Dear John Gray,
You have me baffled, I’ll confess.
Writing recently in the London Review of Books you talked about how in your view Vince Cable and others in the Orange Book a vision of a “small government”.
I’m confused because it’s true that Vince Cable’s chapter does call for a cap on the maximum that the state can raise in taxation. However, that maximum was set higher than the Labour government was taking in at the time in 2004, several years after they had ‘turned on the taps’ on public expenditure and left previous Conservative Party spending targets well behind.
Blair and Brown have been called many things, but saying that they were believers in government even smaller than small government is a new one on me, I must admit.
Yours etc.
Thanks to Geoffrey Payne for drawing my attention to this article.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
Suzanne Fletcher
Mick Taylor
Mary Reid
24 Comments
dont know whats supposed to be wrong with liberals believeing in small government.
Thats what is supopsed to seperate us from the two big government parties, labour and topry.
The debate is which things the government should and should not do
Ey come on now, that’s a bizarrely truncated reading of the Gray article. I wouldn’t normally comment but it’s a fantastically thought-provoking article that’s well worth a proper read. And I’ve read the Orange Book, including Vince’s contribution; you’d be hard-pressed to argue that a smaller/less ‘interventionist’/whatever description you want to use government isn’t central to the book’s coherence, ditto the policies of the coalition (including Vince’s department). Shifting the funding for universities from central government to students & privatising Royal Mail for instance.
I, too, am one of the few (I suspect) who’ve actually read the Orange Book. It contains articles by those dangerous right-wingers Steve Webb, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne. Clearly a dangerous cabal of entryists who must at all costs be expelled from the party they’ve hijacked.
This whle ‘smaller state’ is liberal thing is complete rubbish.
Smaller governments in themselves are not what classical liberals consider ‘good’, smaller states are seen as the product of a good liberal policy direction. The idea is not that the state should be less responsible for catering for the public, but that the state should abide by the ‘harm principle’ and be a ‘neutral umpire’… that is to say the state should not prevent anyone doing anything unless it harms another person and that the state should not be influenced in one direction or the other. The state should be restricted to only fufilling the necessary needs of its citizens, Mill, Locke and a host of other Liberals (famously Beveridge and Keynes) all agreed that the state should provide public services.
THe idea is not that the state itself should be small because it is a good thing for the state to be small that is anarchist, libertarianism and a Randian/Hayekian philosophy. Classical liberals believe that the state should only provide necessary services to its citizens and not excercise more power than that, yet all classical liberals considered these necessary services to be far more than what Huhne, Clegg, Cable et al believe.
No, classical liberalism has always been in favour of state provision and equitable economic distribution, that is part of being a ‘neutral umpire’. It is neo-liberalism which is anti-state for financial reasons.
I think that Blair and Brown did fundamentally believe in a smaller state. Like Thatcher they privatised parts of it, and Brown was a passionate advocate of light touch regulation for City institutions, a calamitous mistake on his part as it turns out.
Gray points out an interesting contradiction within the coalition. The leading proponents, and Nick Clegg in particular claim that their cuts agenda is not ideologically driven. Yet as Gray points out, they also claim that public services will be run better, even though they are being cut. That would suggest the cuts are ideologically driven.
@Geoffrey Payne: The problem is that ‘ideologically-driven’ is used as code for a general accusation of pursuing a Thatcherite agenda of opposition to public services. In that sense the cuts are not ideologically-driven. However, where Lib Dems have taken over councils from Labour, they have often cut back on spending and on services that were expensive to provide but not well-used, reducing council tax, or at least increasing it by less than Labour had. It is often possible to run services more efficiently at lower cost. We would tend to think of such differences between Lib Dem and Labour approaches as pragmatic rather than ideological. But in so far as it is part of our ideology to want to provide good services, at a reasonable cost; or at least not to confuse high cost with high quality, then cutting the cost of services while improving them could be seen as ideological. But it would be Liberal versus Labour rather than Thatcherite versus Labour ideology.
@Iain Sharpe
I don’t think Lib Dems at grass roots level believe in this ideology generally speaking. Conference opposed Free Schools for example. I think the driver for this is a small number of people in the leadership of the party. I think David Laws has provided the intellectual leadership, and the true believers are Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, Ed Davey, Tessa Munt, Jeremy Browne, Sarah Teather, Stephen Lloyd and Norman Lamb. There may well be others, I don’t include Vince Cable or Chris Huhne as there are a number of people where it is hard to tell.
I heard Nick Clegg’s speech at the LSE in 2008 where he supported Free Schools. However he could not get his agenda through the policy making bodies of the party, so a coalition with the Tories has given him the opportunity to do this.
Geoffrey, Iain – I think what we are talking about here is producer interest v consumer interest. A lot of so-called Liberals on here seem to be taking the producer’s side in this argument. My view is that Liberalism is about taking the side of the person with least power – inevitably, this will be the consumer.
Geoffrey – what I think you’re arguing is that there should be state provision regardless of whether that is in the best interests of the consumer. That seems pretty ideological to me – socialist ideology.
