Liberty Alone

I little while ago I read an article likening Silvio Berlosconi to Hugo Chavez
Whilst I agree both are unsavoury politicians and I think both should be stood up to, the comparison falls down.
Firstly, Hugo Chavez first attempted to gain power through a coup, secondly Chavez’s links to the Communist terrorist group FARC.
The article seeks to play down suggestions of such links, but according to files from laptops seized by the Columbian Army from FARC members (in cross-border raids - a controversy in itself) show that Chavez actively helps FARC. The files also appear to have been confirmed as genuine by Interpol.

(I would also like to add that Raul Reyes was not an anarchist in any meaningful sense of the word despite the captioning of the picture of his body as such in the linked article)

There’s been much outcry about this proposed database of staff dismissals and allegations (quite rightly) but its been claimed that that it is a private sector project.

According to the BBC this is not so:

The register is an initiative of Action Against Business Crime (AABC), which is a partnership between the Home Office and the British Retail Consortium.

So its the public sector in collusion with aspects of the private sector (although can this really be called the private sector if its relying on government support?).

Another point is that this will surely leave the door open to defamation cases. I’m sure unions and other groups would help fund action against an employer who put information on the register. (As an aside, this is the sort of thing unions should be doing, defending the rights of their members through the legal system).

(HatTip: Tim Worstall at The Business (or Spectator as it now seems to be)

I voted at 7:30 this morning. I live in a fairly solid Tory part of Hounslow (South West constituency) although I have seen virtually no Tory campaigning (its been pretty slim from all parties, although I did get a Ken leaflet and some LibDem bits).
It was very quiet in the polling station, I saw a couple of people who’d just voted and about four people actually voting. A lone Tory teller at the door looking rather bored and glum.

I’ve no idea whether this sets the trend for the day or not, I’d assume that quite a few people will vote when they get home.

In work, I’m puzzled by the people who voted Ken then Brian. They seem to be on a ’stop Boris’ campaign. Perhaps we havn’t got the message across that you can vote Brian first and then Ken to stop Boris (or Boris to stop Ken).
The only other strangeness was the person who voted Boris because he thought that would give him more entertainment over then next four years (he put Ken second as well). That’s democracy though…

I walked past Brentford and Isleworth Labour Party HQ on my way to get some lunch. Lots of ‘VOTE LONDON’ posters, interestingly purple not red and with Labour in tiny letters at the bottom. I think they’re trying to get Ken’s personal vote rather than Labour vote out (the sign saying this is Labour HQ also happens to be obscured by bushes).

All the best to the LibDem candidates everywhere.

The problem is he’s often quite perceptive, but has a way with words which provokes outrage and backlash.
Take his ‘pioccaninny’ comment:

It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.

That is actually quite perceptive. I read it as a criticism of the role the Commonwealth plays in British life. It is mainly used as a way for the Queen and assorted royals to get crowds of cheering flag-waving people, something which they cannot easily get at home. It is also used for the UK government to preen itself and say ‘look how popular the British are abroad’.
The piccaninny part doesn’t read as if he’s calling all people of other Commonwealth countries piccaninnies, but more as though that’s the attitude the royal family and government takes towards them, they are useful little people of no great importance. A bit of colour for royal visits. (It is also reminiscent of the sort of language we’ve come to expect from Prince Phillip).

Perhaps this interpretation is coloured by my instinctive dislike for power and growing skepticism over our role in institutions like the Commonwealth (which has the potential for immense value for its member countries), but I’d suggest that those who rail against this quotation like to take it out of context due to their instinctive dislike for all Tories.

From a political point of view, such language does reveal quite a bit of naivety and buffoonery (and not in a good way), its handing a gift to your opponents.

Its things like this lack of judgement, not the sentiment I see expressed which leads me to question Boris Johnson’s suitability for Mayor. That said, I cannot stomach voting for Ken Livingstone, a man who openly engages in the implied racism of racial politics, whose pronouncements I find far more disturbing.

For me its a case of do I use my second vote at all, not do I use it for Boris of Ken. I don’t think I’ll decide until I’m in the voting booth at all.

