Throughout Tony Blairs first term as Prime Minister, opponents of his administration attacked it as illiberal, authoritarian and centralist. The response was pretty much, Look, weve got a lot to do and were not going to waste our time responding to that kind of accusation. It was calculated to appear as uncalculated as possible.
In the light of its second landslide victory, it might seem that Labours response was a sound one. The Tories, the only other party with any chance of forming a government, were unable to portray themselves as champions of liberty against the forces of oppression. This was in no small part due to their proposals to intern all asylum seekers and to dramatically increase the length of sentences served by most prisoners. It was compounded by an evident distaste for improving the legal status of homosexuality and an uncompromisingly hard line on soft drugs.
A pained repositioning is underway. The shattered Right seek a new big idea. Libertad o muerte! cries Charles Moore, editor of the consistently pro-Tory Daily Telegraph, as he argues for the freedom to hunt and watch internet pornography. Im a liberal, announces Richard Littlejohn to the Times during a break from scourging the chattering classes. We should all be allowed to smoke pot, says Peter Lilley from the Conservative back benches.
The Right fills a vacuum
What is going on? Is there really a new and important story for the Right to tell about freedom? And, if so, why is there still no evidence of a response from the Left, let alone from the Labour party?
I dont believe that the Right does have a significant new story. The liberalism of Moore and Lilley is not about embracing anything: it is in fact a rather traditional aristocratic desire to tolerate everything that does not harm them. As for Littlejohn, his liberalism is about not being told what to do or think or say by anyone else, thank you very much: hardly a radical departure for many on the centre-right.
The Tory party has long had a neo-liberal element that smiles equally on free markets and free living. All of the elements of the embryonic Conservative Freedom Movement have long been present, but remained dormant until the election passed. What we are seeing is partly a backlash against the socially conservative tone of the previous, fantastically unsuccessful, Tory leadership of William Hague. But it is also an opportunistic political manoeuvre, taking advantage of the Lefts failure to develop its own convincing narrative about freedom and the good society.
In the short term, the muted reaction of the Labour Party to right wing calls for freedom may be wholly understandable. Whilst the Tories are in turmoil over their leadership, why should Labour strategists share the torrid limelight the London media throw on any political party undertaking a debate?
But for those of us in our twenties, Labours complacency has an ominous feel. In the medium term the Cabinet can look forward to a comfortable retirement and a place in the House of Lords (now preserved for years to come as a palace of appointment for old boys and girls). But however dire the state of the Tories may now look, it is clear that if they are allowed to monopolise the arguments for freedom and liberty, they will return to power.
Freedom from and freedom to
Behind the opportunism there is a deeper and more persistent reason for Labours frustrating failure to make a case for itself as a party of freedom. It is because the Right in the UK, as in the US, has established its own concept of freedom negative liberty or freedom from as the dominant popular understanding. The idea that the state best makes the individual free by getting out of the way, by deregulating and cutting taxes, by doing less, is now firmly entrenched.
By contrast positive freedom, or freedom to, and the idea that the state can improve the abilities and opportunities of its citizens, has little standing. Anti-poverty strategies and support for high quality public services are absolutely central to the Labour partys programme. Naturally, they are argued for in terms of fairness. It is time they were also advocated in terms of freedom.
The Labour Party quite rightly disagrees with Keith Josephs dictum that Poverty is not unfreedom. It should have the courage to do so openly, to defend measures like the minimum wage and in-work benefits, like the working families tax credit and the childs tax credit, in terms of how they improve freedom.
It should have the courage to argue that improving the public services, perhaps even at the cost of increasing general taxation, will improve the liberties of a population receiving good education and better healthcare. Labour must shake off its fear of being portrayed as the party of the big, oppressive state and start to make the argument for the enabling state, whatever its size. It should do this not because of intellectual fastidiousness, but because it needs to build deeper consent for its political programme. News management does not build depth of consent: a consistent, coherent and clearly articulated philosophy does.
At present, the cliché heard regularly on news programmes and interviews is still that taxation means taking money away from people. That it always is, however necessary, a financial loss for citizens. But taxation that is put to good use to build an effective, universal health service which delivers better value for money than any other form of medical provision? Such taxation is a net gain. A plus, not a minus.
When Labour came to power in 1945 to form its first major reforming administration, it put through reforms laid out in the Beveridge Report that had been published towards the end of the Second World War. Beveridge was a Liberal. His Report argued that the state should help make sure people enjoy freedom from want and freedom from fear, not least the fear of illness striking them or their loved ones down, without them being able to afford basic treatment.
Labour needs to return to this self-confident advocacy of social provision as an enhancement of liberty for individuals and not just a safety-net. However, any government, but especially a left-of-centre one that sought to establish itself as the champion of freedom, should also address its capacity as a government to restrict and infringe the liberties of its citizens. Much of the current debate about freedom in the UK centres on the issues of drugs and the criminal justice system.
Drugs and crime
In terms of criminal justice, it appears that Tony Blairs administration is preparing to significantly weaken the existing rights of the suspected, the accused and the convicted. Perhaps, all things considered, this is the correct thing to do. But it would be appalling if Labour sought to outflank the Tories on this issue, fought the battle in the language of the right-wing tabloid newspapers, and ultimately found itself occupying the very position its opponents once aspired to.
The majority in this country do not live in fear and resentment of the police and the criminal justice system. But the recent riots in Oldham and Bradford show that even in a relatively civil democracy such as the UK, we assume support for these institutions at our peril. All governments should be seeking to build confidence in these areas, not providing reasons for suspicion.
On the issue of drugs, the temptation for Labour will be to avoid taking a definite and potentially controversial stance. Instead, it seems likely to continue its inconsistent rhetoric, with the Prime Minister saying no while lesser Ministers say maybe, sometime, as policing becomes more variable.
The Labour leadership may not think there are many votes in dope. If so, they are dead wrong. Young people spectacularly failed to turn out at the recent general election, and this is precisely the kind of issue that provides the reason why. Its not that young people all want to smoke cannabis. The point is that they cannot see any major political party, except perhaps the Liberals, addressing the issue in a remotely sensible way.
Almost everyone under the age of 24 thinks it is ridiculous that cannabis is illegal whilst alcohol and tobacco are not, and no mainstream politician can give them a satisfactory defence of the law as it stands. Young people simply cannot see why their freedom should be curtailed in this way, and they are simultaneously breaking the law and turning away from party politics as a result.
It will be an avoidable tragedy for Labour and the Left if the Tory party and the Right are allowed to renew their monopoly on the politics of freedom. Perhaps it would be even more unfortunate if the Tories failed to even make the challenge. Either way, the Left needs a better and more confident articulation of how the state can make you free.
