Secure tenancies are illiberal

The secure tenancy debate in one sense is very simple. Social housing is and should be provided for those with real need who cannot house themselves. If you don’t have real need you should not be in social housing.

There is for example a millionaire weather forecaster living in Camberwell who before he made his money was a tenant activist. He has secure tenancy. He could well afford to pay his own way in the world and is blocking use of that home to those on the waiting list.

There is no social liberal argument that can be constructed to defend this situation. It is not tackling poverty, it is not creating the widest possible distribution of wealth.

For socialists like the Camberwell squatter, there is a militant belief that all housing should be nationalised, they are just waiting for that to happen. But liberals believe in a caring supportive state not state ownership as an end in itself.

Simon Hughes intervention today is predominantly about process. How dare David Cameron start a debate without consulting the Liberal Democrat party conference… etc… yawn… some might just call this politics.

His underlying concern though is clearly the high level of social housing in his constituency and the perceived threat this announcement will have for his electorate. In that regard he is also concerned about the security of his own tenancy… and that is also politics.  

David Cameron’s actual announcement though should reassure him. Existing secure tenancies will not be challenged.  The millionaire will not be thrown into the harsh wilderness of reasonable market rents on the same estate from right-to-buy landlords.

Most arguments to defend the feudal privilege fail to convince. Breaking up communities is top of the list. All social housing ‘communities’ are constructs and have been regularly broken up since inception; through needs-based assessment, regeneration, right to buy, and upward mobility.

And thank-goodness, preserving communities based on welfare is a sure route to entrenching poverty, undermining the sustainability of the local economy, and creating sink estates. It is a policy of segregation and strife.

Simon Hughes should be thinking less about how to defend the status quo in Bermondsey, a product of decades of Labour gerrymandering and destructive housing experiments, and more about encouraging mobility and opportunity.

What Bermondsey, Camberwell and Peckham need are more aspirational young families, mixed housing, and opportunities for sustainable job creation not dependent on the state. Not policies like secure tenancy that concentrate poverty and create a weird culture of  privilege without aspiration 

How that debate happens I care not, and Simon Hughes should welcome the opportunity the Prime Minister has provided to showcase the public-private partnerships that have regenerated vast swathes of his own constituency without building more Council Housing.

Time for the party to grow up…

Back in May, all Lib Dem MP’s (bar one abstention) voted in favour of a coalition with the Conservatives.  The Conservatives gave away a lot to the Lib Dem’s to secure the deal (Simon Hughes was quoted just this week saying that he and others could not believe just how much was being offered).

Part of the ”quid pro quo” however was that the Lib Dems would accept Michael Gove’s plans for “free schools” - essentially allowing schools more independence from local councils and enabling parents to set up their own free schools. Something that a number of Tory councillors were none too happy with it should be said. 

At conference activists will however challenge the MP’s decision. A motion has been put forward that states (according to Newsnight as I have not seen conference papers as yet) “Local Authorities should retain strategic oversight of the provision of school places” and “continue to exercise their arms length support of state schools“. On free schools the motion calls on “all Liberal Democrats to urge people not to take up this option“.

Well we would have been living in la la land had we not expected some form of left wing gnashing of teeth at conference - and even more foolish to imagine that the Federal Conference Committee would not find a way to allow at least one motion to find its way onto the agenda.

Will there be a media scrum around it ? You betcha. Newsnight have already started - you can see it below - and it wont stop there. Will Liberal Vision find itself (again!) on the side of the leadership? (looks likely….. darn it!). Will the activists win? (Possibly). Will it make any difference to the short term? Unlikely. Even if the motion passes, frankly the Coalition deal out ranks a motion at conference - so it’s a gesture at best. Though one the Coalition can ill afford at such a tricky time in its life.

And how very Lib Dem to have a motion that calls on its members to “urge” others to do, or not do, something. Why we need to pass a motion in order to “urge” is a little beyond me. 

Does it highlight that it is time that the Lib Dems grew up? Definitely. The truth is that the media will portray us as a bunch of loons who prefer permanent opposition to power. And they might be right. About part of the party at least.

But surely it’s about time policies and motions are voted on by the WHOLE party (as I have argued before)…not just a tiny minority of members, with a score to settle, willing and able to make the journey to Beetle land. Come on Nick, Simon or whoever is in charge of the party right now - time bring the Lib Dems kicking and screaming into the 21st century - and get some real democracy (we are so keen to bang on about to others) into this party. Let people have their debate at conference by all means - then put it to the vote of all members. That way we can be sure our policies reflect those of the 60,000 not just the disgruntled few hundred.

In the mean time be prepared for a rocky ride and a media frenzy in Liverpool.