Tabman, you are wrong. Just because I argue against one ideological position does not mean I support the opposite. I make my judgements on the best available evidence. One of my concerns is that a lot of these policies are being implemented with no meaningful independent research done on the impact of these policies.
Geoffrey
I think that the party, by which I mean activists, is/are conflicted about this. The achievements of the Lib Dems in tradtionally Labour councils (Islington, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, even Watford) are rightly celebrated by the party. But very often their agenda has been around a robust pragmatism about delivery of services, reducing costs where possible, cutting council tax/keeping it down, getting away from the ‘council knows best’ mentality of Labour. Praise for the achievements of Lib Dem councils in such circumstances does not come only from Laws, Browne, Davey, Clegg et al. and I don’t get any sense that social Liberals are embarrassed by the track record of these Lib Dem administrations. However, when national policy ideas that seem to be in similar vein – free schools, for example – are put forward, they are viewed with suspicion and often rejected. Why this should be, I am not entirely sure. And it would be an interesting question as to whether these differences between Labour and Lib Dems at local level are ideological or merely pragmatic.
@Geoffrey Payne ‘I think that Blair and Brown did fundamentally believe in a smaller state’
What a very odd way that had of showing it.the 53% increase in public spending, the 600,000 extra people they employed in the public sector might suggest that like all socialists they believe in spending as much money as possible to try to bribe the electorate. The main difference is that in the old days they were willing to put up taxes (remember the days of 97% income tax?) while Blair and brown preferred to borrow.
Smaller v bigger government is not just about aggregate levels of tax and spend. It is also about what government does.
If you read the transcripts of Vince’s interrogation by the BIS select committee this week you will see very clear signals that he is deeply sceptical of New Labour interventionism for example. To such an extent that his straying from the One True Path clearly baffled the Labour members of the committee.
The more I see of the coalition government the more I am convinced that there is an ideological coherence to its approach that is about smaller government and, as Tabman says, promoting consumer interests over those of the producer. As a liberal I wholeheartedly welcome that.
It’s not about slash and burn economics – the more lurid accusations from the left really dont stand up to scrutiny. But it is very different to the New Labour approach of active interventionism and heavy regulation (and before the wild-eyed brigade descend, I am talking about regulation in relation to the pseudo markets Blair and Brown created for ‘public goods’ not the banking sector…
Geoffrey is right to say that many party activists feel uncomfortable about this agenda. It will be interesting to see where this all ends up.
Gray’s central thesis that the guiding philosophy of the Coalition is underpinned by an uncritical belief in the market as the fundamental norm is surely correct. How else can one explain their enthusiasm for the Browne report, the NHS re-organisation, free schools etc etc. ‘Fairness’ for this variety of religious believer is nothing other than free market outcome. Gray is also surely correct in identifying the great danger of such a programme –
“if the market is blind to need and merit, as he [Hayek] candidly admitted, how can those who have no reasonable expectation of benefiting from it be reconciled to their situation? The question is especially relevant at times when the majority of the population belongs in this category”
It will be a puzzle to future historians that the great failure of the market we have witnessed over the last few years has been followed by a renewed zeal to drive the market ever further into our institutions and social relationships.
Incidentally, the LRB this week has an excellent article by Stefan Collini on the Browne report.
Andrew R – what you characterise as the “great failure of the market” should more correctly be termed the “great failure properly to enact the market”. Once again we have had large scale producer interests at the top (banking, centralisation) making sure that the playing field is deeply tilted their way.
To me, Liberalism should be about getting the small gus onto the pitch, so to speak. Monolithic vested interests are what hold things back, be they private or public.
“The more I see of the coalition government the more I am convinced that there is an ideological coherence to its approach that is about smaller government and, as Tabman says, promoting consumer interests over those of the producer. As a liberal I wholeheartedly welcome that..”
Or politics as the art of getting people to act against their own interests under the guise a rhetoric of ’empowerment’ as I like to think of it. As a Liberal (of a different stripe) I wholeheartedly don’t welcome it.
@Tabman
But isn’t that always what market apologists say? Ah, yes things have come to a pretty pickle but that’s because the market wasn’t pure enough or was badly regulated or was captured by vested interest. It all starts to look a bit non-falsifiable – the characteristic as Popper said of a religious belief. Take a read of the LRB article on the Browne report. It describes very well the contradictions and undesirable consequences of viewing a student merely as a consumer.
It’s an attractive notion that coalition is putting consumer interests before those of the producers but I’m not sure that the policies so far bare this out, in fact it’s notable that BIS’ consumer budget has been decimated and public funding for consumer bodies and representation has been withdrawn. Anyhow testing the proposition on just a few policies:-
– in allowing the Russell Group to charge very high fees for quality HE as per Browne Report – and without subsidy for financially disdavantaged school leavers, are we on the side of big producers or small consumers
– in listening to the arguments of the big landlords that social and market rents should be equalised, and housing benefit massively cut back for those who structurally outpriced from the rental accommodation market, are we on the side of producers or consumers?
