Liberal Vision

Alternative Vote referendum: The YES side is staring at defeat

Guest post by Mark Littlewood.

The news today that Matthew Elliott is to spearhead the NO campaign against the Alternative Vote should send shudders through the pro-electoral reform lobby. There is a very long way to go before next May’s referendum - and it is not yet a nailed on certainty that the referendum will even take place - but the early signs are very ominous for supporters of electoral reform. My judgement is that the NO side are now clear, although not overwhelming, favourites.

The YES side face a number of substantial strategic and tactical hurdles and it’s not yet obvious that any of these have been satisfactorily addressed. Or, in some cases, how they can be.

1. The referendum on AV is, of course, a compromise. It is virtually no one’s ideal electoral system. Most of those supporting a YES vote will actually be committed to a more proportional voting system - most commonly STV. This isn’t to say that Nick Clegg shouldn’t have settled for the coalition deal, but it does raise problems for electoral reformers. Inevitably, people campaign harder - and are willing to give more money - to something they really believe in rather than towards a second best option. I expect the NO side to easily raise and spend the £5m expenditure limit and to have an impressive network of activists - these guys really and passionately believe in First Past the Post.

2. Slow progress to date. It has been known for well over three months that there was going to be a referendum on AV (although admittedly not the timetable).Of course, these are the early stages of both campaigns - but looked at another way, we are already nearly a third of the way to polling day. Peter Facey - head honcho at Unlock Democracy - assures me that the YES side will have a website soon and that staff recruitment is already being organised. It can’t happen too soon. The websites of Unlock Democracy and the Electoral Reform Society are yet to focus on AV to the exclusion of other issues. The NO side isn’t much further advanced, of course. But in fairness they started with a much less impressive national infrastructure.

3. Matthew Elliott’s appointment. This is the single clearest sign yet that the NO lobby is going to be deadly serious and superbly organised. Matthew is one of the sharpest operators and most successful campaigners on the British political scene. Not only is he certain to be an effective leader of the NO side, the mere fact that he has taken the job is significant. He would not have done so without copper-bottomed guarantees about the level of political and financial support he can call upon. Contrary to popular belief, he is not a Conservative and he has a proven record as a coalition builder. Of all possible leaders of the NO campaign, Matthew Elliott is the most daunting possible opponent.

4. The YES side looks set to be run largely by Liberal Democrats. This needs to be avoided. The reason is very simple. On virtually all analyses of AV, the LibDems are set to gain the most - perhaps more than 30 seats. LibDem activists, members or politicians advocating a YES vote will find it very hard to dodge accusations of special pleading. At the very least, the YES campaign should be wholly independent of Cowley Street.

5. The polls show a clear movement of public opinion to the NO side. This doesn’t mean an awful lot at this stage, but it does mean something. The latest polls show the two sides neck and neck, which amounts to a measurable shift against AV in recent months. The polls also show that the elderly are more opposed than the young and, of course, the former have a measurably higher propensity to vote. If the drift away from the YES camp continues, so do the diminishing odds on a YES victory.

6. Body count. The Conservatives and many of the larger trade unions are going to put their weight behind a NO vote. The combination means there will be a strong grassroots presence for the NO campaign in virtually every area of the country. The Liberal Democrat party machine is tiny in comparison, with LibDem membership now averaging less than 100 per constituency - and party membership is heavily concentrated in a few dozen, maybe a hundred, seats. The great imponderable is how the Labour Party might jump, but even if they were united and enthusiastic YES supporters, I’d expect the NO campaign to have many more troops on the ground.

7. The NO campaign may be able to position itself as the anti-establishment, anti-politician option. Electoral reform is not a high priority for a large percentage of the electorate. Being asked to vote on what many will consider a fairly obscure and technical issue - especially during difficult economic times - could well encourage a two-fingered salute from many voters. Expect the NO side to consistently argue that the referendum is only taking place because the LibDems have demanded it in order to promote their own narrow electoral interest.

8. Because AV isn’t proportional, some of the key moral arguments are harder to put. For all the dreadful downsides of party list systems, at least the argument can be made that if you get 18% of the vote, you should get 18% of the seats. This is the sort of principle that voters can easily grasp. The NO side can even say that there might be a case for a proportional system, but that’s not what is on offer.

