Tim Farron has been talking to the online Disclaimer magazine, saying that it’s time to reclaim not just the Beveridge consensus but also the free market from the right, saying that the Tories are the champions not of a free market but one which is controlled by powerful corporations. He said:
I fully count myself as a Beveridge liberal. Mostly because he believed in ambitious government that could improve the lives of its citizens.
So I want us to say that we should reclaim Beveridge’s ambition, his sense of mission of looking beyond what might be deemed possible towards what we believe is necessary. I want to reflect on the Beveridge consensus which was of course superseded 35 years ago by the Thatcherite consensus.
We should shoulder Labour out of the way and fully reclaim the Beveridge consensus as being Liberal by its birth, but we should then also seek to reclaim the free market from the Thatcherites.
Liberals of every shade should support the free market – but the Thatcherite consensus that has had its hold to an extent on all of Britain’s parties, is fundamentally anti free market. Laissez faire and the absence of regulation, the privatisation culture in the broadest sense, is a betrayal of the free market. It is the triumph of the oligarch and the monopoly, it is the defeat of the little guy, it is the roadblock to innovation, it has led to the economic disaster that in government we are trying to fix.
So a new consensus will rest in large part on this party being the party of freedom in every sense, including freedom in the market place.
A new consensus must adopt the spirit of Beveridge and Keynes, and to my mind that spirit is one of ambition, an inspired and inspiring confidence that government can make a difference; that in the face of huge challenges, politics and economics can provide positive solutions to make things better, that government should roll up its sleeves, not wring its hands.
He also talks about the need to engage more young people in politics, the EU Referendum, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour generally and Syria. You can read the whole interview here.
* Newsmoggie – bringing you comment from a different perspective
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Peter Martin
expats
theakes
Meg Thomas
28 Comments
hoorah! i have been calling for this vision since 2010.
Is Farron saying that Liberals should support the free market by making it less free?
There is a lot of scope for any progressive political party wishing to get back to the principles of Beveridge and Keynes. Dare any party use the phrase “full employment” at the next election? Why not? We’ve had it before.
@Peter Watson.
There’s really no such thing as a “free market” if the currency (as all modern currencies are) of that market is the IOU of the controlling government. The government in all modern day economies is by far the biggest player in any market and can operate according to the rules and laws of its own making.
There’s well managed markets and there’s badly managed markets.
At last Tim has restored traditional Liberal Democrat economic policy in this interview with Disclaimer magazine. My confidence in the party is restored.
Peter Watson 17th Feb ’16 – 6:40pm
Very good Peter – raised a smile with me!
Good stuff from Tim!
In terms of the Liberal Democrat vision, a market can only be free if it is also fair, non-exploitative and, in most cases, sustainable. We should indeed challenge the definitions of economic freedom that have taken root and permeated our society since 1979. We should also loudly challenge what has become an all to common occurrence; that of only ordinary workers – be they employees or self employed – paying taxes while global corporations commonly successfully avoid them. Such policies would, I believe, be popular with our existing and historical voters and with non-socialist progressives alike. Liberal, socially democratic and popular!
Regarding Beveridge and the NHS, as I say to Labour friends, Bevan was merely the midwife – we were present at the conception!
The Liberal Democrats need to support what works and not be blinded by left or right wing dogma. A free market where it works, state ownership where it works, and regulated markets where it works.
An example could be railways – many would agree Rail privatisation has been a disaster – and I the party should support rail renationalisation. However it should also support private Open Access operators to compete with the state railway, with a fair number of paths open to them, thus giving us the benefits of both a state owned public service, and suitable competition to drive up standards. The current farce of foreign governments running various franchises with British taxpayer subsidy, and no competition clauses in corporate monopoly franchises is fundamentally illiberal.
Much of what British Rail did, such as the Intercity 125 and 225 and the Wessex Express trains were of extremely high quality, and much lower quality standards have occured since privatisation with the awful Virgin and Cross Country voyager trains.
Similarly the standard of service by the Open Access Operators such as Hull Trains and Grand Central has shown what genuine private sector entrepreneurship can achieve. I am fairly sure Wrexham and Shropshire could have been more successful, had it been allowed to compete properly.
@ Victor Grayson At last Tim has restored traditional Liberal Democrat economic policy in this interview with Disclaimer magazine. My confidence in the party is restored.
Blimey there’s a turn up for the book…… and you supposed to be a socialist ‘n all.
PS What’s the secret of your longevity ?
good stuff, looking forward to more of this sort of thing….
Good to hear this from Tim.
@David Raw – thanks David I took some time out to practice my cornet. Still not up to Colne Valley standards so think I’ll be disappearing again for a while now to get it a bit more better. See you in about one hundred years time !
I have , as someone who is keen on,and by family relationships,a close follower of, American politics , I am more fond of the juxtaposition and contrasts in policy of FDR and JFK, but it more or less leads to where Tim is going with this !Both called themselves Liberals,one was more social democratic or social Liberal, the other more centrist and economic Liberal.
Values, if not policies are timeless.Liberal values in modern times should never be equated with neo liberal corporate laisez fairism. But nor are they state socialism either.Power is what the concern is .An over concentration of it.The pendulum has , in too many countries, swung to the corporate power of big business . Opportunity has grown and so has inequality in too many situations.Just as in some countries it is the over mighty state.A balance of power is what Liberalism is about often.
Tim Farron knows this .Most of us surely do too.We can unite on this.
So why so shy on joining the opposition to TTIP Tim?
TTIP is not free trade, it’s entirely about giving corporations primacy over governments
@Redndead – Good question.
As for the interview, I’m warming to Tim more than I used to, especially now he’s getting us some strength back on policy. More on industrial democracy, tax reform and yes, TTIP, would be even better.
@Redndead “So why so shy on joining the opposition to TTIP Tim?”
Probably because that would be a specific policy and would frighten some of the horses.
Tim Farron’s comments above seem designed to cheer up those on the left of the party by implying that Lib Dems will intervene in a free market gone wild while reassuring those on the right that Lib Dems will be free marketeers. Every major party in the UK is somewhere between the two extremes of pure laissez-faire and unadulterated socialism, so any of them could express similar sentiments. Specific economic policies are how Lib Dems will (or will not) distinguish themselves from other parties but it will also risk appearing to choose a side between the “bookers” and the “lefties” within the party so I don’t see that being on Tim Farron’s agenda any time soon.
Nice words. As always.
How does it translate to cold, hard policy offer?
YES. I feel encouraged by this. Let us be the real opposition to this government.
TTIP, CETA and TISA are all abominations which are effectively protectionism for multinationals, treating public services as goods to be sold internationally and very little to do with trade.
What I would like to see is a major party promote a properly explained fair trade deal, as well as debunking TTIP and similar for what they really are. We need trade. We do not need job offshoring, ISDS, traditional state run public services such as the NHS / railways / utilities / policing being subjected to market forces, or corporate sovereignty.
Worth noting that Clegg was very pro TTIP and even went around the US to promote the deal. To finally break the toxic link with Clegg and his corporatism, the Lib Dems should declare themselves opposed to TTIP, CETA and TISA, but promote sensible fair trade deals instead, which is the liberal thing to do.
Why are we trying to supersede Labour instead of becoming something new?
Corbyn is already dragging Labour back to the Left and a strong, socially-focussed State will be part of that programme. The Tories, as Tim pointed out, are moving further and further under the thumb of large corporations. Why aren’t we taking the middle ground that is being left wide open? I am not saying we have to be completely Centralist, but we need to stop trying to out-Labour Labour while booing and hissing at the Tories as we point out ‘look how much better it was during the Coalition’.
Let’s be bold, be brave, and make our own path and not follow one that has already been laid down before.
Beveridge if he had his way would have eliminated the mentally and physically impaired from civil society and perhaps worse, come on now, face that truth before you continue idolising him. What are you afraid of in mentioning this?
“Shoulder Labour out of the Way”……………………… Well, I suppose eight men make a rugby union scrum…. but we also need some three quarters and a full back. A few constructive conversations with Labour might be productive…. and with Caroline Lucas for that matter.
Encouraged to see the growing hostility to TTIP on here, though, and a return to traditional Liberal economic policy.
@ Peter Watson “Is Farron saying that Liberals should support the free market by making it less free?”
It could be said a runaway horse careering through a shopping arcade is free… but it’s also dangerous and impinges somewhat on the freedom of said vulnerable shoppers…… and I’m not in favour of limiting the freedom of the Orange Bookers to exercise choice and join their spiritual home in the neo-Thatcherite Tory Party.
`Shouldering Labour out the way` – we can start by targetting specific groups of voters at the local level – maybe trying stuff out in local byelections – using Corbyn as a weapon the way Labour used Clegg. If they’re against Corbyn then mention security, Falklands, Putin, anti-semitism – backed up of course by a strong local campaign on local and other issues. It’s the only language Labour activists understand. And if they don’t understand it they soon will!
The Liberal free market is one in which monopoly power is regulated and dismantled. Only the state can do that. Liberals learned that lesson a hundred years ago.
Tony
Richard and David
Those of us not on the left or right of the party , who do not share the touching faith of either of those wings , in state run everything public,or business run everything private, are so fed up with the constant polarisation some of you insist on , even now.
Toxic is all some say about Nick Clegg.Many like him.Tim Farron does,very much.Or the encouragement , no , the push would every so often come, from some , for some , to join the Tories.
