So, we are to be a party of the centre; open, tolerant and united. Four adjectives for the LibDems of the future. Given that we are currently polling around 7%-8%, I feel we need to take a long hard look at ourselves. So for what it is worth, here is my take on the first of these adjectives: party of ‘The Centre’.
The problems of being a party of the centre are well known. Suffice to say that barring a massive misjudgement on the part of the Labour or Conservative parties we will never hold the centre captive, un-contested and fertile. It is absolutely essential therefore, for the LibDems to find a political territory that is distinct and independent of the Tory Labour axis and effectively communicate that territory to the electorate.
I was recently advised in a dialogue on this site to revisit the preamble to our constitution and it seemed to me that written through it, like a stick of rock, was the notion of Social Justice. The more I reflected on this issue the more it seemed to offer explanations and possibilities, not only as a guiding principle but as a strong and powerful narrative for the public imagination. But for it to work, ‘Social Justice’ cannot just be a brand or a slogan, it has to be defining, intrinsic and all pervading; a raison d’être.
Our constitutional preamble talks about Social Justice rejecting discrimination on the grounds of colour, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation but Social Justice is about more than discrimination. It is about how we distribute the benefits of our society between areas as such as north/south, urban/rural, rich/poor, individual/organisational, young/old and others that we are probably not even aware of because the pursuit of Social Justice needs to diffuse up from our communities as well as down from our principles.
We need to listen and be pragmatic as well as talk, and in so doing, make our policies relevant and realistic. The LibDems have always commanded a sort of unarticulated public respect for being socially just but we have never put a name on that characteristic, an identity, something that people can say they identify with.
Then the 2010 coalition. How could the naturally social liberals get into bed with the Tories. On top of this we presided over one of the most blatant miscarriages of justice in our history and reneged on our public pledge not to increase student fees. In one act we had not been Social and we had certainly not been Just. We had betrayed the public’s faith. Our failure to cling to our sense of Social Justice had left the Libdems diminished. Unless and until we address that miscarriage of Justice over student fees and explain our positive social influence on that government (and admitting our mistakes) we will never regain the public’s faith.
As for the now, if we are to be true to Social Justice there can be no sacred cows.
Take Brexit, for example. We have never truly examined our EU membership in the light of Social Justice. If we had, then maybe we could have fought to mitigate some of the injustices felt by the 52%, either at EU level or via domestic policies. At least we would have understood them and tuned our message to reflect that. Instead we say ‘we’re right, you’re wrong’ and still we are in denial. We talk about the negative economic impact of Brexit but for a lot of people, they feel they have so little to lose that they prefer hope over what they currently have. All the economic benefits seem to accrue to others whilst they are left short of social housing, dealing with overcrowded schools, their wages undercut and feeling diminished in their own communities. It seems that we have not been sufficiently tuned in to their reality to have seen the dangers and our response has lacked empathy.
For the future, I want the party to have a serious think about ‘Social Justice’. Where does our drive for Social Justice emanate from and how does it find form within the party? How do our policies impact on Social Justice. Will they result in a more socially just and harmonious society? It’s a mindset we need to develop and fine tune. But to change an institution there has to be a method of initiating and fixing that change via internal structures, institutions and procedures. Things like a Specified Associated Organisation (SAO) dedicated to Social Justice. This could start to offer a direction and meaning for the party and we can start to rebuild a case for the LibDems around a defining message.
P.S. Maybe somebody else can address our use of the words Open, Tolerant and United in separate articles.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Hayley Mills
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Daniel Walker
Peter Martin
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
65 Comments
At last the question is asked about the down side of Remaining in the EU for some segments of society. Higher housing costs and wage levels suppressed. The inevitable consequence of several million of workers from the EU, 90% of it into unskilled jobs.
I agree: social justice is a core value, especially for social democrats, and should be more explicit in our thinking, our message and our policies. We need to define our thinking clearly, though, or it risks being like Motherhood and Apple Pie, something everyone is in favour of, but not actually meaning much in practice. We need to say what social justice looks like and how we will measure and know when we are moving towards or away from it.
I also agree that there are many social justice issues around the EU and Brexit, not least that prominent leaders of Brexit are committed enemies of it and that going through with Brexit will damage Social Justice more than anything else I can think of.
Paul,
very much agree with this ‘Social Justice’ cannot just be a brand or a slogan, it has to be defining, intrinsic and all pervading; a raison d’être.
The grand daughter of Henry George wrote an eloquent piece on the theme of social justice centenary of his death http://schalkenbach.org/henry-george/who-was-henry-george-by-agnes-george-de-mille/
“..nothing that has been tried satisfies. We, the people, the whole people, are locked in a death grapple and nothing our leaders offer, or are willing to offer, mitigates our troubles.”
The late Prof. Robert V. Andelson penned an excellent intoduction to Henry George’s thoughts http://schalkenbach.org/on-line-library/works-by-robert-v-andelson/henry-george-and-the-reconstruction-of-capitalism/ quoting a member of the Danish cabinet: “What I produce is mine. All mine! What you produce is yours. All yours! But that which none of us produced, but which we all lend value to together, belongs by right to all of us in common.” This, in a nutshell, is the philosophy of Henry George.
Prof. Mason Gaffney left us one of the best expositions of his relevance today as “the Great Reconciler” of opposing economic systems http://schalkenbach.org/henry-george/henry-george-100-years-later/ noting:
” Ideas that we associate today with “liberal” Democrats-belief in the fairness of taxing “unearned” income, concern for “root causes” of poverty and unemployment, concern for social and racial justice — these ideas have strong Georgist roots. roots.
You are right to say “As for the now, if we are to be true to Social Justice there can be no sacred cows.”
