Biteback, the political publishing company, has just published a series of short books by figures from each of the four main parties making their case for voting for their party in next year’s general election. Dan Jarvis has written the Labour edition, Nick Herbert the Tory edition and Suzanne Evans the Ukip one (a new edition since 2010!).
The Lib Dem version is written by Jeremy Browne, MP for Taunton Deane, former home and foreign office minister and, of course, earlier this year the author of Race Plan.
Jeremy has split the book into the following chapters:
Chapter 1 – The Liberal Age
Chapter 2 – Freedom
Chapter 3 – Opportunity
Chapter 4 – Decentralisation
Chapter 5 – Sustainability
Chapter 6 – Globalisation
Conclusion – A Liberal Party of Government
The introduction sets the scene which greets voters as they plan to go to the polls in May 2015.
Chapter 1 sets out what is, broadly, this book’s thesis (which will be familiar to those who read Browne’s previous book): that we are living in a liberal age, socially and economically. But the paradox that Browne quickly wrestles with is that despite society’s liberalism, just a fraction of people in the country are choosing to support the Liberal Democrats:
Britain has, in the forty-four years since I was born, become a truly liberal nation. The issue for Liberal Democrats today is not whether enough people believe in liberalism. Not only do millions of people believe in it, they are busy living it, scratching their heads in bewilderment at the illiberal spasms to which our political class is still prone. No, the issue for the Liberal Democrats today is whether enough people who believe in liberalism are inclined to support the Liberal Democrats.
The remaining chapters, then, are primarily an exposition of modern liberalism, and a case for all liberals to support the Liberal Democrats. But for Liberal Democrats, who don’t need that case making, the book also asks us to challenge ourselves, to ensure that on any given issue we are making the liberal case to the country.
‘Why Vote Liberal Democrat 2015’ is a worthwhile read, then, for committed Liberal Democrats and for those who still need some convincing. It is available to buy here in both hardback and e-book editions.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
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
theakes
Peter Martin
Chloe
Jana
33 Comments
Already ordered a copy, can’t wait to read it and see what he has to say. I hope all would-be reviewers will grant him the same courtesy this time 🙂
What is very telling is that Dan Jarvis actually got other members of the Labour party to write specific chapters. Seems odd we would give the platform to promote ourselves to just one MP!
It will be reviewed in the next Liberator.
Having read “Race Plan” my hopes aren’t high and the chapter headings probably give then game away – Nothing on the environment, nothing about inequality.
There is no paradox in why Liberal people don’t support the Liberal Democrats – it was summed up brilliantly by Browne in the Race Plan – in his view the Conservatives were economically liberal and Labour were socially liberal and the Liberal Democrats represent Conservative Economic Policies and Labour tolerance to individual lifestyle choices – the “best” of both worlds.
It’s not surpring that no one wants to sign up for such a party – Liberals spent from 1926-2010 being a left of centre alternative to the Conservatives, left of centre being a paraphrase of wanting redistribution of wealth and power – to switch to supporting Conservative economic polices makes one wonder what that was all about. It is not even distinctive, in fact half the Labour party signed up for much of them for much of the time. Similarly – large sections of the Conservatives can support same sex marriage and a non-judgemental approach to ‘lifestyle choices’ on a judge not lest you be judged basis. Painting Conservatives as homophobes, anti-gay marriage and a bit racist is out dated and a bit too text book rather than real world. Too often where the Lib Dems are distinctive they are not relevant and where they are relevant they are not distinctive.
Looking forward to reading this – good to see a platform for a strong liberal thinker like Jeremy Browne.
It is a shame that getting people to pick up such things is so difficult, especially if the brand of a party is suffering (just ask the Tories about that). I am interested in decentralisation though – it’s one of those words which is thrown around all the time, with all apparently accepting some measure of it is a good thing, with not much detail behind it.
This is put forward as an authoritative guide to the Liberal Democrat position in the next general election, but it is written by someone who has very strong views on the direction the party should go in, with which many other member should disagree. I would hope that any actual decent and really authentic liberal would see that this is WRONG. Giving this task to someone who most clearly is not a neutral figure or offering a balanced view goes AGAINST what should be basic liberal principles of democracy and fairness.
Me
should disagree
Sorry, bit of an odd typo there, I’m not sure how the word “should” got in there, I mean just “with which many other members disagree”
How disappointing; I was expecting that the cover would have another nice photograph of Sharjah, or Abu Dhabi, or Umm al-Quwain.
I’ve read the article in the New Statesman, so I feel I know enough to comment. I used to share basically the exact same ideology as Jeremy, but after a few years I realised I couldn’t for the life of me think why people should be able to accrue multi billions. It’s not incentivising entrepreneurship, it’s incentivising selfishness. The only answer for it is: “they will go elsewhere otherwise”, but that’s weak.
