In his speech yesterday Nick Clegg said, “We want a truly open society, in which every man and woman will be able to go as far as their talent, ambition and effort take them”.
Oh wait, hang on.
Sorry, wrong speech.
That was John Major back in the day, though the words would have fitted seamlessly into Nick Clegg’s latest speech.
Aside from a bit of channeling of John Major (I’ll let you decide if that’s better or worse than channeling David Owen), Nick Clegg’s speech to Demos and the Open Society Foundation was really rather good.
As a frequent critic of the way he talks about social mobility (in short – it’s a bad phrase for communication purposes, it’s a poor phrase for political
strategy and it’s a distracting phrase for settling the party’s policy direction; otherwise I love it), it is only fair to report that this speech tackled many of those issues by an approach that could be called ‘social mobility plus’.
Social mobility plus
So yes, social mobility was there, but it was there as but the first of five key features which Nick Clegg said an open society should have:
- Social mobility – “there should be no unfair barriers to people’s talent and aspiration”;
- Devolution – “a wide dispersal of power: both political and economic”, which gives a much more distinctively Liberal Democrat approach to the usual localism/Big Society mélange, and hence the rhetoric about pushing through Lords reform to break one of the oldest bastions of unaccountable political power;
- Open government and a free press – “the sharing of knowledge and information” that is central to a liberal approach of freeing up and empowering individuals;
- “A fair distribution of wealth” – or in other words, whilst the emphasis on social mobility sidesteps questions about income inequalities, Nick Clegg isn’t just interested in fair processes. There are outcomes too he thinks should be directly changed, albeit of wealth rather than income: “lower taxes on work and effort, a greater contribution from the wealthy”; and
- “An intrinsically internationalist outlook”.
Those five steps add up to a program that fits with the party’s traditions, face up to current political and economic challenges and offer a distinctive approach. In other words, it is a good framework.
Some of the turns of phrase were also clear and effective, particularly on devolving power:
It is not a lottery when decisions about provision are made by people who can be held to democratic account. That is not a postcode lottery – it is a postcode democracy.
The “but” from my “many” comment above comes from the choice of language. As the speech was part hosted by the Open Society Foundation, it is not unreasonable for Nick Clegg to have used the “open society” phrase.
The general ethos behind it also fits with similar previous phrases, such as distinguishing between people who are instinctively drawbridge up or drawbridge down people (think relations with Europe, immigration and so on).
Presumably we are now all in favour of mobile, open drawbridges, one in each local community and all pointed to face the future (unless the local community votes in a referendum to raise the drawbridge and point it backwards, but we try not to think about that).
Whether “open society” it is the right phrase for the party to use is another question. It is one of those phrases used in certain political and philosophical circles but almost never by the general voting public. Karl Popper and his theories of the open society are a good basis for a liberal philosophy, but it does leave the question hanging as to whether this is the right phrase to use in general communications – and if it is going to be used consistently.
As I’ve commented before, the party’s messaging currently not only lacks clarity but also – crucially – lacks consistency. A consistent, not quite optimal, message is far more effective than the most perfect message imaginable which is then only used sporadically.
But “open society” certainly has one thing in its favour for most Liberal Democrat activists. It is free of alarm clocks. Farewell, Alarm Clock Britain.
Watch extracts from Nick Clegg’s speech
The Deputy Prime Minister’s press team did a good job of securing advanced media coverage for much of the speech; hence the flurry of stories about marriage, the Lords and more. That coverage has continued to be good after the speech, including these two clips.
Nick Clegg on marriage:
Nick Clegg on House of Lords reform:
Full text of Nick Clegg’s speech
First, let me thank Demos and the Open Society Foundation for inviting to me to speak. I can think of no better moment to talk about the open society, and the urgent need to rally to its defence.
The values of the open society – social mobility; political pluralism; civil liberties; democracy; internationalism – are the source of my liberalism. And reflecting on the events of the last year, it is clear to me that they have rarely been more important than they are today.
Because we are at a critical, and potentially dangerous, moment – both in the world at large and here in the UK. History teaches that, at times of deep economic uncertainty, societies become more exposed to the forces of division – populism, insularity, separatism, an ‘us versus them’ mentality.
Rather than remaining open to the world and facing the future, societies can begin to turn inwards and lose confidence in progress. The danger in the UK is that the forces of reaction and retreat overwhelm our instinct for openness and optimism. That we succumb to fear – the greatest enemy of openness – in these dark economic times.
So today I will set out my vision of an open society – at the heart of liberal politics – and identify the key battles that we face to promote fairness, liberalism and openness in these difficult days.
We British are an open-spirited people. But we are hobbled by closed institutions. By instinct we believe in fair play and giving everyone a fair chance in life. But our politics and economy are distorted by unaccountable hoards of power, wealth and influence: media moguls; dodgy lobbyists corrupting our politics; irresponsible bankers taking us for a ride and then helping themselves to massive bonuses; boardrooms closed against the interests of shareholders and workers. The values of the hoarders are increasingly out of touch with the spirit of openness alive in the UK.
