In March this year we announced the Jenkinsite Policy Network after a members vote, and though it has taken longer than any of us expected, we have finally gotten to the stage where we can announce our statement of intent! The statement was drafted by myself, Andy Chandler and Mathew Hulbert (of Matthew on Monday fame) and is intended to set out the principles of Liberal Social Democracy that will inform the policies we intend to push going forward.
We have done this with the aim of broadening debate within our party. We recognise that despite election successes of the previous few years, we have become vulnerable to other parties having a strong, consistent national message, and this has been reflected in a myriad of Lib Dem Voice articles crying out for a distinct progressive vision, but organising to make this happen has yet to come.
We hope to fill that void.
Our timid “local issues alone” approach is on borrowed time. The Liberal Democrats should be in a far better place as a grounded but anti-system party. This is not about abandoning the many traditions from our party, but developing a consistent and unique identity for the public, who often know little about what we stand for.
If you are curious what we have written so far we have a full version here, and for those with less time on their hands, an accessible shortened version here.
This is far from a finished vision though, as we will now be putting it to the membership via Zoom sessions to discuss further amendments they may have alongside setting up the final structure of the organisation.
As always membership is open to any Liberal Democrat who shares support for internationalism, social libertarianism and the social market economy, so we’d love for you to contribute too by joining our Facebook Group.
* Rosemary Runswick is a Liberal Democrat activist in West Suffolk and a member of the Radical Association. She writes a blog at the Green Ribbon Club (https://greenribbonclub.blogspot.com/p/about.html).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reading Ulysses
Newcastle Pride - the video
My Liberator article on the Yorkists' New Deal
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
How Oswald Mosley met his match in Swansea
Peter Davies
Hywel
Peter Hirst
14 Comments
Interesting, though I have concerns about the idea of the State having control of fiscal policy (and not monetary policy) but with the requirement of producing balanced budgets. That would appear to prevent any government adopting a Keynesian approach to boosting the economy (by either running a fiscal deficit or by relaxing monetary policy) apart from the relatively trivial balanced budget multiplier (where there can be multiplier effects from increasing public spending but also increasing taxes to pay the full extra cost.)
Is this really what we would want from a future Lib Dem government?
Hi Jana, I think your concerns are valid and I partially chose Ordoliberalism as something that might present a middle way between the Classical and Social Liberal economic traditions.
That said, this is not a finished document, and if you would be happy to join one of our upcoming Zoom meetings (dates TBC) to present an amendment on this I’m sure many would be happy to adopt it!
Knack all on civil liberties or human rights i notice.
Oh well, I don’t have a Facebook account anyway
@Jennie there’s definitely bits on Civil Liberties, the section on the civilised society covers it and implications are made elsewhere. It isn’t the longest section, but this is a document of principles and not policy, which is what we intend for it to inspire.
This is an important direction to take, and I appreciate the focus on economic fairness at a time when wealth is becoming concentrated ever more. However, policies such as a universal basic income may seem progressive at first instance, but they depend on how they are designed. In other words, a ‘flat payment’ should not replace disability benefits, because it may not be sufficient enough to provide a decent standard of living. I personally do not think it is fair that someone who is affluent will have an extra bit of money, when someone who is poorer starts off from a lower point. I believe that tax should always and income support should always be targeted and proportional. I would recommend looking into negative income tax. Smooth marginal tax rates across the income scale, avoids the ‘poverty trap’ cliff-edges common in our current benefit system, where withdrawing benefits as earnings rise can create punishing effective tax rates on low earners.
I look to Mariana Mazzucato’s vision of the state being an active ‘market shaper’ not in an interventionist way, but setting bold, mission-orientated goals – not to be reactive to market failures as its sole role, but to ensure it directs the innovation and economic development. A recurring theme across her work is that the state currently ‘socialises risk while privatising profit’ – taxpayers fund the riskiest, earliest-stage innovation, but private firms capture most of the financial upside once a technology succeeds. Fixing it requires new public-private partnership structures where the state negotiates a return on its investment (e.g., through equity stakes, conditional funding, or profit-sharing).
@Dennis I agree with a lot of what you have to say on the economy, particularly with the State acting as the market shaper, and would love for you to join us as we really want to be as member-driven as possible.
That said, on a personal level, I do prefer UBI to a negative income tax on the basis it’s an easier sell for a campaign point, (very hard to argue with everyone gets a bit more + in reality higher tax brackets won’t feel the benefit anyway) and the fact it had already been adopted as Party Policy at Conference.
It’s odd to see “ordoliberalism” mentioned with approval (as in the link given in the OP)- especially as the calls for government to adopt a more a Keynesian approach to macroeconomic management.
Roy Jenkins was widely considered an unrepentant Keynesian. As a leading figure of the post-war Labour Party and the subsequent SDP, he viewed social equality as something to be achieved through fiscal management and active state intervention. So this isn’t at all ‘”Jenkinsite”.
Ordoliberalism is, as Rosemary says, originally a German concept. Arguably it works well for Germany but clearly the rest of the EU, including us when we were members, have had trouble emulating the German approach. So we need to ask why this is.
A one word answer would have to be ‘exports’. Germany has been able to run a balanced govt budget only because it is a large net exporter. So the solution to all our problems is for everyone to run a similarly large export surplus? There has to be a problem there 🙂
The principle of the sectoral balances explains why. If Germany’s external partners are in deficit Germany as whole, including the Govt, must be in surplus. And vice versa. We in the UK are usually the vice versa.
Wolfgang Münchau calls out Ordoliberalism as “Wacky Economics”.
https://www.ft.com/content/e257ed96-6b2c-11e4-be68-00144feabdc0
Fantastic to see you guys doing well, congratulations! I look forward to seeing you go from strength to strength ☺️
@Peter The “Jenkinsite” title is a bit of a weird holdover from when we were simply a Jenkins appreciation group, but people have been loud and clear so far on more Keynesian economics, so that is something we may well look to replace Ordoliberalism with in the final version should the members agree.
Peter Martin is absolutely right. Ordoliberal had a time in the sun in Germany but the debt break and the pursuit of balanced budgets have produced a crumbling infrastructure including schools, bridges, the rail network, flooding infrastructure, water and sewerage, roads and pavements, fire stations, and other public buildings. The total cost is estimate at between €600bn and €800 bn, perhaps even a trillion.
As for its ruthless pursuit of mercantilism, that is now coming unstuck as China no longer needs so many imports from Germany. It can now produce most of its needs itself, cheaper and often better. Indeed it now competes with Germany in many export markets.
Ordoliberalism isn’t the answer to Britain’s problems, much less those of the Liberal Democrats
A further point if I may:
“…ensuring that all Nations within the country are on equal footing…”
This line within the Federalism section would appear to support England getting its own devolved parliament like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I would support that approach though it goes against current Liberal Democrat policy of not allowing England its own parliament and instead breaking England into ‘regions’.
Should the badly named” Jekinsite” Policy Group and the Social Liberal Forum be claiming common ground . both would appear to be on the progressive wing of the party , both would appear to be in line with the preamble of the constitution and our core beliefs . “Jenkinism ” refreshed and brought up to date to deal with modern times would underline our social liberal heritage and the challenges ahead for a revitalised liberal movement .
” Ordoliberal(ism) had a time in the sun in Germany”
Yes it did but, and as Graham explains, it’s now failing.
Ordoliberalism comes with mercantilism, again as Graham mentions. The whole point of trade is to swap something you’re good at doing for something else that others might be better at doing. It doesn’t make any sense for a developed country like Germany to continually want to exchange more in return for less.
Building expensive cars and all the other things that Germany is good at doing consumes real resources. Imports represent real resources consumed by someone else. So Germany ends up with a deficit in resources which might help explain why they have a “crumbling infrastructure including schools, bridges etc etc”.
It would be better for world trade, and the world economy as a whole, if everyone endeavoured to balance their trade as closely as possible. Including us in the UK. This would meaning increasing our exports and reducing imports. It would be painful in the short term but beneficial in the longer term. Our overseas indebtedness would become lower and would help restore meaningful jobs to the deindustrialised areas of the country.
Roy Jenkins would have approved!