Searching for a new liberal party....

****

I'm a Tory so I guess it's none of my business but it worries me a little that there is no genuinely liberal voice in UK politics. Perhaps the collapse of the party that colonised liberalism with a sort of tepid social democracy presents an opportunity to rediscover a genuinely liberal voice in British politics.

First here's the always on the money Graeme Archer on the subject of yesterday's Liberal Democrat annihilation:

Take away every elected Tory, and Toryism would continue, and sooner or later find a way to be represented in parliament again. Ditto Labour. But take away every elected Lib Dem, and what are you left with? The vacant contradiction at the heart of the "LibDem" construct: neither properly liberal, nor effectively social democrat. Just nothing.

Yet liberalism is a real thing - the Dutch show this with not one but two liberal parties (as I understand it one is quite crunchy and classical liberal whereas the other is more cuddly and lentil-eating). The problem is that the Liberal Democrats simply aren't liberal - indeed their political position was for me summed up by their leader on Bradford Council when she said - indeed says repeatedly - 'we're not liberal, we're liberal democrats'.

Now while Graeme suggests that all the real liberals were absorbed into the Conservative Party (certainly the economic liberal were but there's a strong case to be made for all the inheritors of Gladstonian liberalism to be in my party - even down to the nannying fussbuckets since Gladstone was certainly one of those) this means that whiggish tendencies have to fight their corner with proper conservatives of one sort or another.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are doing a lot of soul-searching. Some of this is pretty unedifying - I watched some activist laying into Danny Alexander during the BBC's Euro elections programming. It wasn't about policy but an extended moan about going into coalition and how it didn't work out. But elsewhere the debate is more real with 'social liberals' like Tim Farron in one camp and economic liberals like David Laws in the other. For the former their policy prescriptions are almost indistinguishable - a penchant for localism aside - from those of the Labour Party whereas the Conservatives would welcome Laws or Jeremy Browne with open arms.

What is lacking here is a real liberal challenge to current economic orthodoxies or setting out policies that actually sit with the views of the private sector, middle class, metropolitan population. These policies could have the following components:

1. An international focus. For the Liberal Democrats at the moment this is done through blind adherence to the European 'project' despite all its manifest illiberalism, protectionism and preference for dirigisme over economic freedom. Rejecting this model means rejecting the EU and arguing for a unilateral approach to free trade - looking beyond a stagnating and inward-looking Europe to emerging nations and the old 'anglosphere'.

2. A preference for local over national. Partly from its base in local government and partly out of conviction, the Liberal Democrats have always supported the idea of 'localism'. But for this to work, you have to accept inconsistencies - the 'postcode lottery' beloved of the media. In return you get more accountability, a drive to improve, and more creativity in the design and delivery of government services.

3. Emphasising markets rather than planning. This isn't saying 'no planning' but it is expressing a belief that markets are, ceteris paribus, better at allocating scarce resources than planners. Such an emphasis might lead to new solutions to the challenges of pensions and caring for the elderly - getting away from the tax and provide approach to look at insurance systems for example.

4. Prioritising personal choice over social prescription. Bits of the social liberal agenda fit in well here - support for same sex marriage and more open immigration, for example. But this must be joined by wider personal choice issues and by rejecting the nanny state approach to public health. Plus, of course, things like free schools and home education.

The four broad principles provide the basis for a different agenda - one that is prepared to explore currency choice, drugs liberalisation and devolved city government. It would be very distinct from the dominant centre-right, conservative approach that focuses on getting the right governance and the right people in charge - making the state model work rather than reforming it through devolution, markets or a combination of the two.

Perhaps after it has searched its soul the Liberal Democrat Party will emerge renewed and ready to embrace a genuinely liberal policy agenda but somehow I doubt this. Rather we will see the Liberal Democrats squirm about trying to triangulate a slightly more left-wing agenda in a last ditch attempt to survive. And because the Party's last few redoubts - Sutton, Eastleigh, Colchester, Orkney & Shetland - will hold out along with a smattering of hard-working councillors across the country, the Party will believe it has the means to rise again. Meaning that my hope for a real liberal party would be dashed!

....

For Sale: One Liberal Democrat Party (slightly soiled) - further product details

***

It's a while now since Nick Clegg put his Party up for sale to the highest bidder. Today his dancing partner - St Vince of Twickers - added further impetus to the sale by saying that he'd like a nice cushy ministers job with a car, a fancy house and everything.

...

Abstentions set to top General Election Poll Again!

***
Have avoided writing about polls and such like – partly because while I may be obsessed with them most normal folk are not. But mostly because Anthony Wells does such a great job reporting on them that what I add is usually pretty marginal.

