Basic Income is the first step to a more fair, just and free society, where all can enjoy the benefits of technological progress without the fear of dispossession and poverty

Thousands of protesters march the streets surrounding the Conservative Party Conference in support of trade unionists, and against austerity, in Manchester, 4 October 2015.

The basic income took a huge step towards being a reality in the UK last Tuesday night when John McDonnell mentioned that the Labour Party where considering a basic income policy (Sheffield, 2016). During a speech, at the latest stop on his New Economics tour (Sheffield, 2016{2}), in which McDonnell spoke of Labour's commitment to a more decentralised and democratic economy, the Shadow Chancellor acknowledged the interest Labour had taken in the policy - heretofore, only advocated for by the Greens (Wintour, 2015).

The basic income will be one step towards making society more fair, the economy more just, and giving individuals more liberty. Right now, with the European business community readjusting to technology, as well as competition from businesses employing workers for virtually no pay in other parts of the world, a defined shift towards fairness, justice and liberty is needed.

Certain principles, like the value of work in exchange for the means to live, continue to be imposed despite the possibility of a secure job, that pays a fair wage for a fair day's work, threatening to disappear (Foster, 2016). Zero-hours contracts are taking security away from the most vulnerable, eating into their lives in ways that leave them filled with stress and anxiety (Fleming, 2016).

Right now the advances in technology are very much in the favour of business and those in positions of established wealth, enriching some few while most see their livelihoods taken away and their lives made more precarious. There seems to be a coalition, one part fearing for workers and the other an elite fearing a form of socialism that eat into their status, that takes the rather unflattering opinion that this third industrial revolution should be avoided for fear of "mass unemployment and psychological aimlessness" (Mason, 2016).

Discussing the earlier and more famous industrial revolution, which saw the rise of the machines in Europe, Oscar Wilde argued that it was not a matter of the emergence of the technology itself that was the problem, but rather the way it was being controlled (Wilde, 1891).

"Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community."

To avoid this kind of dispossession, may mean accepting that it is time to reconsider social values relating to work (Srnicek et al, 2016), and to contemplate the possibility of a post-work society - where all could benefit from the technological automation of our age (Mason, 2016). That shift would begin with reductions in the length of the working day, embracing job sharing and introducing the basic income. In all, loosening the connections between work and the right to life.

British Liberals in the 1920s argued (Yellow Book, 1928), under the strong influence of David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes, that the aim of "political and economic action", wasn't to perfect or perpetuate machines and social orders, but so that individuals "may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". Their methods were popular share-ownership and progressive taxation - in essence, cooperation.

Rising public interest in the Basic Income presents a chance to pursue those aims in earnest. Along with more economic cooperation and a better work-life balance, it is possible to use these ideas to build a more humane economy. An economy that is fair and just, that protects and promotes liberty, within which progress will be wired in to the general benefit.

The confrontation between government and opposition over Tax Credits is exposing the need to reform the House of Lords

David Lloyd George took on a Tory Landowner dominated House of Lords in his efforts to pass his Liberal 'People's Budget' of 1909. Photograph: Statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square by Matt Brown (License) (Cropped)

Attempts earlier this week by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench Lords to block the much derided Tax Credit cuts, where derailed yesterday due to fears of sparking a constitutional crisis (Wintour, 2015; Wintour, 2015{2}). Opposition parties where warned against threatening contravention of established parliamentary conventions by the Commons Speaker John Bercow (Wintour, 2015{3}.

The move marked an odd moment for progressive politics in the UK. Since Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to take on the House of Lords in his attempt to pass his 1909 budget, the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords has been clearly defined: the Lords cannot impede the government's supply bills, which are concerned with taxation and government spending and, through the later establishment of the Salisbury Convention, the opposition should not block government manifesto promises for which their election is seen as a clear mandate.

The decision of progressives to use the Lords, against which Lloyd George had struggled when it was controlled by an overwhelming Tory majority, represents a severely pragmatic choice.

While the actual threat of constitutional crisis from the Lords blocking Tax Credit cuts has been called into question - on account of whether the changes actually counts as primary, budgetary legislation due to an election campaign promise not to cut them, and no reference to cutting them in the Conservative manifesto (Daily Politics, 2015) - there is a need to stop and consider the implications beyond the legal minutiae.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (in particular) have proposed, considered and attempted reform of the House of Lords in the past. Liberal Democrat attempts where foiled during the last government, due to obstinacy from Labour and Conservatives (BBC, 2015); and during the last election campaign Labour pledged to replace the Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions (Labour, 2015).

The willingness of the opposing parties to even approach a risk of crisis certainly shows is the depth of opposition to the Tax Credit changes, even growing with the Conservative Party itself (Watt, 2015), and the limited legitimate instruments available to the opposition to challenge their passage.

But the hypocrisy it engenders also marks out the need for reform. The UK has an entire, massive and expensive, unelected chamber that cannot act. Any of its votes, and the legitimacy of any of its actions, can be called into question because its assembled numbers are not elected. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Contrary to Prime Minister David Cameron's belief that the issue has passed by and should be left alone (Wintour & Watt, 2015), it remains of importance. Issues like Tax Credit cuts are too important for the legislative instruments through which they pass, or in which they are opposed, to be anything less than transparent, clearly purposed and above controversy.

Whether that means establishing a directly proportionally elected upper chamber, or one representative of the nations and regions - in either case holding a longer term view, as opposed to the shorter term community and municipality based Commons - change is needed.

The problem facing the progressive parties, is what to do with those institutions in the meantime. The pragmatic decision - that has clearly been made by Labour and the Lib Dems - is to continue using those instruments as they presently are, despite their problematic nature, because the policies they oppose demand a response and they are the only legal instruments at their disposal.

It is a pragmatic position that Lloyd George would likely have agreed with. Despite being a reformer, Lloyd George was prepared to flood the Lords with newly ennobled Liberals to get his way and, later, the Welsh Prime Minister was still prepared to go into coalition with the Conservatives to pursue his policies.

Their are alternative paths, such as the decision by Justin Trudeau - Liberal leader and newly elected Prime Minister of Canada - to withdraw the Liberal whip from unelected Liberal senators (Mackrael & Wingrove, 2014). Yet such idealistic statements risk getting in the way of practical politics, like opposing policies that have been alleged to risk impoverishing millions of people.

The only solution to this conflict between idealism and pragmatism is to reform the Lords, along with broader electoral reform - for which the necessity is demonstrated by the fact that the controversial Tax Credits policy can only be pursued by the government because the Conservatives hold an unrepresentative majority of seats. Unless there is real reform and clear representation, the policies of any government and the tactics of any opposition will continue to be challenged and undermined.

Liberal Democrat Leadership Election: Who's who and what do they stand for?

The Liberal Democrat leadership election is the first step to recovery for a party whose voice is being missed in the campaign to protect human rights in Britain.

After the party's electoral collapse in May, the Liberal Democrats have run an accelerated campaign to elect a new leader to replace Nick Clegg. Voting will come to an end on 15th July and the results will be announced the following day.

Clegg's resignation has, dramatic as it was following the party's disastrous election night, been seen as a long delayed inevitability (Wintour & Watt, 2015). Ultimately, the decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives seems to have been something from which the party could not recover.

And yet, early indications suggest that the party nonetheless possesses an enduring appeal. Their presence is already being missed in the defence of civil rights and liberties (The Guardian, 2015), and council bye-elections are already being won (Steerpike, 2015).

However, their collapse has raised a question within the party, one that has importance for all of the parties across the Centre-Left (Kettle, 2015). Is the response to the election loss to move Left and embrace more idealistic positions, or to move Right and try to win voters away from the Conservatives directly?

For the Liberal Democrats this has been distilled into the nominated candidates. The candidate representing continuity with Clegg, seen as the Centrist and Centre-Right wing of the party which is concerned with being a practical party of government, is Norman Lamb. The more Left-leaning candidate, which in the case of the Lib Dems means embracing its campaigning and grassroots tendencies, is Tim Farron.

Norman Lamb

Norman Lamb served in the last government as a Minister of State for Care and Support, a position he pursued with a personal passion. He has made a point of vociferous campaigning on issues of mental health, and was deeply involved in the party's aims of putting mental health onto an equal footing with physical health (Lamb, 2015).

Lamb is very much the designated heir of the Centrist liberal faction that took the party into the Coalition - something reflected in the endorsements he has received, which include Clegg's closest supporter and former party leader Paddy Ashdown (Lindsay, 2015). Little can symbolise that more distinctly in the minds of voters than the fact that Lamb voted for the Coalition reforms to tuition fees (BBC, 2010).

