In the coming election Lib Dems have cast themselves as the
“reasonable Party”. The “In the middle
Party”. The “Neither extreme left nor
extreme right Party”. Labour to the Left
of them, Tories to the Right. As a Lib Dem
I have a problem with this. I don’t want
to be in the middle. I want to be out in
front. Other supporters and members I
have spoken seem to feel the same way.
The question is how do we get there?
Of course Labour and Conservative parties want to represent
a wide swathe of society. They have to
or they would not get elected. But at
the heart of their positions they are partisan.
Labour says tax the rich to help the disadvantaged in society. That will, and does happen; the rich will
always pay more tax than the poor, as do those in the middle. But the message is one of envy. It is mean spirited and partisan and however
you phrase it, it divides society into “us” and “them”.
On the other hand, Conservatives say they stand for
aspiration; they want a society where everyone has the opportunity to work hard
and be better rewarded. But somehow the
bulk of the prize seems to go to the richest few. Their appeal to the richer in society is to
keep what you’ve got and their appeal to the poorer (and not-so poor) is that
you can aspire to be rich. And if not
rich then at least you can aspire to own your own home. But at the end of the day the philosophy is as
mean spirited and selfish as the Labour message. The aspiration is not just to do better, but
be like “one of them”; own your home, go to a private school, drive a flash
car. The words of the song “the working
class can lick my arse, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last” say it all.
Conservatives can continue to appeal to the Upper Class. Labour
can appeal to the Lower Class. But almost
all of us are working class today; the minimum wage carer, the teacher, the
engineer, apprentice, accountant, senior manager, even the journalist and
politician. They all have to work hard. They are the new working class. I say Workers of the World Unite, and let
Lib-Dems be the party of this new working class.
Of course there will always be richer and poorer people. Markets mean that some skills are valued more
highly than others while circumstance and serendipity also play a part. One can, one should, aspire to improve one’s
position but, to use the football analogy, not everyone has the ability to be a
Premiership footballer. Furthermore no-one
is born with the right to play in the Premiership; they have to earn it and
continue to do so in order to stay there. But the reality is that most people will be
playing in one of the lower divisions, and they are still a long way from a
playground kick-about. So some people will only ever work in relatively poor
paid jobs, while others will through a mixture of ability, effort and desire,
be more successful. So it should be with
society and those who earn less should be recognised for the contribution they
make to that society, because without them it would not exist.
Money is not the only measure of value, of status, of pride
or of standing. “The rich” need “the
poor”, and vice versa. We are all part
of society, part of one nation. One Nation Conservatism sought to stand for
that but their basic model meant that it inevitably favoured the small
oligarchy of rich and powerful that ran Britain. They were the chosen, mainly by birth, the
paternalistic oligarchy that ran Britain to keep things the “way they are”,
which suited them best of course.
But one nation should mean a society in which everyone is
treated fairly, justly and with respect, that their worth is recognised, that they
have influence over their lives, that the well-off recognise the contribution
made by the less well-off and vice versa.
Lib Dems can bring about that society.
Perhaps that is the basis of the current slogan of a Stronger Economy, a
Fairer Society. Lib Dems can be the real
party of the Nation.
In a Liberal Democrat One Nation there will continue to be
widely divergent wealth within society for lots of reasons, some listed above,
but everyone should receive a fair wage for their effort. If we cannot afford to pay a living wage, then
we cannot afford the service or goods provided.
Payment of benefits to under-paid workers is as much a distortion of
free markets as a minimum wage and has further undesirable consequences by encouraging
an undesirable attitude towards the role of the state as well as undermining
individual’s personal sense of worth. So
far from being heavy handed state interference in the market, I would argue
that a minimum living wage actually makes markets work more effectively.
A Liberal Democrat One Nation means that everyone recognises
that they have a role in making it an attractive, fair, egalitarian, place to
live. A fair society recognises that
people fall on hard times and a society with a significant number of
disenfranchised people struggling to survive is unstable and unattractive. Wealthy people will happily pay taxes to live
in a state where it is safe to walk the street, which is not made up of
ghettos, slums and gated communities, where roads are surfaced and lit. The term “progressive” taxation to me does
not only mean that the wealthy pay more; it also stands for a forward-looking
society to which all citizens are proud to belong.
In a Liberal Democrat One Nation everyone would have a say in
the way society in which they live is organised; in their regions, towns,
neighbourhoods. Central government will
always have a role in providing coherence, the bigger picture, grand projects,
and the essentials of defence, peace and justice, as well as services such as
health, education and others where common standards are of benefit to society
as a whole. But more power should be
devolved closer to where decisions have an impact, subject to efficiency of
course. We should not be afraid of allowing
a thousand flowers to bloom (perhaps not quite as Chairman Mao did), as
different parts of our nation try to solve their problems differently..
A Liberal Democrat One Nation means that the diversity of
people’s views should be reflected in our public life. No more partisan politics. Instead of Punch
& Judy knocking sense out of each other, can we have thoughtful,
intelligent politics where divergent views are respected and accommodated as
far as possible. Let people vote for whom they want, not negatively,
not tactically “to stop the other lot getting in”. The 2015 election will probably see the
biggest range of parties represented in Westminster in three generations, but
how many of those who voted will have a stake in the government that is formed? Unless there is a coalition, it will be a
minority of those who voted and an even smaller minority of the electorate as a
whole. But ultimately the electoral
system should change. With the right
electoral system you can even vote for a coalition; Single Transferrable Vote
multi-seat constituencies mean you can vote for more than one party if you
wish! But in the meantime, the last parliament
demonstrated the moderating benefits of coalition even without proportional
representation.
Liberal Democrat One Nation means recognising cultural and
philosophical diversity. The regions of
the UK are different from each other and ethnic groups in the UK have different
roots, all of which should be allowed a place.
But recognising diversity works both ways. When people come to this country from abroad
they do so because they are attracted by the values and opportunities that the
British way of life offers. They need to
be helped to embrace those values, which the vast majority of individuals do. Religion, which is inherently authoritarian
in nature, and community leaders who are suited by their power base, can be
barriers to integration. Religion should
be taken out of public life (that includes the Church of England) and out of
all schools. English is the language of
public life and should be learned, and spoken, by all. People will learn and speak other languages for
cultural or reasons or because they want to. I believe that speaking more than
one language is a great personal attribute and contributes to mutual
understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment