LibDemVoice is running a daily feature, ‘Lessons of Coalition’, to assess the major do’s and don’ts learned from our experience of the first 3 years in government. Reader contributions are welcome, either as comments or posts. The word limit is no more than 450 words, and please focus on just one lesson you think the party needs to learn. Simply email your submission to [email protected]. Today Rob Parsons shares his thoughts.
Understand the mechanics of government
Be grown up. It is possible to be grown up in politics, as exemplified by Vince Cable’s famous statement that the Tories are ruthless, calculating and tribal, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work with them. Whatever you think of Nick Clegg, I think one of his best contributions to the temper of this government has been to keep his cool and his bonhomie, and not get sucked into the puce faced yelling that too often disfigures both sides of the House, especially at PMQs. That is a win all round: it is good government, and the public show signs of liking it.
Be intelligent and be nimble. We were caught out too often early on by the pace of events. We took a while to understand how government was going to work. We have been bounced by Tory ambushes on a number of occasions, most noticeably on the privatisation of the NHS (I refuse to call it “reform”) and that has sometimes been painful. One issue about that episode was that when we found out what they were up to, we were slow to react. We learned a lot of lessons about intelligence (in the sense of information gathering) and about the mechanics of government. The simple solution of more bodies, more advisers in our offices was one of the answers. We have still been caught out from time to time. And that will continue, but better intelligence will reduce the number of incidents, and nimble footwork, with the occasional showdown, will reduce the impact when it does happen.
Expect incompetence. The Tories remain the nasty party of British politics. We expected them to be nasty (though I have to say they exceeded my expectations – Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare policies are poisonous, and the Home Office’s racial targeting of immigration “offenders” is unspeakable). We did not expect them to be as incompetent as they have been. They are not the party of safe hands that they claim to be. Labour will be just as incompetent from time to time (and so will we be): it goes with the territory. Live with it; manage it.
Keep thinking. The ideas above are about the mechanics of government. But the mechanics don’t work if you don’t have a philosophy. Philosophy is a living thing: it changes as the world changes. In a world where neoliberal orthodoxy is close to becoming hegemonic, we – the entire party, and friends – need more than ever to keep working at the basis of liberal democratic philosophy so that, in a fast changing, globalised and confusing world, our representatives in government have a compass and an anchor that they can rely on.
Previously Published:
Mark Valladares: Better party communications responding to the realities of governing
Gareth Epps: Government: What’s Occurrin?
Nick Thornsby: Making a success of coalition government as a concept
Caron Lindsay: That old “walk a mile in each others’ shoes” thing works
Louise Shaw: One member, one vote for all party elections
Mark Pack: The invisible ministers should up their game, or be sacked
Robin McGhee: We should organise ministers better
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Roland
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
9 Comments
It is unfortunate that “neo-liberal” is called that, in terms of our party name! I agree that we as a party need to be an anchor, but it is clear that we do take quite dramatically different views among ourselves – we do have some neo-liberals on board. It is also unfortunate, as you say, Rob, about neo-liberalism being an orthodoxy, just at the time when the world needs something else. Really for at least 150 years till the 80s most people thinking about politics, about how things run, or are managed, would have said that “markets” could not be the be-all and end-all. In many respects, at this point, we need to operate against the natural model and behaviour of markets – we need to have enough clout to reduce and localise production distribution and consumption, operating against the big boys in the market who are trying to encourage higher consumption, and bigger market share for themselves. As Lib Dems, this should be right at the heart of our agenda. This, of course, is not “centre” as Clegg would describe, but radical and new, certainly in the scale of it that we need.
I wonder if the main lesson to learn is that success will come from practical and useful policies, not from wondering where success will come from?
Tim13 I think you’re exactly right about the unfortunate naming. I think another major issue is that markets don’t exist without regulation, and the neoliberal orthodoxy has done and is doing its best to obscure that fundamental fact. So it is good liberal thinking to work out how best – how most fairly – we can regulate the activities of the most powerful people and entities in the country, and in the world. Also, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that that is for the good of everyone in that fairer economies tend to be more successful.
Having said that, the whole debate is still working within the paradigm that the aim of any economic policy is to grow, and that, as you imply, must be untenable in the long run.
Clear thinker: what a thought provoking way to put it. Part of the issue is how you measure success. Thatcherism lost the battle for political office in 1997 but survived in the philosophy of the winners. Apart from that, I tend to think in terms of short and long term policy (and philosophy). We have begun to think about our manifesto: for that we need policies that are workable, definitely, and that are also liberal. It is workable, for instance, to mug poor people of ten or twenty pounds a week in bedroom tax – we know it is workable because it has happened. But it is not liberal.
Beyond that, though, I think we also have to think long term about what the UK’s and the world’s future holds. As I said to Tim13, all our economic policies are predicated on growth. We cannot grow forever because we will destroy the planet. At some point we will have to be content with what we have. Then we will have to confront the issue of distribution and fairness, which can currently be brushed under the carpet with the (evidentially dubious) notion that growth sees to it that the poorest get richer as well as the richest. Liberal philosophy has massive application to that situation.
Following Rob Parson’s idea of offering just a few ideas, here’s one from me.
Traditional economic thinking isn’t going to deal with climate change.
It isn’t even going to deal with phosphate exhaustion or helium scarcity or water resource depletion until it is far too late because by the time the price begins to reflect scarcity, it is far too late to recover the position.
As we saw in NewYork, USA economists said Hurricane Sandy was affordable. Prof Peter Morici of University of Maryland “estimated that some $15bn to $20bn will likely be spent on rebuilding after the storm, which could create as much as $36bn in an “economy with high unemployment and underused construction resources. When government authorities facilitate quick and effective rebuilding, the process of economic renewal can leave communities better off than before in many tangible ways.”
Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics, said that depending on how long flooding lasts, the hurricane could maybe shave one tenth of a percent off US output during the quarter. “But you have to remember that the hurricane generates extra activity too, in terms of the cleanup and rebuilding,” he told the BBC. “In theory, it could even be a positive for the economy.” These are only two examples of the sort of thinking that permeates economists dealing with climate change.
All no doubt true, but missing the point. Economists in USA are not taking the long view, even despite the loss of USA grain etc. Some of them still don’t appreciate quite what climate change will mean to their agriculture. We are already discovering in UK that it isn’t the temperature rise that is so difficult for agriculture, it is the failure of the seasons to follow in their established succession. There is no longer a time to sow and a time to reap.
We can’t rely, as I thought we could, on a catastrophe bringing government economists to their senses. And if you look at how the City acts, economists running our country work on an even shorter time frame. Most major projects in UK still have to meet present value targets which take little account of the risks of climate change, and what is even sillier is that some projects, like flood protection, have to jump higher economic hurdles than road building just because they come under a different Government department. There will never be a Severn Barrage ( able to provide several percent of our total UK energy needs renewably) while we stick with short term economics, The French have had 60 years of benefit from their barrage at reims, and that wasn’t economically justified at the time.
So we need to take a more radical view if we are to win this battle. Dieter Helm needs to be listened to. He at least has taken a realistic view of our children’s future.
The biggest handicap we have is the stunning similarity in the socioeconomic backgrounds of many of our MPs and the tories. We need a government of the people, for the people by the people. This simply is not possible when so many of our parliamentarians do not have the remotest idea of how ordinary working people live. This failure by the Liberal Party to represent ordinary working people, is what led to the creation of the Labour representation committee and later the Labour Party.
It is time Liberal Democrats acted to ensure that we do not repeat this mistake, that we sound like and act for ordinary people in the street. Not something that Nick Clegg or David Laws, among others, can do.
Ben, I suspect that on hearing that people like Andrew George, John Hemming, John Leech, Norman Baker, Sarah Teather, Julian Huppert, …. well where shall I end the list, even Vince Cable, would take you into an alleyway and reason with you until you saw the difference.
There is a narrative about our posh boys being just like their posh boys (which suits the media), but the resemblance is only skin deep. Neither Nick Clegg, nor David Cameron (because that is what the comparison is really about) had much choice over what family they were born into or where they went to school. What matters is what they have done with their advantages, and there the difference could not be more stark. David Cameron uses his gifts to defend privilege. Nick Clegg uses his to spread fairness. You can see it in the policies: tax cuts for millionaires – Tory policy; tax cuts for everybody – Lib Dem policy.
Speaking of the real world, Nick goes on radio in London every week and takes calls from anybody; can’t see David Cameron doing that.
There is also a narrative about politics not being the real world. You see this pop up from time to time in all sorts of spheres – vicars get it, social workers get it, teachers get it. “Never had a proper job”. Whatever sphere they’re in, it is still the real world. You still get knocks. you still get setbacks, you still get aggression and nastiness. Yes, a few people sail through into careers and safe seats usually because of daddy’s money and daddy’s friends, but not many of them. And in the end, it’s not lack of real world experience that disconnects MPs from their constituents, it’s the realities of power. Finger me any disconnected MP and I’ll show you he or she sits in a safe seat. They don’t connect with voters because they don’t have to, because they know their seat is safe for ever (some, not all – there are some down to earth safe seat MPs). That is why Nick Clegg – yes, posh boy Nick Clegg – tried to change the voting system so that all MPs would be genuinely answerable to their constituents. And it is also why posh boy David Cameron opposed the idea. Cameron defends privilege – Nick Clegg defends everybody.
Ben, I am sure that others here have done the same, but I hope I tried in my period as a PPC to bring a bit of “ordinary” to our line-up of MPs. Unfortunately it was not to be! It would be interesting to see and hear the perspectives (and backgrounds) of what one of my close friends and colleagues in the party would call “the young thrusters”.
Rob, well said in your opening statement and I very much approve also of your differentiation between ‘posh boys’ in our party and the Tories’. You are insightful but most importantly positive in your thinking.