Am I too ‘right wing’ for the LibDems?
(hat tip to Barrie Wood for the title for the post (which was already being written)
Sometimes I do wonder…
I happily define my views as liberal, or perhaps libertarian. Unfortunately my view of liberalism seems to differ from many in the LibDems.
Mainly this seems to be because I think the state should keep out of almost every area of life, even to do things which appear to further the ends of liberalism. To quote Adam Smith “I have never known much good done by those who affect to trade for the public good“. This is especially true in the case of the state with its monopoly on the legal use of force.
To this end I am skeptical of the machinery of social engineering that is the welfare state, certainly the current setup needs liberalising which means reducing its size and scope to a minimum.
I am also very much an economic liberal. Economics cannot be separated from our lives. It is one of the (social) sciences of life. It is subject to the very same proviso as the rest of life - that government intervention will mess things up.
Thus taxes should be very low. Income tax should be a flat tax paid by the riches if it exists at all. Corporation tax is paid by employees and investors not companies so should be scrapped. Admittedly, the single tax (LVT) idea is attractive, I still need to look into it more though… I am generally supportive of the idea of green taxes (or Pigouvian taxes) although I don’t trust politicians and government not to mess it all up…
Whilst free trade is traditionally a Liberal policy, it doesn’t seem to be popular amongst many members of the current party, who prefer misnomers such as ‘fair trade’ and often fall into the trap of supporting those who appeal to the emotions for their own interests.
This support for minimal government does come from a ‘left wing’ approach - its to allow the masses to benefit, not particular classes, it is however seen as ‘right wing’ since the ‘left’ adopted a class based approach and the ‘right’ adopted a reactionary, and rather late in the day, attachment to some of the liberal program.
It also often assumed that economic liberalism involves support for corporations over individuals, this is not the case. The mistake was for some economic liberals to ally themselves with corporations against the state. This is okay to a limited extent, but the corporation is just like any group, will act in its own interests against those of others (not necessarily a bad thing that, although the corporation tends to be granted privileges by the state which is where the problems arise).
My other major difference with many in the party is over environmental issues. Too much I see extensions of government power being advocated to tackle environmental problems. I do not dispute much of the science behind climate change (only in those cases where scientists refuse to release their methodology and figures for scrutiny - that is bad science and such reports should be discarded as unreliable) although there are many many gaps in our knowledge of the climate (approximately 25% is understood well - the greenhouse gas science - there is much else which isn’t).
I am also skeptical about the effects of climate change. There is so much hysteria and alarmism that I simply don’t know what to take seriously and many of the effects seem to be able to be combated by technology and often just common sense.
I also support the use of nuclear power - or rather I support the opportunity for nuclear power to be used. It should not be banned, but costs should be born fully by private business and they should show they have measures in place to allow them to decommission. As with everything else, there should be no subsidy (those who dislike nuclear power should thank Thatcher for privatising the electricity network and exposing the high cost of nuclear power).
This I presume makes me seem pretty ‘right wing’ (although I do claim its more a rational, pre-socialist, radical left wing view) and out of step with much of the party.
That said, I think that my views are well founded within the traditions of the party. I passionately believe in equality before the law and in reducing privilege of elites and skepticism of power. Everyone has the right to be left alone and to pursue their own ends so long as they do not conflict with those equal rights of others.
I am also very concerned with civil liberties, it was this which drew me to the LibDems. The only party which has had a consistent line opposing ID Cards, which has raised concerns over many other civil liberties questions. The only party which has anything approaching a sensible law and order policy and immigration policy.
I am also a democrat (it being the least worst form of government) and the LibDem policies of parliamentary reform are a very good step in the right direction of accountability and effective oversight (and reduction of the volume of legislation).
I am also coming to the conclusion that a written constitution is a necessity, although I very much doubt that anything any party today would come up with would be any good…
What about the other parties? Well, considering my views on economics, some may suggest the Tories, but their economics are ever shifting for electoral gain and to privilege strategic sections. I also could not stomach being in the same party as some of their members. The social and cultural conservatism is abhorrent too as well as the authoritarianism. I cannot actively support such a party, let alone join it. I am of course happy to work with like minded Tories on specific issues, but the same goes for all other parties.
