Last week, I joked on Facebook that when I attended the Saturday Leeds leadership hustings (168 hours early), it would be helpful if one candidate could steal a baby or kick a puppy. It would make it much easier to choose between them, though I’ll not say which way my vote would have swung.
Beforehand, I noticed a Jo Swinson article in the New Statesman on the ethics and economics of artificial intelligence. Beyond facetiously suggesting that because of the article I would vote for her as the pro-robots candidate, I was undecided.
I have now seen them in person in Leeds and subsequently watched the North West hustings on YouTube. The criticism that they are too similar does not do the contest justice; the differences are there if you look beneath the surface.
There is no doubt that Ed Davey’s experience and knowledge are impressive. He rightly – both in terms of his audience and as a prospective government agenda – leant heavily on his green credentials. His explanation of how 15% of greenhouse emissions come from organisations which go through London, his wider emphasis on a green economy, and his advocacy for renewable energy as a source of jobs and investment for the future all served him well.
From his support for LGBT+ rights, pushing for support staff in the climate department to receive a living wage, to freeing a constituent from Guantanamo Bay, he is more than just the green candidate. Despite some (I think unjustified) criticism of his approach to fracking in coalition, his liberal and indeed Liberal credentials are a struggle to question. I believe he would be an excellent leader.
So why Jo?
Individually, many of Jo’s policies are for a Liberal Democrat perhaps unremarkable. She would rather spend money on early years education than on free University tuition fees. She believes companies should have to produce data on employee job satisfaction and social good. She has argued that automation will have profound consequences for our economy and we need to protect those that are most vulnerable to it.
When politicians – or indeed Jo – talk about transforming the economy, it is tempting to stop listening. On its own, it is a phrase devoid of meaning.
But when you start to take “transforming the economy”, putting “people and planet first” and add it to her rhetoric particularly on technology, you start to see her broader political vision. The manner in which she has discussed technology suggests that of the two, she better understands that it will not be enough to make renewable energy the new industry.
From Uber drivers to accountants, actuaries to Amazon delivery drivers, the problems of automation must be front and centre of that economic transformation. We need a plan for when the skill sets of millions are rendered obsolete by enough RAM and, yes, maybe even robots.
Jo has touched on universal basic income but like any solution she admits that it is neither a panacea nor without potential harms. I can’t tell you exactly why in her leaflet she mentioned her programming on a ZX Spectrum 48K, but when put in context of her rhetoric around technology, it adds to the sense that she has keener grasp of what will potentially be a more potent threat to our economic norms than even Brexit. You only have to look at the intergenerational poverty wrought across Wales, the East Midlands and the North by Thatcherism’s failure – either through neglect or malice, pick your poison – to properly reskill an entire generation of manual labourers.
Who has the best “-ism”?
From Ed, I get the sense of a man with an in-depth understanding of the ramifications of policy and how to best optimise them in every area. But I don’t have a sense of what “Daveyism” might one day look like. I know that it would involve investing in renewables and taking on the climate emergency. I know it would involve doing our best to protect individual liberty. And I know it would be an approach of internationalism. But it is a collection of liberal policies not seemingly tied together other than being individually good ideas. And that is, rightly or wrongly, what I took from Ed’s hustings performances.
With Jo, I see the start of a broader political vision. I can see what “Swinsonism” might begin to look like. Her argument is that we need to move away from old ideas that put GDP above all else. Couple that with the obstacles and opportunities she sees in the technological revolution. It could be the key to solving the climate emergency by transforming industries such as food and transport, both major contributors to CO2 production, but also needs to ensure that drivers of lorries, taxis and delivery are not left unemployed by drones and driverless cars.
Thatcherism was the idea that supply-side, free market economics would generate wealth such that gaps in inequality mattered less than absolute rises in living standards. Blairism advocated flourishing free markets with sufficient tax to build a proper welfare state. Swinsonism believes old economic models are obsolete and technology will render them more so: whatever our solutions, all roads must lead to empowerment of the individual whilst protecting the planet.
An election is seldom fought on the same terms as the previous one. In 2017, nobody mentioned a Labour-SNP coalition. In 2015, few agreed with Nick. In 2010, a global recession had eclipsed the war in Iraq.
In a future where Ed Davey becomes Prime Minister, I might know what policies he intends to put in place. I don’t know what the underlying philosophy behind them is and I can’t instantiate what he would do in the face of change. Jo Swinson advocates ensuring that whatever the change, empowerment of the individual has to be the metric used to make every decision.
No, Prime Minister
There are two issues with the above. Firstly, neither Jo nor Ed is likely to be Prime Minister. Sure, the Tories and Labour may collapse but first-past-the-post means it is still more than likely the red or blue team will be in Number 10 after the next election. It would surely be better to judge them on their campaigning ability rather than some hypothetical political philosophy.
Secondly, I might be wrong about Jo. Politicians tend to fail more than they succeed. Both Ed and Jo were part of a coalition government that whilst successful in many ways (pupil premium, shared parent leave, same-gender marriage), irreparably damaged many people and our party too.
Nick Clegg may have been the darling of British politics in 2010 but it’s clear now that he made by his own admission many, many mistakes that would eventually be his undoing. And anyway, perhaps I’m reading too much into an equally disparate collection of Swinson policies whilst ignoring what guides the Davey political compass.
All that said, I think there is little to choose between them in campaigning terms (though I do think Jo is a slightly better media performer and public speaker) nor on their CVs. As such, I am left only with what they might want to do in power.
With Ed Davey, I feel I know what he would want to achieve in his first 10 weeks. With Jo Swinson, I think I might be able to figure out what she would do if she had 10 years.
Raj A.C. Explains 