A View from the Swamp

Before I move on the Europe, I realised this morning that I haven’t talked about the word “Democrat” in the name of our party. Is it just a redundant hang-over from the merger of the Liberal party and the SDP in 1988?

In many senses, I think it is, but in one important sense I still think it is vital. Though political liberalism has democracy at its core, it does not really talk about pluralism and representation.

We live in a plural society where there is a broad spectrum of opinions. “Democrat” stresses the point that this range of opinions should be expressed fairly and proportionally at all levels of government. Unless and until we achieve the political (and electoral) reforms required, we still need that word.

Many are upset that we haven’t got any form of proportional representation from The Coalition. Personally, I am happy (and surprised) at the level of reform in the agreement. Though we can point at examples across Europe and the rest of the world where proportional systems work, I think it would be irresponsible of us to impose a proportional system until we demonstrate that coalition government works in this country. Now is our opportunity to do just that!

But what about “fairness” and “social justice”? Don’t they also require that “Democrat” word? I don’t think so; they are embodied in the concepts political and social liberalism. I’m much more comfortable with social liberalism than I am with the Labour concept (which we inherited through the SDP) of “social justice.”

The reason is not the policies they imply: they both need a tax system with variable rates depending on income and they both need a benefit system. Where I think they differ is in motivation. To me, “social justice” is entangled with Fabian concepts of redistribution, a feeling that somehow wealth is bad, and a feeling that education is somehow subsidiary. Social liberalism is about ensuring everyone is free from poverty, has housing and healthcare, and (most importantly) education. It is about ensuring everyone is free (and has the opportunity) to earn to their maximum ability. We should have no issue with the rich or even the super-rich; but we should not allow people to live in poverty and ignorance, unable to enjoy their freedoms.

The Labour approach has left us with a benefit system littered with poverty traps and huge disincentives to work. These poverty traps have also fostered an ignorance trap where young people feel unable to exploit their educational opportunities because of the loss of benefit to their parents.

I would like to see a radical reform of the entire benefits structure. I don’t know what the ideal system should look like. I just know the current system is awful.

It occurs to me that housing policy could help us move to a greener economy and could help achieve carbon targets.  I’d propose that new housing be built from sustainable materials wherever possible.  So what does this mean?  I think the primary effect would be to encourage timber buildings.  So long as the timber comes from sustainably farmed southern temperate or tropical softwood this would over time, sequester (capture and store) large amounts of carbon.  My own house has been successfully storing tonnes of carbon for four centuries!

Why the restriction to southern temperate or tropical softwood?  Largely because large areas of forest lower the albedo in regions that get snow in winter, increasing net insolation.

After I wrote about the “Big Society” there was some debate about what I said about pubs and cheap supermarket booze.  Well, it seems the coalition agrees with me on this issue:

• We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.
• We will review alcohol taxation and pricing to ensure it tackles binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries.

And on the other side of the issue, there are of course measures to ensure licenses can be reviewed (and revoked) and measures to discourage under-age drinking.

Developing the idea of communities further, not only do we all belong to geographic communities, but we belong to a wide range of other communities, some defined by our hobbies, some defined by our professions, and some defined by our beliefs.  For example, I belong to a community of re-enactors, a community of engineers, and a community of liberals.

Representation in parliament is currently limited to the geographic communities we belong to, as expressed by the administrative hierarchy I’ve already talked about.  Should the other communities we belong to have any form of representation and how could this be achieved?

I find it hard to imaging any system that enables representation of the full range of communities I belong to, but it feels there should be some kind of non-geographic representation.

To some extent the voting system used in Germany allows this.  Under the “Alternative Member System” (AMS) you cast two votes: one for your constituency and one where you express your party preference.  At the very least this allows you to vote for the candidate you think will do best for your constituency and separately vote for the party you think best represents the sum total of your beliefs and interests.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg plan to talk about their policy ideas for a “Big Society” on Thursday, so I suppose it might be useful to know what it is.

“It is a guiding philosophy, a society where the leading for progress is social responsibility, not state control” David Cameron said.  “It includes a whole set of unifying approaches – breaking state monopolies, allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power down to neighbourhoods, making government more accountable”.

Leaving aside the policy statements in there, it feels like an acknowledgement that “society” is not the same as “state” and that power should be decentralised, which feels liberal. But it still leaves open the question of what society is. With the use of the term “neighbourhoods”, there is an implication of hierarchy in there.

In Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900 – 1300, Susan Reynolds promotes the concept of society as a hierarchy of communities, headed by a monarch. Historically in England, this was expressed administratively as manors, parishes, hundreds, shires, and the royal court. In part because of the speed and limits of communication, much power was devolved, even down to the individual manor.

As the speed and ease of communication has increased, more and more power has been centralised, but this hierarchy has proved remarkably durable. Though the manor has disappeared – and the royal court has been replaced by parliament – parishes, hundreds (as districts) and shires still form the backbone of our administrative hierarchy.

This centralisation, and not just of power, has had many benefits. For example, a vast range of goods and services are now available within a trivial car journey. But this very benefit has decreased social cohesion. Many people hardly know their neighbours: they drive to the supermarket, drive their children to school, and drive to work. Opportunities for interaction within the immediate local community are limited.

Assuming this as a structure for society, where can policy help? I think both parties are united in the belief that devolution of power (and responsibility) from the state towards parishes (and ultimately individuals) is beneficial and there appears to be general agreement on policy. For example, allowing competition for local services and provision of local schools.

One area where the parties disagree is on school governance. The Conservatives want new schools to answer directly to ministers and the Liberal-Democrats want them to remain answerable to the local authority. To me, the Liberal-Democrat view is a better fit to this model of society, where a local school is answerable to a local authority. The Conservative position surprises me as it seems to run counter to the concept of decentralisation.

Another area is on local finance where the Conservatives propose freezing council tax and the Liberal-Democrats propose introducing local taxes. Again the Conservative proposal seems to run counter to the concept of decentralisation as it relies on central funding for any new local initiatives. However, the Liberal-Democrat proposal – though decentralised – feels like it will encounter fierce resistance. How would it work? Would it be an increase in local council tax or would it be, for example, a local sales tax?

For me, one significant question remains: how can policy improve social cohesion? There is no doubt social cohesion eroded over the last century, though I don’t believe we live in a “broken society.” So what local focal points remain? Pubs, local sports teams, and local schools are obvious.

Can policy decisions help these? Yes. Both parties agree on local schooling and I think funding local sports teams is relatively un-contentious. But what about pubs?

People like to get together and have fun. Like it or not, alcohol and the pub are part of this. For example pubs have band nights, darts teams and pool teams. They are where birthdays are celebrated, where the lads (or the girls) go for a night out, and where people meet for no other reason than a drink and a chat. Yet they are going out of business at a record pace.

Why? It comes down to tax policy and the ever-increasing duty on alcohol served in pubs. Binge drinking is not generally caused by pubs, or even happy hours in pubs, but is fuelled by supermarkets selling booze as a loss-leader. For example, beer now costs roughly £3 a pint (depending where you live) in a pub yet you can buy cases of lager in your local supermarket for £10. Young people, though they may go to the pub as a focal point, either drink cheap supermarket booze beforehand or conceal it and drink it at the pub.

I believe we should change this: make the pub central again by equalising the prices. One proposal is to replace the current scheme by a per-unit duty. If backed up by prevention of supermarkets using booze as a loss-leader to attract customers, this may work.

Of course, this ignores the cities where unitary authorities predominate and where the problems of social cohesion are much worse.