So far Lamb has argued that the party should not retreat to its comfort zone (Lamb, 2015{2}), a sentiment likely reflected by those in the liberal centre. Yet, at the same time he argued for new ways to tackle economic inequality that are not based on old models of redistribution - singling out mutuals and social enterprises as things that liberals 'instinctively' support.

Tim Farron

Tim Farron remained aloof of the government during the last parliament, during which he served as the party president - a position from which he was often a voice critical towards the coalition (Greenwood, 2015). As might be expected, he voted against the coalition tuition fee changes (BBC, 2010).

The MP for Westmoreland and Lonsdale has received the endorsement of the party's more radical, campaigning, Left - including former leader David Steel, who was very critical of how the Coalition was handled (Steel, 2015) - and the leaders of the Welsh and Scottish Lib Dems (Perraudin, 2015). He also, notably, has the endorsement of both The Guardian and the New Statesman (The Guardian, 2015{2}; New Statesman, 2015).

Farron's main distinctive positions came up in the debate between the candidates at 2015 Conference of the Social Liberal Forum group (Lindsay, 2015{2}). He displayed his openness to liberals increasing taxes to fund public services and expressed a willingness, should he become leader, to not get into conflicts with the party conference policy making processes. Farron has also stressed his intention of rebuilding the parties grassroots and so increasing party membership 100,000 by 2020 (Farron, 2015).

Quiet establishment man or the problematic firebrand?

Voices in the social liberal and liberal centre wings of the party have their own reasons for leaning either way. Those in the liberal centre argue that there is value in the consistency of remaining in the Centre, from which the party's only opportunities to make its policies a reality will come through coalition with the Conservatives or with Labour (Tall, 2015).

For social liberals, however, there were important things ignored by the party leadership from 2010 onwards (Howarth, 2015; Smith, 2015). They argue that the leadership abandoned the radical Left-of-Centre causes and ideals, upon which they had been elected, in favour of a Centrist coalitionism - built around stability, unity and the embrace of a Toryism-lite - for which they had no mandate and were duly punished.

The Guardian has argued that there is a need for a figure who can lead a 'charismatic insurgency' (The Guardian, 2015{2}). But there are also warnings against the danger of traumatised parties electing 'feel good', comfort zone, candidates (Kettle, 2015). That need for a comfort zone candidate may factor in if there is felt to be a strong need to distance the party from the previous leadership and its direction.

One way of ensuring that distance could be embracing the rebranding of the party, with talk going around of a possible name change. Changing the name of the party could be a powerful moment upon which to hang the interviews and coverage that would make clear how the Lib Dems have heard their critics and responded (Withnall, 2015). In that case, Tim Farron's detachment from the Coalition would seem to make him the more ideal candidate - and he has certainly floated the idea of a fresh start (Farron, 2015{2}).

Yet there remain lingering reservations about Farron, in regards to his seemingly anti-liberal personal stances on a number of pressing social issues from abortion to gay rights (Birrell, 2015). With the party desperately needing to regain trust and a consistent identity, his own inconsistency could well factor against him and the party.

Though Farron might suggest that these personal standings should have no bearing, it is hard to escape an overriding feeling that there is also a decision to be made between the candidates' different characters: the quiet and practical, though establishment, man or the problematic firebrand. It's as if liberals are once more being faced with the spectre of siding with Asquith or Lloyd George. A more easily unifying figure would have been preferable, such as Jo Swinson - who would surely have been a leading candidate had she retained her East Dunbartonshire seat.

Rebuilding trust

In The Guardian, back in 2006, the late Charles Kennedy argued that:

"Fewer people are joining political parties, yet single-issue pressure groups continue to flourish. Mass international movements - from opposition to the war in Iraq to last year's Live 8 - demonstrate how great issues and principles can still motivate on a huge scale. But somehow our current political culture seems unable to accommodate and address such concerns...

...The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger."

For Liberal Democrats, and liberals generally, this has become a matter of great importance. Regardless of who becomes party leader, their first task must be to regain political trust. That means carving out a distinctive position that the whole party can comfortably adhere to and, importantly, campaign on. It means opening the party to working with others for electoral and political reform and encouraging a progressive alliance, even if only informally.

From a pragmatic point of view, those will likely remain the priorities - for the moment at least. Anything else might simply lead to a division that would strip the party of any credibility it has left, which means that neither candidate is likely to pick a fight with the supporters of the other. As a result, the issues that arise between the Centre and Left strands of liberalism are likely to go unresolved in the present. This election will instead be about who leads, rather more than to what they lead the party.