It is not often you’ll hear me say this, but I agree with Tony Blair. In his words “the big difference is no longer between left and right, it is between open and closed”.
So what is an open society?
It is a society where powerful citizens are free to shape their own lives. It has five vital features:
i) social mobility, so that all are free to rise;
ii) dispersed power in politics, the media and the economy;
iii) transparency, and the sharing of knowledge and information;
iv) a fair distribution of wealth and property; and
v) an internationalist outlook
By contrast a closed society is one in which:
i) a child’s opportunities are decided by the circumstances of their birth
ii) power is hoarded by the elite
iii) information is jealously guarded
iv) wealth accumulates in the hands of the few, not the many; and
v) narrow nationalism trumps enlightened internationalism
Closed societies – opaque, hierarchical, insular – are the sorts of society my party has opposed for over a hundred and fifty years.
That’s why Gladstone fought for a liberal internationalism; why Lloyd George battled the House of Lords; and why liberals from Cobden to Grimond sought to break up the monopolies and cartels that allow economic vested interests to trump the interests of ordinary citizens.
I will shortly say more about each of the five features of an open society. But first, let me demonstrate how this liberal vision of an open society is distinct from the philosophies of both left and right.
There are three main political traditions in Britain: socialism; conservatism; and liberalism.
Socialists support the idea of the good society, typically judged in terms of equality of income. In order to bring about this end they use the state quite aggressively in terms of labour market regulation, centralised public services and through tax and benefits.
Conservatives support the idea of a big society, with responsibility shared throughout society – people are responsible both for themselves and each other. The emphasis is naturally on non-state institutions such as marriage, the family, churches and voluntary organisations.
The liberal ideal is of the open society, where power is vested in people, not in the state or other institutions. This means that individuals need the capabilities and opportunities to chart their own course through life, and to hold institutions to account. So while the good society needs a strong state, and the big society needs strong social institutions, the open society needs strong citizens.
Of course these three political streams of thought will sometimes overlap. The Prime Minister’s particular approach to the big society, for example, is broadly compatible with the liberal concept of an open society.
Making users of public services more powerful; shifting power down to voluntary or community groups; and encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves: none of these do violence to the principles of the open society. Quite the opposite.
But there is nonetheless an important philosophical difference here. Advocates of both a big society and an open society will be sceptical of state power – and aware of the dangers of state oppression. But open society champions are more alive to the way in which society and social institutions can be oppressive, too. A culture of intolerance can destroy liberty even when the state has liberal laws. Societies can oppress, as well as states. As Isaiah Berlin reminded us, ‘To be deprived of my liberty at the hands of my family or friends or fellow citizens is to be deprived of it just as effectively.’ That is why the constitution of my party warns that people can be enslaved not only by ignorance and poverty, but also by conformity.
The institutions of our society are constantly evolving. Just look at the way the roles of men and women, and attitudes to marriage and divorce, have changed over the last century. We should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, bread-winning dad and aproned, homemaking mother – and try and preserve it in aspic.
That’s why open society liberals and big society conservatives will take a different view on a tax break for marriage. We can all agree that strong relationships between parents are important, but not agree that the state should use the tax system to encourage a particular family form.
It is clear that one of the most important differences between the three traditions is in our attitudes towards change. Open society liberals are progressives: we believe that the future can and ought to be better than the past.
Conservatives, by definition, tend to defend the status quo, embracing change reluctantly and often after the event.
Socialists see themselves as progressives, with a vision for a better future. The problem is: they have a fixed blueprint for what that better society looks like. Like the conservative right, the socialist or left-wing social democrat view is that “we – either the elite or the state – know what is good for you”. Liberals pay people the compliment that they know what is good for them, without ideological instruction.
So liberals are optimistic about the potential of people, collectively and individually, to lead good lives and shape good communities. And we value diversity, as societies experiment their way forward. Open societies are raucous, noisy, and sometimes unpredictable – but that is a price eminently worth paying for our freedom. The open society is not for those who want a quiet life.
Let me now turn to the five key features of an open society.
First, in an open society there should be no unfair barriers to people’s talent and aspiration. All roads must be open.
In a closed society, the routes to advancement are blocked by an elite who hoard opportunities for themselves and their children. A series of ‘glass floors’ ensure that the children of the affluent maintain their standing relative to other groups. A closed society is one in which people ‘know their place’. In an open society, people choose their place.
A social mobility approach to fairness is different to Labour’s ‘good society’ agenda, which focuses more on inequalities in terms of current income. Labour’s approach was based on a snapshot view of current income levels, rather than long-term life chances.