There are some , David , you are one , who constantly tell us how much you like Corbyn and Lucas. You are not being told to go and join them,but from your views it would appear to be more your home than the Tories would be for the so called “bookers”, a silly word.
My post above , tries for unity.When I stray for a moment from the path of let us all get on , or criticise anything robustly ,I get criticised. For some it appears the norm.
We have just had a young and enthusiastic member of Liberal Reform, leave the party , very unhappy. She is a woman .She is from an ethnic minority. Yes I know she is from a group many deride.I am not in that group.I do not know the details.I am aware that every time she , or Nick T from this site , or Joe O from this site , in the past , ever said anything on here,they were criticised,and some !Saddened by the resignation, because of the sadness I saw in the article from her , I read, yesterday ,online, I went through LDV archive ,looked back at one or two occasions, she posted on here.Her articles were gentle and thoughtful.Minimal in content,lacking detail, nothing whatsoever, toxic or even Tory, the latter actually a nobler insult.Yet she got nearly nothing but snide criticism.
I am a cheerleader for no wing or group or tendency.I cheer robust and friendly debate,yes caustic, for sure,even controversial,but I drifted away from politics before because of the lefts obsession with everything staying the way it has always been and letting others feel they just better hear the message “,do not any one dare go near changing it !” I call that conservatism, entrenched. It is far worse than Tory.And it is illiberal !
The problem is Nick Clegg is toxic in the eyes of the voters, regardless of what party memebers think, and the recent revelations about payment from the despicable Goldman Sachs, and his appalling voting record do nothing to improve his standing.
Very heartened to read these comments from Tim. I was worried that he wouldn’t quite ‘get’ this aspect of Lib Dem-ery when he was elected (and I’m sure I’m not the only one from the LD business community in that boat), but I’ve been pleasantly surprised since.
This exemplifies both Tim’s greatest strengths and Tim’s greatest weaknesses.
In terms of philosophy – It’s pretty good. Peter Watson’s comment “Is Farron saying that Liberals should support the free market by making it less free?” is well made, but I think there are answers. First, we don’t have a free market with equal competitive opportunities for all, right now. We have a rigged market in which big corporations can avoid tax, control government by lobbying and the revolving door, and thereby beat off genuine competition. That needs to change. Second, a free market doesn’t have to be a market in which the state does nothing. The state can and should intervene, and not only by regulation. One answer to cosy oligopoly can be real competition from a state-owned enterprise.
In terms of practical change though – It’s not so good. How are we going to “shoulder Labour aside” when nobody even notices that we exist? Tim needs to get better at the less philosophical questions, the real issues which make the headlines, and which could make headlines for Tim, if he found the right things to say.
Just to offer something as an example which would be well worth saying today: Boris is grandstanding over Europe, and turning it into a bogus Boris-saves-Britain story. We should be saying that there is one thing which could unite the Yes campaign and the No campaign. We should unite to reject Boris, who is an irresponsible chancer, seeking unjustified preferment by playing reckless games over Britain’s future.
A couple of days ago I had started a second post continuing in my previous line of thought … If ‘free markets’ included a commitment to fairness and ethical behaviours such as providing employees with decent pay and conditions, honouring legal contracts with suppliers, paying taxes in the country in which profits were generated etc then I would expect all mainstream Liberal Democrats to support such a definition.
But then I read Tony Greaves’ comment which caused me to reflect. The simple fact is that all such liberal, social justice and democratic ideals have only ever been gained by the actions of progressive people working as individuals and communities and by electing progress-supporting governments.
The free market does not exist to spread freedom, wealth or power to the many or to free people from conformity etc, it is simply profit driven. Nothing has ever been given up without a struggle. The Liberal Democrats would therefore be being foolish in the extreme not to maintain and actively use the powers of the democratically elected state in pursuit of our very reasonable stated aims. This should include pursuit of genuinely free markets but a crucial principle is that markets can never be above the democratic will of the people.
If some do not agree with this and hold to a definition of a free market and economic environment somewhat closer to the corporate-free-for-all that has come to dominate business culture since 1979 then that would be worrying as it would represent a fundamental schism in British Liberal Democracy.
If such a schism does exist within our party, it is something better faced sooner rather than later.
This is clever positioning and basically sound. For example, if a giant corporation like Monsanto forces farmers to plant only its seeds, which cannot in turn produce fertile offspring, that’s anti-free-market. However, as Richard says, there are areas where the free market does not work fairly. For example, a free market in land would mean the abolition of planning controls and developers being able to outbid opponents to build on nature reserves or playing-fields; and paring police services to the bone would effectively create a free market in security, with rich gated communities paying for security the rest of us couldn’t afford.