Creating Lib Dem Visions: Successful politics needs to have a vision for the area

Old Birmingham Architecture

Most politicians as themselves ‘why should someone vote for me?’ They keep their ears to the ground so they know the local issues and then campaign on them hoping people will reward them with their vote. This creates a responsive democratic system. Except that is doesn’t.

Take where I live for example, one of the most deprived areas in the country, run by Labour since 1974 when the borough was formed (with the exception of 1 year) and yet people still vote for Labour. What makes a good politician i.e. one that gets voted in, does not necessarily mean it will be good for the area. This is one of the reasons we as Lib Dems have been so fixated on the system of politics we use, in a hope that it will improve the country. I believe we need a new system, but I also believe we need to do politics differently as they way we do it now is the wrong way round.

At the moment it is almost like politicians look for reasons to be voted into power. On a local level they will fix the pothole, the broken lights, the street signs, they may oppose the council’s plans because it is politically expedient to do so (and sometimes then have to implement the plan when in power anyway). All of which is done by looking for issues that people will vote for and then doing it. On a national level, Cameron made promises on the NHS and the economy and the Lib Dems made promises on tuition fees. All were politically expedient because they had asked enough people to know they would get votes by campaigning on these issues – not necessarily because they believed in them. Such a system creates politicians who go for the same issues, using the same language and doing things in the same way. As Sandwell shows, this may get you elected and you may remain elected for a long time but it doesn’t mean things will be improved and people are turned off by this.

If we look at a more successful way doing politics from the point of view that the area was actually improved we could learn something about doing politics differently, and Birmingham offers us a good example for successes and failures. Back in the 1800’s Birmingham was a terrible place to live being a place of great poverty, raw sewage for water, and high death rates. Joseph Chamberlain then became mayor in 1873 and promoted many civic improvements, leaving the town (in words to Collings) ‘parked, paved, assized, marketed, gas & watered and improved’. He improved the cultural aspects in the city and constructed libraries, municipal swimming pools and schools. The Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery was enlarged and a number of new parks were opened.  In his time in office he completed ambitious plans for public services and town improvement schemes which totally transformed the nature of Birmingham. By the 1890s Birmingham had become known as ‘the best governed City in the World.’

Chamberlain left a legacy of a city with more parks than any other European city,  more trees than Paris, and more miles of canal than Venice but WWII did long lasting damage made worse by extremely poor town planning. It went from being one of the most liveable cities in the world to one of the least. Yet no matter how much people voted for the local politicians, the city just got worse and worse being described as a Godless, concrete urban hell.  That was until the local politicians finally woke up to their legacy of neglect and poor governance and implemented a plan to improve it. These improvements were finally noticed by the country with the opening of the Selfridges building but the improvements go much wider than that. The plan can be seen here and includes fundamental changes to the city layout – undoing much of the very poor planning conduced after the war and subsequently.

Finally people feel that they can be proud of Birmingham again, despite the national jokes (we seem to have an uncanny knack of keeping people), and the improvements should be praised. But the message here is that it was not politics as usual, in the sense that they went out and looked at what the voters wanted, which resulted in an improved city. It was politicians having a vision before they went to the electorate. Chamberlain did not come up with his ideas before he got elected. The Birmingham regeneration plan took years of neglect and ridicule before people thought they needed a vision for the city. Having a vision then provides you with concrete plans of what to do and this is what answers the question ‘why should someone vote for me?’

For all the rhetoric of New Labour, what exactly was their vision when they came to power? What was Cameron’s and the Tories? They didn’t have one which is why Cameron can’t explain his Big Society and certainly can’t implement it. It was why New Labour did virtually nothing for the first few years of office and then started to do things which in the end ruined the country. The reason this happened was because they ‘listened’ to the people and then campaigned on those issues but because they didn’t have a vision they ended up doing what the civil servants thought was best. This was the reason why we ended up spending billions of pounds on IT systems that were never going to work and people knew they weren’t going to work but they had nothing else. Doing politics this way results in unintentional incompetence. They may implement some programs well, run the government ok for a while, and even improve the things people wanted improving, but in the end without a vision to guide their decisions they made very bad ones.

