I wonder what John Stuart Mill would say if he were among us : he, who wrote so much on the potential ‘union’ between socialism and liberalism. I wonder what he would say about the hordes of students who took to the streets of London on 10th November to protest against the tripling of tuition fees announced by the Cameron-Clegg government. He who so often attacked the ‘iron’ Tories such as Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury from the Westminster Benches, in order to defend the extension of suffrage during the 1867 electoral reform.

He would probably respond with more sophisticated arguments than those used by Nick Clegg two days ago in the Daily Telegraph. "In politics, as in life,” said the Lib Dem leader, “you sometimes find that there are things that you would like to do but in the end you cannot do.” Of course, Mill was a fine thinker, who wrote the bible on Anglo-Saxon liberalism (On Liberty) and who refused to compromise even with those of his party (also liberal) in order to defend the genuine ideas. Nick Clegg is the leader of a party that considers that ‘bible’ as their starting point of ideological reference. But above all, he is a politician ; prepared, multilingual and sophisticated, but still a politician. And, as Lord Acton reminds us, power tends to corrupt.

Yet those who know or have followed in detail the Lib Dems’ political and cultural course in the last six years view as nonsense the idea that Clegg has just sold out the principles and history of the party in order to reach power. Even more absurd is to think that the decision to ally with the Tories « for the good of the country », and all the bullets the Lib Dems have had to bite in these first six months of government, were actions planned by Clegg before the election, as has been suggested by nasty recent political gossip.

It is rather that the alliance with the Tories was seen as the possibility to crown a political and cultural shift that started several years ago within the Lib Dems. Many members of the party’s right wing seem to think that this path could lead to a bright future. However, the vertical drop in the polls and the violent student protests are rendering it an uphill struggle. For now at least...

Post-election policies : treason or necessity ?

On 10th November 2010, the streets of London were filled with young people and students who vehemently protested against the Cameron-Clegg government. The reason for the protest was the government’s decision to triple tuition fees for English students.

From the current 3,290 pounds a year, every English university student will have to shell out up to 9,000 pounds a year for a basic degree. In addition, the tax increase will be accompanied by a cut in public funds for universities by around 40%. This was reported by most of the English press and the student protests were the reaction (also reported in the Italian press). However, things seem more complicated. A press release published on November 3rd and edited by David Willetts, the Minister for Universities, tries to shed light on what happened.

Willetts explains that there will be a cap on tuition fees of 6,000 pounds a year that « in exceptional circumstances » could reach up to 9,000. Moreover, the reform foresees that the State will spend these fees and that they will be reimbursed by students over a 30-year period, once graduates have an income of more than 21,000 pounds (the current threshold being 15,000 pounds). In addition, the repayment of the university loan would take place at subsidised rates in relation to the income. For example, those earning less than

Tories´head offices after the protest

Source : flickr, ©ianvoyce

2,100 pounds a month will have an interest-free rate. That said, the fact remains that the students’ descent to the streets, probably on the information that the reform does not fully correspond to the truth, was a totally unexpected event, and in some respects, surprising in a country such as England, where disputes very often tend to take place via institutional channels rather than in the streets. Something further has also agitated the commentators and news analysts of the major British newspapers during the days of protest : the Lib Dems are the ones in government, who are considered by many as the students’ party.

The hardest challenge of the past few days have been expressed in the most violent way, which for months now has been the subject of much colourful debate in discussions directly related to the new British policy framework. Nick Clegg and his party are accused of having betrayed the core ideological and political beliefs of the Lib Dems, namely that of being a liberal party that looks to the European centre-left as a reference model. The Guardian, a historical voice of British journalism that has always been close to Labour, but before the elections had decided to support the Lib Dems, is now one of the first to support this idea of betrayal.

In the aftermath of the “hung parliament” many commentators and journalists betted that the cohabitation between Cameron’s and Clegg’s party would be very difficult. Along with this comes the hostility, to put it mildly, of many Lib Dem activists and members. “I did not join the Lib Dems to put David Cameron into 10 Downing Street,” explained a Lib Dem activist on the Social Liberal Forum in the aftermath of the coalition pact with the Tories.

James Graham, a famous blogger and Lib Dem activist, described in a post on his website a few of the rumours coming from MPs elected in the ranks of Clegg’s party : « It’s not a question of following the coalition agreement to the letter, it’s a question of : what’s the issue I’m going to have to rebel on ?”, he reportedly heard repeated in Westminster amongst Lib Dem members. Even an important former Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy, used these harsh words : “I am personally unable to vote for this result,” attacking the aftermath of the coalition agreement. In short, the Cameron-Clegg pact was born out of the worst conditions. Nick Clegg stated, »The coalition with the Tories,” he explained after the inauguration of the new government, “is a must for the country’s well-being in a difficult economic time.”

Anti-Labour or anti-Tory ?

However, most of the Lib Dems followed Clegg after considering that the pact with Cameron would be a unique and unrepeatable opportunity for a party that would hardly be able to claim government posts in the near future after being crushed by the Labour-Tory duopoly. Even in the party’s left wing, reactions and approaches have been decidedly pragmatic. “With the Tories – it is a loveless marriage” said Simon Hughes, a historical exponent of the party’s “socialist” renovation in the early 2000s, last August. Nonetheless, “it represents the opportunity of a lifetime for the Lib Dems to achieve liberal democracy in Britain.” In short, the pact with the Tories went beyond the logic of the need of the moment. It was presented as a strategic opportunity to bring to the country’s attention issues that have always been important for British liberal democracy.

Many Lib Dem voters shared Hughes’ approach. But this approach entails enormous risks. One of these, and perhaps the most important one, is the division between the party’s leadership and the pool of loyal voters, who are puzzled by the coalition with the Tories. The problem, however, is not only electoral but also political and cultural. It concerns a project to redefine the political and cultural identity of the party which began in 2004 and of which the outcome is still uncertain.

David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science

Source : flickr, © Bisgovuk

The Lib Dems have been historically characterised more as an anti-Tory party rather than anti-Labour. After all, their story is that of a political party born out of the union of the British Liberal Party, a historic opponent of the Tories, and Labour’s more moderate wing of the ’70s, namely the Social Democratic party. This history is probably also one of the factors that explain an electoral base that has always been so close to Labour’s values and social models rather than to the Tories’ conservatism. Cameron’s so-called “revolution”, the early results of which are questionable, has not changed this perception.

What has really made a difference in recent years has been Clegg’s leadership. This has triggered a new political and cultural phase for the leading class of the historic English party. The Lib Dems have always been characterised by a kind of internal division that has never attained the characteristics of a revolt but has always been the basis of their political action. On the one hand there are the so-called “social liberals”. On the other, the so-called “market liberals”. Both share a focus on issues such as civil and political liberties (what classical liberalism identifies as negative liberties). They both support policies such as the increase of civil rights, and paying great attention to the issues of climate change and renewable energy, and are pro-European.

However, the two groups have very different ideas about what the role of the state should be in promoting an individual’s economic and social freedom. Social liberals favour the welfare state, are sceptical about the free market, defend public spending and want greater government regulation for the protection of consumers and employees. On the other hand, market liberals believe that the function of the state is not and cannot be that of increasing economic and social freedom. Similar to the Tories’ liberal core, they support liberalisation which is less intrusive in the public and private sector as well as strong deregulation policies. Since 2004, market liberals have become decisively hegemonic in the party and have triggered a kind of cultural revolution.

In that year, the strongest representatives of the party, including Nick Clegg, Vincent Cable, and Chris Huhne, published a text called the Orange Book (Orange Book : Reclaiming Liberalism). This text proposed a more liberal programme than this party had ever presented throughout its history (liberalisation of health services and telecommunications, free schools run directly by parents or teachers, greater deregulation in doing business). On 14th January 2008, Nick Clegg presented a leadership program that expressed almost entirely that which was written in the Orange Book. Two issues have marked turning points for the Lib Dem leader. First of all, a post-ideological and cultural project focused on overcoming certain issues dear to the left that after Blair’s centrist turn, made the Lib Dems almost more socialist than Labour. Secondly, a strategic repositioning that would transform the Lib Dems into an appealing party even for Tory voters. As he was not able to focus on conservatism ( from which even Cameron was distancing himself), Clegg focused on economic liberalism. Today the results of that revolution are evident to everyone. This also applies to four out of five authors of the Orange Book, who now hold positions in government after the new cabinet formed in June.

