It was the Press wot’ done it

Last night, as Simon Hughes and Vince Cable finished their announcement to the press on the doorsteps of the Liberal Democrats Cowley Street headquarters, a voice from amongst the serried ranks of journalists cried out “Who wielded the dagger?” For the answer to that question, the press might be better looking closer to home.

Sir Menzies Campbell has been dogged by a hostile press since his election to lead the party just 18 months ago. He had had an inauspicious start: the Conservatives had just elected their new leader only weeks before the Lib Dems only leadership crisis, in a competition that at the time was seen as very good for the Tories; the nature of Charles Kennedy’s departure left a bitter taste in the mouths of many voters and party activists (though not as bitter as the gin that was his downfall); and Ming’s early performances at Prime Minister’s Questions were not great.

Yet the story was far from simple. Within months of being elected leader, the Lib Dems scored to a brilliant by-election result in Bromley & Chislehurst: just 650 more votes and the future of both Sir Menzies and the Liberal Democrats might have been very different. The story at PMQs was far from one-sided and by all accounts he had been getting better. And his conference speech in Brighton last month was the best of his career.

And therein lies the truth of his demise. For all that success, the press were simply not interested. It was as if they did not want to hear that Sir Menzies, at 66 years of age, leading a Liberal Democratic Party, might actually have good, important points to make that the British people might want to hear. I thought it was an excellent speech, and so did many of my colleagues. But it had precisely no impact upon the media whatsoever.

For the press, the story had already been written: Ming was too old; the Young Turks were waiting in the wing’s; the Lib Dems were being squeezed (media-speak for our policies being stolen by the other parties); and if we did not dump our leaders soon we would crash to a defeat that would be worse than anything since the SDP merged with the Liberals in 1988. Forget the fact that in both this Summer’s parliamentary by-elections we came second and pushed “David Cameron’s Conservatives” into third place; or the fact that in the previous 15 council by-elections, we gained two seats and the Tories lost one, while Labour merely held their ground; or the fact that in my recent Council election, for example, we polled more votes than Labour and the Conservatives combined. For the press, the story was already written, because they had written it.

Now, the hypocrisy is in full swing. The media are variously saying that Sir Menzies was a nice chap but just overwhelmed by the negative press he’d received (from whom?); that he was getting better at his job but that the public were not listening (because the media weren’t conveying the message); and that he was assassinated (which, if true, may have been because every MP at every interview was asked when Ming would go).

If this dark episode has any silver lining, it is that the Lib Dems can look forward to some heightened media attention as Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne battle it out for the leadership (with, presumably, some others in the sidelines). However, it is unlikely that – when the dust settles – the press are going to be willing to give us the continuing coverage that we deserve, as a party that received a quarter of the votes in the last general election. Our future, with or without Sir Menzies, will be a tough battle in the face of a hostile media. Time to start writing those Focuses.

More wisdom from Paddy Ashdown

Last I outlined the peacekeeping wisdom of Paddy Ashdown, as set out in his new book, Swords and Ploughshares. However, he has been dispensing other wise words recently, as well.

On 11 July he was interviewed on 18 Doughty Street. As well as discussing his book, he sets out a frankly ominous prognosis for the future situation in Iraq and (worse still) Afghanistan. If we lose, he suggests, we face the beginnings of a regional civil war across the Middle East (in the sense that Mao Tse-tung saw the First and Second World Wars as European civil wars), the collapse of Nato and the end of our willingness to intervene to prevent conflicts around the world.

He also had some very interesting things to say about the liberal Democrats, however, and especially about Sir Menzies Campbell. He gave quite a good description of the House of Commons, Prime Minister’s Question Time and the difficulties of being the leader of the third party (7.30mins). As he later explains, “I would much rather have taken the risk of going into Sarajevo through the siege than standing up at Prime Minister’s questions the House of Commons. It seems far less dangerous and far less frightening.”

Of particular note is his comment on Ming’s performance in comparison to his own. “People forget this when they comment on Ming Campbell’s Prime Minister’s question, which I think have become actually quite good, I was a disaster. I was a disaster for the first year as leader of the then-Liberal Party. I was ritually handbagged in front of the television cameras of the nation… by Mrs. Thatcher, and people went around saying ‘Will this guy ever hack it?’ You just have to learn how to deal with that.” (8.30mins)

And what space is there for the Lib Dems in the new British politics. Ashdown cautions patience. The shine will come off both Cameron and Brown, he predicts. Ming should concentrate on sagacity, integrity, experience – these are the qualities that will work in our favour in the coming year or two.

