In 2015, as we approach the general election, it will be exactly 70 years since the 1945 general election. When we draw up our 2015 manifesto, we need to remember the lessons of 1945.
That election saw the Labour party, after several years in a coalition government for reasons of the national interest, cast aside the memories of the wartime government to win a landslide majority based on a radical, optimistic manifesto that laid out a glowing vision of the future. Say what you like about the Labour party of old, at least they could not be accused of lack of vision.
I believe that we need to see the parallels between 1945 and 2015. In 2015 we will be coming out of a government that is hardly universally popular but which is, grudgingly, accepted by the majority of people to be in the national interest to deal with an economic situation that very few would deny the truth of. People will be tired of cuts. Regardless of our achievements in government, people will remember the first half of this decade as a time of cuts and hardship.
We cannot afford to enter 2015 with a manifesto based mainly around our achievements in government. Yes, we have and will have achieved much, but, at the end of the day, people who liked the coalition will probably vote Conservative, those who don’t like it will probably vote Labour. If we don’t want to be squeezed by both of those parties then we need to be radical. We need to change the rules of the game and look to the future, instead of the past.
Labour and the Conservatives will be gearing up to have a fight on the coalition’s record on the economy. From the Conservative side we will hear claims of having brought a new age of prosperity and a smaller state, with promises of tax cuts and warnings about letting Labour loose with the economy again. From Labour we will hear cries of wrecked public services, unemployment and ideological cuts, with promises of increased public spending and warnings about the tories cutting taxes for the rich and ignoring the poor.
In order to not just hold on to the seats we have, but do well, we need something different. We need to change the entire context of the debate. And that’s where 1945 comes in. We need a manifesto in 2015 as radical as, if different from, the Labour manifesto of 1945.
At the moment we have the problem that only about 11% of people are core vote Lib Dems – this figure being approximately the share of the public that always vote for us. The rest of our votes come from people who identify with us on particular policies but are not core voters. And the reason for this is a lack of vision. Not within the party, but in the public’s perception. We are not perceived to have a clear vision for the future and we find it difficult to explain our principles and vision in a clear manner. Instead, we find ourselves adopting the language of our rivals, which immediately gives them the upper hand and puts the debate on their terms. 1945 shows that you don’t win elections by fighting on your opponents’ terms – you win by changing the terms of the debate itself.
Tomorrow, George outlines his suggested themes for a radical manifesto.
George W. Potter is a party member and stood as a candidate in the Guildford borough council elections this May. He blogs on politics and engineering at thepotterblogger.blogspot.com
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
The Joy of Six 1275
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Pamela Manning
Simon R
Nonconformistradical
Peter Hirst
50 Comments
‘The rest of our votes come from people who identify with us on particular policies but are not core voters. And the reason for this is a lack of vision. Not within the party, but in the public’s perception.’
Hmmm, so it is the electorate’s fault in not sharing the vision of the Liberal Democratic Leadership who have shifted the party rightwards to a neo liberal free market economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable to the Conservatives. There is nothing wrong with the electorates vision or general understanding of the role that the Liberal Democratic Coalition agreement is playing in making the Liberal Democrats as enablers to ideolgocial Conservative policy.
Did you not learn anything from the election results ? Apart from one or two small areas, the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed and would have collapsed further if there was anybody else to vote for in some areas where support was maintained.
If the Liberal Democrats do not heed the message of the electorate, the LDs will be fortunate to get 11% and barely double figure MPs at the next election. That 11% will only hold up due to the fact that there is no one else to vote for. It is really not that people do not have vision or have misunderstood the Liberal Democrat message and shift to the right all too well. The message is not getting through arguments are fallacious.
Experience in government is great but only if mistakes are learned from and different actions are taken. There is no shame in listening to the electorate, it is the foundation of the democratic values of our country.
If the Libdems really have delivered 70% of their manifesto by 2015 they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of and everything to be confident of for the general election. Yes it’s about renewal and vision for the future as you suggest, but not about submitting to the left in the hope of gaining their votes. Libdems need to be fighting the top-down, centralizing sclerotic socialism of Labour that got us into this position just as much as the laissez-faire nihilism of the right. This Coalition is delivering – through bottom-up, democratic localism – the agenda people have wanted for years. We are the centre of British politics and must fight for that position. Our policies on education, welfare, constitutional reform and yes, the NHS, are progressive in a way that put Labour to shame. We will always put people first – not the vested interests of producers. And unlike the right, we will never put money before the electorate. A radical vision for 2015 will be necessary and I hope it will include really creative policies for jobs and housing at it’s core, but the Libdems have nothing to be ashamed of in their role in this Coalition.
A radical Liberal manifesto for success would have to include;
Leave the European Union, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy
Join Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein in the European Free Trade Association. Apparently this could be done in a few weeks, according to the Bruges Group.
Introduce a minimum UK-born UK Citizen’s Inheritance of Capital at 25 to help pay for tuition fees and increase financial equality of opportunity for all – financed by reform of inheritance taxes and abolition of unlimited exemptions.
Put VAT on expenditure on private education and use the proceeds to reduce class sizes in State schools.
Put VAT on expenditure on private health and use the proceeds to improve the NHS.
A manifesto for popular and populist success should be FOR leaving the European Union. FOR joining the European Free Trade Association. FOR creating in the UK greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth. FOR liberty, property and security for all.
As things are – Vote Liberal Democrat?. FOR the Euro – “when the time is right”? FOR a Federal Europe – “when the time is right”? Bah!
