Bankers. Don't you just love 'em? Not content with creating a crisis in their own industry by mispricing risk on doubtful derivative instruments and accumulating them to the point of near destruction, they have the temerity to wonder whether the taxpayer is 'doing enough' to bail them out of the mess. Moreover, after a helpful and well coordinated move by the central banks to cut interest rates as an assistance to them - not taxpayers and savers, by the way - they have the further effrontery to say that they 'might not pass the benefit on' to mortgage borrowers. Yet more indifference to the rest of us comes from the 'shock' that the governments of the western world are apparently not saving all of their banking bretheren, and are not quite prepared to back the hunch that interbank lending might get going again with borrowed cash and taxpayers' money to the tune of 1.5 times GDP.
Can we get this right for once? Banks are the servants of our economy, not the masters of it. The government has to assert the basic principle - which voters have now clearly realised and politicians should quickly understand - that our finance system is too important, should be made less important, and should be placed in the hands of people with common sense. Spivs, self-regarding quants and 'masters of the universe' need not apply this time.
As winter comes on, and pensioners on low incomes face hypothermia again, bankers railing at the rest of us for our 'indifference' will be an affront.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Groan...it's Lembit again
The ability of the leadership of my party to shoot itself in - or, probably, near - the foot is extraordinary, and that arch-transgressor Lembit Opik is at it again today. In an interview reported on the BBC website he makes some rather innocuous points about the Segway personal transporter, a motorised scooter for grown-ups, in a rather silly 'protest' outside the House of Commons. Lembit, who holds a responsible position in the party usually reserved for grown-ups, believes the Segway is " flexible, convenient in rural areas as well as large cities - and environmentally friendly". As it may well be.
But how, even if this were the solution to the transport problems of the UK, does Lembit make the point? By describing it as "...biggest step forward in transportation since the Wright brothers", by stencilling (yes, stencilling) the word 'Police' on the front of one and driving it up and down in front of the House of Commons, and by claiming that adoption of the Segway would constitute, in the words of a BBC report "...a transport "revolution" in the capital as commuters turned to them instead of cars and bicycles".
Now this may be a happy, jolly little jape to Lemit, but it is making my party look silly, trivial and childish. There is nothing wrong with humour in politics, nothing wrong with eccentricity. We don't need only the high-minded Gladstones, the stoical Balfours or the reserved and patrician Douglas-Homes of this world, we do need a few clowns for colour.
Why, though, do they have to congregate in the leadership of a party making a credible claim to be considered the real opposition to the government in so many areas?
Lembit? Please think about the party before personal publicity ahead of your next stunt.
But how, even if this were the solution to the transport problems of the UK, does Lembit make the point? By describing it as "...biggest step forward in transportation since the Wright brothers", by stencilling (yes, stencilling) the word 'Police' on the front of one and driving it up and down in front of the House of Commons, and by claiming that adoption of the Segway would constitute, in the words of a BBC report "...a transport "revolution" in the capital as commuters turned to them instead of cars and bicycles".
Now this may be a happy, jolly little jape to Lemit, but it is making my party look silly, trivial and childish. There is nothing wrong with humour in politics, nothing wrong with eccentricity. We don't need only the high-minded Gladstones, the stoical Balfours or the reserved and patrician Douglas-Homes of this world, we do need a few clowns for colour.
Why, though, do they have to congregate in the leadership of a party making a credible claim to be considered the real opposition to the government in so many areas?
Lembit? Please think about the party before personal publicity ahead of your next stunt.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
What is left of economic policy?
One of the reasons why Downing Street is now hotly denying that Mr Brown was ever going to unveil an economic strategy to counter recession is that, put simply, 'economic policy' is pretty much emasculated now. It doesn't really exist.