The Liberal Democrat Spring Conference - their last chance to define themselves

The Liberal Democrat Spring Conference represents probably the last chance the party will have to present its own vision, on it own terms, before they face an election campaign that could result in massive disappointment (Perraudin, 2015). It is not, however, a problem with which the Liberal Democrats are unfamiliar. They are long used to being marginalised and struggling for visibility.

Since the party was established - in a 1988 merger of the old Liberal Party with the Labour Party breakaways the Social Democratic Party, after a decade long electoral alliance - it has struggled to make itself heard in the political arena. 2010 had promised a major breakthrough, but, yet again, promising surges at the polls and 23% of the popular vote did not ultimately translate into seats.

The decision that followed, to go into coalition with the Conservatives, and for the leaders of the party - though not the majority of its MPs or the party membership itself - to drop direct opposition to tuition fees, turned public opinion definitively against them.

The great surprise is the difficulty which has faced the Liberal Democrats in getting across to people what it is that liberalism represents, this despite - with the exception of the pretty significant blip over tuition fees - the fact that the party has otherwise shown remarkable consistency over time. The conference speech of Party leader Nick Clegg could as easily have been promoting the 1997 manifesto as it is the 2015 manifesto.

If there is anything that could save Liberal Democrat seats at a general election, that consistency is one of them - if they can finally make a breakthrough in getting across what being liberal really means. And getting to the bottom of that, means understanding what the party has stood for over time.

The modern party's origins are in the old Liberal Party, the classical liberal, free trade, small government party that believed in laissez-faire administration, where the government does not interfere. Yet by the beginning of the 20th Century they had evolved - through struggles with old Tory landowners, and in response to the revelations of the poor reports - into the party in government under Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith and Lloyd George (governments that included Winston Churchill) that pursued the liberal welfare reforms. Those efforts established a national insurance to cover sick pay and unemployment, introduced pensions, and expanded access to schools.

That work was later further expanded after the Second World War, when the ideas of Liberal Party thinkers like William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes had a decisive influence on the work of the post-war Labour governments. While the Liberal Party itself was at the time riven by splits as a result of different views regarding the two wars and various coalitions, the ideas and work of individual Liberals still had huge impact. The work of Beveridge and Keynes were key in the expansion of government action to intercede against the instability of the market economy, and to create cradle-to-the-grave social security in the form of welfare, pensions and the NHS.

In the face of the emergence of a virtual two-party system, split between the Conservatives and Labour while the Liberals were divided, it took decades for the party to recover. When the Liberals recovered, they did so in an electoral coalition as the SDP-Liberal Alliance - alongside the Social Democrats (SDP). The SDP had broken away from the Labour Party, uncomfortable with the far left-wing and right-wing factions that were struggling with each other for control of the party. Senior Labour figures Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams - both former ministers, and in Jenkins a former President of the European Commission - were amongst those who defected to create the SDP, and who were later to become Liberal Democrats when the SDP-Liberal Alliance merged.

The Alliance enjoyed some success in the polls - polling as high as 50% in the early 1980s- but they continued to fail to win seats. Despite, in 1983, securing as much as 25.4% of the popular vote, they only received 23 seats in parliament. Having again struggled to establish themselves and make a breakthrough with voters heavily invested in the two-party dynamic, the Alliance elected to merge and form the Liberal Democrats.

Under their first leader, Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrats made their first big breakthrough in decades, by gradually increasing their seats in parliament up to 46 by 1997. During that time the party pursued a close relationship with Labour, with talk of coalitions leading up to 1997, and over the possibility of introducing proportional representation for elections (BBC, 1999).

Looking at the party's commitments in 1997 (Liberal Democrats, 1997), it shows a remarkably consistency in message over time. In the 1990s, under Ashdown, there were commitments to raise tax by 1p in the pound to increase education funding, with the priority put on early years. A commitment to increase NHS funding, and increase choice for care. Balance borrowing against public investment, and cut wasteful spending. Championing civil rights, supporting small businesses, investing in research, devolving power through reforms of the economy and the constitution, supporting Britain's place in Europe, and encouraging a fairer society - all of these policies could have represented liberal ideas anywhere from the 1910s through to the 2010s.