@Pollitiscribe
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t talk about and be proud of our record in government, I’m just saying that a focus on it won’t reap electoral rewards as those who like what the government’s done will vote Conservative and those who dislike what the government’s done will vote Labour. We’d be subject to a squeeze from both sides which is why a conventional campaign focusing on our achievements in government would not do enough to make up for the loss of support we’ve already seen.
@Jack Timms
The vision of the liberal democrats is generally one of social liberalism not neo-liberalism (as that’s what New Labour stands for). I’m not going to argue with you but I’d ask you to read the second part of this which will appear on LDV tomorrow.
@Dane Clouston
While I’m far from a europhile, I personally do not see it as in our best interests to leave the EU. That said I’d be perfectly happy to support a referendum on the matter.
Also, as a point of note, I’m a firm believer in a universal inheritance tax.
@ Dane Clouston
On the one hand you claim your proposals are part of a radical liberal manifesto and on the other hand you claim its a populist one.
The EU question is one of reforming from within or standing on the outside and not being involved. I would agree we should have a referendum on general membership and try to win the debate in the nation for the reasons we should be involved. However, pulling out without a no vote in a referendum would be silly and hopefully the country would not vote no.
The EU is getting better, regardless of all the Daily Mail drivel about the Lisbon treaty, it is actually an improvement. the EU parliament is starting to scrutinise the EU ‘executive’ more and Barroso isn’t quite as all powerful.
Being a member of EFTA doesn’t give the same benefits as being the member of an internal free market, with the same product regulations and freedom of movement.
Polittiscribe
Libdems need to be fighting the top-down, centralizing sclerotic socialism of Labour that got us into this position just as much as the laissez-faire nihilism of the right.
——————-
But the reality is that the the Liberal Democrats have adopted the ‘laissez-faire nihilism of the right’ (great writing by the way).
————————-
Polittiscribe
This Coalition is delivering – through bottom-up, democratic localism – the agenda people have wanted for years.
——————
No. A sizeable chunk of people who voted for the LDs at the general election want the platform they voted for not the Coalition agreement, which they didn’t. Thats why the LD vote is hovering about 10% in the opinion polls and the LD vote collapsed across a vast swathe of Britain in the local elections.
————-
Polittiscribe
We are the centre of British politics and must fight for that position. Our policies on education, welfare, constitutional reform and yes, the NHS, are progressive in a way that put Labour to shame.
—————
The LDs were the centre of British Politics. The Leadership shifted the party to the right, and managed to smuggle through a whole host of neo liberal free market policies in the Coalition agreement that are closer to the Conservatives than the membership. The massive changes to the fabric of this country decidely does not have the support of the electorate and have not been tested at a general election.
The current LD direction is heading for a wipe out, have you really forgotten the local election results so soon ?
I think you write well there Pollitiscribe but I can’t agree with it as seems to contradict reality and ignoring that is no good for the Liberal Democrats and survival as any meaningful force in British Politics. I really don’t want to see that happen as a strong third force is necessary to balance the LDs and Conservatives.
—————————————
@Jack Timms
The vision of the liberal democrats is generally one of social liberalism not neo-liberalism (as that’s what New Labour stands for). I’m not going to argue with you but I’d ask you to read the second part of this which will appear on LDV tomorrow.
Ok, Thanks George for the response, I will read the second part with interest tomorrow.
The one huge problem for the LibDems re. the next General Election, and one that either the party doesn’t see or one that it refuses to face. That is that the Liberal Democrats are just not trusted now by a big section of the electorate, and so whatever you promise in 2015 many many voters will simply not believe it. It is worth reminding ourselves that In days after the last general election the LibDem leadership enthusiastically embraced crucial parts of the Conservative manifesto; “rapid” reduction of the deficit, increasing student fees, marketisation in the NHS, Trident, VAT increase, cuts in the education budget, curtailing of workers’ employment rights, and so on. The LIbDems suddenly became, under Mr Clegg, the Tory party Mark II. It is this huge about-turn that will be remembered by voters in 2015, irrespective of what you promise.
@Jack Timms
Do you really think its appropriate to describe Liberal Democratic economic policy as ‘laissez faire nihilism of the right’ and putting through ‘a whole host of neo liberal free market policies’.
You also think we are heading for a wipeout, we are at around 10%, in one of the worst possible situations for the party in the worst part of this coalition government for us. We only need to gain 6-8% and we will certainly not face wipeout at the next election.
Also back to your economic critique, the problem is you’ve used up all the big scary left wing words available to describe the Lib Dem’s being slightly more free market over the last few years than they were perceived to be before. I really don’t know what words are left in the dictionary for you to describe a government that was truly ideologically free market.
Also what is neo-liberal about believing in free markets? Adam Smith was not a neo-liberal, he was a liberal. There is also nothing particularly ‘right wing’ about believing that the state does not need to have a monopoly or to interfere too strongly in markets, as long as you apply that attitude to large corporations (and its clear that senior Lib Dem MPs like Vince Cable still want to do this, following his recorded BskyB comments).
I’d really like some justification for the really strong phrasing you have used to justify my parties economic position in this coalition because it reads very much like trolling.
@Jack Timms
Sorry to bombard this thread with comments but theres another part of mr Timms comments I cannot ignore.
‘ A sizeable chunk of people who voted for the LDs at the general election want the platform they voted for not the Coalition agreement, which they didn’t.’
Do you honestly think politics and public opinion is as simple as this. When Labour got voted in with 37% of the vote, did all that 37% agree 100% with Labours policies and 0% with the other parties. Its just not that simple. Theres this myth that because you put something in a manifesto and got into power with less than 40% of the vote, that means that you should have 100% of the power to implement 100% of your policies because of this media feeling that ‘thats what the people voted for’.