But real fairness is about real opportunities. Inequalities become injustices when they are fixed; passed on, generation to generation. So our focus must be on equipping people to flourish, and get on in life.
That is why I have made clear that intergenerational social mobility is the principal objective of the Coalition’s social policy. And why I have been so determined to increase our investment in the vital early years, including, recently, by extending the new two-year old offer to an additional 130,000 toddlers in working families.
Even in these lean times, we have found an additional £1 billion for a Youth Contract to head off long-term youth unemployment, which can scar life chances.
But Government cannot do this alone. Some of our key professions still need to do a much better job of opening their doors. To take one example, the legal profession remains woefully unrepresentative.
More than two thirds of all high court judges and top barristers are privately-educated. Nine out ten QCs are men. Nineteen out of twenty are white.
I know that us politicians have to get our house in order too. Not least my own party, which is too male and too pale. We are working hard to fix that. But my message to the legal profession, and especially to the bar, is: you are not doing enough either. It cannot be right that justice for the many is overseen by the representatives of the few.
Both the law and politics must, above all, represent the nation as a whole. But the nation is not represented in them. We’ve had years of warm words and incremental progress. It’s time for a step change.
The second distinguishing feature of an open society is a wide dispersal of power: both political and economic.
In terms of politics, this means maximum devolution and localism, including real financial decentralisation. That’s why we are giving much more power to local authorities, taking away central government financial controls and giving borrowing powers. That’s why we are striking deals with our major cities, so that they can once again be the real engines of growth in our economy.
In public services, dispersing power means more flexibility, more personalisation and more choice. More personal budgets in health and social care, for example. These are a perfect example of the way that more power can lie in the hands of the users of universally-provided, taxpayer-funded public services.
Opponents of localism brandish the phrase “post code lottery” to dramatize differences in provision between areas.
But it is not a lottery when decisions about provision are made by people who can be held to democratic account. That is not a postcode lottery — it is a postcode democracy.
Of course it is challenging for central governments to give away power. To give credit to the Labour party, there were some real achievements in terms of devolving power during their early years in office. Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the creation of the London mayoralty were big, positive steps. But after that initial flourish, Labour reverted to centralising, conservative (small-c conservative) type.
And there is still much more to do to open up our political system, not least reform of party funding to loosen the hold of vested interests; a register of lobbyists; the right to recall MPs; and, finally, real reform of the House of Lords. The Lords is perhaps the most potent symbol of a closed society. Because we are in the process of building support for a Lords reform package, I am sometimes advised not to be too outspoken on this issue. But I’m afraid this is one boat that urgently needs rocking.
Lloyd George described the House of Lords as being “a body of five hundred men chosen at random from amongst the unemployed”. To be honest, it might be better if it was. Of course among our peers there are those with valuable experience and expertise.
But a veneer of expertise can surely no longer serve as an alibi for a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people – but is not held to account by the people. The Lords as currently constituted is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy.
So we will have a House of Lords reform Bill in the second session of this parliament. I am hopeful that we can secure a significant degree of cross-party consensus on this, and indeed support from Lords themselves. But let there be no doubt: if it comes to a fight, the will of the Commons will prevail.
Turning to the economy, there are hoards of power in the City of London; in certain industries; on the boards of large corporations. The result of this power imbalance is an economy that is lopsided: too reliant on London and the South East, too in thrall to financial services, delivering unequal rewards in terms of wages; and promoting short-termism over the long-term investment necessary for our shared prosperity. And I understand the anger that people feel at the bonuses still flowing to bankers, especially those who have been bailed out by the taxpayer.
If we are serious about tackling wealth inequality; serious about responsible capitalism; serious about ensuring everyone contributes fairly to the government’s coffers, then we cannot be neutral on this issue. We took a tough line on bank bonuses last year, particularly in the banks where the government is the biggest shareholder. We ensured that the bonus pools in RBS and Lloyds shrank; that all bonuses paid to chief executives and executive directors were entirely in deferred shares, not in cash; and that a limit of £2,000 was placed on cash bonuses.
The profound impact of the banking implosion on our economy, and on our society, has since become even clearer. There has been no lessening of public anger towards the banks – and there will be no let-up in the Government’s determination to keep the clamps on bonus payments.
So, on the eve of bonus season, let no-one be in any doubt about our determination to use our clout as the major shareholder in these banks to block any irresponsible payments, or any rewards for failure.
I share the view of many that we need a more responsible capitalism. The question is what we do about it. Typically, for those on the left, building a more responsible capitalism means more state regulation. While for those on the right, it is principally a question of individual morality.
Judicious regulation and individual responsibility both have a part to play, of course. But we cannot rely on moral individuals to deliver a responsible capitalism. Nor can responsibility be mandated from on high, by the state.
For liberals, the key issue is here is the distribution of power. Shareholders with real power over boards. Workers with a real stake in their businesses – for example through employee ownership. Only by rewiring the power relations in our economy can we build a responsible capitalism. (I’ll have more to say on this subject in a speech in the New Year.)
The third characteristic of an open society is the sharing of knowledge and information. In a closed society the elite think that, for the masses, ignorance is bliss. But in an open society there is no monopoly of wisdom. So transparency is vital.
That is why the Freedom of Information Act was a quintessentially open society measure. It is unfortunate that Blair now says he regrets passing it. The Coalition Government is extending FOI to other bodies, and also reducing the 30-year rule to 20 years.
Transparency is not just necessary in government activities. There is a good case for it in a range of areas within the private sector, too – such as bonuses, gender pay gaps and environmental activities. And indeed earnings differentials, to help restrain excessive top pay.
That’s why the Coalition Government has recently completed a call for evidence on options in this area, and we’ll be looking very hard at the results in the next few weeks.
We also need a positive approach to the freedom of our press. A free press is absolutely central to an open society in which information is dispersed, corruption is exposed, and the powerful are kept honest. That is why we are already taking far-reaching action to reform England’s libel laws, so that public-spirited journalists are not muzzled by the threat of litigation by big businesses and wealthy individuals.
But we must also remember that media outlets serve commercial interests. So this calls for, firstly, a credible approach to media regulation and governance. The Leveson Inquiry must be enabled and encouraged to do a thorough job. Second, ensuring diversity of ownership. A corporate media monopoly threatens a free press almost as much as a state one. We must be just as vigilant against vested interests in the media as in politics or business, and ensure genuine plurality.
The fourth feature of an open society is a fair distribution of wealth. Wealth underpins independence. There is a reason for the phrase ‘independently wealthy’. Wealth and property can act as a buffer against difficult economic times. And it gives people a real stake in society.
Wealth inequality is very much greater than income inequality, and widening. The bottom third of households hold just three per cent of the nation’s wealth. The top third hold three-quarters of it. This inequality of wealth then cascades down the generations, potentially widening the opportunity gap.
To give you a practical example, those people without financial help from the ‘bank of mum and dad’ now have to wait until their mid—30s before they can buy their first home.
Eighteen months ago, speaking as a guest of Demos then too, I argued that the liberal approach to tax distinguishes between earned income, and unearned wealth. That’s why we’ve put up capital gains tax while cutting income tax for ordinary working families. And, of course, I’d like to go further in pursuit of this fiscal liberalism. Lower taxes on work and effort, a greater contribution from the wealthy: an open society approach to tax.
The final feature of an open society is an intrinsically internationalist outlook – in contrast to a politics that clings solely to the nation state.
In my lifetime, the world has been sliced up and labelled in a number of different ways: “East” and “West”; “developed” and “developing”; “north” and “south”; “Christian” and “Muslim”, and so on.
But for me, the most important divide has always been between open societies and closed societies. Open societies choose democracy and freedom at home, and engagement and responsibility abroad. Closed societies favour protectionism in economic policy, and detachment from foreign affairs.
The temptation to turn inwards has been understandably strong over the last decade, given economic turbulence. The contagion that can spread across the world’s financial system was demonstrated in dramatic fashion a couple of years ago. But there are more positive forms of contagion too. Investment flows across borders continue to increase, tying the fates of nations more closely together.
And it is simply no good attempting to be a closed nation in a more open world. Just as it is better to share power within a nation, it is often better to share power between nations.
And, when it has counted most, Europeans have stood together. Recognising that we are stronger shoulder-to-shoulder than we are apart. Now, we must do the same again. There is self-evidently a deep crisis in the eurozone. We had a disappointing outcome from the summit ten days ago.
This does not mean that the UK should step away from our European partners. So we will be re-engaging on a whole host of vital issues: staying open to the rest of the world, not least our Eastern and Southern neighbours; showing bold European leadership on defence and foreign affairs; pushing ahead to complete the single market.
So, to conclude. An open society is a liberal society, with five key features, from social mobility to internationalism. Open societies are challenging, fluid, progressive and innovative. They require energy and enterprise and courage.
Right now the fight for openness, against the forces of reaction and retreat, is as important as ever. But for liberals, there is no option of ducking this fight. For as Karl Popper himself wrote: “If we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society.”
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Hiding Place (1963): The joys of live television drama
Elon Musk becomes even more unpopular with Brits
How to lose weight and keep it lost.
January
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Will Reeves be forced to break her own fiscal rules?
Cassie
Peter Davies
Mohammed Amin
26 Comments
I thought this was an excellent speech and is a very good riposte to the tiresome people who ask what Liberal Democrats stand for.
In terms of new directions, the emphasis on “wealth” inequalities was interesting. If followed up, the policies could be very interesting.
P.S. Many years ago at University, reading the “Open Society and its Enemies” greatly clarified my own woolly liberalism and strengthened my conviction that I should be a member of the Liberal Democrats so I have no objection at all to it being used. It is hardly Focus material but winning the battle of big ideas is also important. Interestingly, the books themselves are highly social democratic in emphasis so it is an extremely valuable example of liberal and social democrat ideas sitting comfortably together.
What was the problem with the Alarm Clock Britain phrase? I quite liked it.
Every government says they want fairness and opportunity for all.
In my lifetime they all have.
So I wonder why we have a cabinet of men (and Tessy) who have had the best education that money can buy live in a world which the rest of us only know from the pages of Country Life or episodes of Downton Abbey.
I wonder why over the past 40 years the gap between those who have and those who have has grown and is getting even bigger today.
Well, they have to say something at these speeches I suppose, and it wouldn’t be acceptable to tell the truth.
“Openness is the first step towards freedom”
As such, thank you for ‘Open Society’, now please tranlate this to ‘Open Markets’ as our economic strategy and ‘Open Arms’ to new activists and members as our electoral strategy and I’ll consider this an early birthday present!
Thank God the alarm clock is dead.
Though that reminds me …. “It’s 3am and your kids are sleeping. But somewhere in the White House, an alarm clock is ringing….”
Yes indeed, an excellent speech. Just to pick up on one point.
He says of the Conservatives that they, “support the idea of a big society…” which is true of the Cameroonian wing of the Party – what used to be called the “One Nation Conservatives” but we should not forget that the Conservatives are a coalition between the One Nation lot and another faction that seeks to promote and defend an elite – themselves and their children. Although small in numbers this latter group is highly influential; it is their friends in the City who supply more than half the Conservatives’ financing and, as ever, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
So, could these two wings of the Conservatives ever be prised apart? I suspect not in ordinary times but then we are not in ordinary times. One of the effects of the financial crisis is, as it were, to turn up the contrast so that things normally seen in grey scale are suddenly in stark black and white. Consider the tone of recent Telegraph (Torygraph!!!) articles and mood of its readers as reported by financial journalist and blogger Ian Fraser recently.
http://www.ianfraser.org/mood-against-bankers-turns-even-uglier-following-fsa-whitewash/
This is all much closer to the Lib Dem position than it is to the Parliamentary Conservatives. I have argued before that the tectonic plates of politics are beginning to move. This is what that process looks like and it is a once in a century opportunity.
The thing is that there are choices to make. For example, do we mix the most able kids into classes with kids of average ability and low ability whom they could help, do we allow schools to segregate the most able kids into top streams, or do we even allow councils to segregate them into special schools called grammar schools?
To say “Of those three options, we pick the Open Society one” gives me no clue as to what you have decided, but every decision has both positive and negative consequences for different grroups of people.
Someone mentions that privately educated cabinet. For example the non-Etonian cabinets of the 70s to 90s were products of the grammar school system those people were educated in (for example, how many of the comprehensives near you now have a debating society?). Whether or not the likely make up of the cabinet 30 years down the line is a good basis on which to make education policy is another question of course – but if you are using that as your yardstick of social mobility, don’t judge this cabinet on what school they personally went to, judge them on what schools the 2040-2045 cabinet went to, because that will be the measure of what they have achieved in government.
L E, I think the recent stuff on Tax chimes with this too.
This is a good speech to read. Much to agree with and I strongly approve of the equidistant messaging going on, liberalism as a standalone ideology, not just some orphan awaiting absorption into either the left or right.
@Liberal Eye
Conservative backbench suspicion of just that plan is what finally led to the angries bringing down Lloyd George’s coalition. But, wouldn’t it be nice?
I would also note that even though Lloyd George ran out of time, it is by no means unprecedented. Although we do go into dusty history book territory to find the last major example, when moderate Peelites including a young Gladstone left the Conservative party in an acrimonious row over open markets.
Its at times like this, when the cloying boundaries of dualistic party politics are at their weakest, that things become particularly interesting.
I liked the speech. It reads like a definition of liberalism for the 21st century which both social liberals and classical liberals can accept quite happily.
I also like the term open society. If the public don’t understand it, our job is to make them understand it. The best thing about it, though, is that it does actually mean something. The Tory Big Society is just something made up by policy wonks which most people find amusing, hypocritical and dull. It doesn’t have any substance to it. When Clegg says open society, however, he’s drawing on the work of respected, globally recognised scholars and grounding himself in a liberal philosophical tradition. That helps show that we do have ideas, and we’re not just wooly Tories.
Popper was a social democrat; he was a member of the Austrian social democrat party before the Nazi takeover, and his ideas are widely recognised as being firmly at the cutting edge of modern social democracy. Strangely, though, Nick Clegg made no mention of Popper or social democracy – although he did mention socialism, and we all know what a hot button term that is, eh? Yes, in the UK the word ‘socialism’ is well on its way to becoming as toxic as it is in the USA, helped along by such paladins of the Right as the Mail and the Telegraph and the legions of Thatcheriki.
