least they expect politicians to keep it hidden. Huhne's fans find criticisms of Huhne unfair but think their man should grind Clegg into the ground. All this shows that given the chance he will portray Clegg as destroying the health service, and all public services. Clegg has put off the debate about public sector reform. Since in the Lib Dems the party conference really does make policy, that doesn't mean Clegg will spring some package on the party straight after being elected.
Nonsense about Huhne's Level of Support
I'm not sure it it's the result of Huhne's briefing or lazy journalism but some media, particularly the Guardian/Observer newspaper have claimed Huhne has more party support than Clegg.
What are the facts?
1. Clegg has many more MPs backing him
2. Clegg has many more supporters on his website
3. Clegg has many more Facebook supporters
4. A recent survey of constituency chairs showed more support for Clegg.
That last point is probably the most important in showing how party members will vote. party chairs are local people who will know what members are thinking and will be in tune with that.
Predictions are dangerous but I'm jumping in
Clegg will win
Clegg will be bold.
Clegg's pleasant manner will make him the right person to explain bold policies
Friday, 2 November 2007
Liberal Democrat Leadership Race. A Major Choice. Clegg is the Man
I've emerged from a long sloth with regard to blogging, stimulated by the Liberal Democrat leadership race, and a few other things. A burst of blogging coming after a long down period. Trying to keep blogs brief, as that is the general tendency.
The point I have to make for now is that the Liberal Democrat leadership race is not a non-choice between two identikit candidates. The latter claim is upheld by many journalists handsomely paid for writing misleading generalisations. On the basis of my unpaid labour here is the real assessment.
Huhne is running for the party left vote, though evolution in the Lib Dems may mean more tha tis running for the support of the more introverted members.
Clegg is running for the party right vote, but with a lot of support from the party left. Most obviously Steven Webb who looked like the new leading figure on the party left, taking over from Simon Hughes, has given his support to Clegg instead of running himself.
What has happened is that a large part of the party left has decided that market mechanisms are necessary in public services and welfare provision to provide a good service and to avoid constant increases in the tax burden. Arguments they would recently have rejected as Thatcherite or beyond Thatcherite are being eagerly embraced because quite rightly it has become widely understood that competition stimulates efficiency and better outcomes. It is being widely understood that the public sector does not exist to soak up unemployment through inefficient working practices, which is wha tis has become in practice.
Chris Huhne is rejecting that argument. This is the key difference of substance. An opportunistic negative campaigning style has also begun to turn off people previously sympathetic to him.
Clegg is the man. He is the man because he understands how to bring together market mechanisms and social welfare for the poorest. He is taking a strong stand on all issues of the individuals' importance in relation to the state. He is reviving 'Classical Liberalism' in the proper manner, tha tis without the nonsensical misinterpretation of the tradition by hard-libertarians and social-national conservatives who favour a limited state in economic matters.
The point I have to make for now is that the Liberal Democrat leadership race is not a non-choice between two identikit candidates. The latter claim is upheld by many journalists handsomely paid for writing misleading generalisations. On the basis of my unpaid labour here is the real assessment.
Huhne is running for the party left vote, though evolution in the Lib Dems may mean more tha tis running for the support of the more introverted members.
Clegg is running for the party right vote, but with a lot of support from the party left. Most obviously Steven Webb who looked like the new leading figure on the party left, taking over from Simon Hughes, has given his support to Clegg instead of running himself.
What has happened is that a large part of the party left has decided that market mechanisms are necessary in public services and welfare provision to provide a good service and to avoid constant increases in the tax burden. Arguments they would recently have rejected as Thatcherite or beyond Thatcherite are being eagerly embraced because quite rightly it has become widely understood that competition stimulates efficiency and better outcomes. It is being widely understood that the public sector does not exist to soak up unemployment through inefficient working practices, which is wha tis has become in practice.
Chris Huhne is rejecting that argument. This is the key difference of substance. An opportunistic negative campaigning style has also begun to turn off people previously sympathetic to him.
Clegg is the man. He is the man because he understands how to bring together market mechanisms and social welfare for the poorest. He is taking a strong stand on all issues of the individuals' importance in relation to the state. He is reviving 'Classical Liberalism' in the proper manner, tha tis without the nonsensical misinterpretation of the tradition by hard-libertarians and social-national conservatives who favour a limited state in economic matters.