How do you think it works in the rest of Europe where coalitions are common, every single time there is a coalition do you think every member of the participating parties cries in uproar that 100% of their policies are being passed. Heck, I’m a lib dem member and I don’t agree with a significant number of our own policies!
Independent research concluded that the Lib Dems have 70% of our manifesto implemented in this coalition, if we were out of government we would have 0%. If people voted for us because they thought we were Labour light then they shouldn’t of voted for us and if Labour thought that we would somehow be more loyal to them than to Conservatives then they were wrong.
Can I take this in a slightly different direction? Reading the Guardian today there is an article by the Research Director of the Fabian Society attacking Localism and calling for national standards in various services. On the other hand Jackie Ashley has written a feature on why Ed Milliband should co-operate with Nick Clegg on NHS reform. She says that regional and local variations are inevitable. I think that various aspects of Localism should be a key Lib Dem policy but certainly not the current model which both seems to box in local government and starve the whole idea of cash.
We desperately need to start Lib Dem thinking- however wacky- which is why I applaud Jack Timms’ call for a radical resurgence. We do need better methods for debating and initating new Lib Dem thinking.
comparing this coalition with the wartime one is ridiculous. fighting hitler was a little different to the supposed “national interest” this government tells us its working in
The further back you go in time the harder it is to understand what the great thinkers of the past really believed. Prior to the 20th century the state was responsible for providing armies that gave power to the kings (ie dictators). The radical position was then to oppose the state. The 20th century state on the other hand became a force for good. The welfare state reduced destitution, the state made education and the health service affordable to everyone. Despite the rhetoric from some, the question we are left with today is how do we manage the state rather than when do we get rid of it.
So many years ago Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand;
“Every individual…generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
This is interpreted by some on the right as meaning that markets are self correcting, and hence neo-liberalism.
I would argue that markets are only sometimes self correcting.
However as Joseph Stiglitz points out;
“They [free market policies] were never based on solid empirical and theoretical foundations, and even as many of these policies were being pushed, academic economists were explaining the limitations of markets — for instance, whenever information is imperfect, which is to say always.”
So it is best to be pragmatic about markets and avoid taking extreme positions.
I would phrase this as “We cannot afford to enter 2015 without a manifesto both proud of our achievements in government and offering a distinctive liberal vision of Britain’s future”.
Radical Liberal
I find it very worrying that you think that 6 to 8% and possibly a handful of MPs in the South West is a reasonable result at the next election.
On the major issues, such as front loaded fast deficit reduction, student tutition fees, enabling a Conservative attack on the public sector with a view to privatise everything including the NHS and allowing the Conservatives to carry out their aggressive ideological assault, the Liberals have enabled a Thatcherite government. When voting for the LDs it was definitely not vote for dismantling of the public sector.
‘Do you really think its appropriate to describe Liberal Democratic economic policy as ‘laissez faire nihilism of the right’ and putting through ‘a whole host of neo liberal free market policies’ ? ‘ That unfortunately seems to be the main effect of this Coalition agreement. (laissez faire nihilism was a borrowed phrase from Polittiscribe).
The electorate in delivering a hung parliament wanted the Liberal Democrats to moderate both the Conservative right of bring back hunting and corporal punishment, anti EC and discriminatory wing and the Thatcherite free market wing. That’s not what happened. There was not a need to sign a Coalition agreement that allows the Conservatives to treat the Liberal Democrats of a wing of their party. A coalition agreement that allowed for major changes of policies then ones that people voted for.
The Conservative only got around 37% of the vote, and their vote is stuck there. The Conservatives are in power due to Liberal Democrat support on policies that were largely undeclared and unstated in the election.
I am an independent voter, who has never endorsed Blair, I want to see a strong third party because I believe it is important for the democratic process in this country. I am not a troll and I am sorry if you don’t like my opinion or the verdict of the electorate in the recent local elections. The Liberal Democrats can continue on the path they are following, and haemorrhage support, next years local elections will deliver an equally severe message as well proceeding elections. I really don’t want to say that I told you so, because it is not what I want to see happen.
One thing, I understand about coalitions everywhere else is that smaller parties don’t give up their identity or support policies that are contrary to their election platforms. There was a hard fought opportunity for Coalition Politics to work and be proved to the electorate that it did not mean throwing away principles. I fear that this and the hard work of many activists over many many years has been lost.
It worries me that some commentators on here seem to think that all is peachy and will somehow work out just fine.
“‘ A sizeable chunk of people who voted for the LDs at the general election want the platform they voted for not the Coalition agreement, which they didn’t.’
Do you honestly think politics and public opinion is as simple as this?”
Frankly, yes, everybody knows that it is!
In 2009 I stood as a Lib Dem candidate in a council byelection and gained a 19% swing, though it wasn’t quite enough. In 2011 I stood again, this time as an Independent opposed to what the Lib Dems had done in entering coalition, and I increased my vote. I re-canvassed the whole ward. I did find two people who said I should have stuck with the Lib Dems and that the coalition was a good thing. I lost count of the number of people who took the opposite view and were delighted that I had taken the stand I did.
George Potter, I’ll be interested in your radical manifesto for 2015. But the image which comes to mind is of the convict in leg irons on Death Row, planning his way to world domination…
@Radical Liberal
“You also think we are heading for a wipeout, we are at around 10%, in one of the worst possible situations for the party in the worst part of this coalition government for us. ”
I’m not sure this is the worst part of the coalition. I think that will come this later this year and through 2012 as the cuts really start to bite.
“comparing this coalition with the wartime one is ridiculous. fighting hitler was a little different to the supposed “national interest” this government tells us its working in”
Thus proving that the person who wrote this clearly hasn’t read the piece properly. I’m not saying that this is remotely equivalent t a wartime situation – what I am saying is that the strategy we need to adopt is the same that Labour adopted when leaving the wartime coalition.
@ David Allen
We have 70% of our manifesto in the coalition agreement, its not everything but at the end of the day its better than 0%, I would of thought that we will be able to communicate this message to our voters and that sensible people can see that 70% is better than 0%.
@ Jack Timms
I’m not sure if you’ve misunderstood me or not but I meant 6-8% on top of 10% 😛 I wouldn’t be delightedwith 6-8% absolute, no! But hey we’ve been there before…
This Conservative view to privatising everything including the NHS. Can you point out things they’ve actually privatised? Also to what extent is privatisation in the NHS wrong? What about paint, should the NHS mix its own paint for its walls. What about cateract surgery? Its simple, easy and efficient if done in a large unit and relatively easy to outsource to a private company and monitor results. In fact, Labour introduced that type of outsourcing and in a much less fair way than is actually proposed in the current NHS bill, they paid private providers and the NHS different rates for doing the same treatments and on top of that gave far less money than needed for the more complex treatments that the NHS ended up always doing. I don’t completely agree with the NHS bill in its current form but if you haven’t noticed, its not actually going to pass in its current form because of the Lib Dems.
Also you talk about the ‘corporal punishment’ brigade, have you honestly not noticed how fuming the conservative right are about the current shift under this government towards rehabilative treatment and not just longer sentences and more prisons. Admittedly the minister involved is a Tory, Ken Clarke, but I doubt he would of survived Graham Brady et all if not for the Lib Dem axis of the coalition that Cameron is pivoting on.
On the EC? If you refer to the prisoners votes issue, then yes, I WISH the lib dems had enough MPs in parliament to stop us making a mockery of human rights but frankly when was that ever going to happen? Labour and the Tories both voted to ignore that ECHR ruling, coalition or not that was a lost cause. If your referring to the EU then again I frankly wonder what you mean, what right-wing anti-EU things has this government done.
Finally, what your noticing in the peachyness is something you’ll find in members surveys posted on this website. around 60-70% of members think that the coalition will be bad for our electoral prospects but around 70-80% think we are doing the right thing and should stay in the coalition (my figures are based on memory of the last survey so could be wrong). This isn’t because that majority of LD forum reading members are idiots, no its because we believe we are doing the right thing by putting liberal policies into government for the first time in more than 60 years and furthermore we are prepared to do badly in the polls in order to have liberal policies becoming law.
You make a point about coalitions elsewhere that I agree with but we don’t have coalitions in the UK, the media has previously been obsessed with how unstable a coalition would be and that was one of the main arguments made by Cameron and Brown against a hung parliament that the country would suddenly sink into the sea. I would agree that Clegg did get a bit too cosy over the last year and too supportive but there was a fundamental need to show that coalitions are stable and can work.
What I object to in your opinion is the use of extreme language to describe our economic position. I’m a Liberal through and through, I like free markets but I’m not a ‘nihilist neo liberal friedman etc etc etc’ and this government isnt either. What adjectives would you use if a government advocated a flat rate tax? You just don’t have any left to describe that obviously more extreme right wing position.
Also what about capital gains not rising, inheritance tax threshold staying put, the poorest people up to £10000 being brought out of tax, the pupil premium for the poorest children, the amazing work being done by Chris Huhne on a green investment bank separate from the treasury and able to borrow to invest, the attempted constitutional reform like that of the Lords: its been in Labour and Tories manifestos but it takes lib dems to actually get a bill on the floor of parliament!, what about the NHS policy being blocked, forestry sale wasnt forced through, the lifting of superinjunctions by a lib dem mp, nothing heard at all on fox hunting, the select committee refrorms by the wright committee actually being put into action something i really doubt would of happened without lib dems. All of these and more are clear achievements that are CLEARLY not Thatcherite and clearly don’t place lib dems as some neo right wing conspiracy group.
I shall never vote libdem again. I shall campaign tirelessly against you.
How on earth can I believe anything you ever put in a manifesto again, after seeing you team up with the Tories despite campaigning on a progressive manifesto in 2010?
Your only hope to even slightly redeem yourself is to dump Nick Clegg and blame this entire fiasco on him personally.
Otherwise nobody is ever, ever going to trust you. We will all otherwise think your leader can take you in directions that are diametrically opposed to the issues and opinions you offer before forming a coalition.
Radical Liberal
I also perceive myself as a Radical Liberal but I think in the comments you make whilst I agree with the broad brush of what you say I think whether we like it or not emphasis is important for Liberals. I think it is that emphasis that probably does distinguish us from Libertarians. Can I ask whether you belong to The Orange Book Group?
For me the Free Market does provide the most efficient method of distributing goods and services. The emphasis for Liberals which I think does distinguish us from Tories is as a method of securing Individual Freedom and Liberty an end in itself. This where I believe the emphasis placed on this question is important and what make it so difficult being a Liberal. It means we do have the luxury, and the misfortunes to have to look at issues of policy against this backdrop.