– in bowing to pressure from the GP medical establishment that they should control all commissioning (of the same services that they themselves provide) – are we on the side of producers or consumers
If you look at the quangos that have been abolished, it seems to be the consumer facing ones that have fared worst – no standards board to complain to if your local councillor for example is a corrupt pillock (of course local authorities love that!)
I’m amazed at how easily libdems are being brought off by producer interests and lobbying – would be interested in hearing examples of what our government is actually going for consumers?
privatising doesnt nescessarily lead to a smaller state, the railways in britian ar an example of that
“There is an ideological coherence to (the coalition’s) approach that is about smaller government and … promoting consumer interests over those of the producer.”
Those are two totally different things. Andrew Lansley scrapped the Food Standards Agency and handed over responsibility for the control of junk food to the junk food industry. He thereby demonstrated typical Tory ideology in favour of (a) smaller government, and (b) promoting producer (business) interests over those of the consumer.
But James this phrase “producer interest” has been used almost exclusively against public sector managers. To use it in the way you do will only confuse those who love this argument. In the same way as when I use the phrase “political correctness” to describe rigid adherence to Daily Mail style concepts! Yes, of course everyone may well pursue their own interests, and it has been our role as Liberals to fight for the underdog, the weak, the powerless. To refuse to conform to accepted concepts – and sometimes dare we say it to oppose policies pursued by some other Lib Dems, whether at Council or Govt level.
Iain, it is not true to say that what has been enacted at Council level is universally celebrated, nor that all of it is entirely pragmatic. I think what is more true to say is that either people are too far away from it to know or care very much, or that some councillors and their supporters are powerful members of their local parties and use influence to suppress criticism. It is noticeable that we have often held power and been thrown out spectacularly by the electorate, where if local party criticism had been listened to a correction of course could have been made. Hopefully our Govt will take on board that lesson.
Sorry obviously I was tired last night (not “tired” as it happens!) and didn’t complete the argument about “producer interest”. Surely the point is that the use of the term is wrong anyway, as different “producers” compete against one another, and those espousing the consumer interest are just looking to privatise and use a different set of producers. Yes, of course competition can be a healthy thing, but markets are not like that, especially in the modern world, where companies can be very distant, “customer service” is often replaced by pseudo customer service, and ways of holding suppliers to account for bad service are difficult – and as I always argued with CCT – second hand, mediated by Council officers or other “client” intermediaries
Thanks by the way, to Mark, for drawing this article to wider attention. Part of it is obviously similar to Richard Grayson’s argument in his article for Compass, in arguing that (broadly defined) the Orange Book people largely took us into, and negotiated the terms of the coalition, on the basis, as they both explain, of the Thatcherite consensus (again, broadly defined). I think this is an argument that many of us on the “left” (social democratic as Gray calls it – I would call it “radical”, but Gray hijacks that term to mean more free market thinkers) have seen for ourselves over the last months – well before the 2010 election.
I suppose my question to you, Mark is – in picking out the specific position of Vince fthat “puzzles” you – are you taking issue with that analysis of “the Liberal Democrat journey” as I seem to remember Grayson calling it? Personally, I think there are a lot of contradictions and problems with the overall economic arguments he puts forward on globalisation etc, but I can’t see that he is wrong broadly with his thinking regarding the Lib Dem position in the coalition.
Tim: I think there’s some truth on what both Richard and John Gray write, but they both overstate their case in my view. Look at Vince Cable’s attitude towards the banking industry or Chris Huhne’s towards the energy market – both are pushing for numerous interventions the operation of those markets which is very different from what many current Conservatives want and is very different from what the Conservatives did when in power. The point I picked out in my post illustrates this – calling Vince Cable a supporter of a small state when he in fact has been happy to support taxation being higher than it was for much of the time under Blair/Brown just doesn’t convince me. As for the negotiated terms of the coalition, both Andrew Stunell’s role in the negotiating team and the large number of long-standing Liberal Democrat in the coalition document runs counter to the point you’re making.
By the way, did you see the article I wrote which is up at http://www.markpack.org.uk/birds-of-a-feather-how-the-liberal-democrat-parliamentary-party-shapes-up/ ? Explains the point about Vince in more detail.
Thanks Mark for your answer. I did actually see your article when first done, and the James Crabtree one linked, but it was interesting to reread. I am sure that overall we will agree to disagree on some things here – you are obviously looking through the other end of the telescope from where I sit out in the country! I have registered Andrew Stunell’s presence in the initial negotiations, and was one of the reasons I used the word “broadly” throughout!
From a practical political point of view, I anticipate it being very difficult to use the argument that “we reined in the Tories” at any coming elections, which I assume you are trying to build. A very common reaction I have found among our 2010 voters is that “you have got much too comfortably into bed with the Tories” – and that impression will only change with dramatic events of some sort. I don’t think time in itself will be much of a healer. It took quite a few years to deal with the Lib Lab pact after effects, and would have taken longer had it not been for the SDP, merger etc.