UKIP and my mistake

I made a mistake the other day. I woke up and heard that a poll had given UKIP greater than 20% support. I started to think about the consequence of UKIP gaining a significant number of MPs. My conclusion - my mistake - was that we'd have an referendum on leaving the EU - which a "better together" campaign would probably win, and then everything would go back to normal, and support for UKIP would subside.

Now, I'd just woken up. And within ten seconds of thinking this I realised my error. UKIP are no longer a single issue party defined by the EU. If they have a single issue - it's the same issue the SNP have: that MPs and the "Westminster parties" form a permanent elite who have forgotten ordinary people. UKIP and the SNP have wildly different solutions*, but they are making the same pitch - to be the outsiders who can take back control for the quiet bat people. An EU referendum is certainly part of the solution UKIP offer, but by no means is it any longer the centre-piece of their existence. It has ceased to be their raison d'être. UKIP won't cease to exist, and people won't cease to support them after (and because) an EU referendum has taken place. There core message of taking back power for the people will resonate long after their message on the EU has gone.

I got it wrong when I'd just woken up: I was groggy, and realised my mistake in ten seconds. So what is the Prime Minister's excuse? The Tory party seem to be approaching the UKIP threat by running to the right on Europe and immigration, copying UKIP's stance on the EU, and hoping Tory-to-UKIP switchers will switch back, on the grounds that the Tories are also offering a referendum on Britain's EU membership. David Cameron and the Tories seem to have missed the reason their former voters have gone in the first place: disillusionment with Westminster politics. The increase in support for UKIP has very little to do with the EU. And if I can see that, why can't Tory strategists? Ultimately, the Tory line of being the only party able to provide an EU referendum, as well as being wrong**, misses the reason so many people are considering voting for UKIP in the first place.

--
* as a liberal, my take on the solution is PR, so everyone in society has a stake in elections, and increased devolution, so everyone has a greater say in how their local area is run.
** the coalition have legislated for one already, when the balance of powers between the UK and the EU next change)

Equidistance does not mean Split-The-Difference

Votes vs Values: Did we get it right in 2010? Where to strike the balance in 2015? These were the questions asked at an excellent fringe organised by the SLF and Liberator at party conference. It was a crowded panel, but to my mind one speaker stood out: Neal Lawson.

Neal comes from a Labour background, though the organisation he leads, Compass, has recently opened up to welcome others from different parties. Neal spoke about how he wished Labour had engaged more in coalition negotiations in 2010, how he hoped Labour would get this right in 2015, and how, given electoral mathematics and the offers on the table, the Lib Dems made the right decision in 2010. However, Neal also called for Liberal Democrats to come out reject equidistance (the principle that the Lib Dems are equally close to Labour and the Tories) and announce that, given a choice and all other things being equal, we would prefer to work with Labour. This New Statesman article from 2012 still seems to accurately sum up Neal's opinion.

Neal's contribution was fantastic. In many ways, his pluralism embodies the best of modern politics. But (in my opinion) he's wrong here. Neal spoke well and in good faith - with a kindness and pluralism that deserves an honest answer - so let me set out why I disagree with him. 

First, I want to set out what equidistance is not. It's not that we sit in the middle as a split-the-difference party, halfway between Labour and the Tories on a simple left-to-right political spectrum. We have our own views and values, and defining ourselves with respect to other parties is unhelpful. We're a progressive political party, with liberal, progressive ideas. What we want to achieve are liberal, progressive goals.

Now, there are those in the Labour party who are also progressive, and I'd be delighted to work with them. But that does not mean that I am closer to the Labour party than the Tory party - there are more than enough old dinosaurs in the Labour movement who would make things difficult (witness this extraordinary intervention by David Blunkett on immigration) and there are also a handful of progressive Tories (though there are clearly fewer in the Tory party than in the Labour party). I could continue to discuss the approach of the Tories and Labour for many more paragraphs, but actually a discussion of whether these parties are progressive misses the point - in achieving progressive goals, I don't care who we work with. So what if David Cameron is not progressive if he is prepared to sign up to a progressive approach to government?