9. Because AV is fairly technical, the NO side just need to raise sufficient doubts, whereas the YES side need to actually prove a complex case. For example, I expect the NO campaign to argue that if you are a BNP voter, your vote will count twice (because it will be transferred) but if you vote Conservative or Labour it will only count once (because it often won’t be transferred). The argument is spurious, but is superficially powerful. The NO side will benefit from confusion and uncertainty. A confused and uncertain electorate can be expected to vote NO.

10. The newspapers are likely to be overwhelming opposed to AV. The Guardian and Independent will be in favour - and possibly the Mirror. Pretty much everyone else will be against and quite possibly, vociferously so. Newspapers have a declining influence and a declining readership, but in a campaign in which many people do not have a strong view either way, the editorial position of popular newspapers could potentially carry more sway than in a General Election.

I had often assumed that securing a referendum on electoral reform would be the hardest part of the task. Now I am considerably less sure. As things stand today, I think the NO side may well win.

Mark Littlewood was Director of Liberal Vision from September 2008-December 2009. He is now the Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Sorry for the down-time

It seems like you kids just can’t get enough of us. Due to going over our limit, this blog went down at the end of last month, and yesterday too.

Thankfully we’ve given them a shed load’a cash to stop this happening again, so fingers crossed.

Thanks for your patience.

GUEST POST: Jon Gower Davies on “hate crimes”

After and over the best part of 400 years we in Britain managed to construct a relatively free civil and civilised society in which religious and secular life could flourish in public and mutual agreement and disagreement, vigorously and occasionally scatologically critical the one of the other.

Now, however, this public debate has been circumscribed by classifying such argument and such difference as expressing little more than ‘hatred’, a new criminal offence: And, alerted to a looming illiberality by a series of ‘hate’ laws relating to race, religion, gender, age, and physical disability and by the ludicrous ambitions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, all freedom-loving people would be well-advised to check on the legality of their public utterances before they make them – hypocrisy being the best policy.

In our new publication, we show how, in pursuit of ‘hatred’, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service destroyed the free speech and independent existence of two ordinary citizens of Liverpool, a story pregnant with implications for all of us. When messrs Cameron and Clegg get round to their promised ‘Bonfire of the Banalities’, then the laws relating to religious hatred in particular should be the first into the flames.

As these two bold politicians told the House of Commons in June 2005, these laws ‘disproportionately curtail freedom of expression, worsen community relations as different religious and belief groups call for the prosecution of their opponents, create uncertainty as to what words or behaviour are lawful and lead to the selective application of the law in a manner likely to bring it into disrepute’. Our book looks to demonstrate how true this is.

• For more information on the study, click here.
• A NEW INQUISITION: religious persecution in Britain today, can be purchased here.

Jon Gower Davies is a former lecturer at the University of Newcastle and former Labour Councillor on Newcastle City Council.

GUEST POST: Rights for Bigots?

Liberal Democrat member Andrew Mayer gives his thoughts on Chris Graylings recent comments:

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling’s unwise comments on access to Bed and Breakfast accommodation, where he suggested (based on a recent news story) that as private homes, owners were at liberty to bar gay couples, although he did not believe the same was generally true for private businesses in general, shines a much overdue light in this campaign on the differences between liberals and social conservatives. It raises questions about Grayling’s personal judgement. It highlights how much and how little the Cameron has changed the Conservative Party. But it is also a good example of the complexity of the discrimination debate.

For many liberals this is a very easy issue. You don’t have a right to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality, anymore than you do their race, gender, age or any other inherent characteristic of who we are. Your religious views are irrelevant on this matter. Equity trumps opinion and preference. Religious views are choices. There is no difference between allowing Christians to refuse to serve homosexuals than allowing racists to refuse service to minorities. Both are morally reprehensive positions to the vast majority of us who believe in fair treatment. That some social conservatives like Grayling still do not get this, is a timely reminder why there are still many economic liberals who won’t support the Conservatives.

Grayling has made himself look foolish on a number of other counts. He characterises B&B businesses as extensions of private homes. They’re not, they’re public businesses like hotels, only smaller. There is no sensible distinction between the two. Does a man standing to be Home Secretary not understand the law? Second why raise this issue shortly before an election? Surely a front-bench politician understands there is no such thing as a private meeting and that the last thing the Conservative election strategy needs is a debate about their commitment to equal rights?

This is not the first time Grayling has embarrassed his boss. Last October he characterised the appointment of General Dannatt as a Labour election gimmick (yes, but it was a Conservative one), and caused deep irritation. Cameron is well aware how vulnerable he is to accusations that the Tories have not changed, and the more his colleagues allow themselves to look mediocre (Osborne), out of touch (Grayling) the more that narrative will gain traction. Having said that, the Conservative party 30 years ago would have very angry with Grayling for suggesting even private hotels should be forced to take in homosexual guests. In that regard his views are evidence of change, albeit limited.

So a politician of a different political tradition proves fallible and disappointing… plus ca change…

There is thought an underlying issue here that is more difficult and interesting. Most of us are against discrimination in principle, but very few of us are so entirely against all discrimination in all circumstances to the point of calling in the law.

We don’t for example generally believe people should be prosecuted for denying people access to their own homes on the grounds of their own bigotry. For example a homophobic parent refusing to let their son’s boyfriend stay the night, or racists preferring not to invite their black neighbours around for dinner. Such examples of intolerance may make us angry. We may find the behaviour ignorant, and seek to influence it, but we do not see it as a matter requiring prosecution by the state, unless actual harm or incitement to harm is involved.

We tend to hold this view as we can see a difference between the public and private spheres. In the public sphere non-discrimination is an absolute, in the private, providing no other rights or laws are being infringed, it is a choice. Where opinion is highly varied between different moderate traditions is where these spheres begin and end. It makes for interesting dividing lines between conservatives, liberals and libertarians.

Conservative thinking, by which I mean socially conservative, respects tradition, community institutions and deeply held views. The state should not interfere with religious freedom unless to prevent great harm (not getting to sleep in the B&B of your choice would not count as great harm). The collision then between gay rights and the right to practice your religious beliefs can be difficult for many Conservatives, but not all.

In the libertarian tradition the private sphere is large and dominant. Some extend it to all activities by privately owned businesses as well as individuals. The market should be left to judge the rights and wrongs of discriminatory practices, not the law.

In the liberal tradition discrimination is both a form of market failure and an impingement on basic liberties deemed more important than the right to conduct private business in the way you choose. It is a market failure as toleration for bigotry can actively prevent new markets forming. The ‘queer pound’ cannot be exploited if all gay activity if forced underground. Ethnic restaurants cannot flourish if staff cannot get accommodation. Cultures that permit extensive discrimination generally permit sub-cultures of harassment and victimisation against minorities, and worse. It is anti-meritocratic and a waste of human potential. The right to fair treatment matters more than the right to practice private prejudices.

Socialism has a somewhat polarised and inconsistent track record in relation to discrimination. Passionate advocates for equal rights on the one hand, class warriors on the other. Sexist golf clubs, elitist and wrong… working men’s clubs, essential parts of the community. Defend free-speech… but no platform for racists. Individual socialists have done a lot for the progress of human rights legislation, I’m not sure the same can be said generally of socialism.

UK law as it stands favours a liberal interpretation but reflects something of all the traditions.

If the B&B in question had defined themselves as a private member’s club for Bible-believing Christians and they had more than 25 ‘members’ they could not have discriminated against a gay couple wishing to use the club services by residing there. 25 or less and they could. If they had defined themselves as a religious retreat they could have discriminated regardless of numbers.

Such distinctions would not apply if the discrimination were racial, that is not permitted.

If the B&B were only for women or only for men that would be permitted, if it allowed both but let men have special treatments denied to the women, without reasonable grounds that would not.

The law in that regard is complex and evolving. The latest Equality Bill, should it pass into law, will tighten up what constitutes disability discrimination. But this article is about the principle. How far should the private sphere be permitted to extend?

Personally, with a bias towards the liberal arguments set out above, I favour quite a small private sphere in this matter, but also a degree of pragmatism. In the B&B case the owners can be tried under the law, and that law is right. But I would have little problem with the owners advertising their B&B as “run by Bible-believing Christians according to God’s teaching”, in which case the incident might not have occurred… Or activists would be checking in every week to make a point and test the mattress springs, but that is the owner’s risk if they want to bring their exclusive preferences into their work.

