To claim that ‘we’ are united when a majority of Scots are now apparently favouring independence seems controversial. But 85% of the UK population is English, and even the minority populations do seem to share a certain unity.
Compare our national spirit with that of Americans today. The new US President has to restore unity in a country where 74 million people voted for his populist predecessor who was prepared to tear up democracy there. Also compare it with the bitter divisions we remember too well in our own country in 2019 – families and friends divided, parties split, Brexiteers forcing through the increasingly doubtful will of the people who wanted to leave, and Remainers failing to find a consensus to fight Brexit.
Instead, in the past eleven months we have been united, forced together by pretty universal anxiety. Everyone has had a single united first aim, to save our hospitals and defeat Covid 19. Political dissent has been minor, opposition parties only criticising the late and contradictory responses of the government, plus the failures of the test-and-trace rollout and the confused messaging over school-teaching and exams. There has certainly been some harsh criticism, and a demand for enquiry by our own Leader, but there is a joint will in the country to defeat this plague and resume as normal a life as possible as soon as we can.
What is this normal life we want? No strong movement has emerged to urge change from what we accept as normal life. Change has been gradual. Much on-line shopping and working from home are likely to continue, with consequent modifications to home and work communities. As a national community we have stayed together, most people keeping the rules as they keep changing, with only minor questioning of the restriction of civil liberties and how far Parliament is endorsing the rules, while government ministers claim always to follow the science and trot out the scientists to prove it. There seems to be a national consensus at least that the hospitals must be protected and that the schools must be open as much as possible.
The government has meantime acted like no previous Tory government, spending billions to prop up businesses and operate the furlough scheme, with little concern about the effect on GDP and the National Debt. There was some business rates relief, and grants were made as well as loans to businesses. Stamp duty was reduced, some of the self-employed were helped, and some funds were given to local authorities. This Tory government which believes in the value of work is now prepared to pay people to do nothing, just to stay at home and self-isolate if in contact with anyone testing positive. Who guessed they could act like Santa’s little helpers?
We have accepted the handouts and asked for more. We accept our shared anxieties, sympathise with the grief of divided families unable to meet each other and losing dearly loved ones, help where we can if able to, and, as our own Leader has said, realise what a generous and caring country we really are.
But can such unity continue? Unfortunately, probably not. The misery isn’t equally shared: there is more illness and more death in the poorest parts of the country, and inequality and poverty worsen, as the children in the poorest homes fall further behind in their schooling, and key workers go on earning too little to live on adequately even as they risk their lives.
There surely needs to be worked out now a National Renewal Plan. It can’t come from this government, because their basic aims are to protect the market system and their own wealth and privilege, not to look after people on poor wages or none. It can’t come from the conflicted Labour party, for all its good intentions. It could come from our party, embracing the idea that a new national Social Contract is needed, and working out a Beveridge-2 Plan to tackle all the current social ills in the same way that William Beveridge tackled the Great Evils he saw in 1942. Then our Leader’s wish to help build a fairer, more caring country can be fulfilled, and a more lasting unity just might become possible.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Two frogs fell into a pail of cream - You won't believe what happened next
Our weekly ward surgery tonight #dundeewestend
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Imaduddin Ahmed
Nigel Jones
Joseph Bourke
48 Comments
Just a quick reminder that in the polls about Scottish independence – the majority only comes if you exclude the Don’t Knows, which in most cases is fairly large. It’s also worth noting that when polling asks about what other things might be important to us in Scotland, independence is not top of the list for most who might theoretically favour it.
You could probably poll Scots (and everyone else in the UK) on all manner of things and find a ‘majority’ wanting to go against the status quo.
We could definitely do with a bit of healing, and need to think carefully about how best to make our country work. We need to make sure that alternatives, such as electoral reform, are raised as viable alternatives every time someone lazily suggests that breaking up the country is in any way inevitable. We need to give people other policies and aspirations to get excited about.
That’s not to say we ignore the concerns, but rather we need to be careful that we don’t simply amplify the divisive narratives that suit other parties. It’s in their interests to encourage the media and casual observers that their favourite divisive policy is the only show in town.
“85% of the population is English”. A better description might be to say “live in England”.
I profoundly dislike all this talk of “unity”.
I didn’t want to be united with Thatcher in the 80s. I didn’t want to be united with the poll tax. I didn’t want to be united with Blair’s Iraq War.
We need a vigorous debate. Not to all be lobotomised in the name of unity. The media complain about a divided nation but then they complain about apathy. So us poor plebs can’t win with them.
People have different views. People have different interests. Labour v Capital. Why should we seize vast amounts of money off people to pay for benefits and services for those that can’t be bothered to provide for themselves? (As it happens I think we should – but there is a debate to had!)
