William Wallace writes…Liberalism in an illiberal world

The twenty-five years since the end of the cold war have been a good time for liberals, both at home and abroad. In Britain the moves towards a more open and tolerant society that had begun in the 1960s continued. Legal and social prejudices have been pushed further back; same-sex relationships, equal opportunities for women, ethnic diversity, have all been accepted as basic values, even – reluctantly and partially – by the right-wing press. There have of course been negative developments in parallel – widening economic inequality, the contraction of social services, the marginalization of the long-term unemployed – but the overall picture has nevertheless been one of progress.

Beyond Britain, the former socialist countries of central and eastern Europe transformed themselves into democratic states with market economies and active civil societies. Russia appeared to be following their example, more slowly and painfully. Democratic transition was under way in many Latin American countries; and with the outbreak of the ‘Arab Spring’ in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria it seemed briefly possible that liberal values would become embedded across the Muslim world. The world economy was growing, creating a climate of optimism in which liberal values more easily flourish.

The international scene now looks far darker, for the foreseeable future. Putin’s regime in Russia has exploited nationalism to defend autocratic (and corrupt) rule. Except in Tunisia, the Arab Spring has been swamped by military counter-revolution, Islamic reaction, and civil war. The Chinese regime is reducing the space for cautious dissent, abducting critics from Hong Kong, and raising the rhetoric of military ambition. In the USA, in Poland, Hungary and other democratic states, populist parties are exploiting public fears. And the global economy is heading for a downturn which may well last a long time.

Britain is unavoidably affected by these developments. Violent conflicts, corrupt and authoritarian regimes, and the long-term pressures of population growth and climate change, are pushing a rising number of refugees from across Africa and the Middle East towards Europe, raising concerns in which populism and irrational politics thrive. Sectarian conflicts spill over our borders, aided by the internet, to attract a minority of the discontented or disturbed. Right-wingers insist that security is more important than liberty, and government and politicians of different parties respond to that call through tighter surveillance and intrusive investigations. Compassion fatigue accompanies the accumulation of stories about refugee camps, brutal regimes, starvation as a tactic in conflict or a consequence of misgovernment; newspapers, and voters, argue that there’s little point in sending more money abroad when we also face needs at home.

So the coming years are going to be tough for liberals, in Britain and elsewhere. David Brooks has just written in the New York Times about the rise of ‘anti-liberalism’ both on the left and the right, with ‘classically liberal Conservatives in retreat’, in the US in particular, as fundamentalists look to ‘strong men’ to close the borders and move against minorities. We saw in the 2015 election the politics of fear swamp our efforts at a politics of hope – yes, we didn’t articulate our vision too well, but it was the wave of fear generated by the Conservative campaign that swept us away.

We’re in a minority, within an electorate largely disengaged from politics and debates about political values. We have no choice but to mobilise that minority as well as we can, to get across to voters that open societies are preferable to closed, that the role of the state should be to promote and protect tolerance, diversity and community, not to close down the boundaries of democratic debate through a rising tide of fear. That’s not going to be easy when the BBC, the guardian of reasoned argument in British politics that keeps Sky News honest and the unreason of Fox News at bay, is under sustained Conservative attack; and when much of the written media is Murdoch-controlled, and the Guardian infiltrated by romantic socialism. But that’s what we have to do!

* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

29 Comments

  • Richard Underhill 13th Jan '16 - 9:13am

    The BBC has been attacked on its funding, although it is not government owned. Taking on the costs of the World Service and the free TV licences for the over 75s puts audience sizes at risk because of more and more repeats. Good as it was, the Morecombe and Wise Show with Andre Previn is something we have seen before.
    Selling popular programmes around the world is one option, so the decision on Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear needed to be taken at a senior level. Press reports that he was sacked appear to be inaccurate, they decided that they would not renew his contract, which happened to be expiring at the time they were making their decision.
    Top Gear lost an entire team before, who went to Channel Five as Fifth Gear, but have not been on our screens recently.
    At the BBC the decision to give up their existing contract for Formula 1 to Channel 4 is a sign that the squeeeze is biting.
    On politics a government which says it needs to keep making “difficult” decisions appears to have taken a dislike to answering difficult questions from some of the well informed and impartial interviewers and would increasingly prefer an empty chair. Why? Does their problem lie with the policies? or do they merely lack effective spokesmen and women to present them?

  • As always, wise words from William.

