Author Archives: Will Lawson

Reclaiming the Liberal record on social justice

David Lloyd George – the great Liberal Chancellor and Prime Minister of the early 20th Century – is often credited as the ‘founder of the welfare state’. This is entirely fair: he and the Liberal Reformers created the state pension, a scheme for national insurance against sickness and unemployment, and new legal protections for workers. Meanwhile, his controversial People’s Budget established the foundational principle that the wealthiest must fund public services, beginning a constitutional showdown which saw the House of Commons triumph over the conservative House of Lords. 

However, the prevalent view that Lloyd George was simply a ‘first-step’ on the inexorable path to Attlee’s post-war government undermines the profound, independent significance of his liberal reforms. This was not just Labour-lite: the Liberal Reformers had a distinct philosophy, and their policies presented a real alternative both to socialist nationalisation and conservative inaction.

Liberal Democrats should reclaim the record of past Liberal governments on social justice – and challenge the narrative which paints Labour as the sole progenitor of public services.

A People’s Budget

Introducing his ‘People’s Budget’ to the House of Commons, Lloyd George addressed the House:

There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest judge would not hold them responsible …

Is it fair, is it just, is it humane, is it honourable, is it safe to subject such a multitude of our poor fellow countrymen and countrywomen to continued endurance of these miseries?…

This is a War Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness.

In so committing himself to the cause of social justice, Lloyd George reinvented liberalism for a 20th Century politics, characterised by escalating dissatisfaction with rampant, abject poverty. Cloaking himself in the rhetoric of redistribution, the Chancellor grasps the bellicose mood of the age and marshals it not against some European foe, but against the ‘5 giants’ later identified by William Beveridge: want, squalor, ignorance, idleness, and disease. 

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 44 Comments

The Liberal Democrats need a more radical platform

Last Summer, the mood at party conference was jubilant. Record election success brought us 72 Members of Parliament and offered us a vast opportunity to shape national debate and grow our party further. 

Yet, in the year since the election, it is the rise of Reform UK which has dominated the political agenda – despite us outnumbering them in Parliament by a factor of 14. Meanwhile, our vote share has sat stagnant at the same level since 2019, even whilst the combined Tory-Labour vote share has declined from 75% to 55%. As dissatisfaction with the status quo escalates, our electoral platform has clearly lacked a sufficiently bold vision to represent a serious political alternative.

To grow our party further, our policy platform needs to achieve three objectives. First, it must speak to the whole electorate, focussing on national priorities rather than those of voters in a small number of seats. Second, our party should embrace the radicalism needed to earn us the attention of the media and match the scale of public dissatisfaction with the status quo. Third, we must remain true to our distinct identity: blending human freedom with social justice, internationalism with localism, liberalism with social democracy.

A new platform

In his 2019 campaign for the Tory leadership, Rory Stewart declared that “the centre ground must not be simply the midpoint of the stick, whose only merit is being as far away as possible from each extreme”. Instead, the centre can succeed by “harnessing the tension of two opposing forces”: mixing policies from both sides of the political spectrum. This is the path the Liberal Democrats must adopt, embracing a new radicalism which transcends the established political divide.

Take the issue of rising child poverty – the most morally unacceptable consequence of inequality – where Labour’s conspicuous inaction over the two-child benefit cap has left a political opening. Our party has committed to repealing the two-child limit, but why not go further to outflank Labour on the left? There are 14 million children in the UK: we could consolidate existing child benefits into a single, universal, far higher benefit of £100 per week – for an additional £40bn. That is roughly 10% of our current welfare spend and could be funded, for example, by reducing the number of VAT exemptions to the OECD average. This policy is not only socially just but economically liberal, since removing VAT exemptions promotes economic efficiency, whilst universal cash benefits are fairly non-distortionary and avoid ‘perverse incentives’.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 20 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Hirst
    I'm not sure liberalism is all about equalising wealth. But it's certainly a large chunk of it. Reward is also important though there are greater rewards than w...
  • Peter Hirst
    I love this quote from The New Deal. For a publc utility like water it is especially true. To give shareholders dividends the company must first show it respect...
  • Peter Hirst
    What struck me about this post was the reference to 2019. We're told to build on our successes. We can also build on our failures if we get the messaging right....
  • Peter Martin
    “But you’re a Lib Dem, I thought your party didn’t like unions.” You have to ask why people think this. LibDems are largely seen as well m...
  • Alex Macfie
    What's needed is to make the rail service operationally independent of government. There is absolutely no sense in GB-wide passenger rail services being microma...