In Praise of the Independent: Finding strengths in Nick Clegg

The Independent writes Are the Lib Dems and Labour testing out their own Coalition? in which they outline some strengths in Clegg’s recent performance which is worth highlighting:

Clegg seeks more distinctiveness in the formation of those policies. He could have made the clear and well-argued speech he delivered to Demos earlier this week at any point in his career, as the purest liberal to lead his party since its formation. At times, Clegg’s form of liberalism coincides with Cameron’s modern version of Thatcherism, but his focus on redistribution, social mobility, Europe, and radical constitutional reform shows that, contrary to a widespread perception a year ago, Clegg is not a Conservative.

After the riots – A liberal response

While the riots shook England and took the police and the politicians by surprise we now need to look at a response. We know what the Tories’ response is/will be and Labour under Miliband is characteristically going to undertake an ‘inquiry’. So what is the Liberal response? If Liberalism hides for fear of not sounding tough enough or does not have a response which people can understand then we will be doing ourselves and the country a disservice, not to mention looking irrelevant.

The political right has begun to defend its position by attacking Liberalism

Liberalism works well for people with the cultural resources and family support to enjoy freedom. But freedom in the inner city can mean purposelessness and unpunished transgression.

And Brian Paddick looking to gain votes in the coming London Mayoral election is sounding ‘tough’ by saying he would have responded with “robust” action and plastic bullets which is does not necessarily sound traditionally liberal. But then we get Simon Hughes suggesting that long-term solutions lie in supporting communities by offering opportunities and redistributing wealth, not slashing help from the state and cutting taxes for the rich.  Which is sounding more traditionally liberal but it doesn’t leave the Liberal response looking wholly integrated.

The Tory response is that the line between right/wrong and good/bad is a fixed line with people being on one side or the other. However, Philip Zimbardo, who has researched this line for decades (and has been an advisor to the Obama Administration), talks about the line between good/bad and right/wrong being one which is movable and permeable and where people can be seduced across this line; in either direction. The political right have a fixed view and will defend their view. However, their view is simplistic and not born out of experience but is designed to give an impression that they have no excuses to the behaviour. But understanding is not excusing and understanding is part of the Liberal response.

Zimbardo was the man who famously conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment and his research would suggest that what happened in the UK was that there has been a climate where the line of what is right and wrong has begun to be questioned by some in society (banking crisis, banking bonuses, phone hacking, politicians’ expenses, potentially inequality, poverty, a sense of unfairness etc.). Once the riots began a belief was formed that they would not get caught or there would be few, if any, recriminations, and so people became seduced over this line to act in a manner they do not ordinarily do. So we have seen some seemingly ridiculous comments from the looters such as ‘I am taking my taxes back’ – from a 16 year old girl stealing from a shop, or ‘I will probably only get told off by my mum’ – a young person talking about what he thought would happen, which make a lot more sense given the work of Zimbardo.

So a Liberal response will understand this line is movable and permeable and respond to it. So tough policing is part of the Liberal response as it is needed to ensure that people know that there are consequences. However, the feeling of unfairness due to the inequalities in society is also part of the Liberal response so that people feel they know this line is firmer than it feels at present; so Simon Hughes response is equally important and correct. Ed Miliband has begun to say some positive things about this too:

I am not saying that inequality caused the looting because that is far too simplistic, but I do say that giving people a sense that they have a stake in society, and that we are one society and not two parallel worlds, is really, really important.

In other words that people understand that the line between right and wrong, good and bad is there and they believe in it. I am guessing that an ‘inquiry’ is only going to show exactly what has been shown so many times when this issue has been looked at before by many people. What we need is a clearer picture of what we need to do.

Zimbardo has begun to work on what he calls ordinary heroes. He says that situations have the power to do 3 things:

• It can inflame the hostile imagination in those who become perpetrators of evil
• It can inspire the heroic imagination in others of us
• It can render most people passive bystanders and guilty of the evil of inaction

He suggests that people follow the advice ‘don’t get involved and mind your own business’ but argues that humanity is everyone’s business. He has been working with ‘troubled’ young people on developing that they can do heroic things in any given situation i.e. do the right thing. That once an opportunity arises such as the rioting/looting, that they choose a different option to not do it and to try and stop others from doing it. We saw in Birmingham how there were many who stopped people from rioting and taking revenge on the deaths of the 3 men – what he would call a heroic act. We saw others who did heroic things. A Liberal response should develop this sense in the nation and should praise ordinary heroic acts.

