Now that the United States has abdicated from its position of leader and protector of the “free world” politicians of all parties are in agreement that ”the world has changed” and we must change with it. I believe that, looking backwards for half a century or so rather than just from the accession President Trump, and forward for another fifty years rather than to the next election, we need a fundamental shift in the political debate in at least the following areas.
Physical Standard of Living
For a least a century and a half there has been an assumption that each generation should enjoy a better material standard of living their parents. In our developed economies we must abandon his idea. Yes, there will be advances in medicine and other scientific areas, in arts, music and leisure pursuits, which improve our quality of life, but we already have the capability of affording everyone a decent material standard of living, provided we share more equitably.
Climate Change
We have to take this very seriously indeed: it is not just an optional add-on but must be central to our policies. The current Labour government seems to be prepared to postpone or even ditch policies to limit damage to the environment if they impede short run physical growth and employment. We need to find other ways of “ raising all boats” to an acceptable standard. Better sharing is the obvious one.
Inequality
It is now beyond question that the neoliberal bonanza of deregulation for private profit has not only failed to improve standards but also led to an unacceptable increase in inequality. The wealth has soared upwards rather than trickled down. Hence the “left behind” are legitimately indignant and understandably but unfortunately looking towards phoney “saviours” to wreck the system.
Participation
Elections at all levels have become competitive auctions of “what we can do for you” rather than what we can enable. This is true at both national and local levels , not least with the regard to the conferring of powers on executive mayors. We need policies to encourage participation and consultation in communities rather than hand powers to charismatic individuals in the hope that they will wave effective magic wands (or begging bowls to Whitehall and Westminster.)
Communications
Given the fantastic developments in this area in recent years we desperately need measure to control the flaunting of misinformation and “alternative facts,” and to ensure that provision of a balance of reasoned opinions based on generally accepted truths. This is not going to be easy. We also need to recognise that the communications revolution has hit what used to be called the “Third World” as well as the developed one. Substance farmers the world over know what luxury is available in some economies and want a share. We must recognise and accommodate this.
Internationalism
On 8th April on LDV a Jonathan Parry, amongst several other valuable insights, expressed the view that “Internationalism is the true patriotism.” We need to “Look Wide” ( the Senior Scout motto when I was one in the 1950s) and participate fully in the international organisations designed to create a fairer and preferably liberal world. And not, please as “leaders,” but just involved and effective partners.
So the “new politics” should be much more than how we can effectively defend ourselves against Russia, China and the (temporary?) idiocy of the USA, urgent as this may appear.
* Peter Wrigley is a member of Spen Valley Liberal Democrats and blogs as keynesianliberal.blogspot.com
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Georges I-IV, Boy George, George Harrison and Henry George
Multicultural working
Street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Throwing in the towel
Taking a goat to the library
Steve Trevethan
Geoff Reid
Michael BG
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
29 Comments
Whether he said it or not, the adage attributed to Winston Churchill “Never let a good crisis go to waste” reminds us that decisions and directions taken over the next few months (weeks?) are likely to play a key role in shaping the next half century. Peter Wrigley’s signposts for the turning points offer a helpful checklist.
One thing I love about the LibDems is how we are willing to stand back and discuss changes to politics at this kind of wider philosophical level.
I agree with some (not all) of Peter’s suggestions, but I’d also like to add something else which I feel is missing from today’s politics: Talking about personal responsibility: Over the last 50 years politics has been increasingly framed in terms of what the Government must do for everyone, but it we never talk about whether people have any responsibility as part of our community: The discussion is always one way: What people should expect the Government to provide for them. Ultimately that will never work because the Government is made up of people, so whatever we want the Government to do for us – in fact it’s people (employed by the Government) who have to do it.
I’m sure the culture of entitlement that one-way expectation leads to is partly responsible for much of the growth in anti-social behaviour and people simply not caring about others that we see today. In the end, a decent, liberal, society where everyone can flourish can only happen if we all as individuals make it possible through our behaviour, our willingness to contribute to society, and our decency to others. It will never happen if we just expect the Government to arrange everything. We really need that to be more of a backdrop to our political discussions, along with some of Peter’s suggestions.