Clegg’s speech is just a rehash of the basic (New) Liberal talking points but without the faux populist tabloid gloss that he usually slaps on with a trowel. When he is ready to engage properly with authentic social democracy (and give up that touching attachment to obsolete notions of free trade), I might listen. But since he is the party’s albatross, the public at large has no interest in hearing what he has to say.
Yes, it’s a good speech, and thanks, Mark, for a good analysis of it. The bit about uneven distribution of wealth did reduce my concern about Cleggery. However, he didn’t mention poverty and you could ditribute wealth among the many while still leaving a few in deep poverty.
I’m happy with the phrase “Open Society” as long as it doesn’t involve buying into the Popperian idea that any ideal and any attempt through politics to strive towards a concept of a better society leads to totalitarian rule. Huge numbers of politicians and political movements in a democracy have some idea of the sort of society they’d like their country to become – I’d submit that Gladstone did, for example – and this does not lead to totalitarianism for two good reasons: (1), that there is competition and dialogue between different ideals; and (2) because most democratic politicians with ideals include a free democracy in their concept of the society they’re striving towards.
Simon – I don’t think Popper actually said that. His point was the attempt to impose an ideal form of government was always to be resisted. The 20th Century has shown that to be true in spades. Of course, people will be motivated by an ideal but any social engineering should be “piecemeal” in that it progesses slowly towards an ideal and is capable of reverse when it turns out to be terrible.
Mike – I mentioned above that Popper was a social democrat but his ideas are also liberal and therefore very much in the mainstream of Liberal Democrat thinking. Indeed, the fact that he is a social democrat and a liberal makes him a good icon for our party (why Mrs Thatcher was a fan has always been a mystery to me).
Richard Swales’ idea of a debating society in every school fills me with horror. That is just what the Commons is, we need to get away from the adversarial approach, opposition for the sake of it.. we need a more consensual approach of a round chamber. Schools should all have democratic school councils whereby pupils learn to elect, and learn the importance of democracy.
@Peter – That’s not my proposal, it’s part of my explanation for why the state school system appears to have stopped producing large numbers of future cabinet members some time ago, whereas once it did. Rather than debate, critical thinking should be taught in schools, and debate used as an adjunct to that.
School councils are good but aren’t they mostly about issues within the school, not used as a way to learn how to decide what you think about the issues of the day in the wider country?
@Mike Cobley
Nick does mention Social Democracy actually! Or at least, social democrats.
“Like the conservative right, the socialist or left-wing social democrat view is that “we – either the elite or the state – know what is good for you” ”
Also, Popper set up the Mont Pelerin Society with Hayek: is that society one of social democrats?
re: social democracy
Just a pointer here, the party is called the Liberal Democrats, and from this we should probably take that we support liberal democracy rather than social democracy. It definitely feels a more coherent fit with us.
The illiberal and undemocratic nature of social democracy has been shown by recent history with particular regard to civil liberties and the economy, so I personally welcome the break with social democracy and I think the public will breathe a sigh of relief that the leadership is now openly standing up for what we claim to represent.
Historical debates such as Austria in the 1930s or the merger between the Liberal Party and SDP in the 1980s faded into the misty memory generations ago, and they should be consigned there so we are more able to fight the battles of today. Subsequent debates between social liberalism and economic liberalism are completely false and cause untold damage because they are simply two sides of the same liberal democratic coin – our political philosophy must reconcile our approaches in different policy areas.
I mean, if LibDems don’t represent liberal democracy then what do we represent?
@Peter Tyzack
The true value of democracy is also highlighed by exposing its’ limitations, so schools without it perform an equally useful service.
If you believe democracy produces better results then those schools which don’t institute it will be forced to choose between compensating for their lack by innovation or falling behind – imposition removes any burden of proof and any structural incentives to improve, hence the correlation between social democracy and conservatism.
I must say I do find this particularly promising from Nick. A great speech and I really hope the enthusiasm for the ideas can be translated into strong action and well needed reform to the Lords.
Oranjepan
Just a pointer here, the party is called the Liberal Democrats, and from this we should probably take that we support liberal democracy rather than social democracy. It definitely feels a more coherent fit with us.
The party is a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. It did not at the time of the merger claim to be more in support of one of these rather than the other. At the time of the merger, half the Liberal Party negotiating team walked out in disagreement with what resulted. In that sense, it was more SDP than Liberal Party. I myself was member of the Liberal Party who voted against merger and was extremely unhappy with what resulted.
Historical debates such as Austria in the 1930s or the merger between the Liberal Party and SDP in the 1980s faded into the misty memory generations ago, and they should be consigned there so we are more able to fight the battles of today.
