Only a Just Society can Defeat Hard Right Populism

Geert Wilders following the Dutch General Election last November. Photo Credit: Remko de Waal/AFP/Getty Images.

 

 

Fellow centre-left progressives, there is a problem. Hard right populism is not going away. Across Britain, America and the European Union, in some respects, it is only getting stronger.

 

Last month, at a town hall event in the US state of Iowa, Donald Trump said that he would only be a dictator on “day one”. This was a chilling indication of the possible kinds of fascistic authoritarianism that we could expect should Trump return to the White House. How plausible is it to be a dictator on one day and then a wholehearted democrat the next?

 

In the EU, things are little better. In November last year, many were shocked to see the party of Geert Wilders come out on top in the Dutch General Election. It was the first time a far-right party had triumphed in the post-war history of the Netherlands. While in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally continues to be a strong force in French politics. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is polling in second place ahead of the Social Democrats of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Finally, and most alarmingly of all, in Italy last Sunday, a rally of hundreds of black shirted, raised arm saluting fascists was held in Rome. Italy’s ruling Brothers of Italy party, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, is itself a descendant of Italy’s post-war neo-fascist movement.

 

What about here in Britain? Surely, Brexit must have vanquished our hard right populist tendencies? Far from it. In a recent opinion poll, Reform UK (the rebranded Brexit Party) polled 11% in third place, ahead of the Liberal Democrats. As for the Conservative Party, it continues to lurch towards the hard right on everything from immigration to transgender rights. The former Tory Home Secretary, Suella Braverman is clearly positioning herself for a future leadership contest. Under her leadership, the Tories would become an unashamed party of the populist hard right (assuming they are not already).

 

We on the centre-left of British politics need to stop pretending that hard right populism will magically go away by itself. It won’t. If anything, it is getting stronger and more forthright on both sides of the Atlantic, not weaker. The only way to address this hard right populism is to address the social injustices, the economic hardships and the precarity that is helping to fuel it. For example, research has shown that economic inequality was a significant factor in the outcome of the 2016 Brexit Referendum.

 

Now is the time for a wholeheartedly progressive, even radical, position on social and economic policy. Britain needs a radical break from Thatcherism, not the continuation of an economic paradigm that has devastated whole communities. An economic paradigm that has led to many working class and lower middle class people having to live in profound economic insecurity and powerlessness. These are the perfect conditions of hardship, disillusionment and alienation from which hard right populism can grow in strength.

 

Ahead of the next General Election, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats need to be far bolder and more radical in their policy offerings to the public. The NHS is under severe pressure by historic standards. Poverty continues to rise. The education of children is still suffering from the impact of the pandemic. The housing crisis is continuing unabated. Tory governmental kleptocracy is rife. And Britain is woefully falling behind on meeting its climate change commitments, something that will lead to even more social injustices in the future. Put simply, things cannot go on like this.

 

If these issues remain unresolved, then the populist hard right will continue to thrive. The populist hard right offers simple divisive solutions to complex problems. They target immigrants, asylum seekers, trans people and other defenceless minorities, while ignoring the root causes of economic injustice and social hardship. Thatcherism has to end by being replaced by a new progressive consensus rooted in liberalism and real social democracy.

 

The case for introducing a Guaranteed Basic Income targeted at the poorest in-order to address poverty is overwhelming. A Guaranteed Basic Income could end structural poverty once and for all. No one should be too poor to afford to buy food or the essentials in life. It is not enough for people merely to exist; they need to thrive. Therefore, any Guaranteed Basic Income would need to rise gradually to reach the level necessary to lift people above the poverty line.

 

The NHS, schools, housing and local government cannot be “reformed” out of this crisis. They need a radical increase in public spending. This raises important questions about the method of raising tax revenue. We should shift the burden of taxation on to taxing asset-based wealth by introducing both a land value tax and a mansion tax, while increasing capital gains tax.

 

Our workplaces are in desperate need of democratisation. We should seek to adopt a model of (German-style) co-determination that would lead to a notable proportion of a company’s board being comprised of worker representatives. This should exist in tandem with increasing the number of co-operatives and mutuals within the economy.

 

Finally, we on the centre-left have to acknowledge that the privatisation of rail, water and energy has failed, while private executives and elite shareholders have benefited from the profits generated. The railways should be nationalised and brought into public ownership. We should consider doing the same for energy too (at least in terms of national energy infrastructure). Whereas the regional basis of the water industry makes it a prime candidate for mutualisation. This would see the profits of the water companies shared for the benefit of consumers, while consumers would help to elect the governing boards of the water companies.