  • Richard Underhill 13th Jan '16 - 9:56am

    William Wallace is a liberal’s liberal. So is Jim Wallace, but the peers have a problem in that the Commons is not doing its job. This is nothing new, but the use of timetable motions in the Commons causes legislation to reach the Lords undigested, despite the efforts of the cross-party committees.
    There appears to have been a change of policy on social integration. When Indefinite Leave to Enter or Indefinite Leave to Remain has been issued the next step is UK citizenship. The policy had been to cover costs, but a fee of £1,005 for an application would appear to be fundraising. Much lower levels have in the past discouraged many applicants because of ability to pay. These changes are usually made through secondary legislation of the kind which caused prominent publicity on the issue of tax credits. If the application is refused another application would be charged at the same rate. There are other costs before an application can be successful, so the government could be asked whether charges at this level are social engineering.
    Another fee applies to a recognised refugee who has not become a UK citizen. S/he can apply for a travel document, which will be barred to the country from which s/he feared persecution. If that country becomes safe, recognition as a refugee can be removed.
    The Home Secretary appears to have been successful in protecting the police budget, although some areas, such as Kent, may have increases in council tax as a consequence, but is she cross-subsidizing?

  • ” We saw in the 2015 election the politics of fear swamp our efforts at a politics of hope ”
    ‘Your efforts, your perception’

    Politics of hope for whom, certainly not the hopes of the majority of the British population, for which the policy position of the LIbDems is usually 180 degrees away from what the general population hope for or want , likewise across the whole of Europe.

    Your politics, have probably never represented the hopes of the people in this country, you are too busy driving your own illiberal interfering agenda. Your defeat in 2015 has highlighted one thing though, namely that at best once all the non liberal protest voters are taken out of the equation, the actual liberals represented only 7.9% on a turnout of 66% or about 5% of the electorate on a 100% turnout. Perhaps a tad of humility and a smidgin of listening to the voters might be in order the next time you tell us what is good for us.

  • The BBC has been the architect of their own demise. They accepted (and in many cases contributed to) the shrinking of the Overton Window. The organisation is very clearly dominated by a strong group-think which damages its credibility with enough members of the public that it is vulnerable to attack.

    Though perhaps more worryingly the ever decreasing variety of opinion that has been debated on the BBC has left important topics like the the EU poorly covered by minimising the arguments for leaving rather than having them properly addressed, this is going to make the referendum much more of an uphill struggle for the “remain” campaign than it should have been.

    If the BBC was smart it would address the group think and have a really wide range of views properly reflected in its programming, if they try and sit in their bland mush position they currently occupy they will just wither away. I can’t see them recognising what their problem is though.

  • Richard Underhill

    I can’t say the I see giving up on Formula 1 as being a loss, I think if there is big money sports contracts it isn’t worth the BBC bidding, they should be looking at what is currently under covered on TV, plenty of sports would be happy to have the terrestrial coverage they offer. Just think how much Grandstand changed in 10 years when it went from a show with lots of sports often with a major event in the middle to one where there was just the event and lots of peoepl talking about it on either side.

  • Barry Snelson 13th Jan '16 - 2:35pm

    The BBC is not in danger from some conspiracy of Murdoch and the Tories but far more powerful enemies – its own blindness and the unstoppable onrush of technology.
    Its funding model is irreparably broken. It is haemorrhaging loyal licence fee payers and replacing them with iPlayer freeloaders.
    If it moves to a universal tax that must mean that those who pay nothing now will be hit with a sudden and unwelcome bill. That approach has been met in Germany with mass petitions, protests and legal challenges. Does the BBC want to be even more hated than it is now?
    It claims that it is adored by the public but becomes hysterical when it is suggested that such a premise be tested with a subscription model.
    Soon, almost all fixed premises will be served by ultrafast broadband, capable of carrying much more media content, and higher quality, than broadcast. Then the electromagnetic spectrum will be seen as precious for mobile applications and all fixed dwelling media will move to glass fibre, including the BBC.
    Will it be acceptable for just the British to be compelled to pay for entertainment that the rest of the world can also watch for free?

  • A Social Liberal 13th Jan '16 - 2:45pm

    Psi

    You are aware that the other terrestrial channels also have their catchup on demand sites and that in order to watch them on TV one must pay the licence?

    It is unfortunate but I believe it is time to take up the German system which charges each household a tarrif, whether that household watches TV or not.