Margaret Thatcher (in her various guises as arch-monetarist, supply-sider and non-interventionist) had one outstanding effect on economic policy making. She shifted the goal posts by moving them off the pitch. Instead of accepting that economic policy management is difficult, frustrating and risky and involves utilising a range of economic policy instruments, she embraced the myth of the single instrument (monetary base control from 1979-1983; supply-side fiscal policy from 1983-1989...). After all if you really don't understand this stuff, why not just pick a single lever and use it - and blame 'international circumstances' when things go wrong?
Mr Brown, of course, hasn't just moved the goal posts from the pitch; he's given them to another team. The one instrument of macroeconomic policy left to us is interest rate polcy, and he shifted responsibility for that to the Bank of England in 1997. Now you could argue that with the reforms in exchange controls in the 1980s, the restructuring of our economy through privatisation and outsourcing of public assets and services, and indeed economic growth, there are strong reasons for believing that government can do less now to avert a recession than ever before.
This is nonsense. There are still levers of influence and action that Alistair Darling could use - from effecting changes in bank balance sheets through BoE action, through to encouragement for business investment via tax credits, to changes in the purposes of planned public spending (reducing discretionary recurrent spending and increasing capital infrastructure spend, for instance) - that would, when taken together, amount to an economic strategy for coping with the effects of recession.
The belief seems to be that all of this is too hard, too risky. It makes the brain hurt. Better, then, to cushion the blow for (some of) those on low incomes and hope the rest of us can weather the storm - and be prepared to take the credit if we do.
This is politics without principle and without guts. It is artless, deficient in leadership, stumbling and incompetent, and unimaginative.
Margaret Thatcher (in her various guises as arch-monetarist, supply-sider and non-interventionist) had one outstanding effect on economic policy making. She shifted the goal posts by moving them off the pitch. Instead of accepting that economic policy management is difficult, frustrating and risky and involves utilising a range of economic policy instruments, she embraced the myth of the single instrument (monetary base control from 1979-1983; supply-side fiscal policy from 1983-1989...). After all if you really don't understand this stuff, why not just pick a single lever and use it - and blame 'international circumstances' when things go wrong?
Mr Brown, of course, hasn't just moved the goal posts from the pitch; he's given them to another team. The one instrument of macroeconomic policy left to us is interest rate polcy, and he shifted responsibility for that to the Bank of England in 1997. Now you could argue that with the reforms in exchange controls in the 1980s, the restructuring of our economy through privatisation and outsourcing of public assets and services, and indeed economic growth, there are strong reasons for believing that government can do less now to avert a recession than ever before.
This is nonsense. There are still levers of influence and action that Alistair Darling could use - from effecting changes in bank balance sheets through BoE action, through to encouragement for business investment via tax credits, to changes in the purposes of planned public spending (reducing discretionary recurrent spending and increasing capital infrastructure spend, for instance) - that would, when taken together, amount to an economic strategy for coping with the effects of recession.
The belief seems to be that all of this is too hard, too risky. It makes the brain hurt. Better, then, to cushion the blow for (some of) those on low incomes and hope the rest of us can weather the storm - and be prepared to take the credit if we do.
This is politics without principle and without guts. It is artless, deficient in leadership, stumbling and incompetent, and unimaginative.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Wordle fun
It's the silly season, and I have been playing with the wonderful Wordle (http://wordle.net/) over lunch to look at the, er, shape of political thinking in the UK. Here's a tip for a way to make even Gordon Brown's speeches look more colourful:
1. Cut and paste a speech of the dear leader into Wordle at http://wordle.net/create and press 'Go'
2. Admire, collect, print and laugh at the sheer artlessness of political communication in the UK. Compare with those shown here of the speeches at the Democratic Convention, and tell me that UK political rhetoric is as clear about its purpose at that of our American cousins.
1. Cut and paste a speech of the dear leader into Wordle at http://wordle.net/create and press 'Go'
2. Admire, collect, print and laugh at the sheer artlessness of political communication in the UK. Compare with those shown here of the speeches at the Democratic Convention, and tell me that UK political rhetoric is as clear about its purpose at that of our American cousins.
Still on the Chartist list...