For a start sending some people to prison for short term prison sentences is not going to make people feel that the line between right/wrong or good/bad is any different to before they went in. It is more likely to give them a sense of greater unfairness as Clegg argued in the TV debates in 2010. It would be much tougher for them to get a longer community sentence where they have to be part of the clean-up, the work to repair the damage, meeting and helping the victims, and helping to improve the communities they live in. The idea would be for them to feel more connected to their communities and that they helped build it. This is a direct clash with the Tory approach but we should not be shy of advocating it – Liberalism is more relevant today because of the riots and we need to make sure people know why.

While many politicians talk of ‘responsibility’ and then say this is down to parenting, a Liberal response should incorporate the idea that as a Government, we can encourage a nation, families, schools, young people and children to develop their sense of doing the right thing in a situation. Zimbardo has a program that he uses with the young people he works with and this could be used with those who are convicted of crimes associated with the rioting/looting. Such work can be rolled out to schools and community groups.

And most importantly what Zimbardo talks about is the use of power: That power used to harm people, or perceived to harm people, causes the extreme behaviour in ordinary people. The perception that power is not being used appropriately in some communities is also where the Liberal response should be – which is Simon Hughes point but he does not make this explicit. However, it also includes a better system to keep those exercising the power in check, which is what the Lib Dems are all about – a better system.

You can see Zimbardo give a talk at TEDtalks on his work below which is worth watch for those who do not know his work and his charity with work with young people is here.

Liberalism is very relevant to this debate and has some distinctive answers which the Tories and Labour will not dare speak. We should be brave enough to advocate for it.

A dangerous developing Tory narrative designed to make Lib Dems extinct: Lib Dems need to be aware and take action

In Esquire Magazine and reprinted in the Telegraph Blog there is an interesting piece by Toby Young on why he is a Conservative. It is interesting for the Lib Dems as he uses a narrative to minimise and airbrush out the importance of the Lib Dems in British Politics. For the Lib Dems to show we are a distinct and separate Party we need to challenge this developing narrative or we won’t pick up the more centrist, liberal votes this current Lib Dem project was designed to do.

Toby’s thesis is that he used to be an anarchist and how would his 14 year old self see him now as a Tory supporter? And concludes that despite being a Tory supporter

I have far more in common with the original punks than the anti-cuts protestors. I’m still a 14-year-old anarchist at heart

His argument that he is able to square this seeming circle by believing in Hobbes, the right to life, liberty and property and Locke’s compact with the state (whereby we give up a degree of autonomy in order to better protect our rights). He goes on to say that politicians

should never forget that their authority is wholly dependent on our consent and that every erosion of our liberty needs to be justified and the burden of proof rests with the state. Power flows from the bottom up, not the top down… Another name for this political philosophy is “classical liberalism”

So Toby is a Conservative because he believes in Liberalism! He will not be the only one in the country to have joined with the Tories for such reasons and the fact that he has not mentioned that there is a Party for people with Liberal beliefs is a dangerous narrative to allow to continue.

The Lib Dems need to show the public that it is them that have allowed the Liberal developments in Government/Tory Party and distance themselves from the Conservative developments. We need more talk of values and principles and what we support and what we don’t.

This current project by Nick Clegg to pick up votes from centrist voters needs to pick up votes from people like Toby or we will be squeezed out of existence. Liberalism and Conservatism are not the same things and Toby is clearly confused if he supports the Tories because he is a Liberal. People like Toby needs to be made aware of this.

Conservatism is mistrust of change whose basic principles are:
1. high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition
2. a belief in mankind’s essential base and irrational nature
3. faith in some supernatural force guiding human affairs
4. acceptance of human inequality and the attending consequence of social hierarchy
5. recognition of the need for a sense of community among individuals that will bind them emotionally to their society.

Liberalism’s basic principles are:
1. the idea of a compact between the people and their government
2. the right of revolution if the compact is violated
3. natural rights as belonging to all people
4. faith in and support of human rational potential
5. limited powers of government
6. majority rule tempered by minority rights
7. support of change in society

The Lib Dems need to remind people as the Tories won’t – it benefits them if people do not know what their own party stands for.

Lib Dems should distance themselves from the ‘happiness’ agenda and start making liberalism more relevant

Come 2015 the government will have gone some way to establish a happiness index in an attempt to shift the focus of quality of life from a purely economic one. Many people are getting involved in this with the launch of the Action for Happiness which brings LSE economists and government advisors together in an attempt to increase national happiness. But when 2015 comes will this be considered useful by the public. Will people vote for it? Will the concept have progressed liberalism?