UKIP then? Many say they’re quite libertarian. I do agree with some of their policies, but a party founded on the principle of nationalism and withdrawal from the EU is not my cup of tea. I am an internationalist. I disagree with much of what the EU does, but those are not a disagreement with the concept of the EU I hold. There also appears to be a large thread of xenophobia present in the party.
I dismiss Labour, the Greens, the BNP etc without any further comment, it should be clear that my beliefs are largely opposed to them on many grounds (not least the fact that they’re all authoritarian).
There is then the question of non-affiliation. I know some prefer this option to affiliation with any party, I am currently happy however to be in a party which is of necessity a broad church and which values debate and free speech and is dedicated to at least some of my ideals and shares the roots of my philosophy.
I will also keep discussing with people when I think they’re wrong, and I hope people will discuss with me when they think I’m wrong. I’ve changed my mind several times when people have pointed things out to me or made good arguments in my time in the LibDems and my time blogging. I’m sure I will again. Like all of us, I am human and I err…
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I think you’re views are consistently and impressively liberal, and I very much enjoy the clarity with which you express them. If you’re too right-wing for the party, then God help the party.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I constantly disagree with many of your views, I sometimes wonder if you would be more at home as a libertarian Conservative… but I come back to the conclusion that you are a Liberal, and a Liberal Democrat. we may disagree on fair trade, climate change and the environment, but hey, for you to err is human :-)
September 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
You are actually very much a Liberal- I even think the way that you express your doubts about the party is a very Liberal way of putting things. However, any thinking person knows that a political party is a coalition of views. Although I sometimes find I agree more with some individual members of other parties on some issues, the fact is that the average is so much better for the mass of the Liberal Democrats. So I have stayed: since 1979, for my sins (I was very young…). In fact I enjoy debating with other Lib dems- and in fact I beleive Liberal Liberal Democrats (no that is not aa stutter) are winning the arguments to pursuade our colleagues.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Tristan, you are not conservative enough for any party to the right of the Lib Dems.
As you well know, conservatism and liberalism are opposites. The waters have been muddied by socialism, which is perhaps a kind of conservatism pursued in the name of a different social class.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
What the Party needs desperately is political debate, and this should be conducted in a way that respects the different strands of liberalism. I applaud you for doing this even though I disagree with you in many respects. But liberalism is about listening to other peoples’ point of view, and being prepared to modify your opinion on issues in the light of changing information or circumstances, so you might persuade me, and I might persuade you. On nuclear power I am happy to go along with your view because it makes absolute sense, and also means that no nuclear power station will ever be built again. On, say, social housing policy I would gladly consider anyone’s suggestions because the way housing benefit operates in the context of a supposed free market is bonkers.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Tristan,
Just to say I have posted about our little discussion on liberalism and turkey twizzlers.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The liberal democrats are defintly the place to make your case; if you can’t win here, you won’t win anywhere. Of course, you will always disagree on many things- thats the nature of mass politics.
The best place to have influnce and move things closer to your point of view is in the party closest to your views. The conservatives and UKIP certainly aren’t going to be moving towards liberalism anytime soon, as certain stories today show.
Issues such as civil liberties and immigration provide a strong gelling agent that keep the party together despite other disagreements, I think. Many of the conservatives current problems come from moving away from the (deeply illiberal) views which hold much of the party together.
I hope you will do a full post on environmental issues at some point. As someone who believes it requires intervention, but is also pro-nuclear I think it would be intresting to discuss the issue with you.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
although I do claim its more a rational, pre-socialist, radical left wing view
That’s to me the crux of the issue. And as Joe says in his response, “waters have been muddied by socialism”. Too right. The twentieth century was “muddied by socialism” to me, and with it our understanding, including that of many “liberals”, of the things we needed to tackle to make the world a more euitable place. And many of which we still have to tackle.