 

These measures are needed if we are to build an economically just society. Only a just society can hope to address hard right populism. We need to forge an alternative consensus to Thatcherism, one that is centred around liberalism and social democracy. Hard right populism will only be defeated by ending the economic and social injustices that are fuelling it. Otherwise, liberal democracy in Britain and numerous other countries shall continue to suffer.

 

I will leave you with the words of Franklin D Roosevelt. “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” In 2024, progressives on both sides of the Atlantic need to heed Roosevelt’s words now more than ever.

Time to Rediscover Real Republicanism

The proposed flag of an English Republic by William James Linton.

This weekend the eyes of the world are on London for the Coronation of King Charles III. The Coronation has shown that Britain as a nation excels at delivering pomp and ceremony. This is despite the fact that the ancient tradition of coronating a King, steeped in feudal symbolism and the Protestant religion, looks increasingly out of place in a modern, secular and multicultural liberal democracy. It is also an important moment to reflect upon the republican political tradition, as dozens of republican protesters have been arrested for protesting against the Coronation and for exercising their democratic rights and freedoms.

 

What is most striking at first glance is the great poverty of republicanism in today’s Britain. By this, I do not mean that only 27% in a survey last year would support Britain becoming a republic. I mean that real republicanism has largely been forgotten. Today, republicanism is seen by most, including by most republicans, as simply meaning support for an elected head of state. This is a great philosophical injustice. This is republicanism at its most banal, its most vapid and its most politically vacuous.

 

Republicanism as a political theory is not solely, or even mostly, about having an elected head of state. In fact, throughout history many republics have not had direct elections for the head of state. A contemporary example of this is that of Germany. In Germany, the President is elected by a national Federal Convention. The Convention is comprised of elected members of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, as well as elected delegates from each of the German states. Even the American President is, strictly speaking, not directly elected. Voters in America do not vote directly to elect the President, they vote to elect delegates to the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that elects the President, not the American people directly.

 

For most republics throughout history, having an elected head of state has merely just been the cherry on top of the republican cake. Republicanism is about much more than the political nature of the head of state, it is about the political nature of the structure of government, its elected representatives and the citizens who vote for them. It is about the values, the principles, the attitudes and the political culture that informs a political society as a whole. Real republicanism is not just about a head of state, it is about the whole nature of government, citizenship and political society.

 

Republicanism as a political theory centres upon building a political society that values citizenship, virtue, democratic participation and the common good. These principles inform all the political actors (citizens, voters, activists and politicians) and all the political institutions (councils, devolved assemblies, the national parliament and the head of state) of a society. It should recognise the common citizenship of all within society, as well as believing that all citizens have a right to democratically participate in the running of the society, and that in all things, the common good must be advanced. Activists and politicians must be driven by a sense of virtue and responsibility to the people. They must recognise what is in the common good of society and always defend the principles of democratic participation for all, while respecting their political opponents and treating them with virtue.

 

Liberty is also of great importance to republicans. In his 1997 work Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, the Irish political philosopher Philip Pettit revived the concept of republican liberty. This being liberty as non-domination. The freedom of citizens to be free of the arbitrary interference of another to make certain decisions on their behalf. In other words, the liberty that comes from not being deprived of the agency and autonomy to make important decisions, that you are able to make for yourself, without your prior consent.

 

Pettit contrasts republican freedom with negative liberty, the freedom from physical restraint and coercion. However, I would argue that republican liberty is the truest expression of classical liberal negative liberty. You cannot have true freedom from coercion, unless you have liberty in the absence of domination. Not to mention, that there are aspects of republican liberty that can be identified in the works of great liberals, such as John Locke, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill.

 

Today, excellent examples of republican political societies can be seen in modern republics, such as Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Iceland and Taiwan. However, I would argue that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are more republican in terms of their political societies than the modern United States. This may seem like a controversial statement considering that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are constitutional monarchies and not republics. These Scandinavian countries with strong political traditions centred around community and social democracy are far more in keeping with the values and principles of a republican political society than the US. Especially those parts of modern America that are gripped by divisive right-wing politics, conspiracy theories, the rejection of democratic principles and the post-truth fascistic politics of Donald Trump. The modern US Republican Party is far removed from advocating for real republicanism. It truly is “Republican” in name only.

 

The first step towards Britain becoming a Republic is to build a republican political society. Individual republicans can start to do this right now by embodying the republican principles of public service, virtue, mutual citizenship and the common good in all of their actions. Republics are built by citizens, not just by political institutions and national titles. Regardless of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, there is nothing to stop republican principles from being advanced throughout British society and British politics. We can start to lay the foundations for a future British Republic by embodying republican principles in our personal political conduct. In time, if practiced widely enough, this would foster a political society that centres around a richly republican political culture of citizenship, virtue, democratic participation, republican freedom and the common good.