The Lib Dems definitely shouldn’t be promoting “unity” (whose unity?) We should be promoting a vigorous, robust – sometimes rude, well-informed debate.
Thank you for an interesting and important article!
Might it be the case that when we face a really dangerous set of problems, as we did with World War II, society and the state move towards socialism?
Might the Neo-Liberal emphasis on Individualism have contributed to our present and related future problems?
Might it be appropriate for us to work on liberal and democratic forms of socialism which have practical applications?
Fiona, thank you for that thoughtful reply. I do believe we need constitutional reform, perhaps a Citizens’ Assembly (or several) to debate it, but certainly reform of the voting system and replacement of the House of Lords with a mostly elected second chamber (though, Tony, I naturally hope you and many others of our strong contingent of peers will be elected to it!). I also greatly welcomed the passing of the motion F11, The Creation of a Federal United Kingdom, at the September virtual Conference.
Michael 1, I personally value the spirit of unity in the country at present, remembering the fierce heat of the seemingly unending and basically unsolvable arguments about Brexit in 2019. But certainly let’s continue robust debate!
Steve, yes, I would certainly like the debate to go on between us and the Labour party, which Clive Lewis the Labour MP highlighted so well in his lecture to the Social Liberal Forum last autumn. And we have a good vehicle to discuss ‘liberal and democratic forms of socialism’, in the Social Democratic Group of our party. I was interested to read in the recent thread here from that group the high priority they give to tackling poverty in this country, just as a Beveridge-2 Plan would have to do now.
Independence is nearly impossible but wouldn’t it be better if it was also unwanted? No, not because of the challenges involved but because there was a better alternative to this current UK government with its increasingly culturally right wing, authoritarian, anti-EU, anti-devolution stance which had replaced a UK government with… well, how far do you want me to go back?
I don’t feel we should be talking about UK unity or Santa’s little helpers when the Internal Trade Market Bill is being used to run roughshod over devolution. Yes, Boris was right when he said we’re better when we work together but we both know he meant if Holyrood conceded more ground to Westminster and that a better covid outcome would probably have been reached if it was the other way round.
@Katharine Pindar
“I personally value the spirit of unity in the country at present,”
I appreciate the point about covid. And it does remind us that we are highly interdependent on each other and need to support each other.
Surely we can – and we do – realise that we are “comrades in arms” – even if we disagree on (some of) the future direction of the country. This is recognised in that the opposition is described as the Her Majesty’s “loyal” opposition – recognising that there is democratic role that is in the national interest for alternative viewpoints to be put forward and the Government to be held to account (and unfortunately it has very much needed to be held to account over covid!)
Often progress has come from direct action – and indeed somewhat violent action (although I and do not condone that). I am not sure that you would say that we would be better off today – if the suffragettes had not punctured the “unity” consensus – somewhat across the parties initially I believe – against women’s votes. And there are many, many such examples.
One of the bad things about British public life is that it is very black and white. You can have A or B – but not consider modifying A to be more like B or B to be more like A – let alone consider C, D or E.
But some decisions are binary. We either have votes for women or not. We are essentially either in Europe or out. Scotland is either independent or not. And all these decisions have been resolved. But in a democratic country you can always go back and revise a decision – and this is highly desirable. We revised our decision on Europe. And if the SNP gets back in to power in Scotland, it looks as if Scots will be asked to consider the question of independence again.
@Michael 1
So you don’t like the word ‘unity’. Well, how about ‘consensus’ or ‘compromise’? I guess you won’t be a fan of President Biden, then. Debate, by all means, but be prepared to see the other person’s point of view. Even Thatcher had a few good points, the main one for me being standing up to Trades Union militancy. That’s something that neither Wilson nor Callaghan was prepared to do.
This government has increased government spending because of the Coronavirus crisis, just as during the Second World War the government increased spending to fund the war and victory. After Coronavirus is defeated and we have annual vaccines to hold it in check we need to do what the Labour Government did in 1945, turn our resources to fight long standing social evils. Today we need to:
i. Relieve the poverty being suffered by 14 million British people even before the Covid crisis including more than four million children;
ii. Provide integrated health and social care which meet each individual’s needs;
iii. Provide enough homes including more homes available for rent at an affordable cost, and enough social housing so that everyone who wants a home of their own can have one;
iv. Provide the education and training people need to reach their full potential, meeting the challenges of the modern economy and eliminating educational inequality;
v. Provide full employment so everyone who wants a job suitable to them has one, with emphasis on jobs which help to meet ambitious climate-change policies.
‘We are essentially either in Europe or not’, you write, Michael 1 (thank you for your comments), discussing decisions that are binary. But even that is not black and white. I’ve just been reading about small business owners who are despairing of the new costs and problems of continuing to export their goods to European customers (who are being charged VAT on their doorsteps by the couriers who deliver to them!) and now are resolving sometimes to set up branches in the Netherlands as the only possible solution. Hi, Europe, we’re coming back already!