It's this achievement of progressive goals that matters most. I'd certainly prefer that Nick Clegg dropped the approach that in a hung parliament "we would prefer to work with the party which has the largest mandate from the British people" (I'll start refering to this in the future as the "Clegg doctrine"). In a hung parliament, no party has a complete mandate from the electorate (and if there is a 70% turnout, a party with 35% of the vote has less than 25% of the total possible vote - hardly a glowing endorsement in any event). If there is a majority for progressive politics in the House of Commons, then we should work with that majority to achieve progressive goals. It's what we exist for. Why on earth should we sign-up to simply prop up a non-progressive government with little effective mandate?

So, Neal, there's my answer. We are not a split-the-difference party sitting in the middle of a left-right spectrum between the Tories and Labour. That's a misreading of equidistance. We are a progressive party, who share ideals with progressives in other parties. If other parties also want to share the progressive label and sign up to be part of the progressive movement - then that is fantastic and their choice. But it's the movement we're aligned to, and not the parties that form the movement. It's the achievement of the progressive goals that matter: we'd work with any other party to achieve those goals. And that's the reason why we're equidistant. Because we genuinely will work, without prejudice, with either Labour or the Tories, to achieve our own liberal, progressive aims.

Opportunity for everyone - a Liberal slogan

It's really great to see the party's new posters updated to include the phrase "Opportunity for everyone", underneath the standard "Stronger Economy, Fairer Society" slogan. I've discussed this with party workers, who have said that the new phrase should feature prominently from here til the general election. This certainly makes sense, given how opportunity was the theme of Nick's speech at conference. It's great news.

"Stronger Economy, Fairer Society" pitched us as a bit like the Tories, a bit like Labour - a split-the-difference party that has no grand vision of its own. It's hard to see why people would choose that - especially people who lean Labour or lean Tory - why let someone in who is a bit like the other party?

But "Opportunity for Everyone" is a great addition. Opportunity for Everyone can only start when we have a society which values freedom from poverty, ignorance, and conformity. "Opportunity for Everyone" taps into our belief that liberalism should help, support and liberate the individual: it goes to the very heart of what it means to be liberal.

So - good news on the slogan: it's now a proud statement of our liberal principles. Now we just need to make sure the manifesto matches!

One more thought on the pre-election debates

Others have written more eloquently than me on the pre-election debates, and on which leaders should attend which debates. I won't rehash that here*. I just had one thought to add.

Last time round there were three debates, and each debate focused on a different topic. The first one covered domestic affairs, the next international affairs, and the last the economy. And it worked. It made no sense to jump around from topic to topic. Leaders managed to develop coherent arguments about their plans in each area. I hope this approach will continue next year - certainly, I've seen this suggestion in the media.

Only this time round the proposal also seems to be to invite different leaders to different debates. If UKIP is only going to be invited to one debate, which debate will that be? Immigration will presumably be covered by domestic affairs, whilst the EU will be discussed under international affairs. And where would the Lib Dems be represented? I'd be quite annoyed (an understatement) if, in addition to being left out of a debate, we're not even given the chance to talk about a particular policy area!

Besides, who makes the decision? Who decides that the British public don't deserve to hear the Lib Dem voice on home affairs, for example!

There are many flaws with the current debate proposals. But, if you are going to talk about different issues in different debates, you have to invite every national party leader to every debate.



*for the record, I don't see how the British public are served by not hearing the voice of a party that has been in government for the last five years. Also, if the debates are in the campaign proper, I don't see how it is legal for the broadcasters to exclude the Liberal Democrats.

In praise of Jeremy Browne

So Jeremy Browne has decided to step down at the next election. What should we make of this?

I've disagreed with many of Jeremy's choices - I certainly don't come from the same wing of the party as him. I also thought his spell at the Home Office was ineffectual at best. He may not have been aware of the 'racist vans' - but his job was to be aware. I've been very impressed by Norman Baker's subsequent performance as the Liberal Democrat minister in the Home Office. He seems to have got the hang of the job very quickly, and it is notable that Theresa May has made far fewer statements about her illiberal plans since he turned up there.

