The lecture took place at the National Liberal Club, London, 22 May 2000

Participants:

Keynote speaker – Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats UK (1999 – 2006)

Picture: catch21productions from UK, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Speech by Charles Kennedy.

During the Liberal Democrat leadership election last year, the contenders were regularly asked, “Who are the major influences on your political thought?” Many of the names belonged to people known more for their actions, than for being leading lights of political ideology. But there were plenty of each. We all listed several. And with six candidates, that made for an interesting list. Gladstone, Lloyd George, Mill. They were all there. The usual suspects.

But the list also included Nancy Seear and Nelson Mandela. David Penhaligon and Roy Jenkins. Hobhouse, Hobson and Keynes. And Bobby Kennedy. No prizes for guessing who threw the Kennedy name into the ring.

One name was missing from the list. Conspicuously. Isaiah Berlin.

Why was that? Why did nobody list Berlin as a major influence on their thought? The answer may in part be found in Maurice Bowra’s words: “Isaiah, like Our Lord and Socrates, does not publish much”.But that can only be part of the answer.

The separation between Berlin’s life and party politics is another clue. Look at the thinkers who did appear on the list. Keynes, Hobhouse, Hobson, Mill. All seriously engaged in party politics, Or opted for politicians as their companions of choice.

Yet that was not for Berlin. Although he did work as a civil servant during the war, as many academics did, he was not at the heart of the party political establishment.

But there is another reason why Berlin’s work has been separated from party politics. It’s the most important reason. He offered politicians no easy solutions. No easy answers. His thinking often raised more questions than answers. It did not easily translate into practical action. It did provide soul-searching and questioning in abundance.

But that is not what politicians seek. Too often they seek a code. A dogma. A key to all mythologies. That will allow them, with certainty, to pronounce. On the issues of the day. On the actions of individuals. On the solutions required. And that means politicians need to be challenged. That is why we should take more notice of Berlin’s legacy.

Let’s stand back, just for a few moments, and look at what that legacy was. What should it mean for politicians? And I then want to say a few words on the Liberal Democrat concept of liberty.

Berlin’s 1958 lecture ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, is the text we must always come back to. What John Gray calls Berlin’s “subversive originality”, was clearest in that lecture. It formed part of a course I took at university. ‘The History of Moral and Political Philosophy’ We dubbed it, ‘From Plato to NATO’.

In ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Berlin drew the distinction, between negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty, he said, means wanting to curb authority, leaving individuals alone to do what they want, providing that their actions do not restrict the freedom of others.

Positive liberty was different. It meant using political power to emancipate. It meant groups, or the state, judging what was best for individuals. It meant, in the context of 1958, socialism and communism.

Berlin did not want us to oppose positive liberty entirely. In fact, as Michael Ignatieff’s biography points out, Berlin was, in politics, a New Deal liberal. He was neither a conservative, nor a laissez-faire individualist. He accepted that poverty and ignorance were not the ideal conditions for liberty. In practical politics, he might even have accepted, that Hobhouse was not wholly wide of the mark when he said, that in practical measures, “the struggle for liberty … is the struggle for equality”. That means decent schools, hospitals, pensions.

But Berlin did urge us to recognise the contradictions between liberties. The conflict between negative liberty and positive liberty. He would want us to recognise that although we may tax somebody to create opportunities, we may still be restricting the liberty of the taxed.

And this is where Berlin made his most important contribution, and made life most difficult for politicians. He highlighted the contradictions at the heart of the post-war consensus. Highlighting that the values of liberty, equality and justice, can be contradictory. That is the heart of the conflict between positive and negative liberty.

So what does that mean for a modern Liberal Democrat politician? Does that mean we should go down the path of the minimal state? Is William Hague right when he says that high levels of tax are immoral? No. I utterly reject that. It shows the state of modern Conservative thought that Mr Hague makes such an assertion. How, really, can a 25% tax be immoral, but a 24% tax be moral? It’s laughable.

The answer to the tensions lies with Berlin himself. And it lies in his belief in pluralism. A very radical pluralism. The idea that different value systems can exist in parallel, as part of the same body politic. Which in turn means that any idea of creating a perfect society, reconciling these conflicts, becomes impossible. That in turn means that political measures which tend to promote individual freedom, are at a premium. Policies which promote choice and flexibility, should be at the fore. Policies which spread power away from the centre, to communities and individuals, should be our aim.

That strongly accords with the Liberal political tradition. We start off by trusting people. In 1865, Gladstone defined Liberalism as,- “a principle of trust in the people only qualified by prudence”, He contrasted it with the Conservatives’ “mistrust of the people, only qualified by fear”. Little has changed in the modern Conservative Party.

But above all, above all, we are committed to the liberty of the individual. Is it negative liberty or positive liberty? Well, it’s both.

That’s not having it both ways, because we recognise the force of Isaiah Berlin’s pluralism. We recognise that different value systems, and diversity, are at the heart of the nation’s political conversation. That our political conversation is about the conflicts and tensions between the two.

That is different, very different, to the other parties. Labour has a strong authoritarian streak. The control freak tendency means that they are increasingly unable to recognise diversity. They are increasingly unable to recognise pluralism. The PM may allude to liberal influences, but he seems to equate that essentially with laissez-faire economics. A liberal wouldn’t devolve power and then seek to control in the way that he has done. If New Labour genuinely seeks to be liberal, then it should recognise its own failings once in a while.

What else does New Labour seek to be? The phrase ‘radical centre’ is attached to New Labour. Too often, they fail on both counts.

