- 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
Wanted: a Clear Liberal Vision
A strong, compelling Liberal vision will win us votes. So why isn't one being communicated?
Recently I have engaged in some email communication, as a result of a residents' survey, with a verywell-informed and thoughtful member of the electorate. This person has shared with my constituency party some innovative ideas for improving our locality that we hope to give wider publicity, especially if we increase our representation after the elections in May. She also set all politicians a challenge:
Sadly, I feel that politics has become an ego-boosting game when it comes to governing the country and it seems that only if is good for their Party are policies put into place. Fire fighting is the name of the game …I wonder if I asked any member of the political parties whether they could immediately answer the following question: How do you want the United Kingdom to look in 10-20 years time?
My view is if they have not got a Clear Long Term Vision and plans on how to put that vision into place (everyone in the party from the cleaners to the top should know it and start implementing it in their daily life), how can they get somewhere? They will be wandering with the wind, pushed by other countries (US, EU). I have not voted for the President of the US , nor for any other countries’ leaders (or Tony Blair) but we have to sit and swallow what they give us and see this potentially great country go down the pan.
The reason why I am happy to share my ideas is that as there is a lack of general leadership with a clear vision, actions can only be taken from the grass roots, i.e. in the local community. If we can get a clear long term vision for our locality and a strategy that goes with it, suitable for the 21st and 22nd Century, we can become a model town, a place where people want to come and look and ask how we have done it. An example to follow!
What example can we follow now?
This struck a chord with me; especially as a couple of days earlier I had read Cicero's piece Liberals and anti-Liberals. The resemblance between the main points of his article, and the challenge of this letter is uncanny:
British politics is changing.Traditional party politics is in long term decline.
Politicians have promised too much and delivered too little. Partly, this is because it is simply not possible for the political process to deliver the kind of outcomes that politicians and their voters expect. Disillusion and apathy are the order of the day- and political pragmatism has declined into the pursuit of power above any other interest. Many politicians will say- "of course it must be power above all else, otherwise how could we actually make any difference at all". The problem, though, is that power is concentrated in the hands of so few and is so jealously guarded that by the time that anyone gets close to the top they have forgotten what they wanted to change in the first place.
This concentration of power - economic as well as political - has reduced the power of the individual to impotence. Huge administrative bureaucracies, in almost every field, have acquired enormous powers to control. As people have lost control over their own lives they have given up on responsibility.
I wasn't sure of my correspondent's political views (I suspect she is non-aligned, but I thought she would be interested to read the thoughts of one of the most robust Liberals I know. Her response to me was telling:
I have read it and like you thought, I strongly agree. The frustrating bit is, that if this is truly what the Liberal Party stands for, it has not come through very well to either me or my husband (and possibly to other people too).
If I had any left, this would have me tearing my hair out. Especially given the recent coverage of Gordon's "5 Tests".
If anyone with any influence is reading - forget Gordon. We should be setting out our own 5 Liberal Principles, and proclaiming them loudly from the bottom to the top of the party, till even our lazy media begins to take notice.
Update: my colleague Peter's report of Paddy's article in the Yorkshire Post will do for starters:
In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
A very good posting. If we constantly define ourselves in relation to the other parties is it any surprise the media does?
http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com/
To be fair on Ming, his '5 tests' aren't about defining ourselves in relation to the other parties, but defining Brown in relation to our core values (apart from electoral reform, natch).
In the generality, I think you're right. But I also think things are getting better.
Your correspondent correctly notes that she has not voted for the leaders of the USA or any other countries (including, by implication, the leaders of the EU).
You also quote approvingly the claim that the Liberal Democrats favour accountable government.
This is a contradiction isn't it? You can't be in favour of accountable government (or localism) and still support the EU. You might just as well support the Taliban and say you are going to persuade them to become liberals. Why should the LibDems be able to persuade all 25 EU members to change their ways when everyone who has gone beforehand has failed? This is surely another case of promising too much and, if you got your chance, one where you would deliver too little.
It's simply not credible.
Is electoral reform a make or break issue for you?
'my colleague Peter's report of Paddy's article in the Yorkshire Post will do for starters:
In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment.'
What's the big deal about this,as Labour,Tory, Plaid & the SNP would all aspire to the same beliefs.
Hardly earth moving stuff!
Your email communication is in many ways typical of the confused opinions expressed by members of the public who feel strongly about political issues but are not certain which way to turn. The desire for a 'clear long term vision' is a good example. It's very easy to have a clear long term vision - that's what manifestos are for - but politicians have shied away from it in the last 20 years for a number of very good reasons:
1. Not everyone agrees even within a Party, let alone a country, what that vision should be.
2. The media and various experts will delight in shooting holes in anything specifc, and 'clear visions' have a dreadful habit of leaving hostages to fortune.
3. 'Globalisation' has left governments more open to being blown off course by long term events completely external to the UK.