 

It would help in the development of a popular republican imaginary, if republicans in Britain today had a symbol behind which they could rally behind. Republican movements throughout the ages have used flags to symbolise the republican rebirth of their nations. The best example of this is the blue–white-red vertical striped French tricolour that originated in the first French Revolution of 1789. In The English Republic, published in 1851, William James Linton proposed a blue–white–green horizontal striped tricolour (see above) to be the flag of his English Republic. British republicans previously used a red-white-green horizontal tricolour from the early 19^th century until the early 20^th century. However, this flag is identical to the modern flag of Hungary. Therefore, it is imperative that British republicans create a modern flag to represent the republican movement and the republican political society and government they hope to build.

 

This Coronation weekend, we must remember that republicanism is a deep and rich political philosophy that amounts to far more than just the nature of a country’s head of state. To build a Republic without republicanism is a fruitless task. If Britain was today to start having an elected head of state, without the formation of a republican political society, it would be a “Republic” in name only. Let us begin to build a liberal democratic Commonwealth by fostering a new republican form of politics in our society. The time has come for British republicans to rediscover real republicanism.

Why Ending Big Landlordism is the Liberal Thing to do

 

Housing Crisis Graphic – Credit: Leonie Woods, as used by the Financial Times

 

Britain’s economic model is broken. Nothing epitomises this more clearly than the housing market. For a significant number of people under the age of 40, living in rented property is a way of life. This is especially the case in Britain’s bigger cities.

 

Rent is the payment that tenants pay to their landlords for being able to live in the property that their landlords own. The widespread nature of landlordism in the modern British economy is the very antithesis of a commitment to widening property ownership. Our economic model has degenerated into a form of rentier capitalism, where the prospect of property ownership is becoming more and more a remote fantasy for millions of renters. Liberals need to put an end to the big landlordism that is perverting both our economy and our housing market.

 

The government should pass a law making it illegal for anyone to own more than two properties which they do not themselves live in. Any excess properties that someone owns, above the two unlived in properties limit, should be bought up by local councils at a fair price (minus the amount of any rent payments already extracted from the property) and turned into new council housing. We should also reform the Right to Buy making it a legal requirement that for every council house sold, a new council house must be built.

 

I am not going to pretend that ending big landlordism would be easy or cheap. Sadly, it will not be. Local councils will need significant additional funding from the state in order to buy up the new council housing properties from the big landlords, this is on top of over a decade of austerity whereby council budgets have been cut to the bone. However, it would enable councils to deliver more council housing to the poorest and most vulnerable, while also seeing an additional increase in the council’s revenue from the tenants of council housing. This additional council revenue could then be spent on public projects to benefit the community. Perhaps, the additional council revenue could form the basis of a national fund to redistribute the revenue, on an egalitarian basis, to poorer council areas with lower property prices.

 

Big landlordism is parasitical and monopolistic in its nature. It may well lie at the heart of rentier capitalism, but it corrupts and distorts the operation of a true capitalist free market. There is nothing wrong with people being able to buy and own the homes that they live in. There is everything wrong with a greedy landlord owning multiple properties and being able to sustain a life of luxury solely by extracting rent income from other people. There is nothing more anti-capitalist in truth, than being able to live solely on unearned rent income. Rent income should be used only to supplement an average lifestyle for the landlord, it should not be used to entirely fund a lifestyle of opulence and extravagance.

 

A policy to end big landlordism would lead to a truly competitive housing market. Big landlordism acts, as any private monopoly does within an economy, to prevent effective competition, while forcing tenants to pay the rent they set, regardless of whether the rent rate is fair or not. Whereas local councils are motivated to address the needs and concerns of their residents, the big landlords are primarily concerned with profit maximisation and the expansion of their property portfolios. In addition, councils can be held to account at the ballot box and their tenants would have the right to buy their properties, so long as the council replaces them like for like.

 

With big landlordism prevented, landlords would no longer be able to dominate entire sections of communities. The landlords that remain would have to offer fairer rents in order to attract tenants in what would be a fairer, more equal, competitive housing market. The policy of preventing people from owning more than two properties that they do not live in would also end egregious property speculation. This has seen private property owners buy up multiple properties only in order to increase their own personal wealth assets. This in turn, increases the property prices of other properties in the neighbourhood and thus, makes those properties more unaffordable for poorer and first-time buyers.

 

Big landlordism is a barrier to the creation of an egalitarian capitalist economy or what James Meade and John Rawls called a property-owning democracy. It is the barrier to the creation of an economy based on radical social liberal principles. Liberals, even those classical and economic liberals that value competitive free markets, should oppose the predominance of big landlordism and rentier capitalism within our contemporary economy.

