The Future of Socialism – a preface

The impact of The Future of Socialism on its publication in 1956 should not be underestimated. Although the left and the right of the Labour Party had been in open war since Aneurin Bevan’s resignation in 1951, Crosland’s text was the most lucid attempt to date to define the purpose and meaning of social democracy. The Future of Socialism, published a year after the 1955 election which was Labour’s second defeat in a row and in which Crosland had lost his South Gloucestershire seat, was immediately lauded by many commentators as a serious reformist case against the left, which was then defined largely by their adamant pursuit of further nationalisations. The response from the Bevanite left was, predictably, one of scandalised outrage. ‘SOCIALISM – HOW DARE HE USE THE WORD?’ blasted one article in Tribune, the house journal of the Labour left.

In a nutshell, Crosland argued that the pursuit of socialism did not necessarily mean more of the big nationalisations that had defined the Attlee government (most notably of coal, the railways, the Bank of England, and, controversially, steel). Championing what was widely known as the mixed economy, he argued that the way to dissolve the class distinctions and finally eradicate poverty was instead to use the powers the government already had – through taxation, social spending, monetary policy, and other economic tools to be found in the hands of the state, relying on wealth created through economic growth. Crosland’s work, sixty years on, remains the most significant and influential work in the canon of British social democracy.


Why should liberals read The Future of Socialism?

Over the next few months, I will be reading The Future of Socialism and, chapter by chapter, blogging a summary of its argument and some reactions to it. There are two main reasons why I find it of interest. One is purely historical – to understand Crosland’s arguments in the context of his time, with its very different political, ideological and economic landscape. That is a good enough reason to read Crosland: if you want to understand the Labour Party of the 1950s and 1960s, his is an invaluable voice. Much of my blogging will probably concern this aspect.

However, I will also be reading The Future of Socialism in light of the politics of today, and specifically as a liberal and a Liberal Democrat. Furthermore, most of the readers of this blog are also liberals, and Liberal Democrats. It seems fitting, then, to explain why I think it’s a book that liberals should read.

Firstly, the Liberal Democrats are a product of a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. Several of our most outstanding figures (Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams, and Chris Huhne to name but three) started off in the SDP, and many members today would define themselves as social democrats. However, perhaps because of the predominance of Liberals in the new party, this heritage has been largely neglected. There is an idea promoted, by no means only by those on the right of the party, that the SDP (or at least Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams) were always really liberals who stumbled into the Labour Party by accident, or because of the weakness of the Liberals when they came into politics. This seems to me to be a mistake – Jenkins, for example, although always friendly towards the Liberals, was closely associated with Crosland, Hugh Gaitskell, and other reformists and himself participated almost as actively as Crosland in these debates within the Labour Party.[1] It is my opinion, then, that The Future of Socialism is as important a text for Liberal Democrats as anything by Hobhouse or T.H. Green.

The second reason why The Future of Socialism might be of interest to liberals is because it was written as a critique in response to a resurgent far left. This has relevance for British liberals for two reasons. Firstly, there is the fact that, historically, British liberalism has offered a non-socialist opposition to the Conservatives. At the same time as revisionists like Crosland were active within Labour, the Liberals led by Jo Grimond were also developing a socially progressive politics which critiqued monolithic institutions, public or private. Of course, Crosland came from a different position, seeking to reclaim socialism rather than oppose it, but nevertheless there is an obvious family resemblance. Secondly, there are clear contemporary resonances – for the first time since the 1980s, the Labour Party leadership (and membership) are socialists, and social democrats, within Westminster and in the country at large, find themselves marginalised. It might be good for critics of Corbyn, both in the Liberal Democrats, and Labour, to remind themselves of one of the most eloquent criticisms of the far left.

Thirdly, there is the fact that social democratic parties across Europe, with isolated exceptions, have fared poorly in the aftermath of the Great Recession, losing much of their support to parties of the insurgent radical left and to parties of the populist right. Labour is no exception to this, losing votes to UKIP and the SNP. This phenomenon will continue to shape politics for the foreseeable future, and so it is worth understanding social democracy better for this reason alone. This will not be an uncritical reading of The Future of Socialism – far from it.  While the work as a whole has continuing relevance, much of what Crosland wrote now seems naïve or complacent. It is worthwhile reflecting, therefore, on the contemporary weaknesses of social democracy.

Finally, there is my long-standing belief that British liberalism is too inward looking and self-referential. Cross-fertilisation with other traditions is, in my opinion, prevents us from becoming stale and dogmatic. Social democracy is the obvious place to start – although a separate tradition, it is an adjacent one. Yet it is generally poorly misunderstood within the party – partly because of partisan mischief and the anxiety to define liberalism against The Other, but also because it is poorly explained by its adherents.  If we learn from, and engage critically with, other ideologies, we will learn more about our own.


A note on the text

I am using a 2006 paperback edition of the text published by Constable, with a foreword by Gordon Brown, an introduction by Dick Leonard, Crosland’s PPS in the early Seventies, and a brief selection of reminisces by his widow, Susan Crosland. Leonard’s introduction is a good appraisal of the argument of the text and a brief biography and historical context; Susan Crosland’s ‘snapshots’ provide a touching insight into Crosland, the man himself. The less said about Brown’s foreword the better – it is more interesting as a product of New Labour c. 2006 and the preoccupations of Brown himself (for instance, it concludes with a rather unsubtle swipe at Tony Blair). All page references will be to this edition, which is available on Amazon from £7.



[1] Certainly many on the left of the Labour Party argued that Jenkins and Crosland *were* liberals in disguise and should ‘go and join the Liberals’ (does this sound familiar?) But this should be treated as factional abuse rather than serious analysis.

Would a progressive alliance actually work?

There’s been talk recently about a ‘progressive alliance’ of some sort, comprising of all the anti-Conservative forces in British politics.  This agreement, made up of Labour, the Greens, Lib Dems, and perhaps the SNP, is imagined as an encouragement of tactical voting, an electoral pact, or even a merger.  I’ve seen a fair number of Lib Dems open to the first two, given the desperate need to defeat the Tories, but also many others objecting on the grounds that we hold a distinctive ideology and because of distrust of being pulled too close into the Labour Party’s orbit.  Nick Barlow has summed up the major stumbling blocks for any agreement, which are the significant ideological distinctions between the parties (beyond being anti-conservative) and the difficulty of any kind of agreement when every force in party politics is pulling the other way.

The question that I want to answer, however, is whether a progressive coalition would actually do anything to progress its desired goal, which is to stop the Conservatives forming the next government in 2020.  There is an intuitive appeal to the argument that, if the vote of the parties on the left was no longer divided, this would provide a ‘progressive majority’ which could beat the Tories.  This is true on a national level, but even more compelling at a local level, where, thanks to our First Past The Post voting system, a Conservative candidate can win despite only being supported by a minority of the electors.

So far, so obvious.  But all the arguments made above presuppose a large, rather monolithic, ‘progressive’ bloc which can be added together from the votes of the other parties.  And here, I fear, the argument starts to fall apart, because large numbers of these parties’ voters probably wouldn’t be on board with the whole concept, because they don’t feel like these parties have a lot in common.

There are a few examples from my own party.  Polling of 2015 Lib Dem voters in London suggest that they will split 52:48 in favour of Conservative Zac Goldsmith in the second round of the Mayoral contest, which hardly suggests a progressive insurgency in the making.  Anecdotally, I find that many of our middle class supporters feel that it is ‘safe’ to vote for us but aren’t comfortable with Labour, some people support our candidates locally but have unpredictable views on national issues, and of course there are people who hold liberal views and so vote for us but have more right-wing views on economics.  We can also look at  where our vote went between 2010 and 2015 – yes, a good chunk went to Labour and the Greens, but a surprising number of our supporters defected to the Conservatives or UKIP.  Now, consider that what remains is the people who were happy supporting us through five years of Coalition with the Tories, and it becomes clear that at least one component of the alliance looks pretty unpromising.  If offered a choice between an incipient coalition with Jeremy Corbyn at its head and a Tory majority, a good number of Lib Dem voters will choose the latter.

We also have some solid evidence of how unwilling the supporters of the members of this alliance might be to go along with it.  This post by Tim Bale, Paul Webb, and Monica Poletti is based on survey data which asked strong supporters of each major party to plot their own ideological position, along with that of their favoured party and the other parties, on a score from 0 to 10, with 0 being the most left-wing and 10 being the most right-wing. In principle, the closer the dots are, the greater potential for an agreement there should be between the parties.  Of course, this approach is far from perfect – the left-right spectrum, while widely used, is unsubtle and frequently misleading, and these values are the averages of a potentially very wide spread.  Nevertheless, it is an interesting starting point, and if anything underestimates any potential problems with the coherence of the ‘progressive alliance’.

With the help of MS Paint, I have visualised the outlook of each party’s supporters as a linear scale.  First up, Labour.

Labour political axis

A quick explainer: the pink dot is where Labour’s strong supporters put themselves, and the red dot is where they put their party.  Green is Green, Yellow SNP, Orange Lib Dem, and so on.  The thing that stands out here is how Labour voters see themselves as being in more-or-less the same space as the SNP and the Greens, with UKIP far out to the right.  The Lib Dems, on the other hand, are perceived as slightly right-of-centre, roughly equidistant between Labour and the Tories.  Any association of Labour with the Lib Dems will alienate these supporters; while you can see a pattern of a possible progressive coalition on the left there, the Lib Dems are the clear odd-one-out.  (It should be said that this data was collected immediately after the General Election, so there may have been a shift of the views of Labour Party supporters since then.)

Green political axis

The Green axis has the greatest spread, with strong Green supporters viewing themselves (light green) and their party (dark green) as being firmly on the left, the Lib Dems and Labour clustered around the centre, and the SNP somewhere in between.  Green supporters obviously don’t feel themselves to be in sympathy with Labour and the Lib Dems, although the leaderships of Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron may cause this to change.  It is true that Green *voters* are much more ideologically diverse, with many of them holding mainstream centre-left views.  However, more significantly, they are also generally suspicious of the political establishment and, having chosen a fringe party, would probably not be willing to be corralled into voting for two of the traditional Big Three parties.

SNP political axis

I almost didn’t bother with the SNP because while they remain hegemonic in Scotland they have no conceivable interest at all in a progressive alliance, and also because they are primarily interested in nationalism rather than ‘progressivism’.  But, for what it’s worth, strong SNP supporters see Labour and the Lib Dems as centre parties, and they themselves are almost totally overlapping with the Greens (that would technically be the Scottish Green Party, presumably) on the moderate left.  In Scottish politics, the constitutional issue makes the left-right divide far less relevant anyway.

Lib Dem political axis

Finally, the Lib Dems (the lighter orange dot is where Lib Dem supporters see themselves).  Of all the parties so far, this is the one which shows a greatest ‘progressive’ clustering – Lib Dem strong supporters on average see themselves as centre or left-of-centre, but not too far from Labour, the SNP, and the Greens, and far away from the Tories and UKIP.  As has already been said, however, these are strong supporters, and not necessarily typical of all Lib Dem voters.

In conclusion, then, there is not much evidence that Labour, SNP, Lib Dem or Green supporters see themselves as having much in common with each other.  There is a real risk of any form of formal alliance or pact alienating one part or another, with voters drifting off to the Tories, a far left party like TUSC, or to the great army of non-voters, and actually hurting the prospects of the left.  A ‘progressive alliance’ could easily work out as less than the sum of its parts.

My fundamental misgiving about any ‘coalition of the left’ or ‘progressive alliance’ is that, in the face of two shattering election defeats, some people on the centre left are still trying to rearrange the people already voting for ‘progressive’ parties rather than trying to persuade Conservative or UKIP voters.  In the aftermath of the 2010 election, Ed Miliband’s game plan for Labour was to absorb disgruntled Lib Dems; now, we hear muttering from some quarters about natural anti-Tory majorities.  It strikes me as slightly anti-democratic to fix things in this way, but more than that it seems futile, and a distraction from the real task at hand.  In 1997, Labour and Lib Dems together got 60% of the vote; in 2015, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens together only received 42%.  By far the best thing for centre-left politics is for Labour and the Lib Dems to focus on rediscovering their appeal to people outside the ‘progressive’ ghetto, particularly people who voted for them in 2005 or 2010 and who switched to the Conservatives in 2015.  Political parties have become sufficiently focused on targeting, and voters willing enough to vote tactically, that the likelihood of any of the ‘progressive’ parties actually acting as spoilers to one another to any great extent is small.  It would be better to work out how to chip away at the actual Tory majority, rather than trying to construct an elusive anti-Tory majority.

Tribalism, Tim Farron, and what Richard Grayson doesn’t say

I was intrigued to see that Professor Richard Grayson had written an article about Liberal Democrat tribalism. Grayson, a former Liberal Democrat who joined Labour three years ago, is an intelligent person with insights to share on this subject. It is also true that there *are* incredibly tribal people in the Liberal Democrats, who swing between regarding Labour as a bunch of doctrinaire spendthrift lunatics and seeing them as hard-right sell-outs. I have seen people say that the Liberal Democrats can never go into coalition with Labour because they are uniquely tribal, unlike the pluralist Lib Dems – they don’t seem to see the irony. So I was a little surprised to see that Grayson had singled out Tim Farron for criticism.

Grayson’s argument rests on two incidents, both of which are now over four and a half years old. The first relates to a vote at the 2008 Autumn Conference in Bournemouth which dedicated the Liberal Democrats to a policy of cutting £20bn from existing public expenditure and shifting towards other Liberal Democrat priorities – a large chunk of which was, indeed, meant to be directed towards cuts in income tax (I think I am right in saying that the intention at that stage was to reduce the basic rate rather than increasing the threshold, although the details were rather vague). Grayson clearly sees this as a pivotal moment in the rightward shift of the party, the moment when we became a party devoted to shrinking the state rather than (as in the Ashdown and Kennedy years) advocating greater investment in public services. Furthermore, he sees Tim Farron’s intervention as crucial in making sure it was passed. According to that logic, then, Farron is directly responsible for the Liberal Democrats’ support of the Conservatives’ fiscal policy.

There are a few problems with that argument, however. For one thing, although I wasn’t (quite) a member at this point (I think I joined in the October), I wonder whether Grayson exaggerates the influence of Tim, who by this stage had only been an MP for three years and held no portfolio of significant importance. More fundamentally, Grayson’s narrative leaves out the small matter that, shortly after the conference vote, the collapse of Lehman Brothers precipitated the greatest recession since the 1930s. This is significant for us in that Make It Happen was a dead letter almost by the time it was written – economic and political events had overtaken it completely. In the following years, Liberal Democrat policy swung towards broad support of Alistair Darling’s policy of Keynesian expansion of public spending, and the £20bn number was quietly dropped. The support for tax cuts became a fiscally neutral ‘tax switch’, raising green levies and taxes on high earners. The 2010 manifesto again proposed this ‘tax switch’, but this time also set out plans for a moderate pace of deficit reduction while keeping the flagship commitment to eliminating tuition fees. Only during the Coalition negotiations did Clegg sign up to the Conservative deficit reduction plan, and only after a couple of years in government was it clear that income tax cuts were going to be paid for by cuts elsewhere rather than a Mansion Tax or, in David Cameron’s words, ‘green crap’. In other words, it is impossible to draw a straight line between the Bournemouth conference and Coalition economic policy, except for the continued interest of Nick Clegg in shifting the party in favour of cutting Income Tax and public spending. For that reason, dragging up a seven year old Conference vote seems a little quixotic.

Grayson’s other bone to pick with Farron is related to his rejection in 2010 of working on a Labour Party policy working group. Grayson sees this as a demonstration that he isn’t really interested in pluralism, but I think that this is unfair. I suspect that I differ from him on how exactly politicians should work across party lines – he is clearly a generous soul who believes that any invitation offered should be accepted, and that if you don’t then you have slapped aside the hand of pluralism. My view is that you work across party lines on a pragmatic basis where you have common goals – as a social liberal, that often means working with the Labour Party. Intellectually, I think there is enormous value in discussing policy ideas and philosophy across party divides, creating a cross-fertilisation of ideas without which party dogma quickly becomes stale. Compass has generally been good at this on the left. And there is also a value in getting to know MPs from other parties socially – as well as facilitating the intellectual cross-fertilisation I mentioned above, it helps ease the formal interactions between them. Several observers have said that Nick Clegg found it difficult to relate to Gordon Brown during the Coalition negotiations in 2010, whereas he found himself at ease with David Cameron, with whom he had a fair amount in common.

Working within formal party structures, however, is always going to breed suspicion. Grayson fails to mention that by this point Farron was the Party President, and that he would be working with Labour MPs to develop Labour policy. This would have been an level of co-operation at a high level between two parties last seen in British politics between the Liberals and SDP, and completely unknown when the two parties are on opposite sides of the House.  Perhaps Ed Miliband was genuinely seeking some kind of pluralist arrangement. Even if so, Farron’s supposition that he was trying to play Lib Dems off each other or recruit them to Labour was not unreasonable, especially given that Miliband’s electoral strategy was based almost entirely on hoovering up 2010 Lib Dem voters. I suspect that, rather than demonstrating partisan hackery, Farron was instead being shrewder than Grayson himself. He was also demonstrating a basic level of political loyalty which is really the currency of the Labour Party. To put it in other words, it is difficult to imagine Ben Bradshaw serving on a Liberal Democrat policy group without being burnt at the stake by his constituency party. If Miliband was genuine, he was certainly being cack-handed about it.