Liberals will be cheering and supporting the continuing attempts by MPs of all parties, and others, to institute fixed term parliaments, but what about the old Chartist demand for annual parliaments? Of course the case for annual parliaments was made much earlier than the Chartist movement of the 1840s, but while four of the six points of the People's Charter were achieved in the last century (I'd argue that we've not really achieved 'equal constituencies, however fleetfooted the Boundary Commission may be) there is still that one glaring omission - annual parliaments.
Now you could argue that the fact of party politics, and the party nature of government, would make annual elections impossible. Every election would produce, potentially, a different government and, well, that would be awkward. Continuity of policy...long-range strategy...time to achieve our objectives. But that's all a bit like saying that you can't have the sweets you want from a pick and mix stall because the paper bag is the wrong colour.
We could have annual parliaments, easily. We could insist on parties putting up all seats for reelection annually, while retaining the present government unless a clear majority was obtained by another party. Would annual parliaments, though, have any advantages?
Well the old Chartist argument was that it would be a "check to bribery and intimidation" at a time when the rotten boroughs of England were notorious and many remained unaffected in that way by the 1832 Act. That wouldn't be an argument for establishing them today though.
I'd argue that there may be - just maybe - a couple of good solid arguments for annual parliaments worth considering:
(i) annual parliaments would make it impossible for the electorate to ignore politics; they'd have to become involved since voting would be an annual event.
(ii) it would, paradoxically, give rise to more stability in the political process. Knowing the proximity of an election, MPs would be more dutiful, governments more careful and voters more aware of change.
In all of this I am being only half serious. After all, the thought of David Dimbleby Election programmes annually is too much. Besides which, annual canvassing....?
Now you could argue that the fact of party politics, and the party nature of government, would make annual elections impossible. Every election would produce, potentially, a different government and, well, that would be awkward. Continuity of policy...long-range strategy...time to achieve our objectives. But that's all a bit like saying that you can't have the sweets you want from a pick and mix stall because the paper bag is the wrong colour.
We could have annual parliaments, easily. We could insist on parties putting up all seats for reelection annually, while retaining the present government unless a clear majority was obtained by another party. Would annual parliaments, though, have any advantages?
Well the old Chartist argument was that it would be a "check to bribery and intimidation" at a time when the rotten boroughs of England were notorious and many remained unaffected in that way by the 1832 Act. That wouldn't be an argument for establishing them today though.
I'd argue that there may be - just maybe - a couple of good solid arguments for annual parliaments worth considering:
(i) annual parliaments would make it impossible for the electorate to ignore politics; they'd have to become involved since voting would be an annual event.
(ii) it would, paradoxically, give rise to more stability in the political process. Knowing the proximity of an election, MPs would be more dutiful, governments more careful and voters more aware of change.
In all of this I am being only half serious. After all, the thought of David Dimbleby Election programmes annually is too much. Besides which, annual canvassing....?
Obama liberalism
Is Senator Obama a liberal?
At first blush this may sound like a question with a strightforward answer - of course he is a liberal, he believes in fairness, social justice, personal freedom, the responsibility of communities for their members and of their members for the community. He is, most people, would say, very much a liberal. No question.
Hold on, though. His acceptance speech at the Democractic convention, filled though it was with references to plans for changes in taxation, social security and public spending was light, nonetheless, on clearly liberal values. Instead Senator Obama talked the tactical talk of a man seeking office and keenly aware that he needs to attract those for whom the word 'liberal' makes them slightly uneasy.
So he said thigs like this:
"We [Democrats] measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma."
and this:
"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honours the dignity of work."
This is ameliorative liberalism. It says that the liberal values of a secure and thriving society that matter are those that make middle class voters vote for this candidate.
Now, I hope that President Obama wins the election in November. The alternative is not a pleasant one for the world, let alone the people of the United States. Let's pause, though, and wait to hear more from Senator Obama before we take the tactical talk of a salesman for the genuine article. He may turn out to be a credible liberal; it is, paradoxially for a man so often feted as one, much too soon to tell.
