What is it about the Liberal Democrats ?

It is, to say the least, notable that a large proportion of leading members of the Liberal Democrat Party seem to get themselves into hot water over a variety of scandals and problems in their personal lives. The list is remarkable : Paddy Ashdown, party leader up to 1999, was revealed to have had an affair with his secretary (resulting in his being nicknamed, 'Paddy Pants Down'), though it did his position little harm. Charles Kennedy, Ashdown's successor and leader from 1999-2006, resigned when it was revealed he was having treatment for alcoholism. Mark Oaten, one of the leadership contenders after Kennedy's resignation, withdrew when there were allegations he had had an affair with a rent boy. David Laws resigned after only a few weeks as a member of the coalition cabinet in 2010 over alleged MPs' expenses irregularities. Chris Huhne, guilty of perverting the course of justice in 2013 and involved in messy court cases involving his former wife and mistress. Lord Rennard, Party Chief Executive 2003-9 now faces accusations of improper conduct towards several women, as yet merely allegations. Given that the party's leadership cohort is inevitably limited in number, this represents a high proportion. So what is it about Liberal Democrats ? Three theories come to mind : 1. It is part of classical liberal ideology that one should be free to act as one wishes, provided one does no harm to others. Certainly some, though not all, of the above could claim to be folowing this maxim of John Stuart Mill. It also has to be said that most of the problems do not seem to have adversely affected the fortunes of the party, so little harm done there either. So they are merely putting into practice their fundamental beliefs perhaps. 2. Liberal Democrats simply get caught more often. There is no explanation for this phenomenon so it cannot be substatiated, but it is a possibility. 3. Until recently there was no prospect of Liberal Democrats being in power. And now there seems little prospect of them regaining power for the foreseeable future. This means they have too much time on their hands and so inevitably get themselves into mischief. Take your choice. But another thought occurs to me. Nick Clegg has escaped any whiff of 'scandal' at all. Yet it could be argued that he has done more harm to his party than any of the above. His breaking of several pledges and now his risible explanations of his part, or non-part, in the Rennard affair, seem to be wrecking the Lib Dems chances in the Eastleigh by election. We shall see.

kicking into an open goal

I am not an apologist for the Labour Party, but it seems to me that Miliband is shooting at an open goal. All the polls and the public mood suggest he should have an easy task in inspiring voters to abandon both coalition partners and try Labour again. He will have to accept a share of the blame for the recession but, afetr five years, the charge that the government was left with a mess is beginning to weaken. It also seems clear that the issues which will, and should, attract public support are now obvious. What's more, they mostly accord with traditiuonal Labour vaues so there need be no charges of opportunism. They are : 1. Give the electorate a vote on the EU. Labour has always been somewhat sceptical. I am convinced that, provided the 'stay in'campaign can convince the electorate that the EU is not resposnible for the European Convention on Human Rights, their campaign will prevail. This wil shoot the foxes of both UKIP and the Tory Right. If all three main parties, plus UKIP, promise a vote after 2015, it will cease to be an election issue. 2. Taxing the very rich is a no brainer. What Miliband needs is some specific proposals, not vague aspirations. Over 90% of the population will support it. 3. Bearing down on tax avoidance and evasion. Again specific proposals are needed. Naming and shaming will work well, I am sure, but there needs to be new laws closing tax avoidance schemes, if possible international. 4. Accepting the welfare and tax reforms now in train. 5. A huge re-commitment to 'saving' and improving the NHS. 6. Even more redaical proposals for care of the elderly than are now proposed. 7. Accepting tighter immigration and migration controls, but stressing the importance of a diverse society. 8. Do nothing on primary/secondary education - a moratorium on reform and making a virtue of it. Teachers (who vote) want some stability. However, much more radical policies on opening wider access to higher education. Specific proposals needed again. 9. He should look at the Japanese model of financing major intrastructure projects using quanitative easing to finance it. Clearly providing extra liquidity to the banks was a failure. Any new injections of liquidity must go directly into capital expenditure. This will end recession and boost employment. It is an inflationary policy, but we can stand a small rise in prices and the increased interest rates that will result. Low interest rates may have gone on too long. There is huge low interest fatigue among savers - and savers are often voters. Above all, he needs to develop specific proposals now - it is no longer acceptable to have vague aspirations and telling the electorate that specifics will come later. he needs to capture the political agenda now. Every indication says that Labour should not lose the next election. Labour supporters, however, must now be worried that Miliband could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (remember Kinnock in 1992). Kinnock probably lost because of hubris, Miliband might lose through sheer indecisiveness and lassitude. Of course, all this could not disguise the lack of long term vision within Labour.......but that's another issue.