  • Barry Snelson 13th Jan '16 - 4:41pm

    And a new household tax will bring the BBC millions more enemies.
    As one who wants the BBC to move from compulsion to free choice for its funding I repose content and watch with interest its inevitable collapse.
    It is now in a lose-lose betting situation.

  • @ Barry Snelson 13th Jan ’16 – 2:35pm “The BBC is not in danger from some conspiracy of Murdoch and the Tories but far more powerful enemies – its own blindness and the unstoppable onrush of technology”

    Can’t agree. The Tories are in the pocket of Murdoch who has his reasons for trying to Salami Cut the BBC.

    George Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice in June, days before the Treasury foisted a controversial funding deal on the BBC in which the broadcaster was told it would have to pay the £700m cost of funding TV licences for the over-75s. He also met senior News Corp executives and editors four more times after the general election on 7 May before informing the BBC about the proposed funding settlement officially on 3 July.

  • A Social Liberal

    I appear to have missed your point. Could you explain it differently?

    My comments all related to the quality of the content on the BBC which has deteriorated, I don’t see an equivalent on the commercial channels.

    As to licence fee question I think the BBC is going to have to go to a subscription model eventually but it is not even thinking about how it can get ready. The senior management and trustees are all at sea, I haven’t seen any strategic thinking (then again isn’t James Purnell their head of strategy, so I’m not surprised).

  • Barry Snelson 13th Jan '16 - 5:15pm

    Well David, if that’s the case I can only hope he succeeds. I wish the BBC no harm. I simply want them to be funded through the free choice of those who admire them and not legal compulsion imposed on those who don’t. That is simply unjust.

  • @ Barry Snelson ” I wish the BBC no harm.” this is clearly a case of not being careful what you wish for………….

    Historically, the Liberal Party at its best challenged the power of the establishment (the Lords, the Monarchy. the Church, inherited wealth etc.,) Unfortunately that position has had a few wobbles in the last five years.

    In more modern times we have seen the rise of a new power seeking to control everything……….. the multi billionaire plutocrats who dash from country to country accountable to no-one, grabbing what they can and paying their dues to no-one.

    It is more than naive to believe that a blind faith in so called laissez faire freedom is to the benefit of the general population. It is simply a licence for the unaccountable plutocracy.

  • Barry Snelson 13th Jan '16 - 6:42pm

    David, I watch all sorts of media from outlets large and small and from all over the world. I have smart TVs, fast broadband, mobile platforms, multiple newsfeeds. I need no protection from plutocrats, least of all by a London centric middle-class English dinosaur. I will decide which news is impartial and which isn’t.
    Anyway all is academic, a ‘BBC Tax’ will be as popular as the poll tax. My advice to them would be to work through a subscription wall around iPlayer or disappear without trace.

  • @Barry Snelson
    “I wish the BBC no harm. I simply want them to be funded through the free choice of those who admire them and not legal compulsion imposed on those who don’t. That is simply unjust.”

    According to the latest figures (for April-June 2015) a whopping 96.5% of Britons aged 16+ use at least one BBC platform each week, for an average time of 17.5 hours.

    And those are Spring/Summer figures – BBC reach tends to be even higher in the winter, with 97.2% of people using the BBC for an average of 18.75 hours between January and March.

    With use of the BBC almost universal, I don’t think your argument holds much water – not unless you would want to extend it to the many other forms of public expenditure that are not spread nearly so widely over the population.

    Though I echo the comments of others that a household levy is clearly a more suitable model in the modern age.

  • Eddie Sammon 13th Jan '16 - 7:17pm

    The biggest challenge for “liberals” is immigration. People’s fears about crime and terrorism have basically defeated the mainstream market for any parties that always stand up for it.

    But this doesn’t mean a world with fewer borders, especially arbitrary ones, cannot be created. It just means people’s fears need to be addressed or countered and any big shifts towards a world with fewer borders needs to be held off for the time being.

    A good article, including a wide range of illiberal governments that you have identified.

  • Barry Snelson 13th Jan '16 - 7:31pm

    Stuart,
    There is no defence here. If the BBC is popular it can have no problem with subscription can it?
    Its 22 million licence fee payers will turn into 22 million subscribers and its budget will be the same. Won’t it? Unless it doesn’t even believe its own propaganda of course which would account for its hysteria when ‘subscription’ is mentioned.
    There are no arguments to defend this costly anachronism but no matter. As I have said numerous times now. If it wants to be really, really, hated then a new ‘BBC Tax’ will do it.
    My prediction is that the licence fee will limp on another 5 or even 10 years. By then fibre broadband will release the broadcast spectrum for ever more mobile applications (lots of money from the mobile phone companies here) and the BBC will have to be subscription like all the others. It will be much smaller by then, and when its paywall goes up and the licence fee finally ends it will very, very much smaller.
    Anyway, we will see but its current leadership seems so inept that they might trigger its demise even sooner than i expect.

  • Richard Underhill 13th Jan '16 - 8:05pm

    The BBC broadcasts PMQ for 30-ish minutes on Wednesdays in the Daily Poiltics, but the format of the Commons is inhibiting. If you want the PM to answer a question, as David Cameron often does not, as Tony Blair often did not, then watch the Liasion Commitee on the Parliament Channel. There is a much higher standard of debate.

  • @Barry Nelson
    “There is no defence here. If the BBC is popular it can have no problem with subscription can it?”

    Your argument is self-defeating. If, as you claim, modern means of acquiring content make the license fee anachronistic, then people can very easily avoid funding the BBC by making themselves ineligible for a license. Nobody is forced to fund the BBC, so you have nothing o complain about. Though given the reach figures I’ve quoted, I see no problem with a general household levy as discussed. Such a levy would be cheaper than the current license, and could be far more defensible on fairness grounds than, say, publicly funded education.

  • This is a good article, but there is a glaring omission. Growing awareness of environmental catastrophe does not figure among the gains, nor the inadequacy of measures achieved to stop catastrophe among the failures. Yet even from a purely human-centric viewpoint, this is wrong. Desertification, for example, feeds desperation, extremism, large population flows and drawbridge-up responses.

  • William Wallace 14th Jan '16 - 10:34am

    Have any of you ever sat and watched Fox News? Myths grandly put forward on screen, rational arguments rubbished, deep populist prejudices promoted – like having Katie Price on news and comment programmes all the time. Be careful what you wish for if you undermine the BBC further! Those with the deepest pockets and the sharpest media ambitions don’t want to promote democracy or liberal values.

  • William Wallace

    “Have any of you ever sat and watched Fox News?”

    Perhaps once or twice but I wouldn’t have been able to form an opinion on it which I would be happy to defend as accurate.

    “Be careful what you wish for if you undermine the BBC further”

    The problem is the BBC management and trust undermining the BBC the most, they have allowed the organisation to deteriorate. There is no point blaming the external critics who are pointing out the failings, blame those allowing the rot to spread. The BBC could be saved, if they continue their current trajectory I can imagine that in 15 years there won’t be much to save.

    Of course the Tories are attacking them, you may as well blame the rain for falling. The problem is that the institution doesn’t know how to respond, that is rubbish (very well paid) management and governors.

    To think the licence fee will survive in its current form (or the household charge) is madness, if we want to see successful BBC in the future defending the status quo will not help. It needs to come up with a way to sort out its culture which is damaging the content. Then it needs to come up with a more defensible charge (I wold suggest a mix of a significantly reduced charge for public service broadcasting, subscription and limited advertising).

    The management don’t seem to see that the content is deteriorating and the funding can’t be sustained in its current model. People expressing frustration with the BBC are not doing so because they want it undermined, but because they want it saved.

  • Barry Snelson 14th Jan '16 - 11:37am

    Hello William,
    Yes I watch Fox occasionally, and Russia Today (even though Ofcom would like to ban it) and Al Jazzera and France 24 and DW and Euronews and other feeds. And being as polite as I can, I don’t need your advice or opinions on which is the truth. I, too am an adult. I don’t wish for the BBC to disappear. I only want those who like it to pay for it themselves and take their hands out of my wallet. If it ends up a lot smaller – well it can’t be as popular as it claims, can it? I think it would be morally much better off as it would have a real and honest bond with those who pay for it and would have real freedom.
    Stuart has conceded my point. With fast broadband the licence fee is now optional and the licence fee model is broken for ever.
    Using the words ‘household levy’ won’t wash – it’ll be called the ‘BBC Tax’ and will be as popular as toothache. It will provide for years of savage attacks on the salaries of BBC staff and celebrities. Because people who pay nothing now will suddenly be charged = millions of new enemies.
    If those who run the BBC had any foresight they would paywall iPlayer and over the next 5 years steadily reduce the licence fee and steadily increase the iPlayer subscription pro-rata. As the BBC can’t afford sport any more a licence fee to watch ‘live’ broadcasting is irrelevant.