Grayson finishes by saying that many Labour members suspect Liberal Democrats as being soggy Tories. I can certainly understand that point of view, given some of our actions and rhetoric in government. As he says, the likes of Danny Alexander will hardly warm the cockles of the average Labour member. But the thing is, Danny Alexander is no longer an MP. On the other hand, Tim Farron, a man of the left, is our Leader. Might it not be best for Grayson – who obviously has a more sophisticated and accurate view – to try and point that out to his fellow Labour members? It would do a lot more for relations between the two parties, which Grayson wishes to improve, than misrepresenting Tim Farron based on years-old incidents.

Why it’s time for Tim

This is my first leadership election as a member of the Liberal Democrats. I joined in September 2008, so I missed the last one – and, even though I had started volunteering a year before, I can’t remember anything about the Clegg-Huhne dust-up. It’s a contest which I’ve been anticipating (waiting for?) for several years now, but one where I presumed that I would be a neutral observer, at least to start. And yet, I find myself strongly supporting Tim Farron to be our next Leader.

Why has this happened? It’s not out of any antipathy towards Norman Lamb – I have enormous respect, and even affection, for Norman, whose effective championing of mental health as a minister deserves all the praise that it gets. Nor is it an uncritical endorsement of Tim – I can see his flaws, and think that he’s a work in progress (as most party leaders are when they’re elected). But, despite this, Tim is the candidate for now, the one able to lift us out of the dire situation that we find ourselves in.

It’s worth considering just how awful things are for the Liberal Democrats. Not since the early 1970s have we had so few MPs; we have ceased to be the third force in British politics, overtaken by UKIP in England and the SNP in Scotland; we dipped below 5% of the vote in the majority of constituencies in the UK. Seth Thevoz’s analysis of the results at constituency level is as acute as it is utterly depressing. We have elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in less than a year, where on current trends a further wipeout, on top of the disastrous 2011 results, looks likely. Our financial resources are limited by a severe reduction in the hoped-for Short Money, and we can anticipate the collapse of many local parties held together by an MP’s money, staff, or force of character (and there are far more of these than we’d like to think). Yes, we have had a welcome boost of members since the election – I welcome them, and I say that they will be absolutely crucial in the struggle ahead – but unless our fortunes enjoy improvement sometime soon they will become disengaged. So will our longstanding activists, who will begin to wonder if they shouldn’t devote their time to pressure groups or join another party. We have no newspaper, except perhaps The Independent, which supports us, and most are downright hostile. But, worst of all, nobody knows what we stand for, and after an election campaign where we changed our messaging several times and defined ourselves as moderating influence to everyone else, who can blame them? I have heard an alarming number of members say that, as bad as things are, they’re worse for the Labour Party. I think that this is self-comforting balls. Labour’s situtation is grave, but there is a path back to government for them.  We could die as an effective national force, and without a severe jolt to the system we probably will. Even with that jolt, we still could.

What’s the point, you might ask, of this wallowing in miserablism? My point is that I believe we need two things to have a hope of survival: a reason for existence, and a means of getting that through to voters. Tim, I believe, is the candidate who offers both. Norman is probably stronger on the details of policy (although Tim is sharper here than his critics suggest), but Tim is better on the big themes that are necessary for where we are now. Tim has had time to develop these on the backbenches, and you can see them on show in his Beveridge Lecture to SLF conference a few years back where he describes the way forward for a modern, interventionist liberalism. Tim has also chosen to emphasise housing policy, which is something as close to his heart as mental health is to Norman’s (it is also a passionate interest of mine) – it is also an issue of increasing salience with the electorate, particularly younger voters, and one where there is a lot of space for the Lib Dems to make the issue our own. These are the broad narratives on which we can build a distinctive platform.

But more than anything else, Tim can communicate our ideas and policies better than any British liberal I know of. He comes across as an ordinary bloke, and his roots are decidedly outside the Westminster Bubble. He is passionate and unwavering in defence of the liberal position on issues like immigration, but doesn’t come across as chiding or lecturing. I know that there is a suspicion of his way with words from some in the Party, but it is a skill which we desperately need right now as we fight for airtime against the other minor parties. Having met Norman, I can attest that he can electrify a small gathering with his charisma, something which explains his success in North Norfolk. But Tim can project his energy and passion to a far wider audience.

There is another reason, which has come out of the campaign, which makes me glad to have backed Tim, and that is the way that Norman’s campaign has defined their candidate as a ‘true liberal’. I’ve long said that we Lib Dems are far too nice to each other for our own good, so it isn’t the deliberate implication that Tim isn’t a ‘true liberal’ that bothers me so much. It’s the definition of what exactly makes a ‘true liberal’, which seems to amount to abortion, assisted dying, drugs, and gay rights. I have sympathy with the last point – Tim’s record on LGBT rights frankly isn’t where I would like it to be, although he does have a clear plan of future action in this area. But Tim has said that he supports the 1967 Abortion Act, and his on drugs is far more liberal than anything advocated by anyone in the two main parties. Moreover, the singling out of these issues as the acid test of a ‘true liberal’ makes me uncomfortable. There is an insidious pattern in party discourse to see these issues as the real ‘liberal issues’, and things like public services, unemployment, and so on as extraneous, despite the enormous effect these latter issues have on people’s ability to live their own lives independently and on their own terms. James Graham has described the problem with this kind of thinking better than I can, though I did have a stab a few years ago. Furthermore, there is an irony that Tim has often been accused of just saying what people want to hear, but it’s Norman’s campaign which has sought to stroke the sensibilities of Lib Dem activists. I know that a leadership election by its nature is about pleasing party members, but we need to remember that there is a wide world out there which needs to be persuaded of the merits of immigration, drugs reform, and so on.  Sometimes the Lamb campaign seems to ignore that you can be very, very liberal, but if you can’t bring people with you then it’s a complete waste of time.  If a Lamb leadership were to continue along these lines it would, I think, be a dangerous path for the health of British liberalism and the success of our party.

