Can a Whig give the coalition some soul?

Its been  a bit of a depressing summer for many..all that talk of cuts, hacking and slashing - we might be forgiven for thinking that Freddy Krueger has hit town. But the really depressing thing for me has been lack of a philosophy behind the slicing and dicing. Yes I know our coalition partners will point us to  ”The Big Society”. But, to be honest, I still don’t understand it….the journalists and political commentators don’t understand it… hell I don’t think even David Cameron understands it. So it was a real  hallelujah moment when I was handed a copy of the Sunday Times to read. For there in black and white was the answer of course…in the slightly retro-looking form of  Friedrich Hayek.

In his article, Liberal Vision’s old friend and founder Mark Littlewood, now of  The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), serves up a convincing argument as to why Mr Hayek and his “Constitution of Liberty” has all the answers …(well most of the answers anyway).

In his article (which you can read in full on the IEA website) he says…

 ”Although one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, Hayek has never been a household name. Remarkably, for a man who was born at the tail end of the 19th century, won the Nobel prize for economics in 1974 and died nearly 20 years ago, that may be about to change. Thanks to an extensive feature on the wildly popular Glenn Beck television programme in America, Hayek’s masterpiece The Road to Serfdom zoomed to the top of Amazon’s bestseller charts in June.

This is unusual enough for a philosophical tract, but is astonishing for a book originally published in 1944…… downloaded from our website tens of thousands of times over the summer.

This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of another great Hayek text, The Constitution of Liberty. Anyone searching for an intellectual basis for a genuinely Liberal-Conservative approach to government should read it.

Hayek argues for strict limits on state activity and intervention. But he offers a very different take on the nature of the individual from that often - if wrongly - associated with free-market capitalism. Hayek sees individuals as intrinsically social beings. His vision of a free society is not one where men and women are trampling over one another in pursuit of narrow, venal self-interest, each using their own freedom of action to exploit others. Hayek believed each individual would benefit as much from the exercise of others’ freedom as their own.

This optimistic view of human nature should be what guides the British government as it grapples with the shocking state of the nation’s public finances and attempts to provide some coherence to its big society agenda.

Interestingly, and importantly for the coalition, although beloved of Margaret Thatcher, Hayek was not a Tory. He described himself as a Whig. And Mark Littlewood may well have had another annoying moment of foresight when he argues later in his article that the coalition should seek to rediscover the best elements of this Whig tradition.

Tags: Big Society, coalition, Cuts, Friedrich Hayek, IEA, Institute of Economic Affairs, Mark Littlewood, The Constitution of Liberty

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.

Tags: coalition, Finklestein, Liberal Democrats, liberalism, opinion polls

Shameful UN need reprimanding by the coalition

International development invariably raises some complex issues but periodically we come across an example of the international community acting in a totally indefensible manner. No shades of grey here- this is morally and politically abhorrent. I am referring to the United Nation’s decision to continue with a controversial prize established in “honour” of Equatorial Guinea’s notorious dictator Obiang Nguema.  If the government wants to get serious about development it must be seen to be outspoken and forthright about such travesties.  Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats must not shirk their responsibility to make their voices heard on issues like these across all departments during this coalition.

The UNESCO-Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences is supposed to be awarded “for scientific research in the life sciences leading to improving the quality of human life.”

The “quality of human life” under Obiang’s regime is a disgrace. According to the World Bank, GDP per capita is $28,103 (richer than Israel), but 77 per cent of the population still live below the poverty line. Part of the problem is that all funds received from the country’s extensive oil reserves pass through Obiang’s personal bank account to prevent “misallocation of funds”. Naturally he has invested wisely for the benefit of the people:  Global Witness report that his son purchased a $15,000,000 Californian mansion in 2006 and that the family owns three Bugatti Veyron cars (each retailing for over $1 million each) along with a healthy compliment of Ferraris, Maseratis, a Rolls or two and the obligatory presidential jet. Not a single free and fair election has taken place since he assumed power in 1979 (Africa’s second longest serving living dictator) and one in three Equato-Guineans  die before their 40th birthday. Corruption, human rights abuses and systemic torture by government officials are reported as being routine practice.

But none of this need concern the UNESCO bureaucrats in Paris who will take half of the dictator’s $3 million donation for “administrative fees” to help them identify worthy winners of this prize. It is perversely ironic that the United Nations, which claims to be in pursuit of  a “better world”, should explicitly endorse, and be in the pocket of, one of Africa’s most repressive and corrupt dictators. The Equato-Guineans suffering daily are unlikely to appreciate the irony.