The EU and the HRA

Just a short post to express a fear I have regarding a forthcoming referendum on UK memebership of the EU. I have spoken to quite a number of well educated and informed people and find a fair proportion of them believe that the European Convention on Human Rights has something to do with th EU. In many cases people believe it is actually controlled by the EU. Of course this is entirely wrong. The European Convention and the Court that enforces it are part of the Council of Europe, a completely different body set up by, among others, Churchill, in the 1950s. If well informed people make this mistake, what chance the rest of the population ? The problem is that a great deal of anti European sentiment is based on opposition to the Convention, notably with regard to asylum seekers, immigration appeals and terrorist suspects. It is seen as unwarranted European interference with UK sovereignty with regard to the security of our borders. This is all very well but it has nothing at all to do with the EU. But it could well swing the referendum result against the EU.Supporters of a 'stay in' vote must therefore hope that the campaign will highlight this common misapprehension.

What Britain makes

We often hear complaints that Britain has lost its heritage as a great manufacturing nation, that we don't actually 'make' anything anymore. Well, in terms of metal and wood and plastic that may well be largely the case, though, for reasons I don't understand, we seem a popular place to make case. But it is far from the truth to say we don't make anything, we make plenty of things; its just that they are less tangible and are often of an intellectual, technical and creative nature. We are clearly very very good, sometimes world leaders in these kind of products : entertainment biotechnology and research environmental research and devlopment energy technology civil engineering medical research and treatments sport and related activities and services higher education design and architecture The 'Arts' computer technology software development financial services (with a health warning on that one !) There are more, I am sure, but this is an impressive list. What's more, these tend to be high value products while much traditional manufacturing involves low value products. So Britain is in a strong position to exploit our high value specialisations in which we seem to have a comparative advantage. So the first thing to say is to stop bleeting about the loss of our manufacturing tradition. More seriously, though, we need to recognise where our strengths and advantages lie and to nurture them carefully. This means being willing to invest a large proportion of our national income in these kinds of areas : education generally higher education and research sport and entertainent infrastructure Medical research and top class treatment centres biodevelopments, including sustainable energy The Arts Such investment can be undertaken both through the private and public sectors as appropriate. I think we could be on the brink of a new period of regional, if not global dominance in a variety of economic sectors. But before we do what is necessary to nurture them, we need to recognise what they are worth and not hanker after something that is well behind us and in which we do not enjoy comparative advantages.

Modern capitalism and the new marxism - part two

Part one of this post suggested that the excessive inequalities now being seen, especially since 2008, my be leading to a crisis of capitalism, perhaps as severe s 1968 or even earlier those in the nineteen-tens and twenties. But the prospect of hoards of the poor pouring into London from Cornwall, South Wales, Northern Ireland and Northern England seems rather remote. This kind of traditional revolutionary activity would be neither likely not effective. The growing importance of the Internet presents us, however, with a very different picture. The Internet, I would suggest, presents us with two alternative visions of revolution. The first is that revolutionary sentiments may become diffused by the internet. There may well be a groundswell of discontent, but this might lack focus and may fail to mobilise its forces effectively. the way in which the 'Occupy' movement seems to have blown itself out rapidly may be an appropriate model of such an effect. The second vision suggests that the Internet may indeed facilitate opposition to capitalism's excesses and may one day become so overwhelming that it will topple the vested interests that are promoting inequality. If we adopt a clasical marxist perspective, an Internet movement will not succeed because it would lack 'class consciousness'. The weakness of the working class, said Marx, lies in two of its characerists. One is a lack of awareness of its own position, notably its own exploitation. The other is the danger that memebers of the working class lack solidarity because individuals under capitalism are forced to compete with each other for scarce resources. The Internet certainly can encourage class consciousness, but it also prevents the formation of a class in the first place. Users of the internet are intensely individualistic - that is the nature of the beast and its attraction - and so it is difficult to envisage a coherent anti-capitalist movement springing from the social media. I therefore think I conclude that a marxist analysis does indeed suggest that the conditions for revolution certainly are coming into existence, but that capitalism will survive because of the lack of a strong enough class which could carry out the sentence of death that history has pronounced on it.

modern capitalism and the new marxism - part 1

At the risk of saying things that you my already know very well, I need to start with a ludicrously redacted version of Mark's theory of history. In short Marx argued that every age spawns the seeds of its own destruction. Thus, he believed, nineteenth century indutrial capitalism created an exploited working class that would ultimately rise up and destroy it. We do not need here to discuss whether, or why, Marx was wrong, but it is a good starting point for a discussion of modern post-industrial capitalism and where it is headed. 'New' marxism may be described as the use of his dialectic theory to analyse modern society, without necessarily passing judgement on its validity or exclusiveness. Marx, along with many other historians, also pointed out that, as civilizations approach their demise, they inevitably become decadent and grotesque exaggerations and distortions of their central elements emerge. The excesses of Rome are well known to us and Marx accurately foresaw the development of excessive 'conspicuous consumption' in the later stages of capitalism. Well it must now be clear where this is leading. If the analysis is useful it is in one particular aspect of modern capitalism that we should concentrate upon. And here I am referring only to the 'developed' West - the issue of the devloping world is very different. That is growing inequality. The key difference between the remarkable growth period which lasted from the early 1990s to 2008 (with the notable exception of Japan) and the period since 2008 is this: While inequality grew in both periods, in the first, the vast majority of people saw their living standards rise, even those at the bottom of the invome scale, either because growing wealth did indeed 'trickle down' or because of improved welfare systems. Thus the contradictions, to use a marxian term, odf inequality were not at all clear. This second period is more corrosive. This is becase, for the first time for many years, the living standards of the poor are actually falling. This is where the picture becomes forbidding. We are seeing massive increases in the wealth and incomes of the small group of perhaps 1-2% of western populations in a period when overall wealth is declining. Orwell, in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, painted a picture of a world where the poor are subdued by constant exposure to popular culture of a type that dulls their consciousness and manipulates their perception of the world. Marx had referred to religion (the opium of the masses) performing this role. I don't need to illustrate this devlopemnt which must be clear to anyone who turns on a TV or opens up a computer games programme. However, the Internet and the open access to it, renders the Orwellian nightmare impossible. The deprived in our societies are fully aware of their own deprivation and are capable of creating their own culture. While this is going on the excesses of the extremely rich are all too clear to see, whether it be dishonest bankers, corrupt politicians, megalomaniac newspaper proprietors, greedy CEOs or spoiled footbsllers. Are these the indications of the decadence of a dying civilisation ? Will growing inequality and the emergence of increasing desprivation create a marxist-style revolution ? Does the Internet make revolution more possible, or will it diffuse alienation so much that nothing tangible will occur ? More in part 2.

The War on Drugs

I notice this Monday morning that a Commons select committee is recommending a review of the drugs laws in the UK. Two things to say at the outset. The first is that, apparently, the use of illegal drugs and offences connected with them, have been falling significantly. This may mean the current war on drugs is succeeding or, as I suspect, it simply means drugs are becoming less fashionable. Secondly, there is a wide gulf in cultural outlook of people who were born before 1945 and those who were born since. Yes, as precise as that. The older of the two groups will be, on the whole, very fearful of any liberalisation of drugs laws;the younger group, however, are likely to take a more balanced view. Thus, as the older 'drugs-conservative' group age, or die, or at least vacate positions of influence, the agenda is bound to change merely through the passage of time. That time is approaching. My view is very strong, which is that virtually all drugs should be de-criminalised unless there is a dramatic threat to public health (ketamine may be an example. It is absurd that alcohol and tobacco remain legal while other types of narcotic are not. But, more compellingly, there is a deep philosophical argument that says the state has no business telling peole how they lead their lives. Many people voluntarily take risks and we do not make such activities illegal, as long. of course, as there is an extensive public campaign to demonstrate the risks (as occurs with smoking and alcolhol consumption. True, the activity of persading people to take risks, i.e. use potentially dangerous drugs, may well be a crime, but, here again, we do not prosecute people for persuading them that parachute jumping, hang gliding or extreme mountaineering are good ideas. No, the misuse of drugs is a health and cultural issue and should be treated as such. Ask yourself this question. 'If we were to start again from scratch, knowing what we now know, and drugs narcotics suddenly appeared on the scene, would we handle the situation as we currently are ?' Clearly not. By crminalising the production, marketing and use of narcotics we would be creating a whole new set of crimes and a whole new criminal community overnight. So, we must study, carefully and rationally, the experience of Holland, Portugal and the handful of US states who have voted to legalise cannabis. But I would be more radical. In the specific case of heroin and crack cocaine, the state should offer all current (not new) users free prescriptions in return for agreement to undergo rehabilitation programmes and to use the drugs under controlled conditions. This would destroy the market for such drugs virtually overnight, take away the incentive for anyone to persuade others to start to use such drugs (there would no longer be a commercial interest in doing so, by pushers and dealers)and would eliminate the crimes associated with use and dealing. In particular, users would not have to resort to crime or prostitution to finance their habit. This will only happen, of course, when the demographic as I described above comes about. But that time is coming. I believe that, in ten years time, such changes in law and practice will become publicly acceptable. We should start preparing for that day right now.