At first blush this may sound like a question with a strightforward answer - of course he is a liberal, he believes in fairness, social justice, personal freedom, the responsibility of communities for their members and of their members for the community. He is, most people, would say, very much a liberal. No question.
Hold on, though. His acceptance speech at the Democractic convention, filled though it was with references to plans for changes in taxation, social security and public spending was light, nonetheless, on clearly liberal values. Instead Senator Obama talked the tactical talk of a man seeking office and keenly aware that he needs to attract those for whom the word 'liberal' makes them slightly uneasy.
So he said thigs like this:
"We [Democrats] measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma."
and this:
"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honours the dignity of work."
This is ameliorative liberalism. It says that the liberal values of a secure and thriving society that matter are those that make middle class voters vote for this candidate.
Now, I hope that President Obama wins the election in November. The alternative is not a pleasant one for the world, let alone the people of the United States. Let's pause, though, and wait to hear more from Senator Obama before we take the tactical talk of a salesman for the genuine article. He may turn out to be a credible liberal; it is, paradoxially for a man so often feted as one, much too soon to tell.
Friday, 8 August 2008
One in three!
One in three young people, according to a survey by the Prince's Trust reported here, "do not think of their own parents as people they respect". I can't say I have ever been more moved by a single statistic about the attitudes of young people. Now we could become very Daily Mail about this and call for measures to make them show respect (National Service/ prison-meaning-prison/ 'make them clean it up' etc - choose your own favourite), but the essence of the problem is surely to do with a rootlessness of mind that is now endemic in whole generations - and not just young people.
This 'rootlessness' is now particularly strong among the young. Many of them lack confidence in themselves in this society, and express that lack of confidence in aggression and a bigger, more showy, version of teenage arrogance. This is the teenage arrogance that thinks nothing of shootings in supermarkets, the teenage arrogance that thinks nothing of robbing single pensioners at knife point, the kind of teenage arrogance that regards authority of any kind as being not protective of common interests but necessarily antithetical to your own.
How do we deal with it? It is easy to decide on solutions, and Lib Dems are announcing some of their own at the moment (see here), but solutions to youth violence are not the same as solutions to the deeper, more pervasive, rootless inaction and fatalism that grips the Jeremy Kyle generations. This isn't (for the Marxians among you) alienation since alienation is a conscious and active rejection of a social order; this is a strange mix of separateness and a dependency that leaves mothers at once indifferent to their childrens' violence, afraid of it, yet clinging to state solutions for both the violence and their separation from 'grown up' living.
No amount of brave talk about 'zero tolerance' on the one hand or "understanding the roots of young peoples' alienation" on the other will help. We need to tackle the much more grave problem of the generations of people - grandparents, parents, kids - who no longer think of themselves as influential in their own lives.
This 'rootlessness' is now particularly strong among the young. Many of them lack confidence in themselves in this society, and express that lack of confidence in aggression and a bigger, more showy, version of teenage arrogance. This is the teenage arrogance that thinks nothing of shootings in supermarkets, the teenage arrogance that thinks nothing of robbing single pensioners at knife point, the kind of teenage arrogance that regards authority of any kind as being not protective of common interests but necessarily antithetical to your own.
How do we deal with it? It is easy to decide on solutions, and Lib Dems are announcing some of their own at the moment (see here), but solutions to youth violence are not the same as solutions to the deeper, more pervasive, rootless inaction and fatalism that grips the Jeremy Kyle generations. This isn't (for the Marxians among you) alienation since alienation is a conscious and active rejection of a social order; this is a strange mix of separateness and a dependency that leaves mothers at once indifferent to their childrens' violence, afraid of it, yet clinging to state solutions for both the violence and their separation from 'grown up' living.
No amount of brave talk about 'zero tolerance' on the one hand or "understanding the roots of young peoples' alienation" on the other will help. We need to tackle the much more grave problem of the generations of people - grandparents, parents, kids - who no longer think of themselves as influential in their own lives.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
'I have an announcement to make...'
Alistair Darling may, or may not, announce a stamp duty holiday, or pause, or redefinition...or none of the above. As a result, house sellers are up in arms, estate agents are crying foul and the government is, again, in hot water for - in this case - actually doing nothing, and still making life worse for many people.
Is there ever a case for announcing that you will do something before you do it? Well, liberals would I think argue that the pre-emption can protect in some instances. Announce today that you intend to tax immoral earnings at 20% above the standard rate and you can reduce exploitation now. The problem with it is, of course, that pre-emption is a bit like having your cake and eating it if you are a cynical political calculator. I announce that I will impose the super-tax, there is no reduction in the tax take, but I gain political kudos from the announcement. Something of this thinking must have been behind the then Chancellor's announcement ('the then Chancellor' being one Mr. G. Brown) to trail most of the budget in an earlier 'budget statement'. The Chancellor gained kudos, looked in control and open at the same time, and lost nothing. A perfect solution for a canny politician.
Let's try to avoid the cynical thought that this is the only mode of 'announcement' that has political viability. I'd like to see a whole lot more stick being used instead of expensive carrots as far as industry policy is concerned for example. If a government were really serious about fairness and equity, as well as encouraging the use of public transport, would it not announce the steps it would take if rail fares were to rise above the rate of inflation, for example? Would it not in fact have a duty to make that threat very public? Recently, in Britain, governments of all persuasions have been too timid to do this. But it is a clear, honest, and I think liberal tactic.
Is there ever a case for announcing that you will do something before you do it? Well, liberals would I think argue that the pre-emption can protect in some instances. Announce today that you intend to tax immoral earnings at 20% above the standard rate and you can reduce exploitation now. The problem with it is, of course, that pre-emption is a bit like having your cake and eating it if you are a cynical political calculator. I announce that I will impose the super-tax, there is no reduction in the tax take, but I gain political kudos from the announcement. Something of this thinking must have been behind the then Chancellor's announcement ('the then Chancellor' being one Mr. G. Brown) to trail most of the budget in an earlier 'budget statement'. The Chancellor gained kudos, looked in control and open at the same time, and lost nothing. A perfect solution for a canny politician.
Let's try to avoid the cynical thought that this is the only mode of 'announcement' that has political viability. I'd like to see a whole lot more stick being used instead of expensive carrots as far as industry policy is concerned for example. If a government were really serious about fairness and equity, as well as encouraging the use of public transport, would it not announce the steps it would take if rail fares were to rise above the rate of inflation, for example? Would it not in fact have a duty to make that threat very public? Recently, in Britain, governments of all persuasions have been too timid to do this. But it is a clear, honest, and I think liberal tactic.
Monday, 4 August 2008
Richard Hofstadter
Wednesday sees the anniversary of the birth in 1916 of Richard Hoftstadter, American historian and thinker who, perhaps more than many others, gave shape to the liberal centerist critique of American affluence and its politics in the post-war world. Brilliant and engaging, his writing on a wide variety of themes (party politics, radicalism, political paranoia and populism, academic freedom and social darwinism to name a few) influenced a generation shaped by totalitarian conflict on the one hand and political conceit and self-satisfaction on the other.
I first read him in my teens and thought the pure unfussy cadences of the American east coast made him approachable, easy to read and engaging. After years away from the books I happened to dip into my two favourite the other day (The Paranoid Style in American Politics(1965) and Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963)), and my view of him has changed, slightly.
Let me explain. Yes those easy cadences were still there and yes the essays in Paranoid Style were as engaging and interesting as ever. But 'easy to read'? Perhaps not quite. Now I don't mean by that that the style or the substance was difficult. Rather, that more than 40 years after they were written these books provide an eerie echo of an era (the 1960s) straddling the uneasiness of a Cold war world and the burgeoning hope for a better future - an era in which politicians could hope to win elections by pure, unadulterated populism, from the cynical right and the calculating left. Hoftadter showed, possibly more acutely than any other historian of American thought, just how close to the surface of democratic life are the impulses to punish the non-conforming, to deny reason in order to hijack voters' anger, and to divide in order to rule. Democracy can hurt when it embraces populism, and it is uncomfortable to see just how.
In Anti-intellectualism in American Life, perhaps the most challenging argument of the two, Hofstadter showed that Americans had become used to denying the force of special knowledge, expertise and know-how. It wasn't just that intellectuals had been regarded since colonial times as dangerous but anyone setting themselves apart from a created orthodoxy or a manufactured populist concensus was deemed to be 'un-American'. Hence - and it hardly needed to be pointed out to readers - the vitriol of McCarthyism but also the hatred of the technocrat among many on the left.
Hofstadter only on rarely touched on the roots of anti-intellectualism and populism in Britain. but is it too far fetched to believe that he would have found - in the resurgence of the New Right from the 1970s, in the populism of Blair and Brown - the very same forces that shaped the condemnatory and heckling politics of the US for generations?
And is Barack Obama, perhaps, an antidote for liberals?
I first read him in my teens and thought the pure unfussy cadences of the American east coast made him approachable, easy to read and engaging. After years away from the books I happened to dip into my two favourite the other day (The Paranoid Style in American Politics(1965) and Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963)), and my view of him has changed, slightly.
Let me explain. Yes those easy cadences were still there and yes the essays in Paranoid Style were as engaging and interesting as ever. But 'easy to read'? Perhaps not quite. Now I don't mean by that that the style or the substance was difficult. Rather, that more than 40 years after they were written these books provide an eerie echo of an era (the 1960s) straddling the uneasiness of a Cold war world and the burgeoning hope for a better future - an era in which politicians could hope to win elections by pure, unadulterated populism, from the cynical right and the calculating left. Hoftadter showed, possibly more acutely than any other historian of American thought, just how close to the surface of democratic life are the impulses to punish the non-conforming, to deny reason in order to hijack voters' anger, and to divide in order to rule. Democracy can hurt when it embraces populism, and it is uncomfortable to see just how.
In Anti-intellectualism in American Life, perhaps the most challenging argument of the two, Hofstadter showed that Americans had become used to denying the force of special knowledge, expertise and know-how. It wasn't just that intellectuals had been regarded since colonial times as dangerous but anyone setting themselves apart from a created orthodoxy or a manufactured populist concensus was deemed to be 'un-American'. Hence - and it hardly needed to be pointed out to readers - the vitriol of McCarthyism but also the hatred of the technocrat among many on the left.
Hofstadter only on rarely touched on the roots of anti-intellectualism and populism in Britain. but is it too far fetched to believe that he would have found - in the resurgence of the New Right from the 1970s, in the populism of Blair and Brown - the very same forces that shaped the condemnatory and heckling politics of the US for generations?
And is Barack Obama, perhaps, an antidote for liberals?
How to make policy through your political party...
Policy-making. Art? Science? A bit of both? The problem for all political parties in participative democracies is that the inclusiveness of policy making depends upon the inclusiveness and reach of policy consultation. So when governments seek to involve members of their parties in policy-making the results can be perverse.
Labour's National Policy Forum back in July is a perfect case in point. First stage: invite all of the activists, supporters and workers engaged in your party to a meeting, at which you encourage them to shape policy. Second stage: fight off attacks on what is and isn't ideologically 'pure', what you as a government haven't yet done because you were too timid, and the lobbying of special interest groups, and try to get some form of confirmation from the meeting on the general way ahead. Third stage: Reluctantly cart all of that back to the reality of a constrained budget, other pressing demands, the need to avoid damaging talk of 'U-turns' and 'caving in to special interests' and the like, and come up with a policy framework for government in Cabinet.