The UK carries a lot of weight in the international development community and, while Andrew Mitchell controls the development portfolio, this is an issue that should transcends briefs and party divisions. Michael Moore and Norman Lamb  are among those on the Lib Dem benches who have been honourably outspoken about the scourge of corruption upon development before. It’s time for their voices to be heard again. Removing one prize fund won’t change the world overnight- but not doing so sends a terrible message to some of the world’s worst abusers of power.

Tags: coalition, corruption, Equatorial Guinea, Global Witness, lib dems, Lmab, Mitchell, Moore, Obiang, UN, UNESCO

Achieving coalition with the Tories is a triumph for the so-called Orange Book tendency…

Recommended …. 

Telegraph article written by Mark Littlewood… (yes you know..once of this parish, now DG of the IEA)

In his article (which I wish I had penned btw) he basically argues that the formation of a Conservative-Liberal coalition government finally blows apart the idea that the Liberals are natural bedfellows of the Labour Party or some fictious centre-left “progressive alliance”.

Mark also identifies - as did we - the importance of David Laws in the formation of this coalition…. “From the Liberal Democrat perspective, achieving coalition with the Tories is a triumph for the party’s so-called Orange Book tendency of classical, market-orientated liberals. David Laws, who played a central role in the negotiations with the Conservatives, personifies this wing of the party“.

Hear hear.

Tags: coalition, Conservatives, IEA, Liberal Democrats, Mark Littlewood, orange book

David Laws-political genius!

Word has it that a 24 page document will be released later today containing the Lib-Con deal. Private word also has it that this will be largely the work of one man- David Laws.

Tags: 24 page document, coalition, coalition deal, David Laws, Liberal Democrats

Libs to get 6 seats in conservative cabinet!

Yes I know it sounds mad. But I have been told that the deal with the Conservatives has been sealed. It will be announced with in the hour. Liberals have SIX seats in the cabinet . Really? I know that sounds bonkers .. but SO BONKERS , from such a good source, it just might be true! After all I saw The PM resign and the Tories offer the Libs a referendum on electoral reform yesterday! Anything could be true.

Update: Looks, in fact, like 2 or 3 in the Cabinet, and 3 or 4 junior ministers. Plus - Brown to resign this evening.

Update: Source incommincado right now. So I am winging it now. I am guessing the dotting i’s and crossing t’2 taking longer than anticipated. Mp’s and Federal exec meeting not expected til 2030. But interestingly Buckingham Palace was expecting a visit tonight - and may still be.

Update: Brown off to see queen.

Update: Negotiating meeting broken up with an indication that agreement reached. Both teams off to talk to their respective parties.

Tags: 6 seats, brown resign, coalition, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

Calamity or canny politics?

What a game the Lib Dems appear to be playing.

My first thought was - its chaos and calamity. The decidedly “odd” David Laws press call, inside parliament rather than walking a few yards to address the hoards of cameras outside (and  reported bizarrely on the BBC over a mobile phone), where, for all the world it looked like Lib/Con talks were progressing nicely with, what seemed to be, a few tweaks to sort. The anouncement that the meeting with the MPs went well - with “clarification” needed on just a few issues….. Ok we may read that as Liberals want more than the Tories feel able to get past their own backbenchers….. but it all seemed …well, as though they were getting there (if slowly).

….Then the biggest car smash you can imagine – Nick Clegg is reported as saying that formal talks are now being opened with the the Labour party (though ongoing with the Tories)…. Gordon Brown confirming that Clegg had spoken to him… Brown resigning (though not just yet! - very Gordon Brown) to facilitate the option of a LibLab pact …markets crashing (OK I exagerate to make a point - I have not looked at the markets).  

WTF is going on.. How does David Laws lunchtime statement that the parliamentary party agrees that the over riding priority is to create a “strong and stable government”.. square with the notion of the Liberals going into a  hotch potch agreement of Lib/Labs/SNP/DUP/Plaid/greens etc ?

I admit it was a joy to watch this unfold on the news channels - quick quick get the fractious whinging Tory backbenchers off the screens (who cares what they think) and get some Labour big wigs in here now…

Now I have had my cup of tea and had a chance to ponder, I wonder if this is not calamity - but rather canny politics. Knowing that Cameron faces a difficult meeting with his MPs very shortly this evening- and knowing that many are gruntling on about “rather be in minority party than work with those damn yellow bellies thank you very much” …how brilliantly Clegg has strengthened Cameron’s hand in that meeting.  