Or so that people can tell lies about it? So they can lie about what the Liberal Party REALLY stood for then? I tell you, as someone who was around at the time, we who were proud then to call ourselves “Liberal” thern did NOT support extreme free market economics. This idea which has been floated recently that the extreme free market infiltrators into the Liberal Democrats represent what the Liberal Party stood for when the parties merged, and opposition to that sort of thing came from the SDP is LIE.
The debate at that time between people who were in the Liberal Party and unhappy about merger and people who were in the SDP and unhapy about merger was NOTHING at all like the current debate between what are now being called “social liberals” and “economic liberals”. What is now called “economic liberalism” was then called “Thatcherism”, and anti-merger Liberals tended to be the most opposed to that sort of politics. Indeed, one of the reasons for opposing the merger was a growing streak at the top of the SDP which was moving towards sympathy towards extreme free market economics. The “dead parrot” document that almost brought the merger to an end on the day it started was a disaster because two SDP interns wrote most of the SDP side of it and gave it what we would now call an “economic liberal” edge, and that horrified many Liberal Party members.
I write this as someone who was there. I tell you and anyone reading this – anyone who claims the merger was between a Liberal Party which was sympathetic to extreme free market economic views and an SDP which was to the left of the Liberal Party is LYING – it was THE OTHER WAY ROUND! I say this because now SO OFTEN I find people making these claims – this is Orwellian politics: tell lies for long enough and people will believe you, rewrite history to spread your lies, use the power you have in the media to get the truth suppressed.
Matthew is absolutely right. From someone else who was around at the time. The Liberal epithet for the SDP at the time was “the soggies”, which rather gives the game away! It was interesting to see several of the early SDP members, eg Gary Streeter, defecting to the Tories. It was, I believe, that he considered our party too radical that David Owen refused to join the merged party.
Oranjepan, I feel your post is disingenuous, and as Matthew almost says, the Democrat in our title comes from Social DEMOCRAT. For instance, we have nothing politically in common with the most famous Liberal Democrat governing party in the world (Japan).
@Matthew & Tim
Yes, the party is no longer either simply liberal or social democrat, it is liberal democrat. As the name implies.
A fair and productive analysis acknowledges both the strengths and weaknesses of different philosophies in order to discover what areas of overlap exist and where concepts can be adapted within a more coherent vision.
Thatcherism is rightly derrided for its failings, yet the ambitions for a shareowning democracy (among other things) which it didn’t achieve were nevertheless laudable – it would certainly provide a non-state means to restrain the bonus culture of more recent years had voter power not been derrogated to corporate fund managers.
As should be blazingly clear from my earlier comment I’m no supporter of extreme free market economics, rather accessible ‘open markets’.
The politics of pre-war central Europe and cold war Britain are irrelevant to current discourse because the challenges are completely different. It is only the increasing polarisiation of those periods due to similar questions about the international economic order which validates any comparison.
Can I encourage you to contribute a positive response – something constructive rather than this familiar outpouring of bile which attempts to resurrect ancient battles? Or are you dinosaurs?
Do you agree with Clegg’s overt adoption of the ‘open society’? Or do you prefer to support the ‘good society’ or ‘big society’? How would you summarise your vision for society?
Oranjepan
Can I encourage you to contribute a positive response – something constructive rather than this familiar outpouring of bile which attempts to resurrect ancient battles? Or are you dinosaurs?
I think it’s very obvious that I am NOT trying to raise old battles. Rather, I am pointing out that those battles are so old that people have forgotten what they are about, as a consequece LIARS who claim they were about something completely different can get away with it.
The reason I made my point is that I am reading more and more now claims that “The Liberal Democrats are a merger of the SDP and the Liberal Party” (true) “and that merger never worked as shown by the division between ‘social liberals’ and ‘economic liberals’ today” (utterly false).
As it happens, people who were on the other side of the divide from me at the time of the merger are now quite often allies fighting against the infilitration of our party by those who support Thatcherite economics and claim it is “liberalism”. The real point I am making is that by spreading the lie that Thatcherite economics was what the Liberal Party was about when it merged with the SDP, they are giving their views a false sense of legitimacy, they are making out they have roots in our party when they do not. Back in 1981, what is now called “economic libealism” had a firmly established place in the UK party system – it was part of the coalition of tendecnies that made up the Conservative Party.
As it happens, those of the Orange bookers who were around when the merger happened were more on the SDP side, but that’s by-the-by. The real argument between those who called themselves most keenly “Liberals” then and those who ost keenly identified with the SDP was about something completely different than the “economic liberal v social liberal” argument. It is still a VERY valid argument though, and, let’s put it this way – Clegg is an extreme form of the SDP side of it.
Do you agree with Clegg’s overt adoption of the ‘open society’? Or do you prefer to support the ‘good society’ or ‘big society’?
As I have no idea what you mean by any of those terms, I cannot answer that question.
How would you summarise your vision for society?
I’d start with the motion passed by the Liberal Assembly in 1970 which committed the party to “Community Politics”.
