The government of a modern western democracy is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. There are many ways of describing how they go about this. One method of analysis is to break the pursuit of this end into two key functions:
1) The creation and maintenance of an environment in which citizens can maintain and even advance their own welfare (you might call this their liberty).
2) The provision of such means as to maintain their welfare to at least a minimum level if for some reason they cannot do this themselves (you might call this equality).
Of these two functions, the first government can only influence. There are many factors within this beyond their control, not the least of which are the citizens own will and influences beyond the bounds of the state. The second is almost entirely within the control of the government to provide. Almost, because its ability to provide this - what is today called the welfare state - is dependent on its spending power. Its spending power, and its willingness to spend.
Of these two functions, which is more important? The Tea Party Movement would argue equality without liberty is equality of misery, and so worth nothing at all. An opponent hailing from the school of Marx might well counter that Liberty is a beourgoise luxury and doesn't exist for someone with no food, no shelter and no health. Most sane individuals can see both are important, and that their existence is not antagonistic. Most of the time, you need not harm liberty by increasing equality, and there are many ways liberty can be increased without damaging equality. The contrast between the US and UK currently is interesting for exactly this reason. The Tea Baggers believe that performing the second function contradicts the first. Interestingly, over here the criticism of Government spending cuts is that it will derail the former, ie the jobs and economic growth that allow citizens to maintain their own welfare, but it is being done to sustain the latter.
If a country has no money, it cannot provide welfare. It cannot fulfil the second function without the spending power. Cutting as we are now protects that future spending power, although at the cost of allowing people to provide for themselves. 1m will be made unemployed so we can afford to maintain the welfare of the 3m currently unemployed (plus all the others dependent on government welfare in some way or another - that is, all of us!). That is why these cuts are being made. That is the context in which the argument is made, and the reality of the situation. That is why we can't do the first, because we have to take care of the second.
Of course, there is a caveat: the will to spend. Labour claim we have more spending power than the government say, and the reason we are cutting so much is because that is what we want to do, not what we have to do. They are certainly right for certain individuals within the Tory party. They are certainly wrong for certain individuals within the Lib Dems. Are they right or wrong about members of the Government? Of the Lib Dems? Of the Cabinet?
That argument is unfalsifiable. Those who say they know conclusively either way do not. They can't. Only government, the Lib Dems, the Cabinet, the MP's themselves know. They will say it is need, but can we trust them? In the end, it all comes down to faith, which is at once terrifying, but hopelessly romantic.
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coalition. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
The coalition: from the perspective of a LibDem, has it been a success?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
It comes down to each individual person to decide that for themselves, but it should be clear what it should be judged on. Regrettably, that is not what most of the press are judging it by.
1) Are we making important changes to government and policy?
A political party should only be campaigning for a position of power if, when it gets there, it does something worthwhile. If it doesn't do anything, then it doesn't deserve to be in power. Have we been able to introduce important changes to policy? Have we been able to improve some of the terrible wrongs instigated by the last government? Are we solving the problems faced by society? This is the main issue: if the Lib Dems can make Britain a fairer and better place and make the important changes that have been crying out to be made for decades, nothing else matters.
On this count, my answer would be yes. We ended Child Detention. We have inreased Capital Gains and brought in a Bank Levy. We have made it possible for Ken Clarke to oppose the 'Prison Works' canon. We have scrapped ID cards (collectively). We have also basically secured the 4 things on which we campaigned - pupil premium, increased tax threshold, green economy (secondarily through having both Business & Environment Cabinet Ministers) and crucially constitutional reform. This last point is so important to Lib Dems, including myself, that it is worth stomaching everything else.
2) Would it be worse without us?
The alternative to a Lib - Con coalition was a minority Tory government (we're ruling out the coalition of losers, which is not a good idea in any way), which would lead sooner or later to a new election and a likely Tory majority. The important matter then is how much worse would everything we dislike be if we weren't in coalition? How much deeper the cuts? How much more frightening the benefit reform? How much more regressive the ideology?
On two counts, I think, the coalition passes this test. If we hadn't gone in, we'd have played havoc with both the economy (because of the uncertainty), and the chances to achieve PR (because of the perceived impossibility of a hung parliament). Secondly, under a Tory only government everything would undeniably have been worse. People levy the criticism that Cameron is just pretending to be liberal so he can be PM. I agree, but this is better than being honestly conservative. If being a good liberal is the latest turn in Cameron's populism then I encourage it. Wrong reasons, but good consequence.
3) What is it doing to our elecoral chances?
This comes last, and so it should. We do have to think about it, but not that much. We need to do stuff first. That's why, I honestly think, people are Lib Dem and not Labour/Tory. We quite frankly don't give a shit about getting elected. We want to make the country and the way it's run better. That means getting elected, but otherwise we couldn't care less about opinion polls.
It's a shame the media and much of the public seem to care more about the last than the first or second. Lib Dems, and this is as much of an appeal than a statement, shouldn't. Let's think about the credit once we've seen the consequences. If those consequences are good, then who cares about the credit?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Election 2010 - Reflections part 1
So, this election has been pretty exciting and pretty hard work. Lots to say about it so i'm going to have to break it down into a few sections.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
In January, I would have taken this result for sure. After the way the election went, I'm a bit disappointed, but mainly at the voting public. They bloomin' bottled it. They had a chance to go for something better, they agreed with what we proposed, and they just went right back to voting for the same old parties they always voted for. In Sheffield, we had a 7.4% swing and came second by 165 votes. We didn't so much lose, as not quite win enough. In the end though, too many people in Sheffield will still never vote for anyone but Labour.
The conclusion we've got is a mixed bag. It hurts to be in coalition with Tories to an unreasonable degree, and does feel like betraying everything we believe in. But it's not necessarily a bad deal at all. We have got an awful lot of very important policy in there, and some significant positions to influence government. There is no reason to think we won't have enough of an impact to both curb the more reactionary Conservative tendencies, and push a progressive agenda through classic Tory inaction. Lib Dem's with the Tories on a leash is undoubtably better than the Tories by themselves. And we have got a referendum on AV, which ain't perfect but is pretty serious change. If we can bring about a change to the voting system, that would justify anything else that happens in this government.
Yet, it just feels a bit wrong. We could take all the plaudits from a coalition victory and romp home under AV at the next election. Or we could get sidelined and co-opted into a regressive agenda that ruins both the principles of the Liberal Democrats and the voters support for our party. A part of me worries that Clegg and co have been seduced by the opportunity for power. Clegg going into Downing Street and standing next to Cameron at that press conference certainly looked a bit too happy and pleased with himself. I would be much more comfortable if he looked a little bit more put out to be working with the Tories. At the same time, having positions of power may be what we need to break through as a serious party that both voters and the media pay attention to.
Only time will tell. I hope it's kind to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