On other issues too I realised I didn’t have radical opinions on, but you can still have radical opinions in some areas, without abandoning critical thought for the sake of consistency.
Well, I am suspicious of this particular tome based on the Race Plan furore, but excited by the idea of the series; if they’re cheap I may buy the lot.
I would be less sceptical of the author if he had allowed more of a multi-contributor approach which it seems from the above, he has not.
But I will give him the benefit of the doubt on htis occasion – after all, he was not hired to write a manifesto, nor to represent the party; he was asked by a private firm why he as an individual thought people should vote for us.
I just hope no-one thinks it IS the manifesto.
Just because some Conservatives are libertarian and support things like same-sex marriage, and even decriminisation of of illicit drug use, does not make the Conservative Party fundamentally liberal. It core vote is essentially illiberal as demonstrated by the Tory Party Conference, and this is therefore its default position on most policy issues. The Labour Party, on the other hand, has to deal with supporters who believe in a strong central state, or at least corporatism, which tends to authoritarianism at worst and paternalism at best.
Jeremy Browne apparently believes it when he writes in this book. — “Britain has, in the forty-four years since I was born, become a truly liberal nation. ”
.
We have a country where the poor are demonised and have their benefits sanctioned.
The number of people relying on food banks to feed their children has grown beyond imagining.
There is a tidal wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric and prejudice.
We have cities in our country where child prostitution is on a scale unknown since Victorian times.
During the last few week we have witnessed MPs and the media spout a lot of illiberal nonsense to justify yet another war in Iraq.
Various Civil Liberties and the right to privacy have been gradually consigned to the dustbin over the last twenty years.
Where has Jeremy Browne been looking if he believes this is a “truly liberal nation” ???
Does he ever get out into the real world, away from the Westminster tea rooms and parties hosted by Paul Marshall?
Eddie Salmon says that people shouldn’t “be able to accrue multi billions”, but in there are very few individuals in the western world who have been able to do so. Most of the billionaires living in Europe and the US are in fact oligarchs who got rich quick when the Soviet Union fell apart. The other group of billionaires are of course the oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia, etc. Sure, there are people like Richard Branson, Philip Green, and James Dyson who are multi-millionaires, some of whom use tax havens to shelter their wealth, but even they are relatively small in number. The real issue is therefore not the super rich but those who are able to earn annual salaries running into the hundreds of thousands, or a few millions, of pounds, with little risk to their own existing wealth, on the basis that this is the going rate for their particular activity. As the salaries still paid within the nationalised banks like RBS and Lloyds indicate, no government of whatever complexion has had the courage to try to break out of this straight jacket,
Matthew, where is the book being presented as representing the authoritative Liberal Democrat position?
Browne writing on reasons to vote Lib Dem?
We’re doomed !
At this stage, Jeremy Browne would be much better em ployed knocking on doors in Taunton than writing books. If he neglects the former, he’ll soon have plenty of time to devote to the latter.
Graham, I need to speak to some academics about my theory on this, because I think it is out of the mainstream, but I have long suspected that on the nature of risk versus return that mainstream economics has got it slightly wrong. I’ve seen a few who agree with me, but we are still very much in the minority.
Regards
To put this book into context, the book is the latest in an on-and-off series that’s been going since the 1959 general election, when Penguin Specials commissioned “The Liberal Case” from from Roger Fulford (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0006DAC86/?tag=libdemvoice-21) – it’s still a good read, as are the counterpart books by Lord Hailsham (which is actually a rewrite of an earlier book by him), and Roy Jenkins (which sets out a detailed template of precisely what he would do at the Home Office six years later, and is noticably lacking in any mention of socialism!) The 1964 Penguin follow-up was “Why Liberal?” by Harry Cowie. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0000CMAW4/?tag=libdemvoice-21)
The series was then dormant for two decades, until revived by Longmans with Alan Beith’s 1983 “The Case for the Liberal Party and the Alliance” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00126A4AC/?tag=libdemvoice-21), which was then more of a copy-and-paste job on influential documents in liberal history & philosophy, but then didn’t reappear until Penguin revisited it with William Wallace’s 1997 “Why Vote Liberal Democrat?” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0140263039/?tag=libdemvoice-21).
Biteback revived the series at the 2010 election with the Danny Alexander-edited “Why Vote Liberal Democrat?” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1849540217/?tag=libdemvoice-21), which is more of a series of essays by other contributors.
In each case, someone fairly close to party HQ, or the leader’s inner circle, has been the author. The choice of Browne as editor of this new book marks something of a departure from standard practice with what’s usually a fairly tame, inoffensive set of volumes.