He has many interesting insights into Tony Blair, whom he likes and admires and with whom he came close to working in quasi-coalition. In a particularly germane moment, he sums up Blair’s career in a manner that bloggers would have died to have managed only a few weeks ago. Ashdown tells us that Blair said to him that three things would define his term in office: 1) that Labour and the Lib Dems would realign British politics; 2) Blair would re-associate Britain with its historic role at the centre of Europe; and 3) Blair would do something about the widening gap between rich and poor. On all three he has failed.

Finally, the best moment has to be Paddy’s giggle when Iain tells him that when Iain heard Gordon Brown had offered Ashdown a cabinet job, he naturally assumed that it must have been foreign secretary (33mins). Paddy obviously didn’t think this was quite such a natural conclusion.

A no win situation

You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.

That certainly seems to be the verdict of political pundits and illiberal elements as they pour opprobrium on the recent discussions between Gordon Brown, our next Prime Minister (acts of god permitting), and Sir Menzies Campbell about a role for Lib Dem peers in a Brown government.

My view is that Diane Abbot (one of the more pleasant socialists) got to the heart of the issue when she said that such a deal would be “electoral suicide” for the Liberal Democrats. For our party, the greatest challenge is ridding itself of the popular misconception that Labour and Liberal are different shades of the same colour (red, or red with a hint of yellow), different wings of the same centre-left family that stands in contrast to the centre-right blue(-rinse) alternative.

Such misconceptions are not helped by Sir Menzies’ persistence on referring (and proudly at that!) to the Liberal Democrats as a party of the centre-left. We are not a party of the centre-left, of the centre-right, or of the centre-anything. We are a liberal party: as opposed to socialism as we are to conservatism, both committed to fairness and distrustful of the state. As my more avid reader will recall, I have discussed this before.

Part of disabusing the public of their view of us as a Labour ginger-group (it would explain the orange!), “the social conscience of the Labour Party”, is to quash the assumption that in any coalition we would automatically side with Labour. This is not to say that we should show any eagerness to side with the Conservatives either (especially not this current shower!), but we must dispel the myth that if Labour fails to make it to the necessary 324 seats they can trust us to prop them up.

After a general election, in the event of a hung parliament (and I’m still not prepared to put my money on it happening), we should be prepared to negotiate with either and both parties – showing no favour – to identify which is prepared to put forward the more liberal policy platform. We must also be prepared to reject both parties and allow one (no matter which one) to form a minority administration, if neither are liberal enough.

That seems pretty clear to me. So why is it that some Lib Dems seem to think we have a natural ally in one of the other parties? And why is it that the pundits seem not only to agree, but to be genuinely shocked that we should reject the chance of power? After all, nobody joined the Lib Dems in the hope of enjoying the faux-leather seats in the ministerial limo.

This baleful piece in The Times is typical. According to the Editor, the Liberal Democrats ought to be more willing to collaborate than other parties (he is not clear why) and should therefore jump at any opportunity that presents itself. Strangely, the article notes that we have “declined to negotiate a coalition with either the SNP or Labour in Scotland… leaned in Labour’s direction in Wales [and] then flirted with a bizarre bargain with Plaid Cymru and the Tories before lapsing back into opposition” and also, inaccurately this time, claimed that “they also toyed with reaching an understanding with David Cameron over a common contender for mayor of London… before backing out of that accord too” (which is a crude distortion of the truth). What conclusion does the Editor draw from our apparent three bouts of discussion followed by refusal? That “This behaviour is neither consistent nor coherent.” I beg to differ. It is clearly consistent, and its coherence comes from our willingness to enter into coalition only within a broadly liberal framework.

My point is not that this is all grossly unfair, however. One would expect little else from the Murdoch press, wed as it still is to New Labour. Indeed, none of the press are impartial – that’s not really their job, despite another common misconception. My point is that had the discussions turned out differently, and were Lord Ashdown and his fellow Lib Dem peers preparing to spend less time with their families, you may rest assured that the press would have howled with derision all the same. Instead of being incoherent and not ready for power, we would be unprincipled and interested only in office; instead of Campbell being weak and indecisive, he would be weak and easily seduced; instead of talking of a missed opportunity, they would speak of our losing our identity.

I have said it before and I will say it again: the more popular our party and our ideology, the more the reactionary elements (on both sides) will attack us; the more powerful we become, the more our enemies will concentrate their fire upon us. That is the price of success. So be it.

It was daft of Brown to think that he could co-opt the Liberal Democrats at a time when they have more MPs, higher poll ratings and more persuasive policies than ever before. Sir Menzies is right: our priorities should be maximum votes; maximum seats.

Thanks, Gordon, but we’ll go it alone!

Can Campbell make housing a Lib Dem issue?

In an “in other news” footnote to a post on pensions, Centre Forum’s Free Think blog asks whether

“Ming is being told by his pollsters that housing is concerning the voters enough to make it a top priority? And do the Lib Dems have enough of an identity on that issue to make it a key feature of any future election?”

