Why we need a Lib Dem-Tory alliance

It’s time to strengthen the liberal-right in British politics.

Nearly two years into the coalition, both of the governing parties are promoting their distinct identities to garner supporters. This is because the Conservatives want an outright majority. The Liberal Democrats just want survival.

But as David Laws commented in a keynote speech to Bright Blue this week, now is not the time to stress differentiation and split the coalition. A better strategy - for both parties and, most importantly, for the country, especially in this period of economic turbulence - is to stress the shared agenda of the two partners and the longevity of the current government.

In actual fact, it's time to seriously consider a long-term relationship, even a merger, between the two parties which lasts beyond 2015. The liberal-right needs a strengthened political identity in this country, to dilute the influence of ideologues and reactionaries, and to maintain progressive policy-making.

The Conservatives face a weak opposition and Cameron is popular with the electorate. But it is not enough. Polling by Michael Ashcroft of voters in key marginal seats shows that those who failed to give the party the votes they needed for a majority, are still sceptics today. Low-income women and ethnic minorities are particularly doubtful. Teaming up with the Lib Dems would help reassure such voters that the party really is decontaminated, modern and liberal-minded.

The Lib Dems can never govern alone. They rely on coalitions. The problem is, transferring from one party to the other looks like flip-flopping, and they will be punished by voters. Their best hope of long-term influence lies in a merger with one of the major political parties. A liberal-right alliance would be consistent with their Gladstonian traditions and allow greater distinctiveness and influence than a Lab-Lib pact.

Finally, and most importantly, the country would benefit from a new liberal-right alliance. The truth is, since the 1990s, most senior minsters and civil servants have subscribed to economic and social liberalism: a belief in a competitive, market-based economy with protection and enhanced opportunities for the most vulnerable.

So all recent governments have sought low taxes, light-tough regulation and private sector engagement in public services. But, at the same time, there has been commitments to tax credits, enhanced investment in hospitals and schools, better workers' rights and a determination to protect personal freedom. This consensus on policy-making has - apart from notable anomalies - been followed by Cameron, who followed Blair, who followed Major.

Yes, there are problems with our economy and our society. More still needs to be done. But these liberal, pro-market reforms - based on close inspection of evidence - have made this country, slowly but surely, better. Satisfaction with our health service is at an all-time high. Educational standards are up. Crime and levels of poverty are down.

But the liberal-right - on the modernising wings of the three main parties - who are open to evidence and passionate about progress are under constant pressure from ideologues, who are nervous and uncomfortable about the direction of modern Britain. To keep these voices happy, archaic and ridiculous narratives, as well as ill-considered policies, are often trumpeted.

So, for example, we have Cameron proposing a transferable tax allowance for married couples, a throw-back to the 1950s which will do nothing to boost marriage rates. Clegg, meanwhile, went into the last election calling for the scrapping of tuition fees, despite the fact that the new funding arrangements have not harmed university access for the most deprived. In the Labour party, there is stubborn opposition to private sector involvement in the health service, despite a wealth of evidence illustrating that increased competition enhances the performance and efficiency of hospitals.

Such thoughtless policy positions are championed simply to gratify unthinking, prejudiced viewpoints, which spread and are slavishly adhered to in political parties. Ideologues that enjoy the belligerency and tribalism of politics rise up the ranks and wield too much power, distorting steps to social and economic progress.

A new liberal-right alliance could change that. There would, of course, be room for those on the modernising wing of the Labour Party. Those who are passionate about good policies and open to new ideas, not dogmatists and tribalists, would be more influential. And the silent majority in this country - who simply long for a better life for their families, whichever party is in power - would benefit from a new sort of politics: discursive, progressive and evidence-based.

Ryan Shorthouse is the Director of Bright Blue

Ryan Shorthouse is the Director of Bright Blue, a think tank for liberal conservativism 

Getty.
Show Hide image

Angela Merkel's call for a burqa ban sets a disturbing precedent

The German chancellor's plan for a partial ban of the full-face veil is a clearly political move, which will do more to harm those women who wear it than protect them.

 

In these febrile times, women’s freedom and autonomy has become a bargaining chip in the poker game of public propaganda — and that goes double for brown, Muslim and migrant women. Angela Merkel should know as well as any other female politician how demeaning it is to be treated as if what you wear is more important than what you say and what you do. With the far-right on the rise across Europe, however, the German chancellor has become the latest lawmaker to call for a partial ban on the burqa and niqab.

We are told that this perennial political football is being kicked about in the name of liberating women. It can have nothing to do, of course, with the fact that popular opinion is lurching wildly to the right in western democracies, there’s an election in Germany next year, and Merkel is seen as being too soft on migration after her decision to allow a million Syrian refugees to enter the country last year. She is also somehow blamed for the mob attacks on women in Cologne, which have become a symbol of the threat that immigration poses to white women and, by extension, to white masculinity in Europe. Rape and abuse perpetrated by white Europeans, of course, is not considered a matter for urgent political intervention — nor could it be counted on to win back voters who have turned from Merkel's party to the far-right AFD, which wants to see a national debate on abortion rights and women restricted to their rightful role as mothers and homemakers.

If you’ll allow me to be cynical for a moment, imposing state restrictions on what women may and may not wear in public has not, historically, been a great foundation for feminist liberation. The move is symbolic, not practical. In Britain, where the ban is also being proposed by Ukip the services that actually protect women from domestic violence have been slashed over the past six years — the charity Refuge, the largest provider of domestic violence services in the UK, has seen a reduction in funding across 80% of its service contracts since 2011.