@Simon R
>”… is missing from today’s politics: Talking about personal responsibility”
Agree and related to this is duty. Ie. In a democratic society there are things people can do to help themselves (Responsibility) and there are things they can do to help others (duty).
Simon R,
I don’t think we should talk about personal responsibility, instead we should talk about social responsibility. Private companies and the rich and especially the very rich should take on their social responsibility, so they no longer just think about what is in their interest (such as high salaries for chief executives, increased profits and share value) but what is in the best interest of society.
Since the First World War the public expect the government to intervene to make life better for the majority and especially the poorest. I don’t see a culture of entitlement; I see an expectation that when people hit hard times the government will act on behalf of society to mitigate these hard times, recent examples were the furlough scheme and the temporary £20 a week increase to Universal Credit during Covid and the Energy Price Guarantee and the support given to pensioners and those on benefits during the early years of the cost of living crisis.
If the rich just think of themselves, then why should those who feel excluded from the economic benefits of society bother about other people either?
@Michael: I don’t think it matters whether you call it personal responsibility or social responsibility. But I’m talking about the responsibility that we all have to be a part of and contribute to a decent/better society (which is not at all inconsistent with greater equality/etc.). You seem to have deflected the idea to being a responsibility that only rich people should have. Which rather begs the question, do you actually think that we (as in, most of the population) have any responsibility to the community, or do you think that we should just sit back and expect the Government + rich people + large corporations to provide everything for us?
It was one of JFK’s best sayings:
‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’
Inequality is not a problem. Deprivation is.
@Mark Frankel – Are you familiar with “The Spirit Level” by Kate Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson? They argue, from extensive data, that economically unequal societies (ie with a huge gap between the lowest and highest wealth deciles) have a significant impact on everyone, rich and poor, even in the richest countries. Reducing inequality is not just about alleviating deprivation but also reducing the wealth of the richest. It also improves health, educational attainment, community life, drug use and many other factors.
Thanks Peter.
Spot on.
Without change along the lines you give us the future is dire. I don’t think we have quite grasped that yet. It is a hard road where populism fears to tread.
‘Reducing inequality is not just about alleviating deprivation but also reducing the wealth of the richest’….It would be a pointless task as money gives you choices.
What is too often overlooked is the role of parents & parenting. Why have the Ugandan Asians done so well when arriving here with nothing . Strong family unit – it’s the best chance in escaping poverty bar none…
Thanks for al your comments, critical as well as supportive.
I do believe inequality has to be reduced. I remember an article in the Observer years ago (round about the time they introduced their weekly magazine) by Jo Grimond arguing that one of the aims of the Liberal Party was to prevent people becoming too rich or too poor. Too much wealth distort democracy as we see in both the US and UK (bankrolling of the Tories by big business). More equal societies have all the advantages Mary Read highlights from “The Spirit Level.”
People can’t be forced to do their duty (other than compulsoy ones like registering Births etc.,doing Jury Service when required sand obeying the law.) But there are measures the government can take to encourage participation in society (civic duty?). PR by STV in MMC would make voting more meaningful for most of us so presumably encourage people to go to the polls. Genuine devolution to local levels would encourage people to become councillors. Instead Labour is taking local government powers away and even abolishing low-tier councils: the opposite of what is needed. I believe Canada has a highly participatory society. We should take a leaf out for their book.
We must avoid falling into the trap of seeming to think that only people who “do their duty” deserve their rights. We are all entitled to human rights, those on the margins of society more than most
Thanks, Geoff Reid, for your hint that we Liberals should be pushing the government to take advantage of the present crises, rather as Attlee did in the 1945 government. Sir Ed et al please note..
“Instead Labour is taking local government powers away and even abolishing low-tier councils: the opposite of what is needed”
Isn’t this what an authoritarian party would seek to do?
@Mary: Thanks for the link to The Spirit Level. That looks an interesting read, which I have now just added to my Amazon wishlist 🙂 I do though tend to agree with Craig that the important thing isn’t to achieve equality but to end deprivation. It’s intuitively very clear how ensuring people have adequate resources to live a decent life will improve the well-being of both individuals and the community. But it’s not at all clear to me how deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality can improve anything. That seems to me very counter-intuitive and even somewhat nonsensical. But I guess I’d need to read the book to find out what the evidence they claim is. 🙂
@Simon R. I think you will find it a fascinating read. The authors set up The Equality Trust https://equalitytrust.org.uk/ – which explores the ideas further.
Simon R,
My point was that as rich people ignore their social responsibility there should be no surprise that those who feel excluded from the economic benefits of society also ignore their social responsibility. I was not stating that only rich people have social responsibility. I was emphasising that it applied to everyone.
Each person should fulfil their potential. However, the government also has a responsibility to not only provide the conditions where everyone can fulfil their potential, but provide the support for a fulfilling life.
“…..the important thing isn’t to achieve equality but to end deprivation.”
I seem to remember Keith Joseph making the same argument at a talk I attended in the mid 70s when I was a student. The idea was that economic growth would be the rising tide that lifted all boats. The cake would be bigger etc etc We’ve had around a factor of 3 increase in GDP since then. I doubt if anyone in the room would have expected that we’d still have a problem of deprivation if we were 3 times richer than we were.
The luxury yachts seem to be floating well but many other boats have sunk. The cake may be bigger but ……
It’s odd that now we have Labour politicians making the same argument. It probably won’t be any different even if we do get extra growth.
” it’s not at all clear to me how deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality can improve anything. That seems to me very counter-intuitive and even somewhat nonsensical.”
People are strange. They have done experiments with monkeys where co-operation was required to get rewards. Where one monkey would get a much smaller reward than the other, they often refused cooperation depriving themselves of their reward.
then there were experments where -say- £100 is offered to be split between 2 people. Person A decides on the split, and person B decides whether to accept on behalf of both. If the split is significantly worse than 50/50, person B usually declines, making themselves worse off. You might think that accepting a 99/1 split would leave person B £1 better off, so worth doing, but most people don’t.
PS ” that’s your economy, not mine”
@Jenny: Yes, those experiments are informative. But I don’t think they are quite the same thing. Those look like situations where people (or monkeys) are making roughly the same contribution/putting in the same effort but getting very different rewards – and almost everyone would see that as unfair and want to rebel against it – hence the refusal of cooperation. But the income inequalities that result from capitalism and a market economy aren’t like that. Very often it’s more like, different people are making different contributions and being rewarded accordingly. For example a person who studies hard, takes the risk of setting up a company or works all hours and trains to do a very skilled, specialised, job, gets a lot more money than someone else who doesn’t make those efforts (Yes I know it’s not always like that and there are all sorts of issues of what opportunities different people have, but very often it is). And then the Government’s attempts to equalise incomes involve taking money away from people who, many would feel have legitimately earned their money. In that situation, what is ‘fair’ is much less obvious and more subjective, so it’s questionable whether the experiments you describe are very relevant.
I’m pleased to see that Simon R is going to buy a copy of “The Spirit Level” but disappointed to note that he is to purchase it via Amazon. I have never bought anything via Amazon because a) they avoid paying their proper share of taxes, and b) they treat their staff abominably. For information about the latter read the chapters on Amazon in James Bloodworth’s splendid book “Hired” (pub Atlantic books 2018.) An additional reason now for avoiding Amazon, or any other US owned company, is the a consumer boycott is better way of responding Donald Trumps tariffs than official “tit for tat” fetalliation would be.
I suggest you buy books from a local bookshop or, if you can’t find one, the nearest Waterstones (the Leeds and Bradford branches have astonishingly well informed and helpful assistants.) If you must buy online, than Hive Books (https://www.hive.co.uk/) are priced competitively and in addition will make a donation to a local bookshop of your choice. A good way of shopping responsibly.
Simon R,
“it’s not at all clear to me how deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality can improve anything. That seems to me very counter-intuitive and even somewhat nonsensical.”