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
The Quiet Revolution in the Liberal Democrats
Will Nick Clegg lead the British Liberal Democrats to a revival of the Classical Liberalism of Gladstone and Asquith?
British Liberals and Liberal Democrats: An Ageing Parody of the Party
The Liberal Democrats, and the predecessor Liberal Party, (the name Liberal Party name is now used by a very small left-Green-decentralist-communitarian party whose founders decline to join a merger between the old Liberal Party and the centrist Social Democratic Party, founded by Labour Party defectors) have often been dismissed as an irrelevance full of well meaning activists lacking a plausible program for government, and as having no hope of government, which suits the eccentricity of activists interested in activism as an end in itself. Generally, the activist are associated with well meaning if utopian leftism of a libertarian kind, while leaders are associated with vacuous centrism, only concerned with splitting the difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. This is parodic but it has some elements of truth in it, however, the elements of truth are lessening in a way which has yet to be picked up in the collective wisdom of public opinion, even in its supposedly expert vanguard of political journalists. It reflects the way the party evolved from the 1950s onward, in an upward swing after a long decline dating from the split between H.H. Asquith and David Lloyd George, succeeding Prime Ministers during World War One, which very nearly lead to the death of the party in the immediate post World War Two period. A mixture of parliamentary centrism, containing an element of Classical Liberalism, combined with localist activism, containing a strong element of left-libertarians at the core, served the party well to survive and then prosper as the definite third force in British politics.
The Change
The Liberal-Liberal Democrat party was changed twice over by the Conservative Party. First Margaret Thatcher revived free-market economics, combined with social conservatism. A clear place was created for those combining free-market economic liberalism and anti-conformist cultural and social liberalism. Second, the flight of Conservative voters after Black Wednesday in 1992 (collapse of government attempts to maintain the value of sterling in relation to other currencies) undermined the Conservative reputation for economic competence, and led to high interest rates to maintain the credibility of sterling and to create a new anti-inflationary pressure, also modified the activist base of the Liberal Democrats.
Paddy Ashdown's rather confrontational attempts to create a more 'Classical Liberal' party, though he never used that phrase, largely failed. Charles Kennedy tried but gave up very quickly in the face of pressure, before his career completely collapsed amidst concerns about alcohol abuse. Nevertheless, during Kennedy's leadership, Centre Forum, a legally non-party liberal foundation close to the Liberal Democrats in practice, was established and has leant towards Classical Liberalism. Employees are already making their way into key Liberal Democrat positions. Also a key book appeared, The Orange Book, which collected essays emphasising a market based form of liberalism, with reference to new strategies on crime and reforming the European Union.
A rather exaggerated notion of the book as Thatcherite, socially disciplinarian and Euro-Sceptic (a euphemism for anti-European Union attitudes in British politics) got round the press. This appears to have been at least partly the result of briefings by Mark Oaten, who was briefly the apparent standard bearer for Classical Liberal style policies before his political career crashed in even more abrupt fashion than Kennedy's, during a particularly farcical run for the party leadership supported only by the famously eccentric MP Lembit Opik. Oaten's undignified collapse allowed it to become clearer that the real leading figures in the revived Classical Liberal wing are David Laws, Christopher Huhne and Nick Clegg. Getting past Oaten's briefings of Fleet Street, the Orange Book, is a more moderate shift than had been assumed. Left-wing MP Steve Webb contributed, criminal policy suggestions were very much about rehabilitation rather than harshness, EU reform was suggested in the context of the strengthening of European integration.
During the leadership contest to succeed Kennedy, only Huhne stood out of the three Classical Liberals and shifted leftwards pushing the previous standard bearer of the left, Simon Hughes, into last place. Laws has faded into the background, though he is still a very credible figure, and the next leadership election looks like a head to head between Huhne and Clegg. The left simply has no up and coming leaders. Presumably its roots in local activism and self-consciously anti-establishment protest culture, which prefers opposition to the compromises of government, has left it a poor training ground for leaders and policy advisers.
