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

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era