Liberal Vision

Nick Clegg sets out his vision

This Monday, Nick Clegg set out his vision for British society. As someone who has argued that Clegg has been weaving a liberal narrative from liberalism’s rich tradition, it is interesting to see Clegg draw these strands together.

Clegg distinguishes the socialist, conservative and liberal views of society. He argues that socialists, or social democrats, believe in a ‘good society’. Conservatives want a ‘big society’ and liberals promote an ‘open society’.

He makes it clear that there is some overlap for liberals with a ‘big society’ as both conservatives and liberals are sceptical of State power. There are also differences, which is why Clegg is a member of the Liberal Democrats and not a Conservative.

There is very little in the speech that nods to any overlap with Labour’s ‘good society’ bar that both parties see themselves as progressives. On this point, he makes it clear that Labour’s progressive agenda is based on a fixed blueprint. Having a set view is not, according to Clegg, compatible with an ‘open society’.

Clegg makes it clear that his liberalism is about people. As far as he is concerned the other two competing traditions put their faith in the State or non-State institutions.

The speech also covers some policy. Clegg’s interest in taxing unearned wealth fits with a party that has long had a fan base for land value taxation.

He ends the speech quoting Karl Popper.

The party now has to flesh out these ideas on social mobility, dispersed political power, transparency, a fair distribution of wealth and property and an internationalist outlook.

The challenge after that is to build an electoral base who support an ‘open society.’

Tags: Nick Clegg

Europe: Clegg got it right..and then completely wrong…

Stephen Tall has a really good article over on LDV today on the subject of Europe and Cameron’s decision to reject the proposed ‘Merkozy’ EU treaty. In summary his view is that whilst he is not  going to shed any tears that the UK refused to sign-up to the deal, he says “it’s a crying shame that the UK isn’t trying to lead from within”.

Like Stephen, I consider myself an internationalist first and foremost and whilst I broadly support of the concept of the EU -  but I am not so blind that I can’t see just how fat, corrupt, protectionist and, frankly, undemocratic the EU has become.   Within that, the Euro-zone has become something of a joke – singularly inept at solving problems of its own making – flailing around coming up with one bad idea after another. The latest, (frankly laughable) idea was to introduce a Tobin tax (a tax on financial transactions) . This sought to raise many billions of euros, of which well over half would come from the Britain. Given how important the financial sector is to this country – and the likely outcome of any such move – it  was never going to be acceptable.

So we have to consider whether any other outcome was ever really likely? The truth of the matter (and there is so much that we don’t know about what actually happened during the discussions) is that David Cameron was out-manoeuvred by the French (mainly) and the Germans. The French wanted a policy that would treat the symptoms (debt) not the cause (overspending) and wanted Britain to pay for it. If they couldn’t get that then isolating Britain was the next best option. That’s bad news for the UK – but I suspect even worse news for Europe. And whilst the British Euro-sceptics may be crowing and the French and Germans basking in self-righteous glory – the truth is it’s  a crying shame for everyone.

So what of the Lib Dem’s role in all of this? It seems clear that in the run up to the discussions, Nick did all he could to help facilitate the best possible deal for the UK. Good . That’s what you want the deputy PM to be doing putting the country’s interest first (as he did when he led the party into coalition).

Nick has also shown himself to be “in tune” with the Lib Dem membership. Nick is a Euro-realist. Likewise the Lib Dem members. In a recent poll of members, 51% rejected a move towards an even closer union with Europe.  Yes, we like the concept . No we don’t like what it has become. Here are some of the quotes from that survey….

“refuse closer union UNTIL such time as the EU has been restructured into a less bureaucratic and more Liberal form”

“The right to decide what sovereignty is pooled remains an important one and should sometimes be reversed. We do not for example still need a coal and steel community or agricultural policy”

“Closer union must come with increased accountability and reform”

“We should work towards reform of CAP. We should push for more democracy in EU decision making. We should make every effort to avoid too much legislation coming from Brussels”

“It seems that the UK is not really playing a proper role therefore we should step back and re-negotiate the pressing points, like money, Common Agricultural Policy”

So the idea that we are a party blindly committed to Europe no matter how illiberal, protectionist, bureaucratic and corrupt it becomes is just plain nonsense. Nick and the majority of the party would rather be in Europe than out of it- but recognise that Europe desperately needs reform. We recognise that it isn’t Europe “at all costs”.

Where Nick has made an error – and here I will bang on again about his PR and the party’s PR – is how he has managed the post-veto situation. On Friday Nick is seemingly behind Cameron’s dramatic veto (saying that Cameron’s demands had been ‘modest and reasonable’), and a dreaded “spokesman” confirming that Nick was ‘fully signed-up’ to the veto). Given that William Hague has also stated on the record that “The negotiating position that David Cameron took on Thursday night and Friday morning was agreed in advance with the Lib Dems in the coalition” – it seems reasonable to believe that it is true.

24 hours later Nick is “ bitterly disappointed” with the outcome in Brussels, that the outcome is “bad for Britain” and could leave it “isolated and marginalised“.

Of course the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

UK’s demands probably were “reasonable” and Nick almost certainly would have agreed that Cameron should/could use the veto if all else failed (I can’t imagine that it would have been very plausible to ask David Cameron to “pop out of the room” every five minutes during the negotiations to check if his actions were OK with Nick). It is also true that the outcome was pretty miserable for everyone. What is frustrating it that Nick couldn’t have said all that on Friday in one (somewhat long) breath rather than starting out sounding supportive and getting increasingly angst-ridden about the outcome. This speaks yet again of Nick needing much better media advice that he himself trusts. This did not require a PR guru to get this right. It just required a bit of forward planning and a half decent PR brain. Neither are really much in evidence on this one.

Of course Nick has not been helped by the party grandees – and may indeed explain his faltering media stance… Talk of Vince resigning, coalition splits, even questions regarding Nick’s future as leader are unhelpful and show that we still have an awful long way to go if we want to convince the electorate that we are “fit to govern”. We have enough on our plate with the hysterical right wing press having a pop at Nick without our own doing the same. It’s odd that some Lib Dems complain at the Tories being only “half-in” Europe when some of them are only “half-in” the Lib Dems.

UPDATE:  Nick’s absence from parliament this afternoon has created a furore across the media. He says its because he did not want to be a distraction.  But in actual fact his absence seems to have created a much larger distraction. Further evidence that he needs better media advice?

FURTHER UPDATE: Watch BBC News at Ten and tell me that Nick staying away was a “good idea”

Tags: EU, Europe, lib dems, Nick Clegg, Veto

Ordinary folks just don’t care about Europe

Given the bile spewed out almost daily by certain national newspapers over recent years, telling us why the European Union is at the heart of every problem facing Britain today, it is perhaps surprising that most people in the UK do not give a stuff about Europe. Indeed, people actually care more about drug abuse, morality or the environment than they do about Europe!

I say this with confidence. The monthly Ipsos MORI issues tracker ,which is probably one of the best trackers of the state of the nation’s collective mind, shows that only about 3% of the population think that Europe is an important issue whereas some 60% think that our economic situation is important, 30% think that unemployment is an important issue, and 20% think immigration is important.

I have always liked this survey. Ask people if Europe is important they will say yes. Ask people if they want a referendum they will say yes (who says no to a referendum I wonder? ). Read the papers and you would think it was the subject of every single chat at the office water cooler every day. Hmm right. But ask them to spontaneously indicate which things they think are important and now we are getting to what people are really thinking about – not what some push poll or newspaper wants us to believe.

And yet here I am watching the ludicrous parliamentary debate on the EU referendum. An hour or two ago they were honestly arguing about the difficulties of deciding whether any referendum should be under a FTP voting system or a preferential voting system. OH the irony!

Had David Cameron left this as a back bench debate he could have focused today on the good news coming out Libya, his scrap with Sarkozy, his trip to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting etc. His ill-judged attempt to whip the Conservative MPs has backfired monumentally. MPs we have never heard of are threatening  to resign from  jobs we have never heard of over the issue. This story is not about Europe it is ” a test of Cameron’s authority”, or  “a test of whether the Conservative party trust their leader on Europe”…..

And there can only be one outcome from this…. On a matter that only a tiny minority of us ordinary folk think important, the nation will come out of this concluding that  David Cameron is leading a divided Conservative party. That’s not good news for him or his party.  Where has David Cameron’s political antennae gone?  It left with Andy Coulson. Further evidence that someone more in touch with the mood of the nation, the way stories gather momentum, twist and turn, is needed at NO10.

Nick Clegg has not come out of this without criticism (read Simon McGrath’s excellent article on “Why won’t Nick Clegg trust the people..”). We stand for democracy, claim to be in favour of parliamentary reform and at the first sniff of democracy in action (the EU referendum brigade’s so-called e-petition) whips his party into voting against it. Better, I suppose, than whipping the party to abstain.

Tags: David Cameron, EU referendum, Europe, Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg: Wrong and hypocritical on unpaid internships

LDV reported yesterday that “Nick Clegg has thrown his weight behind a campaign being launched by PR Week and the PRCAs to end the practice of unpaid internships“. The post goes on to say “To launch the campaign, the PRCA will today take the step of placing a list on its website of all PRCA member agencies who commit to paying at least the National Minimum Wage to interns“.

Hmmm. How many unpaid  interns do the Lib Dems employ I wonder? Back in April of this year, didn’t I read about  Jonny Medland who worked – for free – for Mr Clegg for three months in 2007 when he was Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman? Yes I did…. I also read in the same article that “The Lib Dems said they would start paying interns at their party HQ after Mr Clegg’s speech on Tuesday….. But a party spokesman later told the BBC it would not happen straight away ..” and then “Mr Clegg’s pledge does not apply to interns working in the Parliamentary offices of Lib Dem MPs..” . How it unravels.

And indeed it would appear that we are still running adverts for unpaid interns (Recent graduates looking for an internship can click on the ad to go to the website advertising this particular one).

So when Guido asks the perfectly reasonable question “Is Lib Dem HQ paying interns properly yet?“…. the reply from one Lib Dem member was truly gobsmacking…

“Guido – With our loss of the ‘Short’ money given to opposition parties and as we receive nothing from vested interests we are skint, unlike your beloved Tories! Of course we would wish to pay our interns. When you support state funding of political parties to get us all all out of the pockets of big business and the unions I will take your criticism more seriously!”

OK it was one rubbish answer from a random Lib Dem in the comments . But I think it sums up this attitude that somehow we are the oppressed small party and so our actions are excusable. They are not. Many small and large businesses, charities and NGO’s don’t receive “short” money, or the many other privileges that come from being inside the political system, and they are skint too! I see no reason at all why PR companies should be battered into paying interns minimum wage and political party’s not. Nor should Nick.

But before he writes off Lib Dem internships (because the party can’t afford them – so it’s unpaid internships or NO internships) he should consider all those youngsters that want to take an internship at the Lib Dems. They will get experience in the workplace, an insight into the party and how it operates and contacts that can last a lifetime. Better surely that youngsters are allowed, if they choose, to sieze these opportunities?

We all know the unemployment stats for young people at the moment. Expert after expert on the media has advised that young people should “not give up” and that finding “voluntary work”, to give them a sense of fulfilment, boost self esteem, gain experience and get a more rounded CV, is an excellent option for those seeking a job or planning to do so soon.

If working for free for the voluntary sector is ” a good thing” for young people… surely the same applies to unpaid internships? Nick seems to think no….Voluntary work – excellent and admirable; Unpaid internships-evil exploitation (except when we do them). I hope he will explain to the many youngsters, that will be denied this opportunity as companies shut down their internship programmes, why this is in their best interests.

Nick has made an error on this issue – he is both wrong on the issue and inconsistent with his own party practises…. and liberal is certainly isn’t.

Tags: Nick Clegg, unpaid internships

Who is Nick Clegg talking to these days?

Last year at conference, a motion calling on the party to “urge” people “not to take up the option” of the new Free schools was overwhelmingly carried. It was a very Liberal Democrat kind of conference motion.

It had no teeth, had the political lobbyists chuckling into their gin and tonics and the likes of my friends and family asking what the hell that meant? It meant very little.  A squeal from the activists at having lost some of their historical power over the party, a squawk against having to work with the hated Tories. A symbolic gesture. 

And a damaging one at that. For a party that purports to advocate freedom in the abstract, why is it that conference all too frequently objects to it in practice ? No wonder so many of my friends tell me that the Lib Dems stand for nothing – and everything – according to what suits them at the time. I some times feel they may be right. But we should remember that votes at conference don’t always reflect the views of the wider Lib Dem voters. On the issue of free schools I bet you any money you like that regardless of the conference vote there will be swathes of Lib Dem (and Labour) voters, not just Tory voters, itching to get involved in setting up these schools.

Nick’s initial stance on free schools was spot on. So one the one hand I am delighted that Nick ignored conference, considered the evidence and embraced free schools – to the extent that today, he is calling for more of them. His instinct that parents want more choice is right - and the evidence from countries such as Holland, Sweden and Denmark is that they work.

Where I think Nick is wrong however is to create another “phony” yellow roadblock.

His statement that these Free Schools must not be “for-profit”  was however a mistake. It is to imply that he (and his colleagues) have somehow stopped the Conservatives going down this route. It has been taken as such by many political commentators and discussed widely across the media today. It is however perfectly clear that the Lib Dems have had nothing to do with stopping “for profit” schools . Gove, Osborne et al had already decided that “for profit” schools were a political step too far for the Conservatives just now. Nor indeed is there any suggestion that these are intended, or will turn out to be, middle class enclaves. So why has Nick even ventured down the path of raising these issues? Is it “muscular liberalism” (“don’t worry folks I have my beady eye on these blue bastards” ) or, more likely, is it to send out “reassuring” warm words to his party. But which part of his party? The activists or the voters?

If it is the activists he is wrong because he has shown time and again that he is much more in-tune with the voters than conference activists are. If it’s the voters he is wrong. We can’t really be planning to go into the next election asking the electorate to judge us on the our record in Government by churning out a long list of things we “stopped” rather than the things “we have done” ? Especially when they twig that half the time the claim of a Lib Dem roadblock is er hmmm a tad overstated. People are not that stupid. Nor do people vote for negative action, roadblocks and political gesturing. They vote for positive action, solutions and results delivered.

And that’s not to say he should not voice his views. He was spot on coming out of the blocks fast to dispel any idea that he would sanction any moves to restrict social network sites in the aftermath of the riots. But that is a world away from allowing this “yellow roadblock” concept to gather further traction.   

There is also just the chance that we might have to work with the Conservatives again in the next term. As things stand the next election may well be close. How much harder will it be for David Cameron to persuade the Tory grass roots to go along with another term in coalition with the Liberal Democrats if all they get over the next two years is a constant stream of  ”yellow roadblocks” real or phony. We can differentiate in a positive way just as easily and with better results.

Tags: free schools, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg