Liberty Alone

Cllr Alexis Rowell claims this on his Belsize LibDems blog.

I don’t see that as true. He obviously likes the ‘broken windows’ theory of crime and his actions in banning drinking on the tube are not exactly liberal, but not particularly right wing.

I’ve seen no racism in Boris Johnson, just poorly chosen words (not that racism is only the domain of the right, look at Respect and recent Labour Party propaganda to see that).

He doesn’t seem particularly nationalistic (although again, the left are capable of that too).

He doesn’t appear to support the corporate state which defines the far right.

Oh, perhaps he’s a bit of an economic liberal (not compatible with the corporate state of course). If so, then I must be a hyper-right winger, but I know plenty of people on the left who are very strong supporters of free markets.

Skeptical about climate change hysteria? Well, again, I know people on all parts of the political spectrum who are skeptical, mostly because those who are responsible for this hysteria are using it to push their own political agenda rather than looking for real solutions. I have however seen little to suggest that Boris is skeptical of the climate change arguments.

I’m sorry, Boris may be an idiot, he may even be a disaster as mayor, but he is not an extreme right winger. Unless Cllr Rowell is so far left that he thinks Ken Livingstone is right wing.

Rather, this is a case of labeling someone you have an almost irrational fear of as a right wing bogey man because we all know that the ‘right’ are evil nasty people who want to steal sweets from babies and grind the poor under their heels.

Oh and whilst I’m at it, Cllr Rowell doesn’t seem to have read LibDem policy on the congestion charge. He gave opposing Ken’s punitive taxes on polluting cars as a reason not to vote for Boris - except what was Brian Paddick’s position? Oh dear, opposing Ken’s taxes and using the congestion charge for taxing congestion… oops…

(this is another case of responding on my own blog, because Cllr Rowell offers no comment facility on his blog).

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 was just thinking about my time at Uni and how I first voted LibDem which prompted me to think about when I first heard about the LibDems.

The first thing ever was an election leaflet in 1992. It was a leaflet for the Liberal Party (continuing) which was attacking the Liberal Democrats. It had a caricature of Libby, depicting her as a ‘Tory snake in the grass’ (ironic that…). It didn’t leave much impression on 12 year old me as to what the LibDems stood for, but it stuck in my mind. (I’d also love to know who in Chingford and Woodford Green was responsible for that… are they now LibDems?)

Later I remember jokes from a Tory friend about ‘Paddy Pantsdown’ (which he thought was a really funny joke - again, it didn’t make me think anything of the party, or Paddy).

Being too young to vote in the ‘97 election I didn’t take that much interest. I do however remember that in the school’s mock election, my year (the Lower 6th) voted LibDem (the U6 voted Labour, the rest Tory).

My move towards actually noticing the LibDems and voting LibDem came at university, it must have been 2001. Being allowed to vote by now I became interested in politics a little. I voted LibDem almost by default, simply because they were the only party who seemed to bother trying to attract the student vote (in Cambridge that seems a little stupid…). I liked what the Focus leaflets said so instead of writing ‘Who are you then?’ on the ballot paper, I voted LibDem. I even travelled to Cambridge to vote, being temporarily back in London at the time.
I suspect I may have voted LibDem in the 2000 Mayoral elections too, but I honestly can’t remember. I have recollections of a friend urging me to vote for Susan Kramer though.

After that, it was the Iraq war which got me even more involved. The LibDems made an impact on my political radar through the very sensible position they took (and I loved the supporting our troops, but not the war stance - it made perfect sense to me, I never understood why the media didn’t get it).
I grew ever more dissatisfied with the left with whom I’d been vaguely flirting after they led a protest in Cambridge which tried to incorporate anti-Israeli protest into an anti-war protest (and then the Socialist Worker twats were being idiotic).

The moment I really took notice of the LibDems and liberalism was hearing Ming Campbell on Desert Island Discs explaining why he never joined the Labour Party. His brief exposition of some of the main points of liberalism struck a great chord and I started looking up more about the party.
I then found Quaequamblog and Richard Allan’s blog and started to get into blogging a little.
Reading those two blogs persuaded me to join the LibDems and that, as they say, was that.

Because that’s what some seem to think.

I get the impression that many LibDems think we should vote for Ken Livingstone so we can keep Boris, and by extension, the Tories out of power.

If I was in politics to keep the Tories out of power I’d have joined the Labour Party. That is not my aim however, my aim to to promote liberalism and freedom for the individual. The party I judge to be best positioned to work towards this is the Liberal Democrats.

Frankly, I find the Tories, in general, slightly less odious than the current Labour Party, although I’ll grant you that in some areas the Tories are worse (in my home town they’re both equally despicable and I couldn’t vote for either) and they leave a massive amount to be desired.
True, there are the old Tory snobs and a fair smattering of idiots, but at least their snobbery and idiocy is out there for all to see. The Labour party contains its fair share of such people, but they hide behind being ‘progressive’ and ‘left wing’ which supposedly makes it all okay.