The next leader, Charles Kennedy, continued to push these priorities as the party finally became widely known. However, its rise in prominence seemed to come almost exclusively from its noted socially liberal stances. The party was celebrated for campaigning for civil rights and opposing the War in Iraq (BBC, 2004). While they continued to increase their representation in the House of Commons, up to 62 by 2005, they still failed to make a major electoral breakthrough - even with an aggressive strategy aimed at defeating the Conservatives head-on (Carlin & Sapsted, 2005). When Kennedy's leadership ended in acrimony in 2006, he was replaced in the short term by Menzies Campbell.

By the end of 2007 there was a fresh leadership election, at which Nick Clegg was elected leader. Nick Clegg defined the party as the exclusive representative of the radical centre (Stratton & Wintour, 2011):

"Lloyd George's 'people's budget' to make the wealthy pay their fair share and give a pension to all those who had worked hard. Keynes's plans to make our economy work for everyone and provide jobs for all. Beveridge's radical blueprint for a welfare state to give security and dignity to every citizen... We are the heirs to Mill, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beveridge, Grimond. We are the true radicals of British politics."

Although Clegg's leadership would be seen as a shift to the Right, the party continued to be perceived as a centre-left, 'radical alternative' to Labour. Students, in particular, aligned with the Liberal Democrats - with a little help from a pledge to abolish university tuition fees. Under Clegg, the party seemed to be on the verge of a major breakthrough. However, the strong polling numbers didn't turn into seats. When the election came around for real, a lot of voters seem to have retreated to their safe havens.

The disappointment of winning only a few seats turned first into consolation at entering government, for the first time in a century, and having the opportunity to implement policies. The second turn was to astonishment and despondency as the party was assailed over the decision of Lib Dem leaders to go against their own party's official position on tuition fees, and vote for them with the government (BBC, 2010). Public anger turned into media campaigns assailing the Lib Dem leader, and now Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg (BBC, 2012). That situation has persisted and the party is now struggling desperately in the national polls. Yet, even without being vilified for a broken promise, the Lib Dems might still be struggling.

Across Europe there has been a very definite struggle faced by liberal and centrist parties. The FDP in Germany, the long time Liberal alternative to the conservative CDU and the centre-left SPD, collapsed at the last election to less than 5% of the vote - and so didn't even qualify for a seat in the German Parliament. In Italy Scelta Civica - Civic Choice - was founded to support the technocratic Prime Minister Mario Monti. In 2013 it received 8% of the vote and 37 seats. However, at the European Parliament elections in 2014 the party received only 0.7% of the vote.

For all their liberal social policies, liberals and centrists are still largely struggling to find persistent support. Part of the problem is that they are still seen as being nowhere in terms of economic policy. They are perceived to be right-wing capitalists by those to the Left who believe in a policy of taxing, borrowing and spending, and too left-wing by conservatives on Right who preach the economics of austerity.

Despite a lot of consistency between liberal and centrist parties across Europe, and consistency of policies and priorities over time, they struggled to get their message out. When they do, it is often distorted to fit into the narratives of the dominant, mainstream political-economic spectrum.

At their Spring Conference over this weekend it was precisely this message that the Liberal Democrats made with their last chance before the 2015 UK general election to put out a controlled message out to the public, announcing who they are and what they stand for. In his speech to the conference, Clegg made one last pitch to the public, in a speech that was praised (Walter, 2015), identifying Liberals with a moderate, decent, and fair centre-ground that had been abandoned by the other parties:

"And here at home and across Europe, reactionary populism and divisive nationalism are on the rise, slowly moving from the margins to the mainstream... If we want to remain an open, confident, outward-looking society, it will only happen if political parties who believe in compassion and tolerance step up to the plate.

Instead, the opposite is happening. Labour and the Conservatives are deserting the centre ground. Compromise is treated like a dirty word. Everywhere you look there is blame and division.

It’s in the angry nationalism of UKIP, setting citizen against citizen as they pander to fear. It’s in Theresa May’s Go Home vans. In the glint in George Osborne’s eye as he announces that the working age poor will bear the brunt of the cuts. It’s in the red-faced bluster of the Tory right wingers who are determined to scrap the Human Rights Act and drag us out of Europe. It’s in the ‘us versus them’ scaremongering of the Labour Party, as they condemn every decision to balance the books as a betrayal and then make wild predictions about mass unemployment or the death of the NHS that they know are not true.

As the Conservatives and Labour veer off to the left and right, who will speak up for decent, moderate, tolerant Britain?

...We have shown that we are prepared to put the national interest first, even if it means taking a hit to our short-term popularity. And we will continue to put the national interest first."

