Much of David’s article is about the causes of inequality. He rightly cites centralisation, education, snobbery and passivity. In the way that David describes them, none of them are about ‘tax and spending’. I would add another to this list, which crosses over with at least two in David’s list (snobbery and education): the persistence of social class, which leads to generation on generation holding on to power that it has, and perpetuating it through networks which outsiders can seldom access. The persistence of class is sometimes about money, but it is just as often about family connections and schooling, both of which can have an enormous impact on the kinds of informal opportunities and feet-in-the-door that are so often life-defining.

However, we must be clear that there are many problems which can only be tackled if money is spent on them, as David recognises in his article, especially in the short term. I think we also have to recognise that there are clear examples of where more money works, most notably in tackling problems like long waiting times in the NHS, and in providing resources (books, buildings and teachers) for schools. In these areas, extra spending by Labour since 2001 has made a difference, and improvements would have been very hard indeed without extra spending.

Moreover, huge challenges remain which have money as part of the answer. If you are living in poverty, then one of the greatest problems you have is a lack of money. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in his short story ‘The Rich Boy’, ‘Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.’ A response to this, often attributed to Ernest Hemingway, was ‘Yes, they have more money’. For all that the wealthy have so many advantages and opportunities, we must not forget that fundamentally their advantages are driven by money. If we want to tackle that, then investing in public services so that all can have access to the best, regardless of their money, must be a priority. We must also not forget the people who need help now because they do not have warm decent homes, good food, clothing, and other basics which many of us take for granted. Here, the state can step in and it will take money. Moreover, let us not forget the ‘R Word’ – redistribution, which I believe should be central to any programme which seeks to tackle poverty. The Liberal Democrats are stronger on this than we ever have been, but there is more that can be done.

So the SLF must and will talk about money in relation to some policies. But we will also be addressing the many other issues that lead us to have a socially unjust and unsustainable society. We will be putting forward new ideas on decentralisaton, democracy and sustainability. It is in these, that the long-term solutions which go beyond money, can be found. A look at the many proposals in our ‘Ideas Factory’ shows how much fertile ground there already is.

Coincidentally, an article appeared in the New Statesman just a few days ago which suggests just how much common ground there is for such discussions with Compass. In ‘No Turning Back’, the Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, and journalist John Harris, put forward perspectives which I think many Liberal Democrats share, and which I believe we should engage with constructively.

The overall thrust of the article is that in the current economic crisis, the Conservative and Labour leaderships are essentially arguing that the ‘downturn is there to be ridden out’ and that it will then be back to business as usual. The authors profoundly reject such an approach arguing that this thinking is as if Attlee’s government in 1945 had wanted to go back to the inter-war years, or if ‘Thatcher had turned out to be nostalgic for the three-day week’. Lawson and Harris argue that we now ‘have an opportunity to change society profound ways’. Why should this be welcomed by Liberal Democrats?

First of all, the authors recognise that we have been arguing for a different future. They point out that many people in the party understand ‘that the era of market worship is over’, and point out the effectiveness of Vince Cable in describing the flaws of the economic system. No doubt they would be encouraged by the extent to which the idea of a ‘different future’ was central to Nick Clegg’s speech at the Liberal Democrat conference on 8th March. Some Liberal Democrats will probably ask, why then don’t they just join us? But I believe that approach would be simplistic because of my second reason for engaging with them.

Lawson and Harris call for ‘a more equal, sustainable, democratic and liberal Britain’. They offer ten specific proposals to achieve this, under the following headings:

1. Electoral reform
2. Introduce the Tobin tax
3. 35-hour week
4. A living wage
5. Radical localism
6. Re-mutualise and re-regulate the banks
7. A maximum wage
8. A Green New Deal
9. A tax on land
10. General Well-being Index

Some of these are already Liberal Democrat policy, and others are close to it. Other ideas, such as a maximum wage, and a 35-hour week, are more obviously associated with a different political tradition to our own, and are ones which we might not instinctively suggest. Yet because they may well have a role to play in the kind of future we want to see, I believe it is crucial for us to engage with these ideas from outside the Liberal Democrats.

Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting any return to so-called Lib-Labbery with talk of agreements or deals – and I don’t believe anyone else is either. Indeed, many of those involved in Compass are not in the Labour Party. But I do think we can benefit from an open and honest exchange of ideas – we may learn nothing and just fall back on our own policies, and if we are confident in our own ideas, we have nothing to fear from such a debate. If that exchange of ideas reveals room for working together on practical issues – such as in the recent cooperation between the Liberal Democrats and backbench Labour MPs to secure mandatory corporate reporting on carbon reduction – surely that can only be a good thing. So I very much hope that Liberal Democrats can engage in an open-minded discussion with those in and around Compass, partly along the lines suggested by Lawson and Harris, but also by putting forward our own proposals.

The launch of the Social Liberal Forum in Harrogate was a truly excellent meeting – I don’t think I have ever come across so much enthusiasm at such an event.

Kicking off the discussions, Matthew Sowemimo spoke with great conviction about the importance of tackling child poverty in a far more ambitious way than Labour have done. The main speaker at the event, Steve Webb told his personal story about why he joined the Liberal Democrats. He argued that we all join the party with specific enthusiasms and causes for which we want to fight, and he said that we need to restore some of the passion to the way we tell people what we stand for.

A wide range of contributions came from those attending the meeting. These included: the need to examine the best ways to tackle anti-social behaviour; putting industrial democracy back at the forefront of our economic policies; giving a higher profile to fuel poverty; the need to spend more on social housing; and a desire to talk about policy to those with similar perspectives from outside the Liberal Democrats. Lynne Featherstone made a powerful contribution arguing that in the current economic crisis, we need to articulate a vision which shows we don’t just want to go back to how things were before the crisis, but that we offer a very different, and better, future.

The engagement of party members in the overall aims of the SLF was really encouraging, and in the months to come, we will be working on developing the ideas put forward.