Counterfeit liberalism

The news that George Osborne has been attempting to recruit Liberal Democrat MPs, and Mr David Laws in particular, for the Conservative Party, is not without its irony. We note David Cameron's recent speech promoting his supposed brand of liberal conservatism, which is deemed to be the bait with which to hook Mr Laws and his colleagues. It is tempting to deride this move as one social democrat attempting to suborn another into joining a new social democratic movement, all in the name of some bogus conception of liberalism. This, however, would be unfair to David Laws, at least. Unlike most of his colleagues, the MP for Yeovil not only understands the implications of liberalism, but also attempts to apply that knowledge from time to time. Indeed, up until a couple of years ago something similar could have been claimed for George Osborne. Shortly after his surprise appointment as shadow Chancellor, he was occasionally seen singing the praises of Estonia's impressively flat taxation regime. How things have changed. Nowadays he is reduced to being flat-footed by Gordon Brown's exploits as an arriviste tax-cutter (even if he still raises as many taxes as he cuts).

It is a commonly-heard complaint, especially from those on the political right, that there is a "liberal consensus" bestriding British politics which is the source of most, if not all, of our troubles. This is precisely wrong. If there is one thing this consensus is not, it is liberal. The three main parties are, as we have said before, adhering to slightly different versions of a social democratic agenda. In part this confusion over terminology is geographical - in American usage, "liberal" has come to mean practically "socialist". Even in the United Kingdom the Liberal Party has been a social democratic party since the early part of the twentieth century. What can we say is a truly liberal approach, and how can we say that true liberalism has had no real voice in British politics for many years?

The classical liberal viewpoint holds, broadly, that human beings are rational creatures who can, and should, be allowed to pursue their own activities without undue interference from government. The more common usage of the term "liberal", as a synonym for "socialist" or "social democratic", is a modern development which has its roots (in this country) in the failed attempt of the British Liberal Party to prevent the emergence of the Labour Party by buying off working class voters. Since the Liberal Party (now the Liberal Democrats) and the Conservative Party now both define themselves principally by reference to the Labour Party's position, which they purport in one way or another to share, it is no exaggeration to say that all three main parties are effectively social democratic parties: and the distinctive ideological feature of social democratic politics is the belief that social objectives, including a fair distribution of wealth, should be achieved by use of a moderated free-enterprise system regulated by government. The distinction between liberal and social democratic philosophy can therefore be clearly summarised: liberals believe that human beings should be essentially self-directed; socialists believe that human beings should be directed by government in order to achieve social goals for the good of society as a whole (and government defines what is meant by "the good of society").

George Osborne and David Cameron are spending a lot of time and energy these days claiming that they can manage socialism better than the Labour Party. Their strange conceit is that they think they can appeal to Liberals in doing so. All of this merely seems to demonstrate the total philosophical bankruptcy of Team Cameron. We need a return to true liberal values. The Conservative Party are no more likely to provide this than Labour or even the Liberal Democrats.