The Liberal Democrats remain sanguine (BBC, 2015). They are placing their focus and their hopes on the positive response they are apparently receiving in those places where the Lib Dems have spent decades building up a local base of support (Wintour, 2015). It would be sad to see the parliamentary influence of liberalism diminish in Britain as elsewhere, as the influence of liberalism has been a force for good.

But whether or not the Liberal Democrats manage to get themselves across to voters, liberalism will continue play an important role. From Beveridge and Keynes and their ideas backing and underwriting social security, to the Liberal Democrats who opposed the War in Iraq, to those in government campaigning for civil rights - like the end of child detention or the moves to expose and end gender inequality in pay - liberals have shown that their ideas carry weight, and play an important role, regardless of the number of seats a particular liberal party holds, and whether or not they were doing their best work inside or outside of parliament.

In Defense of Welfare

Last week I made some mention of Disraeli and his constitutional reforms that enfranchised hundreds of thousands of people. His great rival had been Gladstone, a staunch 'Classic' Liberal. Following the era of Disraeli & Gladstone's rivalry there was a shift away from 'Classic' towards a 'Progressive' Liberalism.

The dichotomy between Disraeli's policies of enfranchisement and Gladstone's freedom through a free market in many ways could be seen to have produced this progressive shift, paving the way for Asquith & Lloyd George's more moderate and proactive government. You see the struggle between the two rivals that led Disraeli's Conservatives to push through constituency reforms, generated a newly powerful working class voting block. This new voice had gotten a taste for reform and the progressives where quick to push their legislative agenda.

The gem in the progressive crown was the Liberal Welfare Reforms. Through the combination of a policy program and budget, the Liberal government brought about a complete shift in the British approach to poverty and responsible government.

My concern is that 'Workfare' is missing the point of a century's worth of scientific research. It seems be attempting to reverse the progressive shift, favouring instead the idealistic traditionalism that the Tories have been criticised for in other policy areas. (Teacher Talks, 2010).

The crucial point they are missing is that money is not the motivator they think it is. This has been shown time and again by the studies of institutions such as Stanford and MIT. Professor Ariely discusses the merit of money motivation here (Ariely, 2009).

It strikes me then as an ideological attempt to enforce unrestricted competition that favours those that start with means, the strongest and the most imposing. It also risks a return to the 'poor laws' and utterly unethical 'workhouses' of old for those who cannot keep up.

This should not be taken to mean that competition is evil. But rather that unregulated competition leads to destructive, ruinous and counter-productive mentalities that put the market at as much risk as it does society.

Welfare can be a great leveller. It demands that no one gets left behind. It demands that those who are born into privilege are not able to exploit those unfair advantages at the expense of those who were not so fortunate in their economic background. It demands that the privileged and not so alike begin from a level playing field, to all have a fair chance.

But welfare is more than that. As it enfranchises those without, it enriches those with, by creating the fair competition that those so enamoured of the market tell us is the key to getting the best from people.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg has been trying to provide a counterpoint to Mr Duncan Smith's presentation of Welfare Reform (Clegg, 2010), trying to convince us that this is what the Coalition policy will achieve. The Tory minister has advertised this reform to voters as a means to curtail abuse of Welfare, through harsher penalties and stricter terms. The Liberal Democrat leader on the other hand has been trying to push it as a 'work positive' approach.

But the more Mr Clegg tries to make us see these reforms as 'making work pay', the more I cannot help but see it as a thinly veiled acceptance of a policy of 'work because you have no other choice'. It is motivation less in the form of 'follow this carrot to freedom' and more 'chase this carrot or we'll beat you with this stick'.

The Liberals are doing all they can to honour the responsibilities of being in government, a coalition government no less; dealing with the compromises of everyday politics. But it is a difficult tightrope walk to balance duty & conscience.

That conscience is well summed up by David Lloyd George, on presenting his budget to fund the Liberal Welfare Reforms:

“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".

It is well worth watching this video if you want to learn more about the science of motivation.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Coalition Welfare Reforms:
21st Century Welfare, Forward by the Secretary of State
Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits
Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'
The existing New Deal scheme already includes four weeks labour

+ Teacher Talks' 'Gove scraps a rule that doesn’t exist';

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; Technology Review, 2009.

+ Nick Clegg's 'Poverty plus a pound isn't enough';

+  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

+ Dan Pink's 'Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us'; RSA Animate, 2010.