Opinion: The Flame

phoenixWe are rebuilding.  Nick Clegg said in his resignation speech that we face the task of nurturing the flame of British Liberalism.  But as we rebuild, what does – what should – British Liberalism mean?

This seems like something worth discussing.  We are a broad church with many roots: our forebears were Liberals and Social Democrats, but we incorporated the Pro-Euro Conservatives too, and many more of no former alignment.  So, we’ve got this flame of British Liberalism, and if the attitude of the party members and our spectacular membership surge are anything to go by, it shouldn’t be going out any time soon.

Right.  What does British Liberalism mean to me?  For me at least, two things spring immediately to mind before all else.

Standing up to bullies

This is something Tim Farron said about the essence of Liberalism at the Autumn Conference in Glasgow last year.  In this, I read the right and defence of the weak against the powerful; the individual against discrimination, or the government, or corporations, or crushing circumstances of poverty or ill health.  But it also implies a certain freedom to express and pursue individuality without fear of censure or discrimination.  There is an echo of the Preamble line about “conformity” in that.  We need new approaches to prevent individual rights and powers accruing to other vested interests such as Google and other corporations, and ways to effectively campaign about our values through the internet, issue campaigning, local activism, and so on.

The Legacy of William Beveridge

The other thing which springs immediately to my mind is a name: Beveridge.  I am a PhD student who does a lot of research in Senate House in London; most days, therefore, I walk past the Beveridge Hall on my way to and from lunch.  The man wasn’t perfect, but his ideas about social justice rightly shaped the post-war political landscape of our country.  While Clement Atlee claimed ownership of the National Health Service for the Labour Party, in time-honoured Labour tradition he was merely implementing a good idea had by a Liberal: Beveridge.  The concept of National Insurance is Beveridge’s as well, and while both institutions require attention to keep them current in this day and age, the thinking underpinning them is no less relevant now than it was in the 1940s.

I expect British Liberalism means different things – possibly radically different things – to others.  These two things are by no means the only things I associate with the term, but they are at least the most prominent for me.

I’m curious to know what you think it means.  And what you think it should.

* John Grout is a Lib Dem activist and lives in Reading.

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

19 Comments

  • Gwynfor Tyley 18th May '15 - 12:36pm

    I believe we need an economic angle as well to our liberalism – one that recognises the importance of “wealth creation” but that it needs to be fair and good for all.

    We need to say it loud and clear that investing in the NHS and education is important for wealth creation – businesses need healthy skilled workers if they are to flourish. Higher taxes on those creating wealth, if those taxes are efficiently invested in the infrastructure, health and skills of society, should be considered by them as an investment in their own prosperity.

    In addition, we should be clear that we support free and fair markets – but that where they are not free and fair we will intervene to make it so – eg the energy sector. By example, for me Labour’s energy price cap was wrong because it distorted the market whereas separating retail from wholesale would have made the market more efficient. In addition they failed to point out that challenging teh energy companies was not anti-business but pro business – consider all those businesses who are overpaying for their energy because the market isn’t working.

  • Roots go further than to those groups. Liberal Party itself incorporated old Whigs, Radicals and Peelites. Those three groups were brought together by support to free trade.

  • I agree with you Gwynfor, we need to be clear on concepts such as socio-economic responsibility. Wealth creation should be nurtured and encouraged as long as that wealth was reinvested back into the social infrastructure (such as the NHS) To help everyone in society. However wealth creation should be from a healthy basis – from smaller British-based businesses rather than from multi-nationals

  • “our forebears were Liberals and Social Democrats”

    ‘Forebears’ makes it sound a more ancient contribution than it is – I (party member 2003-2011) was a social democrat, voting for liberal party candidates at every opportunity, as part of the alliance, during the 80s, and for the merged party in the 90s. Social Democrats gave the combined party the ‘democrat’ part of it’s name, and were responsible for its success in climbing from its base of around a dozen seats, up to its peak, under an ex-SDP leader, of 62.

    I left when the party turned away from social democratic policies (in my case due to the health and social care act), and it’s new leadership, who basically said I wasn’t wanted. Just like two thirds of the membership who left over the next few years, to replaced by by far fewer ‘centerist tories’,

    Cant see any reason to even think of rejoining, at present… and judging by the accusations of ‘trot’ to some that I’ve seen posted over the last few days, with no qualms from the moderators, and the constant refrain of ‘we should be proud’/’what was necessary’ I dont expect any reason to consider it. Prospective leaders who want to get back to a pure liberalism, to the extend of even changing the name of the party, do not remotely attract this particular Social Democrat.

  • Blimey I am a forebear now!

  • I should probably clarify that I meant “forebears” in the sense that the parties I identified are the ones from which the present one is principally descended. I certainly did not mean to imply anything regarding the members of said parties!