 

The end of greedy and monopolistic big landlordism would represent a great step on the road towards the establishment of a true property-owning democracy. It would represent a great step towards an egalitarian capitalism. But most of all, it would help to deliver social justice for those most in need of council housing, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.

A Flag for Social Liberalism

 

My design of a flag to represent social liberalism.

 

Politics is a world of colours, symbols and flags. This is certainly the case for almost all political parties in democratic countries. Political symbolism has also been associated with particular political ideologies. The red flag and the red star are universally recognised symbols associated with socialism, with the hammer and sickle and the red rose being associated with communism and social democracy respectively. Another example is the association of anarchism with the black flag and the black circled capital A.

 

In this blog article, I outline my proposal for a flag to represent social liberalism. The flag that I have designed has a set of balanced yellow weighing scales at the centre of a red vertical stripe that covers the left third of the flag. The remaining two-thirds of the flag is yellow. I shall first outline a broad definition of social liberalism, before explaining my rationale for my flag design in the preceding sections of my article.

What is social liberalism?

Social liberalism is a progressive political ideology that emphasises the need to have social justice in order to enhance and facilitate the rights and freedoms of the individual. It is not to be confused with cultural liberalism, as is often the case in American political discourse.

 

Cultural liberalism refers to the equal liberties, equal rights and equal opportunities of all individuals, regardless of their personal characteristics. In other words, it is the part of liberalism that emphasises the rights of marginalised groups, such as women’s rights, LGBT+ rights and the rights of ethnic minority groups. All liberals should ideally adhere to cultural liberalism, regardless of whether they are social liberals, economic liberals, centrist liberals or green liberals etc.

 

All social liberals should adhere to cultural liberalism, however what distinguishes social liberalism as a distinctive school of liberal thought is the emphasis it places on social justice. Social liberals advocate for the most equitable distribution of wealth and resources throughout society within the framework of a capitalist liberal democracy. Access to wealth and social resources (such as healthcare, education, housing, fair employment, workers’ rights and the arts and culture) is vital in enabling individuals to realise their personhood and maximise their talents and abilities to the full. We therefore might think of social liberalism as social justice liberalism, social welfare liberalism or social resources liberalism.

 

In the 20^th century, social liberals in Britain and America advocated for the establishment of welfare systems and the advancement of workers’ rights. An excellent historic example of a social liberal government would be the American New Deal administration of President Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930s. In more recent times, social liberals have called for urgent action to address climate change and have begun to advocate for a universal basic income.

 

On the traditional political spectrum, social liberalism is situated on the centre-left. This is due to its emphasis on social reform and political reform, as well as its opposition to entrenched inequalities and social hardships. In addition, it rejects right-wing politics and economics, the centrist status quo and the revolutionary anti-capitalist politics of the hard left. Political thinkers that made important contributions to social liberalism include John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill, Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes, John Rawls and Amartya Sen.

 

Why does social liberalism need a flag?

The purpose of a flag for social liberalism is to distinguish its identity as a political movement. it is to provide it with political symbolism to be recognised on an international scale. Social liberal parties are few and far between internationally and in many countries, they face challenges from more dominant economic liberal parties. Across continental Europe, Latin America and Australasia, social liberal parties are often overshadowed by larger economic liberal parties and a general political culture that associates liberalism with the economic right. A flag would give social liberalism a clear presence as a distinctive school of thought and activism within liberalism.

 

A universally recognised flag would give social liberals a clearer voice and political identity. It would give social liberals are political presence and allow them to cooperate more confidently within nations and across borders. It would also highlight the social liberal involvement in wider political and social movements, while increasing the popular political awareness of the social liberal perspective and analysis of politics and economics.

 

Why balanced weighing scales?

I chose the symbol of a set of evenly balanced weighing scales due to its historical association with the values of liberty, justice, fairness and equality, values that all social liberals share. In particular, it represents the liberal politics of social justice as exemplified through the works of Green, Hobhouse, Rawls and Sen. The symbol of the balanced weighing scales represents a synthesis between the ideals of liberalism and the ideals of social justice as epitomised by social liberalism.

 

Why use the colour yellow?

Yellow is already widely associated with liberalism. The colour features prominently in the logo of the Liberal International and is used by national liberal parties in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Estonia, Latvia and as far afield as the Philippines. It is due to the pre-existing strong colour association between yellow and liberalism that I chose to use it to colour the majority of my flag.

 

Beyond this, yellow is also widely associated with the values of happiness, optimism, creativity and intellect, all of which are positive traits that any liberal society would aim to foster. Yellow is also a distinctive colour, when compared to other political movements that already have strong colour associations, such as socialism and red, ecologism and green, feminism and purple and to a large extent, conservatism and blue. The one clear drawback to using the colour yellow is that in America, it has become associated with some right-wing movements, such as the Tea Party Movement (which appropriated the yellow rattlesnake Gadsden Flag), the libertarian right and anarcho-capitalism. This is why I thought it was important not to use a single colour yellow flag, so as to distinguish it from those rightist political movements.