While I have seen this as a way to help the Lib Dems, I have serious problems with this concept. What do we do to make ourselves happy? Are such activities sustainable and would they continue to make us happy if we continually did them? You may feel happy on holiday, but would you feel happy if you were always on holiday? Happiness is not something you can ‘get to’ by doing certain things. What makes you happy one minute does not necessarily make you happy the next. Happiness is not an end in itself and so is poor guide for policy development.

Happiness is more of a by-product of focusing on other things. Spending time with friends and family, doing a hobby, doing a job you like/love, or helping out in the community are not done because they make people ‘happy’. We have all felt unhappy at times doing any of these activities but we may continue to do them anyway. If the reason we did them was to feel happy, we would probably have given up on most of them (particularly knocking on doors campaigning). We do what we do for fundamentally different reasons and everyone has their own reasons. However, when looked into who are the happiest people they have generally been people who feel fulfilled in their lives.

Fulfilment would be a much more useful concept for politics and certainly more useful for liberals. Liberalism is about the values of liberty, equality and community. It seeks to give people the freedom to choose for themselves what is important to them and to involve themselves in their community as they see fit and develop their talents to the full. This fits very well into the concept of fulfilment that Covey has: To Live, Love, Learn, & Leave a Legacy.

This gives a much more useful concept to make liberalism relevant to people today. That we would look to help people live life how they want to, support their relationships, help families who need it, support people’s education at any age and to help them get involved in their community. The politics of fulfilment is a much more meaningful concept than that of happiness which will not help anyone and will only attract ridicule.

The Lib Dems should distance themselves from this happiness agenda and start talking about liberalism and personal fulfilment.

This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one. Being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it what I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations

- George Bernard Shaw

The Lib Dems are falling into an identity crisis created by others – and we are allowing it

There was a time not long ago that the Liberal Democrats sounded different to the other parties as they said that right/left politics is no longer relevant and people’s political views were more complex than that. They argued that left/right thinking did not fit modern life and modern politics. They had policies which people didn’t know where to put on this spectrum and this strategy gained the party an increase in MPs at every election and in many by-elections. Yet the party now defines itself on these lines: the Lib Dems are no longer a left wing alternative to Labour  and the party will position itself for more right wing votes from the Tories. Now people are wondering who the Lib Dems are and poll ratings have plummeted so is this strategy going to benefit the party?

As people become disillusioned with being in coalition with an openly right wing party where there are talks of pacts, other members are openly working with the Labour Party and people are beginning to ask questions about the Lib Dems and who they are.

Who you vote for is very much tied up with who you think you are. Many people do not understand all the issues, policies and positions let alone the pros and cons of each yet they will generally know which party they are likely to vote for. Many have a tradition of voting for one party or another in their family, many have friends who influence them and many come from communities which may be associated with particular parties. Hence Tim Farron’s frustration that the Lib Dems are better placed to speak for those in the countryside than the Tories but yet the countryside generally votes for the Tories.

To understand why, we need to understand the relativism of left/right thinking. A General Election in a developed English speaking nation has a choice: A left wing party who want all energy companies 100% government owned and the right wing party want to own just 51%. Any party in the UK suggesting the ownership of 51% of the energy companies would be considered far left, yet this has come from the right wing party of New Zealand in 2011, and many consider it to be far right. So Left/right definitions are not useful in telling us what the party will do as it is relative but people define themselves by this relativism.

By defining ourselves by this measure we buy into its limitations and fish in smaller ponds for voters, turning off voters who define themselves, relatively, as something other than what we have said we are. Hence if we are not a left wing alternative to Labour then those who think themselves as left wing don’t want to consider us and vice versa leaving us with a ‘centrist rump’ of voters.

So how the party defines itself is important in how people define themselves. People ask what it says about them if they vote for a particular party, rather than necessarily on the issues and policies. If the Lib Dems go back to positioning themselves on the left/right spectrum we go back to convincing fewer people they are the party who best represent them. Nick Clegg argues that the debate for the Lib Dems is between the old and new progressives. While most voted for Mr Clegg, now many in the party disagree. These debates are debates about who we think we are and how the party represents this.

This is creating an identity crisis that is unnecessary. What we need is a definition of who we are that represents all those who are in the party and those who vote for the party. One where people will be happier to be in it or vote for it.  We used to say that we are not defined by left or right, that life is more complex than that

The party’s strategists argue that all this left-wing, right-wing stuff is terribly last century and a sign that those who use such labels—mainly stuck-in-the-mud political commentators—just don’t get it.

and this strategy attracted many of all persuasions. We have had this debate already, why have we returned to it, this is someone else’s argument. Liberal England argues that we should define ourselves as Liberals and this is something we can all agree on and something many more in the country do too. We already have all that we need to improve our situation. We just need to use the bits that work.