Lets take the issue you raise the NHS. In terms of your emphasis I think you are suggesting the involvement of the Free Market in the NHS is not a bad thing. In principle I agree but fundamentally and particularly with regards to the NHS it is about outcomes. I am not as a Liberal in favour of competition for competition’s sake. I think for the reason of achieving Lower Taxes as well as a more efficient NHS i think some Tories are. We know the NHS is a bottomless pit for money. That’s another issue for another day on how we should tackle this especially reagrding the drugs budget for it. We also have to accept the current economic mess we are in. However whether the deficit should be cleared in 5 or 6 years “irrespective” of the blood sucking Credit Reference Agency leaches that inhabit the “Free Market” in this area is another issue for another time. Ideologically for me I would spend every tax paying penny that needed to be spent to keep the concept of the NHS going because for me as a individual it is one of the most important things that represents everything that is good about this country.
As a Liberal value for Money is important but equally is the imagination, and entrepreneurship that made this country a great economic force, and which through philanthropy and ideologly put the need to make those whos lives were worse than those with money at the centre of political thinking. I think in 1979 when we lost a lot of baggage we also lost this. This is the challenge for this country in this century to win back.
If I hear the term “National Interest” one more time, I think I shall scream. Jeebus. Move on.
There can be free markets in a conservative dynastic capitalist UK and free markets in a liberal popular capitalist UK The difference is that in a liberal popular capitalist country the ownership of capital would be evened out to some extent by UK Universal Inheritance in each new generation. Together with good state education and a good national health service that would give genuinely greater equality of opportunity for all.
Start by thnking about a radical overhaul of inheritance tax and the way that unequal ownership of capital cascades down the generations thanks to all the vast and unlimited exemptions for lifetime capital gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets..
Think about the original Preamble to the Liberal Party Consitution that the SDP people caused to be dropped from the LIberal Democrats Consitution. Liberty, Property and Security for All. Inheritance for All. It’s a different way of looking at things. A radical way. A populist way. Something new. Helping with university fees. Helping with deposits for home ownership. Helping with starting a small business. Yes, and of course unfortunately also helping with drinking and drugging for those foolish enough to treat a once a lifetime inheirtance in such a way.
Popular Capitalism with UK Universal Inheritance is a liberal measure for all, to give opportunity for all. Some will use it well, others badly, so there always has to be the Income Welfare State safety net as well as the Asset Welfare State.
Could all of the people saying ‘yes, 70% of our manifesto is being implemented’ please stop saying that?
The figure is irrelevant if, as is happening, the majority of the ‘70%’ is mix of political wonkery of no interest to the average voter, things that the Tories have no problem with anyway, and minor political victories, and the 30% that has not been implemented includes the economic strategy that the voters actually voted for, the HE strategy that the voters actually voted for and not wrecking the NHS.
Citing it makes you sound like a husband complaining that his wife doesn’t understand him – after all, he remembers her birthday, takes a full share of all domestic duties, gives her breakfast in bed on her days off, so why is she so hacked off about him sleeping with her best friend? It’s only one thing set against all the other stuff he does.
@Dane Clouston
Does your idea on Inheritance Tax find favour with The Orange Book Lib Dems? The reason I ask is that as one of those nasty former SDP’s my Liberal political outlook on life is now in a state of flux. I wonder for Liberalism and Liberals, and even those who used to support the SDP and who would not necessarily have any problems with your Inheritance proposals are we at a crossroads. Whereas on the journey of Liberalism some of us are going to take one path which might bring reconciliation with the Liberal Party, and others who wish to go in a different direction which could include junking Electoral Reform? Food for thought?
@RadicalLibral
I like the Orange Book but I also like ‘reinventing the state’ and many writers appear in both books, I don’t think the labels are as simple as the media have made them.
I just don’t like this feeling in the party that any form of market in the NHS is instinctively bad and illiberal. I can’t see anything completely illiberal intrinsically about that. But broadly I agree with what you wrote in your first post, we might disagree with specifics of how to achieve things but we seem on the same wavelength.
I just don’t see this govt. as THAT right wing or free market to be honest.
@RadicalLibral
Oh also from your last post. I like free markets and advocate them alot but I still believe in a very high inheritance tax with quite a low threshold.
@Dane Clouston
Sorry what part of “free” market don’t you understand? This constant angst about inherited money is tedious. Please learn that money has NO VALUE unless you spend it and as soon as you spend it, it is redistributed, it requires NO intervention to make that happen.
Please please please can we have a Liberal Party back and not this half hearted fence sitting socialism
Radical Liberal
There is one issue that I must take you to task about. I have heard this term “the monopoly state” glibly and carelessly used even by some senior Lib Dems. This term implies a proactive attempt by the state to achieve monopoly power. The true definition of a monopoly in economic terms denotes a deliberate attempt “within a market” to become the sole provider of goods and services. Historically the state has achieved a dominant position within “mixed economies” but with the active support and help of politicians, not by actively achieving that position for the purpose of being the dominant force in a market. It is very important that economic terminology is not used or misused.
I am happy in terms of using the correct language to talk about “rolling back the state”. But again the term “the state” needs to be carefully defined,, and not misused.
“Libertarian”
Please please please can we have a Liberal Party back and not this half hearted fence sitting socialism
Please, please go and read some history and see what Liberal politicians ACTUALLY campaigned for in the past. Death duties were introduced by the Liberal Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt in 1894. You might also note the Liberal Mayor of Birmingham, Joseph Chamberlain, forcible taking control of the city’s gas and water supply from private companies and putting it under municipal control. And much else that is at odds with what is now called “libertarianism”.