Such passive signals of prejudice, preference, or pragmatism exist already, whether union jacks on pubs, rainbow flags on clubs, or the ratio of cubicles to urinals in football stadiums. So should we care if the result of this case is a crop of cross symbols next to the stars across a number of B&B businesses in the south? I suspect not, but we’d care deeply if “no dogs, no gays” signs were erected. And that would be illegal under current law .

Further to make bigot rights a matter of pure property rights is I think a libertarian blind-spot, and bad economics given the opportunity cost. All markets have rules, and non-discrimination in service provision strikes me as doing more good than harm.

Are the troubling nuances in this liberal position? Yes. Would I be happy for example if some B&B’s started advertising themselves as for “admirers of David Duke”, and decorating their bedrooms with iconography of the KKK. No I’d be profoundly uncomfortable. But no act of discrimination has actually taken place unless someone non-white checks in and is treated differently and badly. Preventative actions, like the successful attempt to force the BNP to accept non-white members don’t I think do much to prevent discrimination, but do create perceptions of victimisation, which can be counter-productive.

In conclusion Grayling’s political judgement was off, religion is not an excuse for discrimination, and nor is living in your place of public business. As a contribution to the Conservative’s electoral strategy, it’s been about as helpful as a Unite strike to Labour, or the NUT praising our education policies to us. Cameron again looks vulnerable in his choice of a top team.

Is the law as clear and consistent as it could be, no, but it’s better than it used to be, and it’s clear in this case. Are there any great principles at stake that should encourage Liberal Democrats to wish to tighten the law further or enlarge the private sphere. I don’t think there are, and in this case our best contribution would be to encourage, if possible, pragmatic reconciliation and understanding between aggrieved parties. That ultimately is the path to tolerance, not rights for bigots.

Good Luck from Liberal Vision!!

Liberal Vision would like to wish all Liberal Democrat candidates and campaigners the best of luck in the General Election!!

And to get us started a few words from Nick and Vinnie:

GUEST POST: The Era of Laissez-Faire?

One of the established memes about the financial crisis is that it demonstrates the failure of unfettered capitalism, the dog-eat-dog, laissez-faire environment that prevailed in the West over the last few decades, all driven by the ideology of “free-market fundamentalism.” This seems to be a truism among most of the Commentariat. Of course, as pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the truth is virtually the opposite: there was never any “deregulation,” the Bush Administration spent public money like a drunken sailor, and government continued to expand as it always does. But a picture is worth a thousand words, so try these on for size. (US data; click charts for sources.)

One response I sometimes hear is “Sure, there are more regulations and more government spending, but the set of things that should be regulated and the amount of government spending the economy needs are growing even faster!” This is essentially the Krugman-DeLong view about the stimulus: it just wasn’t big enough. Or they say that financial markets were “deregulated,” de facto, because the number of regulations and regulators increased more slowly than the number of new financial instruments and new markets. I wonder, though: are these falsifiable propositions? No matter how big the government is, if there are any problems, it’s always because the government isn’t big enough!

This post is authored by Peter G. Klein, an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri and Adjunct Professor at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. He usually blogs at Organizations and Markets, where this post first appeared.

Queen’s Speech: the Libertarian Draft

What a lot of people don’t know is Her Majesty the Queen of England, is in fact a rampant libertarian. Every year Elizabeth II writes a secret libertarian draft of her speech which is quickly dismissed by courtiers. Well, this year Liberal Vision has obtained a copy of that draft and is proud to publish it here:

Merry Christmas,

What we really, really want for Christmas is the real proletariat revolution, libertarianism.

Many would not think myself or my family to be, in any way, libertarian, yet my darling Phillip has been doing his bit for freedom of speech for quite some time now.

Some may say that inheriting a monarchy and being a Libertarian are mutually exclusive. Yet our system, with a ceremonial head of state and an elected premier is less expensive to the taxpayer than the elected head of the executive also carrying out ceremonial duties. So it’s all good, bruv.

For those of you who question the appropriateness of an unelected leader in this day and age, I ask you this: “where exactly have you been since June 2007?”

I’m not too upset with Gordon, to be honest with you. He has a good heart but he is more than a little dull and clearly incompetent. Which is an easy combination to endure when you know it’ll be over soon. I must admit I am more partial to the lovely Sarah than that dreadful Cherie woman… It is important to remember that we are a nation at war. So don’t forget that they’re actually my armies, Gordo. Treat them with respect.