So what is your vision for your local area? Some places have one such as this one for Durham and if there is one, does this fit with Lib Dem values? If not what would be your local party vision? If you created a Lib Dem vision for your area how would this change what you campaigned on?

We should start with a vision for our local area. My area has been neglected and deprived by local politicians for years; it is next to Birmingham but never had a Chamberlain to improve it and it is not being improved now. My local party have been talking about a vision for Sandwell. Promoting this vision will show people we are different, it will show people we are serious but most importantly it will show people that things can be different if only they vote differently. We will always use the tried and tested methods of getting our candidates elected (we have just been to ALDC Kickstart) but we shouldn’t stop there.

And neither should the national party. This is something that has been talked about for a while, that the Lib Dems don’t offer a vision for the country. We have a sound set of values, and some very competent people. We spend too much time bogged down in political business e.g. meetings and keeping our structures running. Over at Google they have a 20% policy where every employer has 20% of their time to spend doing whatever they like. 75% of google’s products come from this 20% time. Imagine what we could produce if we spent 20% of meetings creating a vision for our communities. Perhaps we would benefit from some visioning time? Successful politicians, and by this I mean those who are considered to have improved the area after they have left, have had a vision for the area and this is something we could all learn from.

Prison doesn’t work but people believe it does. A stronger Lib Dem voice needed.

2 things happened this week. 1. I was burgled and they stole my computer and many other things and when the police officer came to my home he said there had been a spike in crime recently in the area and so he would check the list of people who had been released from prison. I thought what a waste of time him going to prison then. The second thing to happen was that there was a debate on radio 4 about restorative justice and some Tory repeated that there was no evidence that it works and that it was a soft option.

There is a war between the ‘prison works’ school which believes that prisons suppress criminal behaviour and the ‘colleges of crime’ school which believes that prisons increase criminality.  The Prison Policy Initiative  believes that the effect of prison on offenders is minimal as offenders walk into prison with their own set of attitudes and behaviours which change little while in prison, therefore once released they go back to the same behaviour. Hence the policeman telling me he would check the list of recent releases. I don’t think that it is much good to have a system that just delays a person’s criminal behaviour. Studies have shown that prison increases re-offending. For people who believe in this system it is a logical conclusion to say ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ as these people do not believe that people can change. I don’t believe that.

We should be promoting a system that looks and making an internal change in offenders so that they don’t commit crime and this is where restorative justice comes in. There is a lot of evidence that it is more effective than the current system see here, here or here.

There are also other projects that are helping including a project with a seriously criminal population in prisons using a solution-focused approach with a focus on networks. These prisoners were often returned to prison as many as 3 times per year and had a long history of drug misuse and many contacts with a variety of social welfare agencies. The staff had more or less given up hope that these prisoners would be able to stay out of prison. This project, much like the solution-focused child protection work or the solution-focused sex offender management work, sought changes in the networks which may help to reduce recidivism, which it did.

So while there are ignorant people out there on the radio promoting an outdated and ineffective system, there are people continuing to be victims to those who continue committing crime because we can’t get a system which challenges them enough to change. There are systems out there which can do this and we should be repeating the evidence and advocating for their use.

I don’t see it as a soft option and perhaps I wouldn’t have lost a few grand had we got a better system?

My computer has been stolen… I won’t be able to post for a while

My house was broken into and they took most of the electrical things including my computer and so I won’t be able to post much for a while.

All I can say is that I am thankful to Mr Burglar who kindly unplugged my external hard drive and left it for me.

