When I did a bloggers interview with Nick Clegg, the question that really made him squirm was one about populism. Today he reacts to the G20 agreement with what looks like The Invisible Hand of Vince:

… use the money to create the thousands of new jobs and thousands of new homes this country so desperately needs

An economic liberal who thinks that it’s ever okay for Governments to ‘create jobs’? I don’t understand it.

Scratch that. I do understand. It’s called populism, and it’s the reality that all democratic parties that plan to exist need to face up to.

It’s easy to condemn the Liberal Democrats for coming out with lines like this – after all, David Cameron is having to do exactly the same thing, even though he doesn’t have an activist base waiting to eviscerate him for saying something counter to the prevailing Keynesian mood. It’s not just about pandering to activists – it’s, and I’m ashamed to admit it, ‘listening to people’ out in the country and ‘going to where they are, not where we want them to be’ – all things I demanded the Liberal Democrats should start doing, and now I’m getting it I’m just as miserable as I was when we were blissfully unaware of anything as crass as ‘public opinion’. Hoist. Petard. Etc.

Political expediency  means politicians must reach out to an electorate that’s been programmed for decades to believe that Governments can ‘Create Jobs’ from thin air. In terms of votes, it’s easier to condemn rivals for not creating enough jobs  (but if it’s always a net benefit then why not create 2 million jobs? why not simply create full employment?) than it is to explain why ‘creating jobs’, has an opportunity cost – and what that actually means. 

But this goes to the heart of my own pet theory about the inner mechanics of the Liberal Democrat party, how we bring together social democrats and liberals under one brand. The entire merger negotiations could be summed up in one sentence:

“Right, the SPD will do the economic stuff, you can have the rest. How’d that sound?”*

Vince Cable is the man setting our economic agenda, and it’s his remit so that’s understandable. He’s extremely popular beyond the Lib Dem Bubble World and seems in touch with what the mob reckons these days. Nick would be a fool to expose rumours of disagreements between himself and Vince because it would be Nick that came out the loser.

But meanwhile there’s no authentic economically liberal voices in the political mainstream. Each day, that “we’re all Keynesians now” throwaway line seems more like a command than an statement.

Vince, charming, witty and lovely man that he is – believes in the power of Governments spending money to get us out of recession. Fair enough – voters will make their choice, but my concern remains: How do you dig the Liberal Democrat Party out of this hole? How do we stop being Labour’s Mini-Me? How do we put individuals – not collectives – at the heart of what we do?

This is the challenge for those of us who want real change in the Liberal Democrats: We need to challenge the collectivism continuously and persistently and put individuals at the heart of what we do. No more “hard working families” only rubbish. No more putting The State or The Nation’s interests ahead of the interests of individuals – plenty of other parties to do that, don’t you think?

If we can do this, and find enough common ground between us so that most of us can get behind it – and I’m confident we can – then we can get out of this hole and we can start a genuine liberal renewal in Britain. And I don’t mean “hey let’s close all the prisons down and stop punishing criminals” style liberalism either. That stuff’s as much a mockery of the traditions of liberalism as Thatcher’s ‘neo-liberalism.’

If it’s possible to put individuals as the driver of change within the Liberal Democrat party – which considering the disparate views and opinions would be no trivial accomplishment – then we have the basis on which the party can lead rather than just follow public sentiment. It’s not just a question of, “hey, you’re at A, we’re at A too!” but saying, “hey, you’re at A, let’s get you to B.” The difference is understanding what people’s real concerns are but not then asking them what should be done, because they’re getting those ideas from Labour. 

Just sayin’, like.

*it’s of course arguable that there were very few ideological differences between the Liberal Party and the SDP at the time. Collectivism’s been very successful in Britain.