The current leader, Ming Campbell is clearly only a transitional leader before the showdown on the long term future of the party. As a self-identified centre-left politician with a strongly consensual middle of the road style, he is not the most obvious person to continue the push towards Classical Liberalism, but he has done more than Ashdown or Kennedy in that direction, at least partly reflecting the understated influence of his deputy Vince Cable, the old Don of the Classical Liberal current . A form of post office privatisation has become party policy and promises to increase income taxes on the rich have been replaced by policies on indirect environmental taxes. There are no plans to increase public spending; policies to minimise economic regulation, abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, and restrict the total of local and national taxes paid by any individual remain in place.
The Future for the Liberal Democrats
The parody which began this blog entry is still dragged out by political commentators, in a positive way by left wing commentators who wish for a force to the left of Blair, and in a negative way by right wing commentators. Pro-Conservative columnists are particularly patronising and dismissive with regard to a party which is not rooted in recent government power. One thing which distinguishes Conservative and Lib Dem free marketeers is their relation to traditions of power and assumptions about automatic entitlement to power. Ming Campbell's lack of dominating charisma, and David Cameron's really rather modest revival of the Conservatives, have reinforced a tradition of dismissiveness. There is also some recognition, that the Lib Dems are shifting towards a mixture of Classical Liberalism and a greater focus on what it means to have the responsibilities of power. More on this below.
Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism in the Liberal Democrats
I've used the term 'Classical Liberal' above without definition. Like every political label, it is used in many different contexts to refer to many different views. That does not mean that we should settle for complete ambiguity. I take it that Classical Liberalism is distinct from Libertarianism (though it is compatible with many Soft Libertarian positions) and Conservatism (though it is compatible with many Liberal-Conservative positions), and is no closer to those two positions than it is to the most liberal forms of centrist Social Democracy.
A big problem here is that 'Classical Liberalism' has been kidnapped not just by Conservatives, but by really right-wing national-social-cultural conservatives. These people have also kidnapped Libertarianism. While I'm not laying claim to Libertarianism, it's important to note that Libertarianism has a core distinct from right-wing Conservatism. I intend to investigate these issues in detail in later blogs, and that will also involve discussion of Classical Republicanism. For now, I will simply offer a position.
Classical Liberalism is in favour of a limited state but does not regard the state as a purely negative phenomenon.
Classical Liberalism aims for a free-market economy but regards the state not just as a legislator for property rights, but also as a provider of public services and a social minimum.
Classical Liberalism is a reformist progressive position which recognises that the state should push against social conservatism in the pursuit of freedom, and establishing the conditions for freedom.
Classical Liberalism recognises 'negative freedoms' from state interference and 'positive freedoms' of active participation in society; and self-improvement through culture and education which are necessary conditions for freedom.
Classical Liberalism values diversity of opinions, defends the right to peaceful expression of extreme and unpopular views, while seeking a common discourse of public and community interest.
While the changes in the Lib Dems have not led to anyone claiming to be a Conservative, self-declared Libertarians are becoming more evident. The best way to follow this is to regularly check the LibDem Blogs aggregate. While I'm not in full agreement with these capitalist Libertarians, I welcome this as a counter to the more socialist Libertarians (though they don't usually use this label, Radical or Radical Liberal are more normal) in the party. However, some are flirting with the more bizarre Libertarians outside the party, who can be followed through the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Many Libertarian Alliance members are disturbingly prone to the view that anything ant-communist and anti-socialist is Libertarian, and that can extend to an intolerance anything non-western, non-Christian and other manifestations of extreme Conservatism.
Liberal Democrats in the News
The intention is to deal with this as frequently as news items emerge which offer a serious analysis of the changing spirit of the Lib Dems, that is in its shift towards a consistently Classical Liberal position.
On January 8th, Times columnist Tim Hames mixed humour about the private life of Lembit Opik, with a discussion of the shift in the Lib Dems towards limits on central government spending in a more disciplined economic framework.
An article in the Financial Times on the 9th January emphasised the key role the Lib Dems, particularly the science spokesman Evan Harris, have played in opposition to government proposals to ban stem cell laboratory experiments which combine human tissue with animal tissue.
An item on the BBC News website on the 12th January, referring to a English National Ballet dancer who belongs to an extreme right anti-immigrant anti Muslim party, pointed out that the Liberal Democrats defend her right to hold views with which they vehemently disagree.
British Liberals and Liberal Democrats: An Ageing Parody of the Party
The Liberal Democrats, and the predecessor Liberal Party, (the name Liberal Party name is now used by a very small left-Green-decentralist-communitarian party whose founders decline to join a merger between the old Liberal Party and the centrist Social Democratic Party, founded by Labour Party defectors) have often been dismissed as an irrelevance full of well meaning activists lacking a plausible program for government, and as having no hope of government, which suits the eccentricity of activists interested in activism as an end in itself. Generally, the activist are associated with well meaning if utopian leftism of a libertarian kind, while leaders are associated with vacuous centrism, only concerned with splitting the difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. This is parodic but it has some elements of truth in it, however, the elements of truth are lessening in a way which has yet to be picked up in the collective wisdom of public opinion, even in its supposedly expert vanguard of political journalists. It reflects the way the party evolved from the 1950s onward, in an upward swing after a long decline dating from the split between H.H. Asquith and David Lloyd George, succeeding Prime Ministers during World War One, which very nearly lead to the death of the party in the immediate post World War Two period. A mixture of parliamentary centrism, containing an element of Classical Liberalism, combined with localist activism, containing a strong element of left-libertarians at the core, served the party well to survive and then prosper as the definite third force in British politics.
The Change
The Liberal-Liberal Democrat party was changed twice over by the Conservative Party. First Margaret Thatcher revived free-market economics, combined with social conservatism. A clear place was created for those combining free-market economic liberalism and anti-conformist cultural and social liberalism. Second, the flight of Conservative voters after Black Wednesday in 1992 (collapse of government attempts to maintain the value of sterling in relation to other currencies) undermined the Conservative reputation for economic competence, and led to high interest rates to maintain the credibility of sterling and to create a new anti-inflationary pressure, also modified the activist base of the Liberal Democrats.
Paddy Ashdown's rather confrontational attempts to create a more 'Classical Liberal' party, though he never used that phrase, largely failed. Charles Kennedy tried but gave up very quickly in the face of pressure, before his career completely collapsed amidst concerns about alcohol abuse. Nevertheless, during Kennedy's leadership, Centre Forum, a legally non-party liberal foundation close to the Liberal Democrats in practice, was established and has leant towards Classical Liberalism. Employees are already making their way into key Liberal Democrat positions. Also a key book appeared, The Orange Book, which collected essays emphasising a market based form of liberalism, with reference to new strategies on crime and reforming the European Union.
A rather exaggerated notion of the book as Thatcherite, socially disciplinarian and Euro-Sceptic (a euphemism for anti-European Union attitudes in British politics) got round the press. This appears to have been at least partly the result of briefings by Mark Oaten, who was briefly the apparent standard bearer for Classical Liberal style policies before his political career crashed in even more abrupt fashion than Kennedy's, during a particularly farcical run for the party leadership supported only by the famously eccentric MP Lembit Opik. Oaten's undignified collapse allowed it to become clearer that the real leading figures in the revived Classical Liberal wing are David Laws, Christopher Huhne and Nick Clegg. Getting past Oaten's briefings of Fleet Street, the Orange Book, is a more moderate shift than had been assumed. Left-wing MP Steve Webb contributed, criminal policy suggestions were very much about rehabilitation rather than harshness, EU reform was suggested in the context of the strengthening of European integration.
During the leadership contest to succeed Kennedy, only Huhne stood out of the three Classical Liberals and shifted leftwards pushing the previous standard bearer of the left, Simon Hughes, into last place. Laws has faded into the background, though he is still a very credible figure, and the next leadership election looks like a head to head between Huhne and Clegg. The left simply has no up and coming leaders. Presumably its roots in local activism and self-consciously anti-establishment protest culture, which prefers opposition to the compromises of government, has left it a poor training ground for leaders and policy advisers.
