Rediscovering our Libertarian side

By Matthew Zarb-Cousin / @matt_zarbcousin

Anthony Crosland argued in the Future of Socialism that those on the Left are instinctively anti-establishment and can empathise with the anarchist position. Because of the structure and the nature of the economy, I would be inclined to contend that government is necessary to amerliorate the worst effects of the system – the very basis of Crosland’s social democracy – but also to work towards achieving Socialist ends from the Capitalist system. But a state that achieves this does not have to be intrusive, nor does it have to exhibit any authoritarian traits. What defines the Left is pragmatism, not dogma. For this reason it always confused me when commentators referred to Tony Blair as being “pragmatic”, because – economic credibility aside – socially Labour were far from pragmatic, and it was young people who suffered.

Tackling crime – but disregarding the causes of crime – led to a policy framework which prioritised catching the criminal at all costs, punishing the criminal enough so the Daily Mail don’t complain, and then attempting to rehabilitate the criminal. Any sort of crime prevention entailed a ‘Minority Report’ style DNA database or expansion of CCTV, rather than using a more structuralist approach to identifiy why crime occurs – inequality, deprivation, desperation – and addressing the root causes.

Moving onto the economy and if a company is “too big to fail”, as the banks were, then surely Labour should be actively encouraging, if not insisting upon, mutualisation. We hear from David Cameron about the “Big Society”, which entails a summer fete being, effectively, mutualised, but if this is a serious ideological objective, then surely it should start from the top, bearing in mind the financial sector affects the life of every single person in this country whether we like it or not.

This brings me onto my next point. Restructuring the economy. The financial sector is a brain drain in Britain, in the sense that potential scientists and engineeers, who would otherwise be at the forefront of driving progress in fields such as healthcare and green technology, are tempted by the inflated salaries in the City of London. Ensuring that Britain regains and maintains its credibility in the exportation of research and manufactured products surely requires a government that is active in the economy. Labour can and should make this case.

I have spoken on here before about the possibility of advocating a style of participatory budgeting that has seen some success under President Lula in Brazil. If we work from the premise that power is capital under the economic system, then bypassing local government and giving communities the opportunity to handle a budget – which could be used to bail out a local pub, or to build a playground, for example – would not only bring a community together, but empower the most underprivileged people in Britain.

Finally, and perhaps most contentiously, it’s time for a grown up debate on drugs. I understand the political implications of Alan Johnson taking Professor Nutt’s advice, and where I think Bob Ainsworth went wrong was calling for a debate but also stating his position. This does not mean the debate should not happen, even if it is just interal, although ideally it would be a debate which involves the public. We have seen how Ken Clarke – whatever the man’s motives – avoided what Labour always feared would be a ‘media backlash’ when he said prison doesn’t work, because he produced scientific evidence to back this claim up.

I truly hope that Labour rediscovers its Libertarian instincts, and regains a sense of real pragmatism, rather than the mythical ‘electoral pragmatism’.