In which I find an excuse to ramble about ideology. At length.

On Liberal Conspiracy, a rather vicious comment-war has begun over Nick Clegg’s recent speech on why he was a liberal. I won’t comment on the piece as Sunny has done; it looks more of a speech about Clegg’s own ideology than party policy.

So I’ll comment on that, instead. Or, at least, the section which most exercises my irritation:

Liberalism believes fairness, fulfilment and freedom can be best secured by giving real power directly to millions of citizens.
Socialism believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.

A liberal believes in the raucous, unpredictable capacity of people to take decisions about their own lives.
A Socialist believes in the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives.

A liberal believes a progressive society is distinguished by aspiration, creativity and non conformity.
A Socialist believes a progressive society is characterised by enlightened top-down Government.

Bollocks. To associate all socialism with a particular mode of state-control is at best unwise and at worst an actively misleading lampoon of Reagan or Thatcher. Both liberalism and socialism move from a similar origin; an egalitarian concern that individuals should be as free as possible.

Classically, liberalism seeks to achieve this through an abscence of restraint. It accepts, though, the need for some state intervention; individuals will, understandably, pursue their own interests, and so occasionally come into conflict. One individual might see, for example, that they could do well for themselves by turfing another off their land and using it for themselves. This exercise of freedom comes at the clear cost to the freedom of another. An arbiter between these interests, in the form of the state and law, is thus necessary to ensure the wider freedom of all. Liberal ideologues as far back as Locke have accepted this principle. So long as the state treats all individuals as equals, and so applies its laws to the benefit of all, then its existence is less of a tyranny than the potentially endless conflict of absolute freedom. From his Two Treatises of Government:

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Logic dictates that no individual should harm another, as if individuals have an equal right to individual liberty, then to assault another’s liberty is to concede that others can assault your own; a state Locke terms “the law of nature.” Yet a brief observation of reality highlights that this law has no means of enforcing itself, and so the prospect of actually enjoying your absolute freedom varies. Rational individuals might thus come together in a community to ensure the freedom of all is protected.

Socialism merely extends this principle, and accepts that freedom can come under threat from more than just a particularly malicious individual. To live without education would be to risk freedom; how can you compete with those lucky enough to know more, or even advance your own understanding of the world, without one? A universal education provided by civil society thus clearly advances freedom. Conflicts in the exercise of freedom likewise take place on a wider scale than liberalism in its purest form might allow for. An individual, or rather a small collection of individuals, might quite legitimately gain control of an essential service; say, the delivery of electricity. They would be perfectly free, once they did so, to drive up the prices of electricity beyond the point required to cover costs; a drive which would prevent many from heating their homes, or cooking, or indeed living, as they might otherwise. A clear exercise of freedom on the part of a few at the expense of the freedom of many. Surely better, then, for a state under the democratic control of all to control the distribution of electricity, thus guaranteering the wider freedom of all those who need energy?

The state exists in socialism as a means of guaranteeing liberty, as it does on a lesser scale for liberal ideology. But where its intervention isn’t necessary to preserve this freedom, some socialists at least would argue that it does not need to become involved. And where its intervention actively impairs liberty, then a socialist should oppose it; hence the opposition of many who’d consider themselves to be socialists to ID Cards.

This form of socialism is a far cry from that described in Clegg’s speech. Where’s the endless regulation of every individual relationship in every sphere implied in “the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives?” It isn’t there. Liberal ideology and socialism aren’t the mutually exclusive behemoths of Clegg’s imagination, but nuanced and varied systems springing from similar concerns.

Some particularly statist socialists might be considered outrightly illiberal. Likewise a neoliberal fanatic who describes themselves a liberal would be considered an outright enemy of wider freedom by most socialists. But, surely the question here is not whether this makes liberalism and socialism as a whole incompatible, but whether those ideological parodies really qualify as what they claim to be? If egalitarianism can be considered the root of both ideologies, then I would suggest not.

Wit and wisdom suggested here that I should have done some more research for my post. I don’t really think that you can determine the strength and chances of a party from a conference speech, seeing as it tends to be only pre-existing party members, media types, political junkies (this is my category) and those members of the public unfortunate enough to be picked for “Focus groups” who watch them. They can, however, be used to determine the calibre of the speaker and so I thought I might as well offer my views on Clegg’s speech.

If you wish to watch it it starts here:

(At the moment it has only 196 views, rather supporting my view on the public impact of these things.)

Clegg was described in our comment section as “genuine and warm”. There certainly is a warmth to him which is revealed in his surprisingly strong wit. He broke out the constituency anecdotes very early on but although initially it was pretty standard fare he later saved himself with a rather non sequiturious but utterly charming tale of a girl drawing God. This also reminded me of his atheism, which makes a pleasing change from the standard bland faith you tend to find amongst British party leaders.

The main line for this speech was “The future’s bright, the future’s liberal.” The accompanying subtext was, of course, “Labour is dead, Tories are still Tories.” Perhaps as some indication of my political bias I found the final message by far the best executed: when attacking the Conservatives Clegg surely conjured envy amongst the squirming Labour partisans who have been flailing around for years now, unable to land a blow upon the pristine PR of Cameron. The bike with a car driven behind line felt a bit tired but for the most part he staged a strong attack on the Conservatives which felt like apt preparation for the job of constant pounding of their record that will be required of him when they take office. What exactly he meant by calling them “Blue Labour”, though, is beyond me. This phrase left me rather baffled.