The Lib Dem influence (apart from economic policy)

It is important to remember this history when one examines the role of the Lib Dem -Tory coalition. For example, one of the major reforms carried out by the Cameron-Clegg government, that of “free schools”, is one of the central proposals made in Clegg’s, Cable’s and others’ Orange Book. In an article published last week, The Economist explained that apart from economic policy, the partners of the Tory government have exercised a lot of influence in their first 6 months in office. The newspaper quoted some political acts that would not have even been conceivable with a Tory single-party government such as,

Students during protests

Source : flickr, © Geoff Dexter

for example, recognising the illegitimacy of prisoners’ inability to vote, Cameron’s decision to accept an increase of 2.9% of the UK budget for Europe and, above all Cameron’s uncertainties over the measure of “control orders”. The latter, launched by Labour in 2005, is part of the security package of counter-terrorism measures and foresees preventive detention without trial and immediate repatriation of suspected terrorists even if they come from a country where they would be subjected to explicit violations of their human rights, such as torture. According to The Economist’s suggestions, Cameron knows he will not be able to maintain this given the Lib Dems’ opposition.

All these are indisputable facts. But they are not enough to convince Lib Dem voters who were upset after the shock brought about by the Osborne cuts. As Clegg failed in his attempt to attract Tory voters towards the Lib Dems (as the May elections showed), the Lib Dem leader must now think about maintaining the traditional constituency of the party, which is much closer to the centre-left position. The polls speak for themselves. The latest survey conducted by YouGov (the British government’s official tool that deals with surveys), gives Nick Clegg’s party its most notable low since 1997. If one were to vote tomorrow, the Lib Dems would receive 9%, which is 14 percentage points less compared to the 23% received in the last elections. The public budget cuts have hurt the party more than anything else. And there is no European budget or a civil right for prisoners that can gain momentum over these cuts for the usual voters of the party, also because some of them affect areas in which the Lib Dems have always stood out in terms of political initiative.

One of these is the subsidy cuts destined for married couples and child benefits that has sparked angry reactions from some historic voters of the party. The increase in tuition fees is the last straw and comes as a kind of coup de grâce. Since 1992, the Lib Dems are the only party in Great Britain to put in their manifesto the lowering or abolition of tuition fees. A triple increase by the ruling party seems ridiculous and is perceived by the Lib Dem electorate as adding insult to injury. “As a minority coalition,” Clegg explained to the BBC on November 8th 2010, “the Lib Dems have had to compromise on issues for which they have always been at odds with the Tories ; just as the Tories did.” This is reasonable, or rather understandable after having a quick look at the Orange Book. But at what price ?

Nic Clegg presents his leadership agenda

Source : flickr, © Liberal Democrats

The history of British liberalism is made up of people who are often defined as socialists or close to the left in terms of economic policy. Mill liked to call himself a Liberal, although he has always been considered by members of the socialist tradition as one of the great classical ideologues of liberal capitalism, along with Adam Smith and John Locke. Isaiah Berlin was a fierce anti-Communist, but when it came to discussing economy, he undoubtedly defined himself as a Keynesian. With Nick Clegg the story of this ambiguity, this flirtation between socialism and liberalism, seems to lead towards a definitive clarification. But are we sure that his constituents have understood it ? And how far are they willing to accept it ? The Lib Dems have five years to convince their electorate of the goodness of this change. The real test will be the reform of the electoral law, the anti-terrorist measures and the European policy. At that point the Lib Dem policies might permanently move in other directions. With all due respect to John Stuart Mill.