It’s worth noting that even in western countries with sizeable Muslim minorities, the number of women who wear full burqa is vanishingly small. If those women are victims of coercion or domestic violence, banning the burqa in public will not do a thing to make them safer — if anything, it will reduce their ability to leave their homes, isolating them further.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, racist and Islamophobic attacks spiked in the UK. Hate crimes nationally shot up by 42% in the two weeks following the vote on 23 June. Hate crimes against Muslim women increased by over 300%, with visibly Muslim women experiencing 46% of all hate incidents. Instances of headscarves being ripped off have become so common that self-defense videos are being shared online, showing women how to deflect the “hijab grab”. In this context, it is absurd to claim that politicians proposing a burqa ban care about protecting women: the move is transparently designed to placate the very people who are making Muslim women feel unsafe in their own communities.

When politicians talk about banning the burqa, the public hears an attack on all Islamic headscarves — not everyone knows the difference between the hijab, the niqab and the burqa, and not everyone cares. The important thing is that seeing women dressed that way makes some people feel uncomfortable, and desperate politicians are casting about for ways to validate that discomfort.

Women who actually wear the burqa are not invited to speak about their experiences or state their preferences in this debate. On this point, Islamic fundamentalists and panicked western conservatives are in absolute agreement: Muslim women are provocative and deserve to be treated as a threat to masculine pride. They should shut up and let other people decide what’s best for them.

I know Muslim women who regard even the simple hijab as an object of oppression and have sworn never to wear one again. I also know Muslim women who wear headscarves every day as a statement both of faith and of political defiance. There is no neutral fashion option for a woman of Islamic faith — either way, men in positions of power will feel entitled to judge, shame and threaten. Either choice risks provoking anger and violence from someone with an opinion about what your outfit means for them. The important thing is the autonomy that comes with still having a choice.

A law which treats women like children who cannot be trusted to make basic decisions about their bodies and clothing is a sexist law; a law that singles out religious minorities and women of colour as especially unworthy of autonomy is a racist, sexist law. Instituting racist, sexist laws is a good way to win back the votes of racist, sexist people, but, again, a dreadful way of protecting women. In practice, a burqa ban, even the partial version proposed by Merkel which will most likely be hard to enforce under German constitutional law, will directly impact only a few thousand people in the west. Those people are women of colour, many of them immigrants or foreigners, people whose actual lives are already of minimal importance to the state except on an abstract, symbolic level, as the embodiment of a notional threat to white Christian patriarchy. Many believe that France's longstanding burqa ban has increased racial tensions — encapsulated by the image earlier this year of French police surrounding a woman who was just trying to relax with her family on the beach in a burkini. There's definitely male violence at play here, but a different kind — a kind that cannot be mined for political capital, because it comes from the heart of the state.

This has been the case for centuries: long before the US government used the term“Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe the war in Afghanistan, western politicians used the symbolism of the veil to recast the repeated invasion of Middle Eastern nations as a project of feminist liberation. The same colonists who justified the British takeover of Islamic countries abroad were active in the fight to suppress women’s suffrage at home. This is not about freeing women, but about soothing and coddling men’s feelings about women.

The security argument is even more farcical: border guards are already able to strip people of their clothes, underwear and dignity if they get the urge. If a state truly believes that facial coverings are some sort of security threat, it should start by banning beards, but let's be serious, masculinity is fragile enough as it is. If it were less so, we wouldn't have politicians panicking over how to placate the millions of people who view the clothing choices of minority and migrant women as an active identity threat.

Many decent, tolerant people, including feminists, are torn on the issue of the burqa: of course we don't want the state to start policing what women can and can't wear, but isn't the burqa oppressive? Maybe so, but I was not aware of feminism as a movement that demands that all oppressive clothing be subject to police confiscation, unless the Met’s evidence lockers are full of stilettos, girdles and push-up bras. In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel uncomfortable on the rare occasions when I have seen people wearing the full face veil in public. I've spent enough time living with goths and hippies that I've a high tolerance for ersatz fashion choices — but do wonder what their home lives are like and whether they are happy and safe, and that makes me feel anxious. Banning the burqa might make me feel less anxious. It would not, however, improve the lives of the women who actually wear it. That is what matters. My personal feelings as a white woman about how Muslim women choose to dress are, in fact, staggeringly unimportant.

If you think the Burqa is oppressive and offensive, you are perfectly entitled never to wear one. You are not, however, entitled to make that decision for anyone else. Exactly the same principle applies in the interminable battle over women's basic reproductive choices: many people believe that abortion is wrong, sinful and damaging to women. That's okay. I suggest they never have an abortion. What's not okay is taking away that autonomy from others as a cheap ploy for good press coverage in the runup to an election.

This debate has been dragging on for decades, but there's a new urgency to it now, a new danger: we are now in a political climate where the elected leaders of major nations are talking about registries for Muslims and other minorities. Instituting a symbolic ban on religious dress, however extreme, sets a precedent. What comes next? Are we going to ban every form of Islamic headdress? What about the yarmulke, the tichel, the Sikh turban, the rainbow flag? If this is about community cohesion, what will it take to make white conservatives feel “comfortable”? Where does it stop? Whose freedoms are politicians prepared to sacrifice as a sop to a populace made bitter and unpredictable by 30 years of neoliberal incompetence? Where do we draw the line?

We draw it right here, between the state and the autonomy of women, particularly minority and migrant women who are already facing harassment in unprecedented numbers. Whatever you feel about the burqa, it is not the role of government to police what women wear, and doing it has nothing to do with protection. It is chauvinist, it is repressive, it is a deeply disturbing precedent, and it has no place in our public conversation.

 
 
 
 

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.