If you imagine a society where there are only 100 people capable of work and all are working. One (the median) of them earns £100 and 49 earn less than £100 and the poorest only earns £51. At the other end one person earns £8000 and the other 49 all earn more than £100 but less than £200. Demand in the economy would be greater if £1225 were taken from the person who had £8000 and given to the 49 who earn less than £100 to make their amounts up to £100 because it is a well-known fact that the very rich don’t spend all of their income unlike the poor. The one who had £8000 now only has £6775 – 67.75 times the median. After this transfer the society would be more equal but still not equal.
” taking money away from people who, many would feel have legitimately earned their money.”
Some people can easily afford to send their girlfriend into space, while others are forced to pee in bottles to keep up with their workload. Is that a legitimate differential?
Hello Mark Frankel,
I’m afraid I have to take issue with your comment “Inequality is not a problem. Deprivation is.”
To me, deprivation is a problem for each and every individual it affects, but to me massive inequality, where one individual is rich enough to subvert an entire democratic system is a problem for all of society.
I hope you would agree with that.
@Peter Wrigley: Thanks for the reference to Hive. I didn’t know about them. That does look a good way to get books.
@Michael BG: Nice try but that doesn’t work for two reasons.
Firstly, increasing demand isn’t in itself a social good: You don’t get a better society or stronger community just because people are spending more. Stimulating demand can be economically good but only if lack of demand is a current economic problem. At other times it can even be harmful – for example if it’s a time when the main economic problem is demand-induced inflation.
Secondly, the increased demand in your example doesn’t arise because you’re making rich people poorer: It arises because you’re making poor people richer. So that doesn’t in any way show any benefits arise from deliberately making rich people poorer (which was my original point).
@Michael BG: In reply to your previous post about social responsibility. Ok that’s fair enough if you do mean that social responsibility applies to everyone. But I’d question whether saying no surprise that those who feel excluded … ignore their social responsibility. is just making excuses for non-rich people.
In general, it seems to me one problem with today’s culture is that we are far too ready to make excuses for bad behaviour (which then enables more bad behaviour) instead of doing what we ought to be doing: Making it clear that we always expect good behaviour. And trying to excuse lack of social/personal responsibility seems like an example of that.
To my mind social/personal responsibility is something we ALL share. It’s not the sort of thing that you should be thinking “According to the news, Company X isn’t acting responsibly. Therefore I’m not going to bother acting responsibly” That way lies societal breakdown.
“… the increased demand in your example doesn’t arise because you’re making rich people poorer: It arises because you’re making poor people richer…..”
Does it really make any difference? Everything is relative. We already have luxury tax on such items as high value cars. We could extend the principle to many other items too. Does anyone need to spend £6630 on a handbag for example? A quick Google search shows that one is for sale at Harrods. This is probably not the most expensive possible!
So raising a luxury tax on handbags over, say £1000, would both make the rich poorer and provide extra resources/money for the less affluent.
Simon R,
“it’s not at all clear to me how deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality can improve anything. That seems to me very counter-intuitive and even somewhat nonsensical.”
I am surprised that you think anyone on here was advocating ‘deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality’ without either redistribution to poorer people, or taxing the richest at a higher level than the poorest especially as your context was the reduction in inequality.
One day hopefully you will recognise that reducing inequality is a social good and redistribution of income from the richest to the poorest is a sensible and practicable way to do it.
Perhaps politicians should talk more about our quality of life and less about our standard of living. We can all agree that if you are living in poverty then that extra few pounds can make all the difference. However, in a sense what we focus on is more important than our circumstances. If we focus on our relationships, the fact that most of us have a roof above our heads and sufficient food on the table then we will become a happier society and can still work to help those who do not but from a better place.
As the rich squeeze the wealth out from the working class ( right to buy -> buy to let), asset prices rise, then the working class lose their assets as the rich buy them up.. then the economy starts to slump, so the government has to sell their assets to the rich and effectively rent them back … then there’s no money for any government services so the middle class, or what’s left of it, gets squeezed.. If the rich aren’t taxed, eventually they end up owning everything and the rest of society lives or more likely dies in poverty. So yes, taxing the rich could reverse that, which would be an improvement.