Oh…well said Julian Harris on Newsnight.

Daily Mash turns on Vince

For those who haven’t seen it:

GRADUATES WHO EARN MORE TO BE TAXED FOR TURNING UP TO LECTURES

Has Vince lost his golden touch?

Hat-tip: Philip Stevens on Twitter (http://twitter.com/Philip_stevens)

Vince

Continuing the theme of serial delusion, the big debate on university finance within the Liberal Democrats now appears to be between those who want to bleed everyone and those who just want to bleed success. This against the status quo of making people who use a service, and can afford it, pay for it.

I wrote last month criticising the uncapped graduate tax proposal in detail. It’s a daft scheme. Who in their right mind would volunteer to pay a potentially unlimited liability for a degree? The long-term consequences would be to incentivise mediocrity.

Like the mansion tax the sage of Twickenham has proposed another complex tax evasion plan, and one, like the mansion tax that we hope stands no chance of becoming policy.

Cuddly Cuts?

‘These are not just cuts, these are delicate, compassionate Coalition cuts…”

So might run the Central Office of Information campaign following Nick Clegg’s announcement of “sensitive” cuts. Or at least it might, only the COI budget is one of the first in the firing line…

Nick Clegg’s general point is that although spending reductions are essential, he doesn’t want them to be done in the same way as in the 1980s, which in the “folk memory” of the north of England in particular, were particularly “brutal”.

A good ambition, but is the narrative wise?

The main problem is that there is no nice way to lose your job.

The government can create better support structures for retraining, can incentivise moving people to where the jobs are, and can ease transition in other ways. A lot of this already exists. It doesn’t though make losing your job a pleasant experience.

It also doesn’t sit well with the Coalition’s other major welfare focus, workfare, that although ‘progressive’, a ‘centre-left’ innovation, and tied to the Clinton administration, is still a very big stick, not a carrot or candyfloss.

Rather than focusing on compassion alone then, Nick might be better off talking about his ambition to get everyone affected back into work as soon as possible, and how the coalition intends to improve the chances of that happening. That’s what matters when you have job insecurity not hearts and flowers.

The other big credibility issue in the ’sensitivity’ narrative is where cuts are most likely to take place. It is evidentially the case that the most bloated public sector institutions, and welfare abuses such as using disability benefit to mask unemployment, are in the areas where Clegg wishes to be most sensitive.

Does regional sensitivity then mean the more balanced south must face the music first, or pay most of the bills? Neither is likely to go down well with most of the people who have elected this coalition.

Other aspects of the brutalism narrative of the 1980s should not return. We are unlikely to see the Police face down members of BA cabin crew. The concentration of failing nationalised industry in small towns that made the impact of some 1980s closures more devastating is less likely to happen with the closure of targeted Council services.

But Nick would do well to remember that in no small part the shock of the 80s was due to the decades of political dishonesty that preceded it… ‘cradle to grave welfare’… ‘the state will provide’… ‘jobs for life’… ‘homes for heroes’… and so on… that put necessary changes in the most difficult context possible.

Nick will need to walk a very careful tightrope to avoid perpetuating a similar mistake. Policy needs to ensure more private sector growth, a smaller better focused state, and pathway between the two for those impacted by transition.

Promoting the pathway is surely the right kind of compassion to consider, not tea and sympathy without any sense there is something fundamentally wrong with vast swaithes of the country having no better career opporunities than working for the Job Centre.

INVITATION: Westminster Events Feature Liberal Visioners - in person!

Starting this week, a series of debates in Westminster will focus around the issue of:

FREEDOM

Remember that? I do, just about. I rather liked it, too, and am hoping to see its return.

Two Liberal Vision spokespeople will be panelists on two of these debates, and more importantly…

…YOU ARE INVITED
(as that fella off Clockwork Orange said to the two women in the record store before he … well, yes, you know, you’ve seen it.)

Anyway - please come along. Note: the events include wine.

I repeat: the events include wine.

You can bring friends, too. Just contact the organisers and say that you want to attend:

E-mail contact@forestonline.org or telephone 01223 370156

Full details of all the debates are here: http://www.thefreesociety.org/Voices-of-Freedom

This Thursday Liberal Vision’s Tim Cox will be speaking on: THE FREEDOM (GREAT REPEAL) BILL, Laws that should be reformed/amended.

Then on 29th June, I will be speaking on: WHO HOLDS THE LIBERAL TORCH IN 2010? Libertarians, Lib Dems or the “liberal elite”?

What an enticing question, eh?

Other speakers throughout the debates include:

Guy Herbert of NO2ID
Iain Dale (of Iain Dale)
Philip Davies MP of the Conservative Party
Philip Johnston of the Daily Telegraph

BE THERE THEN, READERS.