So you may think I'd be happy to see the back of Jeremy. Well, no. For three reasons:

1. Jeremy has put forward a strong argument about what liberalism should be. And, have no doubt: he is a liberal. Whilst he may not grasp my social liberalism at times, and I may not grasp his economic liberalism at others, I'm sure we'd both agree we hail from the same tribe. We both agree that liberalism is important, and we both want to see a general election campaign that is unabashed liberalism. He is one of a few MPs to vocally oppose the party leadership's current split-the-difference approach. I may disagree with where he'd place the emphasis in the manifesto, but I was glad to have someone as respected as Jeremy trying to get the party to ditch an approach that places us in the squishy middle.
2. I'm a Lib Dem loyalist. I'd much rather have people like Jeremy on board than not. Jeremy speaks to a sector of the population that those like me don't (and he does so very well!) - and I'm not foolish enough to believe that my own brand of liberalism can win everyone over. If we want Lib Dems to do well, then social liberals need to embrace people like Jeremy. Sure, we'll have a few internal scuffles along the way over our different priorities. But we're a stronger party for having people like Jeremy on board.
3. Linked to the previous point is this: what I care about most is getting Liberal Democrat members of parliament elected to the House of Commons - so we can enact our policy goals, and make Britain a more liberal country. Jeremy has clearly chosen an unfortunate time to step down, only a few months before a general election. He could have given the local party more time to campaign for their new candidate - though I remain confident we will hold Taunton Deane.

Still, I doubt this is the last we have heard of Jeremy Browne. He's far too able to be away from the public spotlight for long. And if not - that's a shame. Liberalism is big enough for all of us.

Edit: And let's not forget his beard. It was such a fine beard.

Ten Years On: Still a Lib Dem and Proud

This post is probably the most On Message I will get. I certainly don't intend to do it In Volume, Over Time. But I wanted to say this stuff - it's important - early on.

I still remember meeting a journalist at a party a year ago. Sara was a cool, intelligent, and liberal twenty-something. We got chatting and we got on. And then, five minutes into the conversation, it came out that I was a Lib Dem (I think my girlfriend, standing next to me, was the one to bring it up). And I remember the contortions that crossed Sara's face. First the confusion. Why was anyone still a Lib Dem? Especially someone similar to her. Then came the look of anger: to many the cuts have been very tough. And then came the look of pity. To Sara I was trapped in a situation I couldn't get out of - surely no-one would remain a Lib Dem, backing this government, through choice? And Sara is not alone in feeling this way. I've had these reactions from most of my friends' friends. These are the opinions of young professionals. The very people who backed us in 2010, and the people we need to persuade to back us again. The evening's festivities dragged me away from Sara, so I never got a chance to answer the charge: Why am I still a Liberal Democrat? Why should people like her vote Lib Dem? Here then, is my answer.

First, we have to accept that this is not the government that the Lib Dems would want. We may be a pluralist party, but with the Tories having nearly five and a half times the number of MPs as us, we have to work so much harder to get our policies through. There have been successes and failures along the way, but not going into coalition was never an option. The public finances were in a precarious state in May 2010, and quick, decisive action was needed to safeguard the future of the United Kingdom. In joining the Conservative Party in coalition, the Liberal Democrats gave the markets the reassurance they needed, and our economy has since flourished. This achievement, on its own, is one that makes me proud to be a Lib Dem.

But it is not a stand-alone achievement. I am proud that this government has had real liberal achievements. Achievements like increasing the personal tax allowance so that the lowest paid can keep more of their hard won earnings. Achievements like the end of the detention of children for immigration purposes. And achievements like the introduction of the pupil premium, so that the most funding goes to those schools with the largest proportion of student from the least well off families. Liberal Democrats have also legislated to guarantee that 0.7% of the country's gross national income is spent on aid to those people across the globe who are in the worst circumstances. These achievements are Liberal Democrat achievements, which provide opportunity for the least well off in society. These would not have happened in a majority Tory government: remember how the biggest tax cut the Tories promised in 2010 was an inheritance tax cut for the wealthiest?

The Liberal Democrats stopped the Tories from giving their rich friends the tax cuts they so desired. The Liberal Democrats have protected the Human Rights Act, which the Tories promised to tear up in 2010 - a promise they have remade for their 2015 manifesto, because they couldn't get it through the coalition. And the Liberal Democrats have protected the environment, and made sure that this government understands the threat of global warming, whilst Tory backbenchers continue to believe that there is no evidence for man-made climate change.