However, I was struck by the front page headline in Metro this morning – “Labour loses third of voters”. Now before you all make jokes about Gordon’s carelessness, let’s look at the body of the report which relates to the findings of a Harris Poll for the paper:

“Just 66 per cent of those who backed labour in 2005 intend to vote for the party now, the research showed. It compared with 86 per cent of Conservative supporters who say they will back the party again. The Liberal Democrats have also shed a third of their 2005 voters according to our poll.”

Let’s be clear, if this is literally true that is over 6 million voters who are switching to a voting behaviour other that that in 2005. Polls suggest that about about 1m additional people are planning on voting Conservative. The Liberal Democrat polling figures are all over the place but the poll reported here puts them down 4 point on 2005 – about 1 million votes. And Labour have dropped about 1.5 million on 2005.

We still have 3 million missing voters – people who will not be voting for the main three parties. The Harris Poll shows “others” at 16% - that’s up about 1.5 million votes. So what’s happened to those other 1.5 million votes – about 6% of the electorate?

My guess is they won’t be voting. Expect turnout to drop to its lowest for some while – probably around 55%.

Looks like the good idiots are on course to top the poll come May!

...

Stumbling towards enslavement...

Iam dominit ut pareant, nondum ut serviant

..

Back in the first century AD, Cornelius Tacitus wrote these words about the British...

"...being already schooled to obey, but not ready for slavery."

Sadly, we find ourselves in this condition again. Trained to obey - to accept unquestioning the controls our rulers place upon us. And Tacitus, explaining Boudicca's revolt said:

"Once we had one king at a time, but now we get two imposed, the legate to ravage our lifeblood and the procurator our goods, one served by centurions, the other by slaves, all combining violence with insolence..."

Taxation and compulsion - the twin obsessions of our current government. Along with the opium for the masses, the comfortable life that awaits the acquiescent...

"...gradually they were drawn off into decadence with colonnades and baths and chic parties. This these innocents called civilised life, whereas it was really part of their enslavement."

Have we learned nothing in 2000 years?

...

*Note: Tacitus quotes and translations from "Ad Infinitum" by Nicholas Ostler

Lunch and a thought or two on politics

***

Spent a very pleasant lunchtime celebrating Margaret Eaton’s DBE with the Shipley Constituency Party. I made comment on Margaret’s honour here so won’t revisit except to say how impressed I was by her today. If you want to learn what class really is you could do no better than work with Margaret for a few days.

Two things struck me about the gathering.

Firstly, how old we’re getting. I’ve been active here for about 20 years and it’s the same faces – just all those years older. This shows the problem that all political parties are facing – indeed I had a conversation along these lines with some fellow guests. The parties – once a million or more strong – are now shadows of their former selves, only help together by our longevity and a trickle of new activists.

Secondly, how important places like Bradford are to the Party. And that – as I’ve said before – our strategy in such places might be slightly misplaced. These people want steak and chips not polenta – we need to put a little blood in the water. The voters of Bingley Rural – 60% of whom will vote Tory – are not the cartoon middle-class beloved of the BBC. They are people who go to the pub, smoke, drink more than the BMA says they should and holiday in Torremolinos. They hate Gordon – I know because they tell me they do – but without that red meat, without a real sense that the scrounger state will be capped, they might not bother.

Some of the stuff we hear is good – promises of business friendly tax cuts, sorting out the deficit, scrapping quangos and handing across a little more local control. But the stuff about countline bars, booze prices and sex education is rubbish – just more of the nanny state that we all hate. Bingley Rural voters know smoking’s bad for them, that they shouldn’t drink too much, too often and that chocolate bars can make you fat (as part of a calorie controlled diet) – what they don’t want is the government to ram that in their face all the bloody time.

We need to change our POLITICAL system not our VOTING system

***

Today our politicians are obsessing about democracy – or rather about the process of democracy (which for most of is politicians is far more important than what we might mean by the idea of democracy). Central to the debate today will be occult arguments by anorak-wearing political obsessives about the precise mathematics of this or that system of voting. Nuances and semantics of the meaning placed on “proportionality” or “fairness” will be paraded – MPs will feel that, for once, they are engaged in a debate that matters. They are wrong!

So rest assured dear reader I am not going to lay out before you the whys and wherefores of each voting type, to discuss their merits or meaning, to ponder the significance of Arrow’s Theorem* or even to speculate on the motivations behind Gordon’s damascene conversion to the cause of the instant re-run. Instead, I propose to argue that the method of election is a matter of monumental inconsequence next to some other concerns.

And those concerns? Firstly there is the issue of accountability. Secondly there is the matter of selection. And third there is the question of what we elect MPs to do. If our parliament debates the arcane of voting systems it does so without answering the real questions around our democracy – how we allowed MPs to get beyond the law, why those MPs (or most of them) felt empowered to indulge in an exercise of blatant exploitation and why we allow them to create a special, privileged and protected position for the political party.

None of these questions – how we hold MPs to account, how candidates are selected and what we the people want our MPs to do – are addressed by changing the system of voting. That merely creates the illusion of a substantial change without making the real changes we need. And those changes?

Direct election of the executive
Terms limits for all politicians at whatever level
The power of recall
Ending state funding for political parties
Repealing the Registration of Political Parties Act
Restricting all election campaigning to the promotion of individual candidates

Without these changes the voting system – how we choose – is of little or no relevance and will do nothing to restore public confidence in politics, let alone enthusiasm!

*Although I do think that discussing the merits or otherwise of voting systems without understanding Arrow's Theorem and its proofs is like discussing a football match without considering the offside law!

....

Why the National Secular Society should set up its own schools rather than just attack faith schools

***

The National Secular Society is frothing at the mouth over Conservative education proposals. Its boss, one Terry Sanderson said this:

“The idea that an unlimited expansion in the number of religious schools will continue to drive up standards is illogical. If there are to be no community schools, where will all the unsupported and disadvantaged children from deprived homes — the ones that the Church doesn’t want to know about — go? It’s at that point that the myth of the “religious ethos” causing this success will come crashing down. It is fallacious to suggest so-called free schools will extend “choice”.

This is firstly a complete misrepresentation of the Conservative’s proposals on free schools and secondly a statement of monumental ignorance. Now I agree with the NSS on removing religious privileges but it is not achieved by the removal of choice.

So here’s a suggestion:

Why doesn’t the National Secular Society set up schools serving local communities in partnership with parents and teachers? After all that’s all those churches, mosques and temples propose to do isn’t it? There’s a real opportunity for organisations to set up schools specialising in working with children from troubled backgrounds and deprived communities.
...

Can we stop funding religions from taxpayers money please...

It was that UK's first "Inter Faith Week" last week and we find (the occasionally sensible but not this time) Communities Minister, John Denham saying we need a:

“deeper and broader relationship between Government and faith communities”.

And some places (like Regeneration & Renewal magazine) have got all silly and excited saying crap like:

"Because faith is a fact of life, just as all differences are, and people of faith surely have a right to be represented by government in the same way other minorities are."

This is really wrong - both factually and in its implications. But worse they are supporting this:

"Denham confirmed that £2 million in funding would be made available for faith-based community groups and announced a new panel of religious experts has been set up to advise Whitehall."

Spending our money on religion - that is wrong....and letting these assorted (and mostly self-appointed) religious leaders have a role in "advising" Whitehall should be stopped.

...

An Angry Tory writes....

Do you get angry sometimes? In our household anger is an ever present danger – usually brought on by the reading of a broadsheet newspaper or the watching of some television news programme. It is the “WTFFFFFFFF are those idiots doing now” kind of anger. The “Basil Fawlty banging his head against the wall” kind of abject despair at the total lunacy of those who pretend to govern us.

And, dearly beloved reader, we have a General Election coming up. A chance to express our anger through the planting of a livid cross against the name of the Tory candidate. A chance to rid ourselves of the most discredited, incompetent, self-serving and mendacious government since the 18th Century.

And when we’ve expressed that anger…let’s hold our breath…and hope…and pray (if that’s your bag)…that Mr Cameron will do what he says he’ll do. And as we exhale let us – very loudly and persistently – hold the new Tory government to account. Let’s demand some proper Tory stuff:

Less government – as Tories we know our governors can’t manage their way out from a rice pudding so let’s get the private sector working in proper markets to start delivering the standard of healthcare, education, transport and local government that the amount we cough up in taxes would justify

Less politics – as Tories we find politics boring and would much rather be making or spending money. So let’s have fewer MPs, Lords, full time councillors, quangocrats, so-called businessmen brought in to show the public sector how to be efficient, MEPs and all the other multifarious suckers on the taxpayers’ teat

Less law – god knows we don’t want to get like the USA and become a country run by and for lawyers. Let’s have more juries, more lay tribunals and fewer expensive supreme courts, Euro courts and other parasites on the body of society.

Less planning – and not just the town and country variety (although that serves to benefit no-one – not the public and not the developer: just bloody bureaucratic rules) but all the other attempts to guess the results of what millions and millions of ordinary people do in making billions and billions of private choices.

…if we get these things Britain will be a better place. And if we shout loud enough we will get that better place - if we don't stay angry the "great and the good" will win again.

