tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post4191418582789311449..comments2024-02-10T12:12:06.028+00:00Comments on The Real Blog: Why Richard Grayson got it wrongDavid Boylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-82047851768624113802013-07-11T21:08:10.230+01:002013-07-11T21:08:10.230+01:00GF, I think you're right about economics. The...GF, I think you're right about economics. The way I see it, the weakness of Liberalism is that it is naive about money and therefore economics. The weakness of socialism is that it is naive about power. But Keynes and Beveridge are proof that it doesn't have to be that way.David Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-66551675577006698202013-07-11T18:42:35.556+01:002013-07-11T18:42:35.556+01:00A thoughtful piece indeed which prompts me to pick...A thoughtful piece indeed which prompts me to pick up on one point.<br /><br />You note that: <em>" Lib Dem economic policy has been an ecstasy of positioning and compromise, not because Liberals have no convictions - but because they are not terribly interested in <b>economics</b>.</em><br /><br />Exactly so - but why? And why has this persisted for so long?<br /><br />Perhaps many Lib Dems aren't comfortable with the concepts because they work in the public sector. Perhaps they are revolted because the answers always seem to come out to support Tory-like policies. Whatever.<br /><br />The key is that economics isn't a science (despite its pretentions to be one) and has many schools (in contrast to a proper science like physics). In this economics is more like theology, different versions of which can support either Catholic or Baptist (and many others besides)interpretations of the same source material.<br /><br />So, if Lib Dems have neglected to develop their own economic thinking (and they have) then they inevitably finish up by default accepting that of others leaving only the <em>ecstasy of positioning</em> as you so correctly describe it to differentiate us from the Tories. No wonder the Coalition is proving such a traumatic experience for so many. <br /><br />That this deeply unsatisfactory situation has persisted so long (20+ years!) has to be an epic failure of leadership. Conversely, if it is belatedly corrected a lot of things will fall into place. After all, the existing economic theory is clearly broken and can offer no solutions to the mess we're in. We're in a world like that after the dinosaurs were wiped out - the old order has failed leaving the stage set for an explosion of new life.<br />Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09261797893125328161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-29742110399439065362013-07-11T17:13:09.010+01:002013-07-11T17:13:09.010+01:00Thanks David - yes, indeed, let's all keep in ...Thanks David - yes, indeed, let's all keep in touch. The next few years could be a very fluid time in terms of both ideas and how/where people develop those ideas.<br />Best wishes,<br />RichardAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14793120661170252105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-66577309166044853262013-07-11T16:23:31.911+01:002013-07-11T16:23:31.911+01:00Richard, thanks so much for taking the trouble to ...Richard, thanks so much for taking the trouble to reply so thoughtfully. You are of course quite right to pick me up about the 'new language' - our difference was about what that new language should be. <br /><br />But I was careful to talk about 'wings' rather than point the finger too precisely, when it came to defending the public services status quo. You were always more thoughtful than that, and my thinking has developed a great deal since 2010 as well.<br /><br />And yes, I was and am a supporter of voluntary sector solutions, but you need a local government structure to make that work - the trouble is that local government has been hollowed out over the last 20 years, so that those who tend to be recruited have been those who are effective at following process rather than making things happen. <br /><br />I want to find ways of revitalising local government so that it can play that co-ordinating role better. It isn't about markets versus local democracy or markets for their own sake, but it is about diversity - or ought to be.<br /><br />Still, the key point is that we are not going to create that right debate in the Lib Dems as a tight little party - and I hope we don't end up as one. But if we do, we will have to shout loudly in a debate outside it.<br /><br />Let's keep in touch about it all...<br /><br />David Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-28903282423583106442013-07-11T15:54:54.756+01:002013-07-11T15:54:54.756+01:00You are quite wrong about the LDs not having or ha...You are quite wrong about the LDs not having or having been able to implement their economic policy.<br /><br />The LD enthusiasm for Luddism and hatred of economic liberalism has allowed you to set energy policy (albeit without opposition from the Cameronians). By ensuring we have some of the most expensive energy in the world you have completely deliberately kept us in recession and by increasing fuelo poverty, killed many thousands of pensioners.<br /><br />That is an achievement. I wish UKIP, who actually are a liberal party, had managed half as much, albeit in the opposite direction, and we would not be in recession.Neil Craignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-63675498373381906432013-07-11T15:17:30.544+01:002013-07-11T15:17:30.544+01:00A thoughtful and interesting piece as ever, David....A thoughtful and interesting piece as ever, David. Thank you. You might wish to see what people on LDV have said about your piece as apparently supporting their views – such as one person who claims that there is little evidence that I was ever a ‘liberal’. <br /><br />Yes, we all share some blame for the state we are in (in particular in my case being quite so dismissive of the Orange Book in 2004, and then trusting the leadership in 2010). No doubt about that.<br /><br />More generally, I don’t recognise your characterisation of myself and my ‘wing’ as wanting to defend the old settlement on public services. I have always advocated significant devolution in public services and you might have read my pieces on the NHS along these lines, drawing from the Danish example. My recollection of things you have said and written is that you are not a great enthusiast for local government, and would prefer to see many more non-government solutions than I would (though I do agree with you on some areas there). That might be why I, like you, have always felt we are different kinds of Liberals. If my memory of where you stand on all of this is correct, then I hope you will see that I have not merely been defending an ‘old’ settlement but have been putting forward a more localist view of services (albeit it one focused on local government rather than other options).<br /><br />I also disagree with you when you say that I had no interest in finding a new political language. Much of my time as Director of Policy (in addition to focusing on having proper policy consultation in the party, in which I always saw myself as someone who had to manage a process in which all could take part) was focused on such issues. I think we had some success. While I well remember that we often disagreed on what such language should be (actually very much earlier than the Clegg-Huhne election, as I remember it, possibly back to when we first met) that's quite different from suggesting I wasn’t interested in finding a new language. "Freedom in a Liberal Society" (2000 pre-manifesto) (I don’t think you were an enthusiast, though the bulk of the party really liked the way it used ‘Freedom’ as a link to civil liberties, a more equal society and sustainability) and "It's About Freedom", were evolutions in doing exactly that, as was "Trust in People" (in which I was involved as a group member rather than as a member of staff). <br /><br />You might also remember quite a lot of work from me (sometimes coming out of the mouths of others) on how we need to rethink the state, and then of course there was "Reinventing the State". Many of these efforts were slated by certain types of liberals as being old-fashioned and statist, but those comments were from people who wanted a minimal state, so there was little we could have said to satisfy them. (Incidentally, they are the sorts of people who are now cheering my departure on pages such as LDV, which suggests to me that they want to narrow the party’s base of support and be a ‘right, tight’ little party, but that’s another story). <br /><br />All these steps were about new language and new ways to promote the democratic decentralisation (if never using that unwieldy phrase) which would help to develop a more liberal society. Again, those types of liberals who believe that markets will almost always be better than local democracy at giving people a local voice (and this has always been my big difference with David Laws) didn't like that. But that amounts to differences of opinion on how to develop a liberal agenda. I'm don’t agree that they are small-c conservatism just because we didn’t end up with something which cut us totally adrift from things the party had said in the past.<br />All the best to you,<br />RichardAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14793120661170252105noreply@blogger.com