Be there then.

Breaking Laws?

David Laws is trouble with the Telegraph over his expenses. He stands accused of claiming for rent from his long-term partner which may be against rules against paying rent to a spouse or equivalent. He has accepted a degree of fault, offered to pay money back, given an explanation based on protecting his privacy, and referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. His future as a minister must be considered uncertain. 

There are two issues within the Laws story. The first is what level of privacy it is reasonable for someone to expect in public life. Here his behaviour looks understandable if naive and anachronistic. Not a resigning issue, but if you want complete privacy don’t claim public money that depends on honest disclosure of your personal relationships.

The second issue is familial benefit. Did his arrangements mean either he or his partner gained at the taxpayer’s expense? That is the point of the rule in question. Here he may be in trouble on the decision to rent from his partner, the amount, and whether his claim that their relationship was not akin to that of spouses stacks up. That accounting and legal headache is for him and the investigating Commissioner.

Can he survive? The view of most commentators so far is yes he can. On beliefs and ability alone  this blog would rather he did. His decisions look foolish not self-enriching, and Julian Glover’s analogy with Lord Browne of BP is apt, but it will depend on what the Commissioner rules.

His reputation though, and that of the Coalition is damaged.

Politically part of the Liberal Democrat narrative in the last election was that none of our MPs had broken the rules, carefully avoiding any mention of the other place, or the motives behind some claims, but still holier than though. It was unwise then, it is defunct now.

Our policy was that those in serious breach of the rules could be subject to a recall ballot by their constituents. I believe some form of that will still be a part of the Parliamentary Reform proposals.

The logical conclusion, depending on the timing of the legislation and what the Commissioner’s actually rules, is that Yeovil might see the first test. If that happens David Laws would be wise to welcome the process. The Commissioner will influence whether he gets to remain a minister. His constituents are the best judges of his longer-term political future.

Tim Farron would get my vote..

…If I could vote that is!

With Vince stepping down from the job as deputy leader of the Lib Dems, no sooner are we out of one election, we find ourselves facing another. This one however really only concerns 57 individuals. Which is a blessing in many ways - as I think many of us are “electioned-out”. 

I am a bit disappointed that only two MPs have come forward so far…. Though I understand that several of the obvious choices (Norman Lamb is the obvious name that comes to mind)may feel that their roles in Government prevent them from stepping forward… But I, for one, am very pleased that Tim Farron has put his name forward.

He has proved himself to be an excellent MP, impressive campaigner, a great team player and all round nice guy (with seemingly impossible levels of energy!). I am sure that we dont see exactly eye to eye on some areas of policy- but there is no doubting his outright abilities.

Back on June 14th 2009, Liberal Vision asked the question “Is Tim Farron the Lib Dems best campaigner”. Yes we certainly thought he was. Mark Littlewood wrote on this very blog….. 

“Tim Farron may not be a household name yet, but keep a close eye on the 39 year old MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Having ended nearly a century of Tory dominance at the last General Election with a majority of less than 500,  you’d expect his seat to be categorised as ”ultra-marginal”. And no doubt Tim Farron is wisely treating it as such.

But some of the psephological info emerging from the Lake District is so amazing that computer programs would probably reject it as being too ridiculous. …..

……If Tim Farron converts Westmorland into being a rock-solid seat at the General Election, watch his national profile soar in the next Parliament.”

Well - he certainly delivered on his own constituency - in spades, and I think has the necessary attitude and drive for the job . I also think he deserves to take the next step in his own political career. So, for what it’s worth I hope he gets the job. Good luck Tim.

Clegg Prepares the Ground for Cuts

The last general election was between three parties in different states of denial about the state of the public finances. All agreed there would be cuts, none wished to say on what, and all agreed front-line services would be protected.

Were they all telling the truth the deficit could not be cut and the United Kingdom will eventually be having difficult conversations with the IMF. I think it unlikely the coalition will let that happen. But beyond the substance of what is to be done, they now have the communications challenge of adjusting expectations.

Nick Clegg has started this process with the language of “painful but necessary” cuts, whilst the Conservatives are strongly implying that many departments have been left with difficult legacies by their wasteful Labour predecessors. A process helped by Liam Byrne’s odd sense of humour.

It appears Vince Cable will need to make some of the toughest early decisionsby cutting the budget of BERR, the department of business. This should not prove politically difficult, BERR’s core business constituency are not vulnerable or compelling victims, and many will agree with the decisions.

It should also not prove as painful for Vince as has been reported. Abolishing BERR’s predecessor, the DTI, has been party policy for nearly a decade.