The EU project and globalisation has not delivered social justice for far too many. We see a general malaise in the Western democracies exemplified by the discontent of Trump voters with the status quo, the coming confrontation between Macron and the French labour unions and the UK’s Brexit. There is a swelling mass of migration headed towards Europe from the African continent . We have no solution to the destabilising problems it poses and see borders being re-instituted and troops being deployed to man those borders in Hungary and Austria.
I don’t think a belief in social justice is more likely to be held by social democrats rather than liberals. Liberalism wishes to prevent people from being trapped in poverty. Lloyd George introduced the first redistributive budget in 1909 and Labour took over from the Liberals because they wanted to use the power of working people to drastically change society, not to produce a fair society.
One of the problems we have is that our policies tend to be based on the status quo and changing the existing situation so that it’s slightly better. I’m participating in a working group and at our first meeting the assumption was made that we couldn’t spend too much money because of austerity.
I agree that we must put social justice first and work out what sort of society we as Lib Dems want to inhabit and then produce policies that we believe will lead to that society existing. Unfortunately at the moment we are still linked to austerity through the Coalition, so we have to decide as a party whether we are turning our backs on those policies and that economic stance to find new ways of funding social justice.
Christopher Curtis is correct to point out the importance of Social Justice to those still in the party who were members of the SDP and still identify themselves in some sense as Social Democrats. Paul Carroll make a compelling case that we should test our policies against Social Justice. A Britain that works for everyone is a slogan based on Social Justice. We need to ensure that it works for those who are disadvantaged in any way. Having policies so everyone who wants a job can have one is Social Justice. Having policies so everyone who wants a home of their own can have one (by renting or buying one) is Social Justice. Reducing economic inequalities is Social Justice. However they are all Liberal too.
Paying student tuition fees from general taxation many think is not social justice (and this might be Vince’s position). However burdening students with over £30,000 worth of debt, which for many means having this debt for 25 years is not social justice. I think paying for student tuition fees via a graduate tax is social justice.
There is an organisation in the Party which is “dedicated to social justice”. It is the Social Liberal Forum with a core of some hundreds of members and several thousand supporters. I’m it’s vice-chair. Our website and Facebook pages are easily accessible. Our recent Conference included a keynote speech – the Beveridge Memorial Lecture – by Lord William Wallace; contributions from Sir Ed Davey and Prof Sir Lawrence Freedman as well as panels on the General Election and its outcome. Recent years have seen the SLF successfully develop party policy on economics (York; 2016) and we proposed a motion on health inequity for this year’s Confeence – only to see it led off the agenda on the grounds that references to the social determinants of health appear elsewhere in the detailed canon of policy.
The SLF made its first impact fighting the case for policies of social justice and the health service during the years of coalition; since then, the emphasis has been on developing “big ideas” to represent our social liberal party. We have a Council elected every two years by members to run the organisation
You can join easily via our website – only £25 a year; less with concessions – or simply register free of charge as a supporter. If you want to join our debate, respond on the website or simply drop me a line: [email protected]
Three Economic graduates have recently published a book titled ‘Econocracy’ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/09/the-econocracy-review-joe-earle-cahal-moran-zach-ward-perkins
The Econocracy makes three big arguments. First, economics has shoved its way into all aspects of our public life. Flick through any newspaper and you’ll find it is not enough for mental illness to cause suffering, or for people to enjoy paintings: both must have a specific cost or benefit to GDP.
Second, the economics being pushed is narrow and of recent invention. It sees the economy “as a distinct system that follows a particular, often mechanical logic” and believes this “can be managed using a scientific criteria”. It would not be recognised by Keynes or Marx or Adam Smith.
In the 1930s, economists began describing the economy as a unitary entity. For decades, Treasury officials produced forecasts in English. That changed only in 1961, when they moved to formal equations and reams of numbers. By the end of the 1970s, 99 organisations were generating projections for the UK economy. Forecasting had become a numerical alchemy: turning base human assumptions and frailty into the marketable gold of rigorous-seeming science.
By making their discipline all-pervasive, and pretending it is the physics of social science, economists have turned much of our democracy into a no-go zone for the public. This is the authors’ ultimate charge: “We live in a nation divided between a minority who feel they own the language of economics and a majority who don’t.”
Another recent publication Doughnut Economics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/doughnut-growth-economics-book-economic-model notes:
“The central image in mainstream economics is the circular flow diagram. It depicts a closed flow of income cycling between households, businesses, banks, government and trade, operating in a social and ecological vacuum. Energy, materials, the natural world, human society, power, the wealth we hold in common … all are missing from the model. The unpaid work of carers – principally women – is ignored, though no economy could function without them. Like rational economic man, this representation of economic activity bears little relationship to reality.”
As an internationalist party, do Lib Dems believe in social justice for all peoples or just for UK nationals?
Globalisation through more free markets and free trade has raised the standard of living and education for billions of people in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere.
UK consumers have also benefitted from the lower cost and better quality goods and services that more open international competition has provided.
Should we reject globalisation because some workers in the UK have done less well because of the overseas competition?
David Evershead,
Politicians are there to represent their electorate. If we forget that is it any wonder we don’t get elected; telling someone living in poverty that’s OK because your suffering is helping the poor of the 3rd world really won’t go down well, nor should it.
David Evershed,
free markets and free trade should be a benefit for all – producers and consumers. In the UK we have gone from a situation where the income of a manual worker could provide for the needs of a typical family to one where two wages are needed now to cover the basic needs of a family. This has occurred in a period of rapid technological innovation that has raised productivity levels up to the time of the financial crisis and when the price of consumer goods have fallen while improving in quality. Why is this? Might it have something to do with the ever-increasing % of disposable income that is needed for basic housing costs https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/jul/19/uk-housing-costs-third-highest?
There is a group in the party committed to Social Justice via four cornered Liberalism.
It’s website is here and it is free to join.
http://www.liberalreform.org.uk/
Social justice cannot be delivered without a sound economic underpinning, which is the mistake other groups tend to make.
I’m enjoying this thread, but can anyone tell me if social justice is the same as economic justice? If not, in what does it differ? And Paul, may we know where you are coming from? There aren’t any biog. details at the end of your interesting article.
Katherine,
Social justice is wider than economic justice. It is (or should be) concerned with the institutions within society that provide for our needs on a collective basis, Social justice imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others, at whatever level of the “Common Good” in which we participate, to design and improve our institutions as tools for personal and social development.
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how individuals earn a living, enter into contracts, exchange goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for their economic sustenance.
I agree with your discussion. The party needs to reflect and take a big look at vision and policy to be in the game.
Social justice is important and the coalition years had an impact on the party. I don’t think the public see left or right but look at parties based on vision and policies.
We have a distinct policy on the EU but we need distinct policy on health, housing, inequality etc.
Doing this will make us distinctive and have purpose
Gordon Lishman introduces the Social Liberal Forum http://www.socialliberal.net/ above
and TCO introduces Liberal Reform https://www.libdemvoice.org/introducing-liberal-reform-46049.html. These two Libdem groups represents different economic approaches within Liberalism that most contributors here would recognise as social Liberalism versus economic liberalism or Keynesian economics v the classical principles of Adam Smith or free market philosophy of Hayek.
The challenge for the Liberal Democrats is to reconcile these competing concepts into a comprehensive policy platform and program for government. This is what Henry George did in composing two polar philosophies, collectivism and individualism into one solution
Ideas that we associate today with liberal Democrats-belief in the fairness of taxing “unearned” income, concern for “root causes” of poverty and unemployment, concern for social and racial justice — these ideas have strong Georgist roots. Likewise, ideas we associate today with free-market advocates — the productive power of capitalism, the need for free trade, the need to liberate labour and capital from burdensome taxation and regulation — these ideas have equally strong Georgist roots.
Action for Land Tax and Economic Reform (ALTER) https://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/ promotes a Georgist approach to economic reform and social justice. It’s objectives include:
– Improving the understanding of and support for Land Value Taxation amongst members of the Liberal Democrats.
– Encouraging all Liberal Democrats to promote and campaign for this policy as part of a more sustainable and just resource based economic system in which no-one is enslaved by poverty.
– Co-operating with other bodies, inside and outside the Liberal Democrat Party, who share these objectives.
Joe Bourke
“These two Libdem groups represents different economic approaches within Liberalism that most contributors here would recognise as social Liberalism versus economic liberalism …” (sic).
“The challenge for the Liberal Democrats is to reconcile these competing concepts into a comprehensive policy platform and program for government ” (sic).
It is impossible to reconcile economic liberalism with the economics of social liberalism. We need to recognise that we have to reject economic liberalism while keeping our belief that capitalism with well-regulated markets are the best well to run the economy.
What is important is to unite behind the principles we all share, as Joe shows, it has happened before, he correctly illustrates it with Henry George, but there are others.
Mill, influenced by experience and Harriet Taylor and Helen Taylor, was far more concerned with the social justice of his economic interests being at the fore, advocating co – operation as well as competition, in business practices, and , profit share, even , a degree of social ownership , without the state .
The practices of various proponents of Liberal policy , from FDR to JFK, all combine the economic efficiency necessary, with social justice.
Actually , both Social Liberal Forum, and Liberal Reform, emphasise social justice, as does the Social Democrat Group, that is the reason I subscribe to all three newsfeeds but am a member of none, they all vary but talk good sense on favoured issues.
@Michael BG “It is impossible to reconcile economic liberalism with the economics of social liberalism. We need to recognise that we have to reject economic liberalism while keeping our belief that capitalism with well-regulated markets are the best well to run the economy.”
On the contrary. Social and economic liberalism are indivisible (along with personal and political liberalism).
It is impossible to deliver social liberalism without economic liberalism – indeed our constitution enshrines this where it says “free markets where possible and … regulation where necessary “.
Indeed the example of Scandinavia shows us this is the case. It is only their dynamic economies that enable their social programme’s.
Not too sure where social justice stands on where someone who works 50 hour weeks for 50 years and then ends up on a state pension that nets him less than someone who spent 50 years on benefits, then gets housing benefit and the ill-named pension tax credit ((no council tax to pay) ? Basically if benefits are too high the result is indolence and bankruptcy… no good for anyone. I know many people who are reducing themselves to apparent poverty so they can tap into all the free benefits in old age, that is what we have come to. The more people depend on the State the more child-like they become and the more they want.
I am all for fair taxation (huge array of loopholes to close), great essential services, free uni education for the poor etc but somewhere along the line you have to get people to take responsibility for their own lives rather expecting the State to provide everything. All you end up with is a load of government and council cadres feeding at the trough and telling everyone how to live. Absolutely no freedom for the individual in such stupidity.
Basically the more you intervene the worse it gets beyond a very basic fallback position for citizens.
Joe Burke, Michael BG – no more economic liberalism in economic issues. This is not the 19th century. The state not only has to provide social safety net for people, healthcare and education, but also to actively develop an industrial strategy and invest heavily in basic research to facilitate economic development. A small government with a small budget can’t do all of them, and thats why economic liberalism must be discarded forever.
Sue Sutherland – Labour displacing Liberals was just a matter of time, even with the First World War. They only needed Universal Suffrage to become the main party of the left, because as a natural party of the working class, they would certainly hoard votes from the majority of working class people who were not eligible to vote before the war. In addition, the prewar Liberal Party was still some kind of a bourgeois party rather than something close to the mass. The People’s Budget and Natiinal Insurance actually ignored unskilled workers rather than covering everyone.
Emmanuel Macron has just nationalized a French strategic company to prevent foreign takeover. The Libdem must learn this lesson, we must have a Foreign Takeover Committee to do such job. I still remebered that the Coalition acted like a bunch of cheerleaders when Pfizer attempted to take over AstraZeneca.
Sorry, David Evershed, but internationalism at the expense of UK nationals is just idiotic. About nationalism, you must remember that it used to be the other side of liberalism, at least until 1848. It only became a trump card of the far right during the French revanchism period during 1890s.
Those that have carefully read the works of Keynes, Hayek and Adam Smith, will know that are no irreconcilable differences between the three. Hayek was critical of concepts of social justice, but mostly because is was undefined and used to show good intent rather than represent a specific set of clear problems for which specific alternative remedies can be formulated and their effects tested.
“This is not the 19th century.”
It soon will be. Sometimes I think I’m the only person left who can read a graph.
The UK economy is all red lights and the bulk of what I read here is tax and re-distribute.
This must end in economic catastrophe with runs on banks, life savings wiped out, teachers wages unpaid – in fact just what we see in many countries who have forgotten that the first step is to create the wealth and the second to decide what to do with it.
I am sure some smart Alec economist will reassure us that the government can always print more money. It can, but it can’t print wealth.
The Student Loan system IS a ‘graduate tax’. It has been spun (mainly by Labour – who introduced it) into something else. Student Loan debt does not affect credit records and is not taken into account for mortgages. It is repaid out of wages at 9% of income over £21,000 – regardless of how much is owed. An ex-student earning £25,000 a year would pay back £360 a year. If, after 25 years, you haven’t paid it all off the debt is cancelled and you stop the repayments. A true graduate tax would not have a threshold and would continue for life. A 2% graduate tax has been spoken of in the past. For the £25,000 a year ex-student the pay back would be £300 per year for 45+ years.
Most students understand this and think it’s fair. Why should the 60% who don’t go to university subsidise those that do? It’s the parents and grand parents who don’t understand it. The student loan system has also immunised the universities from the cuts of the rest of the economy so they have continued to grow.
I am social liberal but not a member of Gordon Lishman’s organisation, or of any other subgroup of the Libdems. I agree with Caroll, and would suggest that the big thing for us could be ‘housing justice’. It is an issue that nobody has got stuck into with any consistency and effect. Grenfell Tower has simply been a horrendous extreme case. Can we respond?
Part of the question is housing finance. As long as mortgages are calculated on a basis of 2 salaries, prices will be high and will keep on rising. Another is the need to raise more money through council tax – more bands, so that the inshore taxhaven that property prices represent is tackled. And the Leasehold scandal. My parent’s house was leasehold, but the amount payable was never very great. Builders who build only leasehold stuff should brought to heel. Leasehold flats in tower blocks are a disaster waiting (not very long) to happen.
Here is a Libdem cause, part of being in favour of ‘social justice’.
Paul King. Chesterfield
Thomas writes: “internationalism at the expense of UK nationals is just idiotic. About nationalism, you must remember that it used to be the other side of liberalism, at least until 1848. It only became a trump card of the far right during the French revanchism period during 1890s”. Liberalism was closely connected with national identity because that was the arena to establish democratic principles. The philosophers and activists of the Italian Risorgimento were democrats, nationalists and internationalists as were the founding fathers of the US, Palmerston and Gladstone, the founders of Czechoslovakia and Norway and Nelson Mandela. As Tim Farron has argued, patriotism doesn’t exclude internationalism.
@ Philip Knowles,
Perhaps parents and grandparents know more than you give them credit for.
One grandson soon to go to university, hopes to become a teacher. Either we, or his parents intend to pay off the student loan on his behalf ASAP. We accept that it is wrong that some others who also wishing to choose the same profession do not have this advantage.
‘Mid- Life crisis – are student loan repayments really progressive? in Higher Education, policy people and politics’.
Available on the internet of one types in the key words.
The idea of social justice appeals to our value as a nation of fairness. This is related to empowerment, the value of giving everyone the opportunity to better themselves in whatever way they choose. This is why education is so important as long as it is used in its widest sense. Give a man a fish etc. There must however be a motivating factor driving this betterment. We still need to reward “success”. There should always be a route out of whatever predicament people find themselves in. Hope springs eternal.
@Jayne Mansfield “One grandson soon to go to university, hopes to become a teacher. Either we, or his parents intend to pay off the student loan on his behalf ASAP.”
Why? For the vast majority of people that makes no economic sense whatsoever.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-repay
Get on board with many of the ideas of DiEM25.org?
Gordan
Say this a little more often, as a staunchly patriotic Liberal Democrat of part Italian heritage , I have been saying this for years, alluding to Mazzini and Verdi , and getting called ” sentimental, sanctimoneous, UKIP-lite !” A quote from a post on here , some while ago in response !!
I agree that we should champion “social justice”, which is enshrined in our constitution as many have pointed out. Unfortunately it is not very distinctive since I am sure every one of the 500k plus members of the Labour Party would tell you they believe in social justice as well, and even the Tories go on about it when they lose an election…
This is then epitomised by the fact that both the social liberals (with social democratic underpinnings) and the economic liberals (who tend more towards Thatcherism in my view – sorry!) think they have the best way to achieve this social justice, as do both the Remainers and the Leavers..
Personally I would pick out some other words from our preamble to define Liberal Democrats in a more distinctive way, which I would describe as “People Centred”, but which have been put into practice by Liberals and Liberal Democrats through Community Politics. Various people on hear have cited (frankly contradictory!) economic thinkers like Keynes, George and Hayek. My guru would be E.F. Schumacher, and I encourage anyone who has not read “Small is Beautiful” and “Good Work” to do so. Thinking a bit more green would do us a lot of good as well…
“We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections.”
“We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable.”
“We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment…”
“We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life.”
“We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.” This last one shows how people-centred principles can be combined with social justice.
Now I will add one other quote:
“Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security.” The idea that supra-national bodies pooling sovereignty are very desirable underpins my support for EU membership, and trumps all the economic arguments
Jayne/Philip/Michael, on university funding:
I agree that the new Tory innovation with no grants and high interest rates (which was supposed to get more money out of the rich) is ending off non-progressive since the rich pay of the loans ASAP using capital or money borrowed on property at much lower rates. Frankly it was a rubbish system when we contributed to introducing it and is now far worse.. Look up the stories about the student loan company as well…
However a true graduate tax which would be paid for life WOULD be progressive as the super rich would make far bigger contributions. It would also be much simpler – a declaration on your tax return, easily checked for fraud. In many countries expats could be chased through reciprocal tax arrangements but to be honest anyone who moves abroad solely to avoid 2 or 3% on their income tax is not worth bothering about..
“Student Loan debt does not affect credit records and is not taken into account for mortgages.” I do disagree with this statement. I applied for a mortgage two years ago and was assessed on my net income after tax, pension payments, car loans etc, which was compared with the repayment if interest rates went up. I don’t see how an additional 9% marginal rate of tax could fail to affect that unless you were below the repayment threshold. Of course the graduate tax would affect mortgages as well. It could have a threshold too but that would be a trade off with the marginal rate..
Paul King,
I very much endorse your comment above “the big thing for us could be ‘housing justice’. It is an issue that nobody has got stuck into with any consistency and effect.”
“Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing” by Josh Ryan-Collns, Toby Lloyd and Laurie Macfarlane is a new book about land and its role in the economy” . Their reason for writing it is to help explain the crises in “affordability of housing, rising inequality, financial instability, excessive household debt and falling investment and productivity levels, despite increasing paper wealth”.
This book ought to be read by every Lib Dem campaigner who wishes to understand these problems. That understanding could be the key to us securing the dominant centre-left position in politics that we have sought for several decades but failed to achieve, because we have not had the insight or the narrative to fit our aspirations. It is not aimed at economists but at anyone who wishes to understand how economic thinking has influenced the way western societies – but especially British society – have developed over the past century or so but particularly what caused the global financial crash of 2007-8 and why it has been broadly mishandled as far as most of us are concerned.
As house prices rise beyond the reach of a growing proportion of younger voters, the political dynamic changes. At the same time, the risk of catastrophic collapse in confidence of investors in property stalls the home-building programme. The authors give prominence to a Hyman Minsky hypothesis, that “stability is destabilising” when advanced economies become too dependent on speculation in real estate. Minski calls it “Ponzi financing”.
The book ends on an optimistic note. “A tipping point will eventually be reached when the majority of the populations in Western democracies will favour policies that reduce the concentration of wealth in property” and it is comforting for Liberal Democrats to know that our new Leader Sir Vince Cable has long realised what is needed. You don’t have to be young to know what the young want and need and will vote for.
“As for the now, if we are to be true to Social Justice there can be no sacred cows.”
We need language that discriminates between one form of discrimination and another.
Someone who prefers one brand of chocolate to another is considered discriminating.
It is not illegal. Sugar grown in the UK from sugar-beet in preference to cane sugar from the West Indies affects governmental subsidies and Brexit.
Choices with economic consequences will need to be made.
The trouble with being a centre party is that your position will always be defined by the positions chosen by Tories and Labour. Anyway, a party member for more than 40 years I am not and never have been anywhere near the centre.
“The idea that supra-national bodies pooling sovereignty are very desirable underpins my support for EU membership, and trumps all the economic arguments”
This ‘internationalism’ in the face of national paucity, is likely the very thing that voters simply find incredulous and hence the strength of outcry for a clean-break Brexit amongst many hard core Leavers. I’m not suggesting internationalism is not a worthy ideal, but a worthy ideal with an international reach, is a bit high minded and pointless when you have a nation with pockets that can barely keep its own citizens out of food banks.
I recall Tim Farron speaking prior to the election, during a week when the poor state of our housing supply was big in the news. Tim’s major policy response for the ears of the electorate was that the Uk should take in 50,000 asylum seekers. It was a jaw-dropingly irrational thing to say to a British electorate struggling to access the very basics of a livelihood, and I could only shake my head in disbelief.
This article makes a good start on the need for a liberal reality check, between ‘the ideal’ and ‘the practical’, but it’s clear that some liberals have a long way to go in the painful journey of calibrating high principles alongside some very basic common sense.
@TCO “For the vast majority of people that makes no economic sense whatsoever.”
The link you provide is for the student loan scheme inherited by the Coalition. The guide for those with loans under the new scheme is here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/repay-post-2012-student-loan
@Philip Knowles “The Student Loan system IS a ‘graduate tax’.”
No it is not. The clue is in the name.
Either own the current scheme and celebrate it for what it is, or disown it and try to reform it, but don’t pretend that it is something it is not.
@David Franks “The trouble with being a centre party is that your position will always be defined by the positions chosen by Tories and Labour.”
I don’t think that is inevitable, but I do think that in recent years Lib Dems have failed to clearly stake out their own part of the political centre. Currently it seems to be defined in a very fuzzy sense by which bits of Labour policy some Lib Dems detest and which bits of Tory policy other Lib Dems detest.
@TCO
“Why? For the vast majority of people that makes no economic sense whatsoever. ”
Only if you believe that no government will retrospectively change the terms of student loans. In future, a government could extend the requirement to make payments beyond 30 years or even collect the balance from the graduate’s estate. The latter has already been advocated by the proponents of Land Value taxation for those pensioners who could not afford to pay LVT.
@Paul King @Joseph Bourke
Yes, housing justice is essential. Let us start by ending the invidious leasehold system. Houses should always be sold with the freehold of the land that they stand on and commonhold already exists for multiple-occupancy buildings. It would also deal with the inequities of leaseholders (such as ex-council tenants who have bought their flats) in council-owned blocks who may be forced to pay for expensive repairs because councils have a cosy relationship with contractors and may not seek best value.
Sheila G
The problem is that Leave voters have been encouraged to blame the failings of successive British governments on the EU.
I see the EU as trying to protect us from the foolishness of our own government. And if our Brexit should lead to the collapse of the EU and the re-Balkanisation of Europe that would be an unforgivable consequence. We are about to take back control of what has become a rowing boat in a vast and choppy ocean, not the country in charge of our own destiny that people hark back to. That is where some “basic common sense” is required…
Michael BG,
“It is impossible to reconcile economic liberalism with the economics of social liberalism.”
I beg to differ. I think TCO is right to say “It is impossible to deliver social liberalism without economic liberalism” and as Paul Reynolds notes “those that have carefully read the works of Keynes, Hayek and Adam Smith, will know that are no irreconcilable differences between the three.”
Approximately half of the population is engaged in the production of goods and services at any one time to support themselves and generate the surplus to support the other half – children, retirees, the infirm and unemployed as well as those who earn income from economic rents. That surplus is derived from labour applied to capital in the form of factories, shops, offices, stocks, tools, computers, plant etc.. Capital has to be created by labour and requires an adequate return to bring it into being. Both capital and labour require the third factor of production, Land and natural resources, to produce wealth. The greater the surplus that is produced by labour and capital the greater the amount of economic rent that will be extracted from the surplus in the form of land and natural resource rents, Intellectual property royalties and other monopoly rents.
Higher taxes on labour and capital to increase levels of redistribution typically serve to reduce the surplus that can be generated i.e. the deadweight effect of taxes on production. Conversely, higher taxes on economic rents increase the surplus that can be generated from productive activities and hence the wealth of the community as a whole – increasing the size of the pie if you like.
That is the basis of an economic and taxation system founded on natural justice, as the moral philosopher Adam Smith and those that followed him argued for.
“So, we are to be a party of the centre”, says our poster Paul Carroll Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.., well actually………………., NO.
We were a party on the radical left of centre with a strong emphasis on social justice home and abroad when I joined the party in 1961/2… for well over forty years ………….. until 2007. Since 2007 there have been many changes – including in the party’s popularity and appeal. As Paul says….. we are currently polling about 7/8% with 12 MP’s….. a bit of a change from 23% and 62 M.P.’s pre-2007. Were the electorate trying to tell us something ?
Looking back I found it hard to decide between Huhne & Clegg in the Leadership contest back in 2007. In the end I plumped for Clegg on the grounds he seemed a bit more articulate. With hindsight it turned out to be a choice between the devil and the very deep blue sea.
We often talk about evidence based policy. This should equally apply to evidence based electoral outcomes.
The next two years will be a kill or cure time as far as I’m concerned..
Paul King
Part of the question is housing finance. As long as mortgages are calculated on a basis of 2 salaries, prices will be high and will keep on rising.
It’s not just that. Most people buying houses for the first time now are subsidised by “bank of mum and dad” and mum and dad are likely to get the money from inheriting their own mum and dad’s houses and selling them.
The price of a house is what people are prepared to pay for it. If most people have the price of a house to pay for it gained from inheritance as well as what they can add to that from a mortgage, it is going to push houses prices upwards. There is an obvious disaster in the price of houses itself pushing up the price of houses.
“The price of a house is what people are prepared to pay for it. ”
Economics 101 says that the price of a house is the marginal price people are prepared to pay – where the rising marginal price curve cuts the declining supply price curve. Unfortunately, there are far too many constraints on supply, so the market signals encouraging more houses to be built are suppressed. Suppose that there was a planning system in place which decided whether you could buy a new car or not – if the supply was sufficiently constrained, clearly the price would rise. Such a planning system might be a good thing – reduction in congestion, for example, but the effects of supply constraint are entirely predictable.
I’ve spent a deeply educative hour here learning some of the economics my two-year Politics degree didn’t have time for, and being refreshed at times by Lorenzo and Andrew McCaig. Let’s be people-centred! Let’s help the people to be empowered! Let’s fight for housing justice! Let’s be socially AND economically liberal! There are enough ideas and recommendations here for me to feel that intellectual liberalism is in a good place in our party and there’s much for us to build on (as well as building the houses). But I still feel the need for a couple of people-questions. Are Joe Bourke and Joseph Bourke one and the same person? (Thanks to one or both!) And who is Paul Carroll?
“The problem is that Leave voters have been encouraged to blame the failings of successive British governments on the EU.”
It’s the exact opposite of what you suggest Andrew. It is in fact, the EU’s constant interference in our affairs both political and economic, which caused the deep consternation. A case in point, when 650 of our duly elected representatives have no say on a simple matter of whether VAT can be modified or eliminated from female sanitary products, you have to roll your eyes and ask who exactly, is in charge. For leavers, the Brexit process is about getting rid of a tier of unelected (and un-reformable?) busybodies, and frankly they have a valid point.
“I see the EU as trying to protect us from the foolishness of our own government.”