The idea of the 1909 Group is to try to reintroduce some of that radical liberal reform agenda from the period before the “left” split into socialists and liberals. The agenda of tackling the great monopolies of land, money and protectionist government. Of being able to fund universal support systems by taxing the unearned rather than the earned.
I think that Churchill saying bears repeating as often as possible till people think about what it means - when asked what the difference between the Liberals and he growing Socialist movement was (for we were often accused of having the same agenda) he said that “Socialists attack capital, liberals attack monopoly”.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Jock wrote: …”before the “left” split into socialists and liberals.”
Ideologically socialists and liberals were never united, so they could never be split. (The fact that the socialists infiltrated the liberal movement is irrelevant.)
Liberals and socialists might share some ultimate goals (freedom, happiness, wealth, etc.), but their means are mutually exclusive, and always have been. Where socialists want to “liberate” people by maximising the role of state (see Marx), liberals (well, at least the real ones) want to minimise any interference to the individual liberty, cometh it from the state or other individuals.
In socialism state is omnipresent, but in in liberalism its role is not to interfere to the life of an individual, unless it is necessary to protect other individuals from his interference.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
No, I stand by what I said. I believe groups like the Labour Representation Committee could well have been kept inside the “libeal” tent rather than drifting off to state socialism - indeed that that rift could have been mended up until about Ramsay MacDonald (after all it was Philip Snowden who supported L-G on free trade versus protectionism in the National Government). And I certainly feel more in common with the earlier left, such as Robert Owen, than I ever. And those pre-Marx British “commune-ists” such as the Diggers I would count as prot-liberals. And somewhere in our ancestry belongs the 19th century anarchists such as Spooner and Tucker and later the mutualists.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Jock, in your previous post you were speaking about “socialists”, not about “Labour Representation Committee”. Working class doesn’t necessarily need to support socialism, you know, but because the socialists managed to convince most of it that socialism is good for the working class, most of it still does.
But maybe you are speaking about parties, where I am speaking about ideologies? Socialism isn’t by definition what Labour does no more than liberalism is what Lib Dems do. Socialism is what Marx, Engels et al. taught, and liberalism is what Locke, Smith, Mill etc. taught. Obviously none of them was infallible, but by reading these and later thinkers of the same line you get the big picture of the respective ideologies, and you’ll soon find out that socialism and liberalism are mutually exclusive, fundamentally and totally. (Well, actually, as Robert Nozick has shown, socialist communities could exist within a liberal society, but that’s not good enough for most socialists, and it definitely wasn’t enough for Marx or Engels.)
Parties are by nature more or less opportunistic, and make bad decisions which are in contradiction with the ideology they are supposed to represent. Therefore you can’t deduce what liberalism is from what the Liberal Party did some hundred years ago, or what the Lib Dems are doing now. If you do, it’s the tail wagging the dog.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Okay - at worst I am guilty of lazy writing! I meant that the “left” split into liberals and socialists. In the context of the bit of what Tristan wrote that I quoted I thought I was following his nomenclature if you will.
So, let me put it another way. Socialism hijacked part of a generally previously liberal consensus grouping of radicals, liberals, chartists, Diggers, Proudhonists, Owenites, anarchists and so on. And because it made its appeal to the very great bulk of the people who called themselves “labour”, the “working class” etc, it proved overwhelming to what was left of that previously free trade, anti-monopoly generally liberal alternative to the patristic, reactionary, aristocracy based “right”.
My main point, whatever I called it, was that this produced a political environment which for most of the twentieth century - at least from about the Depression till 1994 - in which liberalism, real liberalism, found it extremely difficult to operate.
I believe we now have an opportunity to retake the initiative - what with the ideology-free movement of both Labour and Tories. But, like Tristan (I suspect) I believe that means weaning some members of our own Liberal Democrat movement off of quasi-socialist policies especially regarding the size and competence of the state and reasserting what had been a more or less unchallenged consensus on this “pre-socialist left” that it was free trade and breaking state-protected monopolies that had the greatest potential to give the labouring majority a fair crack at the wealth generating whip.
Does that make more sense now? (I wish there was a preview button as I am having a bit of difficulty reading back what I wrote - my eyesight seems to be not what it was!)
September 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Tristan,
Whilst we often disagree and at times you may see me as being quasi-socialist and too ’statist’ it is the areas we AGREE on that bind us together in the LDs. Certainly of the three main parties it is the only one where healthy debate and dissention can actually move the party forward.
My blog is typified by populist shorter contributions than yours, but your contributions frequently thought provoke and give me an insight into the strand of ‘right wing’ (sic) liberalism you believe in. For reasons outlined in many of my previous posts it is far preferable to be in a party with you that self-styled ‘lefts’ like George Galloway, whose idea of truth, tolerance and debate fail to match mine. And, thats before looking at his voting record in parliament !
Duncan Borrowman, as I have tended to do, has wondered if you might be best described as a libertarian conservative, but you rebut this with very sound reasons why you could never join the Tories.
Overall my views could be characterised as left libertarian, rather than statist socialism. Economically I wish to see an extension of localised economies (time banks, LETS, credit unions], mutuals / co-operatives as an alternative to public / private monopolies. Power needs to be pushed down to the lowest practicable level and for people to take greater charge of their own communities, so ideas like restorative justice and community panels suit this former community worker whose ethos is to work with, as much as - and in preference to - for, individuals and communities.
This is an approach that cuts across red / green / yellow [but not blue] thinking. This was the style of working / emphasis that I tried to adopt even as a one-time [Labour] councillor.
Where we probably stridently disagree is summed up by the last paragraph in my most recent post : to paraphrase the LD constitution - no-one should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity - but what real freedoms exist if one lives in inadequate housing, suffers from poor health or is on a subsistence level income ? Choices ? What choices do such people have ? There is still a role for the state, at least as ‘guarantors’ to protect the most vulnerable in society.
Great post though Tristan !
PS In a real rush so apologies for typos / grammatical howlers !
September 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Barrie Wood, I recommend you to read Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty. You’ll find out that liberals embrace the notion of negative freedom, which doesn’t require that people have certain resources. As Berlin points out, the freedom, however, isn’t the only value there is, and it might well be worth to sacrifice a part of it in order to achieve some other goals, but freedom isn’t the same as equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience.
However, this isn’t the most important thing I’d like to point out to you, though I think that you’d benefit if you’d see the trouble to read Berlin’s essay.
Though you probably don’t consider yourself a socialist, I’d like to quote a passage from Ludwig von Mises’ book “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis“. If you want, you can in your mind replace the words “socialism” and “liberalism” with some other words, which you find more appropriate, but please pay attention to the fact, that two people can share the same goals, but disagree on how to achieve them.
“Socialistic writers, especially those who recommend Socialism for ethical reasons, like to say that in a socialistic society public welfare would be the foremost aim of the State, whereas Liberalism considers only the interests of a particular class. Now one can only judge of the value of a social form of organization, liberal or socialistic, when a thorough investigation has provided a clear picture of what it achieves. But that Socialism alone has the public welfare in view can at once be denied. Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners. According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the particular interest of the rich. It concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just as much by Socialism. Whether or not one accepts this, to impute a narrow class interest to Liberalism is erroneous. The systems, in fact, differ not in their aims but in the means by which they wish to pursue them.”
September 5th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Ahhh. Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Berliner. all those wonderful right winged liberals.
A good post Liberty alone, and I think you do belopng in the lib dems more than any other party, and I would suggest to all that would listen that splitting the lib dems into two parties, one right wing and one left wing, each thinking they know what ‘real liberalism’ is would do nothing but destroy a movement that flourishes on dynamism and debate.
I disagree with much of what you and people like John Locke’s Ghost say though, although it is preferrablee to much of what comes out of the othyer parties and perhaps I shall right a post explaining why I disagree, and why I think men like Berliner and Smith have been misinterpreted.
thanks for the post anyways!