As I have commented on the Free Think site, I wonder whether the real problem is that the Liberal Democrats have too much “identity” on the subject.

Do they introduce land value taxation to capture the unearned wealth that accrues to today’s landowners at the expense of future landowners?

Do they devolve even more decision-making on planning to local or regional authorities? Or do they use the power of Government to defend the general public against the vested interests of local NIMBYs (somehow, the acronym doesn’t work if one spells it with an ‘ies’).

The more liberal wing might allow landowners the freedom to develop their land as they see fit. The more interventionist might want to use regulation to force landlords to build houses that meet certain criteria and standards.

Another Lib Dem identity crisis?

Another bit of favouritism for Tony’s Cronies?

Ministers, civil servants and the public have all been shocked and appalled by the recent fashion for kiss-and-tell accounts of the inner workings of government.

While I well-written memoir is wonderfully enlightening, and the details of the Hutton Enquiry and Butler Review exposed Blair’s sofa government for what it is, the salacious bean-spilling by some civil servants and ministers has been to the detriment of the service.

One can understand why the Government has sought to limit further breaches of the secrecy that must exist within ministerial offices. Personally, I find any effort to limit free speech to be worrying, and I fully support open government. However, there must be a degree of trust between ministers and their colleagues, and between ministers and civil servants, and it is not unreasonable to require people to commit in advance to secrecy. It is a normal practice for lawyers and Catholic priests, after all. One cannot compel a person to be silent, but one may justifiably insist that they choose between their right to speak freely and their desire to take a particular job. Accepting a post as a minister, civil servant or special adviser should carry with it a commitment to discretion.

Meanwhile, one would expect the law to be implemented blindly, without favouritism. So it is extremely disturbing to read that the Government has been accused of dragging its feet over implementation of its own rules so as to enable Alastair Campbell to publish his diaries before the new rules come into effect.

According to Chris Grayling, the Conservative Shadow Transport Secretary,

“The Government now appears to have a completely cavalier attitude to the rules
of Whitehall when it comes to looking after people who have been close to Tony
Blair and Gordon Brown. This is quite obviously a blatant attempt to delay
things so that Alastair Campbell can get on with publishing his diaries without
anyone intervening to stop him.”

Of course, without presenting evidence, Mr. Grayling is potentially making a scurrilous accusation. However, as the collapse in the confidence between ministers and civil servants is a direct result of the manner in which the Labour government has itself used leaks and spin to control the news, it seems hardly beyond them to play so fast-and-loose with the principles of good government.

Awkward memoirs and embarrassing leaks are a problem of their own making. Sadly, it now seems likely that they are further compounding the problem by once again turning them to their advantage.

Reasons to be cheerful

It is a refreshing change when Liberal Democrat colleagues support the views of our American friends.

And no Liberal Democrat colleague comes more exalted than this Liberal Democrat colleague.

I hope the Prime Minister is hanging his head in shame.

Distance from power keeps us honest

In another piece of groundbreaking journalism, the Times has invited Big Brother and Manchester University psychologist Geoff Beattie to rate the honesty and evasiveness of British politicians.

It will be of no great surprise to Liberal Democrats to discover that their leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, gave direct and frank answers most frequently, while Home Affairs spokesman Nick Clegg was least likely to avoid the question.

Labour scored consistently badly, with all Government Ministers proving more evasive than Campbell or even the Conservative front bench. Interestingly, the most evasive politician of them all was the “straight talking” Home Secretary, John Reid.

But before we start pushing Foci through letterboxes and touting our honesty on doorsteps, we should note Beattie’s warning: “There is not some factor that make [the opposition] psychologically more straightforward than Labour.” Rather, they were affected by “the constraints of government”.

Thus, “I wouldn’t for a second say that Conservative [or, presumably, Liberal Democrat] politicians are more straight-talking. Once they get a chance to go back into government, I’m quite sure they will be equally evasive.”

Liberal Democrats often like to point out that they are a less venal bunch than the other parties, noting that nobody joins the Lib Dems because of a hunger for office or power. Perhaps by remaining on the opposition benches it also gives us the chance to be more honest and open. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Goodbye Europa – reform or die

Last night I attended a lecture hosted by Policy Exchange at which Alberto Alesina launched his new book, co-authored with Francesco Giavazzi. The English title is The Future of Europe: Reform or Decline but it’s more exciting Italian title is Goodbye Europa?

In light of yesterday’s speech by Sir Menzies Campbell about Europe, and my own comments about the need for humbler, more liberal European Union, Professor Alesina’s comments were particularly germane.

