We’re a big fan of moderation here on the Epicurus Blog. In fact, it’s one of our core values, as you can see on the banner above. Epicurus stressed that avoiding excess was a key aspect of achieving happiness, and we wholeheartedly agree. Thus, we reject rigid dogmas and are generally utilitarian in our ethics and morality.

However, the benefits of political moderation aren’t as straightforward. Political moderates emphasise caution, pragmatism and compromise. They are by definition averse to radical change. In a liberal democracy that treats its citizens well, this is generally a good thing. The present day United States is a textbook example of the damaging nature of political polarisation, where neither side is willing to make the necessary compromises in order to enact desperately needed reforms. Rather, the consensual model of decision-making found in most EU countries- where policy is borne out of compromise and coalition-building, not adversarial bickering and demonisation of the opposition- is vastly preferable.

But in countries that aren’t liberal democracies; where human rights are being violated, where a small group of elites squanders the country’s wealth, where corruption is rampant, and where businesses are overburdened; moderation is actually immoral. To watch injustices being carried out, and to respond by demanding compromise, is to betray those who are suffering. We can all compromise on what the tax rate should be, or how much should be spent on education, but not when people’s basic human needs and dignity are being denied.

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, I believe that the Conservative Party in the UK, as well as a large (and increasing) portion of the Labour Party are insufficiently moderate. The former has become totally committed to leaving the European Single Market, regardless of the consequences for business or people’s freedom. The prospect of rapidly falling migration or a weakened Pound does not faze them, in fact they welcome it. They have thrown their brand of caution and stable leadership to the wind, instead promising a utopia of free trade deals and vastly increased exports. Their unrelenting Euroscepticism is totally at odds with the analysis of the Bank of England, the Treasury, every major university and economics think-tank, as well as all of our allies around the world.

The ignorant radicalism of the Conservative Party’s approach to Brexit has contributed to the popularity of Labour’s own new-found radicalism. If the fall in the Pound is to be welcomed after Brexit, then why not after a Labour victory? The same could be said for any fall in the value of stocks or property. Conservatives can no longer argue against reckless gambles since they are taking one themselves. Moreover, Brexit was largely Britain’s older generation embracing radical change. In response, Britain’s young people have embraced radical change in the form of Corbynism- which may be Eurosceptic in ideology, but does not spew out nationalistic tropes like calling the EU an ’empire’, telling it to ‘go whistle’ over our unpaid liabilities, or criticising EU migrants. Unlike much of the Eurosceptic right, Corbyn does not advocate an adversarial relationship with the EU, but one borne out of mutual respect.

So if the Conservatives and Labour (as I explained in yesterday’s post) are insufficiently moderate, then why not support the Liberal Democrats. For the benefit of non-British readers, the Liberal Democrats are a bit like the US Democrats, minus the more progressive people like Elizabeth Warren or Dennis Kucinich. They are socially liberal, pro EU and pro immigration, and are the party most strongly in favour of reforming Britain’s anachronistic constitution. But on economic issues, they aren’t as left wing as Labour. They have never identified as a socialist party, and refrain from engaging in class warfare rhetoric to appeal to their middle class base.

I have a number of problems with the Liberal Democrats. In the 2017 election, a large part of why I didn’t vote for them was their then-leader Tim Farron. An evangelical Christian, Farron holds moderately socially conservative views on a number of issues, but does not wish for those views to be enacted into law. But when asked about those views, Farron repeatedly dodged the question, before eventually lying about his beliefs so as to avoid being mistaken for a political conservative. Following the election (and his party’s underwhelming performance), Farron resigned, claiming he couldn’t in good conscience continue to be the leader of the Liberal Democrats and be a Christian. My problem with Farron was not his Christianity nor his personal views, my problem was that he lied about them. It also seemed a bit inappropriate for an Evangelical to be leader of a socially liberal party; Evangelicals are much more socially conservative than mainline Protestants, who could be Liberal Democrat leaders without any problems arising.

Farron’s successor, Vince Cable, is in a different class. An experienced spokesman, he is highly intelligent and articulate, and thus attracts the media coverage his party so badly needs. My problem with Cable’s Liberal Democrats is some of their policies. On housing, they often block much-needed development at the local level, even if they sing the praises of house building nationally. The obvious example is Oxford West, where the local Liberal MP claims the city’s housing shortage can be addressed by building in the neighbouring town of Bicester. This is total tripe- there is plenty of land available to be built in Oxford, the problem is the green belt which prevents such development from happening. Considering that Oxford’s house prices are the highest in the country relative to local wages, opposition to house-building is totally unforgivable.

On Brexit, the party supports a referendum on the final deal, with the option of staying in the EU should the public find the deal unsatisfactory. This has the obvious appeal to Remainers of keeping the possibility of staying in the EU open. But this referendum would suffer from all of the problems of the first one. A complex issue would be presented as a binary choice, obscuring the nuances of policy. Lies and out of context information could be spread easily by either side. The sovereignty of Parliament would be violated and its expertise rendered inconsequential. And most importantly, there wouldn’t be any accountability. A lot of campaigners could promise all sorts of things, knowing they wouldn’t be held to account for having not fulfilled their pledges. Overall a second referendum is bad policy. We could legitimately stay in the EU, but only if Parliament votes to cancel the Article 50 process following a dramatic change in public opinion as shown by multiple opinion polls. Otherwise, we are going to leave, and the Liberal Democrats will probably just have to accept that.

As the closest thing Britain has to a moderate party, the Liberal Democrats aren’t a terrible bunch. We certainly need an explicitly centrist movement, to tame the extremes of left and right. But too often, they fall into the trap they criticise others for- promising the undeliverable. House prices cannot be lowered without significant development. A second referendum will not necessarily grant the wishes of beleaguered Remainers. And on the economy, Cable promises a Swedish style social democracy, but like Labour, does not propose the tax increases necessary to pay for it. Being moderate is about being honest and realistic. It is a virtue all of Britain’s parties have yet to learn.

I used to post long articles on British politics on this blog. I haven’t in awhile, and a lot of inner rage has built up in the meantime. So even though I’ll try to be as concise as possible, I have an awful lot to say. 

Prior to the UK General Election this year, after much deliberation, I gave Labour my endorsement. You can read it here http://hanrott.com/blog/the-uk-general-election-a-brief-but-definitive-guide/. But in short, I thought Labour had ran the best campaign, and had a sufficiently radical platform to address a deeply divided and troubled country.

Although the endorsement was for Labour nationally, the post was aimed at Exeter University students in particular- who constitute a large portion of my Facebook friends; I also shared the endorsement on Facebook. Here in Exeter, we have a moderate, pro-EU MP, who has been willing to take a principled stand against the leadership on various issues. So I was pleased that the endorsement was generally well received by my friends, and therefore happy when our MP won his seat with over 62% of the vote.

In the endorsement I made clear my reservations about Labour. I have never believed increasing taxes and government spending will solve the UK’s fundamental economic weaknesses, particularly in a country which already has a relatively large state. I have always had reservations about Corbyn’s viscerally anti-Western foreign policy views, as well as his unwillingness to criticise left wing authoritarian governments in places like Cuba and Venezuela. But I put those reservations aside because I believed the alternative was worse. I strongly believed the Conservative Party would win a landslide victory, and then use its dominance to leave as many of the EU’s institutions as possible, reduce the number of refugees and foreign students allowed in the country, oversee real-terms cuts to science and environmental protections, and suck up to a highly unsavoury Trump administration. Theresa May seemed to regard political opposition as illegitimate and unpatriotic, rather than a beneficial and necessary part of democracy. She was backed by the hard-right tabloids, who viewed Remainers and liberals as ‘enemies of the people’ and ‘saboteurs.’ The Conservative Party increasingly resembled UKIP in its xenophobia and intolerance of dissent. Voting Labour seemed like the only realistic alternative.

However, although I don’t regret voting for my local Labour MP, I must admit that I regret giving the national Labour Party my backing. Since their surprisingly strong showing at the election, Labour has become dominated by Corbyn and his allies. Labour MPs who were sceptical of either Corbyn’s policies, judgement or electability have been sidelined. Despite having just lost an election (albeit narrowly), the party is in a jubilant mood, with few bothering to ask why they lost. The lack of self-criticism is not only foolish in terms of future electability, it is arrogant. Corbyn and John McDonnell act as if the British people are behind them, ignoring the fact that the Conservatives won a plurality of votes in spite of an appalling campaign. The fallacious concept of a unified ‘will of the people’ is the received wisdom amongst the hard-Brexit supporting Conservatives, but has recently become an accepted dogma amongst Labour as well. Labour politicians attack May for having lost a mandate she sought, yet they too, lack a mandate.