Schools kill creativity: A liberal education should prioritise it

What is the current Lib Dem education policy and how does it differ from the other parties? Is it so distinctive that people would vote for it or is it only slightly different in the eyes of the public that they probably won’t know the difference? There is a saying – the difference that makes no difference, is no difference – which equally applies to politics but in politics it is not whether it makes a difference or not, it is whether people think it will make a difference. So what people think of the Lib Dem policy is important. So what is the message we can give people to show it will make a difference?

No doubt that you have heard the Lib Dems say the Tories and Labour are the same and that we are different but now we are in Coalition, it is even more important to show that we are different as no doubt that you have heard people complaining that the 3 main parties are all the same. There are some fairly simple things the Lib Dems could do which would show what a difference we could make in education which I have written about here and here. But there is another more fundamental one.

For anyone interested in the Lib Dem education policy, you may or may not have come across the most watched talk on TEDtalks which is Ken Robinson, an Englishman, talking about education. It is well worth watching as he is very engaging but his point is simple and effective. Schools kill creativity. A fairly common belief and one which has been often repeated but it is such an important point that it needs changing. We have a system which suits some people and tries to push people in more or less the same direction. This results in a children growing up believing that they are not clever, useful or good enough. This is not a liberal education system.

A liberal education policy should be one in which the system is changed. In which how children are tested is changed. In which what children do in school is changed. For the focus of the education system to change. Creativity should be at the heart of the education system for it is this which produces fulfilled adults and a thriving economy. Put creativity at the heart of a Lib Dem education policy and let teachers teach. Distinctive, different and would make a massive difference to people’s lives and the country. 

Children born in August do worse in school. What is the Lib Dem response?

The Guardian recently reported that children born in August do consistently worse in school than their peers born earlier in the year. That equates to 10,000 children doing worse because of when they were born and nothing to do with their ability. We have created a system that allows 10,000 to do worse in life each year for the sake of simplicity. It maybe that the Department for Education have just released these figures but data such as this has been known about for a very long time. The Guardian reports that Ministers are now considering what to do about it. So what should the Lib Dems propose?

This is something I have written about before, based on the same principle and similar data here. If you base your school system on selection, streaming, and differential experience; if you make a decision about who is good and who is not good at an early age; if you separate the ‘talented’ from the ‘untalented’; and if you provide the ‘talented’ with a superior experience, then you’re going to end up giving a huge advantage to that small group of people born closest to the cut off date. Conversely, those born the other end of the year i.e. August, will be disadvantaged.

So the Lib Dem response should be based on this. There is the possibility of having more than one intake in the year so the disadvantage is lessened. But essentially, as a lot of research and a lot of educational specialists have been saying for a long time – we need a more inclusive education system with less competition, less testing and more learning. But what are we getting? A number of streams of education providers who are now in competition with each other to show they have better results. What does this mean? Probably more testing and competition in the school. The Lib Dems should offer something different.

Benefit scroungers, waste and ideology. What’s the Lib Dem position?

There has been a big push by the Coalition government to cut the deficit, or more specifically to be seen to be cutting the deficit and within this agenda there has been a big focus on benefits. Claims of benefit scroungers – people who can but refuse to work being paid by the Government – or even that people are being paid too much benefits. But how much of this is true and should the Lib Dem position be the same as that of the Tories while we are in Government with them?

When you look at the data you can see why they focus on where they are focusing on:

The 3 biggest Government expenses are pensions, housing benefit and disability living allowance along with a (more or less) jointly tied Incapacity benefit, income support and jobseekers allowance. Pensions have attracted the most attention, probably due to the fact of how many people this affects. But advocacy groups have accused the Government of unfairly focusing on the other forms of benefits.

The Tories came to power(sharing) with the aspiration to drive out waste to save money. On the face of it you can find a lot of information about the billions of pounds of waste in the benefits system but under the surface you find another story.

The latest DWP evidence is that only 0.8% of the total benefits bill is due to fraud – an impressively low figure that most organisations would probably be proud of. A further 0.8% (£1.2bn) is lost in customer error, plus 0.5% (£0.8bn) in official error.

So it may not be as much as many people have quoted. Equally there has been a drive to get people back to work, how can work who are on incapacity benefit, driving the impression that there has been many who are in this situation. Again advocacy groups have not been pleased. So it was interesting to read the FT which looked into the figures of the Government’s drive to conclude

So how much has the government reduced the number of people on incapacity benefits? Not at all.

Clearly, anyone who is actually frauding the system needs to be caught but it may be that this drive to focus on benefits will not reward the Government with as many savings as they led people to believe. This will make it look like they have not fixed the problem they set out to fix. Unless of course there is another reason why there was a focus on it: because the Tories want to reduce the amount people get on benefits due to their ideological position? Which, if so, should be said as so.

We should treat people with the respect they deserve. Saying there is a big problem with waste and fraud in the benefits system is misleading. Saying you want to reduce the amount people get on benefits is something totally different. At least people will know what is being talked about if you say that. But then perhaps people don’t want to have that as an open conversation?

A liberal society: addressing our disconnected society

I posted earlier about our society and the crisis that it is in. I do not mean this in the way David Cameron means broken Britain. I mean it on a deeper level – that it does not serve the majority and does not promote the majority fulfilling their potential. I believe that we need to start making a case for what a liberal society looks like, more so than we have before. I started painting a picture of this in my last post but I would like to put this video up which I think gives a very good message about what a different society could be if we addressed some of the more difficult issues we like to ignore. It is not an orthodox political video but it is well worth watching:

Our society in crisis? What is the Lib Dem position? We need some big ideas.

Have the Lib Dems run out of ideas? There is talk of it. Perhaps people don’t acknowledge it but being in Coalition with the Tories has caused something of a crisis for the Lib Dems. So perhaps we need to start talking a bit more about ideas. Big ideas. As I was reading about the research which backed (more or less) the spirit level’s contention that inequality in society causes health and social problems, I thought the positions of Labour and the Tories would be inevitable: Use the state to reduce inequality (Labour) and deny the evidence (Tories). The problem for the Lib Dems is that we have both camps, which only goes to demonstrate to the public we are not worth voting for. But then I read this in the report:

The most plausible explanation for income inequality’s apparent effect on health and social problems is ‘status anxiety’. This suggests that income inequality is harmful because it places people in a hierarchy that increases status competition and causes stress, which leads to poor health and other negative outcomes.

Status anxiety is an anxiety about what others think of us; about whether we’re judged a success or a failure, a winner or a loser. Alain De Botton claims that chronic anxiety about status is an inevitable side effect of any democratic egalitarian society. He suggests that the causes of status anxiety is Lovelessness, Expectation, Meritocracy, Snobbery, and Dependence.

What he describes there is what many people experience on a daily basis. The feeling of being judged, being ridiculed, humiliated, and shamed are frequent occurrences but it is perhaps better to understand if we put it another way: that we all feel that we are not good enough. Perhaps we feel we are not safe enough, not perfect enough, not good looking enough, not thin enough, not extraordinary enough, not clever enough etc. The list can go on because we have all had painful experiences which have left us feeling disconnected from the world and we have all found ways to try and avoid such experiences. The sad thing is that these experiences are all too common, just look in our schools, workplaces, families and friends. Just look at the most watched TV shows: X-factor, Big Brother, and other reality TV shows which shame people through humiliation, ridicule and judgement. A sad reflection of our society which breeds this need to be better than others, to be seen to be better and if we are not then we can put someone else down to make us look better.

Nowhere is this seen more acutely than in Parliament. I have heard of ministers being brought to tears following being in the commons. I hear of politicians giving up or not wanting to go into politics for fear of being shamed by other politicians or the press. It is not just status anxiety that is a problem, it is combined with a fear of moving up the social ladder as we fear what might happen when I get there – I may be ridiculed, humiliated, and shamed. This may sound untrue to many but just ask someone from a disadvantaged area about going to University and see what they say. But give them enough support and a feeling that they can do it and they may well go. The difference is managing the fear of stepping up or into unfamiliar territory. So how well do we as a society manage people’s fear?