He began by noting that between 1945 and 1985 Europe’s economy outperformed that of the USA as it emulated American technology and methods, eventually averaging 75% of American GDP. However, most of this was due to the high relative productivity of European workers – our Continental cousins may not work as long as Americans, but they are more productive when the do – and since 1985 Europe has begun to lose its edge. In future, as total productivity is further eroded by high unemployment (including the effect of demographics), short working weeks (that pesky Working Time Directive) and long holidays, Europe will begin to slip back. He observed that in 1950 Italy’s GDP per capita was 30% that in the USA, whereas in 1990 it had reached 80%; it is now back at 1970s levels and he predicts by 2030 Italy’s relative GDP will be back down to its level in the 1950s.

Professor Alesina was clear about what was needed – and what was not! European economies must liberalise trade in goods and services as a means of liberalising their labour markets. They should allow immigration, especially from areas with “high human capital” (i.e. educated Eastern Europeans), promote (but not subsidise) research, reform welfare and enhance competition. They should steer clear of pumping extra cash into universities, or obsessing about infrastructure, the Growth and Stability Pact, or further integration – especially in social policy.

This will not be easy, for some of our European neighbours are not natural liberals. He cited a University of Maryland study that noted that whereas 73% of Americans and 67% of the British said that they believed the market was the best way to structure an economy, in Italy this was only 59% and in France only 36%! (Interestingly, the highest level of support for the market, at 75%, was to be found in nominally-communist China).

Professor Alesina and the other speaker, Ludger Schuknecht of the ECB, both argued that gradual, piecemeal reform was ineffective. Mr. Schuknecht provided evidence that “timid reformers” had seen little or no change in their GDP growth rates, whereas “bold reformers” had seen GDP growth rise by more than 50%.

The message was clear. European economies need bold, liberalising reform. Whether they get it, however, is another matter.

Reform in Europe should be at core of Liberal policy

Sir Menzies Campbell (I can’t bring myself to call him “Ming”) has given an interesting speech to the Centre for European Reform in which he calls for a rebalancing on Britain’s relationship with the US and reform in the EU.

I have written elsewhere of the need to be an honest friend to the US, supporting them when they are right but telling them frankly when they are wrong. It is Sir Menzies’s comments on the EU that I wish to examine here, for they mark an important shift in emphasis which I think the Liberal Democrats should note and adopt more widely.

His main point, that “The EU would better reflect its peoples’ priorities if it stuck to legislating only when necessary”, is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. At Harrogate last year I attended a fringe event where Nick Clegg asked what the EU would need to do to better reflect the needs of its citizens. My one-word answer was “Less.”

The European Commission exhibits a tendency common to like all bureaucracies, and especially those also granted executive power: a drive to expand its powers. This is catagorically opposed to what we, as liberals, believe.

There is no need for the EU to interfere to regulate individual member-states’ labour laws, VAT rates or manufacturing standards. Indeed, Sir Menzies is wrong to suggest that “Harmonisation” to set common standards on cocoa solids in chocolate and the volume of lawn mowers are welcome policies that allow British goods to be sold abroad. Rather, they undermine the point of competition, which is that all products are different and consumers make informed choices. Perhaps a Parisian has a taste for Cadbury’s, or an Italian is prepared to put up with a noisy but cheap fly-mo. Bureaucrats in Brussels do not need to regulate at this level; consumers will regulate for them by eschewing products that do not meet their needs.

As for that excrescence know as the CAP, if farmers need subsidising that should be a decision taken by national governments. Those that wish to prop up inefficient farms should be free to do so at the expense of their own taxpayers. Those that would rather let their farmers struggle – and in many cases thrive – in the market should equally be free to liberalise their markets and cut their taxes. There may be a single-market/competition issue here, but basic liberal economics tells us that the main benefits of trade come from imports rather than exports; frankly, I would be happy to see French taxpayers subsidising my Brie and Bordeaux.

So I welcome Sir Menzies call for a Powers Audit to decide what should and what should not be decided at a European level. Had this been the aim of the European Constitution I would have been all in favour of it (though sadly it looked more like a means of extending Brussels’ powers rather than limiting them, which is the proper role of a constitution). In fact, I would urge Liberal Democrat colleagues to go further. While championing the opportunities that Europe offers, we must be honest about its failings and unstinting in our call for reform. Indeed, rather than allowing our opponents to paint us as “Pro-Europe” we should make the point that we are pre-Britain, and what is best for Britain is a liberal Europe.

So we must be at our most voluble when we are calling for reform, just as we are within our own nation. Let the electorate hear us demand not just a stronger Europe, but a more humble one; a Europe that trusts individuals, devolves decision making to the lowest possible level, frees markets rather than binding them in red tape, and so thrives through diversity.