Libertarianism for the rich, paternalism for the rest

The rich are trusted to make "intelligent" decisions, the rest have to be regulated.

Many will think that the spectre of a "surveillance state" conjured up by the government’s proposal for the real-time monitoring of email and social media will come to haunt the Conservatives.  At first sight, it is nothing but a brutal assault on civil liberties totally at odds with the conservative tradition; indeed, something worthy of the heavy-handed centralism of Gordon Brown. Still, this judgment merits further reflection - for rather than a total anomaly, such a paternalistic approach has already been applied to a subsection of British society. While the rich have enjoyed the light-touch of libertarian incentivising, the poor have been "regulated" by the current government.      

The coalition’s chosen approach to dealing with the causes of the recession, as well as the economic slump that came in its aftermath, was to "incentivise" - at least as far as the rich are concerned. The government did set out to reform the finance sector; it did so, however, through gentle nudging rather than an effective shove. The proposed "penalties" on the "greedy bankers" were set in terms of "mutual co-operation" and were largely undertaken on a voluntary basis.  Likewise, the attempt to revive the anaemic economy has been by way of incentives, most notably those proposed in the Budget. Cutting both corporation tax and the income tax of top earners was presented as a panacea expected to revive the economy, with business investment predicted to increase by 40 per cent. Similar aspirations, but very different methods, compared to the New Deal of FDR… only history will tell which approach is more effective.   

The government’s approach to incentivising employment on the supply side has been markedly different. The Welfare Reform Act replaced some perverse incentives not to work that were embedded in the old system with rather decisive regulations. For instance, neither the requirement for couples with children to increase their weekly work load to 24 hours in order to claim the working tax credit nor the household benefit cap - i.e., the limit of the total amount of benefit that working-age people can receive – can be readily interpreted as "gentle nudges". In a similar vein, the Mandatory Work Activity - the scheme mandating six to eight weeks unpaid work for up to 30 hours a week to those who "have little or no understanding of what behaviours are required to obtain and keep work" - is not in any way voluntary, as indeed is suggested in the name. In these cases, the government might be seen to be taking a rather paternalistic, or "nannying" approach. Of course, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with nannies, nor for that matter with father figures who know what is good for the kids. Still, with the government regulation in question, this approach should be applied consistently.   

When the government opened the Behavioural Insight Unit, its mission was presented as "finding intelligent ways to encourage people to make better choices for themselves". Some complained at the time that the idea of "nudge", central to its operations, was premised on the oxymoron of libertarian paternalism. Perhaps a bigger problem is that the libertarian element of choice and the paternalistic prescription were applied to two different social groups - the rich, with a bit of nudging, are to trusted to make "intelligent" decisions, the rest have to be regulated.

Patricia Kaszynska is a Senior Researcher at ResPublica

Youngsters play football up against a boarded-up pub in the Gorton area of Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

Patricia Kaszynska is senior researcher and project manager as ResPublica.

India Bourke
Show Hide image

Pegida UK: The new face of the far-right?

"Let them drink tea" Birmingham tells Islamophobes.

“Spooky,” is how Pegida UK – the latest branch of a global, anti-Islam, protest group  chooses to describe its silent march on the outskirts of Birmingham. 

“Islam is Nazism incarnate,” announces its new leader, Paul Weston, to a few hundred soggy, sober, brolly-clad protesters waving “Trump is Right” placards. 

Pegida UK protestors march through the rain. Photos: India Bourke

Such numbers are a far cry from the tens of thousands who attended the movement’s inaugural rallies in Germany in 2014, in response to the perceived “Islamisation” of Europe. And they would be derisory if the cheers Weston receives from his supporters weren’t quite so chilling, nor echoed so far.

For Pegida UK is not alone. From Calais to Canberra, thousands marched in the name of the movement’s toxic platform of anti-immigration and anti-Islam last weekend. I went to see the Birmingham rally to find out why such a protest is taking place in Britain.


"Today is the first of many European wide demonstrations that will bring people together like never before,” Tommy Robinson, UK founder and ex-EDL leader, tells the assembled crowd. “It's planting the seed of something huge.”

Robinson hopes to exploit a gap within Britain’s far-right. Traditional groups are fractured: the British National Party was decimated at the last election, standing just eight of a previous 338 candidates. In its place, a swell of smaller, extremist bodies – from the Sigurd Legion to National Action – are pressing an ever more militant agenda. Pegida hopes to scale back the hooliganism in order to garner a wider appeal, but it shares these groups’ confrontation with Islam, and each may spur the other on.

“With Pegida we’re seeing the rise of a seminal new threat,” says Birmingham MP Liam Byrne. “In the rise of Isis and politicians like Donald Trump, you have forces determined to promote a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West. Pegida is trying to surf that wave and make sure it crashes on our shores.

Opponents hope the movement will suffer the same implosion that felled the BNP and EDL, with both leaning  too much on their leaders’ personal brands. Robinson certainly seems as adolescent as ever: laughing as he swipes away a photo of a scantily-clad blonde on his iPhone screen to show me the international Pegida leadership’s “hidden” Facebook group.

Their new apparently "suited and booted" middle-class following is also less than wholehearted. One pin-striped IT executive I speak to seems embarrassed by the whole affair: “I’m just a cowardly family man who can’t see a solution being offered by mainstream politicians. I’d be sacked if they knew I was here,” he says, declining to give his name. 

A Pegida protestor poses in front of the main stage.

As long as such hesitation prevails, Pegida UK will struggle. Still, there’s a sense more needs to be done to ensure its demise.

Matching protest with counter-protest is the traditional leftwing response, and this weekend saw thousands of Pegida opponents take to the streets across Europe. Yet, in some cases, direct confrontation can risk drowning out – even alienating – the very voices it seeks to win over.

“Smash the facists into the sea,” instructed the Twitter account of the North London Antifa group ahead of last weekend’s far-right, anti-immigration protest in Dover, where injuries were sustained by demonstrators on both sides.


Instead, many now believe a better answer begins with that most British of pastimes: tea and a chat.

On the day before the Birmingam march, hundreds of the city’s cross-party leaders, religious figures and citizens gathered together at Birmingham Central Mosque to share their concerns over shortcake and jalebi.

“Groups like Pegida are parasites on the real concerns people have,” says John Page from the anti-extremism group Hope not Hate. “So we have to listen to these issues to close the cracks.

Initiatives around the city will attempt to take this approach, which sets a welcome lead not just for the UK, but Europe too.

The blanket smearing by groups like Pegida of Islam as a religion of sexist, homophobic Jihadi Johns places the burden of action disproportionately on the city’s Muslims. “It is our turn now to suffer these attacks,” says Mr Ali, Birmingham Central Mosque’s 42-year-old administrator. “It was the Irish, then the Jews, and now it is the time for us. But we are proud to be British Muslims and we will do what we can to defend this country.” 

A permanent visitors gallery, Visit-my-Mosque events, and publications that condemn Isis, are just some of the ways the community is challenging demonisation. It is even hosting a documentary crew from Channel 4 – a bold move in a city still reeling from Benefits Street.

Birmingham resident, Luke Holland, at a peaceful counter-protest in the city centre.

Mr Ali says: “The extreme right know nothing about Islam, but neither do many Muslim extremists.” The mosque is therefore in the process of formulating a “code of conduct”, making clear that hate speech of any kind is unacceptable.

"We have to help young people become the next Chamberlains and Cadburys and Lucases of this city," regardless of background, says Labour councillor Habib Rehman. Instead of letting them slip into despair and extremism of any kind, "we have to tell them: 'Yes You Khan!’”

Tea and talk is not the most dramatic response to Pegida’s claim it will have “100,000 decent people on the street” by the end of the year. But, in Birmingham at least – the city of Typhoo, where bhangra is as familiar as Bournville, and “No dogs, no Irish!” still sits heavy on the collective mind – tea, for now, means hope.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.