Policy-based evidence making (or How Government is killing science with help from academics)

If I hear the phrase “evidence-based policy making” drop from the lips of a Labour minister or one of their bureaucratic lickspittles I shall scream. Labour came to power puffing this idea – and then ignored any evidence that got in the way of its mission.

But it’s worse – Labour’s academic apologists use bad research to support the Government’s case on education, on crime and on terrorism. Instead of a proper scientific enquiry these “researchers” use qualitative methods – mostly gathering the opinions of a few experts and presenting that as research – to arrive at “evidence”.

I completed a Master of Science degree that – had I so chosen – could have been gained without any quantitative analysis. (I hasten to add that I chose to do proper research).

This is not evidence it is opinion

The social sciences are dominated by innumerate people who even dream up cod intellectual justifications of their make-believe approach to enquiry. Nothing wrong with opinion guys - but it is not evidence.

So I am grateful for the Heresiarch coining the term:

Policy-based evidence making

It sums up everything wrong with the way we conduct government, train our future governors and sideline scientific enquiry.

Apps for Hobnob: My biscuit of choice

Unlike a certain incompetent, bullying political leader I know where I stand on the biscuit front. My biscuit of choice is the Hobnob (pictured above). Such biscuits are versatile and can have many apps:

1. Just Crunch

2. Dunk (2.1 In Tea; 2.2 In Coffee)

3. Crumble Topping

4. Cheesecake Base

5. Ice Cream Bits

6. Plus Butter (6.1 Plus Butter +Cheese)

7. Honey Drizzled

8. Chocolate

9. Chocolate Dunk (9.1 In Tea 9.2 In Coffee)

10. Vin Santo

11. Marsala

12.......

....feel free to add to the apps. And next time Mumsnet ask you what your favourite biscuit is, just say "Hobnob"!

In praise of idiots

The ancient Greeks used their word for ‘private’ as a derogatory term for someone who took no part in “public affairs”. That word ἴδιος (idios) is the root for our term for a stupid person – idiot. Today – in the Greek sense – most of us are idiots and I think this represents progress rather than a problem. That barely more that a third of Bingley Rural electors took the opportunity to vote last time I stood isn’t a disaster and those people are well aware of the purpose and value of voting - which I guess is why most of them don’t bother.

So let’s look at our typical idiots. Round here they’re probably in their thirties or forties, employed at a middle management level in business and industry. They worry about how well their kids do at school, they concern themselves with making their family safe, they grumble a bit about paying taxes but have enough cash afterwards for it not to really matter. Such folk are ordinary, hard-working and inherently conservative. But they also see little or no link between the act of voting in a politician from one party or another and the significant things in their lives.

To the political classes – and especially those on the left – this apathy is a terrible thing – to the point of demanding compulsory voting. The process of the election sits at the heart of our polity, voting defines us rather than the exercise of choice or liberty. As our good friends at the Guardian put it back in 2004 following one or other survey:

“… most people do not know who their MP is. Most are also mainly ignorant about basic political facts. Just one in seven considers themselves to be politically active. Only 51% say they would vote in a general election, and only half of all potential voters say they are interested in politics. Just 27% have trust in politicians generally (and this in one of the least corrupt and most transparent political systems on the planet). The media, local councils and business are all seen as more important than Westminster and the prime minister. For most people, politics is something that is done by and for others, in a system with which the majority feel little connection.”

Now the good left-wing liberals at the Guardian think this grumpiness, this disengagement, this disinterest is a problem. And that’s where I disagree – the core consideration is the extent to which we are able to live as Greek idiots. Quietly, privately, without bothering our neighbours with our problems – and when such people want change they will get up from their armchairs, walk away from the telly and vote. The idea that not being bothered with voting most of the time makes them bad people is a misplaced idea – they are the good folk.

Above all we should listen quietly to what this “apathy” calls for – it is less bothersome, less interfering, less hectoring and more effective government. Such people want government to be conducted at their level not to be the province of pompous politicians with overblown and lying rhetoric. And they want the language of common sense, freedom, liberty and choice to push away the elitist exclusivity of modern bureaucratic government.

Above all today’s idiots want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. For me that’s the essence of politics – I praise these idiots and applaud their apathy.

BNP: can we get a little perspective please!

To read the comments of some you would think we were in imminent danger of the BNP winning hundreds of seats across the country, of fascists sweeping to power in town halls and of assorted racists strutting their stuff on the Andrew Marr Show every Sunday morning. And all because the BBC, in its bumbling, pinko-liberal way, has decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP's rather pompous and podgy leader should appear on Question Time.