Surprising unity of opinion and peacefulness in tonight’s Any Questions on Radio 4, where host Chris Mason was the only one you could call contentious, I suppose probably being desperate to enliven the show. Was it more peaceful than usual because everyone is sunk in solemnity about the 100,000 deaths from Covid 19, or even (dare I suggest it!) because three of the four panellists were women? Probably the former, in fact, especially since the only male panellist was just as pacific. Anyway our Kirsty Williams, Lib Dem Education Minister in the Welsh Assembly, put on a good show, sounding well informed, reasonable and pleasant, as I expect she usually is.
George Thomas, I like your indignation even if with English ignorance I don’t fully understand your point about devolution being ridden over roughshod. Do feel free to explain.
Michael (BG), thank you for keeping our flag of the needed Beveridge-2 Plan defiantly waving!
@Katharine Pindar
You have no idea about indignation over devolution being ridden over roughshod by the Internal Trade Market Bill? And then you say you want unity?
Thank you. Says it all. Under your system, I’ll just keep tugging the forelock. Thanks.
This government can’t solve problems they are left until they produce a larger problem.
If Ireland wishes to remain in the EUROPEAN Union that’s a choice, democracy. If Scotland wishes to become independent then it’s a choice.
Whistle blowing is not something that is wrong if every available option was explored. Silencing by bullying is not an alternative.
I feel so sorry for those working in the NHS, something needs to happen preventing political cut backs for the future.
A Government party that tolerates the likes of Desmond Swayne retaining its whip and whose contempt for democratic norms is probably even more serious than its lack of talent, inevitably affects our future strategy be that post-Covid or post 2019 parliament. I have no problem with Lib Dems giving a lead on a National Renewal Plan, but perhaps it would be well if all, sorry most, opposition parties were thinking about what that would mean for them. Then they would be able to look soberly at one another’s Plans. Then they might be able to identify limited shared priorities in a manner similar to that managed briefly by the opposition parties in the pre-General Election months. It would have to be wider than Lib Dems and Labour, whatever the discrepancies in the sizes of Commons representation. To use the conventional description, the “parties of the centre left” have usually found it relatively easy to to identify what ‘s wrong but the crunch comes with agreed solutions.
That is helpful thinking, thank you, Geoff. We do indeed need to consider the ‘limited shared priorities’ that the parties holding broadly centre-left views should agree on for any National Renewal Plan, certainly including as you say any agreed solutions. I have been thinking of this in musing on our own party’s unity, having been pleased to read that one of the leaders of the Social Democrat Group, George Kendall, thinks that Social Democracy is focused on poverty reduction above all, which is of course the most pressing aim of the proposed Beveridge-2 Plan, though only one of its five dimensions.
It seems to me, reading in the concurrent thread on Social Democracy, that our Lib Dem party unity is based on both liberalism and democracy as it should be, but it cannot be called radical. Our little reaches towards radicalism I would hope to see extended. We have agreed on the taxation of wealth as well as income, but I would like to see, as mentioned in the other thread, support for diversifying and equalising asset ownership, which I think means having wider ownership of private property and wealth. There should also probably be blurring of the boundaries between capital and labour, with encouragement of co-operatives and worker representation on boards, and (as I think we already have as policy), legal changes to make company directors work for all their ‘stake-holders’, not just their share-holders.
Such progressive solutions could afford common ground for agreement between centre-left party thinkers, both for national renewal and in consideration of strategies for the next General Election.
Yes to radicalism, one thing Blair was right about is that the centre-left has in the past been hamstrung by its conservatism. When in the 70’s ideas such as workers on boards, in place of strife and the sale of council homes were shelved as being too radical that paved the way for Thatcherism with its own brand of market radicalism.
However the future of social democracy also rests on it being participatory, involving citizens in decisions that affect them such as local budget setting.
The ultimate principle of social democracy is that everyone is able to participate in the standard of living generally expected in the nation without barriers due to income or any other barrier.
So there is scope for cross-party working around radical, local and participatory principles.
“But can such unity continue? Unfortunately, probably not. The misery isn’t equally shared: there is more illness and more death in the poorest parts of the country, and inequality and poverty worsen, as the children in the poorest homes fall further behind in their schooling, and key workers go on earning too little to live on adequately even as they risk their lives.”
This is both an indictment and a challenge. Getting the Climate Emergency response underway gives us a great opportunty to tackle this challenge and deal with some of the rebalancing /redistribution of wealth that the country so desperately needs. LD’s should be leading the arguement on this and do so through the Community Politics that show that we act as well as listen. Unlimited economic growth will come to a slow down and a new community response will be required to tackle that to.
“@John Marriott
@Michael 1
So you don’t like the word ‘unity’. Well, how about ‘consensus’ or ‘compromise’?”
Thanks for your comment.
Yes – I specifically said in my comment that we often don’t consider in this country how A could be more like B or B could be more like A.
There do tend though to be some decisions that are binary. You can’t really half go to war – you either do or you don’t. OK – we could be in the single market – the EEA etc. but basically we are either in the EU or not.
But you can have strong and robust debate even when a consensus decision has been made – that’s what eurosceptics did – and I disagree with their policy but admire them for arguing for what they believed in.
In fact the political arguments we have are often very small – we argue at election may be about 1%-2% of public spending – may be sometimes 4%-5%.
On trade unions – part of the reason that I became a supporter of the Alliance was I didn’t support Thatcherism but I didn’t support the left wing stance of Labour under Foot. I think that you have to say that Thatcher was probably right in curbing the power of the Unions – although you can’t say that she did it in a unifying or compromising way – and possibly with Scargill etc. that was not possible. And Wilson (with “In Place of Strife”) and Callaghan had tried to do it in a compromising/consensus way and failed as you say – so may be that’s argument against compromise and consensus!
—
I am sure you have read or are aware of the work of Edward de Bono and his work on lateral thinking. And he is rightly critical of the debating style in this country where often you try and prove one little aspect of your opponent is wrong. Proving someone wrong – does not prove you right. Often different approaches are useful – for example listing the Positive, Negative, and Interesting aspect of any potential decision, trying to argue your opponents’ case etc.
But having said all that (!) – unity is very different from compromise and consensus and you can compromise (perhaps through necessity) and still have robust debate and continue to hold differing positions and argue for them.
Arguably we had a consensus “unity” position on Europe for a long time and it would have been better if we had had a rigorous debate about it.
Marco, in a drive towards unity of left-of-centre radical thinking, I suppose there will always need to be a constructive balance, adjusted from time to time, between participatory politics and leadership. At this time I want our party to show leadership: to call for a National Recovery Plan based on the principle of a new Social Contract being required, and the policies for it being radically renewed and developed within the proposed Beveridge-2 Plan. I am recommending it in a tweet to Ed Davey. I noted that Guardian writers have been calling for social democratic principles to be followed now, and for Keir Starmer to show vision and pull the themes together. But it is we who have the vision and the grasp, and the party unity which can allow us to help our country progress in social democracy, nationally and locally, if we will.
At the local level, I agree with Marco’s idea that there must be participation for citizens in the matters that affect them such as budget-setting, and I suppose our local councillors try to ensure that through Focuses and surveys. David Garlick, getting community response must indeed be vital, when as you say economic growth is slowing. I’m interested in how you see response to the Climate Emergency aiding the rebalancing and redistribution of wealth? It may be obvious to experienced councillors like Geoff Reid, but I should like to know more of how you view it, if you would like to write again.
On council budget setting
My understanding that there is a legal duty on council treasurers to present their budget thinking to a council scrutiny panel and also for a council to undertake public consultation. These things certainly happened at the council where I was a councillor. And there were presentations to neighbourhood forums and articles in the council magazine that was distributed to every household asking for feedback. And when we have run the council, certainly our leader did a massive amount of consultation with interest groups and I believe, to be fair, so did the leaders of the other parties when they ran it.
But I suspect that in many councils this is just a tick-box exercise. And it is up to us to use these mechanisms to be more than that in councils we don’t run and to make it a real meaningful exercise in those we do.
There was also strong participation in my council from local forums such the pensioners association, the cycle forum etc. etc. – and quite a large number of public deputations before the budget setting council meeting.
I would once again suggest that one of the best ways of public accountability is to have activists and local political parties (as well as other groups) scrutinising the council budget and decisions and campaigning in Focuses and indeed Conservative and Labour leaflets.
This once again is rigorous debate – not unity. And probably in too many areas, they are too much of “one party states” – Labour in the cities and Conservative in shires. Obviously this is a challenge for the Lib Dems to regain ground in these areas.
I was a councillor on a council where at one point, the three parties were split 15/14/13 so you as you can imagine there was very vigorous debate and scrutiny in the council chamber and outside in our political leaflets and in the local media.
(indeed it once took us to 3am to agree a budget!).
Of course it is likely that PR would make few if any councils “one party states” and this would aid greater scrutiny.
There is a role for deliberative panels and citizens’ assemblies. But I personally feel these are over-promoted as a solution – they also come up as a solution to everything at the moment (!) They may have a role – but real healthy public debate is better.
Katharine Pindar: “There surely needs to be worked out now a National Renewal Plan.”