I think that this leadership election will be closer than most people think, although Tim is still the frontrunner. These are my personal reasons for voting for Tim, and you might find them unconvincing. I do ask, though, that if you have a vote in the election that you (a) use it, and (b) vote as if the future of the party depended on it. Because, as I have explained, we are in deep trouble, and the leader we choose now will be central to whether we live as a relevant force in British politics, or crumple into irrelevance. The hour is dark and the times are hard. It’s time for Tim.

Ed Miliband’s problem, in one tweet

I am not a campaigning guru by any stretch of the imagination.  I have never artworked a piece of literature, never mind written a campaign plan or come up with a political slogan.  Yet even I winced when I saw the tweet below:

There are two separate issues here.

First, there is the tiresome belief, apparently widespread in the Labour Party, that the entire media is out to get them.  This is not completely unreasonable – much of the Tory press *is* out to get them – but the BBC?  How about the fact that the publications which led the ‘Miliband in crisis’ story last week were the Guardian and the New Statesman?  Complaining about media bias in order to bludgeon critical voices into quiescence has often been a successful right wing tactic, but here it just comes across at petulant whining.

The second problem is rather more significant – Ed Miliband has decided to appeal to the electorate with fifteen separate promises, clumped into three vague headings.  (This is not an exact extract from his zero-zero speech, though it has similarities to an even longer list of policies Miliband ran through in it, but is apparently from an e-mail sent out to Labour supporters immediately after.) This is, from a messaging point of view, really stupid.  It’s not just because of the difficulty of the electorate receiving, processing and remembering these fifteen top lines of policy.  Reading a list of these promises – which are all doubtless positively received individually – the average voter, already sceptical of politicians and with a vague idea that Labour are a load of well-meaning profligates, will think: “and I’m going to get the moon on a stick as well, I suppose.”  As a reasonable rule of thumb, five is the limit of the number of main issues a party can campaign on before becoming incoherent.  One experienced campaigner I know says that the four promises on the front of the Lib Dem manifesto in 2010 was one too many.

True, there’s an attempt to group the promises into three key areas.  But they are vague to the point of practically being meaningless.  The first (‘I will undo the damage the Tories have done to our country’) is just a melange of four bad things which the Tories have done, with no particular unifying principle other than that they are bad things which have been done by the Tories.  The second (‘I will take on the powerful vested interests that hold millions back’) is a bit sharper, though the apologetic mention of immigration at the end looks painfully tacked on (since when have employment agencies been powerful vested interests?)  Finally, there is the catch-all promise, that Labour will ‘start to rebuild a fairer, better, Britain’, which covers everything from expanding housebuilding to raising the Minimum Wage.  This is really just a restatement of his wider attack on inequality.

If I were a canvasser on the doorstep, and I were asked by a sceptical elector to explain exactly why they should vote Labour, I would find it difficult on the basis of this without just listing a series of policies – an approach which persuades nobody except the loyal and policy fanatics like me.  The overarching theme – the vision – of a ‘zero zero society’ is one that will resonate with many people.  The policies, as I say, are probably all very popular (some even make sense).  But there’s nothing of substance in between – no values.  And that matters because it’s these arguments which give intellectual credibility to everything else, and which really explain how Labour will govern.  Everybody knows (apart from Eoin Clarke) that the attrition rate of the policies listed above would be about 50% even in a majority Labour government, and that they would make up enough material for two Queen’s Speeches at the most.  What would a Labour government do the rest of the time?  What would its priorities be?  How would it change Britain?  Answer came there little.

This is (by one count) Miliband’s third relaunch, and with six months before the General Election it is reasonable to think that it can only be his last, and that these are the messages he will take into the election; the die is cast.  At least he is responding to declining poll ratings, rather than, say, driving in fifth gear over an electoral cliff while murmuring ‘stronger economy, fairer society’ (naming no names).  And perhaps voters dislike the Coalition enough to give his party the benefit of the doubt in the end.  But, after over four years, Miliband still hasn’t proffered a persuasive explanation of what the Labour Party stands for.

Drugs policy – sending the wrong message

One of the most frequent arguments against a more liberal drugs policy is that liberalisation would ‘send a message’ that drugs – even hard drugs like heroin and cocaine – were not harmful.  This, so the argument goes, would lead to people trying these substances who would never have done so before, thereby leading more people into addiction.  This is apparently the reason for David Cameron’s opposition to even seeking Civil Service opinion on the subject, with today’s Sun reporting him as saying that “I don’t want to send out a message that somehow taking drugs is OK or safe.”  The idea that the criminal law should be used to ‘send a message’ – to set a moral guideline, regardless of the consequences or practicality of its enforcement – is in general a bad one which leads to bad law.  But it is a legitimate question to ask in this case.  Evidence from Portugal suggests a possible increase in the proportion of the population having ever used illegal drugs; similarly, there is plausible evidence of increased uptake of cannabis in some jurisdictions where it has been legalised.

But if the law is there to ‘send a message’, it should be asked exactly what message is being sent at the moment.  It is forgotten now, but many who in the 1960s argued in favour of legalising homosexuality – and, to a lesser extent, abortion – argued from the position that the widespread flouting of the law brought the legal system into disrepute.  When one-third of the population admits to having tried an illegal drug, and one in five young people say that they’ve used drugs in the past year, this is a real concern.  (Social stigma and fear or prosecution probably mean that these numbers are greatly underreported.)