Cameron can legitimately stand up and say “look guys we have waited in the wings for our chance to govern. It is within our grasp BUT you have to be willing to play nicely with the Liberals - if you wont then it’s very possible that you will miss your chance again”. Minority Tory government is not the only game in town any more. So the Liberals want a bit more give on political reform - is that such a hard price to pay? - as you watch a smug Alistair Campbell already rehearsing Nick’s justification for a Lib Lab pact…. That may make the Conservatives think twice on their discussion with Cameron tonight.

And its just possible I suppose that Cameron knew of this turn of events - maybe even condoned it..Hell maybe even thought it up? Anything is possible on this odd day…

And IF this is not a clever ruse….Are they serious that whilst we struggle to get out of this recession and sort out public spending etc - the senior coalition partner in this “progressive” Lib/Lab government will have the top five or six of its portfolio-handling ministers all scrapping over a leadership battle? Come on guys…

I am left wondering what all of those voters out there think of all of this. It looks for all the world like the politicians are still putting their small petty interests ahead of the public’s - whatever they say - and goodness knows what the markets will make of  this turn of events. I want to go and lie down in a dark room til this is over.

Tags: AV, coalition, Conservatives, Labour, Lib/Lab pact, Liberal Democrats, PR

I didn’t vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government…

Ha. That’ll have the tweeters wondering what on earth is going on over in LV land!

No I have not gone mad. I am quoting what I have heard on phone-ins/read on various blogs over last 24 hours or so. IF I am to believe some posts, thousands, indeed “hundreds of thousands” are about to walk away from the Lib Dems because “they didn’t vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government”.

I found it a bit annoying when I first heard it - but as this sentiment seems to be spreading - I am getting increasingly irritated by it. In part it’s because I hate that sort of post-event whinging ( “I didn’t get what I wanted so I will throw my toys out of the pram”) but there are more specific reasons why it’s getting under my skin…..

1.     No one voted to get a Tory government. People voted to elect their constituency  MP (or indeed to stop a constituency MP) and hoped that others across the country would vote similarly (the only way to “stop” a Tory (or indeed Labour) government). That worked in some area’s - which is why there are fewer Tory MP’s than anyone expected. Even if “voting Lib Dem” in one area did stop a Tory, clearly not enough people in enough areas did the same - hence the situation we are in. The idea that one vote for one local MP would somehow stop a whole government is laughable.

 

2.    This seems to throw the blame onto the Lib Dems when the blame (if that is the right word - which it probably isn’t) sits with the voters. If this nation really cared about stopping the Tories (or indeed Labour) more people would have voted Lib Dem. That would have given Nick a much stronger negotiating position to choose who to talk to and on what terms. Just because Mrs Miggins voted Lib Dem to stop the local Tory, does not mean that Mrs Miggins view out trumps the nations view. And whilst she and those like her might whinge now, they have to look at themselves frankly and ask whether, if they cared that much, they could have done more. Goodness knows I think Nick did his bit.

 

3.    Actually the Lib Dems HAVE STOPPED a Tory government - or at least stopped such a strong Tory government that they can ride rough-shod over everyone. Had the Tories taken the Lib Dem seats they targeted we would already have Mr Cameron at No 10. As we stand here now, it is likely/possible that the Lib Dems have the ability to be a balancing item on Tory legislation. And even if a coalition doesn’t happen the Tory party will have to listen to its own backbenchers much more than the previous regime - and indeed listen to the Lib Dems- that’s in part a result of people voting Lib Dem.

 

4.    Perhaps most importantly it’s annoying because Nick Clegg could not have been clearer, throughout the general election, that the Lib Dems would not decide who to talk to in the event of a hung parliament - he would NOT be kingmaker. It would be the people who would dictate it by virtue of which party  had the largest mandate. It is demonstrably clear that the Tories have the most seats and the largest vote share. In these circumstances, had Nick decided to ignore the Tories, I think the country would have rightly been outraged that Nick had gone back on his word. Where were these people-  who are now complaining that they did not vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government - during the last 4 weeks? Integrity matters - and like the outcome we find ourselves in or not (mainly “not”)- Nick has shown to be a man of integrity - and that counts for a lot these days.

 

Now of course the proof is in the pudding. Can the Lib Dem negotiators extract enough ground across its 4 key manifesto pledges to feel that their position is honourable (and right for the country let’s not forget!) - accepting of course it’s relative position in the situation (more people voted for Tory policies than Lib Dem policies).