Yes indeed and an early focus on preparing one is vital in order to launch it in time for the next GE. We must tackle this post-Brexit drift.
Yes, John Probert, it will be good if we can find unity of purpose in our party now to put together a National Renewal Plan. The fact is that we have most of the material to begin to put it together, if we show the will and the collective leadership. The changes needed begin with attitude, and our attitude to our fellow citizens is right – we value everyone, we seek their participation in decision-making, and we want to empower them. With this attitude we look with horror at the poverty and inequality shown up during the Pandemic, but recognise that these social ills have been allowed to fester for a decade and more, and resolve that this cannot be tolerated any longer. The present surface unity of the nation has to be disrupted, yes with vigorous debate, Michael 1, for us to demand change and show how to achieve it.
The idea, and principle, of a new national social contract is the overarching theme because in the days of post World War 2 such a social contract had materialised. Things really were put right as William Beveridge had demanded: the National Health Service established, sustainable and well enough paid jobs made available, home ownership possible with mortgages at a reasonable proportion of income, and higher education provided without young people going into debt. A National Recovery Plan should aim to recover these goods, to ensure that everyone now can have a decent standard of living and a chance of healthy and fulfilled life for themselves and their families. We need to get to work on the elements of the plan – put together our policies enhanced and developed, yes, radicalised, with the help of other politicians and academics of the Left. This, surely, should be the vision and purpose of our party at this time, since the Liberal Democrats are the only national party well enough unified and equipped to take on the job. Let’s ask our leaders to lead us in this.
A good example of what a National Renewal Plan should consider is how, in the health and social care sector, pouring money into building new hospitals shouldn’t be a priority, whereas employing, training and paying properly more nurses and health and social care workers most probably should be. A perceptive article by Susanna Rustin in Thursday’s Guardian showed how the seven new Nightingale hospitals in England have been massively underused – two of them in Birmingham and Sunderland treating no patients at all – apparently because clinically trained and experienced doctors and nurses are already fully employed, with far more new intensive-care beds than staff to look after them.
Moreover, on the jobs front, Susanna reports research showing far more jobs can be created in the care sector than in the construction industry for the same investment of GDP. Employment, and the labour market, as another vital strand of a National Renewal Plan covering the Beveridge-2 five areas, could be considered through developing existing Lib Dem policies enhanced by more radical thinking. And job development giving lasting work in the range of measures needed to fight climate change, reducing our carbon-footprint rapidly, should help keep people of working age out of poverty.
A National Recovery Plan is going to be an essential element of economic planning over this decade. The Daily Mail gives a flavour or what current thinking in government circles is https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/british-government-working-on-covid-recovery-plan-for-economy-says-source/ar-BB1dfuJa?ocid=entnewsntp
“Rishi Sunak is said to be targeting business tax rises to pay for the massive level of public spending during the pandemic – amid warnings that the economy could take a decade to recover.
The Chancellor is mulling increases to capital gains tax – paid on shares and other asset sales to bring it into line with income tax rates in news likely to alarm Tory MPs.
Corporation tax could also rise from 19 to 24 per cent under plans that would allow the Tories to keep to their manifesto pledge not to increase VAT, National Insurance or inheritance tax, the Telegraph reported.
It came as a new poll today suggested the public want to see ministers use the Covid recovery to rebalance the UK economy.
Just 21 per cent of those polled by BritainThinks for the Sunday Times want public services cut to reduce the UK’s eye-watering debt levels.
Almost nine in 10 supported levelling-up the economy away from a reliance on London and 83 per cent said that key workers should be paid more.
The paper suggested that Mr Sunak will use his Budget in March to prepare the nation for a decade of high spending, saying the ‘post-pandemic phase’ may take ‘five to 10 years’.
Mr Johnson also came under pressure from within the Conservative Party today, as former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt suggested he emulate Labour’s creation of the Welfare State after the Second Worlds War
Mr Hunt said the UK can have a ‘1948 moment’ in rebuilding the country that would also help it see off a resurgent Labour Party.
‘This could be a very exciting period for this country and if you look at what is, I think, generally recognised as the most successful Labour government since the war, the Attlee government, they were running the country in a period after a great crisis, the second World War.”
Why are we not organised to work on a National Renewal Plan, including the involvement of the public ? Katherine’s Beveridge 2 has been blocked from debate, yet Ed Davey has spoken of a £150bn plan, so why has the connection between these been missed ? Is our organisation hopelessly fragmented and unable to work together on a proper message to change our nation for the better ? Our conferences continue to provide plenty of opportunities for members to debate a wide mixture of matters usually of a high standard; so we enjoy ourselves immensely and boast that ordinary members voices can be heard, but for what practical purpose now ? Likewise we spend much effort reacting to bad government with good speeches in Parliament, but what will these achieve ? They don’t grab the general public, so where will we get enough public support for changing things ? We need to work to become the leaders of a national renewal movement out on the streets, not within our own bubbles. Why did FCC not have a radical approach to our conference to help us start that now ?
Unity to me means agreeing on a wide parameter of issues such as respect for the law, treating people with respect and knowing we live on an interdependent planet with finite resources. Also supporting human rights, international cooperation and combating climate change. We can disagree on many issues but have this common bond that goes deeper. The skill is drawing this line so the people of the UK largely agree on one side while enjoying our differences on the other.
Wonderful responses from Nigel and Joseph, thank you both. It was useful to hear of the impending plans of Rishi Sunak, according to the Mail, and I should like to know what our responses should be, what Lib Dem moves we would want in a National Renewal Plan, which I am sure you will want to contribute to, Joseph. Nigel, it was good to read of your indignation! ‘A national renewal movement out on the streets’ is a powerful addition to the ideas of what should be happening, and should be discussed as part of the Plan. I hadn’t heard of Ed Davey’s £150 bn plan, but I guess we should all be writing to him asking for joined-up thinking and dynamic leadership at Conference. There are some weeks before that when matters can be progressed.
There is indeed a high degree of unity in the country at present, Peter Hirst (thank you for commenting). I was struck anew by the another fact that Joe Bourke told us, that Conservative Jeremy Hunt MP, a former foreign secretary, had actually suggested to the PM that he emulate Labour’s creation of the Welfare State after the Second World War – effectively following our lead in suggesting that the ideas of Liberal William Beveridge, carried out by the post-war Labour Government, should be imitated today!
Mr Hunt is welcome to press the ideas of our Beveridge-2 Plan on the PM, and he does show how widespread the concept of renewal through a new Beveridge-type plan has become, but it is only the Liberal Democrats who have the attitude and spirit to formulate and campaign for such a plan. The essential differences in Tory philosophy will show up soon enough, since they grasp at popular notions without the appropriate depth of feeling, and the ‘We’re all in this together’ unity won’t, I am certain, last very long for them.
Katharine, There is no unity in the country at the moment. Brexit, Covid and so many other things have made that clear.
We have a government repeatedly denying in TV interviews what industry is telling it about the consequences of its Brexit deal is true. Kier Starmer is continuously sniping at Boris Johnson over the Covid shambles and Boris Johnson is pouring ill concealed scorn on Labour in response. Ed says we are not a Rejoin party, but party policy and most members are Rejoin (or at least they were until the EC chose to destroy all goodwill it had).
I would have hoped by now you would have realised that when a Tory says something a Lib Dem agrees with, he is either about to retire or just not telling the truth.
Politics is mainly a game of liar’s poker. Nice people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary believe everything they are told by their opponents, are doomed to fail in almost everything they do.
Either we win back because of our own efforts or we die.
The other barrier to unity is the refusal, particularly from Labour to embrace multi-party politics as an inherently good thing rather than an irritating barrier to overcome.
Whilst it’s true that at present due to FPTP the anti-Tory vote is split, with electoral reform it would be advantageous to the centre-left to have Labour, the Lib Dem’s and the Greens with 3 different brands appealing to different types of voters and therefore maximising support for a social democratic coalition.
Rallying round one party suits defenders of the regressive status quo but pluralism and choice suits people who want to bring about change and progress.
Marco, I think we will only get unity of the centre-left through some shared ideals, in pragmatic central decision-making and in local election pacts. The Labour party cannot win the next GE, I suppose, without as you suggest tolerating the other parties of the Opposition putting forward their different approaches, and, practically, letting us have the maximum chance of beating the Tories in the seats where we were near seconds. But they must want to keep their distinctive ‘brand’ and try for greater internal unity, so lacking in that party.
I suggest we too want to keep our distinctive ‘brand’ because otherwise too many centre-left voters will swing to Labour, as so many will have done in the most recent elections. We can’t afford to be eaten up by Keir Starmer’s moderate appeal, which is another reason for my insistence that we need to be seen as fronting this new-minted idea of a National Renewal Plan, embracing the Beveridge-2 Plan and more, and actually doing the work this year to bring it into existence. Let the Labour party agree with it where they can, but it is our party which is uniquely placed to produce it, and win public interest and acceptance in doing so.
David Evans. That’s a sadly negative contribution, David. Of course we have to have the immense continuing local efforts as part of a Renewal Plan, and local campaigners don’t need advice on that. I am pleased that several constituency associations accepted our Conference motion as relevant to them.
Right here on LD Voice is also the right place to agree on priorities and goals for a National Renewal Plan. Who will kick-start this?