If our government is foolish, then every 5 years we get the democratic opportunity to get rid, and install another lot. No such method exists to get rid of foolish EU commissioners, because voters cannot directly ‘sack’ people who were simply installed (buggins’ turn), without a vote in the first place. If I’m wrong, please explain how in the EU system, voters can give Juncker, Tusk or Mogherini their ‘comeuppance’, in a way that May got hers a couple of months ago.?
Social justice is good, but a return of real direct democracy is better.
Katherine,
I go by Joe. Only my sainted mother calls me Joseph and the returning officer on election nights. Joseph Bourke is saved in cookies on my office PC and Joe Bourke on the home PC.
@Matthew Huntbach the price of houses is largely determined by the cost of money.
Cheaper interest rates allow people to borrow more given an affordability level, and the power to bid up prices of a scarce resource.
Lots of family homes are of course under-occupied by the boomer generation which further exacerbate’s the problem.
Are the people crying out for centrism, or social liberalism, or economic liberalism, or liberal socialism, or sch-ism?
I don’t think people want “ism”. In fact, they hate it, and they are right to do so!
So – We should just have broad principles (insert Preamble to Constitution here). Then we should always ask ourselves “What do we think is the best practical way, in line with our principles, to deal with problem X?”
We mustn’t be blinkered and biased – either for or against “statist” solutions, for or against “market” solutions, or for or against “internationalist” solutions. That doesn’t mean ignoring the various pitfalls, e.g. that markets can be exploited by the wealthy, or that state organisation can grow stale or domineering. It does mean doing our best to sort out problems right – and not doing our best to prove that our pre-existing theories were right!
David Allen,
tackling problems like persistent poverty/growing inequality in a world that has seen two centuries of extraordinary technological development requires a deeper understanding of the root cause of these phenomena
Regarding the question you pose “What do we think is the best practical way, in line with our principles, to deal with problem X?” – Albert Einstein left us with some good advice:
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
Sheila,
The EU commissioners are all nominated by elected governments and the Commission as a whole can be dissolved by the European Parliament. Of course British voters no not have sole control over that any more than the voters of Yorkshire have sole control over who is Prime Minister..
Meanwhile the Commission is a civil service, not a government. It has the power to initiate legislation but all that legislation has to be passed by the Council of the EU and the Parliament, and can be amended. Furthermore the Parliament is elected by PR, so is actually representative, unlike our sham democracy in the UK. In practice, the Commission does what the democratically elected leaders of the Member States want. The idea that the EU is undemocratic compared to the UK is one of the most ridiculous myths of the Brexit debate..
On tampon tax, I agree the Commission has been slow to enact the universal desire in the EU to be able to zero rate it. Such things are never as simple as people think and of course the EU commission only has 23000 people working for it compared to over 400,000 in the UK civil service. As just one positive counterexample I cite the way the Commission took on the mobile phone cartel to remove the excessive roaming charges, a benefit that hopefully will outlast Brexit. And just look at how long our British governments took to give justice to the Hillsborough victims, sort out BSE, or ensure tower blocks were safe from fire….
@Katharine Pindar. Sorry to be unintentionally obscured. Whenever I post a Op Ed it uses my membership name but I comment under P.J. J being middle initial.
This article arose out of a dialogue you and I had recently on another thread. In terms of Biog, not sure what you are looking for. You don’t get to my age without going round quite a few blocks, quite a few times. Politically I joined the party on the back of the Brexit referendum and I am still a Remainer but not of the rose tinted variety. It is reassuring that the more I get to know this party the more I like it. I am grateful to Joseph Bourke and others for the links to groups but wonder what influence these groups have had on the party and how they make their voice heard. I will explore further. I was active in the GE campaign which was an eye opener for a newbie to door knocking. The one thing that I am certain of is that this country is crying out for a third way. The other is that the LibDems are lousy at marketing. ‘Social Justice’ is a central plank of our belief system. It also comprises two words that have strong positive resonance. The rest is what you make it. Think of a tree. If you want to describe it, you can describe branches and sub branches and foliage and it’s life cycle and that is what the LibDems seem like at the moment, a load of branches and sub branches and foliage. But it is nothing without a trunk to give it structure. Ask anybody to point to the tree and they will point to the trunk. That’s the tree there. Whatever the party decides, it needs to put that trunk in place so voters know where it is.
On some of the other comments, firstly thank you. I had often struggled with what I now know to be Economic v Social Liberalism. Think I am more of the latter. This article started at around 2500 words and included areas such as the integration of a market economy and Social Justice (on which I do not see a conflict). I cut it down to 1250 words and was told it was still too long. The final draft of approx 850 word had to cut out a lot more. Still interested in analysis of Open, Tolerant and United by the way.
“The EU commissioners are all nominated by elected governments” Yes but former Commissioner Chris Patten argues in his recent book ‘First Confession’ that electing commissioners would be both possible and desirable. If staying in the EU after a referendum is possible we would need a manifesto. Liberal Democrats should therefore support electing commissioners, which is not yet Tory policy. Labour already has a set of ideas which Jeremy Corbyn used in his campaign in the 2016 referendum, although before the general election he had a severely limited likelihood of implementing them.
The cartel on the pricing of German cars requires action in Germany and in the EU. One of the reasons I am a pro-European is that the monopolistic practices of IBM were taken on, here in Europe, in a way and at a time that a single country would not have been able to do. We cannot rely on the USA acting on monopolies in the interests of consumers outside the USA.
Andrew McCaig
I’m afraid our differing views will never converge, not least because we have two polar opposite views, of even what constitutes ‘democratic’.
I have to say that as a marginal (on balance) leaver, I am thoroughly happy we are now leaving this EU institution. Leaving has proved to be the correct decision, and I’m now in the category of, let’s just get on with it and leave.