 

The particular shade of yellow I chose to use was that of the golden yellow used on the bird logo of the British Liberal Democrats. On my flag, yellow symbolises liberality, freedom and individuality. It is there to represents social liberalism’s presence within the wider international liberal movement, with its roots in the European and American political traditions.

 

Why use the colour red?

The second colour on my flag is the colour red. The usage of red has a long political history. Today, it is mostly associated with socialism and social democracy. However, in the 19^th century, it was the colour of political radicalism and was thus appropriated by liberals, republicans and anarchists, as well as by socialists.

 

Prior to the rise of socialism as a democratic force, red was linked to liberalism in electoral politics, especially across the Americas. Several liberal parties in both North and South America still use the colour red to this day. This includes several social liberal parties in the region, such as the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Honduras, the Colombian Liberal Party and the Colorado Party in Uruguay, all these parties have their roots in the 19^th century. The most obvious exception to this is the US Democratic Party, which in recent decades has been associated with the colour blue.

 

The exact shade of red I chose to use is the shade that is present on the logo and party flag of the Liberal Party of Honduras. I also felt it was important to include a colour from a well-established liberal party from a developing world country. Liberalism, especially social liberalism, is not just for developed comparatively wealthy Western democracies, it is for all countries regardless of their level of development. The red on my flag is used to symbolise social justice, equality and solidarity, as well as social liberalism’s roots in the radical movement of the 19th century and its presence as a progressive left movement today.

 

Who should use this flag?

I have specifically designed this political flag to be used by all social liberals, welfare liberals, radical liberals and left-liberals. Any and all proud centre-left liberals should feel free to appropriate this flag. It has been specifically designed to represent social liberalism, social liberal activists and supporters, it is not meant for any other purpose other than this. I do not endorse the use of my flag or its symbolism for any other purpose. I hope it will be used to identify social liberals in numerous countries, within political parties and to represent social liberalism within wider political and social movements.

 

May this flag become a symbol of those liberals who strive for a synthesis between individual liberty and social justice. May this yellow and red flag come to epitomise the liberal politics of social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth and resources needed for individuals to maximise their individuality.

Tribalism: A Fair Warning

Well, I am once again a member of the yellow political tribe, after rejoining the Liberal Democrats last month. This has led me to think a lot about the place of political parties and the impact of tribalism within democracy. In this article, I discuss tribalism and issue a warning to everyone who cares about a viable functioning liberal democracy.

I have been a member of a political party for most of my adult life. For most of that time I have been a member of the Liberal Democrats and I was briefly a member of the Green Party; it is safe to say that party affiliation has always been an important part of my political identity. As is the adversarial nature of British politics, I have occasionally fallen foul of petty tribalism myself and petty point scoring. Social media (especially Twitter) seems to exacerbate tribalist temptations. On reflection, what did my tribalism achieve? Arguably, very little, save a political ego boost. So, in part, this article is a warning to myself, as much as it is a warning to anyone else.

Liberals and progressives of all kinds have often critiqued nationalism and egoism for breeding hatred and selfishness. Tribalism is merely nationalism extrapolated to the level of political parties. It breeds mistrust, even hatred, towards other people for no other reason than that they are a member of another political tribe. The tribal mentality informs nationalism just as much as it informs party tribalism. It also informs the group egoism and privilege that informs many parties, especially parties which often exercise political power. The defence of tribe is as powerful within political discourse as it is dangerous.

Tribalism is poison in the veins of any liberal democracy. While competition between parties is vital to any multi-party democracy, tribalist mistrust and selfishness is corrosive to the political culture of any liberal democracy. If left unchecked, it can breed irreconcilable differences, differences that in time can breed extremism which can endanger a viable liberal democracy. It also breeds cynicism and mistrust towards politics and democracy amongst the general population, further making politics susceptible to forms of political extremism.

A liberal democracy can only survive as long as there is a degree of cooperation between its major political actors and a democratic consensus between the major political parties. No democracy can endure with irreconcilable differences with swathes of the population no longer trusting elected politicians or the institutions of democracy. Liberal democracy rests on its political actors being driven by the pursuit of the common good and the public interest. If they allow tribalism and the vested interest to get in the way of the common good and the public interest, it will undermine the very foundations upon which a healthy democracy rests.

In a true democracy, all citizens are political actors. Therefore, all citizens are responsible for their political conduct and are responsible for the type of democracy their conduct leads to. If you want a democracy that rests upon hate, cynicism and tribe; be hateful, cynical and tribal. If you want to democracy that is kind, cooperative and respectful; be kind, cooperative and respectful yourself. As free, rational political actors, we have political agency. We are responsible for our political actions, and we are responsible for the type of democracy that we create.

