The two stark choices for liberals

Regular readers of this blog will know I write a lot about liberal ideas and how we might edge towards a more liberal society.

Reflecting on all this, particular a recent post I wrote on John Stuart Mill made me wonder if liberals, whatever party they are members of, face two stark choices.

The first choice is to accept the world you are operating in as it is and attempt to make the policies being argued over being more liberal. For instance, you accept that there won't be significant changes with the public sector but devise ways to give people more say and control over how they are run. Broadly speaking, this is how the Liberal Democrats approach policy.

The second choice is to look at every issue through a liberal prism and develop liberal policies in response.

If one is to do the latter then it is important to have a clear sense of what liberalism means.

Let us assume that a liberal philosophy is built around the ideas of John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Mill argued for a government that defended liberty: only intervening when an individual causes harm to another individual, crucially not to themselves, but otherwise government would stand back. It would let people work together, argue together and find truth and success through voluntary co-operation.

Today this would mean that government should not be telling people how to live, attempting to shape society beyond enforcing the 'harm principle' or divide up resources. It would mean being liberal in all things. Of course, government would have to create a liberal State to make sure that liberty could flourish. It would need to remove obstacles to liberty and as Mill, and Adam Smith, conceded the State would have a role in funding certain services. Mill believed education should be delivered by private organisations but funded publicly. Smith believed the State should fund the building of infrastructure but the providers of the infrastructure should be private organisations.

The latter is the harder choice. It is a choice that the Liberal Democrats need to make and be clear on over the next few years.

Comments on 'All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace'

I had intended to post a review on Adam Curtis's new programme but Jock Coats and Tom Papworth beat me to it. You can read their reviews here and here.

I wouldn't have made my arguments in quite the same way but broadly agree with their comments.

I would add one thing.

While Curtis does not make this argument, his programme rather makes the point that any attempt to manage people, whether it is by government or a sophisticated computer programme, will always cause problems.

There is a view that the best people to do the management of individuals are the individuals themselves. And allowing them to get on with that, especially if they can work together on a basis of mutual agreement, the more likely one will achieve results that everyone is happy with and everyone agrees are fair.

Allegra Stratton on foxes and hedgehogs

A fascinating piece by Allegra Stratton of the Guardian on the make-up of the coalition Cabinet.

Click here to read it.

On Mill

An exchange with Oranjepan on a recent post made me want to write something about the author of On Liberty.

John Stuart Mill wrote several books on political economy, political philosophy and one on women's rights. He was a Liberal MP who was on the radical side of the party as opposed to the Whiggish one. In later life he described himself as a socialist.

He made a significant contribution to the liberal political tradition. So much so that when a new Lib Dem party president is elected they are given a copy of On Liberty.

Arguably, there is something for everybody in Mill. A defender of free speech can find arguments that robustly reject censorship. For fans of socialised ownership, mutuals and co-ops that is, they can quote Mill's later pronouncements.

In making the case for freedom of speech and thought, Mill develops his idea of the 'harm principle'.

This argument for individual autonomy is essential to liberal thinking. Like all ideas there are, naturally, problems with it. How do we define harm and who is to judge? Many have grappled with this and written about. This post is not the place for that debate.

Letting people live their lives as they wish has major implications for what government can, and cannot, do. It puts Mill on the side of policy intervention that removes obstacles to individual autonomy and against anything that tries to tell people what to think or how to live.

It was this that led Mill to conclude that a co-operative form of ownership was superior to any other as it gave people control over their working lives. It also led him to argue for education to be privately run but publicly funded.

As the Liberal Democrats begin to create a consistent policy agenda that will help them stand out against their coalition allies, perhaps a re-reading of Mill is called for.

While we will never know what Mill would have done in 2011, there is no harm in applying his principles of limiting government to securing liberty when developing liberal policies for the 21st century.

The Trap - part 3

Following on from part 2, here is part 3.

The Trap - part 2

Following on from part 1, here is part 2.

The many challenges for David Cameron

As the Prime Minister is photographed spending time with the President of the United States it may seem an odd moment to discuss the challenges David Cameron faces.

When I say challenges I do not mean how to tackle the deficit, reform public services or dealing with Libya. Like my two posts on the challenges for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, I am referring to the political challenges that face David Cameron.

Of course, execution of the coalition policy agenda will have an impact on the Conservative party's political fortunes.