For those willing to ‘die in a ditch’ over their EU fetish, I would implore them to look carefully at the figure 7.4%. This Remain obsession is not winning LD votes, as Tim found to his cost. Social justice and policies designed around that, is a much smarter way to try to pull the greater liberal vision from its self-inflicted crisis.
There’s a lot to debate about with social justice.
The biggest social justice issue is extreme poverty. Increased world trade has allowed some countries to significantly reduce extreme poverty. While I dislike the authoritarian government of China, I think we should celebrate that the terrible suffering of the Chinese people in the famine around 1960 is in the past, and instead China is mostly grappling with the far less serious issue of relative poverty. It’s a pity that some, with a genuine concern for relative poverty in the UK, don’t seem to recognise the progress in reducing absolute poverty worldwide, and the importance of this continuing.
Relative poverty in the UK is also important, because we have a special responsibility for our own fellow citizens, and because, if we care about our social fabric, it’s in our interests to do so. But good people can have genuine differences of opinion on how to reduce relative poverty.
Should the government intervene more to bring more jobs to the less affluent parts of the country? Or should the emphasis be more on making it possible for the less affluent to live and work in the more affluent areas, particularly by increasing the supply of housing?
Should we introduce a significant rise in the minimum wage, or would that risk pricing some without marketable skills out of a job? Should we instead subsidise low wages with in-work benefits, or would we be better spending that money on improved education and skills. What is the best way to use limited resources to increase education and skills, and so improve the employability of those who might otherwise struggle to find a job?
While I have my own opinions, but I hope I’m open to listening to others and adjusting my views.
I think it’s good that there are groups that have more of a focus in their opinion, such as the Social Liberal Forum and Liberal Reform. Part of the objective of the Social Democrat Group is to reach out to social democrats beyond the party, so we are avoiding taking policy positions, and instead simply want to provide forums for discussion.
Of course, the Liberal Democrats as a party needs to adopt policies. But I hope we remain a broad church. That those who disagree with party policy on social justice will still feel welcome, and that those who support party policy don’t make those who disagree feel unwelcome.
Joe Bourke “Tackling problems like persistent poverty/growing inequality … requires a deeper understanding of the root cause”
I completely agree. I suggested we should pose the question ““What do we think is the best practical way, in line with our principles, to deal with problem X?” I suppose that that might be taken to suggest looking for “simple common sense” answers. That is not what I meant at all, and if my language was inadvertently misleading, I am sorry for that!
If – Just to take one example – we seek to give Generation Rent a better deal – Then we had better first do a lot of reading-up, and a lot of hard thinking, about how the housing market actually works. Only then will we stand a good chance of planning an effective intervention. Much the same applies in most fields.
What, however, would not help, in my view, would be to read the political wisdom of Kim Il Sung, or Karl Marx, or even JS Mill, and expect that this would help us make better decisions about tenants’ rights. Indeed, too much political theory can often be actively unhelpful. No doubt K Marx would strongly advise not seeking any “market-based” solutions. That could be an unhelpfully blinkered piece of advice. No doubt JS Mill would tend to avoid “statist” ideas. That could be unhelpfully blinkered as well!
Would our classic liberal free market zealots be willing to comment on the fact that British Gas has today raised prices by 12.5% – whilst last March their Chief Executive appropriately named Mr Conn got a 40% pay rise ?
Another triumph for the unfettered market ?
@ Bill Fowler
Do you think that your two pensioners should not have equal freedom in their retirement? Because it looks like you want to restrict the freedom of the disadvantaged person who had to live on benefits by punishing them with less money to live on in their retirement.
(The person who worked for 50 years might have purchased a house and so not need housing benefit and they will have a private pension which is supposed to pay more than they would receive if they had been in SERPS.)
You do not seem to have a liberal view of humanity. If the level of a Citizens Income is high then people will find fulfilling things to do with their time which will increase their happiness and liberty and lots of people will still want to be in paid employment (perhaps to pay for holidays abroad).
@ P J
I didn’t know you could get an article published without a biography. LDV states in the “write for us” section, “Please state your affiliation to the Liberal Democrat party – ie, if you’re a member / activist / councillor, etc. and any short description that you would like us to use.” I am sure you have seen them attached to other articles, mine is: “ Michael Berwick-Gooding is a Liberal Democrat member in Basingstoke and has held various party positions at local, regional and English Party level. He posts on this site as Michael BG ”
So you could include what you post as, as I do.
@ TCO
You have a different view of the economics of social liberalism and economic liberalism than I do. Social liberals do not reject regulated markets. An example of a free market with no regulation is the illegal drugs trade. Can you think of another?
@ Joseph Bourke
You have a different view of the economics of social liberalism and economic liberalism than I do. The only part of what you wrote that was about economic liberalism was the idea that it is bad to raise taxes on labour and capital and for the government to redistribute it. However you point out that taxes could be raised on “economic rents” instead. The economics of social liberalism does not declare that taxes on capital and labour and redistribution should be such that everyone ends up with an equal amount to spend. Social Liberalism is not Communism. As the economics of social liberalism sees a large role for the state and economic liberalism much less state involvement they are opposites. They cannot be reconciled, we have to be in the social liberal area of the spectrum.
@Michael BG
Please see my post 1st Aug 10.51
Guess I’ve always had a thing about badges. Maybe its a virtue, maybe a flaw.
I’ll put something on next time.
Can’t remember you posting an article for some time, which is a shame as you start to get to know the characters who are regulars on this site and in the main I find your posts quite affirmative of my own views. God knows, this party needs some loud voices at the moment, screaming for change and renewal.
I would like to think we are all agreed that we support social justice. I think most of us do considering recent conference motions. But those who supported benefit cuts during the Coalition that ruined people’s lives and made them destitute would appear to lack resolve on this matter. For that reason I was pleased that SLF were there to make the case against them at the time.