Katharine, you say my response is sadly negative but in fact it is merely factual in pointing out the fallacy of your view that “There is indeed a high degree of unity in the country at present.” It is a fantasy and a dangerous one at that. Lib Dems like everyone except the clergy work have to work in the real world, the here and now.
I remember that once I was the winner of quite a large Fantasy Football League where I used to work, but it didn’t make me a football manager.
We need to keep fond imaginings out of our policies, otherwise we don’t notice when things start to go wrong and we fail because we can’t accept that they are failing in our perfect world. But we know our world isn’t perfect. That’s why it needs Liberal Democrats to fix it.
So many Lib Dems like you made exactly the same mistake in coalition, refusing to face up to the devastation around us, and it was a root cause of our party’s collapse and failure then and remains a root cause of our failure to recover now.
David Evans:
I suspect that you are very slightly exaggerating your distrust of Tories to make the point:
“I would have hoped by now you would have realised that when a Tory says something a Lib Dem agrees with, he is either about to retire or just not telling the truth.”
Nevertheless, you are right that this has to be the Lib Dem default position. Over the past decade the Party (and particularly the Party Leader) has made two major blunders, through not asking the simple question “What would our opponents most want us to do?”
Jo Swinson did not take heed of this when she decided to support an early election; Nick Clegg ignored the question when he agreed to a referendum on an electoral reform that the Party had rejected.
I fear the same is happening now: our opponents clearly want us to shut up about the dire consequences of Brexit (they occasionally loiter on these pages. When they exhort us to ‘move on’ the term is being used as a euphemism for death.
What can we do as Liberal Democrats to help our party and our country this year? John Probert suggests a good way forward. Contribute to developing a National Renewal Plan, a post-Covid recovery plan, which we can agree on at Conference and campaign for, now and through these four years of inadequate Tory government.
It will build on Lib Dem existing policies, of which there are many unknown to the public, bringing them together and developing them further to meet the present needs. They will be about confronting problems of unemployment, climate change, mental health, social care, unequal educational opportunities, homelessness, regional imbalances, entrenched poverty and disadvantage – let’s contribute where we know and care about areas especially ourselves.
@ Martin,
“…..our opponents clearly want us to shut up about the dire consequences of Brexit”
Not just your opponents. I’d like the Lib Dems to do better than they are at the moment to increase the chances of a Labour victory at the next election. The Lib Dems can win votes and seats from the Tories that the Labour Party can’t.
Harping on about the EU won’t win back seats from the Tories in the West Country for example. That’s probably what cost you in the first place. The Lib Dems have become, at least in England, an exclusive party of the more affluent. Of social groups A and B. There just aren’t that many constituencies where you’ll get sufficient support from them to win.
To improve, you need to think Burnley as well as Bath. Do the sums!
Katharine I totally agree with the objectives of the plan you set out in your post at 10:07am, where you also point to the fundamental problem we face as a party – “It will build on Lib Dem existing policies, of which there are many unknown to the public.”
But have you ever asked yourself, “Why, after 5 years in government, and taking a high profile over the next five years fighting against the disaster that is Brexit, are so many of our policies unknown to the public?”
and even more importantly
“what are we going to do differently so that they become known?”
Because we have had policies for decades, many of them rather good, and at times when we were massively more popular and successful than we are now, but the people out there didn’t know what they were.
Now were are ignored in the media and other than on LDV and a few blogs and Facebook pages we have no national presence at any level whatsoever.
So how will we get this new National Renewal Plan noticed by the public?
Unity of misery, really, at the moment, friends, misery even for those of us less affected by Covid 19, realising the helplessness, fear, great grief, anxiety and alarm of so many, all the threats and realities of Covid and of Brexit. For us Liberal Democrats, those of us who can, “Time to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.” Be more effective than poor Hamlet was, and arm ourselves with plans. We have the political advantage now, Martin, that it is the government’s job to solve the problems, and they have failed with Covid and are failing with Brexit. We should indeed shout about the dire consequences of Brexit, but the public will also be thirsty for some real ideas to help.
@Martin
As a Tory voter I hope you continue to speak up about the dire consequences of Brexit. I suggest you find something better than Erasmus, pet passports, or touring bands though, unless you want to continue gifting votes to the Tories.
The big uncertainty over National Unity has to be over Scotland.
The most common media line is that the SNP are heading for a massive victory in the May elections which will be followed by a referendum, possibly unilaterally held, and independence will surely follow.
But events may not turn out quite as expected. There is a simmering civil war in the SNP which could boil over in the next few weeks. The temperature of the pot has been raised by yesterday’s sacking of Joanna Cherry – a Salmond faction supporter. Alex Salmond will, for well known reasons, feel he has a score to settle. The Salmond enquiry fallout will possibly bring down Nicola Sturgeon. Her days as first Minister could well be numbered.