  • @John Grout, interesting article thanks. Two comments though:

    1) vested interests do not reside solely in private corporations; they exist also in the large state monopolies that exist in this country

    2) the key to Beveridge’s report was the Contributory Principle. Atlee fundamentally changed, and wrecked Beveridge’s recommendations, when he disconnected the receipt of benefits from contribution into them. This is particularly the case with Pensions, which are like a giant Ponzi scheme where current taxpayers income goes straight out to existing pensioners rather than being accrued towards their own pensions.

    Far from being the progenitor of the Welfare State, Atlee sowed the seeds of its collapse.

  • Actually Social Democracy has become somewhat ossified. The way forward is a new radicalism.

  • TCO: “Pensions [. . .] are like a giant Ponzi scheme where current taxpayers income goes straight out to existing pensioners rather than being accrued towards their own pensions.”

    This is a totally inaccurate characterization of Ponzi schemes. The point of a Ponzi scheme is not that investors are able to recover their capital at a later date, derived (in part) from the contributions of later investors. What makes Ponzis distinctive and dangerous is that they promise enormous profits to early investors, which can only be delivered by an ever-widening pool of later investors — which results in the collapse of the scheme as soon as the pool fails to expand fast enough.

  • “. ….1) vested interests do not reside solely in private corporations; they exist also in the large state monopolies that exist in this country”

    There are very few large state monopolies in this country other than the armed forces and the Royal Family.

    I am guessing that the libertarian TCO did not have them in mind when he made that comment.

  • @David-1 “The point of a Ponzi scheme is not that investors are able to recover their capital at a later date, derived (in part) from the contributions of later investors. What makes Ponzis distinctive and dangerous is that they promise enormous profits to early investors, which can only be delivered by an ever-widening pool of later investors — which results in the collapse of the scheme as soon as the pool fails to expand fast enough.”

    Thank you – you’ve illustrated my point about the collapse of the state pension nicely.

    When the state pension was introduced survival rates were c5 years after retirement age and there were c9 workers for every pensioner. Currently I believe those figures are c20 years and c4.5 workers per pensioner, and are projected to rise to the position where survival is some c40 years and c2 workers per pensioner were retirement age to remain unchanged.

    The collapse of the pension Ponzi, where the early “investors” have got massive benefits from current taxpayers, has only been avoided by reducing those benefits (level of pension and age at which it is claimed) massively to those currently in work.

  • @John Tilley “There are very few large state monopolies in this country other than the armed forces and the Royal Family. I am guessing that the libertarian TCO did not have them in mind when he made that comment.”

    Firstly to address your substantive point. The three largest state monopolies are Social Security, Health and Education. I am aware that there are small elements of private provision for Health and Education but they are not an option for the vast majority of citizens.

    To take you point about the Armed Services – the prime duty of any government is the security of its citizens.

    To take you point about the Royal Family. You could argue that there are many competing semi-deified celebrities. As it happens I am a Republican and against inherited wealth and privilege – it’s one of the reasons I am a Liberal.

    Finally, I am not and have never been a Libertarian, and I would request, please, that you desist from using that term about me.

  • With respect to pensions, monopolies and state monopolies on violence, I feel these are substantive arguments, albeit tangential to the point of the article.

    JohnTilley – Yes, I agree, hence why I said “such as”! But yes, I do take the point. One issue I think we will have to address sooner or later, however, is of companies such as Facebook and Google (do you remember “don’t be evil?”) effectively data farming the public for profit as regards advertising and targeting firms, with little to no transparency or accountability. – Hence my particular mention of them. But you’re right, there are other vested interests too (although most of the ones which spring to my mind involve corporate funds as some stage of the equation, eg. Murdoch, Koch brothers).

    TCO – Given that this is an article about British Liberalism, what would you suggest is the Liberal solution to the pensions conundrum? (with regard of course to Social Democratic ideas too, see above re: party roots)

    On a broader note, I am genuinely interested to hear what other people think British Liberalism should mean in the 21st Century.

  • @John Grout that’s a good question. The obvious point to make is that “we shouldn’t be starting from here”; Beveridge’s proposal of a contributory system should have been implemented in the first instance.

    The Liberal solution to the is to phase in these things:

    – increase in retirement age
    – incentives to save for retirement
    – gradual shift to a contributory system over time
    – removal of state pension (over time) so people can plan for it
    – a genuine safety-net for those who need it

    Atlee’s system created unsustainable expectation (the same has happened with health); it’s my generation and those to come after who will be saddled with cleaning up the problem.

  • Nigel Jones 19th May '15 - 4:14pm

    Robert,
    You rightly point out the need for a fair economic system, even if I’m not sure about some of the other points you make for achieving it. Many of us in recent conferences called for our slogan to be ‘A fairer economy and a stronger society’, rather than what we had from our leadership which was ‘ A stronger economy and a fairer society…’ Maybe it should be ‘A stronger and fairer economy and society’. The bit about opportunity subsequently added to our slogan also missed the point; a significant number of poorer people either do not know how, or cannot because of circumstances, take advantage of opportunities. I have my own suggestion as to the approach to that last point, but this is one of a number of ways that we must change from what we were doing and saying under the recent leadership.

