The deadline for autumn conference motions is looming (30 June to be precise), so we don’t have much time.  But what should the Social Liberal Forum be championing to get onto the agenda?  Here are some ideas:

• Secondary education – academies and free schools in particular – appears to be a simmering issue (see John Howson’s article on the SLF website).  Should we push for ensuring that the academies system is brought under greater local control and scrutiny?  What else?
• Higher education: tuitions fees is clearly a big issue.  Is there a way of squaring the circle? Move towards a graduate tax?
• Wealth taxation: the Tories struck anything even vaguely resembling a wealth tax from the coalition agreement.  This is an area in which the Lib Dems and Tories have a clear difference.  Is now the time to set out a strategy to make it clear we are a distinctive party?
• The Office of Budget Responsibility: as we spelt out in the SLF letter to Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, the OBR doesn’t currently have monitoring socio-economic inequality written into its terms of reference, despite the Treasury having to consider this under the Equality Act 2010. What’s more, despite being formally independent, its members are directly appointed by the Chancellor.  Shouldn’t it be subject to a confirmation hearing by the Treasury select committee (or, better yet, appointed by parliament in the same way that the Electoral Commission is)?

These are just a handful of ideas from off the top of my head.  Feedback welcome on these – as of course are other ideas.  Add your comments below.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

The Social Liberal Forum executive has undergone some significant changes over the past couple of months.  Sadly, Richard Grayson and Alison Goldsworthy have resigned from the executive.  Alison has had to leave due to other work commitments while Richard is working hard on the party’s Federal Policy Committee and Manifesto Working Group.  We wish them both the best of luck and would like to take this opportunity to thank them for helping to get the SLF on its feet during its first few months.

The remaining executive members – Director Matthew Sowemimo and Secretary James Graham – are being joined by David Hall-Matthews and Peter Kunzmann.  David is a respected academic and a former Lib Dem candidate (Leeds North West, 2001) who readers of Reinventing The State may recall contributed a chapter on international development.  He takes over from Richard as the Chair of the organisation.  Peter has worked for the party and a number of MPs over the years and has a special interest in using public policy to promote happiness.

The one thing our change in personel has highlighted is the need for the SLF to get itself on a firmer democratic footing.  This has always been part of our plans after the general election, but we have decided to bring these forward.  Watch this space for more information.

MANIFESTO PRIORITIES

The new Social Liberal Forum executive has published a joint statement on what we see are the key priorities for the next Liberal Democrat manifesto.  These include:

• A firm commitment to reduce income inequality over the course of the next Parliament;
• The richest in society should take a greater part of the strain in reducing the budget deficit and we should present ourselves as the party of fair, redistributive taxation;
• A low carbon economy and a global climate change agreement based on the principles of contraction and convergence;
• Youth unemployment should be another priority – the party is right to stick with its commitment to scrap tuition fees.

The full statement can be found here.

SOCIAL NETWORK

Many thanks to the dozens of you who have joined our Social Network over the past few weeks.  If you have not done so already, please do: http://socialliberal.ning.com/

Although only early days yet, this Social Network is set to be crucial tool for coordinating our activities.  Please join so we can keep you better in touch.

Cheers,

James Graham
Social Liberal Forum

One of the many things I meant to do this summer was to write a review of this pamphlet.  It is a highly readable account of the financial mess we are in and challenges a lot of assumptions – in particular George Osborne’s apocalyptic insistance that cutting public borrowing is the main priority and that the situation is analogous to where the UK was at in the late-70s/early-80s.  It also proposes the introduction of a property tax – albeit at a higher rate than the one Vince Cable is now proposing.

It is a well deserved award and congratulations to all concerned.

Progressives in all these parties are committed to greater equality and dealing with the challenge of climate change, but the binding value is pluralism. We recognise the value of difference, distinct histories and tradition but are using them to develop a shared project that is stronger because it is based on consensus-building. What we seek is not a big tent – that has been tried and failed – but a camp site where we keep our independence but grow stronger within common boundaries. This is not a coalition of parties and votes but of ideas and hope.

You can read the full article online here.

If you would like to be part of the debate, please join our social network today.

PARTY CONFERENCE

The Social Liberal Forum will be holding a joint fringe meeting with Compass on Monday 21 September at 20:15-21:15 in Connaught 1, the Connaught Hotel.  "Overcoming political barriers to equality" will feature Steve Webb MP and Neal Lawson, the Chair of Compass and author of All Consuming.

Full details are available on Facebook, Flock Together and Ning.  As well as attending, we would really appreciate it if you would also help promote it by inviting your friends to attend.

At the Labour Party conference the following week, Evan Harris MP will be speaking at another joint event with Compass and the Social Liberal Forum at the Lowy Suite, Best Western Brighton Hotel on Wednesday 30 September at 12:45-13:45.  If you are attending Labour conference or live in Brighton, it would be great to see you there.

NEW ON WEBSITE

Over the last few weeks we have added two more chapters from Reinventing the State: "Equality Matters", by Duncan Brack and "Reforming the NHS – a local and democratic choice" by Richard Grayson.  In its second printing, Reinventing the State is currently available direct from the publishers Methuen at the discount price of £10.

We are always on the lookout for new material to put on the Social Liberal Forum website.  If you would like to write a short article, please send a 50-100 word summary of what you would like to write to james@socialliberal.net.

SOCIAL NETWORK

Many thanks to the dozens of you who have joined our Social Network over the past few weeks.  If you have not done so already, please do: http://socialliberal.ning.com/

We’re planning to use this network to develop meetings and activities in your local area.  The more people who sign up, the more we can do.

At the heart of The Spirit Level is a wealth of statistical data outlining how more equal societies (defined in terms of income inequality) do better in terms of physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, crime and imprisonment, obesity, violence, teenage pregnancy, child welfare and social mobility (the latter is a bit of a killer incidentally, it would appear that “The American Dream” is more of a reality in many countries which Fox News would condemn as “socialist”). If that were all the book had to offer I would suggest you save your money and simply peruse the excellent Equality Trust website which Wilkinson and Pickett have helped to set up. What is more compelling, for me at least, is the explanation about why this may be the case.

Some of this has already been covered in Duncan Brack’s chapter on equality in Reinventing the State (which you can read here). In essence, the sociological evidence fits with what we understand about evolutionary psychology and biology. As a species, we are hardwired for fairness and living in a socially stratified society is not merely something we dislike but something which we find physically stressful. Wilkinson and Pickett cite numerous pieces of evidence which suggest that, for example, low caste children in India perform worse at intelligence tests when they are told they are competing with high caste children than when they don’t realise they are being compared (New Scientist recently reported some interesting parallel research looking at exam performance of Black Americans before and after Barack Obama’s election victory). Other evidence suggests that shame can be as unbearable for people as physical pain and that living in poverty tends to cause children to mature early.

Overall, it is a compelling document. I have some qualms however. I don’t think the most startling claim, that inequality harms the wealthy as well as the poor is proven. They do provide evidence for this to be fair, but not an awful lot. I’d like to see more research on this before being convinced (I’m rather more convinced by the argument that inequality harms people earning median income and even higher income groups, just not those at the top). I would also like to better understand the dynamic between growth and equality: at what point does equality become a bigger factor in improving, say, health, than economic growth? In the first section of the book Wilkinson and Pickett do acknowledge that growth is a bigger factor for developing countries but the precise relationship between the two doesn’t get explored as much as I would have liked.

I also wish the book explored how inequality and ethnic diversity are interrelated. Most of the more equal societies listed appear to also be more ethnically more homogenous. Does ethnic diversity drive inequality and to what extent is it a barrier to greater equality? These are, admittedly, problematic questions to answer but I think it is something we need to understand. It would be nice to be able to discount the notion that the same biological factors which make us well disposed to equal societies don’t also dispose us towards more homogenous societies but what if it doesn’t? Ultimately, we can’t merely trust in social science to make decisions for us – that’s where political choices come in (for the avoidence of doubt, I’m NOT arguing for segregation or anti-immigration policies here – quite the opposite – but if there is a relationship between inequality and diversity we need to understand it and be able to respond).

So where does all this get us? Wilkinson and Pickett point to a few possible solutions. They are keen to emphasise that a more equal society doesn’t necessarily mean going down the Scandinavian route of redistributive taxation and a larger state. Japan for example has neither of these. Indeed, while they certainly do not oppose public policy solutions, most of the final chapter in the book is concerned with establishing a cultural shift.

Some of the solutions they do propose sound remarkably familiar to those of us who have read our Schumacher. A starting point for them would be to revolutionise employee ownership. “Industrial democracy” is something which the Lib Dems have forgotten about over the past couple of decades – perhaps it is time we rediscovered it as a central tenet in these post credit crunch days?

I was slightly surprised to read in a book about social problems and public health a section on the open source revolution and information technology but this is another aspect that Wilkinson and Pickett feel that politicians need to embrace in order to lead us towards this much needed cultural shift. I think they’re right to do so. The debate over intellectual property laws goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to live in – one where every tune and image is owned by private corporations or one where we have a cultural commons (all too often the artists and writers themselves tend to get forgotten in this debate but the public library system proves that we have alternatives to the limitless copyright model international law is drifting towards). A shift towards the latter would strike a blow for those of us who believe equality matters.

We can’t forget public policy of course, but as Wilkinson and Pickett point out if those shifts in policy are to be lasting they have to go hand in hand with an attitudinal change. The tricky thing is that it is clear that most people have an innate sense of fairness, outside of the laboratory there is a wide difference of opinion as to what is “fair.” This makes it all the more crucial the politicians start talking about these issues. Gordon Brown has demonstrated over the past decade that redistribution by stealth merely gets you into a mess.