Whatever the outcome, a SNP which is at war with itself might not do anywhere near as well as the polls are predicting in the upcoming elections.
Thanks, David, something at last I can reply to! A National Renewal Plan will be noticed by the public if we can get our leader(s) to take up the idea and proclaim it at Conference, so you should all, please, be joining Michael BG and me in contacting them about it.
We Lib Dems have to have an overarching theme, and express it in a term that is instantly understandable and will be taken up by the Media glancing at our Conference to see if there is anything worth reporting about it. I have realised, reminded through this thread, that ‘Beveridge-2 Plan within a Social Contract’, though understood and accepted by the cognoscenti (most of us!), just isn’t a media-friendly concept. But once I started translating it as a National Renewal Plan, hey presto, readers of LDV started noticing it, and so will the general public. Now we need to publicise it, and begin the work on bringing out our policies that fit it and developing them. Social media could help – maybe the Lib Dem Campaigners Group on Facebook would be one channel.
Katharine, Thank you for setting out key issues for the National Development Plan, including homelessness. Lack of adequate and affordable housing is the root cause of many social problems. Lack of a stable home massively impedes childrens’ emotional stability and educational progress which can result in anti-social behaviour when they reach their ‘teens and unemployability as they grow older. Governments repeatedly proclaim massive targets for new housing. Are these ever met?
John, you are so right about the plethora of problems surrounding ‘homelessness’. Lack of a stable home does indeed as you say ‘massively impede children’s emotional stability and educational progress’, and that was the case before Covid, when families were having to move frequently if they fell into housing debt and were evicted – easy to suffer with inadequate housing benefit and delayed Universal Credit payments. We do have policies to right those particular wrongs.
Now in this past year there has been prohibition of evictions, but that has then locked families into often inadequate accommodation where they can go stir-crazy, a single parent at home with children of different ages trying to carry out home schooling in small spaces without enough digital equipment, the children’s educational levels falling compared with those in better-off households. Now we have surely to demand far more extra schooling for the children who have fallen furthest behind, at the same time as we campaign for better affordable housing and the income assistance for people to pay for it. The interlinked problems that Beveridge saw in 1942 are so clearly evidenced today.
Katharine, it was very much support for the Beveridge Report which drew me to the Liberal Party as a a teenager in 1945. Therefore how shameful it is that (as your say) the problems Beveridge saw in 1942 are so clearly evidenced today.
John, that is wonderful, thank you! I have often written about us needing to take on the mantle of Beveridge, but never thought that there could be a Liberal still living who knew of the Beveridge report of 1942 first-hand and supported its findings. This gives me a marvellous sense of continuity, and hope too, even though it is shameful as you say that the problems then are with us today. They were there before Covid and Brexit too, of course, though the post-war settlement, the social contract of the 50s, meant that Sir William’s vision was fulfilled for the time being. Now it is time for younger generations of Liberals to fulfil it again, and your example of continued involvement will surely inspire others reading here, as it really does me.
The Agenda for Spring Conference next month has now been published, without, of course, the motion Michael BG and I submitted on Beveridge 2 Plan within a Social Contract. The Agenda includes a motion entitled Supporting Businesses, Workers and the Self-Employed in the COVID-19 pandemic. Surely a worthy aim. However, I was reminded that in the last Brighton Conference (Brighton, how I miss you!) in September 2018, we passed the excellent motion, Good Jobs, Better Businesses, Stronger Communities: Proposals for a New Economy that Really Works for Everyone. That is just the sort of policy that should be considered again by a Working Group to produce a Beveridge-2 Plan, to see how far its proposals still stand up and what new ones or developments of those agreed should be considered, perhaps incorporating ideas from the new motion to be debated. Please, Sir Ed Davey, ask the Federal Policy Committee to set up such a Working Group. Michael and I have now written to our Leader four times since January 14 about the theme and its proposals (with some accompanying tweets), so we await hopefully a positive reply.
The proposed Beveridge-2 Plan would form part of the National Renewal Plan we are now putting forward. Perhaps there should be an Emergency Motion submitted about this for the Conference. What do supporters of the idea think?
The Conservatives have become a “far right sect”
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/16-peter-oborne-conservatives-have-become-far-right/id1550331378
Owen Jones interviews Peter Oborne: The Conservatives have become a “far right sect”
Peter Oborne is a conservative commentator who used to work for Boris Johnson – but his new book, The Assault on Truth, is a searing and compelling indictment of a Prime Minister who has turned lies and deceit into an art form. We talk about how Johnson has got away with it, about the alt right leanings of the government, the sinister roles of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings – and Peter Oborne’s damning verdict about the role of the British press and the BBC