  • Christian de Vartavan 14th Jan '16 - 11:49am

    ‘Right-wingers insist that security is more important than liberty….it was the wave of fear generated by the Conservative campaign that swept us away’. I could not agree more. ‘Security’ and its twin partner ‘fear’ are central axes upon which Mr Cameron and his staff have won the elections. One must understand human nature which is willing to give up freedom and private liberties so as to be safe at home (particularly in the present ‘scary’ world). This is why until the LibDems can show people that they are equally capable of protecting them, at home or abroad through an intelligent use of military power, and that Liberalism is not some sort of all permissive lifestyle (as many still regard it), LDP will continue to lose elections because of lack of voters and no Liberal Democrat will be at the head of this country.

  • Barry Snelson 14th Jan '16 - 11:51am

    Hello Stuart,
    We are not in the realm of publicly funded education, or providing for orphans, the sick and disabled. You are proposing a BBC Tax to fund programmes where competitors vie to bake the best Victoria sponge, one where millionaires are taught to ballroom dance and another where pub bores drone on about motor cars. Or so I am told. I only pay for this rubbish – I don’t watch it.

  • Peter Watson 14th Jan '16 - 12:15pm

    @Barry Snelson “You are proposing a BBC Tax to fund programmes where competitors vie to bake the best Victoria sponge, one where millionaires are taught to ballroom dance and another where pub bores drone on about motor cars.”
    To be fair, I think programs like Bake Off (and a number of spin-offs) and Strictly Come Dancing do have some social benefits by taking a populist approach to promoting skills, crafts and physical activities to an audience that might be inspired to try them. I can’t make any such defence of Top Gear, though.

  • Lord Wallace , you serve our party well , I admire and defend our Peers often , I attended LSE history class , you make so many good points above , YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG ON THE BBC !!!!!!!Why do you ,like Don Foster when he was culture spokesman in the commons ,trot out the tired argument about Fox News ?! It is lousy , yes . Sky News is not !Since when were twenty whatever million of us paying for a news channel ?Is the budget for BBC News 24 three billion plus pounds ? Why can you not see that many of us who work in the arts and creative industries and believe passionately in public broadcasting , see an alternative to a threat of prison for poor people who cannot afford the draconian licence fee ! Tony Benn three decades ago opposed it as a poll tax on viewing ! Our great theatres ,the National, the RSC , the Globe , orchestras , childrens theatre , galleries and so on , receive funding from the relevant government department , ie Culture….. MEDIA ….and Sport , and is it not something that could fund a media outlet ,like the …….BBC ? Is Strictly ,is Top Gear , is Bake Off , public broadcasting ? Could they not be on something called BBC Commercial ? Is it not possible to have one great channel publiclly funded showing all that is classic and best in our cultural heritage and all that is inovative and non commercial, for adults and indeed for children, called BBC Public Service ?Could n t the Department of Education or Business , universities and Skills fund Open University ? As the Foreign Office fund BBc World Service ! The BBC , in many areas continue to be excellent , in drama , or for children , better than some other outlets . I should expect no less with such funding they have .To back public broadcasting is the Liberal thing to do . To back a top heavy, utterly commercially driven, out of touch monopoly , in a multi media age , without seeing that is too much of the truth of what they also are , and not see there are alternatives , and to threaten prison if the poor or anyone else wants access ,is iliberal , and an outrage !!!!!!!!!

  • P. S. Sky Arts is , as the name shows , also owned by Murdoch , who I am no fan of , and it has , as the name shows , only arts and more of that than …….the BBC !!!!!!!!!!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Evans
    Hi Alison. Thanks for your prompt response. It is very enlightening. Unfortunately, I think you missed one key aspect of what I was asking about. To me, the...
  • Roland
    @David - The laugh is you could see this coming. Decades back the US limited the power of computers sold to the USSR, after the wall came down we discovered in ...
  • Roland
    @David - The laugh is you could see this coming. Decades back the US limited the power of computers sold to the USSR, after the wall came down we discovered in ...
  • Katharine Pindar
    I recall that one of our ideas to raise taxes fairly was to tax company share buy-backs, and I read the other day that a big company, GKN perhaps, was just plan...
  • Peter Davies
    @Stephen Nash. Looking at that spreadsheet, I make a 5% raise in additional rate worth 8.9 bn. Aligning CGT with income tax would raise about 14 bn and increase...