Cameron needs to make the coalition a success.

If he pulled the plug on it now and went to the voters to ask for a new mandate they may well say no.

Success means delivering policies that work. That involves making sure that the Lib Dem side of the coalition are effective and work constructively with their Conservative partners.

The problem for Cameron is that the more he succeeds at that, the less happy his backbenchers will be. From their point of view, he will be helping their rivals and perhaps laying the ground for a second coalition after the next election.

But if he does what the backbenchers want the electoral arithmetic suggests that the Tories would be unable to win an outright majority now and perhaps even in 2015.

If Cameron can make his backbenchers feel loved by being more Tory than liberal conservative he risks upsetting the finely balanced truce that exists between his party and Nick Clegg's. That in turn will, in my view, damage the Conservatives as much as it damages the Lib Dems. After all, the public like to see politicians working together and if the two parties really did come together in the national interest splitting up in the next two years would say that all they really care about is party interest.

Balancing all that while being PM is not going to easy.

The Trap - part one

Adam Curtis's 'The Trap' was shown on BBC 2 a few years ago.

I missed it and have just watched the first episode. You can see it on Google Video or watch it here.

Curtis is a thoughtful and interesting film-maker. In 'The Trap' he argues that the ideas of F.A. Hayek fused with game theory to trap us in a society where people are treated as selfish, atomised individuals. It is a fascinating hypotheses.

The bit he misses, and I suspect doesn't discuss in the rest of the programme, is that Hayek distrusted the rationality of the Enlightenment. In fact, Hayek argues in 'The Constitution of Liberty' that it is the rationalism of the Enlightenment that led leaders to believe they could solve economic and social problems through the power of scientific reason. You can agree of disagree with Hayek's view but it is crucial to understand him when considering Curtis's theory.

Curtis could have called his excellent programme, 'The Tragedy'. The idea that people agreed with Hayek, that spontaneous order will mean solutions will emerge through voluntary interaction, decided to create mathematical formulas to make this happen would be laughable if its consequences were not so tragically the opposite of what they were meant to achieve.

It seems that those who developed game theory and systems analysis made three errors. They assumed that Hayek's rejection of altruism meant they had to create models that allowed selfishness, as they defined it, to create a stable system. Surely, what Hayek meant was that in a society and open market where people voluntarily work with each other they will be driven by their needs but you cannot predict what they people see as their needs. Second, the game theory planners' thinking came out of the Cold War and was infused with paranoia and a belief that people were constantly creating strategies to beat an opponent. Third, they believed that their rational mathematical models could manage the system. The core of Hayek's argument is that you cannot manage a system or people.

So, in this first episode we see people changing society in the name of freedom but in reality replacing one form of power structure with another.

Muscular liberalism

Oranjepan has asked whether Nick Clegg's 'muscular liberalism' can provide a unifying narrative for the party. He wondered if giving liberalism a moral authority would help.

Is being muscular simply standing up to its coalition partners or is it about sharpening liberal policies and messages? If it is the latter then it has the potential to bring the party together. The next question is what Clegg means by liberalism. I have repeatedly argued that he is weaving together different strands of the liberal tradition: the ideas of John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill with the practical policies of Asquith and Lloyd George.

Of course this isn't all down to Clegg. He has to drive through policies while working alongside another party and manage the parliamentary party as well as party members.

Perhaps it is time for the party to reflect on its liberal tradition. Are there some policies that the party has supported for a number of years but now needs to re-think? If the party wants to be the party of Mill, and it does give On Liberty to its new President when they are elected, then it needs to develop policies that encourage Mill's principles: government's job is not to make people happy but to remove obstacles to liberty and guarantee liberty for people.

That sort of 'muscular liberalism' may begin to turnaround the party's electoral chances.

Vince Cable sets out economic difficulties

Vince Cable has told the Guardian that people don't realise how bad the economic situation is.

He says that the 'model' that was being pursued over a number of years was flawed: consumer spending based on credit, home ownership and an 'overweight' banking system.

Ed Miliband discusses challenges

Previously, I set out the various challenges that Ed Miliband faces.

The BBC reports a recent speech where he sets out his view of the challenges that Labour faces.

Heading towards liberalism

Regular readers of this blog will know that one of the things that interests me is how we might move a little way towards a more liberal society.

By liberal society, I mean a place where people control their lives as much as possible.