Furthermore, from personal experience* I would suggest that the irrationality of our drug laws, and the exaggerated claims often used to defend them, lead people to underestimate the dangers of hard drugs.  Two examples.  The first is somebody I knew at school – someone very bright but rather wayward – who, after taking at a house party what had been sold to them as ketamine, passed out and had to be revived by paramedics.  (We didn’t call the ambulance until they stopped breathing because we were afraid that they would end up in trouble – another disadvantage of criminalisation.)  I remember them saying beforehand that the dangers of ketamine were small, and while I don’t know for sure that they were influenced by government drugs policy, the fact that cannabis – which for my knowledge has never nearly killed someone – was rated as a Class B drug while ketamine was then Class C might have contributed to their thoughts.  The other is a friend who briefly became an occasional cocaine user.  When I found out, I had to explain to them – and, again, this is a very well educated and intelligent person – that cocaine was highly addictive and damaging.

When you lump together a group of substances which have little to link them except social disapproval, and rank them with very little correlation to social and personal harm, you send out a confused message – as is fitting, given our country’s confused conversation on illegal drugs.  This message underestimates the dangers of alcohol.  It brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.  And it also leads many to underestimate the harm caused by illegal drugs.  Some message.  Perhaps David Cameron ought to consider whether it’s worth perpetuating a failed drugs war if this is the best argument he has.

*As it happens, I have never used any illegal drug, unless you count a little underage drinking from the age of 16.

The living members of Nixon’s enemies list

On Tuesday, a great American hero passed away.  Ben Bradlee was the Executive Editor of the Washington Post from 1968 to 1991, but he is best known for his newspaper’s dogged pursuit of the Watergate scandal and its publication, with the New York Times, of the Pentagon Papers.  With the death of another Watergate protagonist, I asked myself – how many of the names from Richard Nixon’s enemies list are still around?

The enemies list, compiled by several of Nixon’s White Office assistants, listed those who were considered to be the most dangerous opponents of the President.  (In fact there were two lists – a shortlist of twenty names and a longer ‘master list’ of more than 200 people and institutions.)  The list, while not written by Nixon himself, reflects many of his well-known preoccupations and prejudices.  For instance, the black congressional delegation are included en bloc.  It is also rather idiosyncratic – it turns out that Ben Bradlee was not included in it (although the Washington Post’s proprietor, Katherine Graham, appears  twice).  In contrast, two national farming organisations are listed, alongside Beltway reporters and liberal celebrities, for reasons which aren’t immediately obvious: Robbie Simpson on Twitter suggested that it might be because of farmers’ hostility to the price controls which Nixon imposed in the summer of 1971.  The purpose of the enemies list was to provide a basis for official harassment: “[to] use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies”.

My list of living enemies was constructed with the help of Wikipedia and Google.  Those with an obituary or some other evidence of death I have obviously excluded; of the rest, I only included those with online evidence of recent activity.  There are six individuals whose status I have been unable to determine by this method – they have been excluded.  (They are Charles Palmer, James Laird, John Pierson, Holmes Brown, George Hillman, and George Drennen Fischer – information either way about these or any other individuals would be gratefully received.)  For those included in the shortlist, I have included Charles Colson’s comments on them.


Birch Bayh – A Democratic Senator for Indiana from 1963 to 1981, Bayh is the father of Evan Bayh (Democratic Senator for Indiana from 1999 to 2011).  He currently resides in Maryland and continues to advocate for a number of political causes.

Fred R. Harris – A Democratic Senator for Oklahoma from 1964 until 1973, Harris ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976.  He went on to teach political science at the University of New Mexico, where he now lives.

Walter Mondale – Mondale, who was Senator for Minnesota from 1964 to 1976, went on to become Jimmy Carter’s Vice President, and was the Democratic nominee for President in 1984.  Mondale acted as Ambassador to Japan between 1993 and 1996 and stood as the stand-in candidate for the Democratic Party in the 2002 U.S. Senate election in Wisconsin after the death of Paul Wellstone.

Members of Congress

John Brademas – Brademas left Congress in 1981 after twenty-two years as the Representative for Indiana’s 3rd District, and went on to become President of New York University from 1981 to 1991.  The Brademas Centre for the Study of Congress at NYU is named in his honour.

Robert Kastenmeier – Kastenmeier’s career in Congress ended unexpectedly in 1990 after thirty-two years as Representative for Wisconsin’s 2nd District.  Appropriately, Kastenmeier was on the House Judiciary Committee which approved the articles of impeachment against Nixon in 1974.  He has an annual lecture named after him at the University of Wisconsin Law School; last year’s speaker was Watergate felon John Dean.

Bill Clay – Clay was one of the ‘Black Congressmen and Congresswomen’ named in the Master List; he represented a district covering St. Louis, MO between 1969 and 2001, when he was succeeded by his son, William Lacy Clay Jr.

John Conyers (‘Coming on fast. Emerging as a leading black anti-Nixon spokesman. Has known weakness for white females.’) – Conyers is still in Congress, representing West Detroit, and will celebrate his fiftieth year as a Representative next January.  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, he also voted on Nixon’s articles of impeachment.  He is considered to be one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Ron Dellums (‘had extensive EMK [Sen. Ted Kennedy]-Tunney [Sen. John Tunney] support in his election bid. Success might help in California next year.’) – Dellums stood down from Congress in 1998 after twenty-seven years service, which included introducing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1987.  After working as a lobbyist, Dellums returned to politics as Mayor of Oakland, CA from 2007 to 2011.

Charles Rangel – Rangel represents Harlem, NY and its surrounding neighbourhoods in Congress, as he has done continuously since 1971.  He enjoyed an influential position in New York politics and nationally as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and was Chair of the body from 2007 until his resignation in 2010 after accusations of ethics violation.

