Reprise: Paddy’s four dangerous ideas

On the eve of the 2017 party conference, Paddy wrote two articles for us about where the party should go from here. Part 1 is here.. In Part 2, he outlines four “dangerous ideas” we should explore. 

So, here, as promised are four dangerous ideas for the future. Please be clear. I am not necessarily proposing these. Just asking why we are not even discussing them?

Dangerous idea 1

We are guiltily obsessed with student fees. The fact that we don’t need to be, because the principle is right, does not make life easier (how I wish we had called them a Graduate tax!). But now with the student loan debt rising, do we not also have to consider how we get better value for what students pay? If we have a tertiary education system which cannot be paid for without loading more and more debt on our young, should we not be looking at the system, not just at how they pay? We persist in the medieval practice of taking students to medieval ivy covered buildings, to receive their education in the medieval manner from minds, too many of which, when it comes to delivering education, are stuck in the middle ages. Yet distance learning was pioneered in Britain at the Open University when communicating with your tutor meant stuffing your academic paper in an envelope, licking it, sticking a stamp on it and putting it in the local post-box. Today the whole planet is into distance learning. Many of our own Universities make tons of money providing distance learning degree courses to students all over the world. But none of them are in Britain! If we were to convert at least part of our tertiary education syllabus to distance learning we might reduce the cost of degrees without diminishing their quality, give students more flexibility, force lecturers into the modern age, widen access and create a superb platform for adult education all at the same time. Why, beloved Lib Dems, do we allow medieval vested interests to preserve our ivy covered tertiary education system exactly as it is, loading more and more debt on students and preventing us from doing what much of the rest of the world is doing already? Just asking.

Dangerous idea 2

We have long understood that property owning rights are one of the foundation stones of democracy. Yet each of us, gives away our most intimate of property free and daily to the most powerful corporations, who make millions and millions from it.I am talking of course, about our personal data. Why do we Lib Dems not assert the citizens right to own their own data and to have control over how it is used? Why about proposing a law – perhaps a European one – which says to Messrs Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc, that they can use our personal data for their commercial purposes, but only with our permission and if they give us a share of the profits. Can you think of anything which would more alter the relationship between these masters of the commercial universe and the customers whose information they exploit for such enormous profit? Can you think of anything which would more empower the citizen in the market pace? Isn’t that what we Lib Dems are supposed to be about? So?

Dangerous idea 3

The political parties or movements that are thriving at the moment (e.g. En Marche, Italy’s 5 star movement and Momentum to name a few) are those who have adopted an internet based model which enables mass younger membership, flat low cost management, modest entry fees, direct democracy, constant engagement, high participation and the opportunity to take part in politics as just one of the multi-transactional things we do in our busy lives. The older conventional political parties are stuck in the model of the1870s; vertical hierarchies, festoons of committees which claim democracy, but end up with management by those who can spare the time; low and ageing membership; high cost of entry; limited engagement; even less real participation and a dependency on political obsessives (like me). And they are dying. The number of people in political parties has dropped from 10.5% of the electorate 20 years ago, to 1.5% today. Should we be worried about this? Apparently not. I know this, because I sent a paper to our Party Board suggesting that we might take a look at these revolutionary new ideas being followed by those who are succeeding, where we are not. I did not suggest anything as radical as actually doing this. Just that we should look at it. I know it was discussed (and rejected with some muscularity) as I read about it, not always in the most admiring terms, in these and other pages where the Party, usually with delicious irreverence, exchanges its views. Fine. It probably was a dotty idea. But here’s the thought. Imagine if this was one of our new members suggesting an idea for us to consider and they heard nothing more except rumours of its death, without even an acknowledgement, let alone an explanation or reply. Would they consider us, a Party open to new ideas? Or one defensively closed against them?

Dangerous idea 4

In Estonia and Lithuania they are thinking ambitiously about the application of blockchain and bitcoin to public services, and what these innovations can do to deliver greater efficiency, transparency and citizen power. Why aren’t we?

I have concluded that all this is so, not because we have really lost our intellectual curiosity, but because of the dead hand of Brexit. I admit second place to no-one when it comes to fighting for the best Brexit we can, and preferably no Brexit at all. I am proud of our Party’s clear position on this defining issue. But is our obsession with Brexit in danger of distracting us from what kind of country we want Britain to be, whether in the EU or out of it? For me the heart of liberalism is our crusade for the empowered citizen, not the powerful state. This is a radical disruptive and insurgent idea. But where is it? When did you last – at Conference or outside it – hear us arguing that case, debating new ideas to make it happen or proselytising it before the court of public opinion?