Some politicians are pursuing this objective and many argue over what it means.

But if we do inch towards liberalism it might end up having little to do with policymakers.

Alvin Toffler, the futurologist, believes that it is the nature of economic activity that characterises how society and political structures develop. Mass industrialisation meant that we needed mass education, hierarchical structures and centralised power.

An economy based on advanced technology that relies on flat structures for decision-making, distributed power and voluntary co-operation will require a different education system and allow for public services to be delivered in ways we have yet to think of.

That doesn't mean we will be in utopia. There will still be problems and challenges. But it will mean change and perhaps an opportunity for people to have more control over how they live.

Giving the nature of technological advancement it seems we are heading there. Politicians and others might delay all this or help it along but once there how we do politics may also change.

Three steps to electoral success

In Cleggmania 2015 I suggested that Nick Clegg could revive the party's fortunes.

Here are three steps he needs to take to do it:

1. Build a clear modern liberal narrative. From that will flow consistent policies.
2. Work within the coalition narrative to differentiate the Lib Dem brand. The contrasting speeches by Cameron and Clegg on multiculturalism could act as a template. The opportunity to set out clear liberal policies will come when the second coalition agreement is drawn up. This is an opportunity not to be wasted.
3. At the right moment, be very clear that the way the tuition fee policy was handled was a mistake but lessons have been learnt.

The many challenges for Ed Miliband

Being leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is a difficult job.

You must officially oppose the government of the day without giving away what you might do in government in case the people in power outflank you. You have to keep your party onside even when there is little chance of winning.

These are challenges every leader of the opposition faces.

Ed Miliband has the additional problem of trying to make the case against cuts while supporting cuts, attack the coalition without destabilising it so much that he ends up fighting an election his party isn't ready for and reframe the Labour party's offering to the voters without upsetting too many factions in his party.

The recent local election results and win for the SNP in Scotland showed the mountain the Labour party has to clime before it can win another general election.

The last challenge for Miliband, and the one thing not in his control, is the lack of a coalition narrative. Without a strong story to react against, the Labour party will struggle to find their own story to tell.

Cleggmania 2015

Anyone suggesting that Nick Clegg could recapture the excitement that he generated after the leaders' debate in 2010 in April 2015 would be thought of as being out of touch with the current political atmosphere.

The reality is that if Nick Clegg wishes to lead the Liberal Democrats into the next general election campaign then he, and his strategists, should be thinking about how to re-engage voters and build a new electoral base.

As I remarked in a recent CIPR webcast, one shouldn't write-off Nick Clegg just yet. That doesn't mean things will automatically work out. What it does mean is that there is still a lot to play for.

The first step is to get a grip on the coalition narrative. The next step is to ensure that the Liberal Democrat story of remaking the State fits into coalition narrative by supporting it and developing it further: in a distinctive liberal way.

As David Laws pointed out today there is no point in throwing the crockery around. One has to be constructive. It is the crockery throwing that will destroy the coalition and the Liberal Democrats chances of being in government for a very long time.

If Clegg can stand in front of the podium in 2015 with David Cameron to the right of him and a Miliband to the left arguing that the Liberal Democrats gave people more control of their lives, made sure that people could make choices and while reshaping the State did not abandon the poor but rather strengthened the safety net while slashing the welfare traps then he may at least have the respect of the voters if not their love.

All the indications from Clegg's speeches is that this is his direction of travel for the party. If that is the case he needs to make it happen and make sure he communicates it effectively to the public.

Blogging elsewhere: creating a coalition narrative

Can be read by clicking this link.

Blog posts and articles on the coalition

Here are some blog posts and articles have caught my eye over the last few days.

Next Left on why the Yes to AV campaign failed

Political Scribe on how why it is the Left that is crucifying the Lib Dems

Julian Glover on why the Lib Dems should continue to exist

Andrew Brown on why the Left hate Nick Clegg

Tim Montgomerie on what the results mean for the coalition

And finally... me talking about why it is time for a coalition narrative

Coalition scenarios

There has been much comment and discussion about what happens to the coalition now that the local elections and AV referendum have taken place.

Below are some possible scenarios.

The Peter Bingle Scenario

For many months, the Bell Pottinger Public Affairs' Chairman was arguing that a new centre party would emerge after the 2015 general election. This new party would comprise of Cameroons, Orange Bookers and some New Labour modernisers. This assumed that the coalition would be a success and that the Prime Minister was realigning British politics.