Louis Stokes – A Representative of a district covering Cleveland, OH from 1969 to 1999, Stokes retired as Senior Counsel at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey in 2012.  A museum of his life and work opened in 2007 in Cleveland.


Leslie Gelb, Brookings Institution – Gelb attracted the Nixon White House’s ire as Senior  Fellow at the Brookings Institution from 1969 to 1973 – ironically, he had been one of the original authors of the Pentagon Papers.  Gelb enjoyed an illustrious career as an expert in foreign relations, including a stint in Jimmy Carter’s Department of State and a period at the New York Times.  He continues to write frequently on foreign affairs.

Vincent McGee, Business Executives Move for VN Peace – Since ending his role as Executive Director of BEM, McGee has worked for nonprofits and foundations and is currently on the Board of Directors of PATH, a global health NGO.

Morton Halperin, Common Cause (‘A scandal would be helpful here.’) – Halperin, another foreign policy expert, was temporarily a member of Nixon’s National Security Council until he fell under suspicion of leaking to the press (inevitably for the hyper-paranoid Nixon White House, his phone was tapped).  He worked for the open government organisation Common Cause when the list was written, and served as the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1984 to 1992, and worked in a variety of foreign policy roles in the Clinton White House.  He is currently Senior Adviser at the Open Government Institute.

Marcus Raskin, Institute for Policy Studies – Raskin continues to work for the left-wing IPS as a Distinguished Fellow in addition to teaching as George Washington University.

Sanford Gottlieb, SANE – Gottlieb, who was included because of his campaigning against nuclear weapons, continues his peace activism by occasionally contributing to publications such as the National Catholic Reporter and Huffington Post.


James S. Doyle – Doyle earned his place on the Enemies List as a correspondent at the now-defunct Washington Star, and went on to serve as a Special Assistant to Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski.  He retired from journalism in 1998.

Richard Dudman – Dudman’s reporting of the Vietnam War for the St Louis Post-Dispatch gained him a place on the Enemies List.  From 2000 to 2012 he was the Contributing Editor in retirement for the Bangor Daily News.  He also wrote an article for the New York Times in 1990 which denied the existence of the Cambodian genocide.

Pete Hamill – Hamill moved on from the New York Post to eventually become the editor of the New York Daily News, and has written for publications including The New Yorker and Rolling Stone.  He currently lives in New York.

Ted Knap – Knap was placed on Nixon’s enemies list while working for Scripps Howard News Service, despite believing that ‘Nixon, except for Watergate (a huge caveat), was a good president’.  Knap retired in 1985 and lives in McLean, VA; his Wikipedia page informs us that he has won the Virginia Seniors’ Championship twice.

Morton Kondracke – Kondracke, who had been on the Washington bureau of the Chicago Sun-Times when he was put on the Enemies List, went on to a successful journalistic career which included sixteen years on the television show The McLaughlin Group and twenty years as the Executive Editor of Roll Call.  He is, as far as is known, the only one of Nixon’s enemies to have a walk-on part in the film Independence Day.

Stuart Loory – White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times from 1967-71, Loory went on to senior roles in academia and journalism, including being one of the founding staff of CNN.  He is currently Distinguished Fulbright Professor at the Centers for East Europe and American Studies at the University of Warsaw.

Martin Nolan – Nolan stayed with the Boston Globe until his retirement in 2001.  Now living in San Francisco, he continues to write for publications such as the Huffington Post and SFGate.

William Prochnau – Prochnau’s work on the Vietnam War at the Seattle Times earned him the enmity of the Nixon White House.  He became the Contributing Editor for Vanity Fair in 1996.

Warren Unna – Sometime bureau chief of the Washington Post in New Delhi, Unna worked in retirement for the Calcutta-based newspaper The Statesman.  He currently lives in Mitchellville, MD.

Milton Viorst – Viorst was a freelance journalist for numerous publications, but it may have been his signing of the Writers and Editors War Tax Protest which attracted the attention of Nixon’s assistants.  Viorst later developed an interest in the Middle East and has written extensively on this subject.  He is married to children’s author, Judith Viorst.

Garry Wills – Wills’s critical biography of Nixon, Nixon Agonistes, was almost certainly the reason he made the enemies list.  Wills continues to write, particularly on the Catholic Church, and regularly contributes reviews for the New York Review of Books.

Marvin Kalb – A CBS reporter when the Enemies List was written, Kalb later moved to NBC, where he presented Meet The Press.  Kalb is currently a James Clark Welling Fellow at George Washington University, and previously held a number of positions at Harvard University.

Sander Vanocur – Vanocur moved from NBC in 1971, the same year that the list was written; he went on to hold a number of roles at CBS before retiring in 1991.


Carol Channing – Channing, who came to prominence in 1964 as the eponymous character in Hello Dolly!, probably made the Enemies List for no better reason than that she sang a reworked version of ‘Hello, Dolly!’ for Lyndon Johnson’s campaign in 1964.  She has played a variety of small parts on stage, screen and TV in the past forty years and is the recipient of three Tony awards and a Golden Globe.

Bill Cosby – Cosby was just starting out in his career in 1971, and the reasons for his inclusion are uncertain.  Cosby would go on to produce and star in The Cosby Show, one of the most popular American sitcoms of all time.  Ironically, in recent years he has become something of a conservative hero for his criticism of what he perceives as the failings of American-American men and the need for the black community to take greater responsibility for itself.

Jane Fonda – Fonda’s apparent support of the Vietcong during the Vietnam War in reality made her an effective recruiting sergeant for Nixonian conservatism, but apparently she was considered dangerous enough to merit a place on the list.  Fonda has since won two Oscars for her acting and continues to be a vocal supporter of liberal causes.

Joe Namath – As Rick Perlstein asserts in his recently published work on the fall of Nixon and the rise of Reagan, The Invisible Bridge, the inclusion of NFL star Joe Namath was indeed ‘exceedingly curious’ given his avoidance of politics, ‘except for his ostentatious patriotism’.  Namath, one of the most famous stars of the 1970s, was probably included by accident, a demonstration of the poor attention to detail with which the list was compiled.

Barbra Streisand – Streisand is one of the best-selling musicians of all time, having sold 245 million records worldwide.  She continues to support a range of liberal causes, including opposition to the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in 2008.

Dick Gregory – As a black stand-up comedian whose routine championed civil rights and who stood for President in 1968 for the far-left Freedom and Peace Party, Gregory’s inclusion on the list was almost inevitable.  He continues his activism on behalf of African-Americans, as well as promoting a range of health foods.

Business people

Ernest R. Chanes – Listed as ‘President, Consolidated Water Conditioning Co’, Chanes is little-remembered today.  He was active in some capacity in the Fund for New Priorities in the early 1970s, as this letter on the subject of US-Cuba relations demonstrates (could his sympathy for detente with Cuba earned him his place on the Enemies List?)  There is an Ernest R. Chanes living in Gramercy Park, NY of around the right age who is likely the same individual.

Lawrence S. Philips – Philips was President of the family clothing business, the Philips-Van Heusen Corporation.  The founder of American Jewish World Service, Philips lives in Palm Beach where he remains involved with many charitable causes.


Clifford Alexander Jr. – Alexander had been LBJ’s special assistant and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.  Later, Alexander would become the first African-American Secretary of the Army under Jimmy Carter, before starting his own consultancy firm.  He has spoken in recent years against the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.

Ramsey Clark – Clark was LBJ’s Attorney General from 1967-9; at the time of the writing of the enemies list, he was a partner at the law firm Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.  Clark has been a persistent and controversial critic of American foreign policy from Vietnam to the present day, and has offered a legal defence for Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Charles Taylor among others.

Victor Palmieri – A lawyer and real estate magnate, Palmieri was also Jimmy Carter’s Ambassador At Large and Co-Ordinator for Refugee Affairs and has also taught on crisis management at Stanford Law School and Harvard.  His inclusion on the list is probably attributable to a colloqium which he arranged between anti-war Harvard students and business leaders.

Robert S. Pirie – A lawyer by profession, Pirie’s work for the election campaign of Governor Harold Hughes of Iowa found him on the enemies list.  Pirie’s career would later lead him to become CEO of Rothschild, North America and Senior Managing Director of Bear Sterns.  The most recent mention I could find of him online is in connection with a secretive elite New York dining club, exactly the kind of institution which Nixon despised.

Henry Rowen – Then President of the Rand Corporation, Rowen has worked in and around the Georgetown foreign policy establishment for most of his career.  His recent affiliations with the Hoover Institution and the neoconservative Project for an American Century do not, to say the least, suggest any kind of far-left attitude.

Milton Semer – Semer is listed as ‘Chairman, Muskie Election Committee; lawyer, Semer and Jacobsen’ (Sen. Ed Muskie was thought of as a credible challenger to Nixon in 1972 and was a victim of Nixonian dirty tricks in the form of the infamous ‘Canuck letter‘).  Interestingly, it is also alleged that Semer was involved, as an agent of the milk industry, in chanelling money towards Nixon and Republican politicians in return for preferential treatment (were the authors of the list aware of this?) There is a Milton Semer of exactly the right age listed as living in Washington D.C.

Arthur Taylor – Listed as ‘Vice President, International Paper Company’, Taylor was President of CBS between 1972 and 1976.  Taylor would later found his own private investment company, and was President of Muhlenberg College from 1992 to 2002.

Sidney Davidoff (‘[New York Mayor John V.] Lindsay’s personal aide.  A first class S.O.B., wheeler-dealer and suspected bagman. Positive results would really shake the Lindsay camp and Lindsay’s plans to capture youth vote. Davidoff in charge.’) – The description of Davidoff here describes succinctly exactly why he was put on the list.  Davidoff went on to found his own professional lobbying firm, and also lobbied on behalf of New York lobbyists, which suggests he was rather good at it.  For reasons which are not altogether clear, he also had a cameo part in an episode of The Sopranos.


Derek Curtis Bok – Then Dean of Harvard Law School, it is again uncertain why Bok merited inclusion on the list.  He would go on to become President of Harvard for twenty years between 1971 and 1991.  Bok has recently written a book arguing that government should seek to maximise happiness, something which Nixon, who thrived on division, might have indeed have taken exception to.

Noam Chomsky – Chomsky’s inclusion, as a persistent and effective critic of American foreign policy, is more explicable.  Chomsky, who has retired from active teaching at MIT, continues to promote his own brand of anarcho-syndicalism while (rumour has it) spending most of his day replying to every single e-mail sent to him.

Carl Djerassi – His opposition to the Vietnam War probably attracted the attention of the Nixon White House, but it is his part in the invention of the contraceptive pill which is Djerassi’s real claim to fame.  He has also written fiction exploring scientific topics and is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Stanford University.

Daniel Ellsberg – Ellsberg was responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1971 while working at the Rand Corporation, and the Nixon administration pursued him with characteristic vigour, from a failed prosecution under the Espionage Act to a break-in at the offices of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, and possibly even a plot to lace his soup with LSD.  Ellsberg continues to campaign for open government and against what he regards as unjust wars.

Matthew Stanley Meselson – A prominent geneticist, Meselson was likely included on the list for his work against chemical and biological weapons (though the Nixon administration in fact implemented many of his recommendations regarding the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam).  Meselson is currently Co-director of the Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Jeremy Stone – Stone was, between 1970 and 2000, the president of the Federation of American Scientists, a lobbying group critical of the nuclear arms race.  Stone now lives with his wife in Carlsbad, CA.  He is the son of radical journalist I.F. Stone.