It was his attacks upon Labour which were a little lacking. His main line was that they “Labour are finished, it’s over” which presumably was intended to be one of those prophesies where the mere utterance brings about the outcome foreseen. Pleasingly classical but perhaps something of a strategic error: should the widespread assumption that Labour will collapse in itself before tearing itself to pieces on the floor instead of trying to stand up fail to come to pass Clegg has left his party exposed to being overtaken by the Party. This is probably a safe enough gamble, but the fact remains that his argument is somewhat lacking: when mentioning the vast number of CCTV cameras in this country, for instance, he fails to mention that the executive was in no way responsible for this. For the most part cameras are installed either by private firms or as a council measure. In this way what is responsible for their presence is a local populist statism rather than Brown’s clunking fist.

Indeed, the most striking abuses of state power performed under New Labour (Iraq War aside) have largely happened upon a local level with officials using the endlessly exploitable Terror Acts to have their way with the public. If Clegg has any desire to repeal these pieces of legislation or amend them so as to be less easy to use against elderly dissenters and those who prefer their mail unpilfered then he does not express it. Furthermore, if he is actually desiring to restrict the number of CCTV cameras he will, ironically enough, have to overpower local government with the executive. There is certainly a case for doing so, but if Clegg is simply slipping into the habit of identifying problems and suggesting that he should be given power despite neither offering nor having any ideas for amending them then I would suggest he join the Conservatives.

Indeed due to his perfectly presentable tone it is only when his speech is subjected to an inspection of content that it struggles. Take the commitment to a “Green economy”. This sounds similar to Miliband’s mooted “Low-carbon economy”, as well as equally devoid of explicit commitment to environmentally friendly policy so radical and substantial that it reconstructs the entire economic ordering of Britain. Take the most notable example of his rightwards swing of “Tax-cuts for working families”. This slid over my consciousness upon the first hearing, but then snagged after a moment’s consideration. Is Clegg suggesting that we tax the unemployed instead? Or that we make singletons and spinsters yet more miserable by increasing their tax-burden? Or is he saying that the wealthy he presumably needs to tax more heavily to maintain spending without plunging the country into debt are somehow not engaged in “working”?

This is not to say that I am in favour of the fantastically wealthy clinging onto their absurd excess. I simply think that such rhetorical vagueness is immensely intellectually sloppy. Clegg at other points in his speech manages moments of extreme and relieving freshness (suggesting we base our benefits system around what the recipients required rather than bureaucrats desire was a striking and sublime proposal, upsetting as it may have sounded to the civil service) but in mouthing this vapid, vacuous, void filled cliché he left himself with an unstable centrepiece for his economic proposals.

Indeed, although his presentation led to my characterisation of his words as “bluster” as in hindsight being far too harsh the rational value of them is even worse than I had anticipated. Clegg has committed himself at least in part to the “Orange Book” brigade, forgetting that it was while acting as a proper, progressive centre-left alternative to the increasingly and seemingly irredeemably populist Labour Party that the Liberal Democrats ascended in popular support to their greatest heights. The policy of taxing the wealthiest and firm opposition to the war both drew in voters who had no other refuge from New Labour’s relentless lunge towards neo-liberalism.

In other words the Social Democratic elements of the union being stressed served the party well, while Clegg seems interested only in the Liberal.

But despite this he has ambition not voiced anywhere near as explicitly by his last to predecessors. The phrases: “A million doors in Britain” and “Calling 250,000 people” were followed shortly by his description of the party as the “Vanguard” and the “Forefront of a revolution”. These frankly Leninist terms caught me rather by surprise. I still uncertain whether they should be taken as something of a joke or whether he actually is trying to claim the rhetoric of the revolutionary left as the Liberal’s own.

But his follow through actually was decent enough: the Liberal Democrats were indeed earlier champions of equal human rights for homosexuals, opponents of the war, defenders of the environment and prescient over a number of positions that are now consensus pieces and points of unanimity amongst the parties (well, perhaps not the War…).

The difficulty is that the Liberal Democrats are able to lead in this fashion, but not capitalise. They are restrained both by the fact that their opponents will happily and shamelessly steal them of their clothes and this robbery leaves them without a stitch, as well as from the electoral system which favours those with concentrated bases (both other parties, as well as the SNP). This is why towards the conclusion a barn-storming appeal for a “New politics” (I hazily remember him calling for that a while back) which, as far as I can tell, seems to consist of bringing a lot of new people into politics (so that they can vote LibDem) and changing the electoral system totally (so that all the new LibDem votes can get counted and not go to waste).

Really, only the latter would be required for the Liberal Democrats to become a far more substantial force in politics. However, with both the other parties perfectly aware of this and of the two the one with the word Conservative in their party name looking by far the most likely to triumph at the next election the likelihood of the LibDems getting their greatest dream made flesh seems about as likely as Cameron’s hair surviving this decade.

Therefore there is certainly a case to be made that no matter what political ideology they cleave to (and it must be remembered that due to their precarious balancing between disaffected Labour and disaffected Tories to a degree the LibDem hopes of electoral success depend upon cleaving firmly to neither one base of supporters or the other) no political theory will bring about their ascension to power, which has struggled largely due to reasons the political scientists could explain.

In extricating themselves from this awkward position Clegg will be of some utility. Certainly my description of him as “lithium” was overly brutal. But I maintain that he is not a leader that can claim the position the Liberal Democrats could do in their position as the only centre-left party left standing.