What’s radical about secrecy in public administration? They do that not just by pursuing an illiberal Freedom of Information agenda. They are also spending £1 million a month of taxpayers’ money on polling, while publishing less than one-third of the results. And they have attached draconian gagging clauses to research contracts, which allow Ministers to quote selectively, but prevent academics from discussing their own work freely, even after it is published.

As to ‘centre’, it might be better to say centralist. Look at London. Look at Wales. Look at tuition fees in Scotland.

The Conservatives offer an even starker contrast. They tend to equate liberty with rampant market forces. The best explanation of their ‘Common Sense Revolution’, is that government, especially at a European level, is public enemy number one. Their tax guarantee, means that every other consideration comes after lower taxation. The notion that large parts of our community, require the assistance of the state, if they are to exercise anything like individual freedom, remains wholly alien to Tory thinking. So freedom to a Hague Conservative, is only for those lucky enough to secure it in an atomised society.

And above all else, today’s Conservative Party is incapable, absolutely incapable, of recognising the value and strength of diversity in Britain.

By stirring up base instincts against asylum seekers, And by seeking to change the law by knee-jerk reaction, Mr Hague is devaluing political life in Britain. Issues like asylum, and the trial of criminals, are difficult. They have no easy answers. They require calm reflection And it is shameful behaviour to pretend otherwise. It is ironic that with the pound so great overvalued, Britain’s political stock is at an all-time low. William Hague’s Conservative Party bears much responsibility for that.

I want to say a few words about his recent outburst against liberal Britain. His much-trailed speech to the Police Federation. It rewrites history as far as his party is concerned.

He said that for the last forty years there has been a rising tide of lawlessness. He knew who was to blame. The Labour Government. Judges. The Court System. The establishment. Whitehall. Liberals. Those who coined the phrase “institutional racism”.

Has he forgotten that the Tories were in government for 18 of the last 20 years? Has he forgotten that during these long years of Tory rule crime doubled? Has he forgotten that he sat in the same Cabinet as that celebrated liberal, Michael Howard, as they broke their promise to increase police numbers by 1000?

Once again, we are seeing the saloon bar politics of Sheriff Hague – shoot first (usually from the lip) and ask questions later.

In a wider context, I want to offer you a further contrast to the Hague approach. I want to offer hope. I want to offer a future in which diversity is an opportunity, not a threat. And I want to offer a future where ideals are valued.

As I have said, my core belief is that of liberty. As a youngster, learning about the shootings of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, within a fortnight of each other, had a profound influence on me.

I was appalled. But their deaths made me determined. Determined not to live in a society where the bullet dominated over free speech. I came to believe that everybody should have as much freedom as possible, without infringing the freedom of others, to make the most of their natural potential.

Today, liberty is threatened from a variety of sources. Inequality, instability, resistance to international co-operation environmental hazards, to name a few.

I chose to become involved in politics, because I believe that used in the right way, doing the right things, government can enhance and strengthen liberty. It can fight threats to liberty.

Now that language is not the bread and butter of day to day parliamentary politics. But unless politicians find ways of articulating those abstract principles, then the quality of our country’s political conversation will be poor.

If we never talk about the basic principles, then it’s no wonder that voters, and even political commentators, ask, “What’s it all about? Why do you bother?”

Politicians need to return, en masse, to the drawing board, so that they remind themselves why they are in politics, and communicate that to the public they represent.

If we can do that, then voters will have a much clearer understanding of what the parties stand for. They will be able to appreciate the fundamental divides and issues, that lay behind disputes over levels of NHS funding or the national curriculum.

Then it may become apparent that, when politicians disagree, they are doing so over genuine issues of principle, rather than sheer opportunism. Once the public has a sense that we are indeed people with genuine beliefs, then their faith will be strengthened.

Linked to my fundamental commitment to liberty, is my belief that the pursuit of social justice should be the major task of government. This is where we get into the difficult water mapped out by Isaiah Berlin. This is where we start to pursue the cause of positive liberty.

In Conrad Russell’s words, “Liberalism is not about minimum government, it is about minimum oppression”. I share that view. I firmly believe that, through redistributing wealth and tackling inequalities in society, government can actually promote freedom.

I do not accept the Thatcherite mantra that creative government action means less freedom. It is preposterous to assert that people are always more free when government does less. If government did nothing to provide decent health and education services, then many people in Britain would be manifestly less free. They would not be able to provide these services for themselves, and so they would have less opportunities, less life chances. The same applies to public transport, welfare benefits, and social services. If government withdrew from these areas, then the best services would only be available to the lucky few. That would be profoundly unjust.

So government has a clear role, in meeting market failures, and providing the best public services for all our people, so that everyone has the maximum life chances.

For me, social justice, protected and enhanced by government, equals more freedom.

The same applies to the environment. But that doesn’t mean government becomes a ‘Green Giant’, infringing people’s right to choose. It means encouraging the growth of a green culture in Britain. It means stacking the system, so that people are encouraged to use public transport wherever they can. It means ensuring that, in the economic sector, markets work so that they deliver positive environmental gain, not the pain of pollution. It means that, come election time, governments know they face judgement, on the extent to which they have improved our environment.

All of this, all of this, means recognising that the pluralism Isaiah Berlin stood for, should be central to politics.

Accepting that, is the only way we can build the meaningful modus vivendi, that is essential between positive and negative liberty.

What Berlin helps us to do, with his radical pluralism, is recognise the tensions and contradictions between the two, and to realise precisely when and why we may not always be true to negative liberty.

That may lead us to policies that Isaiah Berlin might have had problems with. But I do believe that he would approve of the quality of politics that results.

— END —

Mr Charles Kennedy MP is the leader of the Liberal Democrats (UK) [1999-2006]