About Centreforum

Our politics

The values that guide our work at CentreForum are unequivocally progressive, rooted in the same quest for justice that has motivated all British liberals for more than 300 years. In the social sphere, justice has never, for liberals, been about equality of outcomes, but has instead focused on equality of opportunity – the belief that everyone should enjoy an equal chance in life, regardless of background, wealth or connections. Liberalism, in this sense, is defined by its opposition to privilege and class, and to the subtle patronage networks that sustain them. But it recognises too the other great barrier to self fulfilment – the assault on the freedom and dignity of the individual that comes from dependency on an over mighty state. It was this danger to which William Beveridge referred when he warned against creating a “Santa Claus state” which might become a “dispenser of gifts” to a passive, de-motivated and disempowered public below.

The politics of aspiration

It is for this reason that our social policy work to date has focused on expanding life chances, spreading opportunities and boosting social mobility – what we call the politics of aspiration.

Already much of our work, particularly on education and welfare, has been guided by a desire to help people ‘get on’, make the most of their talents, fulfil their potential and realise their ambitions.

Our pre-occupation with the politics of aspiration is driven by our belief that liberalism isn’t about much if it isn’t about personal and societal progress. Yet this seemingly innocuous statement is not yet universally accepted, particularly amongst those with the most profound commitment to the under-dog. Indeed, many have come to view the politics of aspiration and social mobility with deep suspicion, believing it to be rooted in a competitive and individualistic world view – the ‘sink or swim’ philosophy associated with Thatcherite conservatism.

We do not subscribe to this view. We believe not only that individual and collective progress need not be in competition with each other, but that the same ‘can do’ entrepreneurial spirit that drives the economy should be harnessed in the effort to rid society of its most intractable social problems.

The politics of empowerment

Liberals have long been committed to decentralising power to the local level in the name of individual and community empowerment. We share that aim, but believe that the scale of the changes required are often understated. A simple transfer of functions (including revenue raising functions) from central to local government is but a small part of the much more radical reform that is needed. Such reform should seek to stimulate innovation and experimentation not just by councils, but between councils and other actors, be they charities, voluntary organisations, businesses or community groups. New money, new people and new thinking will all be required if the potential benefits of ‘localism’ are to be realised.

But localism is not just about bringing power closer to the people. It is also about giving power to people. Liberals have long pledged to ‘place their trust in people’, yet many remain nervous about following such a pledge to its logical conclusion. At CentreForum we want to explore ways of spreading decision making and purchasing powers among those directly affected by the consequences, rather than concentrating them in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats for whom the achievement of administrative targets is often the most pressing concern. For this reason, we strongly support the extension of user choice in public services, particularly education. To make that choice meaningful, we favour supply side liberalisation, to promote a diversity of provision and stimulate the healthy competition needed if standards are to be raised and failure eliminated. At its heart, this approach is based on a belief that the demands and expectations of service users, if given real voice, will more effectively promote quality than will any number of public service delivery agreements, performance objectives or targets – the central planner’s instruments of choice.

Our vision of the strong citizen does not, however, imply a fondness for a weak or minimal state. Our vision is of an ‘enabling state’ committed to helping those who, in the absence of state support, would struggle to help themselves. We advocate a progressive approach to public spending and a redistributive approach to taxation, to ensure that all are able to realise their ambitions and their goals, regardless of earnings or wealth. Much of our work to date has focused on how government can tackle inequality of opportunity through better targeting of public funds. Once those funds have been committed, however, we believe in allowing citizens, rather than officials, to decide how best to spend them.

The politics of globalisation

Just as liberals have long been committed to devolving power downwards, so too have they consistently advocated the pooling of power at the international level when it is mutually productive for states to do so. Far from being in conflict with each other, these two aims are in fact part of the same pluralist approach to exercising (and controlling) political power – an approach which disperses authority to the most appropriate level, with the United Nations at one end of the scale, and the individual and the family at the other.  

Ranged against the liberal belief in pluralism, and its effortless accommodation with globalisation, stands a wide coalition of forces on both the left and the right who, for different reasons, view the process of globalisation as a threat.

We do not. We believe that globalisation presents great opportunities for the UK, an English speaking nation, the fourth largest economy in the world and a member of the United Nations Security Council with long standing strategic relationships with the US, the EU and the countries of the Commonwealth. We intend to set out a confident, forward looking agenda that champions the free movement of goods, capital, services and people. We believe that migration, trade, development and ‘green capitalism’ can all make Britain richer – financially, ecologically and culturally.

But, as the events of 9/11 and 7/7 made clear, globalisation brings with it threats as well as opportunities. In deciding how best to counter those threats, we draw once again on the ‘internationalist’ tradition in liberalism – the commitment to establishing a rules-based global order, governed by international law and, where possible, maintained through multilateral institutions. It is in this regard, rather than in a statement of values and aims, that we part company with the neo-conservatives that lobbied for, and then took charge of, the war against Iraq. Like them, we believe that human rights, individual freedoms, the rule of law and democracy are universally applicable. Unlike them, we believe that the process of promulgating such universal goods must rest upon the notion of consent.

While we recognise an ongoing need for military intervention as an act of last resort, we start from the simple assertion that the struggle to defeat global terrorism will ultimately be won by the power of our arguments, not by force alone. That such a victory will eventually be secured we do not doubt. The values of civilisation – those held in common by all the great civilisations – cannot help but triumph over the barbarism and nihilism of the terrorists. But the moment of victory will be hugely delayed if we abandon in practice the values we promote in theory. The task for liberals today is to demonstrate that an unflinching support for human rights, the rule of law, democracy and individual freedoms, far from being a hindrance in the fight against terrorism, is in fact key to its successful execution.