Graham, I’ve cleared my thoughts, my point is: I don’t believe that high risk = high return when it comes to investments. The regulations used to force me to advise people on this basis, but I think it’s wrong. This is tied to your point about risk compensation.
I’ve been meaning to email academics on it. Others have argued this point in the past, but the economic establishment doesn’t accept it.
Anyway, if we go back to Jeremy’s book, it is also tied to my initial point about the economic basis of it being flawed.
Regards
Edward Reach
Matthew, where is the book being presented as representing the authoritative Liberal Democrat position?
It isn’t, but if you look at these four books, isn’t that what you are going to think? Wouldn’t you assume that with a series of four books each entitled “Why Vote X” where X is the four main political parties, published in the year before the general election and subtitled “The essential guide”, the idea was to put the general case for each party? If you bought all four books wouldn’t you feel rather cheated of your money if you found one of them was a highly individual account of the party in question, and instead of really putting the case for that party as most of its members saw it, put the case for that party as viewed by someone on its fringes who wants to turn it into a very different sort of party?
Unless these books are very specifically advertised that way, I think people who come across them would assume they are intended to represent an authoritative view of each party, and not a view heavily biased towards the personal views of an author who is a very atypical member of that party.
The website for this book from its publishers is here. Does this make clear the potential bias in that book? No, it doesn’t.
A lot of people in the party do not agree with my views. I used to be on its centre-left, but it looks like I am now very much on its left-wing fringes, though my politics have remained much the same. Would you think it a good idea if I were chosen to write a book which was advertised as explaining “how the Lib Dems are best placed to tackle both the problems facing the nation today and those of its future” and placed alongside three similar books from people in the other parties? Could I be trusted to be free of bias in what I would write and put the case for the party in a way which shuts off my own personal beliefs and instead pushes the more right-wing ones that are now mainstream party policy?
No, I couldn’t, which is why though I might be honoured if I were asked to write such a book, I feel it would only be fair for me to turn down the offer.
From the Lord Ashcroft polls:
First Vote intention question
Con 35%, Lib Dem 22%
Second Vote intention question (thinking specifically about your constituency)
Con 34% Lib Dem 30%
(down 19 points on 2010 – the second worst of the 15 Tory target held seats Lord Ashcroft polled)
Contact from parties in the last few weeks
Con 33% Lib Dem 20%
(below the average Lib Dem performance – Tories are joint 2nd highest))
Were I his agent I might just be quietly suggesting that possibly he’s written enough books for the immediate time being….
@John Tilley you say “Where has Jeremy Browne been looking if he believes this is a “truly liberal nation”. Anyone who has travelled widely would agree with him.
It would appear that Jeremy Browne will have plenty of time to travel widely in the next few years. And when he gets to wherever he is going, he will be able to sit down and write more books. 🙂
About this wealth cap. You don’t need to be financially rewarded for investment once you are super rich. You can take the yield and spend it or give it away, but you shouldn’t be able to just save an unlimited amount. If people want to re-invest in productive assets then they can do, but they would have to give some shares to employees or to charity in order to not exceed the cap.
@Eddie Sammon “You can take the yield and spend it or give it away, but you shouldn’t be able to just save an unlimited amount.”
This is an amazing statement. Firstly, you have to define the “super rich”. For many of the poor, someone with savings of say £50K would be regarded as super rich. However, more fundamentally, the idea that people with wealth or income above an arbitrary level should be obliged to spend or give it away is profoundly dangerous. One of the major long term problems of the UK, compared particularly with Germany, is our propensity to spend, if necessary by borrowing, rather than save. (I acknowledge that there’s a Keynesian argument about the short term dangers of saving rather than spending) Moreover, the definition of saving as distinct from investment is in itself questionable. Those with substantial income are most unlikely to be putting their money in the building society. Instead they will reinvestment the money in the existing business, in the expectation that the business will grow and prosper, to the benefit of both the employees and the general economy, or they will invest the money in new businesses with the same objective. You can argue about the level of tax on investment return, whether it should be higher or lower in order to benefit the wider population (as of course determined by politicians, rather than the individual voter, consumer, or customer) on the basis than the Government better understands the wider picture, and I see nothing wrong in principle with providing tax relief on dividend income to promote employee share ownership, but in some way forcing rich individuals to fritter away their money to avoid a cap, or to promote their pet charitable cause, seems truly bizarre. Indeed the best example of where this happens is in professional football, where many clubs have been sustained by the truly super rich, leading to outrageous wages for players and enormous transfer fees akin to a Ponzi scheme.
Hi Graham, the cap I would support would be £5 billion, but the point is the ideology of economic liberalism seems to think that there is no such thing as having too much money.