If status anxiety is a significant factor in creating health and social problems then surely the Lib Dem position to inequality is to address the social issues which cause the anxiety. If there was no status anxiety then perhaps there would be no health and social inequality in our society? Even if this were not true would it not be a good thing for us to work towards a change in our society to one where fear is better managed, people have less shaming experiences, and people feel supported in doing what they want?

A major factor in the creation of this fear and anxiety is the focus on self-esteem. Self-esteem may be associated with less depression and anxiety, and with greater happiness and life satisfaction and so we have given it prominence in our schooling of children and working with communities – particularly disadvantaged communities were the last government spent a lot on improving areas, which included working with the community to improve their self esteem. But it is also associated with:

• is associated with a steady rise in narcissism over the last 45 years
• is associated with the need to feel superior to others in order to feel okay about oneself
• encourages us to maintain an unrealistically high view of ourselves in comparison to others. This has a particularly devastating effect when we face failure
• tends to dismiss negative feedback, trivialize their failures, and take less accountability for their own harmful actions
• is associated with a distorted self-view, self-centeredness, and a lack of concern for others

All of which increases fear and anxiety and leads to the status anxiety which seems to be such a problem. So my liberal society is one in which people are not in such competition with others, not envious of others positions, not in fear of being judged or shamed by others, and can focus on what they want to without the fear to hold them back. This starts with stopping the focus on self-esteem (see here for how). It means doing Parliament differently. It means a change in the way Government is run, the way the Civil Service is run, and the way we ask our institutions to run. It means regulating differently, it means educating differently, and it means a different society.

All this would do more for social mobility than all the Coalition’s plans put together. Changing society may be a big idea, but it is one I joined the Lib Dems for, not to tinker around the edges of the current system.

Independent research backs Social Liberal Forum: Strong recommendations for Lib Dem economic policy

Is the Spirit Level correct? A question that many have argued over with arguments and counter arguments. But the debate is very important to the Lib Dems. The Social Liberal Forum endorse the Spirit Level and propose policies to promote equality, while those more economic liberals have argued that this is not a good strategy to pursue. So the Rowntree Foundation commissioned an independent review and the results are in, with some serious implications for the party as a result.

You can read the report here. While some conclusions are couched in academic language there are some pretty strong statements:

This is a highly complex area both theoretically and methodologically and there is still some disagreement among academics on many related issues, but the main conclusion here is that there is some evidence that income inequality has negative effects. There is hardly any evidence that it has positive effects.

So hardly any evidence that income inequality has positive effects? That in itself is a massive thing considering this is basically what the Tories have based their entire existence on – that people should be allowed to get rich and it doesn’t matter how much richer than those at the bottom. But here we have someone saying that it does matter. So why does it matter? Well one of the main conclusions of the Spirit Level was about health and social problems being related to income inequality to which the report states:

The evidence from a range of studies suggests that there is indeed a correlation between income inequality and health and social problems

And just as importantly the report goes on to say

there is very little evidence that income inequality promotes growth or that individual incomes at the top provide incentives to work

So it is important how much richer people are than those at the bottom, and it doesn’t give an incentive for people to work being able to earn an infinite amount more than those at the bottom and this doesn’t even promote growth. This surely has serious policy implications for any political party but more importantly the Lib Dems as we have the 2 camps so prominently in the party and we are in Government implementing policies which could make this situation worse through benefits cuts, cuts to public services, and an increase in cost of living compared to wages. So what could be done?

The report states that ‘there is relatively little evidence so far on which to oppose higher taxes’ but suggests that higher wealth taxes (or wealth transfer taxes) may be a better option to income tax. The Lib Dems have been discussing these for years so perhaps this thinking needs a more prominent position in our marketing strategy and policy formation.

The public are generally willing to accept that poverty is a problem but there is more of a reluctance to see inequality as a problem because it would involve ‘recognizing the need for structural change, for sacrifices by the majority’. And the greatest sacrifices would need to be made by the most powerful groups in society, who might resist such policies. We are already fighting some of these but perhaps we need to show we are prepared to fight more of them – particularly those in the Tory party who don’t acknowledge poverty and inequality is an issue.

The minimum wage is not currently at a sufficient level to give people enough money to reach a ‘minimum income standard’ and so it could be increased to the level of a ‘living wage’. And developing a policy for compressed wage ratios to keep those at the top from soaring above those at the bottom.

There is another part of this report which has a strong policy indication:

Some research suggests that inequality is particularly harmful after it reaches a certain threshold. Britain was below this threshold in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, but then rose past it in 1986–7 and has settled well above that threshold since 1998–9 … [this] could provide a target for policy

At the end of the day this is about values. For those who believe in inequality and that it is a good thing this report won’t change their mind. But it does give more evidence to a strong argument – perhaps not all of what was claimed in the Spirit Level  – and for a party which has campaigned on this issue in many guises, we should take note. Particularly considering we are currently looking very far away from where were, this should at least give us an anchor to some of our core values. We are more or less invisible to the general public right now, we need to be bold with what we propose.

Differentiation is not working: We need to give people the Lib Dem bigger picture

It seems recently politics has turned into a bit of a scrap. The EU referendum debate has created a few crossed words and political posturing. The idea to scrap employment legislation caused a few more. And the so called Plan B for the economy has caused yet more. It leaves the public with a sense that there is no real plan on any issue and that all parties are out to get what they can from every opportunity. The differentiation strategy was a partial success but perhaps this differentiation strategy is now feeding into this perception of opportunism and a lack of unity in politics? We have seen our opinion poll ratings drop back down to the lows that got everyone panicked not that long ago. So what now for the Lib Dems?

The idea of differentiation was to show the public that we are not Tories. This was certainly needed at a time when we were recording lows in the polls we haven’t seen for over 20 years. There was a period where the polls picked up a bit after some good speeches by Clegg on some issues. But things have deteriorated again. Not that we should necessarily follow the polls but they are an indication of the public’s perception at the time. We can safely assume the perception of the Lib Dems is not that great at the moment.

Perhaps differentiation has had a knock on effect. While it has shown that Lib Dems are not Tories and the Coalition shows that we are not Labour, there is now a greater sense of urgency for all different factions of the parties to get heard. This offers some opportunities as well as threats for the Lib Dems. We could use the Tory right as an example of how the Tories are not a united party and stake a bigger claim to the centre ground and try to persuade more to vote for us that way. But it could also look like a Government that has no unity in a time of world economic crisis. In such times people revert back to type – Labour, Tory or Protest (which we are no longer).

So you could argue that the differentiation strategy is not working. Perhaps it is because we forgot another important element in the differentiation strategy. Currently the strategy looks like the Lib Dems arguing with the Tories over specific issues. The issue depends on the day. This is fine but fails to connect with the electorate, who generally hate the arguments in politics, as it is not tied into the bigger picture – if differentiation is to work, it needs show what the Lib Dem future would look like so people can see why we are different to the other parties not just that we don’t agree on some issues.

In the solution focused approach this is called the future perfect  – what does your future look like if all the problems are gone. The strength of this is that it allows people to see where you are trying to get. If what we want is actually the same as the Tories or Labour then there is no differentiation between us except how to do it, and if that is the case there is no point in being a separate party. So we need Ministers, MPs and the larger air war to start letting people know what a liberal future for the UK looks like:

What does the liberal future look like for the UK? If we were in power for the next 20 years what would our country look like? What would be different? How would people tell we had been in government for 20 years? We need some more big thinking thrown into our differentiation strategy so people can connect with it, because they are not connecting with the arguments.