There are a couple of concrete examples of governments who had clear visions, and I think what happened to them is instructive. Harold Wilson's government 1964-70 had nothing less than an entire National Plan - a clear long term vision of the sort your correspondent demands - but the pressure of events soon overcame what were essentially unrealistic goals in the first place. Mrs Thatcher also had a vision, but she initailly took care in the 1970s and early 80s to conceal its full implications until time and tide were running in her favour. Both models show that governments are reflexive to pressures.
As I said, I think Politicians have to be very careful what hostages they leave to fortune. It's partly because they have promised so much in the past through 'Clear visions' and delivered so little that people are disbelieving. The fate of the Wilson government and indeed the Old Labour Party as whole gives us a stark warning about 'Clear long term visions'. Not everyone agrees with them and even if they are persuaded for a while, the political failure to meet inflated expectations is severely punished at the ballot box.
There are a couple of major problems with "clear visions".
Firstly, a key element of liberalism is individual freedom. To take one small example, you might want to put incentives in place to encourage home working that you consider reflect the benefits of home working to society more generally (in terms of congestion, family life, reviving small towns and villages etc). But you cannot know for sure how people will respond to those incentives - the individual benefits of physically working with others may actually be much greater than the social issues you identified so it may be that few take you up on the opportunity. As a liberal, the response to that is, "fine, your decision reflected the true costs and benefits and I will do no more." So you cannot really say that your vision is of a massive switch to home working - you are willing to put incentives in place but not to engineer beyond that. Your actual vision is more subtle and much less easy to picture - it is of people making decisions as to whether or not to home work according to a full assessment of all relevant costs and benefits.
A second issue is of course the unknown. The biggest issue on the horizon now is terrorist activity by muslim extremists. Twenty years ago, this issue was largely limited to their involvement in ongoing civil wars and atrocities against fellow muslims in some countries. Even amongst extremist leaders, it appears unlikely there was a blueprint about expanding that or even agreement as to whether it was a logical step (as opposed to the alternative of concentrating on overthrowing what they would call "corrupt" muslim governments).
Thanks for the plug Tabman!
As far as the question of vision is concerned, I do NOT propose a detailed "National Plan" style manifesto- it is simply not deliverable. What we should be talking about is the principles that inform us and will also shape the way we respond to events. This is why Paddy's intervention is so welcome- it does precisely this; and actually anonymous- it is not just another motherhood and apple pie manifesto: it does set out specific ways that we will move things in the directions that Paddy identifies.
Bishop- to be honest I think your comments about Europe essentially say: "unless you change Europe you change nothing, and therefore your statements are meaningless"- I completely disagree, not least because many of the problems of "Europe" are the result of Whitehall gold plating European rules. In fact I would argue that unless we change ourselves we can not change Europe anyway.
A clear vision is not a mass of detailed policy- it is a set of unalterable principles that will be the framework for policy, and it is time for us to be explicitly ideological.
Cicero
No, that wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm saying you can't change Europe, and neither can anyone else.
I agree that Whitehall gold-plates regulations, but even if they didn't there would still be far too much regulation coming out of Brussels. Even if only half of the legislation in the last ten years was EU-derived, that's still 16,000 new statutory instruments and 200 odd laws. If the EU sceptics are right the figures are more like 25,000 and 300. You can argue all you like that you are going to stop this, but I'm not sure you are going to convince anyone.
I agree that there is much too much regualtion coming from Brussels. I also think that Cicero is right to say that we will need to reform ourselves before we reform Brussels.
I also agree on being "explicitly ideological" (this was the sense of my post on Sunday morning) but this has to tie in with the real fears and aspirations of ordinary voters (idealy it should help shapes these fears and aspirations. It cannot be simply an exercise in theory.
Hi Tabman - just dropping by, and thought this was a great post.
It was very clear in the leadership contest that all the candidates really did know what they stood for, and told those who were listening, but that was an internal election, and now the message has to be shouted and shouted loud. I agree that a 5 point list of principles/pledges for our own party would have got better coverage, been more inspiring, and got the talk away from coalition deals.
In fact, Michael Howard did something similar before the last election - and it clarified to many what the Tories stood for, even if they didn't like it much!
I think its interesting that Cicero so empahtically rejected 'National Plans' in his comment. Naturally I can see why, but refusing to sign up to specifics in terms of a vision does leave a problem.
A point made by one of the anonymous contributors is quite right in this respect. To say that your political vision is: 'In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment' is wholly inadequate. Cicero and others seem to think that it is sufficient, but in fact it is just truistic in this modern day and age. It will not inspire anyone or define you as a political force for the obvious reason that everyone else has their tents pitched on that site too.
To truly define yourself you have to get down to the nuts and bolts: Individual freedom - what conception of freedom will you prioritise? Accountable government - OK but how? Dispersion of politcal power - do you mean more regional assemblies, more mayors, more powers to councils? Social justice - but whose notion of social justice? There are some good cries here, but they all need to be expanded on in concrete terms to have any meaning. In fairness, the LDs do offer some good policies on some of these issues, but some debates, such as the one on what constitutes social justice and forms of freedom, are extremely complex and involve making some bold moral judgements. I will be pleasantly surprised if we hear from MPs willing to stick their necks out on these types of issues.