No political party has a monopoly on political wisdom or good policies. All democratic parties can learn from one another. Despite now being a Liberal Democrat again, I still admire other progressive parties. I deeply admire the Green Party (which I was briefly a member of). It has a vital role to play in combating the climate emergency and in campaigning for climate justice. Caroline Lucas continues to be my favourite non-Lib Dem MP. In Zack Polanski, the Greens have an exceptional Deputy Leader. I also admire progressive politicians across the Labour Party, as well as Labour’s sister party, the Co-operative Party. I have even admired moderate Conservatives in the past, such as Ken Clarke, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston (the latter two subsequently defected to the Liberal Democrats). I take inspiration from the Attlee and Wilson Labour governments of the past, as well as from the Macmillan Conservative government.

The first past the post voting system breeds adversarial politics through its winner takes all approach to elections. This helps to ingrain a zero-sum game approach within British politics. I believe that moving to proportional representation (preferably the single transferable vote) would lead to a strengthening of British political culture and would equally create a politics that is kinder, more collegial and more respectful. PR would naturally result in parties having to work together more often. You cannot be a supporter of multi-party liberal democracy and believe in a narrow range of viable political opinion. In a true liberal democracy, political opinion should be as wide as possible, with the exception of parties and political actors that advocate hatred towards minorities or violence. No liberal democracy should ever tolerate intolerance, for that has an even bigger corrosive impact on the foundations of liberal democracy than any form of party tribalism.

British politics needs to be more pluralistic and parties need to cooperate more. This is especially the case for progressive parties. I have long advocated for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to work together when and wherever possible. To this end, it is vital that at the next general election, all three parties campaign tactically to focus their resources on constituencies where they are best placed to unseat incumbent Tories. This must also be accompanied by the most sophisticated and wide-ranging tactical voting campaign ever seen in a British election. Tactical voting should actively be encouraged by all progressive parties due to the shortcomings of first past the post. It is also essential that all the progressive parties stand on a common platform of proportional representation, Lords reform, ending the climate emergency, opposing austerity and saving the NHS.

Let us be kinder and more respectful to our fellow democrats. While legitimate criticism and policy disagreements are essential for democratic political discourse, let us never stop trying to find the common ground between the parties. Let us strive for consensus and the common ground with the same righteous energy that we call out injustice, hatred and discrimination. Democracy ultimately rests upon a just and fair overlapping consensus between citizens and major political actors. Let’s build bridges of fairness, not walls of tribal intolerance.

In a liberal democracy, we have the freedom to speak, but that implicitly means that we have the freedom (even the responsibility) to listen to one another. In our social media age, we have mastered the prior and neglected the latter. A viable liberal democracy requires debate, but it equally requires dialogue. We must not lose sight of this. If you want a build a healthier, stronger, kinder democracy, then spend more time finding out what we have in common with each other politically, than on highlighting what we disagree on. It’s that simple!

The Strange Rebirth of my Liberal Democrat Membership

Liberal Peer and father of the post-war welfare state, William Beveridge (left) with Liberal Party Leader, Jo Grimond (centre) and Liberal Peer, Frank Byers in 1960.

Credit: Press Association Photos  

I began 2021 as a member of the Liberal Democrats, I will end 2022 as a member of the Liberal Democrats. This statement does not do justice to the political hiatus which I chose to undertake for much of that period. I initially left the Liberal Democrats in February 2021, only to find myself rejoining now 22 months later in December 2022.

 

The reasons I initially chose to leave the Liberal Democrats back in February 2021 were a mixture of reasons. Firstly, the dejection I felt following Ed Davey’s victory in the leadership election of 2020. Secondly, my concern that the party was not doing enough to reach out to left behind working class communities. The final reason was the anguish I felt trying to explain the hardships caused by Coalition austerity, especially following what I have experienced here in Blackpool. All of which led to profound disillusionment for me.

 

So, what has changed in the last 22 months? I have been pleasantly surprised by the performance of the Liberal Democrats during that time. Not only did the party win a series of by-election victories in Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire and Tiverton and Honiton, but the party also seems to be recovering some of its centre-left identity. From being first to propose a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants, to attempting to extend free school meals to all schoolchildren in receipt of universal credit, to opposing the Tories’ undemocratic plans for voter ID, that will impact working class people the most; the latter two Labour abstained on in the Lords. In addition, the party is committed to trans rights, rejoining the European Single Market, supporting the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers and only on Tuesday called for a ban on home repossessions and evictions over Christmas.