 

If the Tories are not willing to concede sufficient ground to allow the Lib Dem’s to feel their position with their voters is honourable, then I suspect that they won’t go into full coalition - but sit back and allow a minority Tory party to govern as best it can.   (I remain convinced that the idea of a Lib/Lab/nationalist/green uncle tom cobbley and all coalition is for the fairies).

 

But to read/listen to people moaning at this stage because Nick is attempting to find a workable solution with the Tories is nothing short of ridiculous.

Tags: coalition, Con/Lib, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Bit of a wobble ?

It was to be expected that at some point the Liberals would wobble a little. That moment seems to be now.

I am not referring to the polls - though a couple of the most immediate ones do open up more of a lead for the Tories. I am referring to the immensely confusing mixed-message that we are hearing about who the Liberals will and won’t do business with in a hung parliament.

Watching Nick on Sunday -  Nick seemed very clear, very bold, very statesman-like in his position that, in the event that Labour polled the fewest votes of the three main parties, the idea of the Liberals propping up Gordon Brown in the position as PM would be preposterous. Here here. Simple, straightforward - how can any one disagree? And it took the sting out of the “Vote Clegg Get Brown” line.

Yes yes I know…what gives Nick the right to dictate to Labour who their leader is etc etc. But he was not saying that he would not seek to interfere in other parties business. (And as I heard it a good number of senior Labour figures agree with Nick).

As I saw it, Nick was EITHER

(A) in the event of coalition with Labour : angling for the position as PM (and why not - he takes on the roll - giving Labour time to have an election get a new leader in etc?) or he was

(B) edging slowly but surely toward a coalition with the Tories.

(C) Dismissing the vote Clegg get Brown line (or a combination of the above)

Why ever he said it,  he said it - outloud.

Then came the  briefing from one of Nick’s ”advisors” attempting to “clarify” the situation.

Er oh…. as these things always do, the “clarification” just muddied the waters, sending  journalists into mini-hysteria on the possibility of a disagreement within the Liberal High Command. 

Has there been a falling out? Did one of the lefties in Liberal Shadow Cabinet throw a wobbly? Did Mandy throw a wobbly? Did Nick not mean to say that? Is Clegg deliberately taking the agenda in his own party up a notch? Come on someone must now why an advisor was told to go forth and clarify !!!  

Sometimes you just can’t UNSAY what’s been said

And like your handy SATNAV  you have to plot a new route from where you are - not try to retrace your steps to where you were on Saturday, and start over.  Those advising Nick would do well to take that on board the next time they feel the need to “clarify” what he says.

So the last 24 hours has seen journalists hungry to find the split, prise it apart, get at what the problem is. Nick managed the questions well today - but this was damage limitation at best.

Nick needs to get a grip - take charge - let his words stand - and please oh please - don’t let advisors explain to journos “What Nick was actually saying was this…”. 

Nick was perfectly clear on Sunday. The confusion is of the Liberals own making.  Here’s hoping this is a little wobble and no more.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Coalition: Chris Huhne confirms - the Cyberlock applies

Last night’s Newsnight (see below) led on the LibDem protocols in the event of a hung Parliament. Chris Huhne stood up to the plate to answer Gavin Esler’s questions off the back of a pretty jaw dropping package by Michael Crick.

 Chris said that he understood a conference resolution passed in Southport in 1998 applies to the party post-May 6^th if there’s no overall majority in the House of Commons.

 This would mean that Nick would require a 75% majority of BOTH LibDem MPs and 75% of the Federal Executive before (according to Crick) Nick could “do a deal”. And ”not just coalition”. Nick would need this support before signing up to “any substantial proposal which could affect the party’s independence of political action”.

 Brian Orrell – who seems an all round nice bloke, and used to play a Cyberman in the old Dr Who TV series – may play a decisive role in virtue of his role as Federal Exec Vice President.

If Nick Clegg fell short of these hurdles, I gather that he could choose to convene a conference by the seaside or conduct a members’ ballot or something equally insane.

(Bear in mind that the total membership of the party is now measurably less than the number of registered voters in ONE parliamentary constituency and the number of LibDem federal conference reps would be less than the electorate in a standard Parish council ward…how democratic is that?).

If we want to claim that a hung Parliament is not necessarily a bad thing and that the markets needn’t panic, we at least need to have our own rules sorted out. And these rules need to be both sane and practical.

If these really are our rules, it’s hard to argue that the financial markets should show any confidence at all in the likely LibDem response to a no-majority situation at Westminster.

Let’s hope Nick makes it very plain in his leader’s speech that he will totally disregard the Southport rules, made quite clearly for a different age.

Watch the full Newsnight programme here.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Southport Resolution 1998