Tory and Lib Dem commentators now reject this view. However, without AV and potential second preference votes from the Lib Dems, the Tories may not win an outright majority at the next election. If the strategists around David Cameron conclude that is a real possibility, we might see some policy overtures to the Lib Dems and a revival of Cameron's liberal conservative project. If this where to happen and a second coalition came into being after 2015, Bingle's prediction could turn out to be right after all.

Likelihood rating: 2 out of 5

The Peter Bingle Scenario Version Two

Recently, Peter has begun to change his mind. He believes that the behaviour of the coalition partners could lead to an implosion of the Lib Dems and an election as early as this autumn.

I, and many commentators, have argued that for now the Lib Dems have to stay in the coalition to rebuild their electoral base.

Likelihood rating: 1 out of 5

Coalition in 2014

A tactical decision by both parties to dissolve the coalition in order to build their separate identities before the general election in 2015. The coalition would become a supply and confidence arrangement for the months leading up to the coalition. This would lead to Labour arguing for an early general election.

Likelihood rating: 1 out of 5

Lib Dems walk early

If the public arguing continues and both sides becoming increasingly irritated by each other it will be much harder to govern. The Lib Dems may find themselves outside the policy conversation in this scenario and would be forced to walk out. They would argue that they were unable to implement their agenda. Coalition politics would be seen to be unworkable and the Lib Dems would get the blame.

Likelihood rating: 2 out of 5

Coalition stays together until 2015

Despite everything the coalition stays together. The parties either develop this new 'business like' arrangement that they have been talking about or the fusion of Mill and Hayek comes together to create a radical liberal agenda. This is rather like the Bingle scenario mark one but does not assume a new party emerges after the election.

Likelihood rating: 3 out of 5

Lib Dems split

In this scenario, the party rejects Nick Clegg's leadership. The Deputy Prime Minister and those close to him stay in government while the rest of the party walks away. If this were to happen we may see a new liberal formation or Clegg and others joining the Tories. But today Clegg has made it clear he will not join the Conservative party. That leaves the formation of a new party.

Likelihood rating: 2 out of 5

The many challenges for the Liberal Democrats

When Liberal Democrat party members voted to endorse the decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives they knew they were entering challenging times.

The consequences of that decision were laid bare last night as the voting ended and the counting began.

Over the years the party has picked up a lot of natural Labour voters who have a visceral hatred of Conservatives. This is especially true in the North. As soon as the Lib Dems went into government those voters were bound to feel betrayed and angry. No doubt, if the electoral arithmetic had been otherwise and Clegg had ended up as deputy prime minister to Gordon Brown, Tory inclined Lib Dem voters would have turned away from the party.

Pouring salt on the wounds was the tuition fee debacle. By dropping a very public pledge to abolish tuition fees the Lib Dems were seen as delivering Conservative policy. Not only that, the perception now is that the party deceived the electorate on the issue.

In coalition the Lib Dems are apparently delivering 75% of its manifesto. Despite that the voters are disinclined to give it their vote.

The spats with Tory partners over the AV referendum and the elections result will mean that the Conservatives will not be as willing as they were previously to help Nick Clegg shore up his support in the party and the country.

If the party thinks it can now make demands of Cameron and succeed it will be in for a shock. The Prime Minister knows that if his liberal partners walk out of the coalition now and force an election they will return to parliament a rump of a party.

The party has no choice but to hold its nerve.

Next it needs to develop a consistent programme that is deliverable post 2015. This has to be done to demonstrate that the party has learnt the lessons of tuition fees.

It needs to pick one or two key policies and make sure it makes them happen while in government. This is important to show that the party can govern and deliver.

All of this will help it rebuild its electoral base and appeal to the 'radical centre'.

Clegg has begun a process of weaving the strands of classical and social liberalism together. He needs to continue to do that in order to make sure that the policies developed are consistent and not merely the equivalent of a supermarket sweep where the party offers goodies to the voters in the hope they are sufficient sweeteners to get their support.

The parliamentary party will need to think long and hard about how it interacts with its coalition partners. Too hot and the activists won't like it. Too cold and the Conservatives will block policies.

Getting it just right will take a lot of skill, patience and nerve.

Election and referendum CIPRTV webcast