Look, for instance at this week’s resolution on the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The answer to the abuse of tenants in places like at Grenfell, is to give them the power and support to manage themselves through tenants’ co-operatives. I thought this was our policy. So where is it?

Answers on a post card please – preferably post marked Bournemouth and dated next week.

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

7 Comments

  • David Becket 23rd Dec '18 - 7:24pm

    Four very good ideas. What happened to them. Killed by the mandarins in our party content in their comfort zones. There are no Paddy’s in our party today, and they would not be welcome if they knocked at the door.
    I worked with Paddy at Newbury in 1993, I do not see that drive and energy anywhere in British politics today.

  • Peter Hirst 24th Dec '18 - 5:41pm

    empowering people to take control over the issues that are important to them isn’t just common sense; it makes for better decision making, a better quality of life for those effected and contributes to a more humane, caring society.

  • David Becket 24th Dec '18 - 7:21pm

    Over 24 hours have passed since this thread was opened, and we have three comments.
    I know it is Christmas and many have other things on their minds, but this represents the lack of vision in our party today. We have seen many articles praising the actions of Paddy in the past, all forgotten by Boxing Day, but nothing looking to the future. Matthew d’Ancona’s article in the Guardian today, “Let the centre find inspiration in Ashdown’ hits the right note, let us celebrate Paddy by ensuring his ideas rescue the party from oblivion, as they did once before.
    Take his dangerous ideas, it is a disgrace that they fell on deaf ears. It is up to liberals to make sure that they are heard now.
    If every reader of this site (except the few who wish us ill) copies these four ideas by e mail to our Leader, President, Leader of House of Lords, MPs and Chairs of Federal Committees demanding these be brought to the Spring Conference for debate and action we should see a reawakening of this party. Don’t take “there is not room” as an excuse, remove the wasted space taken up by Vince’s reforms.
    This will ensure that Paddy’s work lives on.
    Let us see leadership.
    I will post my e mail on Friday 4th January, who is going to follow me?

  • Graham Evans 24th Dec '18 - 10:56pm

    There is a FB Liberal Democrat Policy Group and a Chat Group, as well as the Members Forum of LDV. However while it is interesting to debate ideas and exchange views with others, I really do wonder whether any of these thoughts ever have any impact on party policy This is because are policy making structures continue to depend on people physically meeting face to face. While there may have been online surveys undertaken by the Party they are few and far between. However there is little evidence to suggest they have been initiated as a result of an online policy debate.

  • David Becket 25th Dec '18 - 11:19am

    @Graham

    I quote from Paddy’s Dangerous idea number 3, our structure is not fit for purpose, and that nobody was prepared to debate with Paddy shows that our committee are not fit for purpose.

    ” The older conventional political parties are stuck in the model of the1870s; vertical hierarchies, festoons of committees which claim democracy, but end up with management by those who can spare the time; low and ageing membership; high cost of entry; limited engagement; even less real participation and a dependency on political obsessives (like me). And they are dying. The number of people in political parties has dropped from 10.5% of the electorate 20 years ago, to 1.5% today. Should we be worried about this? Apparently not. I know this, because I sent a paper to our Party Board suggesting that we might take a look at these revolutionary new ideas being followed by those who are succeeding, where we are not. I did not suggest anything as radical as actually doing this. Just that we should look at it. I know it was discussed (and rejected with some muscularity) as I read about it, not always in the most admiring terms, in these and other pages where the Party, usually with delicious irreverence, exchanges its views”

  • Graham Evans 26th Dec '18 - 10:17pm

    @ David Becket My point is that I fully agree with what Paddy had to say, but it seems that no one in the party hierarchy is listening.

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.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

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

  • User AvatarGlenn 21st May - 8:34pm
    Frankie You mean the steel manufacturer that was marching for survival in 2015 while we were still in the EU. You need to look up...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 21st May - 8:26pm
    Would it be helpful if Joseph and Michael had a special thread all of their ownio ? Florrie Forde - Oh! Oh! Antonio (1908) -...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 21st May - 8:08pm
    @Charles Rothwell It might be ok for you not to receive a leaflet from the Lib Dems; but you, like me, would appear to be...
  • User AvatarDavid Langshaw 21st May - 7:57pm
    I do hope that Lord Heseltine's local party (somewhere in Northants?) arranges for him to be given a lift to the Polling Station - think...
  • User Avatarbob sayer 21st May - 7:19pm
    Not sure the reason we should be concerned is that tory members would vote for no deal. 1. There arent that many of them nowadays...
  • User AvatarNonconformistradical 21st May - 7:17pm
    @Philip Moss "As I understand it you can make as many as you like below this magic figure and your name is not disclosed to...