“Our proposal to abolish the DTI is not just about saving money but because we understand the frustration business has with a meddling, centralising, over regulating government. Its abolition is the largest act of deregulation.”

Labour’s narrative during this process will be about threats to “front-line services” and “jobs”. These are fair points. Cutting fake jobs for which there is ”no more money”, is still cutting a job. Delivering services nobody needs badly is still front-line delivery. The coalition are going to have to be prepared to be a lot tougher in their analysis of where the public sector does and doesn’t create value, to counter this.

They need to point out that many jobs will transfer from public to third sector or private provision where they are valuable and necessary, and many new jobs will be created in the private sector from the money not been wasted by Whitehall. Do Labour think only public spending creates jobs?

They need to draw distinctions between essential services, those that are nice to have if we could afford them, and those that are political projects of dubious worth that don’t deliver. The latter should go, the second should be cut, the former protected. Do Labour disagree with this?

They need to challenge the crude Keynesianism of Labour’s suggestion that cuts will ‘jeopardise the recovery’ or that they ‘withdraw money from the economy’. They could challenge Labour to reinvent their own golden rule and come up with a less arbitrary definition of the difference between investment for the future and current spending.

As things stand both parties have allowed Labour to get away with painting almost all public spending as a good thing, because it is public spending.

The coalition have referred vaguely to ‘waste’ and talking about reducing the centre, but they have not yet developed a clear ‘public service test’ that might help indicate what the limits of government activity might be and by implication what needs to be cut.

Iain Duncan-Smith, after his leadership, started talking about the difference between public service and the public sector, but this analysis has been narrowly applied, not extended to politically difficult sectors like health. It also doesn’t differentiate between public services that are valuable today, those that are valuable for the future, and those that reflect political priorities from the past which are no longer justified such as the BBC licence fee.

When the coalition come to deliver change then they will then need to deal with unravelling Labour’s justifications for the debt, and their own half-agreements with it, made prior to the election. It will take longer and the cultural barriers will be higher. But the process has started.

Term limit new peers to ensure reform

Yesterday’s news that the new coalition will seek to ennoble a significant number of new peers to reflect the vote shares in the last election is an uncomfortable reminder of the realpolitik facing the new government.

It would be very easy to regard this as an entirely cynical measure, paying off worthy servants of the party machines and unlucky candidates for their contribution.

It is also a blunt reality that the House of Lords currently over-represents the Labour party and under-represents the Government. Given no one can be sacked, and no one in the Lords has any democratic legitimacy to be there, should the Government risk their entire agenda being derailed for this?

This was not a position taken by the last Government, who also used an ‘interim measure’, with a promise of future reform, never delivered, to improve their own position.

The most popular option to avoid repeating such an exercise would be to push through second chamber reform at the same time. But there is no consensus between the parties, or within some, on what this reform looks like. More democratic, entirely democratic, revolution, bridging arrangements, term lengths, electoral system, titles, actual powers and so on, the range of views is wide, and the iron law of self-interest would suggest most deeply held by those favouring the status quo. It will take time to build a consensus on how to remove this feudal relic from our constitution.

An easier step towards reform though would be put forward a proposal for term limits for all new peers to the current House. Perhaps 5 years, perhaps more. Perhaps no more than two terms possible for any of them.

This does not then require the current turkeys to vote for Christmas, makes reform in the interest of the new appointments, and puts them under the clock to deliver. It would provide some of the pressure of accountability current lacking.

It is not a very radical step. But that is the point. The new coalition cannot deliver a radical agenda to the peers until there is a consensus. In the interim it needs to dilute Labour’s blocking minority, and it needs to do so in a way that supports the Liberal Conservative reform narrative, rather than undermining it. I’m not sure there are many ways of doing that quickly that stand a chance of passage through the current second Chamber.

Who then gets appointed and how is a different question. Personally I’d like to see a party approval process at least as rigorous as that required for potential MPs, then an open selection process in the manner of a ’amIhotornot’ website where the public can rate the contenders. That’s about as close as we can get to a national primary for a large number of candidates quickly and cheaply. I’d also bar anyone in paid employment by either the government or the parties, unless they choose to resign.

The current Liberal Democrat option is an inward-looking peers panel process of hacks choosing hacks that acts as a suggestion box for the Party Leader, and can be ignored. It is not ideal nor particularly useful.

Lastly I’d say isn’t it about time John Stevens got a peerage? Securing 10,000 votes against the Speaker and pushing Nigel Farage into third place on an anti-sleaze platform is one of the best results by any independent candidate. And it is just possible he could claim to be the only true Liberal Conservative candidate in the election. One who oddly finds himself with a government but no position within it.