The Social Liberal Forum and Compass will be hosting a fringe meeting on Overcoming Political Barriers to Equality on Monday 21 September at the Lib Dem autumn conference in Bournemouth. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett will be speaking at the Hackney Liberal Democrats Garden Party on Sunday 13 September (£10 or £5 in advance).

One interesting side aspect of this debate has been how the UK has been dragged into it. When Sarah Palin is talking about “death panels” it turns out that she is referring to NICE. Stephen Hawking, having been cited as the sort of American who the NHS would kill, has intervened pointing out that, erm, he’s British and dependent on the NHS. Meanwhile Tory goldenboy Dan Hannan has been touring the US espousing how terrible the NHS is and why they are so much better off without it. What’s all the more remarkable is that the Obama proposals are actually closer to the sort of systems we find in mainland Europe – indeed the sort of proposals that in the UK we normally associate with the right. What passes for “socialism” in the US, the Lib Dems would more closely associate with the Orange Book.

Hannan appears to be blissfully unaware of the fact that despite the fact that the US healthcare system tops the OECD league table in terms of cost as a proportion of GDP, it leaves 25% of its citizens without cover. As well as the most expensive healthcare system it also has the worst outcomes. We can all come up with our criticisms of the NHS, but at half the cost (per capita) it remains one of the best value for money systems in the world.

In politics, it is all too easy to criticise public services. There is no question that the NHS could be improved and Liberal Democrats have plenty of ideas of how to do this. The central concern we have is ensuring that the system is more democratic and responsive to patient needs. There is also growing evidence that this is linked to levels of inequality where the UK does only marginally better than the US.

But with the system under attack on the other side of the Atlantic, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on what a tremendous achievement the NHS has been over the past 60 years. One of the most heartening aspects of the US debate has been the rise of the #welovethenhs meme on Twitter. A spontaneous reaction to the bile coming over from the States, thousands of ordinary people have been spreading their own stories of how the NHS has helped them and their families. Currently this is one of the top “trending” items on twitter meaning that thousands of Americans, in turn, are likely to read about how a better funded health system could help them. Neither the US or UK governments could have bought this kind of publicity.

At the Social Liberal Forum we’d like to do our own small bit as well, which is why we’ve set up our own We Love The NHS group on our new Social Network. Why not join the group and add your story there?

See also: http://www.libdemvoice.org/here-at-ldv-welovethenhs-15891.html

The landed gentry wouldn’t stand for that and, having control of the House of Lords, vetoed it. This lead to two general elections, Asquith threatening to fill the Lords with his own placemen and the aforementioned restrictions on the Upper House.

A mere historical footnote? Well, two new reports would like it to be the shape of things to come. With the economy in the mess that it is in, land taxes are back on the agenda. Labour pressure group Compass has produced this report calling for council tax to be replaced by land value taxation, while David Cooper from the Association of Land Tax and Economic Reform has written this report for Vince Cable (PDF).

Opposition to this has come, unsurprisingly, from the Conservatives. Tory housing spokesperson has attacked this as a tax on homeownership, which it certainly is, but doesn’t appear to have engaged with the argument at all: specifically that the boom and bust cycle of the housing market is bad for the economy and encourages people to invest in property (a social necessity) and not stocks and shares.

Interestingly, the other critics are an organisation calling itself the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Media darlings, the TPA has recently been increasingly moving away from its brief of supporting reduced taxes and onto telling us what kind of taxes we should have. Land Value Taxation, if introduced instead of other taxes such as council tax or income tax, could see most taxpayers paying less and only a minority paying more. So which taxpayers does this alliance represent exactly?

The answer appears to take us right back to the landowners in 1909. The First World War destroyed David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill’s attempt to introduce land taxes back then; here’s hoping history doesn’t repeat itself.

* Declaration: James Graham works for Unlock Democracy, which runs the Elect the Lords Campaign. The views in this article are his own.

On the one hand with the crisis of capitalism and the systemic failure of free markets, coupled with the election of Barack Obama in the United States, centre-left politics is getting far more interesting and it would seem that the opportunity for seismic change is greater now than at any point for a generation, indeed some including Compass have called this a ‘centre-left moment’. Yet on the other hand across Europe we’ve seen the resurgence of right-wing parties to the electoral demise of those on the left, and here in Britain we’ve paid witness to the growing threat of hard-right parties like the BNP.

Head over to the Compass website to get a ticket.  The event will take place from 6pm – 7.30pm on Tuesday 8 September 2009 at the LSE Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, Aldwych, London WC2A 2AE.

“On the day of the next general election, there should be a binding referendum on whether to change to a more proportional electoral system. This should be drawn up by a large jury of randomly selected citizens, given the time and information to deliberate on what voting system and other changes would make Parliament more accountable to citizens.”

See the full text of the letter and the other signatories on The Observer site.