We aren’t going to agree on this, but at the least I would ask you to support beginning to unwind the central banks asset purchase programs, that have boosted the wealth of the top 0.1% enormously.
Regards
@Eddie Sammon
I don’t have any figures, but I suspect that you are falling into the same trap as those who complain about benefit fraud, i.e. because a few cases make the headlines, there is perceived to be a major problem. It may well feel unfair that some individuals can accumulate enormous wealth, but their impact on the overall economy, and on the income of the overwhelming majority of the population is relatively small. This is essentially a political problem, not an economic one. It is interesting to consider what happened in West Germany in the post war years, during the so-called Wirtschaftswunder. Income distribute actually widened under ordoliberalism as pursued by Adenauer and Erhard, but because everyone was becoming better off this widening was not perceived as a political problem. The problem now in Britain is that real incomes are continuing to stagnate, and until economic growth, such as it is, feeds through to real wages, all political parties will continue to look for scapegoats. Those on the left of the Party who criticise Jeremy Browne and David Law choose to describe them as economic liberals, with the implication that there is no social element in their thinking, I think this is wrong and the concept of 360 degree liberalism, which in many respects is just another name for German style ordoliberalism, offers a genuine alternative to the watered down Christian socialism which some on the left of the Lib Dem Party wish to pursue.
@JohnTilley 2nd Oct ’14 – 3:01pm
From Jeremy Brown’s perspective, Britain probably became a (small L noted!) liberal nation on or about the 3rd of May 1979!
“Biteback, the political publishing company, has just published a series of short books by figures from each of the four main parties making their case for voting for their party in next year’s general election. Dan Jarvis has written the Labour edition, Nick Herbert the Tory edition and Suzanne Evans the Ukip one (a new edition since 2010!).
The Lib Dem version is written by Jeremy Browne, MP for Taunton Deane, ”
Were Biteback unable to locate any authentic mainstream Liberal Democrats?
Graham Evans
Those on the left of the Party who criticise Jeremy Browne and David Law choose to describe them as economic liberals, with the implication that there is no social element in their thinking, I think this is wrong and the concept of 360 degree liberalism, which in many respects is just another name for German style ordoliberalism, offers a genuine alternative to the watered down Christian socialism which some on the left of the Lib Dem Party wish to pursue.
They are offering policies which used to be called “Thatcherism”. These sort of policies have dominated British politics since 1979. Since that time inequality in Britain has grown. Many people have experienced this as restructing their freedom and opportunity. Many, perhaps MOST people who joined the Liberal Party, the SDP and the Liberal Democrats did so because they OPPOSED this sort of policy.
You say Jeremy Browne and David Laws are offering an “alternative”. They are not. They are saying “Me too” to the policy direction that was first associated with Margaret Thatcher in the Conservative Party and since then has pushed out all those aspects of old-style conservatism that had some sort of social conscience, and that then were taken up in the Labour Party as “New Labour” pushed by Tony Blair. In trying to make all three mainstream parties say much the same about economics “the businessman is king, the answer to every problem is to put it out to the market because competition drives up quality” they are DESTROYING choice, they are taking away the chance of people being able to say “No, we want something different to that”. They are endorsing a policy direction which if you look at the misery and unhappiness of many people in this country has FAILED.
Matthew Huntbach well said.
I believe that if we wish to regain the true Centre ground, which is in reality quite a few feet to the Left of where we currently are, we need to reintroduce liberal beliefs back into our outcomes and actions.
We still come up with some excellent policies that are even considered as progressive to members of the Labour Party, but although accepted at Conference they die a death there after.
One example of this was the policy paper submitted to Conference last Autumn by the Liberal Democrat Task Force on Race Equality ‘Towards Race Equality: A Liberal Democrat Approach’. This was unanimously accepted at Conference, but seems to have been assigned to the highest shelves thereafter.
As for Jeremy Brown, well I am not so sure that a man who was reported in The Guardian and elsewhere back in April of this year as suggesting that our Party has become pointless is really in a position to engender confidence in many members. If Mr Brown remains as sceptical about the need for our Party as he appears to, I am not sure why he has not moved over to the Conservative Party which seems to be more in tune with his thinking.
Janan Ganesh has just written a sneaky article in the FT, calling centre-right economic policies and Jeremy Browne centrist.
He even talks about is a wealth tax, but it is still possible to be very right wing and support a wealth tax. What you do is print money, give it to the rich, and then tax some of it, which is what we have been doing. It’s not done out of purpose, politicians and the public are conned into it by powerful advocates such as the IMF.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9df77a68-4971-11e4-8d68-00144feab7de.html#axzz3FHxmoAkP