Neal Lawson

Neal Lawson reaffirmed his belief that unrestricted markets are a threat to democracy and freedom. He put forward the argument that neo-liberalism’s vision of freedom is an all-consuming faith in the market. So, market rationalism supersedes the interests of society and the rules of the market define efficiency and accountability. We live in a rampantly consumerist society in which choice, in Lawson’s view, has become the “meta-value of our society” to the disregard of the actual value of things.

Lawson acknowledged the ability of the market to distributive goods and services but argued that it is inherently destructive and needs to be controlled if freedom and democracy are to be preserved. He called for a rebalancing of our society which recognises the ambivalence of humanity. There are points of accommodation which need to be found between the interests of the individual and those of society, between the need for freedom and the requirement of security, between the healthy nature of competition and the benefits of cooperation. It is the challenge of politics to find the balance between these points.

 In Lawson’s view, this rebalancing act can be achieved within the framework of a reinvigorated ‘liberal socialism’. This approach has five key themes:

1. Individualism – the individual must be put at the centre of politics.
2. Collectivism – while we should be free as consumers, we must recognise the requirement of constraint and common action in our role as citizens
3. Equality – freedom cannot be realised without some notion of equality. It is the ‘handmaiden of liberty’.
4. Restraint – we must acknowledge that sometimes we need to control and be controlled in our best interests.
5. The limits of the state – while the state has a crucial role, it cannot and should not do everything. Non-state institutions have a key role to play and localism and voluntarism should be actively encouraged.

Lawson closed by stating that all these themes are underpinned by the core value of democracy. He argued that it is through democracy that our ambivalences can be addressed. It is the central forum in which we can restraint the market, define the limits of the state and guarantee our freedom.

Ed Vaizey

Vaizey began by stating his position as an economic liberal and defended the market against what he considered Lawson’s nightmarish caricature. For Vaizey the market is the solution to many of our problems. They do not restrict opportunity, but are the way society organises itself and expresses its views. They are organic and spontaneous and, in this sense, they are the expression of our freedom as well as its guarantor.

Vaizey made clear that no conservative is advocating an anarchic system of complete market freedom. Conservatives support regulation to enforce the rule of contract and believe in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, ‘liberal conservatism’ does not see why the state should run every day services like the railways, water and the telephone system. Nor, as a ‘social liberal’ does Vaizey see why the state should regulate people’s private lives. In this respect he pointed to his support for the repeal of Section 28 and the promotion of civil partnerships.

Contrary to Lawson, Vaizey considered the threat to our freedom to come from the state, not the expansion of the market. While acknowledging the potential conflict with the ‘authoritarian’ elements of his party, Vaizey confidently stated he is part of a Conservative Party which has rediscovered its liberal traditions.
 

Jeremy Browne

Jeremy Browne reasserted his belief that ‘liberal socialism’ does not exist. Liberalism is about individualism and is inherently devolutionary; socialism is collectivist and centralising. He argued that Liberalism is a distinctive creed which cannot simply be grafted onto the very different concepts of socialism, or indeed, conservatism.

While he shares Lawson’s unease about rampant consumerism, Browne, as a liberal, does not believe it appropriate to curtail people’s freedom of action – in this case to stop people shopping if they so desire. Furthermore, he does not agree that the market is a threat either to freedom or democracy. On the contrary, Browne argued that it has greatly extended opportunity and acted as a powerful, democratising force – with the accessibility of cheap international travel a clear example.

As a ‘social liberal’ Browne also made the argument that the state does have an enabling role to play. While he does not see why the state need necessarily provide everyday services, its importance lies in ensuring these services exist.

Browne acknowledged some personal similarity with the libertarian views expressed by Vaizey, but went onto question the wider liberal credentials of the Conservative Party. To Browne, Liberalism is a whole package which must combine considerations of personal, economic, social and political liberalism. He highlighted, what in his view, was conservatism’s moralising and proscriptive tendencies which are decidedly anti-liberal and undermine the concept of a ‘liberal conservatism’.   

To discuss these and other ideas, visit the discussion.