The current leader, Ming Campbell is clearly only a transitional leader before the showdown on the long term future of the party. As a self-identified centre-left politician with a strongly consensual middle of the road style, he is not the most obvious person to continue the push towards Classical Liberalism, but he has done more than Ashdown or Kennedy in that direction, at least partly reflecting the understated influence of his deputy Vince Cable, the old Don of the Classical Liberal current . A form of post office privatisation has become party policy and promises to increase income taxes on the rich have been replaced by policies on indirect environmental taxes. There are no plans to increase public spending; policies to minimise economic regulation, abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, and restrict the total of local and national taxes paid by any individual remain in place.
The Future for the Liberal Democrats
The parody which began this blog entry is still dragged out by political commentators, in a positive way by left wing commentators who wish for a force to the left of Blair, and in a negative way by right wing commentators. Pro-Conservative columnists are particularly patronising and dismissive with regard to a party which is not rooted in recent government power. One thing which distinguishes Conservative and Lib Dem free marketeers is their relation to traditions of power and assumptions about automatic entitlement to power. Ming Campbell's lack of dominating charisma, and David Cameron's really rather modest revival of the Conservatives, have reinforced a tradition of dismissiveness. There is also some recognition, that the Lib Dems are shifting towards a mixture of Classical Liberalism and a greater focus on what it means to have the responsibilities of power. More on this below.
Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism in the Liberal Democrats
I've used the term 'Classical Liberal' above without definition. Like every political label, it is used in many different contexts to refer to many different views. That does not mean that we should settle for complete ambiguity. I take it that Classical Liberalism is distinct from Libertarianism (though it is compatible with many Soft Libertarian positions) and Conservatism (though it is compatible with many Liberal-Conservative positions), and is no closer to those two positions than it is to the most liberal forms of centrist Social Democracy.
A big problem here is that 'Classical Liberalism' has been kidnapped not just by Conservatives, but by really right-wing national-social-cultural conservatives. These people have also kidnapped Libertarianism. While I'm not laying claim to Libertarianism, it's important to note that Libertarianism has a core distinct from right-wing Conservatism. I intend to investigate these issues in detail in later blogs, and that will also involve discussion of Classical Republicanism. For now, I will simply offer a position.
Classical Liberalism is in favour of a limited state but does not regard the state as a purely negative phenomenon.
Classical Liberalism aims for a free-market economy but regards the state not just as a legislator for property rights, but also as a provider of public services and a social minimum.
Classical Liberalism is a reformist progressive position which recognises that the state should push against social conservatism in the pursuit of freedom, and establishing the conditions for freedom.
Classical Liberalism recognises 'negative freedoms' from state interference and 'positive freedoms' of active participation in society; and self-improvement through culture and education which are necessary conditions for freedom.
Classical Liberalism values diversity of opinions, defends the right to peaceful expression of extreme and unpopular views, while seeking a common discourse of public and community interest.
While the changes in the Lib Dems have not led to anyone claiming to be a Conservative, self-declared Libertarians are becoming more evident. The best way to follow this is to regularly check the LibDem Blogs aggregate. While I'm not in full agreement with these capitalist Libertarians, I welcome this as a counter to the more socialist Libertarians (though they don't usually use this label, Radical or Radical Liberal are more normal) in the party. However, some are flirting with the more bizarre Libertarians outside the party, who can be followed through the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Many Libertarian Alliance members are disturbingly prone to the view that anything ant-communist and anti-socialist is Libertarian, and that can extend to an intolerance anything non-western, non-Christian and other manifestations of extreme Conservatism.
Liberal Democrats in the News
The intention is to deal with this as frequently as news items emerge which offer a serious analysis of the changing spirit of the Lib Dems, that is in its shift towards a consistently Classical Liberal position.
On January 8th, Times columnist Tim Hames mixed humour about the private life of Lembit Opik, with a discussion of the shift in the Lib Dems towards limits on central government spending in a more disciplined economic framework.
An article in the Financial Times on the 9th January emphasised the key role the Lib Dems, particularly the science spokesman Evan Harris, have played in opposition to government proposals to ban stem cell laboratory experiments which combine human tissue with animal tissue.
An item on the BBC News website on the 12th January, referring to a English National Ballet dancer who belongs to an extreme right anti-immigrant anti Muslim party, pointed out that the Liberal Democrats defend her right to hold views with which they vehemently disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)