Liberal Vision

Simon Hughes is wrong on right to buy

Less than a week after criticising the Prime Minister for making up housing policy on the hoof without consulting coalition channels, Simon Hughes is campaigning for an option for Councils to suspend the Right to Buy scheme. This would be a bad idea.

Right to Buy, the facility for Council tenants to buy their homes, before it was a Conservative Policy was supported by the Liberal Party, whose 1950 manifesto states:

“Housing: The main plan is, first to get people decent living conditions and then to give them the chance to become owner-occupiers, even in Council houses and flats”

Simon’s motivation is to ensure more Council homes remain Council homes in order to maintain the social pool and reduce waiting lists.

But stopping the right to buy does not increase the housing stock, it just increases the barriers between the social and private sector, ensuring that it is harder for aspirational tenants to move on. The Liberal Democrats have campaigned for some time for there to be more links between RTB receipts and new build or regeneration.

Right to Buy also ensures mixed communities. Tenants sell on, young professionals and families move in. Ending the scheme would means needs-assessments were the only condition for tenancy. A recipe for concentrating social problems.

I think it strange that some self-defined social liberals campaign rigorously for mixing pupils in schools through lotteries and LEA selection, but think in housing communities are better segregated. Make your minds up.

Simon’s long-term vision is also questionable. Bermondsey already has one of the highest percentages of social housing in the country, the London Borough of Southwark is the UK’s largest landlord. That means it also has some of the highest demand for more.

But the conclusion of endlessly responding to that demand is to continually increase the percentage, concentrating social problems and poverty across entire areas not just estates. That in turn reduces money coming into an area, spent in the area, local employment and the tax base.

In that regard, as has been said previously, what Bermondsey needs most is mixed housing and business parks as part of a sustainable economy strategy. Diversity and opportunities not homogeneity and subsidies.

What Simon’s proposal would mean instead is ongoing polarisation. Aspirational Councils wouldn’t use the power, left-leaning Councils would see it as an opportunity to gerrymander wards. How Bermondsey got into such a mess in the first place.  

Happily that has been changing for 40 years, and not just along the river, usually through mixed public private approaches and community partnerships. Simon has often been a leading supporter of such schemes.

It would be sad then if he went into the twilight of his career abandonning what works for token populism as a reaction to concerns about the national political situation.

Diane Abbott shows that she knows very little about … well … anything really.

This Labour leadership race is a stark reminder of just how important it is to make this Coalition work.  Sure, some elements may not be ideal, but the prospect of any one of Labour’s unsavoury bunch getting back into power should be enough to quieten the staunchest of anti-coalitionites. The run-in looks certain to be a family affair, but what jobs have the aspiring leaders got their sights on within the shadow cabinet? The losing Milliband will presumably be in the running for a top post, Balls has his beady eye on the shadow treasury and Burnham will be happy just to be on a bench. Any bench. But what of Diane Abbott–the self proclaimed “alternative”? Which post does she have the talent to command?

Judging by Monday’s interview with The Guardian, the outlook’s not terribly auspicious. For those of you who found 12 whole minutes of Abbott and Poly Toynbee slobbering over each other too much to bear, here are the highlights:

On the economy: Simple. Rebalancing spending with tax increases. Apparently drawing her inspiration from Obama and Norman Lamont (et tu Norman?!), she proposes that spending cuts and tax increases are split 50:50. Thus followed  a breathless three minute rant: make the 50%  tax rate permanent, bring the threshold down to £100,000, increase capital gains tax, impose a financial transaction tax, double the banking tax, impose a new wealth tax, impose the mansion tax, tax assets more… etc, etc. Miss the part about public spending cuts? Me too.

Foreign Policy: “Withdraw the troops”–the priority is to get out before the US, regardless of the nuances, we must beat the yanks to the departure date. What to do about the Afghanistan? Not a problem, send in the UN, they’ll sort it out. “I have a lot of faith in the UN”, she reassures us.

Next up: torture and rendition. Not an issue. The problem isn’t Labour’s record on abusing human rights–it’s the audacity of the Tories to launch an inquiry into the subject. Clearly a shallow attempt at defaming Labour MPs.

Social Justice: this one’s easy, obviously it’s the fault of the bankers–increase taxes.

Education: Not really interested in talking about this, or the issue of her son attending a private school. This isn’t really about education, she laments, it’s about “being a women in public life–all anyone is interested in is shoes and family”!  Even Poly baulks slightly at this, but no Abbott is certain, she has no case to answer because she’s a woman. Harriet Harman eat your heart out.

Finally, on her fellow leadership contenders. Nothing. Not a thing. She can’t even declare who she has more in common with Dave or Ed. All we get is a “nice suits, nice red ties, nice hair-cuts” quip.

So back to my original question- where next for Ms Abbott? Presuming that there has been no-one since Tony Benn crazy enough to let this tax-devouring-fiend anywhere need anything of economic importance, the main jobs at the treasury, home office, BIS, and pensions are out. Trusting the UN to resolve anything shows a fairly basic misunderstanding of international affairs, so out are the FCO, Defence and DfID. Education or Health? Nope. Justice? Probably best not.

In truth, it’s hard to see just what exactly Ms Abbott could do. Her ascendency bears testament to just how far playing the “persecuted-black-single-mum-from a poor background” card can get you in politics. The Millibands will be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

Chinese labourers to earn £100,000+ per annum?

Bob Crow, speaking to Ian Hislop:

“I have more in common with a Chinese labourer than [I do with] someone like yourself…”

Annual salary of Bob Crow:

£105, 679

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.

You don’t have to be beautiful to be a fascist, but it helps

Gisele Bündchen has been in the news for reasons other than being pretty and well dressed and probably-airbrushed, recently.

According to the Brazilian supermodel, “I think there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed their babies for six months.”

This is a typical example of knee-jerk conservativism: a desire to use power to impose virtue on others. To re-frame this all-too-common viewpoint into a general statement: “I think that x is important/valuable/worthwhile, therefore the law should require that you do x as well.”

Let us take as read the justified criticism by Pam Lacey of the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers, who noted that “Some women have medical reasons as to why they can’t. A lot of new mothers hit a problem.”

Others, one might add, simply don’t take to it. Or they may not be available to breast feed whenever the child is hungry. In some cases, it is preferable to the child’s development that the mother does not spend six months at home – after all, not everybody has a $150m fortune and the resulting freedom from the need to provide materially for their family.

What matters to very young children more than anything else is that they are nurtured in a happy home, rather than one where their mother is stressed and depressed by having to make decisions that they would not choose.

However, this is not the extent of Ms. Bündchen’s error. Imposing breastfeeding with the threat of force is bad enough, but we need also to consider her demand for “worldwide law”. There are very good reasons why we do not have worldwide laws. For one thing, the law is best made and administered at a level closest to those that it will affect, which is why liberals support devolution, subsidiary, state rights etc. A second and related point is that many laws are culturally-specific: what applies in Guyana may not apply in Guinea.

But perhaps most importantly, a single world government (necessary for any meaningful “worldwide law”) would be so far removed from those that it governed that it would inevitably become either a bureaucracy (in the strict sense of the word, with officials exercising power without constraint) or an autocracy (even if the ruler were elected).

Ms. Bündchen has since rushed out to ‘clarify’ her words: “I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge,” she wrote on her website, though whether she thinks their experiences and opinions count for much is doubtful, considering she would use legal sanctions to impose her will on them. She also said that she regretted that her comment sounded so “black and white”, as though banning a practice was nuanced. “My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with the law”, she added, having previously said “there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed”. One might doubt her subsequent sincerity.

If Ms. Bündchen were not a famous supermodel, it is unlikely that we would ever have heard her authoritarian suggestion. Unfortunately, like participants at a Miss World competition, it seems that we have to listen to her views of the world as well. Beauty is hardly a prerequisite for authoritarian views, but if you want to get your ideas heard, it clearly helps.

Finkelstein: LDs should be happy just to be in power

The headline (above) is, admittedly, slightly paraphrased–but this is essentially Danny Finkelstein’s message in The Times today:

The LDs may be dropping in the polls, but they’re IN POWER and should be happy with that.

For those who don’t have access beyond the pay-wall, the Fink argues that the whole point of being high in the polls is to get into government. Thus it’s better to be in government and on 14% in the polls, than out of government and on 20% in the polls. Popularity is simply a means to an end, so if you have achieved the end, this is what matters.

He also claims that a drop in popularity is inevitable when in government, especially for the “junior partner” of a Coalition.

With the rise in LD fortunes in recent times, the Party, he argues, had to make a choice–to remain a Left-ist protest vote (with the option of siding with Labour) or to position itself in the Centre, allowing the option of holding power with either “main” party.

I slightly disagree on the Left-Right model: it’s up to the LDs, surely, to promote the liberal elements of the “Left”–greater civil liberties, a fairer voting system, constitutional reform, tax reform, penal reform, liberal policies on migration (well said, Vince!), less reactionary views on the EU and so on. This is our raison d’etre.

Finkelstein does, in fairness, understand this. He proposes that liberalism can be seen as Centre ground, and that this can appeal to the electorate:

“There is an audience — and an agenda — for a centre party that offers voters a chance to liberalise the others” he says.

The issue of what happens in subsequent elections is extremely pertinent. The LDs should not simply be grateful for 4/5 years in power, and then crawl back to irrelevance. The Cons can’t have their gluten-free soya cake and eat it. Our presence in the Coalition changes everything, and the question of what we do at future elections won’t go away.

On this question, and the dilemma of the polls, I am (for once) on the fence. Affecting government policy is great–but the question is how to make this a more permanent affair. Thoughts below, if you will.

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.

Catch us on Newsnight…..

Julian Harris (Director of our very own LV) has been interviewed for tonight’s Newsnight, looking at the Lib Dems conference agenda and what it means for our role in the Coalition. Goodness only knows what that means …or indeed what he has said…..fingers crossed!

For your tax money today… @2degreelimit

It comes to my attention that the Foreign Office (FCO) are employing a Digital Campaign Manager for Climate Change.

Jolly good.

As part of her no-doubt-vital remit, she’s posting stuff on Twitter under the name “Climate Charlotte”.

Click here for this crucial service: http://twitter.com/2degreelimit

Note: the above appeared on Guido this morning. Apologies for not citing, only just became aware of this.

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.