So, what is this Liberal Party you want to go “back” to? It does not seem to be the REAL Liberal Party of the 19th century. Rather it seems to be a fiction you and people like you have invented in order to pursue your own fantasies. As in George Orwell’s nightmare visions, you and your type are actually trying to re-write history and make out it was something that was different than it really was, to suit your ideology. “Libertarian” pfaah – you are just pursuing the current ideology which the modern day aristocrats – the big business fat cats – are trying to push on us because it favours them. Like the Leninists of old you decorate it with a superficially attractive image, while ignoring the reality that when it is tried it works in a way very different from what you claim, ultimately leading to slavery, not freedom, to rigid differences in wealth and opportunity, not equality, to the glorification of the few who maintain their power by putting out ever more ridiculous fiction, using the language of the old political battles as if they are rebels when they are really very much the establishment.
George W. Potter,
Would you be happy to support a referendum on leaving the European Union, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and joining Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the European Free Trade Association?
I am grateful for your comment on universal inheritance. I would be delighted, if you would like, to add your e-mail address to the list of Supporters of the Campaign for Universal Inheritance.
“Radical Liberal”
Why should a radical Liberal manifesto not be both radical Liberal and populist. “ Inheritance of Capital for All” and ”A referendum to leave the EU, CAP and CFP and join EFTA” would be both, in my view.
Of course a referendum would come before such a parliamentary decision. At least Parliament is still not bound by its predecessors !
The EU is heading in the wrong direction, with ever greater interference with sovereign countries because of the introduction of the Euro before the Federal Government to which the EU hoped it would lead. Thank goodness for Gordon Brown keeping us out of the Euro, against the advice of the Liberal Democrats. Almost all currency unions have failed unless they became political unions, and I for one do not wish to become a citizen of one country called Europe.
“Radicalibral”
Do you agree that all activities ought to be privatised other than those which either cannot be (such as Defence, police, etc.) or ought not to be (Education, health) rationed by price?
“Radicalibral”
I don’t know whether my idea on Inheritance Tax and UK Universal Inheritancd finds favour with Orange Book LibDems. I have been out of the party for many years since I decided after the fall of the Iron Curtain that our membership of the EU was no longer a good thing, while at the same time it became a kind of heresy to say so, at least locally in the Henley constituency.
I think you are right that many who used to support the SDP would not have any problems with Universal Inheritance in theory, but might instinctively have reacted against the thought of not receiving as much inheritance as they might otherwise expect. Quite understandable, until the problem of inequality of wealth in our country becomes ever more pressing.
It would be very good if the Liberal Party, with its party Constitution Preamble calling for Liberty, PROPERTY and Security for all, could merge with the Liberal Democrats and become once again the large Liberal Party. But to be successful the new combined party would have to call for a referendum on and campaign for the UK to leave the European Union, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and to join Iceland, Lichenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the European Free Trade Association.
As for electoral reform, surely we should vote 1,2,3 instead of the primitive X. And surely, for an achievable reform, we should stick with the present single member constituencies, purely and simply because for the reform to be brought in, all those MPs who will be voting on it will not want to abolish their own constituencies. Multi-member constituencies in local elections are another matter, and perfectly realistic. STVS (AV to some!) for Westminster, STVM (“STV” to some) for local elections and, of course, the Lords, providing the Commons are always more recently elected, as they would be if the Senate was one third elected every five years.
“@Radicalibral
Oh also from your last post. I like free markets and advocate them alot but I still believe in a very high inheritance tax with quite a low threshold.”
The Inheritance Tax is based on what is given and left, so is not really an Inheritance Tax at all.
It should be a flat rate recording, re-named, Capital Donor Tax on the luxury expenditure of giving and bequeathing capital, at, say 10 per cent (less than VAT on ordinary expenditure – another 10 per cent could be used for care for the elderly). There should also be a progressive tax on cumulative lifetime total of capital gifts and inheritance received – a Lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax -, starting at the same 10 per cent rate. If the 10 per cent Capital Donor Tax paid is allowable against it, most modest lifetime beneficiaries would have no more to pay.
“libertarian”
I understand “free” market between those who are alive. It works much better in a welfare way if people start off less unequally in each new generation. We must move along the spectrum from Feudalism through Conservative unfettered Dynastic Capitalism cascading down the generations to Liberal Popular Capitalism in each succeeding generation.
UK Universal Inheritance is party policy of the continuation Liberal Party. Owning capital has great value even if it is not spent. It provides income which can be spent.
I am talking about redistributing capital, not income. Of course some will then spend and some will save, but they will have started off less unequally than at present.
This is not half hearted fence sitting socialism, it is Liberal Popular Capitalism with Universal Inheritance of capital for all young adults, with less of a gap between those who currently inherit millions and billions and those who currently inherit nothing.
This mostly for Radical Liberal and to those of you who seem to think the free market provides the solutions, you should consider the shocking abuse at the private care home for Adult and Learning Disabilities at Winterbourne. Take a look, the abuse is disgusting, a woman is forced to lie on the floor, visibly shivering as they spray her with cold water, people are kicked and beaten, it is really upsetting. The whistle blower, a person who worked there, was shocked and wrote to the Care Quality Commission who did NOTHING. The reason the CQC does nothing as it is an underfunded organisation as the Labour and Conservative governments do not want it exposed how poor quality care homes are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/01/panorama-care-home-investigation-undercover-journalism
The company Castlebeck received £180,000 of tax payers money for each person they ‘looked’ after.
Private care homes are found to be much poorer quality, with poorer training, higher staff turnover and lower pay than charity run care homes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/8546864/One-in-seven-care-homes-rated-badly-by-watchdog-amid-industry-crisis.html
Add in the Southern Cross fiasco where 30,000 older people face losing their place to live, guess who is going to pick up the bill for that ?