Since the 1960s most rational political parties have tried to evolve (to one extent or another) an inclusive approach to party policy making that will affect their programme in government. For Lib Dems, it has become an essential article of faith that conuslting members IS policy generation in action.
And yet...There is much to be said for the argument that consulting your members on future policy is like asking random car drivers to design a Formula 1 car from scratch by committee. I don't mean by that that car drivers might not be able to reconcile their differences, shape something that might look like a F1 car and even ape one, but they are unlikely to produce the next best thing in F1 car design. For that to happen, you need to ensure that they understood the very latest on aerodynamics, for example, and understood how to reflect that in the design of something they would only ever see others use. Moreover you would need to ensure that the car drivers who happened to prefer low emissions cars and those who were wedded to gas guzzling 4x4 cars put aside their differences and, indeed, looked at full efficiency from the point of view of the aim of a totally different driver - someone for whom fuel efficiency was about pit stops and acceleration.
Now there may be those among the leadership of many political parties who wish this sort of party member consultation would not take place and others for whom a technocratic elite would be better at doing it anyway. Neither would enable truly participative party government.
However, we do need to ask our parties - including the Liberal Democrat party, by far the most open of the major three on policy consultation and party policy making - how far consultation in policy fora can be an entirely shapeless affair, with no more than a background brief from the expertise within the party and a contribution from a hapless minister enjoined to 'put policy thinking into practice'.
Here's my suggestion (and it is an approach that, at various times, party politicians have favoured). Why not leave the broad ranging consultation as consultation so that the leadership knows what members think, but have policy proposals developed by independent policy teams - independent, that is, of the party. Those proposals could be regarded as the blueprints for that F1 car designed by the top car designers of their generation.
Labour's National Policy Forum back in July is a perfect case in point. First stage: invite all of the activists, supporters and workers engaged in your party to a meeting, at which you encourage them to shape policy. Second stage: fight off attacks on what is and isn't ideologically 'pure', what you as a government haven't yet done because you were too timid, and the lobbying of special interest groups, and try to get some form of confirmation from the meeting on the general way ahead. Third stage: Reluctantly cart all of that back to the reality of a constrained budget, other pressing demands, the need to avoid damaging talk of 'U-turns' and 'caving in to special interests' and the like, and come up with a policy framework for government in Cabinet.
Since the 1960s most rational political parties have tried to evolve (to one extent or another) an inclusive approach to party policy making that will affect their programme in government. For Lib Dems, it has become an essential article of faith that conuslting members IS policy generation in action.
And yet...There is much to be said for the argument that consulting your members on future policy is like asking random car drivers to design a Formula 1 car from scratch by committee. I don't mean by that that car drivers might not be able to reconcile their differences, shape something that might look like a F1 car and even ape one, but they are unlikely to produce the next best thing in F1 car design. For that to happen, you need to ensure that they understood the very latest on aerodynamics, for example, and understood how to reflect that in the design of something they would only ever see others use. Moreover you would need to ensure that the car drivers who happened to prefer low emissions cars and those who were wedded to gas guzzling 4x4 cars put aside their differences and, indeed, looked at full efficiency from the point of view of the aim of a totally different driver - someone for whom fuel efficiency was about pit stops and acceleration.
Now there may be those among the leadership of many political parties who wish this sort of party member consultation would not take place and others for whom a technocratic elite would be better at doing it anyway. Neither would enable truly participative party government.
However, we do need to ask our parties - including the Liberal Democrat party, by far the most open of the major three on policy consultation and party policy making - how far consultation in policy fora can be an entirely shapeless affair, with no more than a background brief from the expertise within the party and a contribution from a hapless minister enjoined to 'put policy thinking into practice'.
Here's my suggestion (and it is an approach that, at various times, party politicians have favoured). Why not leave the broad ranging consultation as consultation so that the leadership knows what members think, but have policy proposals developed by independent policy teams - independent, that is, of the party. Those proposals could be regarded as the blueprints for that F1 car designed by the top car designers of their generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
