Jeremy Browne speaks in New Delhi while Foreign Office minister in 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Browne: Lib Dem leadership contest must include free market candidate

Lib Dem MP and former minister says "It’s essential that that choice is one that the party has". 

Ahead of the Lib Dem conference (they're going last rather than first this year due to the Scottish referendum), I've interviewed Jeremy Browne, one of the most party's most interesting and intellectually confident MPs. Since his surprise sacking as a Home Office minister last year, Browne has used his time well, first writing Race Plan, a radical manifesto for free-market liberalism, and now Why Vote Liberal Democrat 2015.  In the latter he argues that the Lib Dems must embrace "360-degree liberalism" if they are to flourish, championing freedom in both the economic and the social spheres. 

"If you talk to Lib Dem audiences about economic liberalism, which for me is the great global phenomenon of our time, and increased trade, competition and marketisation, Lib Dems get nervous that this will be seen as sounding too close to uncaring 1980s Thatcherism.

"As a result of that, we shy away from having a 360-degree liberal offer. We have a partial liberal offer. It reinforces the sense that we are hesitant about our own liberalism; we don’t follow through on each aspect of our offer." He argues that the rise of individualism and the decline of deference, most notably among the young, means that there is a "bigger marketplace" than ever for a programme of this kind (his policy proposals include the establishment of profit-making free schools, greater use of the private sector in the NHS, and a reduction in the top rate of tax from 45p to 40p). 

Given the conviction and articulacy with which Browne states his views I naturally asked him whether he would stand for the party leadership when a vacancy arises. "This is where politicians are meant to give some sort of clever and evasive answer," he laughingly replied when I raised the subject. "Let me give you a genuine answer, rather than trying to give you a clever answer."

He went on to tell me that there were "three broad options for the party".

Browne on the three kinds of Lib Dem leadership candidate 

1. The protest candidate 

The first, he said, was to "slump back into being a protest party" ("the comfort zone of tweeting about student sit-ins"). He added: "I think that would be a real let down if we did that, and would be an acceptance by us that we were not willing to be a bigger, more responsible party, so I’m very strongly against that strand, it may not identify itself in those terms but I think that may be seductive to some people in the party." 

It is not hard to see that Browne has Tim Farron, the party's left-leaning president, profilic tweeter, and the activists' favourite to become leader, in mind. 

2. The continuity candidate

The second option, he said, was represented by "a continuity, steady-as-she-goes strand", which believes "we can just continue to find a way to navigate around some of the pinch point moments that parties face, and muddle along." Again, it is not hard to imagine which likely candidate Browne is thinking of: Danny Alexander (who has been positioning himself to stand).

When I put Farron and Alexander's names to Browne, he replied: "Now you're being mischievous," which, I note, is not a denial. 

3. The complete liberal candidate

The third option, he said, was to embrace "360-degree liberalism" (economic and social liberalism) and to be "the liberal voice in the liberal age". When I asked him whether he would personally ensure that the party is offered this choice, he told me: "I don’t have massive personal ambitions. It’s a big sacrifice being the leader of a political party." But he added: "It’s essential that that choice is one that the party has. It’s actually essential that it’s one that the party adopts but it can’t adopt it if it doesn’t have that choice. Now, if someone else can do that better than me, that’s great."

Lib Dem sources suggest that Browne has David Laws, the schools minister and another figure from the party's free market wing, in mind. But Laws, who remains tainted by his forced resignation from the cabinet in 2010, may choose not to stand. When I asked Browne how he would respond if another economic liberal failed to come forward, he replied: "We'll see". 

At this stage, it would be imprudent for him to say anything else. But if no one else answers the call, this liberal prophet will surely take the chance to preach to the unconverted.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The murder of fearless journalist Pavel Sheremet must be solved - but Ukraine needs more

Sheremet was blown up as he drove to host a morning radio programme

On 20th of July Kiev was shaken by the news of the assassination of the respected Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet. Outside the ex-Soviet republics he was hardly known. Yet the murder is one that the West should reflect on, as it could do much to aggravate the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. 

Sheremet was one of the most significant and high profile investigative journalists of his generation. His career as an archetypal  examiner of the post-Soviet regimes in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia bought him fame and notoriety in the region. From 1997 onwards Sheremet became a name for fearless and non-partisan interrogation, both in print and as also as TV presenter. He paid the price early on when he was incarcerated by the Belarus government, then stripped of his Belarusian nationality and deported. Such is the way of things in the region.

Taking up residence in Kiev, Sheremet became immersed in interrogating the political life of Ukraine. He wrote for the Ukrayinska Pravda publication and also helped to develop a journalism school. Under these auspices he was a participant of a congress, "The dialogue between Ukraine and Russia", in April 2014. He reported on beginnings of the Euromaidan uprising. He warned of the rise of the concept  of "Novorossia" and suggested that Ukraine needed to reset its current status and stand up to Russian pressure. After the Russian occupation of Crimea his blame for the Ukrainian government was ferocious. He alleged that that they "left their soldiers face to face the [Russian] aggressor and had given up the Crimean peninsula with no attempt to defend it." These, he said "are going to be the most disgraceful pages of Ukrainian history."

Sheremet was blown up at 7.45am on 20 July as he drove to host a morning radio programme.

Ukraine is a dangerous place for journalists. Fifty of them have been murdered since Ukraine achieved independence. However, this murder is different from the others. Firstly, both the Ukrainian President and the Interior minister immediately sought assistance from FBI and EU investigators. For once it seems that the Ukrainian government is serious about solving this crime. Secondly, this IED type assassination had all the trappings of a professional operation. To blow a car up in rush hour Kiev needs a surveillance team and sophisticated explosive expertise. 

Where to lay the blame? Pavel Sheremet had plenty of enemies, including those in power in Belarus, Russia and the militias in Ukraine (his last blog warned of a possible coup by the militias). But Ukraine needs assistance beyond investigators from the FBI and the EU. It needs more financial help to support credible investigative journalism.   

The murder of Pavel Sheremet was an attack on the already fragile Ukrainian civil society, a country on the doorstep of the EU. The fear is that the latest murder might well be the beginning of worse to come.

Mohammad Zahoor is the publisher of Ukrainian newspaper The Kyiv Post.