Another mistake Labour have made in the election’s aftermath, is assuming that because their support is disproportionately young, their chances of success will be higher in the future. In reality, there’s absolutely no guarantee of this. In the Sixties, the social liberalism of the youth made many political commentators conclude that conservatives would struggle to be elected going forward. But by the Eighties, the generation that had supported the social liberation of the Sixities, then supported the conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan, largely due to a frustration with militant unions and a fear of Communism. Similarly, Democrats in America wrongly believed Clinton would win based on her support amongst the young, as did Remainers in the UK’s EU membership referendum. The fact is, Labour cannot depend on the support of the young alone, particularly as our population ages. As a young person myself, I find it extremely presumptuous when Labour members claim to speak on behalf of my generation.

In terms of policy, there is a lot to be concerned about Labour’s platform. The party hasn’t established a clear position on Brexit, with shadow ministers contradicting each other every week. On the one hand, pro-EU MPs like Exeter’s Ben Bradshaw claim Labour will seek to stay in the Single Market permanently. Since the vast majority of Labour MPs voted Remain, it’s hard to see the party choosing to leave the Single Market, which is why I thought it was safe to vote Labour as a Remainer. But Corbyn has implied the party will advocate leaving the Single Market on the basis that Single Market rules prevent a truly socialist Britain from being established. This is either false or frightening, depending on which form of socialism Corbyn wishes to pursue. If he believe Britain should be a comprehensive social democracy like the Netherlands or Sweden, then there’s nothing about the Single Market that prevents it. Many EU countries have nationalised transport and utilities, publicly funded healthcare, state-owned industries and the world’s best welfare systems. Leaving the Single Market would damage the economy by making it less attractive for EU businesses to invest in Britain, thereby depriving the welfare state of the funds it needs. However, if Corbyn wants to make Britain an altogether more radical socialist country like Cuba or China, then the prospect of leaving the Single Market becomes a nightmare scenario. Without its constraints, Corbyn could seize private assets without compensation, establish state monopolies in any industry he wishes, and restrain EU immigration on the basis that it undermines British labour- something he has alluded to.

Labour then claimed it could fund a substantial expansion of government entirely by raising taxes on the top 5% of the population. This always seemed unlikely, yet the part has yet to apologise for its mistake. The truth was that the party proposed taking advantage of low interest rates to dramatically increase borrowing, in order to fund nationalisations and infrastructure investments. To an extent, this makes sense, particularly as many of these investments may pay for themselves in the long term. But it cannot be assumed that every instance of government borrowing and investment will pay for itself. The obvious example is HS2, a high speed rail line which is enormously costly, yet hasn’t attracted any private sector investment due to a low rate of return. In any case, Labour failed to explain why a higher deficit was desirable considering that Britain’s deficit is already high by OECD standards. As for taxes, countries which have a government of the size Labour was proposing have much higher taxes on the poor and middle class, not just the rich. Denmark and Sweden have higher sales taxes and alcohol taxes. The Netherlands has higher income taxes. France has considerably higher payroll taxes, as does Germany in the form of compulsory social insurance schemes.

In my endorsement, I said that Britain should vote for radical change, as if radical change was inherently good. I then said that Britain should give Corbyn’s unadulterated form of socialism a try, simply because the Conservatives had failed to provide a compelling alternative. I must now admit that I said those things out of fear and desperation. I was never fully on board with Labour’s policies, and I am certainly not now. Corbyn’s anti-Western outlook and soft Euroscepticism leave much to be desired. But I was petrified of an increasingly authoritarian Conservative Party winning a landslide majority, so I did everything in my power to prevent that. In the future, it’s highly unlikely I’ll give Labour as a whole my backing, even if many of its MPs are fantastic.

In my next post I’ll address the Liberal Democrats- why I didn’t support them, and what I think of them now.