Now this decision by the BBC is pretty sound from the producers perspective - think of the publicity for a rather fading format! Following on from the "expenses" editon of the show, this will get enormous attention and will increase the show's audience. Definitely a win - and, as I've said before, the right decision.

So why all the sound and fury - from Peter Hain, Alan Johnson and other voices from the left? Why the ongoing (and self-righteous) "no platform" arguments? And why the scare stories about the prospect of the BNP winning? Perhaps - I don't know - it suits the left politically to adopt such a position? Probably, it's because they're stupid.

So here's some perspective on the BNP. Since they swept into power (getting significantly less that 10% of the vote nationally and barely 10% in Yorkshire and the North West where the damn silly electoral system we have for European elections got them two MEPs) there have been 123 local council by-elections in Great Britain spread across the whole country. And the BNP?

1. Of the 123 local by-elections the BNP have contested just 32 - fewer than UKIP (34) and fewer than the Greens (39). They did not win a single one of these contests - the Greens won three (Brighton, Scarborough and Lancaster) and UKIP won three (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Cambridgeshire).

2. The BNP got more than 10% of the vote in 19 contests, more than 20% in just 6 and more than 30% in just one (a rather odd by election in Boston following the disqualification of the new Conservative Councillor - the first in this traditional Labour ward)

3. Even in places like Ashfield, North West Leicestershire and Broxtowe where the BNP seems well organised and has won elections, the party has failed to contest seats and lost a seat it was defending in Brinsley near Nottingham

There is no place for complacency in campaigning - there remains a solid basis of support for the BNP and all the laws, court cases and stern lectures won't change this fact. But we need to challenge the BNP rather than push them back once again onto the forums, into the pubs and onto the streets. But a little perspective might not go amiss!

Why three days in Doncaster hasn't put me off having an elected mayor in Bradford!

I have spent that last three days as an "accredited member peer" in Doncaster - a really interesting place and a fascinating council! And, as I'm sure you also know, Doncaster has a directly elected executive mayor. Furthermore many of you will also know that - after eight years of a Labour mayor (following 30-odd years of Labour control) - the good folk of Doncaster elected Peter Davies standing as an English Democrat as their mayor.

Experiencing from within the Council the effect of this surprise has been particularly interesting. The press coverage of Mayor Davies has focused on his less-than-liberal views but little of no attention has gone to what the new mayor is actually trying to do. And the processes involved in developing strategies and programmes that respond to Mayor Davies' agenda (while at the same time recognising that he has no party, that Labour remains the largest political group on the council and that there are wider regional or national agendas to take account of as well).

Now those who oppose elected mayors cite election results such as this one, the election of H'angus the Monkey in Hartlepool (who is now in his third term of office - amazing what free bananas can do) and the chaos that is politics in Stoke as arguments against elected mayors. The relatively successful mayoral systems in Bedford (where there's a mayoral by-election following the death of that mayor), Newham and North Tyneside seem to get less interest or attention.

For me though - and this comes at a time when Bradford Council is consulting on whether to move to a directly elected mayor or for councillors to elect a leader and cabinet for four years - elected mayors provide a real opportunitiy for new, independent and better directed local leadership. But my dear colleagues who lead the main Bradford parties are all firmly opposed to having an elected mayor. For the record here's my take on those colleagues views:

1. Opposition from many Conservatives isn't about the principle (will an elected mayor lead to better governance in Bradford and/or a more effective council) but is about a feeling that we wouldn't win! As Conservative's we're supposed to be sceptical not cynical! It's also party policy as far as I know!

2. Those who talk about the "root of the problem" not being addressed (like Bradford's Liberal Democrat leader) fail to articulate what that problem might be. Here's a guess: assuming it's not a Liberal Democrat mayor, that party would lose much of its ability to hold much larger parties to ransom and to play one side off against another. They would need to begin to engage positively in local politics.

3. Apparently the local Labour party believe that a mayor isn't right for Bradford - what on earth does that mean? Most often it is suggested that having a mayor would exclude the Asian community - as if we're likely to get an Asian council leader in the foreseeable future! Electing a mayor reduces the Labour Party's ability (and other parties for that matter) to use ethnicity and the politics of faith in manipulating support from these communities - surely that would be a good thing? Unless you're just interested in power!

Even having seen up close the impact of a mayoral system in Doncaster, I still think it has great merits. Above all elected mayors allow for independent candidates to get elected and, even from the main parties, reduce the power of party dictat and the whip. And it is a far better system than electing a leader and cabinet for four years - that's much the same (although Bradford's Liberal Democrat leader clearly hasn't read the policy) as electing a mayor directly. Except less democratic and less transparent.

Bring it on in Bradford!!