What kind of world awaits us after the coronavirus pandemic and how should Liberal Democrats respond to it?
One, not unlikely, scenario is that those on both the right and left may feel that the pandemic justifies a larger, and more intrusive, state. Whereas the former may express such statism in calls for a ‘bio-surveillance’ state, with the inevitable restrictions on civil liberties that this entails, the latter’s statism is more likely to be expressed in terms of a greater role for the state in economic life. Liberals, however, should emphasise the need to develop and expand the third sector – voluntary groups, cooperatives, and mutuals – in the new political world that awaits us.
During the pandemic, a spontaneous spirit of voluntarism, self-help, and mutual aid has emerged in communities throughout Britain. Indeed, although local councils have much to be proud of, it is apparent from my experience as a Councillor that mutual aid groups, established and run by volunteers, have been able to contact and help those who local government, for various reasons, have been unable to reach.
Despite our party’s long commitment to ‘community politics’, in recent years the emergence of voluntary-run libraries, community centres, bowling clubs, and other services has all too often been justified in terms of financial necessity and, sometimes, with a sense of regret. Such negative arguments overlook the positive arguments in favour of the voluntary principle, within which local communities control and run services, not least the benefits gained by the volunteers themselves. As J.S. Mill wrote,
A people among whom there is no habit of spontaneous action for a collective interest – who look habitually to their government to command or prompt them in all matters of joint concern – who expect everything to be done for them, except what can be made an affair of mere habit and routine – have their facilities only half-developed.
It is only when we are able to develop and cultivate our own personality in our own way and possess autonomy or self-mastery that we can be said to be free. Contrary to those of a more right-wing libertarian bent who espouse an ideal of atomistic individualism, the means by which to nurture such self-development is via active participation and involvement in civil and civic life; passivity is no friend of liberty.
Of course, in some cases the third sector would not be appropriate for the provision of certain services and, indeed, in light of a liberal commitment to pluralism, diversity and experimentation, nor would this be desirable. However, with the significant amount of action and community spirit that has been unleashed in our communities in response to coronavirus, a renewed and greater stress on the importance of the third sector, mutual aid, co-operation, and the voluntary principle, should be a central element of our party’s platform, and certainly more central than it has been in recent times.
* Daniel Duggan is a Liberal Democrat Councillor in Gateshead
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
5 Comments
Thank you to Daniel Duggan for this. I agree with what he says, but want to comment on why many people not so much would not agree, but would not understand at all.
When I was councillor I attended various campaigning meetings organised by people in the community.
At one I was asked why there were political parties. She knew their names, had been to see both the MP and councillors, but said she had no idea why there were parties.
It was brought home to me the different lives that people lead. Some worked on zero hour contracts at minimum wage, with great difficult paying the rent and feeding the family. Others had permanent contracts, maybe with parents to help support them in times of crisis, and thus a feeling of security.
In political parties we attract those who for one reason or another have the resources, whether it is money, time, security to interest themselves in these things. When we ask people to vote for us we are talking to many people who first of all need help to get through each day.
I suggest that the best way to use our interest in the theory of politics is in our own party. There are al ways huge numbers of people in our communities who do voluntary work, whether formally, or very informally, just helping people they meet who need help.
I suggest that we need to look at the way that we run our own party. How do we build up a party which is a movement. This would involve making sure that we have a decision making process which people feel part of.
There are volunteers and the third sector. As to volunteers, so many are now in demanding jobs and do not feel they have time or energy to give to other things, apart from family. The third sector has grown with non-profit-making organisations employing people and that must be part of the solution for more neighbourly community work but it desperately needs better overall coordination.
I think there is a need for more effective coordination of these by local authorities.
My wife has now set up a help group in our area and has discovered how the existing third sector groups who have close links to local councils perceive their role as supporting (often bureaucratically and unhelpfully) other ‘voluntary’ groups and not doing anything themselves which directly help people. This was a problem 18 years ago when I became a councillor; much money was given by the local council and spent by one overarching third sector organisation on themselves, not the people they were supposed to be helping.
It’s good to see what our Lib-Dem mayor of Bedford has done now to directly provide foodbanks. More direct help organised by a competent council officer is probably the way forward; that means more funding for local councils together with a switch from officers who simply produce loads of paper strategies to ones who organise activities.
Thank you for this post Daniel. I think your second paragraph sums up the attitudes of all 3 main parties. We see government at whatever level as enabling and nurturing whereas Labour and Tories are essentially authoritarian, which is why their arguments often revolve around the role of the state. In a properly functioning democracy what exactly is the state? It’s not some amorphous body but the means by which the government implements the policies the electorate has decided it prefers.
The role of a Lib Dem government, based on valuing the nation as a community, would be to decide how best to obtain the optimum benefit for the community as a whole. We shouldn’t take up a position of being for or against the state but decide using evidence based decision making whether the government should take on a greater or lesser role in enabling communities at whatever level to achieve their optimum.
At the moment, because of lockdown, people are appreciating a less polluted world where it is possible to hear the birds sing. The opportunity to build on this to tackle climate change effectively mustn’t be lost and it requires our enabling philosophy to succeed.
There will be a requirement for the government to invest much more in Green industry, to use the natural acquisitiveness of the population to turn to environmentally friendly products rather than those which pollute our planet. If the Government invests to make those products cheaper initially the consequences of Fordism will reduce prices even more. Other government investment would be required to help local community groups or national groups to clean up our act. The Lib Dems were very active in this area during Coalition, so it would be an extension of the achievements of that time.
As a recently retired Chair of a Food Bank I’m the last person to want to knock the third sector or the good work that Charities can do….. but I would urge a word of caution.
There is a need for careful regulation to ensure proper behaviour, standards and conduct – together with democratic accountability.
There is also a need to avoid any sense of obligation – or of being patronised – stemming from a Lady Bountiful approach, and we also need to avoid a post code lottery. Do we really want to go back to the patchwork system of health charities that passed for a health service in this country we had before the NHS ?
The third sector should (and never could) replace a properly funded state and local government system in a civilised society.
Thank you all for your comments
Tom Harney – it is certainly the case that some people have more time, resources etc to contribute than others. One method to help address this, I think, would be a Universal Basic Income. We need to move away from the ‘work, work, work’ culture and its monopolising of life.
Nigel Jones – you are right to point out the bureaucratic nature of local authorities. Often, they can hinder local and organic mutual aid support networks. Whether they can be prevented from doing this and, at the same time, provide ‘effective co-odination’ is the question. I do wonder if there is something inherent in the makeup and nature of government, including local, bureaucracy which prevents this. I hope not, but suspect it would require a great deal of local government reform, including reforming the culture of many town halls, to achieve.
David Raw – I agree it important that there is a need to prevent people being patronised. One charity I know of encourages people who are in receipt of the food it provides to also get involved with its distributions and sitting on its various committees etc – the providers of the charity are also its users and this is something I would hope to see more of. Furthermore, all too often is it the state which is patronising. The state’s paternalistic nature, with its means testing for example, can all too often feel invasive, patronising, and domineering for those in receipt of its support. The aim should be to make people and communities as self-reliant and independent as possible so that they do not find themselves dependant on the state and at the mercy of a government official who will decide if they will be allowed to have their benefits this week or not.
In terms of a postcode lottery there is an advantage in having different ways of doing things in different areas – it avoids the mass uniformity of the welfare state and in its place can lead to innovation, experimentation, choice, and competition with better results for all. Of course, this is not to say there should not be a minimum standard which all areas should be required to meet, however, once that has been secured there is, I think, a role for diversity.