September 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
John Dixon, this was the first time ever I have seen Isaiah Berlin (not Berliner, as you wrote) refered as a “right winged liberal”. Sometimes I have seen him (though erroneously) been referred as a “social democrat”, but generally he is considered to be more or less left wing liberal. Wouldn’t hurt you either, if you read the essay I was recommending for Barrie Wood. You might find out, that you agree with many of his objectives, though he uses much more sofisticated terminology than you or Barrie Wood, calling things with their real names, and not lumping every desirable goal together and call it “freedom”. It would be so much easier to discuss with the left wing liberals, if they only knew at least their own theorists.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
[...] Am I too ‘right wing’ for the Lib Dems? on Tristan Mills’ Liberty Alone A sequel to last week’s post by Barrie Wood. Here, [...]
September 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
My problem with your skepticism about income tax and your particular economic liberalism etc is that it affirms the current status quo in terms of inequities of wealth/income. Those inequities will have, in significant part, come about through entrenched privilege and worse eg the slave trade, patronage. We should not give the outcomes of the regimes of the past (which now seem to us politically or morally unacceptable) favourable moral status in our current and future economic, political and moral positions.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Tristan. As you already know, I consider myself on the notional ‘left’ of the party, and openly describe myself as a socialist. I believe that the ultimate interpretation of liberal philosophers such as Mill leads to competing co-operatives, partnerships and similar.
I also believe that ultimately I can persuade you and those on the notional ‘right’ of the validity of this position. I also share your preference for a low, flat tax (with a high threshold), but would combine it with a Citizen’s Basic Income as favoured by the Greens, and am strongly in favour not just of a LVT, but of a tax on any ‘property’, such as broadcast spectrum rights and similar.
Some find me too ‘left’ wing for the party, but at other times my strong support of markets leads me to be accused of too ‘right’ for the party.
You’re a liberal—we both are. Until such time as we have an electoral system that truly allows a representative parliament, we have the current three party system, and we both belong in the Lib Dems. After? I look forward to the coalition negotiations between the liberal/left and the liberal/right parties that we should respectively belong to…
September 9th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Your views are identical to mine. I am a libertarian tory who is not 100% at home in the Conservative party. My local Liberal Democrats put me off when they told me that they thought “the Labour party is not left enough for us”. Whilst I am not 100% happy with the current tory party, I don’t have any hang ups about their cultural or social attitudes - the ones I know are normal people.
I cannot support any party that want to interfere more, tax more and legislate more. Lib Dems sometimes seem more authoritarian and statist than Labour hence I cannot support them.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Lovely post and lovely discussion.
Easily you must be one of the more definitive liberals who blog, simply by your healthy scepticism and refusal to accept and identify with recieved definitions (whatever you say i am, that’s what i’m not). And therefore you must take a more active role in the party, if only to drag it into a more widely-accepted position of popularity.
I dislike the relativity of terms like left and right, and I am mostly disillusioned with all ‘ism’s - my preference is for a perception of the necessary interaction of diverse opinion, experience and knowledge - which coincides with the holistic dynamic of a ‘diffuse’ liberalism (which all people belong to and participate in, to their own level and extent).
The provision of a coherent set of beliefs which integrate ideals with a practical approach for getting there is the biggest hinderance to most discussion.
For example (now I’m trouble-making), you mention grappling with the issue of a constitution, to which you are graduating towards the belief that it may be a good idea. Personally, I find this particular chestnut amusing, and demur.
The arguments for and against are well-established and solid, so if it does become difficult to choose, why force a choice - you can simply synthesize theory with practice within a wider context of reform and modernisation.
I quite like the fact we have human beings to represent and embody our constitution rather than a permanent, dessicated piece of paper.
However I’m less happy with the broken chain of representation that reaches it’s zenith with an overarching sovereign sustained by outmoded and undemocratic rules of monopoly.
I think there is a way to find an optimal balance, but I also know even if we do it won’t be the end of anything.