That's not to say there haven't been mistakes - things this government has done that we wished we had been able to block. I think it's only a fool that tries to defend the bedroom tax. But we've recognised our mistakes, and are legislating to make the withdrawal of the spare-room subsidy fairer.

The job of fixing the public finances is not finished. There's so much more to do. The introduction of a mansion tax, opposed by the Tories, will help us finish the job of cleaning up Labour's mistakes without hurting the least well-off. We want to lift more of the least well-off people in society out of paying tax, and we want to increase the number of children receiving free school meals. We will build a more caring society than the Tories, in a more financially responsible way than Labour (I can't bring myself to use the phrase SEFS). We believe in creating opportunity for everybody. It's this belief in individual and personal liberty that means we are so much more than a split-the-difference party. We have our own, independent policy goals. We are the only mainstream political party in British politics that prizes civil liberties. We are the only mainstream political party in British politics that has been prepared to argue in favour of the European project, whilst all around us we hear calls to withdraw from the EU. And we're the only mainstream political party in British politics who have called for mental health conditions to be treated on a par with physical health conditions.

That's why, ten years after joining the Lib Dems, after all these years of coalition heart-ache (I really do dislike Tory goals), I'm still proud to be a Lib Dem. I back the Liberal Democrat ideals and aims: social liberal ideals and aims. I believe that the state has a role to play in making people's lives better, but I also believe that the state must guarantee the liberty of the individuals that make up society. Liberal Democrats have fought for these beliefs in government, and will do so again at the general election next year. It's for these same reasons that Sara should vote Lib Dem in 2015. We've reached an era of multi-party politics and hung-parliaments. If you value our ideals and what we fight for, then give us a stronger, not a weaker, voice, in 2015. We may not get everything we want done. But who else would get close?

There's an additional answer as to why I'm still a Lib Dem. I have a lot of close friends in the party, and I live in a seat represented by a wonderful, independent-minded Lib Dem MP. But those answers are more specific, and less relevant when trying to answer why people all across the country should vote Lib Dem.

Social Liberalism is for everybody: Why I joined the Lib Dems

I joined the Liberal Democrats in 2004. They were great days to be a party member: under the leadership of Charles Kennedy we reached our largest ever number of MPs in the Westminster parliament. Since then I've heard mixed things about Charles' leadership, but, say what you like, I do not know of a big issue he got wrong. He stood firm against Labour on the Iraq War, tuition fees and 90 day detention without trial.

I was a young teenager in 2004. I knew I was opposed to the Labour government - I was disgusted by their unthinking, casual authoritarianism and their disregard for due-process. I was casting around for someone who understood what mattered to me: a tolerant, open party that supported the individual. The Tory party was even worse - as shown by their closet-racist "Are you thinking what we're thinking" slogan for the 2005 General Election, and their desire to cut benefits for those who need them most. So I turned elsewhere. I turned to Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats.

And whilst my initial support for the Liberal Democrats was born out of opposition to the Labour government from the liberal left, I found that the things that liberals prized most highly were things that I supported too. I was proud to join a party that was a keen member of the European project. I was proud to join a party that valued individuals and their worth to society. And I was proud to join a party that had such a wonderful preamble to its constitution.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

It's not every political party that places ignorance and the society's desire for the individual to conform as equal troubles to poverty. It's not every political party that gets that liberty, equality and community are three sides of an indispensable coin. (I've never seen a coin with three sides. But I accept if something so rare existed, it would be indispensable - ed.) To be liberal is to be outspoken - to be prepared to offer new solutions, breaking up the cosy old centres of power, and enabling the individual to take control of their own life. When Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats proposed such solutions, I found that I agreed with them, because I agreed with the values they were based on.

I've since discovered that what I was most attracted to as a teenager was social liberalism: the belief that a state should enable, not control, its citizens. I'll name-check positive and negative freedoms here, but I'll try and summarise using an example or two.

We support the NHS. Our universal healthcare system and the welfare safety-net saves people's lives, and is a force for good in society. It does not control anyone. The state has a role to play to improve the lot of her citizens. The Tory desire to cut the welfare system is a great danger to the worst-off in the society. We reject the fallacy, as our liberal forebears once did, that poverty is the fault of an individual. A person's poverty is a sin from society, and not from the individual.