 

I also found encouragement from the annual general meeting of the Social Liberal Forum earlier in the week. At which, I successfully got a motion passed calling for a recommitment to a social liberal Keynesian approach to the economy, along with which, I also got the SLF to commit to supporting the strike action by NHS nurses. The final encouragement I got came yesterday, following a long political conversation with a good Liberal Democrat friend, who is also a student of radical social liberal politics.

 

To fully understand my decision to “re-rat” (as Churchill said upon rejoining the Conservative Party in 1924), it is important for me to discuss the political journey that I have been on in the last few months. In October last year, I joined the Green Party and left in the April of this year. All in all, I have a lot of time for the Green Party and recognise that it has a lot of values and policies that it shares with the Liberal Democrats. However, I did have several policy differences with the Greens, especially on HS2, nuclear power, Scottish independence and NATO. I was also shocked by how well organised a vocal transphobic minority was in the party. Finally, as a self-conscious liberal, my personal principles and values had remained solidly committed to social liberalism, a fact which came increasingly difficult to reconcile with the more dominant eco-socialist and deep ecologist factions within the party.

 

In short, I felt that the Green Party was not the right fit for me politically. But, I should say that I still have a few good friends in the Green Party, including former Liberal Democrats, and that I hope where possible, the two parties will work together. I have always held to a pluralist attitude to politics, and that is not going to stop now. Venomous petty tribalism breeds popular cynicism, that is dangerous and damaging for any viable liberal democracy. Parties, especially progressive parties, should be prepared to work together to advance the issues, policies and aims that they have in common.

 

Following my departure from the Green Party, I began to become more interested in the Co-operative Party and by extension the Labour Party of Keir Starmer. I even went to the Co-operative Party conference, held in Leeds in October this year. Remarkably, you do not need to be a Co-op Party member in order to go to their conference. I like and admire the Co-op Party and have been a supporter of the co-operative movement for much of my political life. However, it became increasingly clear to me that there would never be a place for me in a party so closely aligned to an increasingly authoritarian Labour Party. I also believe, that at a philosophical level, the co-operative economic model has often been stifled by the statism of the Labour Party. Considering that the Co-op Party does not stand independent candidates in its own right, I could never be a member of a party that required me to be silent on the unjust and authoritarian policies and attitudes of the Starmer Labour Party.

 

I have spent the last few months reflecting on British politics, and I do not deny that there is a certain freedom that comes from being strictly independent of any political party. However, my politics remain that of the radical social liberal tradition. This is the tradition of John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor, Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse, John Dewey, William Beveridge, Jo Grimond, James Meade and Charles Kennedy. No party is truly perfect and no party has a monopoly on political wisdom. I came to the view, that the radical liberal tradition needed to be preserved and that it would be a tragedy if it was allowed to perish from British politics. Ultimately, it has become important for me to rejoin a clan of fellow social liberals. Independence is nice, political kinship is even better.

 

At a time when the Conservatives are presiding over a historic cost of living crisis with immense social injustice on the rise, and with Labour seemingly getting more authoritarian and small-c conservative by the day, it is impossible for me to remain independent at this moment in British political history. Given that I now realise that neither the Greens nor the Co-op Party are the right fits for me politically, rejoining the Liberal Democrats became the only realistic alternative to being independent. I am encouraged by the party’s commitment to universal basic income (UBI). Even if UBI gets slightly watered down to being a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) at some point (as is being considered to my understanding), I would be more than happy to campaign for a Liberal Democrat party committed to either UBI or GMI as one of its top policies.

 

I regret to inform that I am not about to become an apologist for Coalition austerity, nor am I going to turn my back on forging a more pluralist politics (neither of which I did the last time I was a member of the Liberal Democrats). If anything, I have returned to the Liberal Democrats to fight for the values, principles and radical policies I believe in. It is easy to snipe from the side-lines, I have done some of that, but I have decided that the radical liberal tradition needs to be fought for and its flame rekindled. At least in my mind, I have come to realise that there is no more natural home for this tradition than within the Liberal Democrats. Where the party is lacking, I intend to fight to make it better. The first attempt to do so will probably begin very soon.

 

The Liberal Democrats and British liberalism more broadly have a lot to contribute to building a fairer, freer, greener and more socially just society. There needs to be a battle of ideas about the future of British politics and radical social liberalism needs to be at the heart of it. Above all, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be true to its commitment in the preamble to the party’s constitution that “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”. I, along with thousands of other Liberal Democrats, will fight to ensure that this is the case.

An Emergency 10 Point Action Plan to Alleviate the Cost of Living Crisis

(Photo Credit: Fuel Poverty Action)

 

At the start of next week, Britain will have a new Prime Minister, most likely Liz Truss. A Truss government is likely to be the most right-wing government in decades, combining a dogmatic commitment to Thatcherite economics with a nationalist emphasis on the culture wars. But regardless, Britain faces the biggest cost of living crisis since at least the 1970s. We are witnessing two lost decades of living standard growth combined with inflation that could reach 22%.

 

At the start of next month, the average energy bill will rise by 80%. Millions of people, potentially tens of millions, are facing the very real prospect of fuel poverty this autumn and winter. Regardless of the neoliberal dogma of the new Conservative government, decisive state action is required to mitigate this cost of living crisis.

 

Here, I outline a 10 point action plan of emergency policies that the new Prime Minister needs to enact in the coming weeks in order to alleviate the impact of the cost of living crisis.

 

1. Freeze the Energy Price Cap

If the government goes ahead with the planned rise of the Energy Price Cap at the start of October, millions will be pushed into fuel poverty. Initially the Liberal Democrats, and now Labour too, have called for October’s rise in the Energy Price Cap to be scrapped. This should be financed by a new windfall tax on the profits of the big oil and gas companies. If the cap is allowed to rise, it will cause unprecedented social injustice and social hardship. This must be prevented. Freezing the rise in the Energy Price Cap would also have another beneficial side-effect, according to Labour, it would reduce inflation by 4%.

 

2. Extend the Energy Price Cap to all Households

Remarkably, not all households are protected by the Energy Price Cap. Housing association properties with communal heating are not covered by the cap. Many such properties are used to house elderly, vulnerable and disabled people. They are also the people who most require to heat their homes. The Energy Price Cap must be extended to all properties, especially all housing association properties and properties with communal heating.

 

3. Extend the Energy Price Cap to Small and Medium-Sized Businesses

Pubs have recently warned that they risk going out of business without further protection from the government. The same will be true for countless small businesses across the country. If the Energy Price Cap is not extended to all small and medium-sized businesses, then the cost of living crisis will rapidly become an economic crisis as thousands of businesses face going to the wall and going bust. The Energy Price Cap must therefore immediately be extended to cover all small and medium-sized businesses.

 

4. Extend the Energy Price Cap to Schools

We cannot allow schoolchildren to go cold this winter. Especially as school budgets are already highly stretched, as schools struggle to catch up from the impact of the pandemic. Having a warm and well-lit classroom is essential for the learning outcomes of schoolchildren. Anything that prevents schools from using energy this autumn and winter will have in adverse impact on children’s education. The Energy Price Cap must be extended to all schools.

 

5. Extend the Energy Price Cap to the NHS

The NHS is already in crisis. Its budget is stretched to breaking point. The service itself is beginning to become dysfunctional as waiting times spiral upwards. Morale in the NHS remains very low. The additional energy costs will stretch the NHS even further. This cannot be allowed to happen. The Energy Price Cap must be extended to cover the entirety of the NHS and the social care sector.

 

6. Rollout Mass Home Insulation

The climate emergency does not stop just because we are having a cost of living crisis. However, some green policies can help to address both. The government needs to urgently roll out the mass insulation of homes across the country. This would reduce individual households’ reliance on energy as they would be able to keep more of the heat they produce in their homes. This would both reduce carbon emissions and lead to lower energy bills.

 

7. Double the Household Support Fund

The Household Support Fund is an emergency fund delivered by local councils. The funding is used to help people struggling to afford food and to pay their energy bills. It targets the poorest and most vulnerable. Following calls from the Co-operative Party, the state must at least double the Household Support Fund in order to double the help for the people at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis.

 

8. Introduce a Weekly £30 Uplift to Universal Credit

During the pandemic, the government introduced a weekly £20 uplift for everyone in receipt of Universal Credit. In a subsequent shameful move, the government has since cut the £20 uplift. In order to give additional support for claimants receiving Universal Credit, a new £30 a week uplift needs to be introduced. The slightly higher amount is a reflection on rising prices and the rising cost of living.

 

9. Extend Free School Meals to all the Poorest Children

We cannot allow children to go hungry this autumn and winter. That is why free school meals must be extended to all the children of families where at least one parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal Credit. The Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords attempted to bring in this change, however the proposed amendment was opposed by the Conservatives, with most of Labour abstaining. This change must now happen. All of the poorest schoolchildren must receive free school meals.

 

10. Give all Adults a £500 Social Dividend Payment

In order to address the cost of living crisis, people need more money. On top of other measures already pledged by the government, the government must give every adult in the country a one-off social dividend payment of £500. A similar thing happened in America during the pandemic, when individuals were given up to $1,200. To ensure the maximum fairness of the policy, the dividend payment should be subject to income tax, meaning that those on higher incomes will have a proportion of their social dividend taxed back. This also makes the policy more affordable. A one-off £500 social dividend payment would be a vital lifeline for tens of millions across the country.