Do you agree with Clegg’s overt adoption of the ‘open society’? Or do you prefer to support the ‘good society’ or ‘big society’?
Well, I have looked again at Clegg’s views here, and the problem is I don’t agree with his analysis, whereas you are asking me a question which starts off on the assumption his analysis is correct. His analysis is juvenile – it’s a view of politics that was last valid in the 1970s, it says nothing about how politics has developed since then. It’s what you might expect a clever 6th former who’s read the text books to come out with – he’s trying hard, but there’s no depth, no originality, and no real engagement with what is happening now.
Let’s take “Conservatives, by definition, tend to defend the status quo, embracing change reluctantly and often after the event”. That is just not true if by “Conservatives” is meant the modern Conservative Party. Since the government of MrsThatcher, the main feature of the Conservative Party is its embrace of reckless change, eager to destroy any traditional aspect of Britain that gets in the way of the power of big money. To say “Conservatives support the idea of a big society, with responsibility shared throughout society – people are responsible both for themselves and each other” is nonsense, if it supposed to refer to the modern Conservative Party. The modern Conservative Party has actively promoted policies which have destroyed the sort of voluntary communal organisation that used to exist and has turned the population in passive couch potatoes. They are the party of “bread and circuses”, cheap food and cheap entertainment used to control the masses and keep them from thinking or acting for themselves.
To ask me “Do you support Cameron’s Big Society?” is like asking me “Do you support the people’s democracy heroically established by the Great Leader Kim Il Sung and skilfully pushed forward by his successor and heaven born son, Kim Jong Il?”. That is, it is a loaded question, because even to answer it is to agree with the nonsensical propaganda in it. Either they are completely out of touch with ordinary life of ordinary people if they really are using those words and thinking they are true, or they are cynically pedalling stuff they know is the opposite of what they and their politics are really about, because it helps then get support from the more naive members of the population. As to whether “they” here means the Kims, or Cameron (and Clegg whose words here suggests he accepts Cameron’s propganda at face value), the ambiguity is entirely intentional.
Matthew, two things.
A good leader shows statesmanship. A good leader also shows a shrewd strategic understanding,.
This means finding ways to cooperate with people by building bridges to overcome differences, not slagging off allcomers and putting their backs up at every opportunity. Which requires acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of each relative position.
It seems strange that you are unsympathetic to Clegg’s generosity of spirit in articulating his dispassionate analysis of the triangular relationship between the parties or his passionate defence of the ‘open society’ against Conservative and Labour visions – especially given that part of the LibDem raison d’etre is to break down macho twentieth-century-style confrontation on account of the damage it does to society. Until you’ve accounted for the state of public discourse you can’t expect fair or accurate consideration of the ideas which motivate and inspire each side.
So, in addition to stating your disagreement perhaps you could offer enlightenment by indicating where the analysis fall short and exactly why the contrast between ‘good’, ‘big’ and ‘open’ might be unhelpful: how do you boil down the differences between the parties?
NB poetic elegance and succinctness of description are essential to spread into the wider public imagination, so I’ll be particularly impressed if you can beat Clegg’s one-word answers.
I’ve nothing against what Clegg calls “open society” here, but it’s just motherood and apple pie stuff. I think you’d find members of all three of the big political parties saying that’s what they support.
On the analysis, as I’ve already said, the days when the Conservative Party really was in the main “conservative”, meaning it wanted to keep things the same, are long gone. Instead, it has for many decades pursued and aggressive policy of destructive change. Also, the days when the Labour Party was all about state-directed centralist socialism are not just long gone, it was always something of a Conservative Party travesty to claim what they wanted was that.
So, it seems to me Clegg is arguing on the basis of accepting Conservative Party propaganda about itself and Conserative Party propaganda about the Labour Party. That is why I cannot answer your questions in the way you want me to, because these questions only make sense in the context of believing Conservative Party propaganda. They are “when did you stop beating you wife” questions, they cannot be answered without implicitly accepting something which in my case I don’t accept.
I don’t agree.
Liberalism and democracy (if we’re going back there) are both inherently dependent upon openness (and fairness and internationalism, according to Clegg), so it’s not just empty word association games.
An open society links to a variety of issues, from open-source and open-data through to open markets and open government – each of which involve meaningful policy approaches and appeal to significant constituencies.
Clegg states he’ll be putting some flesh on the bones of his analysis ‘in the New Year’ which involves ‘rewiring power relations’ to ‘build a responsible capitalism’. So rather than dismissing him at first glance it might be more productive to hold him to his word and try to influence what he refers to.
Here, I’ll challenge you to submit a post quoting him in order to open up some discussion about what we may like that to involve. I’m sure he’d appreciate suggestions from commenters, and there’s still time for good contributions.
Come on, this is potentially A BIG IDEA, it deserves to be explored.