- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. by Tabman
- Latest Comment: Anonymous on The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
Hung Parliament? Lets take the Venezuelan Option
Could a hung parliament offer the possibility of reuniting the Liberal Diaspora? We offer a novel approach to answering the Hung Parliament Question.
Yesterday Mike Smithson sparked off a debate on the possibilities and outcomes surrounding a Hung Parliament. The lively discussion in the comments field explored a whole range of possibilities - who would be winners and losers, and the likely effect on the parties of each scenario discussed.
Yet - in one comment Stodge (occasionally of this Parish) noted that almost no-one had looked at what would be best for the country, rather than their narrow political interest.
Whenever the Hung Parliament question is raised, it is framed in terms of "Which way would the Lib Dems jump?" Our MPs always defer along the lines of "It is not right to second guess the outcome of the next election. Until we see the verdict delivered by the British People we wait on their decision." Matthew Parris recently gave equivocal support in the form of suggesting we campaign along the lines of "Vote for us, we'll keep one or the other of the b*ggers honest!"
Elsewhere, blogger Cicero has argued that he sees the future political faultline falling between the liberal and the authoritarian approach to Government. I think this offers us a suggestion as to how to tackle the inevitable question when it arises.
I would hope Sir Ming would pitch his answer something like this:
"I believe in Liberalism as a political creed, and the best approach to take when adressing the challenges facing this country. The liberal approach is the best answer to the problems that beset us.Many members of the other parties do not believe in a Liberal approach - they are instinctively authoritarian and, to be honest, I feel would be happy in each other's company despite their different party allegiances.
Yet, there are also MPs (and voters) who hold broadly liberal views who, for historical, cultural and pragmatic reasons have chosen to join parties other than the Liberal Democrats.
The verdict of the people for many years now has been that they do not trust one political party to govern outright. It is only our outdated political system that allows one party to gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes. This time, that system has delivered a verdict more in keeping with the electorate's wishes, albeit by accident rather than design.
To move forward, I call on those in all political parties who share broadly liberal views to put aside narrow party differences, and join together to work for the benefit of all the country in enacting a liberal approach to government. We might call this a Venezuelan Coalition, after the colours of that country's flag.
It has worked before in times of national crises. It is my strong belief that the challenges posed to our way of life by the threats of climate change, international terrorism, and the opportunities and stresses of globalisation merit such an approach again, now.
Are we, as politicians, big enough to put party concerns aside for the good of the country? I think, and hope, we are."
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Ah - when you mention a "Venezualan option" I thought you were going to discuss something much less liberal!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6315819.stm
That's what comes next ;o)
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
I have to say I don't like all party coalitions. Although backbench MPs can keep a check on the government in such circumstances, there is a tendancy towards nobody carrying the can. Who do you reward and punish in such circumstances? In Italy up to the 1980s, they had very broad coalitions in an effort to lock out the Communist Party. This tended to lead to power over particular ministries and projects being left in the hands of one individual or party with little or no scrutiny. This in turn led to "capture" by the mafia (not saying that's likely here, but lack of proper oversight is an issue). There is some merit in having at least one significant alternative keeping their hands clean and with a completely free hand to hold the government to account.
The "national emergency" point seems OTT. There is a tendancy to see your own times as particularly tumultuous. In fact, we live in reasonably stable times. There are big challenges of course, but they are not totally exceptional in their magnitude.
There is truth in the point that there are enough people of a "liberal" persuasion in all three major parties though. Perhaps one of the few things to be said about an all party coalition is that it may precipitate a major realignment, which could arguably be a good thing.
"In Italy up to the 1980s, they had very broad coalitions in an effort to lock out the Communist Party"
In late 70's there were also some governments approved with the abstentions of the Communist Party. IIRC it was the Andreotti government in 1976. The 1978 government should have been voted in with the "no opposition" of the communists too. Andreotti managed to include (the night before the vote of confidence) some names as ministers that the communists couldn't accept and so the PCI was on the verge of withdrawing their non opposition. However the morning of the confidence vote Moro was kidnapped and so the PCI didn't oppose the government in the end (abstaining)
James,
thanks for the comment. What I envisage isn't so much as an all party coalition (I think there are some Labour and Tory MPs who would rather gnaw their own arm off than side with us on anything), but more a sort of nineteenth-century style regrouping.
Admittedly the "crisis" point was a little over-dramatic, but I was enjoying my rhetorical flourish!
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Personally I'd rather see a Colombian coalition (after the flag you understand. The proportions are better, and I don't like the Tories having the stars. ;)
The link in the previous post doesn't work; I always forget the second set of quotation marks... Doh!
Personally I'd rather see a Colombian coalition (after the flag you understand. The proportions are better, and I don't like the Tories having the stars.) ;)
Chrisco - admittedly better proportions, but we don't want to get too associated with Colombia's finest export do we? Shall we leave it to "others"? ;o)
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Colombia's finest export is, of course, its men; followed closely by flowers.
:)
Coffee? Shakira? Midfielders with dodgy haircuts? Gotta love 'em...
I like this idea, although I'm sure the LibDems need to be kept honest too. The evidence from Scotland is to expect no economic liberalism and not much social liberalism from LibDems when they get into power.(Correct me if I'm wrong).
Not sure I agree with Bishop Hill here.
The Lib Dems have been keen on universality in Scotland (in relation to tuition fees and personal care particularly). But there is a significant economic liberal case for that (in terms of avoiding perverse incentives not to save/earn through means testing). The case is not conclusive as there is a tax side to that because you are collecting a lot of money effectively to dish out to the same people again. But it is a case economic liberals in all parties use a lot. The party in Scotland has certainly been in favour of cutting business rates and also introducing road pricing to replace other taxes which are broadly economically liberal measures.