Many People in private care homes live unstimulated lives where only basic needs are met.
Private provision does not provide all the answers. There was an insistence on private provision and the closing of decent council run institutions.
There is a mantra pushed by the Conservatives that the private provider must be pushed in all areas of our lives. The Liberal Democrats may not entirely agree with this but is the result.
Where is the evidence that this has worked with the railways, electricity and gas ? Poorer quality service, uneven pricing and increased costs with no particular rise in quality.
Look at the US system of private health care. Organisations such as the NHS can be improved but opening it out to private providers without very careful consideration which leads to fragmentation of the NHS is just not right.
The free market has a role to play but the conservative mantra that is holding sway should stop. This is not what people voted for. Remember Castlebeck, watch the video and tell me that the Private sector holds all the solutions.
Jack Timms
Harrowing examples show that better supervision is required. There is a lot about the railways, electricity and gas, which you mention, that is more efficient than the old nationalised services were. As a general rule private enterprise is likely to be more efficient than public enterprise, because there is, in general – however regrettably for those concerned – less security of tenure of jobs in private enterprise. Again as a general rule, therefore, all activities ought to be privatised except for those which either cannot be rationed by price, such as defence, police, fire services, etc, or ought not to be rationed by price, such as education and health.
I know that all Liberals do not agree with that, having once been, at a Liberal Party Assembly in Blackpool, in a minority of three voting against a resolution opposing the privatisation of electricity and in a minority of one against a resolution opposing a privatisation of water. On the other hand, there are not many Liberal Democrats these days , as far as I know, proposing the re-nationalisation of electricity and water. But then of course one good thing about the SDP people who helped to form the Liberal Democrats was that they left the Labour Party because they were unhappy with Clause IV nationalisation.
Dane Clouston
As a general rule private enterprise is likely to be more efficient than public enterprise, because there is, in general – however regrettably for those concerned – less security of tenure of jobs in private enterprise.
Are we just to accept this as a fact, or are we permitted to question it?
My experience – and I hear just the same from almost everyone I know who works in the public sector, and most particularly those towards the end of their careers or now retired – is that the greater insecurity that has been introduced there over the past few decades in the name of “efficiency” has had the opposite result. The way to make people work hard is to give them pride in what they are doing. Everything that has happened in the public sector in the past three decades pushed on us by trendies who are obsessed with free market dogma has worked to destroy the pride that used to exist amongst public sector workers. When people are scared of losing their jobs, they do not work harder. They just drop everything that doesn’t fit in with what the bosses tell them to do, they drop anything which requires using initiative, they keep their heads down and do what they are told, however ridiculous, because that’s job safety for you. People whose very moment is filled with fear that they will lose their job are just NOT good workers. Why can’t the establishment see this? Answer, because they all come from rich backgrounds, they make their way effortlessly in life through their contacts, they have plenty of wealth to fall back on if they should suffer a temporary set-back, so dog-eat-dog competition is fun for them because they are never really going to suffer.
Mathew Huntbach,
I very much appreciated your earlier comments about the Liberal Party introducing Death Duties and thought you were an ally!
How or why could I or would I not permit anyone to question anything I say?! What I said was significantly qualified anyway. And I excluded defence, police, fire service, education and health, etc -. because they either cannot or ought not to be rationed by price. Personally I would positively discourage private education and health because they tend to weaken the State school system and the NHS – in fact I would like to see VAT put on private expenditure on both and the proceeds used to reduce class sizes in State schools and to spend “more instead of less/ on the NHS”.
However, my own observation tends to confirm my own opinion that activities other than the above are likely to be much more flexibly supplied by the private sector, which is much more nimble in the face of changing circumstances than are jobs-for-life public electricity, telephone, water, rail companies, etc. .
Matthew Huntbach,
Sorry I misspelt your name.
I totally disgree Dane Clouston that privatised industries are more efficient than the public sector. The service is worse, and more expensive with any efficiencies or profits taken out by the share holders.
The disgusting assaults launched at Winterbourne House are not just down to better supervision. The nature of private organisations is to drive down costs, security and training for their staff and extract profit. You have to ask yourself why the CQC is not a stronger organisation and did not act.
Why ? Because the government (I include Labour and Conservative) do not want exposed the number of poor private care homes in our country. It is a national scandal.
I disagree that poorer pay and conditions go down for the workers involved means greater effeciency. Private care homes for example have greater staff turnover and poorer condition homes, is that what you mean by effeciency. A committed, secure and properly renumerated staff leads can lead to greater effeciency.
Private care or private companies and the market are not the answer to the ills of this country. It is a perfect example of why the NHS should not be fragmented, broken up and privatised.
That should be in George Potters radical manifesto.
Jack Timms
So how many companies in how many industries and activities would you nationalise?
You will see that I excluded those activities which ought not to be rationed by price, including health care and education.
A good article. I especially like the point about not wanted to be squeezed by both of the other parties.
Bit of non-scientific personal narrative.
I’ve worked in the public sector and in one of the supposedly most competitive sections of the private sector- retail.
Public sector managers almost to a man/woman went the extra mile. Even at a relatively low level they worked well past their paid hours, showed real concern for their customers, weren’t afraid to make decisions and gave true leadership. The retail managers, at least regional level, were mechanistically following orders from above, had little or no imagination and were completely driven by an overriding fear of making mistakes rather than any desire to serve their customers.
In fact the exact opposite of the stereotypical view of public/private.