  • Gordon Lishman 21st May '15 - 6:41pm

    Unsurprisingly, I’d like to comment on some of the wider thoughts in John’s stimulating piece. However, as one of the architects and midwives of the current position, I feel some responsibility to pick up on a few of the points about pensions in this thread.
    Firstly, we should be talking about income in retirement rather than just the state pension. In the UK as in other countries, we have moved towards a mix between state provision (pay as you go) and private (funded) schemes. Secondly, we need to be looking for a “settlement” rather than just individual parties’ policies – that’s because people need to have some security that saving and pension eligibility ages are safe enough to be worth the investment.
    The outline of that cross-party, cross society settlement was achieved in 2006 following Adair Turner’s reports. Crucially Turner identified the three key options: (1) the state pays more; (2) people save more; and (3) people work for longer – not just to re-balance the “dependency ratio” of younger to older people, but also to enable people to work, earn and contribute if they choose. The very general answer to Turner’s proposition was “all three” and governments since then have applied those principles. Steve Webb’s changes to the state system are a key factor in achieving 1; auto-enrolment in 2; abolition of mandatory retirement ages in 3. It is very important that all the major parties are committed to the whole package and that remains the case.
    Lib Dem policy on “taking some retirement early” (an extension of the sabbatical idea, linked to the US’s 401 (k) experience, is a further development.
    As likely future income in retirement rises because of 1, 2 and 3 above, the costs of meeting the needs of pensioners in poverty today becomes more affordable, which is why the “triple lock” is important.
    There is undoubtedly a need for further development from this base, although Steve Webb’s achievements in the last five years have been one of the most important, long-term sets of achievement by any Minister in the coalition government. However, we have now achieved a better and more sustainable long-term approach to income in retirement than many other developed countries.

  • I am a longterm member, but am writing anonymously for reasons that will become obvious.

    I have been working 45 years so far, and can see no prospect of anything other than dying in harness.

    I live in a small rural village, so I am not a sermonising Daily Mail ranter, but based on my knowledge and first hand experience, the contributory principle outlined by Beveridge really needs to be re-established.

    I run a shop and Post Office, recently converted under Vince, Ed and Jos Post Office Network Transformation (thanks guys) so I am now having to open the Post Office over 70 hours a week for what is a 60% reduction in the salary I previously got from the Post Office (no, really, THANKS guys)

    Every week, I am paying out £3-400 per week to alcoholics who “cant work” and mothers who have never had a job, but have managed to milk the system by breeding in line with the regulations, often by a variety of fathers. In one particular case, the mother has given birth to 3 children, all of whom have actually been raised by their grand parents, while the mother has managed to wangle herself a taxpayer funded 3 bedroom house which her children seldom even visit, let alone live in.

    Virtually all these mothers spend much of their benefits on alcohol and tobacco – I know, they buy them from me! That’s fine, they are free to make those judgements, but much of their benefit is intended to be spent on their children.

    I am not for a second suggesting that every benefits claimant of any sex fits these descriptions, but a good 60% of my benefit customers do, and it is hard to imagine that my little corner of rural england is unique in its make up.

    By comparison, my eastern european customers of both sexes arrive at 8am on their way to work and call in again at 7pm on their way home and claim no benefits at all.

    After the furore of Benefits Street, Channel 4 also ran a short series entitled Beveridge Britain 1949, which took modern day claimants and submitted them to the rigour of the founding principles of the welfare state.

    Not only were the outcomes better; a disabled youngster getting his first ever job for example, but the participants all favoured a more interventionist v give em the money approach

    Labour will not tackle the issue, and it suits the Tories to maintain the current system so they have somebody to blame.

    Steve Webb has already proved that he is an effective Beveridge 2 – perhaps it is the role of the Lib Dems to put forward the ideas needed to make a modern welfare state work

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

  • Andy Daer
    @Mark Frankel, yes, it would be nice and neat if it were true that "the Arabs" reject the two state solution. In fact, it is the leadership of the Israeli state...
  • Mark Frankel
    If you break into your neighbour's territory, murder 1200 of its people, kidnap hundreds more and use them to further weaken your neighbour's peace and security...
  • Mark Frankel
    Israel did not emerge from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. It emerged from the ruins of the British Mandate in Palestine. The British tried to implement the ...
  • Andy Daer
    Tom is normally a reliable commentator, but his pessimism here is unjustified. Trump habitually rocks the boat with crazy ideas, and drops them if they turn out...
  • Roland
    @ Nonconformistradical Agree it’s a conundrum. Basically, the plans and thus the houses were sold on the “vision” of all the facilities being in place, ...