So I wish you a Merry Christmas and for most of you merry will mean your grandparents being high as a kite from having mixed their morphine based arthritis medicine with Tesco Value Lumbrusco or just plain drunk. But whilst you loll about in self-induced food and liquor coma, which as a Libertarian I’m all for, in everything you do and whatever path you choose, think of ways you can make this country more free.

In 2010 I wish you all a happy life, liberty and an elected premier.

Happy New Year.

Tuition Fee Festivity

Liberal Vision have received an anonymous tribute to Nick Clegg! In the name of the seasons festivities it is hereforth published on behalf of the author (who also sends their apologies to Monty Python…).

Bravely bold Sir Cleggy rode forth from Cowley Street

He was not afraid to defy, O brave Sir Cleggy
He was not at all afraid to be say no in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Cleggy

He was not in the least bit scared to reverse party policy
Or to have his activists wail and his MPs rebel
To have his team resign and his popularity sink
And his expenses exposed by the Telegraph, brave Sir Cleggy

His leadership fail and his seat go red
And his column axed and his interviews stopped
And his children defect and his wife marry Chris Huhne
And his willy...
   Well that's enough music for now, lads...

Brave Sir Cleggy ran away - No!
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When the FPC said no instead
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Sir Cleggy turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Cleggy

GUEST POST: Here Comes the Digital Economy Bill – there goes the internet

Today is the last day the Lords can table amendments against the Digital Economy Bill. The Open Rights Group are running a writing campaign: click here to join in while there’s still time.

Anyone who likes the internet, or just has a passing fondness for due process and parliamentary oversight, should care about stopping this trainwreck of a bill. Here is a greatest hits compilation of the reasons why:

“tell every Briton you know. If we can’t stop this, it’s beginning of the end for the net in Britain.” – Cory Doctorow

“the Secretary of State may compel any ISP to do anything at any time and for any reason he likes. No awkward laws need to be passed, there need be no tedious debate in Parliament, there need be no uncertain vote to take.” - Devil’s Kitchen.

“people can be cut off from the internet without a trial, without a jury and without proving they committed any offence at all” - Charlotte Gore

“the death of public Wi-Fi, closed as well as open” – Lilian Edwards, professor of internet law

“could give the government the right to spy on UK internet users.” – Google

“expands government control over the internet” – Dominique Lazanski, digital consultant.

“We mustn’t let Mandy do this WRONG thing” – Stephen Fry

“This Bill has some really bad stuff in it that if it gets adopted will affect everybody in the world.” – Don Tapscott, author of “Wikinomics”

More details from the Open Rights Group.

You can also join the Facebook group, Against the Digital Economy Bill.

And sign thepetition HERE.

Marc Sidwell

GUEST POST: at Copenhagen, beware “green” protectionism

With all eyes on the UN summit at Copenhagen this month, keen observers are wondering whether collaborations are possible to mitigate climate change. Yet some proposals would do more harm than good, with “green” protectionism the most dangerous of all.

These are proposals to permit trade restrictions on the grounds that they will help to prevent climate change–a sadly misleading theory, which has predictably gained support already from uncompetitive industries and other vested interests have jumped on the bandwagon.

In our petition against these measures, the Freedom to Trade campaign explains:

“Trade enables specialisation, which results in the development of new technologies and leads to the creation of wealth. In the past two decades, trade has enabled over a billion people to escape poverty. Trade is the most powerful weapon in humanity’s armoury to fight poverty and environmental ills, including climate change. Trade restrictions are not desirable, nor are they an effective means of addressing climate change.”

Ongoing health disasters that some fear will be accentuated by climate change are already a reality today for millions of people–as a result of poverty, imbedded by oppression and trade restrictions.  Every thirty seconds a child dies of malaria, an entirely preventable and curable disease.  Seventeen thousand people in poor countries die every day from respiratory or diarrhoeal illnesses.

To instil today’s disasters by encouraging barriers to trade that are already preventing people in poor countries from lifting themselves out of poverty is madness. Please sign our petition against this phoney cure, and send a message to the politicians in Copenhagen that trade and wealth are our best weapons to adapt to a changing climate.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE: http://bit.ly/1mu46P

Alec van Gelder is Project Director of the Freedom to Trade campaign and writes on trade for publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald.