We stayed on for another day in Liverpool to see at least some of the sights of the European Capital of Culture.
Liverpool has an air of grandeur, as befits what was a major city of empire. As is well-known, much of the city's economic power was built on the slave trade. Among those who profited from slavery was John Gladstone, father of Liberal prime minister William Gladstone. Gladstone pere was Liverpool merchant, who owned slaves on his plantations in the West Indies. Perhaps as a result of this, Gladstone always had something of a blind-spot about slavery, being less whole-hearted than one might expect in his condemnation of it.
William Gladstone was born at 62 Rodney Street, Liverpool, which consists of very grand Georgian terraces. The street was also the birthplace of the poet Arthur Hugh Clough and I see that there is a campaign under way to restore it to its former glory.
This year's conferences take us to places that mark both ends of Gladstone's life. At Bournemouth in September, those want to take a little time off from debates can visit the splendid St Peter's church where Gladstone took his last communion - there is a plaque in the church to mark this although no reference it would seem on the website.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
'No' to Lisbon referendum is a missed opportunity
To throw in my twopence-worth, I can't help thinking the Lib Dems have not only made a tactical mistake tonight, but also lost a strategic opportunity.
For many years Britain's political class has been considerably more Europhile than the electorate appear to be, at least judging by opinion polls.
Yet on the one occasion the electorate were called upon to vote about Europe they delivered an unexpectedly large pro-EEC (as it was then) majority. In recent times various referendum pledges have taken the sting out of the European issue at election time.
But the gap between politicians and public on the issue remains, and it is unhealthy for our political system, creating the impression that Europe is a kind of organised conspiracy against the public.
If the Lisbon treaty really is less of a big deal than the abortive constitution, a tidying up exercise more than anything, then surely this was the best opportunity for pro-Europeans to win a referendum. With no great principle at stake, a Yes campaign could explain the practicalities and hope for victory. This would quieten the Eurosceptics at least for a while.
By contast if the pro-Europeans lost the vote then that would put some responsibility on Eurosceptics actually to find a way forward rather than just opposing. I suspect that had the Conservatives been in power they would have ended up agreeing to something very similar to Lisbon.
The point is that at some point pro-Europeans will have to stand and fight, and this was probably the best chance to do that, so it's an opportunity missed.
Amid all this the policy we actually have for an in or out referendum on the EU makes very little sense at all. It would solve nothing, since even the Conservatives support EU membership, none but a small number of obsessives at either end of the political spectrum actually want us out of the EU.
From the evidence of Alastair Carmichael's interview, the parliamentary appear to be avoiding bitterness and recriminations. And Nick Clegg has made just about the best possible fist of defending a weak policy. But much as it pains me to say it, the rebels were right.
For many years Britain's political class has been considerably more Europhile than the electorate appear to be, at least judging by opinion polls.
Yet on the one occasion the electorate were called upon to vote about Europe they delivered an unexpectedly large pro-EEC (as it was then) majority. In recent times various referendum pledges have taken the sting out of the European issue at election time.
But the gap between politicians and public on the issue remains, and it is unhealthy for our political system, creating the impression that Europe is a kind of organised conspiracy against the public.
If the Lisbon treaty really is less of a big deal than the abortive constitution, a tidying up exercise more than anything, then surely this was the best opportunity for pro-Europeans to win a referendum. With no great principle at stake, a Yes campaign could explain the practicalities and hope for victory. This would quieten the Eurosceptics at least for a while.
By contast if the pro-Europeans lost the vote then that would put some responsibility on Eurosceptics actually to find a way forward rather than just opposing. I suspect that had the Conservatives been in power they would have ended up agreeing to something very similar to Lisbon.
The point is that at some point pro-Europeans will have to stand and fight, and this was probably the best chance to do that, so it's an opportunity missed.
Amid all this the policy we actually have for an in or out referendum on the EU makes very little sense at all. It would solve nothing, since even the Conservatives support EU membership, none but a small number of obsessives at either end of the political spectrum actually want us out of the EU.
From the evidence of Alastair Carmichael's interview, the parliamentary appear to be avoiding bitterness and recriminations. And Nick Clegg has made just about the best possible fist of defending a weak policy. But much as it pains me to say it, the rebels were right.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Casinos, liberalism and localism
I'm in the process of catching up on Lib Dem blogs from the past week or so. I have spotted this from Adrian Sanders MP about casinos and cite it as another example of what I was going on about here about sticking to a consistent Liberal ethic.
Now, I should say on the subject of casinos that my personal views are a bit puritanical. I rarely gamble and feel it preys on the vulnerable. Despite my usual libertarian impulses I am uncomfortable about TV adverts encouraging people to have a flutter on sporting events. So on this issue at least, I am not quite the wacky libertarian, although equally I don't want to impose my personal prejudices on everyone else.
So I feel uncomfortable about Adrian Sanders simply criticising the government for allowing casinos. To me the liberal solution ought to be about decentralised decision-making. It should be up to local areas to determine their policies towards casinos and the like.
I certainly wouldn't advocate a super casino for Watford. Yet I can't see why councils in Torbay or Blackpool or wherever should be prevented from encouraging them if they feel that would help with local employment and regeneration.
It's not so much the fact that Adrian Sanders disapproves of casinos and gambling that I have a problem with. It's the uncritical acceptance that policy in this area should be top-down and centralised.
Now, I should say on the subject of casinos that my personal views are a bit puritanical. I rarely gamble and feel it preys on the vulnerable. Despite my usual libertarian impulses I am uncomfortable about TV adverts encouraging people to have a flutter on sporting events. So on this issue at least, I am not quite the wacky libertarian, although equally I don't want to impose my personal prejudices on everyone else.
So I feel uncomfortable about Adrian Sanders simply criticising the government for allowing casinos. To me the liberal solution ought to be about decentralised decision-making. It should be up to local areas to determine their policies towards casinos and the like.
I certainly wouldn't advocate a super casino for Watford. Yet I can't see why councils in Torbay or Blackpool or wherever should be prevented from encouraging them if they feel that would help with local employment and regeneration.
It's not so much the fact that Adrian Sanders disapproves of casinos and gambling that I have a problem with. It's the uncritical acceptance that policy in this area should be top-down and centralised.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Berwick-upon-Tweed: Scotland's Gibraltar or England's Kosovo?
I have been meaning for a little while to post on the subject of South of Scotland SNP MSP Christine Grahame for Berwick-upon-Tweed to be returned to Scotland.
My father always refers to Berwick as Scotland's Gibraltar. I am not much of a nationalist, but each time I travel northward on the east coast mainline, I think that the River Tweed feels like it ought to be the border. And from the train at least Berwick looks more like a Scottish than an English town.
Yet Berwick residents, Scottish and English alike, have seemed happy enough these last few centuries with their position. This may change as I understand that the government has approved a plan for unitary government in Northumberland, which will take away some of Berwick's autonomy. Joining Scotland may therefore look like an attractive option.
Across Europe many if not most wars have been caused by territorial disputes around which nation or empire a particular territory should belong to based on the wishes of its inhabitants.
How do you decide which unit of territory or population should get self-determination? What if Scotland declared that Berwick is an integral part of the national territory regardless of the views of the town's citizens? Or if Berwickers wanted to rejoin Scotland, should this only be done if the rest of England acquiesced? Or should it be just down to the views of those who live in Berwick?
We search in vain for consistency in European precedent. Gibraltarians don't want to become part of Spain. But Spaniards don't accept its right to be separate from Spain. Kosovo has just seceded from Serbia against the will of the Serbs. Yet Northern Cyprus is still a pariah state within Europe, even though its residents clearly don't want to be part of the rest of Cyprus. I gather that both Spain and Cyprus voted against independence for Kosovo.
There but for the 1707 Union go we in Britain. So whether or not the Scots Nats get to reclaim Berwick, I suggest its very anomolous state - a town in a different country from its eponymous county - helps to undermine the case for an independent Scotland and is a good argument for maintaining the United Kingdom.
My father always refers to Berwick as Scotland's Gibraltar. I am not much of a nationalist, but each time I travel northward on the east coast mainline, I think that the River Tweed feels like it ought to be the border. And from the train at least Berwick looks more like a Scottish than an English town.
Yet Berwick residents, Scottish and English alike, have seemed happy enough these last few centuries with their position. This may change as I understand that the government has approved a plan for unitary government in Northumberland, which will take away some of Berwick's autonomy. Joining Scotland may therefore look like an attractive option.
Across Europe many if not most wars have been caused by territorial disputes around which nation or empire a particular territory should belong to based on the wishes of its inhabitants.
How do you decide which unit of territory or population should get self-determination? What if Scotland declared that Berwick is an integral part of the national territory regardless of the views of the town's citizens? Or if Berwickers wanted to rejoin Scotland, should this only be done if the rest of England acquiesced? Or should it be just down to the views of those who live in Berwick?
We search in vain for consistency in European precedent. Gibraltarians don't want to become part of Spain. But Spaniards don't accept its right to be separate from Spain. Kosovo has just seceded from Serbia against the will of the Serbs. Yet Northern Cyprus is still a pariah state within Europe, even though its residents clearly don't want to be part of the rest of Cyprus. I gather that both Spain and Cyprus voted against independence for Kosovo.
There but for the 1707 Union go we in Britain. So whether or not the Scots Nats get to reclaim Berwick, I suggest its very anomolous state - a town in a different country from its eponymous county - helps to undermine the case for an independent Scotland and is a good argument for maintaining the United Kingdom.
Castro and the Staggers
Peter Wilby once wrote that:
I wonder therefore whether it was brave or foolhardy of current acting editor Sue Matthias to publish in this week's edition this article by Isobel Hilton as its comment on Fidel's resignation.
Although balanced in tone, it is more negative than positive about El Comandante's legacy. So much so that it wouldn't have looked out of place in the Spectator.
One of the earliest lessons I learned as [New Statesman] editor was that many readers regard Castro rather as Telegraph readers used to regard the late Queen Mother, and that harsh criticism of the Cuban president would lead to threats of cancelled subscriptions.
I wonder therefore whether it was brave or foolhardy of current acting editor Sue Matthias to publish in this week's edition this article by Isobel Hilton as its comment on Fidel's resignation.
Although balanced in tone, it is more negative than positive about El Comandante's legacy. So much so that it wouldn't have looked out of place in the Spectator.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fact-checking Harry Potter
I am currently listening to a band called Bodies of Water whose excellent album/cd is called Ears Will Pop & Eyes Will Blink.
Their music is hard to categorise. They comprise two men and two women and tend all to sing at once, in a style a little reminiscent of the Mamas and the Papas. Then the music is all a bit grandiose and bombastic, in a way that reminds me of Arcade Fire. And then the songs seem to be all about religion, rather like Bob Dylan's Slow Train Coming or the entire oeuvre of Nick Cave.
You can hear for yourselves here (I can't do that clever putting the YouTube screen up on the blog thing - perhaps a kind reader might help me out with this).
Their music apart, I was rather taken with this website entry by group member David Metcalf about the jobs he had before the band 'made it'. One was fact-checking Harry Potter trivia games. He comments:
As one who believes that adults have no business reading the Harry Potter books, I approve.
Their music is hard to categorise. They comprise two men and two women and tend all to sing at once, in a style a little reminiscent of the Mamas and the Papas. Then the music is all a bit grandiose and bombastic, in a way that reminds me of Arcade Fire. And then the songs seem to be all about religion, rather like Bob Dylan's Slow Train Coming or the entire oeuvre of Nick Cave.
You can hear for yourselves here (I can't do that clever putting the YouTube screen up on the blog thing - perhaps a kind reader might help me out with this).
Their music apart, I was rather taken with this website entry by group member David Metcalf about the jobs he had before the band 'made it'. One was fact-checking Harry Potter trivia games. He comments:
I may be the world's only expert on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets who did not actually read this book.
As one who believes that adults have no business reading the Harry Potter books, I approve.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Liberal England and Enoch Powell
Jonathan Calder highlights that within a week of his starting to write a column on the New Statesman website, the magazine's editor John Kampfner resigned.
A little further investigation reveals that Kampfner resigned over a row with the owner Geoffrey Robinson MP over the publication's costs. So how much must they have been paying Jonathan? Perhaps Lord Bonkers was demanding a cut to help subsidise his Rutland estates. The price was clearly too much for the Statesman's proprietor.
All of which puts me in mind of a story I heard about Enoch Powell, who was notoriously tough in negotiating fees for newspaper articles and the like.
Asked by an editor to contribute an op-ed piece, Powell immediately demanded to know how much he would get paid. On being told the intended fee, he said 'I'm not a charity you know.' The editor replied that Powell's then party leader Edward Heath has been paid the same for writing an article. To which Powell replied, 'Yes, and he would have written it for nothing if you had asked him.'
A little further investigation reveals that Kampfner resigned over a row with the owner Geoffrey Robinson MP over the publication's costs. So how much must they have been paying Jonathan? Perhaps Lord Bonkers was demanding a cut to help subsidise his Rutland estates. The price was clearly too much for the Statesman's proprietor.
All of which puts me in mind of a story I heard about Enoch Powell, who was notoriously tough in negotiating fees for newspaper articles and the like.
Asked by an editor to contribute an op-ed piece, Powell immediately demanded to know how much he would get paid. On being told the intended fee, he said 'I'm not a charity you know.' The editor replied that Powell's then party leader Edward Heath has been paid the same for writing an article. To which Powell replied, 'Yes, and he would have written it for nothing if you had asked him.'
Journal of Liberal History
Sticking to historical matters, the latest edition of the Journal of Liberal History includes my review of James Moore's The Transformation of Urban Liberalism: Party Politics and Urban Governance in Late Nineteenth-Century England.
The latest edition isn't available on the web, so far as I can see, and I suppose it is not quite the done thing to put the review on this blog.
But this seems as good a moment as any to plug the Liberal Democrat History Group, which publishes the journal, a peer-reviewed publication that includes not just general articles, but original research by practising historians across the whole range of Liberal history. In my view it is easily the best thing published from within the Lib Dem family.
I encourage readers who don't already subscribe to do so.
The latest edition isn't available on the web, so far as I can see, and I suppose it is not quite the done thing to put the review on this blog.
But this seems as good a moment as any to plug the Liberal Democrat History Group, which publishes the journal, a peer-reviewed publication that includes not just general articles, but original research by practising historians across the whole range of Liberal history. In my view it is easily the best thing published from within the Lib Dem family.
I encourage readers who don't already subscribe to do so.
Bermondsey revisited (again)
We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the Bermondsey by-election.
To commemorate the event, Jonathan Derbyshire has written fair-minded article, which appeared in last week's Time Out.
The author is the son of one of my Lib Dem colleagues on Watford Borough Council (although I gather he is not himself a Lib Dem).
To commemorate the event, Jonathan Derbyshire has written fair-minded article, which appeared in last week's Time Out.
The author is the son of one of my Lib Dem colleagues on Watford Borough Council (although I gather he is not himself a Lib Dem).
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Making Liberal history sell
I have just finished Ian Packer’s excellent book Liberal Government and Politics, 1905-15, which offers an original and thought-provoking reassessment of the Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith administrations.
The book deals with a fascinating period of British politics. Written in lucid and engaging prose, it deserves a wider readership than just academic specialists. Yet, I suspect, few general readers are likely to get hold of it. For it retails at £49 and if it is typical of academic monographs will have had a print run of just a few hundred. It will end up only being obtainable through university rather than public libraries.
Dr Packer’s problem is that he is not already famous in some other field. Well-known politicians, be they William Hague, Douglas Hurd or Mark Oaten seem to manage to get books on historical subjects published in popular editions at reasonable prices. This is so even if they carry out little or no original research and merely piggy-back on the work of others. It’s less a case of ‘A Life of William Wilberforce by William Hague’ and more ‘Hague On Wilberforce’.
Further down the intellectual food chain, publishers fall over themselves to bring out books by assorted celebrities who seem to ‘write’ more books than they are ever likely to read.
Perhaps the answer is for academics to give up publishing books in their own names that are doomed to remain in obscurity. Instead they should act as ghost-writers for celebs who have no time between hairdos and buying clothes to do any writing, but whose names will certainly sell books.
That way, perhaps Dr Packer’s little volume could yet reach a wider audience as Victoria Beckham’s Book of Edwardian Liberalism.
The book deals with a fascinating period of British politics. Written in lucid and engaging prose, it deserves a wider readership than just academic specialists. Yet, I suspect, few general readers are likely to get hold of it. For it retails at £49 and if it is typical of academic monographs will have had a print run of just a few hundred. It will end up only being obtainable through university rather than public libraries.
Dr Packer’s problem is that he is not already famous in some other field. Well-known politicians, be they William Hague, Douglas Hurd or Mark Oaten seem to manage to get books on historical subjects published in popular editions at reasonable prices. This is so even if they carry out little or no original research and merely piggy-back on the work of others. It’s less a case of ‘A Life of William Wilberforce by William Hague’ and more ‘Hague On Wilberforce’.
Further down the intellectual food chain, publishers fall over themselves to bring out books by assorted celebrities who seem to ‘write’ more books than they are ever likely to read.
Perhaps the answer is for academics to give up publishing books in their own names that are doomed to remain in obscurity. Instead they should act as ghost-writers for celebs who have no time between hairdos and buying clothes to do any writing, but whose names will certainly sell books.
That way, perhaps Dr Packer’s little volume could yet reach a wider audience as Victoria Beckham’s Book of Edwardian Liberalism.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Letter to Lib Dem News
For the first time in a while, this week I have a letter in Liberal Democrat News. In was a response to Bob Russell MP's comment to the effec that we don't need three Tory parties in British politics. This is what I wrote:
In political argument, there is an unofficial rule that the first person to mention the Nazis automatically loses.
In the Liberal Democrats there should be an equivalent rule - that in any debate the first person to accuse a colleague of being a Tory loses.
Bob Russell MP tells us that ‘there is no need and no room for a third Tory party’ in British politics, implying that some in our party think otherwise.
Now, I don’t claim to be an expert in such things, but I try to take some interest in political debate within the party. I attend conference, subscribe to Liberator, CentreForum etc, and have read at least some of the Orange Book and Reinventing the State. Yet nowhere have I seen any Liberal Democrat argue that we should become a third (or even second) Tory party.
Perhaps Mr Russell has a grasp of political philosophy far more sophisticated and profound than my own. Yet I can’t help thinking that as we discuss how our Liberal principles should be best applied to current politics, it isn’t helpful if we resort to the cheap jibe of accusing colleagues with whom we disagree of being Tories.
The aim is to be distinctively Liberal, not any kind of Tory party.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Sticking to a liberal narrative - a small suggestion
During the latest hiatus in this blog, I was struck by the coverage given to Lib Dem MEP Fiona Hall’s call to ban patio heaters and Greg Mulholland MP’s proposal that pubs should have to sell wine in 125ml measures. Both of these raise the problem of liberals calling for individual freedom in the abstract, but in practice calling for more regulation of people’s lives.
Of the two I think that Fiona Hall’s quest is the more questionable. Patio heaters are certainly bad for the environment and it may well be true that they consume more energy (or whatever) than running a car. And yet lots of other things that are not eco-friendly are not banned. What if someone didn’t want to own a car, but liked occasionally to sit outdoors on chilly evenings, and used their patio heater sparingly? Why should they not have that choice.
Greg Mulholland, on the other hand seems a little unfairly maligned. If I have understood right, he has not (as has been claimed) said that pubs should not be able to serve larger measures of wine, only that they should offer small glasses as an option. This is a fair point. I have come across some bars that serve wine only in large 250ml measures. If wine is up to three times as strong as beer, then this is the equivalent of serving beer pint-and-a-half measures and nothing less. But if the suggestion is sensible of itself, it is so easily misrepresented that it risks making the Lib Dems seem nannyish.
How we are perceived by the public is not just about our principles or policies, but also a question of what our representatives choose to talk about. For example, the Liberal Democrats support controls on immigration. But if a Lib Dem MP chose to talk obsessively about the need for more strong immigration controls, to the exclusion of other issues, this would seem at variance with our general approach to politics, even if said MP was not going against party policy. It would look like pandering to the illiberal far right.
Projecting a clear Liberal narrative means that our leaders, parliamentarians, council leaders etc. need to consider when launching any initiative how it fits in with our Liberal principles. No one wants the kind of control-freakery that Mandelson and Co. operated in New Labour. But my modest suggestion to the new leader, if he wants to project the Lib Dems as a consistently Liberal force, is to give a very firm steer to the party colleagues along the following lines:
“Before speaking out or launching a new initiative on any issue, think how well it fits our liberal message. Is it
• decentralising or centralising?
• pro or anti civil liberties?
• pro or anti personal choice?
• good or bad for the environment?
• likely or not to combat poverty and exclusion?
• drawbridge down or drawbridge up?
If it fails one or more of these tests, then think twice about going public. Ask advice from the leader/party spokesperson/policy team. Sometimes these values may conflict and we have to prioritise one over the other. Sometimes our view will have to be tempered by pragmatism. But remember that the transient publicity we get on a single issue will affect the overall image of the party. It can serve either to undermine or reinforce our general message. Think before sounding off!”
Of the two I think that Fiona Hall’s quest is the more questionable. Patio heaters are certainly bad for the environment and it may well be true that they consume more energy (or whatever) than running a car. And yet lots of other things that are not eco-friendly are not banned. What if someone didn’t want to own a car, but liked occasionally to sit outdoors on chilly evenings, and used their patio heater sparingly? Why should they not have that choice.
Greg Mulholland, on the other hand seems a little unfairly maligned. If I have understood right, he has not (as has been claimed) said that pubs should not be able to serve larger measures of wine, only that they should offer small glasses as an option. This is a fair point. I have come across some bars that serve wine only in large 250ml measures. If wine is up to three times as strong as beer, then this is the equivalent of serving beer pint-and-a-half measures and nothing less. But if the suggestion is sensible of itself, it is so easily misrepresented that it risks making the Lib Dems seem nannyish.
How we are perceived by the public is not just about our principles or policies, but also a question of what our representatives choose to talk about. For example, the Liberal Democrats support controls on immigration. But if a Lib Dem MP chose to talk obsessively about the need for more strong immigration controls, to the exclusion of other issues, this would seem at variance with our general approach to politics, even if said MP was not going against party policy. It would look like pandering to the illiberal far right.
Projecting a clear Liberal narrative means that our leaders, parliamentarians, council leaders etc. need to consider when launching any initiative how it fits in with our Liberal principles. No one wants the kind of control-freakery that Mandelson and Co. operated in New Labour. But my modest suggestion to the new leader, if he wants to project the Lib Dems as a consistently Liberal force, is to give a very firm steer to the party colleagues along the following lines:
“Before speaking out or launching a new initiative on any issue, think how well it fits our liberal message. Is it
• decentralising or centralising?
• pro or anti civil liberties?
• pro or anti personal choice?
• good or bad for the environment?
• likely or not to combat poverty and exclusion?
• drawbridge down or drawbridge up?
If it fails one or more of these tests, then think twice about going public. Ask advice from the leader/party spokesperson/policy team. Sometimes these values may conflict and we have to prioritise one over the other. Sometimes our view will have to be tempered by pragmatism. But remember that the transient publicity we get on a single issue will affect the overall image of the party. It can serve either to undermine or reinforce our general message. Think before sounding off!”
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Dr Evan Harris MP, organ donation and presumed consent
Rod Liddle in the Spectator is in particularly fine form this week, denouncing the idea of ‘presumed consent’ for organ donations.
He remarks that the BMA and GMC that are often criticised because they:
fail to treat patients as human beings… they are viewed instead as an array of disembodied, problematic health issues; a dodgy ticker here, clogged-up lungs there and so on
My own view is that the correct liberal approach to expert opinion, whether from the medical or other professions should be one of respect for specific knowledge and expertise, but not one of uncritical deference. Even those whose job is to heal the sick will occasionally be guilty of special pleading or pursuing their own professional interests above the good of society or its citizens. Democracy is all about lay people holding experts to account on behalf of the people.
Sadly, it comes as no surprise to see that our own Lib Dem representative of the medical profession, Dr Evan Harris MP is a great enthusiast for ‘presumed consent’ and states on his website that this is Liberal Democrat policy. I confess I hadn’t realised it was party policy, and it’s depressing if unsurprising to find this out. No doubt it was snuck through in the small print of a particularly dull policy paper, or approved in a policy motion in a graveyard slot (no pun intended) at conference.
Although Evan Harris is in many ways a good egg, and there are lots of things I agree with him about, I can’t help feeling that he is only secondarily a Liberal Democrat MP, and first and foremost a Parliamentary spokesman for the BMA.
I find it depressing, too, that my own liberal views seem better represented by a wacky columnist in a right-of-centre weekly than by my party’s spokesman on science.
PS: It is possible to show scientific rigour on medical issues without becoming a mere mouthpiece for professional opinion. Ben Goldacre’s
Bad Science blog is a good example of the genre.
He remarks that the BMA and GMC that are often criticised because they:
fail to treat patients as human beings… they are viewed instead as an array of disembodied, problematic health issues; a dodgy ticker here, clogged-up lungs there and so on
My own view is that the correct liberal approach to expert opinion, whether from the medical or other professions should be one of respect for specific knowledge and expertise, but not one of uncritical deference. Even those whose job is to heal the sick will occasionally be guilty of special pleading or pursuing their own professional interests above the good of society or its citizens. Democracy is all about lay people holding experts to account on behalf of the people.
Sadly, it comes as no surprise to see that our own Lib Dem representative of the medical profession, Dr Evan Harris MP is a great enthusiast for ‘presumed consent’ and states on his website that this is Liberal Democrat policy. I confess I hadn’t realised it was party policy, and it’s depressing if unsurprising to find this out. No doubt it was snuck through in the small print of a particularly dull policy paper, or approved in a policy motion in a graveyard slot (no pun intended) at conference.
Although Evan Harris is in many ways a good egg, and there are lots of things I agree with him about, I can’t help feeling that he is only secondarily a Liberal Democrat MP, and first and foremost a Parliamentary spokesman for the BMA.
I find it depressing, too, that my own liberal views seem better represented by a wacky columnist in a right-of-centre weekly than by my party’s spokesman on science.
PS: It is possible to show scientific rigour on medical issues without becoming a mere mouthpiece for professional opinion. Ben Goldacre’s
Bad Science blog is a good example of the genre.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Nick Clegg's speech: 'free schools' may be fine but miss the point about what's wrong with our schools
My decision to spend Saturday at the Liberal Democrat conference at the LSE left me so far behind with other pressing matters that I had no time to blog.
I get the feeling that Nick Clegg's proposal for 'free schools' has gone down better with the press and bloggers than it has with the party's local government family. As at least one person pointed out on Saturday, times have moved on since the days when schools were run by overbearing and often inefficient local authorities. These days LEAs are hands-off and light-touch, often merely passporting funds from central government to schools.
These days the powers are with governors and head-teachers. One imagines that the sort of people who might want to set up their own schools are those who are already running them. In fact, from my limited experience, I think there is some danger that school governing bodies can become self-selecting cliques not really accountable to anyone for the large amount of public money they spend.
I hope, however, that the Lib Dem local government family, LGA group, ALDC etc. don't react defensively to this in a 'councillors know best', 'get off my turf' sort of way. To do so merely reinforces the negative image that some in the party and many more in the wider world have of local government. Instead, they should engage in discussion with Nick about his proposal, accepting that it is a good and Liberal idea, but pointing out its limited application.
The more I think of it, the more I realise that no matter how good the facilities, well-motivated the staff or impressive the OFSTED reports, what parents really want from schools is that their children should fit in, make nice friends and be happy. Even exam league table results are probably less important than these things.
In this part of Hertfordshire, where there is a very strong culture of parental choice, there are at least two secondary schools which, despite their glowing OFSTED plaudits, dedicated teaching staff and state of the art classrooms and sports facilities are spurned by many middle-class parents because they are seen as 'rough'. So the ideal is an academically and socially balanced intake. But it is hard to achieve this without patrician feats of social engineering, taking power away from parents and giving them to educational officials. Academic selection just provides an escape route for a few, not better outcomes for everyone. 'Selection by estate agent' is more invidious still.
Even my preferred idea of a ballot to allocate places at popular schools is no panacea, since there will still have to be catchment areas, and it will be hard to make these sufficiently demographically balanced to ensure every school has a truly comprehensive intake.
How to create an education systems that allows for diversity in provision, parental choice, a fair admission system and high quality choice is a multi-faceted problem to which I don't pretend to have the answer. 'Free schools' may well be part of the solution, but if so, I suspect they will make at best a marginal difference.
I get the feeling that Nick Clegg's proposal for 'free schools' has gone down better with the press and bloggers than it has with the party's local government family. As at least one person pointed out on Saturday, times have moved on since the days when schools were run by overbearing and often inefficient local authorities. These days LEAs are hands-off and light-touch, often merely passporting funds from central government to schools.
These days the powers are with governors and head-teachers. One imagines that the sort of people who might want to set up their own schools are those who are already running them. In fact, from my limited experience, I think there is some danger that school governing bodies can become self-selecting cliques not really accountable to anyone for the large amount of public money they spend.
I hope, however, that the Lib Dem local government family, LGA group, ALDC etc. don't react defensively to this in a 'councillors know best', 'get off my turf' sort of way. To do so merely reinforces the negative image that some in the party and many more in the wider world have of local government. Instead, they should engage in discussion with Nick about his proposal, accepting that it is a good and Liberal idea, but pointing out its limited application.
The more I think of it, the more I realise that no matter how good the facilities, well-motivated the staff or impressive the OFSTED reports, what parents really want from schools is that their children should fit in, make nice friends and be happy. Even exam league table results are probably less important than these things.
In this part of Hertfordshire, where there is a very strong culture of parental choice, there are at least two secondary schools which, despite their glowing OFSTED plaudits, dedicated teaching staff and state of the art classrooms and sports facilities are spurned by many middle-class parents because they are seen as 'rough'. So the ideal is an academically and socially balanced intake. But it is hard to achieve this without patrician feats of social engineering, taking power away from parents and giving them to educational officials. Academic selection just provides an escape route for a few, not better outcomes for everyone. 'Selection by estate agent' is more invidious still.
Even my preferred idea of a ballot to allocate places at popular schools is no panacea, since there will still have to be catchment areas, and it will be hard to make these sufficiently demographically balanced to ensure every school has a truly comprehensive intake.
How to create an education systems that allows for diversity in provision, parental choice, a fair admission system and high quality choice is a multi-faceted problem to which I don't pretend to have the answer. 'Free schools' may well be part of the solution, but if so, I suspect they will make at best a marginal difference.
Homes of the great Liberal leaders
In a feature on famous ancestors of twenty-first century personalities, The Word magazine mentions that actress Helena Bonham-Carter has recently bought the Oxfordshire home of her great grandfather, the Liberal prime minister H.H. Asquith.
I imagine this must be The Wharf at Sutton Courtenay (pictured right). Despite his image as very much an establishment figure, Asquith came from a relatively modest middle-class background and was never particularly wealthy. Indeed, he declined the leadership of the Liberal party in 1899 in favour of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman because the need to earn his living as a barrister to support his family meant that he could not give enough time to politics.
The Wharf does not look particularly grand, but even so its upkeep was too much for Asquith's widow Margot, who sold it in the 1930s , claiming to be 'dog poor'. Call me sentimental, but I like the thought of the house being back in the family. I was saddened to see, while on holiday in the New Forest a few years ago, that Malwood, home of the nineteenth-century Liberal leader Sir William Harcourt, is now in institutional use by a utility company or similar and bears not even a plaque to mark its first owner. Campbell-Bannerman's home, Belmont Castle is now a Church of Scotland 'eventide home', although I haven't been there to see whether there is any reference to 'C-B'.
The loss to the country of Liberal prime minister Lord Rosebery's seat at Mentmore Towers, which contained one of the great collections of art and furniture in Europe, in the 1970s is testimony to the philistinism and incompetence of the Callaghan government. It is still standing and was for many years the headquarters of the Natural Law party. The other Rosebery pile, Dalmeny House on the Firth of Forth, is still lived in by the Seventh Earl, and is open to the public (although apparently closed for refurbishment during 2008).
Gladstone's home of Hawarden Castle in Flintshire is still owned by the Gladstone family, but is not open to the public, although I am lucky enough to have seen inside his study, the 'temple of peace', when I attended the 'Gladstone Umbrella' conference at St Deiniol's library (which houses Gladstone's collection of books) last summer. Lloyd George's boyhood home, Highgate, in Criccieth is part of the Lloyd George Musuem.
I doubt whether it is Helena Bonham-Carter's intention to keep The Wharf as anything other than a private home. But perhaps she might be persuaded to open it occasionally, for example for Heritage Open Days, the annual event in which properties that are normally closed to the public open their doors for one weekend. As an Asquithian, I would make the effort to go.
I imagine this must be The Wharf at Sutton Courtenay (pictured right). Despite his image as very much an establishment figure, Asquith came from a relatively modest middle-class background and was never particularly wealthy. Indeed, he declined the leadership of the Liberal party in 1899 in favour of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman because the need to earn his living as a barrister to support his family meant that he could not give enough time to politics.
The Wharf does not look particularly grand, but even so its upkeep was too much for Asquith's widow Margot, who sold it in the 1930s , claiming to be 'dog poor'. Call me sentimental, but I like the thought of the house being back in the family. I was saddened to see, while on holiday in the New Forest a few years ago, that Malwood, home of the nineteenth-century Liberal leader Sir William Harcourt, is now in institutional use by a utility company or similar and bears not even a plaque to mark its first owner. Campbell-Bannerman's home, Belmont Castle is now a Church of Scotland 'eventide home', although I haven't been there to see whether there is any reference to 'C-B'.
The loss to the country of Liberal prime minister Lord Rosebery's seat at Mentmore Towers, which contained one of the great collections of art and furniture in Europe, in the 1970s is testimony to the philistinism and incompetence of the Callaghan government. It is still standing and was for many years the headquarters of the Natural Law party. The other Rosebery pile, Dalmeny House on the Firth of Forth, is still lived in by the Seventh Earl, and is open to the public (although apparently closed for refurbishment during 2008).
Gladstone's home of Hawarden Castle in Flintshire is still owned by the Gladstone family, but is not open to the public, although I am lucky enough to have seen inside his study, the 'temple of peace', when I attended the 'Gladstone Umbrella' conference at St Deiniol's library (which houses Gladstone's collection of books) last summer. Lloyd George's boyhood home, Highgate, in Criccieth is part of the Lloyd George Musuem.
I doubt whether it is Helena Bonham-Carter's intention to keep The Wharf as anything other than a private home. But perhaps she might be persuaded to open it occasionally, for example for Heritage Open Days, the annual event in which properties that are normally closed to the public open their doors for one weekend. As an Asquithian, I would make the effort to go.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Activist-bashing – don't let's start!
Jonathan Calder and James Graham have each commented on the ‘anti-activist’ spin given by the Guardian to Nick Clegg’s speech on education at tomorrow’s conference.
It isn’t clear whether this angle came from the reporter or a briefing from the leader’s office but, if the latter, they should call the dogs off now unless they want to make life difficult for their boss.
Most conference delegates want to support the leader, especially a newly-elected one, and are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on new policy initiatives.
Furthermore, recent experience on tax, post offices, Trident etc. suggests that if the leadership treat the members properly, explain their policies, campaign on them and engage in debate inside and outside the conference, they are likely to carry the day.
The vast majority of activists will listen with an open mind to the arguments. But they don’t want their votes to be co-opted in favour of a right-wing project, nor to be blackmailed on a test of loyalty to the leadership. If their opinions are treated with respect, they are more than likely to back the leader. But if the policy proposal is presented as the leader taking on the activists, they may think, ‘Do they mean me?’, turn all difficult and vote the ‘wrong’ way.
Of course, as I often say here, there are those within the party who sometimes give the impression that their views have not moved on much since 1979. But it is unnecessary for the leadership to go out of their way to bait and antagonise them. It is one thing to put forward a policy that Tony Greaves doesn’t like, but quite another to suggest it’s a good idea because Tony Greaves won’t like it. A lot of people have a soft spot for Tony, even if we don’t agree with him.
The centre of gravity within the party is probably more collectivist than I (and probably Nick Clegg too) would like. But we don’t have a militant tendency that needs to be challenged, or if we do the majority of the activists don’t belong to it.
It’s worth remembering that one reason why David Laws was not in a position to mount a credible leadership challenge whereas Nick Clegg was, despite many similarities in their views, is that through his Orange Book chapter on health, Laws appeared to have gone out of his way to antagonise the ‘average activist’. Nick had avoided this trap, while still sounding like someone with new ideas.
In the leader’s dealings with party members, persuasion will work, confrontation will be a recipe for disaster.
But, of course, it may just have been a pesky journalist looking for an angle.
It isn’t clear whether this angle came from the reporter or a briefing from the leader’s office but, if the latter, they should call the dogs off now unless they want to make life difficult for their boss.
Most conference delegates want to support the leader, especially a newly-elected one, and are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on new policy initiatives.
Furthermore, recent experience on tax, post offices, Trident etc. suggests that if the leadership treat the members properly, explain their policies, campaign on them and engage in debate inside and outside the conference, they are likely to carry the day.
The vast majority of activists will listen with an open mind to the arguments. But they don’t want their votes to be co-opted in favour of a right-wing project, nor to be blackmailed on a test of loyalty to the leadership. If their opinions are treated with respect, they are more than likely to back the leader. But if the policy proposal is presented as the leader taking on the activists, they may think, ‘Do they mean me?’, turn all difficult and vote the ‘wrong’ way.
Of course, as I often say here, there are those within the party who sometimes give the impression that their views have not moved on much since 1979. But it is unnecessary for the leadership to go out of their way to bait and antagonise them. It is one thing to put forward a policy that Tony Greaves doesn’t like, but quite another to suggest it’s a good idea because Tony Greaves won’t like it. A lot of people have a soft spot for Tony, even if we don’t agree with him.
The centre of gravity within the party is probably more collectivist than I (and probably Nick Clegg too) would like. But we don’t have a militant tendency that needs to be challenged, or if we do the majority of the activists don’t belong to it.
It’s worth remembering that one reason why David Laws was not in a position to mount a credible leadership challenge whereas Nick Clegg was, despite many similarities in their views, is that through his Orange Book chapter on health, Laws appeared to have gone out of his way to antagonise the ‘average activist’. Nick had avoided this trap, while still sounding like someone with new ideas.
In the leader’s dealings with party members, persuasion will work, confrontation will be a recipe for disaster.
But, of course, it may just have been a pesky journalist looking for an angle.
The conquest of Everest – a Liberal Democrat success?
Well not quite, and to say so would, at the very least, be anachronistic.
But Sir Edmund Hillary’s death reminds me that the leader of the successful Everest expedition in 1952, John Hunt, later Sir John Hunt, later Baron Hunt of Llanfair Waterdine, was a Liberal Democrat member.
I noticed his entry the last issue of Who’s who in the Liberal Democrats published before his death in 1998. His Wikipedia entry makes no mention of his political allegiance, but according to the Dictionary of national biography, he was ennobled in 1966, sat initially as a cross-bencher, but joined the SDP on its formation in 1981. The author of the DNB entry states:
I see that Hunt published an autobiography, Life is Meeting, which is available from Amazon for little more than the price of the postage. Perhaps Nick Clegg should read it, containing as it no doubt does, wise words from a successful Liberal Democrat leader.
But Sir Edmund Hillary’s death reminds me that the leader of the successful Everest expedition in 1952, John Hunt, later Sir John Hunt, later Baron Hunt of Llanfair Waterdine, was a Liberal Democrat member.
I noticed his entry the last issue of Who’s who in the Liberal Democrats published before his death in 1998. His Wikipedia entry makes no mention of his political allegiance, but according to the Dictionary of national biography, he was ennobled in 1966, sat initially as a cross-bencher, but joined the SDP on its formation in 1981. The author of the DNB entry states:
Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing had for the first time reached the summit—now surveyed at 29,035 feet. But it was to the leader that the greatest credit was due. Even though he had personally climbed to 27,350 feet in support of the two assaults, it was his battle-hardened powers of leadership and skilful planning that assured success.
I see that Hunt published an autobiography, Life is Meeting, which is available from Amazon for little more than the price of the postage. Perhaps Nick Clegg should read it, containing as it no doubt does, wise words from a successful Liberal Democrat leader.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Free markets and their discontents (or Adam Smith versus Tim Farron)
This Saturday I’m bound for the Liberal Democrat Manifesto conference at the LSE, and as part of my preparation I have been trying to read Reinventing the State, edited by Duncan Brack, Richard Grayson and David Howarth, which was billed last autumn as a sort of riposte to the Orange Book.
I have to confess to finding such things heavy-going. Collections of essays by practicing politicians are rarely an exciting read, usually pulling their punches. Although the Orange Book was spun (and counter-spun) as a statement of intent by those wishing to move the party to the right, it was actually quite a dull read, with only a couple of chapters saying anything that might frighten the horses.
A copy of Reinventing the State has been sitting pristine and unopened on my bookshelf for some months, a testimony to my inner battle between support for Lib Dems thinking and writing about policy and finding at any given time that other reading matter is a little bit more appealing. To force my way through it, I have deliberately chosen the section on economics, and in particular the chapters by Paul Holmes and Tim Farron, partly because they are those that I am most likely to disagree with. In doing so I think I have learned something about the Lib Dems and economic policy, although not quite what the authors intended.
Paul Holmes’s chapter is entitled ‘The limits of the market’. In some ways it suggests to me that my own views and his are not so far apart as I thought. Holmes accepts the argument of Francis Fukuyama that the free market has ‘succeeded in producing unprecedented levels of material prosperity’. But his entire article appears predicated on the assumption that there are people in the political mainstream (possibly in the Liberal Democrats) who believe that there are no limits to market forces and that all aspects of human society can be left safely to the free market.
I doubt, however, whether there are any Liberal Democrats, even David Laws, Andy Mayer et al, who would not accept the notion of market failure and support the need for state intervention in order to achieve social or political objectives. There may well be disagreement about exactly when and how the state should intervene: as provider or enabler, for example; and about how public services should be held to account: by more power to local councils or more choice for citizens or both. But I doubt whether anyone who believed absolutely in an unfettered free market would think of joining the Lib Dems, and I don’t know of anyone in the party who fits that category. It seems to me that the ‘Beveridge-ist’ argument within the party is aimed at fighting an ‘economic liberal’ phantom – a caricature that doesn’t really exist.
This is confirmed by the comments of both Holmes and Farron about that godfather of free markets, Adam Smith. Holmes describes Smith as believing that ‘the market rules unchallenged’. Farron is more forthright still, commenting:
To which he then adds:
It’s hard to know exactly what to make of this. Some might say that Farron has here cut through Adam Smith’s sophisticated argument with a devastating five-word rebuttal. If only the Sage of Westmoreland and Lonsdale had been around 200 years ago then the Wealth of Nations would have achieved a deserved place in the dustbin of history and the world would be better off for it.
Alternatively one might point out that Adam Smith did acknowledge the existence of market failure and the need for the state to intervene. He argued in favour of state activity for the purposes of national defence, provision of a system of justice and investment in public infrastructure. We should also remember that Smith argued in favour of higher wages for the poor and for universal education. He wrote in what was essentially a pre-capitalist era and that his arguments in favour of free markets were to a great extent directed at tackling monopolies, special privileges and attempts by merchants and employers to keep wages low and prices high.
It is for these reasons that Smith’s legacy is contested and can be an inspiration as much to the liberal centre-left as to the Thatcherite right. One is left wondering whether Farron has actually read anything by Adam Smith or even bothered to consult a standard reference book to find out what he actually wrote. Once again, we are dealing with a caricature of free market arguments, based on a misunderstanding of their origins. And yet Holmes, if not Farron, does acknowledge that the free market does bring benefits to society.
Why this need to set up a free market straw man to be knocked down? I think the reason is that the dominant political discourse over the past century has been between the collectivist, socialist left and the capitalist right. Thatcherites and Reaganites stole the rhetoric (although not necessarily the reality) of the free market. Since most, if not all, economically successful societies in the past century have been based on some form of market economy, there is little alternative for a serious political party than to support the free market. Yet it is tainted as a ‘right-wing’ notion and we are a left-of-centre party. So our support for market economics is in some eyes a rather embarrassing fact, something to be mentioned reluctantly, if at all, before passing on to other things. Those who talk too loudly and enthusiastically about the free market are to be regarded with suspicion – as neo-Thatcherites.
This then reduces debate within the party about economic policy and public service reform fears about right-wing conspiracies. All of which is a pity, for a number of reasons. First, that as a serious party we have to be concerned with how to generate the wealth that we want to use for socially-desirable objectives. Secondly, because market economics do have a progressive as well as Conservative pedigree and Liberals are entitled to a share of the credit for their success. Most importantly, name-calling and conspiracy theories stifles debate and reduces the quality of thinking within the party about both economics and public service reform.
So let us try to find what we can agree on, which I think is something like as follows. Free markets are pretty much proven to be the best way of generating wealth and prosperity. But if left unfettered they can and do have socially damaging consequences, benefiting the better-off rather more than the poor. So there needs to be government intervention in many aspects of social policy to ameliorate and overcome market failure. In both our economic and social policy we as Liberals should prioritise improving the lot of the poor, the excluded and the disempowered in order to create a prosperous and equitable society.
If we can agree on that, as I hope most Lib Dems could, then we can debate seriously, and without name-calling, exactly how and when solutions based on the market or state intervention, decentralisation of power to local authorities or greater choice for consumers, are most appropriate in achieving Liberal objectives.
I have to confess to finding such things heavy-going. Collections of essays by practicing politicians are rarely an exciting read, usually pulling their punches. Although the Orange Book was spun (and counter-spun) as a statement of intent by those wishing to move the party to the right, it was actually quite a dull read, with only a couple of chapters saying anything that might frighten the horses.
A copy of Reinventing the State has been sitting pristine and unopened on my bookshelf for some months, a testimony to my inner battle between support for Lib Dems thinking and writing about policy and finding at any given time that other reading matter is a little bit more appealing. To force my way through it, I have deliberately chosen the section on economics, and in particular the chapters by Paul Holmes and Tim Farron, partly because they are those that I am most likely to disagree with. In doing so I think I have learned something about the Lib Dems and economic policy, although not quite what the authors intended.
Paul Holmes’s chapter is entitled ‘The limits of the market’. In some ways it suggests to me that my own views and his are not so far apart as I thought. Holmes accepts the argument of Francis Fukuyama that the free market has ‘succeeded in producing unprecedented levels of material prosperity’. But his entire article appears predicated on the assumption that there are people in the political mainstream (possibly in the Liberal Democrats) who believe that there are no limits to market forces and that all aspects of human society can be left safely to the free market.
I doubt, however, whether there are any Liberal Democrats, even David Laws, Andy Mayer et al, who would not accept the notion of market failure and support the need for state intervention in order to achieve social or political objectives. There may well be disagreement about exactly when and how the state should intervene: as provider or enabler, for example; and about how public services should be held to account: by more power to local councils or more choice for citizens or both. But I doubt whether anyone who believed absolutely in an unfettered free market would think of joining the Lib Dems, and I don’t know of anyone in the party who fits that category. It seems to me that the ‘Beveridge-ist’ argument within the party is aimed at fighting an ‘economic liberal’ phantom – a caricature that doesn’t really exist.
This is confirmed by the comments of both Holmes and Farron about that godfather of free markets, Adam Smith. Holmes describes Smith as believing that ‘the market rules unchallenged’. Farron is more forthright still, commenting:
Adam Smith was a great economist and Mrs Thatcher’s hero. His strong belief was in the inbuilt checks and balances within the free market and that any imperfections in the market would always be rectified by the ‘invisible hand’. This is of course a load of old guff.
To which he then adds:
Smith was right to observe that the market needs a hand, but it has to be the highly visible hand of the community or state.
It’s hard to know exactly what to make of this. Some might say that Farron has here cut through Adam Smith’s sophisticated argument with a devastating five-word rebuttal. If only the Sage of Westmoreland and Lonsdale had been around 200 years ago then the Wealth of Nations would have achieved a deserved place in the dustbin of history and the world would be better off for it.
Alternatively one might point out that Adam Smith did acknowledge the existence of market failure and the need for the state to intervene. He argued in favour of state activity for the purposes of national defence, provision of a system of justice and investment in public infrastructure. We should also remember that Smith argued in favour of higher wages for the poor and for universal education. He wrote in what was essentially a pre-capitalist era and that his arguments in favour of free markets were to a great extent directed at tackling monopolies, special privileges and attempts by merchants and employers to keep wages low and prices high.
It is for these reasons that Smith’s legacy is contested and can be an inspiration as much to the liberal centre-left as to the Thatcherite right. One is left wondering whether Farron has actually read anything by Adam Smith or even bothered to consult a standard reference book to find out what he actually wrote. Once again, we are dealing with a caricature of free market arguments, based on a misunderstanding of their origins. And yet Holmes, if not Farron, does acknowledge that the free market does bring benefits to society.
Why this need to set up a free market straw man to be knocked down? I think the reason is that the dominant political discourse over the past century has been between the collectivist, socialist left and the capitalist right. Thatcherites and Reaganites stole the rhetoric (although not necessarily the reality) of the free market. Since most, if not all, economically successful societies in the past century have been based on some form of market economy, there is little alternative for a serious political party than to support the free market. Yet it is tainted as a ‘right-wing’ notion and we are a left-of-centre party. So our support for market economics is in some eyes a rather embarrassing fact, something to be mentioned reluctantly, if at all, before passing on to other things. Those who talk too loudly and enthusiastically about the free market are to be regarded with suspicion – as neo-Thatcherites.
This then reduces debate within the party about economic policy and public service reform fears about right-wing conspiracies. All of which is a pity, for a number of reasons. First, that as a serious party we have to be concerned with how to generate the wealth that we want to use for socially-desirable objectives. Secondly, because market economics do have a progressive as well as Conservative pedigree and Liberals are entitled to a share of the credit for their success. Most importantly, name-calling and conspiracy theories stifles debate and reduces the quality of thinking within the party about both economics and public service reform.
So let us try to find what we can agree on, which I think is something like as follows. Free markets are pretty much proven to be the best way of generating wealth and prosperity. But if left unfettered they can and do have socially damaging consequences, benefiting the better-off rather more than the poor. So there needs to be government intervention in many aspects of social policy to ameliorate and overcome market failure. In both our economic and social policy we as Liberals should prioritise improving the lot of the poor, the excluded and the disempowered in order to create a prosperous and equitable society.
If we can agree on that, as I hope most Lib Dems could, then we can debate seriously, and without name-calling, exactly how and when solutions based on the market or state intervention, decentralisation of power to local authorities or greater choice for consumers, are most appropriate in achieving Liberal objectives.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
My late eight for '08
At the end of December I was named by Liberal England in the 'eight wishes for 2008' meme.
It's a little late, but still early enough in the new year to give my list.
1. Success for the Liberal Democrats in the May local elections in Watford and elsewhere.
2. Success too for the various sports teams that I follow - promotion for Watford, Montrose and Dundee football teams and London Scottish rugby, and some sign of emergence from the doldrums for Coventry City FC and at rugby for Coventry and Nuneaton.
3. Scotland to win the Calcutta Cup.
4. Some sign that under Nick Clegg the Liberal Democrats will be more distincively Liberal, and less grandmotherly on social and lifestyle issues (smoking, drinking gambling etc.)
5. For those Lib Dems who disavow the term 'economic Liberal' to say what sort of economic policy we should have. Then at least there can be a debate.
6. For Watford's new swimming pools/leisure centres (currently under construction) to open and to have a swim in each of them.