But we also reject ID cards and the database state. They do not guarantee safety, and instead give the state power to control the minute details of everyone's lives. We know that the statement "Only the guilty need fear" is clearly a harbinger of an authoritarian age. Labour's introduction of, and the subsequent abuse of, anti-terrorism legislation, is a case in point. The current Tory clamouring for the introduction of the snoopers' charter shows how the right also cannot be trusted on individual liberty.

Social liberals are different. We ask not what people can do for their country, but how the country can enable everyone. Social liberalism enables people, using the state as a champion for the individual, but with sufficient safeguards and checks and balances to reject Orwell's bleak authoritarian future. We should all support social liberalism: social liberalism is for everybody, precisely because it is for everybody.

This article details, in short, why I joined the Liberal Democrats. Up next - why I stayed.

Liberalism, Pluralism, and Tribalism

Last week I had the fortune of going to a very interesting fringe hosted by Centre Forum and The Fabians at the Lib Dem conference. The event discussed whether the Liberal Democrats and Labour would be happy to work together in the event of a future hung-parliament.

It was an interesting event, evenly balanced with two Lib Dem parliamentarians, Norman Lamb, and Julie Smith, and two Labour MPs - Ann McKechin and Tom Greatrex.

There were moments that reminded me how close the Lib Dems and Labour can be: both parties are pro-European, and both parties claim with honour the 'progressive' label. We should also remember that the Liberal Democrats are a successor party to the SDP, themselves born from the Labour movement.

But there is a catch. Whilst the Tory party's hunger for power means that they were ready to compromise in 2010, I detected no such lust from Labour. Instead, there seemed to be a drive for ideological purity. On the one hand this is not surprising (This is a stand alone point - there is no on the other hand. ed.) It's this drive that gives rise to so much of Labour's objection to the current coalition. Labour's refusal to compromise enables them to state that the Lib Dems have betrayed the progressive cause through joining the Tory party in coalition.

Norman Lamb pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are instinctive pluralists. We are happy to work with any other party in the national interest - and will do deals, in order to implement as much of our manifesto as possible. There are obviously some red lines over which we would refuse to join a government, but these tend to be based on policies we will reject (an extreme example being capital punishment) rather than policies we must have. I'd argue that the purism (and ideological zeal) emanating from the Labour panellists precludes an embrace of pluralist politics.

The discussion then turned to tribalism. Would tribalism stop any future coalition? Could the panel name any policy achievement of the other party of which they approved? An interesting question: I would hope any Liberal Democrat could back the minimum wage, the introduction of civil partnerships, the Human Rights Act - and many other achievements of the last Labour government. Would Labour MPs be prepared to do similar? The answer, surprisingly (at least to me), is yes. Tom Greatrex pointed out the fact that the Lib Dems have fought for the environment in coalition, with at least some success, and a favourite policy of his was one of ours: safe standing at football matches. (I should point out that Tom also spoke clearly about his over-riding wish for a Labour majority - I don't want to do him a disservice with his own party by claiming he supported the Lib Dems!)

So, Labour is not always tribal (the Lib Dems can have policy achievements), but a large sector of the party does seek ideological purity (the only achievements Lib Dems can have are the policies which match Labour policies, or at least don't contradict them). It's an approach which says that the Lib Dems are fine in existing as a separate party, providing they do what the Labour party want. It's not the most consistent approach!

So - can the Lib Dems and Labour work together? I don't know. The Liberal Democrats are more than just Labour plus civil liberties. Labour need to accept that an independent party with different policy goals and ideas can be progressive.

Finally, though, I want to turn the argument on its head. I've argued that Labour is not necessarily tribal, but that it is not pluralist. I want to suggest that the Lib Dems, though definitely pluralist, can be tribal. Everyone has their own experiences, but I've certainly met more than a few tribal Lib Dems. I know I can be tribal - I know the "my party, right or wrong" feeling. And that's a bad thing. We all need to do better. The voters demand it. I'd argue that the desire for politicians to work together that was so evident in 2010 came from people detesting tribal politics, and politicians flinging muck at each other in the hope that at least some of it would stick. The 21st century will see more hung parliaments, and we won't be able to get away with the old tribal politics much longer - irrespective of which party we are in.