On social liberalism (by which I assume the Bishop means personal freedom) I am not sure either. The Scottish Parliament did introduce the smoking ban ahead of England which is clearly not a liberalising measure - but you cannot ignore the health implications of that sort of move. You can genuinely believe in liberalism, conservatism or socialism without blindly following it to its illogical conclusion regardless of consequence - which would then simply be dogma.
Well I did say I was open to correction. :-)
However, you haven't convinced me on either the economic or the social score. On a scale of statist to liberal, universal state-provided tuition fees or personal care are clearly and unequivocally statist. This is just not liberalism in any shape or form. It's socialism.
There are various shades of middle ground (means-testing, vouchers), and there is the liberal approach of getting the state out completely. The Liberal Democrats have chosen the most statist of the options available.
You seem to recognise that the smoking ban was illiberal, and I agree. There was a simple liberal alternative which was the status quo. Again, the LibDems chose the statist option, citing health concerns.
It just isn't correct that means-testing is more economically liberal than universality. Means-testing complicates the tax system and increases the marginal rate of tax (they mean benefits are withdrawn as people get richer). Most small "l" liberal economists are far more suspicious of means-tested than universal benefits. As for universtiy vouchers, that is surely the system we actually have in effect? Universities don't have catchment areas like schools - you just go up to any university you like the look of and whose minimum standards of attainment you reach, and the government pays all or part of your fee - the fact you do not get a gilt-edged gift certificate isn't really relevant.
On the smoking ban you just haven't engaged with my point. Liberalism without limits is anarchism, which is fine if you're an anarchist. There is nothing wrong with placing health concerns in the balance along with a desire not to interfere.
(Excuse the typos!)
The smoking ban was, on balance, somewhat illiberal. If nobody was forced to endure the voluntary smoking of others, it seems unreasonable for the state to intervene. That said, on a practical level I must say that the absence of smoke in the pubs and restaurants is surprisingly noticeable and beneficial for non-smokers such as myself.
There is, of course, a problem here: how great do the practical benefits have to be in order to outweigh the illiberal aspect? If we can justify banning smoking, can we justify banning certain foods because of the negative effects caused by the ill health that they promote? I'd certainly hope not.
The problem with smoking is that the status quo was that smoking in pubs was ubiquitous.
OTOH you could argue that if there was a demand for smoke-free pubs, the market would have provided them. OTOH in-practice inertia and risk aversion has meant that landlords have opted for the status quo, so few seem to have been prrepared to take the smoke-free risk.
Given that the majority of the population do not smoke, it seems surprising that there has not been more demand. Or perhaps non-smokers who object strongly enough have already voted with their feet (and there is anecdotal evidence of this; I have often heard people say "I don't go there - it's too smoky")
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
I tend towards the Stephen Pound view on smoking in pubs (which is unusual as generally he is a bit of an arse). His line was that he voted against it but is basically quite pleased it went through. It seems that is more or less Rob's approach too.
I have to say personally that I have never minded or particularly noticed other people's smoke. I used to gravitate to smoking carriages on trains when they existed as you could be guaranteed peace and quiet and no kids (although I have never been a smoker). But I know that's very much a minority position.
On the market being likely in theory to provide smoke-free pubs, that is by no means certain. Most pub attendance is a group activity and social groups generally operate by veto or something approaching it rather than majority. So the majority of a group may want a smoke free pub but will fall foul of a minority veto. Non-smokers are not likely to exercise their veto over only moderately smokey pubs as nobody is addicted to not smoking. Additionally, a general ban is likely to reduce enforcement costs as you don't need t explicitly communicate the fact that your premises is non-smoking to punters and they are unlikely to feel victimised (and subsequently slag off the pub) if told to stop on orders of the Government rather than the publican.
James
I'll spell out in more detail what I mean about the smoking ban. Citing health concerns is a recipe for big-time statism. All you have to do is to come up with some level of risk, no matter how small, and you have an excuse for the government to steam in. The status quo has functioned perfectly well for three hundred years or so. Everyone knows the risks of smoking, and they willingly exposed themselves to second-hand smoke in pubs on a regular basis. On what basis can a liberal second guess them? Because we think that we know better than them? That's not liberalism is it? Call it paternalism. Call it socialism. But not liberalism. I share Rob's opinion that it has made pubs much nicer. But so what? What right do I, or Rob and I, or Rob and I and all the rest of society put together have to force the publican to ban smoking? John Stuart Mill, anyone?
As to education vouchers, you seem to be arguing that a state monopoly is more liberal than a partial market economy. I understand the issues re marginal tax rates. But the problem lies in the illiberalism of the welfare state rather than the liberalism of the part of the market which is free. The answer is less statism, not more.
Bishop
In fact I probably would have voted against a smoking ban myself, but that doesn't mean your argument stacks up. It is just not the case that, "All you have to do is to come up with some level of risk, no matter how small, and you have an excuse for the government to steam in." All these issues are balancing acts with a strong presumption in favour of non-interference, but you shouldn't assume that people who vote differently than you would have done haven't gone through that thought process.
On vouchers I was just pointing out that in effect we actually have vouchers for universities. As to whether the government puts more or less money into those vouchers (depending on where you are in the UK) is a legitimate debate about spending priorities but does not alter the system.
On benefits, there are two issues here. Firstly, do you want to make the benefit available at all and secondly, how you do it. If you decide to make it available (a big if) it is generally the case that a simpler, universal system has the marginal tax rate benefits you mention and also reduces administration costs. Generally, a lot more work needs to go into the issue and I am glad David Laws is now our spokesman on social security as he has broadly the right (economically liberal) approach. For example, if we decide we want to help out pensioners more I would rather we gave them the cash in an open manner instead of free TV licences and travel passes - let them decide what to spend it on.