7. To complete my Phd thesis (or at least a first draft)
8. To avoid being deleted from the Liberal England blogroll.
It's a little late, but still early enough in the new year to give my list.
1. Success for the Liberal Democrats in the May local elections in Watford and elsewhere.
2. Success too for the various sports teams that I follow - promotion for Watford, Montrose and Dundee football teams and London Scottish rugby, and some sign of emergence from the doldrums for Coventry City FC and at rugby for Coventry and Nuneaton.
3. Scotland to win the Calcutta Cup.
4. Some sign that under Nick Clegg the Liberal Democrats will be more distincively Liberal, and less grandmotherly on social and lifestyle issues (smoking, drinking gambling etc.)
5. For those Lib Dems who disavow the term 'economic Liberal' to say what sort of economic policy we should have. Then at least there can be a debate.
6. For Watford's new swimming pools/leisure centres (currently under construction) to open and to have a swim in each of them.
7. To complete my Phd thesis (or at least a first draft)
8. To avoid being deleted from the Liberal England blogroll.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Clegg, commercials and children's TV
With the Christmas and New Year haze lifting, I have some quick catching up to do. So here goes: ‘Congratulations, Nick, well done! I’m sure you’ll be a great leader, but what’s all this nonsense about restricting advertising aimed at children?'
One of the themes of this blog has been the contradiction between the Lib Dems’ oft-expressed commitment to individual liberty in the abstract and the enthusiastic support that the party gives in practice to banning things or activities (see fox hunting, smoking in public places, goldfish as fairground prizes etc. ad nauseam). Such a disjunction hinders the party’s attempts to create a coherent narrative – are we instinctive libertarians or health’n’safety fascists?
It would no doubt make the Lib Dems seem cranky if we were to mount noisy campaigns in defence of the right to smoke in public etc. But Liberal Democrats should at least not be in the vanguard of calls for restrictions on personal choice and liberty. Indeed I recall a rising star of the party saying as much at a conference fringe meeting a couple of years ago. He said that our role on such issues should be sceptical and questioning of the need for things to be banned. I was quite impressed by this and went on to vote for this person to be party leader, a post he now holds.
So where has this ban on advertising at children come from and why is it prominent in Nick’s new year message? According to Paul Walter (to whom thanks for drawing my attention to this), it’s not party policy and my only recollection of it being mentioned in the campaign was as an off-the-cuff response to a question at an interview with Lib Dem bloggers.
I should say that on the issue itself I have some sympathy with Nick. I find advertising aimed at getting children to emotionally blackmail their parents rather distasteful. If I were the sort of person who wanted to ban things, this is the sort of thing I would want to ban. But following my own wish for the party to have a coherent narrative and preferring the view of Clegg the rising star to that of Clegg the leader on this issue, I will follow the former’s injunction to be sceptical and offer the following concerns about this proposal.
First, it would another example of the state usurping the role of parents and undermining their authority in looking after their children. It’s part of a parent’s allotted role to have to tell their children that they can’t do everything, watch everything or have everything they might wish. Sometimes parents will feel mean in saying no, but it goes with the job. It’s not really very liberal to say parents aren’t fit to decide what to let their children watch and what to buy them, so the state must step in and decide for them.
Second, presumably a significant proportion of commercial children’s television is paid for by advertising. If advertisements shown during children’s television programmes can no longer be aimed at the viewers of said programmes, there is a risk that broadcasters will no longer consider it worthwhile to provide programmes or channels for children. Maybe that is no bad thing. I don’t watch children’s television so I don’t know whether the programmes are any good. But a ban on advertising is likely to mean less television for children.
Third, it might be harder than one might think to decide what is advertising aimed at children and what at adults or whole families. Advertisements that seem to say, ‘You’re not a proper family if you don’t take your kids out for burger, fries and fizzy drinks every other day’ are clearly not good. What about mars bars, or computer games, or family cars? I suspect a ban would not be quite that simple.
Finally, the essential problem won’t go away, just because a certain type of advertisement is banned. Children will still pester parents for stuff – not perhaps stuff seen in advertisements, but stuff featured in TV programmes, stuff they read about in books and magazines, stuff their friends have etc. So the ban won’t actually solve the problem, which is a wider one in society about the undermining of parental confidence how to bring up their children.
So, Nick, please drop this one quickly. If you are trying to promote a liberal vision, why take a stand on a policy position which, while not exactly illiberal, has rather dubious liberal credentials and appears to conflict with our wider message?
One of the themes of this blog has been the contradiction between the Lib Dems’ oft-expressed commitment to individual liberty in the abstract and the enthusiastic support that the party gives in practice to banning things or activities (see fox hunting, smoking in public places, goldfish as fairground prizes etc. ad nauseam). Such a disjunction hinders the party’s attempts to create a coherent narrative – are we instinctive libertarians or health’n’safety fascists?
It would no doubt make the Lib Dems seem cranky if we were to mount noisy campaigns in defence of the right to smoke in public etc. But Liberal Democrats should at least not be in the vanguard of calls for restrictions on personal choice and liberty. Indeed I recall a rising star of the party saying as much at a conference fringe meeting a couple of years ago. He said that our role on such issues should be sceptical and questioning of the need for things to be banned. I was quite impressed by this and went on to vote for this person to be party leader, a post he now holds.
So where has this ban on advertising at children come from and why is it prominent in Nick’s new year message? According to Paul Walter (to whom thanks for drawing my attention to this), it’s not party policy and my only recollection of it being mentioned in the campaign was as an off-the-cuff response to a question at an interview with Lib Dem bloggers.
I should say that on the issue itself I have some sympathy with Nick. I find advertising aimed at getting children to emotionally blackmail their parents rather distasteful. If I were the sort of person who wanted to ban things, this is the sort of thing I would want to ban. But following my own wish for the party to have a coherent narrative and preferring the view of Clegg the rising star to that of Clegg the leader on this issue, I will follow the former’s injunction to be sceptical and offer the following concerns about this proposal.
First, it would another example of the state usurping the role of parents and undermining their authority in looking after their children. It’s part of a parent’s allotted role to have to tell their children that they can’t do everything, watch everything or have everything they might wish. Sometimes parents will feel mean in saying no, but it goes with the job. It’s not really very liberal to say parents aren’t fit to decide what to let their children watch and what to buy them, so the state must step in and decide for them.
Second, presumably a significant proportion of commercial children’s television is paid for by advertising. If advertisements shown during children’s television programmes can no longer be aimed at the viewers of said programmes, there is a risk that broadcasters will no longer consider it worthwhile to provide programmes or channels for children. Maybe that is no bad thing. I don’t watch children’s television so I don’t know whether the programmes are any good. But a ban on advertising is likely to mean less television for children.
Third, it might be harder than one might think to decide what is advertising aimed at children and what at adults or whole families. Advertisements that seem to say, ‘You’re not a proper family if you don’t take your kids out for burger, fries and fizzy drinks every other day’ are clearly not good. What about mars bars, or computer games, or family cars? I suspect a ban would not be quite that simple.
Finally, the essential problem won’t go away, just because a certain type of advertisement is banned. Children will still pester parents for stuff – not perhaps stuff seen in advertisements, but stuff featured in TV programmes, stuff they read about in books and magazines, stuff their friends have etc. So the ban won’t actually solve the problem, which is a wider one in society about the undermining of parental confidence how to bring up their children.
So, Nick, please drop this one quickly. If you are trying to promote a liberal vision, why take a stand on a policy position which, while not exactly illiberal, has rather dubious liberal credentials and appears to conflict with our wider message?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)