So says Tim

Given the domination of UK politics by a political elite who are almost all ‘on message’ and rather opposed to letting people actually have a say I don’t see it as likely that Londoners will be given a chance to actually have a say (perhaps there’ll be some sort of rigged ’survey’, that’s about the best we can hope for).

Free Tibet flags made in China.

This probably wouldn’t have happened if China didn’t suppress information of course (or perhaps it would have if the factory owner was opposed to the occupation).

There are vulgar Marxists, vulgar libertarians and I think there are vulgar liberals.

Liberalism at its heart is about allowing people to take control over their own lives. Many liberals advocate the state taking a role in ensuring this, something which is well within the liberal tradition, others consider the state to do more harm than good when it acts or see the acts to enable people as being attempts to reverse previous state actions which created the problem in the first place.
All these views, nuanced in innumerable different ways are part of the liberal school of thought.

The vulgar liberal takes state action as a matter of faith but goes even further and turns state enabling into state support. Rather than the state enabling you to be free, the state becomes your guardian, and state action becomes an end in itself.

Take the example of the welfare state - aspects can be supported by appeal to the state enabling people to take control over their lives, but for the vulgar liberal the welfare state is in itself an end.
This is also seen in local politics as a perversion of community politics. Rather than seeking to enable people and the communities they belong to to deal with their own problems, the vulgar liberal seeks to solve the problems for them.

This attitude easily leads to a paternalistic view, that the state must provide for people and then use its force to make people behave in a desirable way. This is always for the person’s own good, at least in the eyes of the vulgar liberal, something which makes the vulgar liberal all the more frustrating.

The liberal and vulgar liberal both agree that people should not be enslaved by poverty or ignorance. They will often both profess to believe that people should not be enslaved by conformity, although the vulgar liberal will often mean this only to be in the realm of culture (in the case of other areas of your life they will insist you conform to their standards, for your own good).
The liberal however will realise that just as the starving man is enslaved by his hunger and grinding poverty enslaves people, those who depend upon the state are enslaved by that dependency.

The vulgar liberal can be very frustrating for the liberal. They are so close, they value freedom, but they don’t see that their attachment to state action as an end in itself can enslave people (just as the vulgar libertarian doesn’t see that the constraints of the unfree situation restrain the freedom of many, especially the poor).

From what I’ve managed to gather he’s been suspended, pending review, because he disagrees with some party policy, which apparently falls under bringing the party into disrepute.

I do have a couple of questions - if party policy is not to be disagreed with then how can we be a democratic party? Party policy is changed through debate which necessitates people disagreeing, or are you only allowed to disagree in ways sanctioned by the ‘Compliance Unit’? In which case, what are these sacrosanct policies which must not be contradicted? I need to know so I can avoid holding my own views on them.

Personally I think that those who initiated this action are bringing the party into disrepute. Gavin Webb obviously believes in the fundamental principles of the party, he just disagrees with the current direction of some party policy. Surely that is to be welcomed if we are a democratic party committed to free speech and debate, he should be allowed to make his case, as others are allowed to oppose him in debate.

He hasn’t campaigned against the party, he hasn’t launched personal attacks on others or engaged in corrupt practices. His crime appears to be having gained attention for his views, which are consistent with liberalism (although not the only views possible on the subjects within the broader liberal thought) but are not held by those who hold the power to suspend his membership.

He’s argued for some libertarian positions, such as legalisation of all drugs, prostitution and firearms.
I’ve been told that as of this morning he’s been suspended from the party.

These happen to be positions I agree with, are such views forbidden for Liberal Democrats? Or are they only forbidden if you’re an elected representative? Or is it only when they get noticed that they become forbidden - it sounds like he’s been upfront about his views.

I sincerely hope its not for expressing his opinions that he has been suspended and that there is more to this story.

I’ve just had a thought. The minimum wage raises the cost of labour which makes investment in capital more attractive.
This means that for the poorly skilled who this affects there are less jobs. This shifts power even further to the employer, enabling worse working conditions to be accepted (if you don’t like it then lose your job, there’s plenty more waiting for your job).

So, not only does a minimum wage increase unemployment, it will have a detrimental effect on the employment conditions of the lowest paid.

All in all, a minimum wage is a rather bad deal for those its meant to help…

(the situation without the minimum wage is not ideal either of course, but that’s due to other imbalances caused by state interference).