@Dane Clouston @Matthew Huntbach
Can I possibly offer a third way to both of you though Dane might feel my suggestion does not go far enough. I believe strongly that with the right resources the Voluntary and /or the Not for Profit Sector may provide an answer to the Service Delivery problems whilst at the same time deal with the issue of the Profit Motive getting in the way of providing a “quality “service.
I work for an RSL. In my organisation’s work they daily weigh up the delicate balance between economic efficiency of resources as a business whilst striving to put the customer, and the service delivery they provide at the centre of what they do. Irrespective of the Social, and Legal responsibilities of the individuals involved in the Winterbourne case if on a similar basis you say you employ staff purely on the basis of cost (Minimum Wage) with inadequate training or prospects for personal development using people who may be doing the kind of work merely as a way of making sure they are off the JSA statistics then you may well get a similar scenario to the Winterbourne example. Working for a RSL with its ethos, but without the necessity to pay staff minimum wage does yield in the main, a quality service which makes the most efficient use of the resources it has to work with.
Food for thought?
Dane, I don’t think the forests should be sold off, I think that the Royal Mail should not be privatised. The Dutch experiment shows what an utter shambles that has become.
Did I speak about Nationalisation ? No.
I am pleased to see that you include health, care and education as areas that should not be privatised. The Private Care Homes, Southern Cross and Winterbourne
‘CQC’s budget is 30% less than the regulators it replaced. In the past year it cut its inspections by 70%, taking a minimum of 120 days to register new homes. Its 900 inspectors are expected to cover more than 8,000 GP practices as well as 400 NHS trusts, 9,000 dental practices and 18,000 care homes.’
I direct you to an excellent article by the Wonderful Polly Toynbee in the Guardian and some really good comments in the comment section.
Private provision is not the answer to all the country’s ills. I never thought that this was political belief of the LD party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/03/southern-cross-winterbourne-view-care-homes
Dane Clouston
Dane Clouston says she has become disillusioned with the EU since the fall of the iron Curtain and is in favour of a Referendum on the issue. Why? I think for Liberals have we reached a point where we have become disillusioned with the ideals and principles of the EU? I think there are arguments on both sides.
For Liberals who believe in the Free Enterprise agenda of the EU surely surely there is a lot to say in favour of the EU. The agenda on Free Trade has definitely come to the forefront in recent years perhaps at the expense of Social Policy Legislation which marked out the EU in its early days and which is still reviled by people who support Free Enterprise. No where has this more been on show than with the current Health scare over Vegetables. Was it the Health Commission at the forefront of the publicity on this issue. No it was the Trade Commission. Surely with a major health scare the issue is one of controlling the Health implications to EU citizens first, then worrying about the damage to Free Trade by tit for tat action by EU members.
On the other side we still have Social Policies on subjects such s a Parental Rights being produced by the EU. Perhaps the level of debate and reform by each Individual member’s parliament on such weighty issues in terms of timescales for implementation needs to be reviewed. But the merits of the introduction of such legislation in the first place really only upsets purist Free Enterprisers who would would probably wish our Social Policies were conducted along the lines of the US or even worse China. However Social Policies should present a real dilemma to Tories rather than any other political party in Europe. The Tory Party talks the talk on the role of the Family. But when push comes to shove it clearly puts that objective second to not seeking to restrict the operation of Free Enterprise. I think it is time that the Tory party were asked to come to the table to explain “how” they square that circle. I would hope for Liberals that really would be less of an issue?
“Radicalibral”
Call for a referendum to leave the EU, the CAP and the CFP and join Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the European Free Trade Association (and have Turkey and others join us in due course?) and rule ourselves instead of being ruled by the corrupt, overpaid and overweening bureaucracy in Brussels.
A majority in the country would probably agree with that, which is always a good start for a political party in trouble.
It’s time for the LibDems to change their spots and focus on Britain in a global world instead of being little Europeans.
Incidenally, I would be grateful if you would refer to me as “he” rather than “she”! Reconsider the image!
Jack Timms, you’re wrong – we’ve delivered on stopping the anti-EU, ‘hang ’em and flog ’em’ wing of the Tories from taking over. It was in the Tories’ manifesto to re-negotiate the Lisbon Treaty and retreat from the EU. That promise has been abandoned. On law and order, it was in the Tories’ manifesto to build new mega prisons and rip up the Human Rights Act. That hasn’t happened. If that’s not moderation, I don’t know what is.
And, everybody else, there’s far too much obsessing here about whether or not the state is good or bad or the market is good or bad. We get both terrible state failure and terrible market failure. We need to get over obsessing about which is to blame. Everyone likes a ‘good versus evil narrative’. But as fun as this is, this isn’t an episode of Dr Who but is actually much more complex.
We are neither venture capitalists nor union bosses fighting for our vested interests, so we don’t need to defend one or the other but can take a dispassionate look. The failure of the banks was an example of both market and state failure.
The market can be a force for good, as we’ve seen in rising living standards. But it does need regulating otherwise it will either lead to oligopolic cartels or chaos – so, yes, we need structural reform of the banks. It’s just so obviously more complex than either ‘state good, markets bad; markets good, state bad’.
We all love a cartoon villian. But it’s wrong to even characterise the Tories as always being slavishly trusting of the market – yesterday Cameron was backing state intervention in what clothes are sold to children, for example. And of course Labour, now trying to portray itself as defender of the state, in Government demonstrated blind faith in the market when it said ‘private hospitals are better than NHS ones’ by paying the former more than the latter for doing the same operation.
We need to be in favour of additional provision from the private sector, as long as that does not worsen the state provision. So the NHS reforms can correct the Labour Government’s love of the market by making sure that the private hospitals don’t get paid a penny more for doing the same work, for example.