When it comes to the mayoral elections - I believe Brian Paddick would genuinely make the best Mayor - and that’s not just party loyalty speaking. After that however I see the twin horrors of Ken and Boris. Out of the two, I find Boris less objectionable. He at least has some liberal bones in his body unlike Ken who is an enemy of all things liberal and free.
I also rather like inefficient politicians, they’re less likely to get things done, encouraging us to depend less on government and more on individual and community efforts.

Frankly, if the London Mayor has so much power that he could destroy London then he has too much power unfortunately the only way to drive this home would be for someone to abuse that power, perhaps then we can start acting to reducing the power of politicians.

Acknowledging the fact that Brian Paddick is very unlikely to win, I’d rather have Boris with an Assembly which will oppose him than anything else. For me, Boris is just the lesser of two evils.

A new favourite blog of mine - aimed at seeking common ground between US liberals and libertarians - rather like Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left.
Certainly there’s ground to start with - libertarians tend to be against ventures like the Iraq War, as do many on the left. Both are often concerned with freedom and many libertarians are also deeply concerned with social injustice and the suffering of the poor.

The quality of much of the writing is very high and very informative, largely due to the involvement of Kevin Carson whose critique of vulgar libertarianism is often very hard hitting and well aimed. He is definitely well placed to try and bring together libertarians and US-style liberals given his left-wing and libertarian radicalism which can appeal to many on both sides.

From a LibDem point of view, this is interesting because in many ways we are in the hinterland between libertarianism and US liberalism. Some of us are definitely libertarian, others very close to US liberalism, most are somewhere in between the two.

Its well worth a read. I find the attacks on corporatism (state intervention on behalf of corporations) particularly interesting. Its an area missed by many on the right, but is responsible for much of the actions of the New Deal (which just wrapped them up in left-leaning rhetoric).
I’m sure there’ll be something for everyone.

Update: Corrected the URL…

I can’t believe that this mess was allowed to develop so far.

I do agree that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the constitution. We should not be bound by the manifesto commitment to a referendum on the constitution, that much is clear to me.

My personal opinion is that we should call for a referendum on Lisbon, just as we did for Maastricht. This is especially true since we cannot get our preferred referendum.

The question is why on earth was it deemed necessary to put a three line whip on this issue? Surely Clegg could have stuck to the previous policy but allowed a free vote. Its not some great matter of Liberal Democrat principle. It doesn’t define the party. Why on earth was it necessary to force the issue like this? Clegg doesn’t need to prove he’s a ’strong’ leader, he doesn’t have anything to gain from this. We just come out looking divided and frankly very silly.
What’s worse is that this conclusion has been obvious for weeks, yet we still allowed it to come to a head.

All I can ask is what on earth were they thinking?

I’ve just read an interesting article from the Journal of Liberal History about Arthur Seldon, a founding member of the IEA and at the time Liberal activist. In those days, the IEA was seen as a Liberal Party front by some sectors, the Liberals embracing economic liberalism which was at the party’s core from the very beginning.

Its a funny twist that the party which kept economic liberalism alive throughout the 20th century, when both the Conservatives and Labour parties favoured the corporate state now treats any talk of economic liberalism as dangerous Tory-talk, despite the fact that the Tories never embraced economic liberalism and have now fallen back to their default state of corporatism and entrenchment of privilege.

Interesting snippets concern the fact that there was a debate in the 1960s within the Liberal Party about education and health vouchers, and Beveredge being concerned about the way the welfare state was starting to take over the non-governmental means of support which had developed.

Its sad now that vouchers are a taboo subject in the mainstream of the party, being used as a slur in the recent leadership election, and the consensus is to try and keep the governmental near-monopoly (a real monopoly for the poor) on welfare.

We could learn a lot from looking back beyond the 1970s and 80s when it comes to the party’s economic position. I wonder whether the party as a whole actually still supports free trade, let alone the more radical proposals from the party’s past.
Economic liberalism should be central to any liberal program, it originates as an attack on privilege, we need to rediscover those aspects and promote them, recovering economic liberalism from the other parties who have perverted it to try and entrench privilege or give favours to their preferred supporters.

I hope the party will rediscover the Liberal heritage in economic liberalism, there’s some signs that things will move in this direction, at least the debate is starting to be had.

Can someone just answer the simple question - why are schemes like school vouchers such a dirty suggestion for the LibDems?

Is it taking education out of the state sector? (in which case it follows the advice of JS Mill)
Is it because it has been suggested by the Tories so is ‘tainted’?
Is it because of some dogma that markets cannot possibly work in ‘public services’? (in which case why on earth not? What makes them special?)
Or is it because we’re becoming a conservative party?

I really don’t understand the hostility which this brings up. Surely being liberals we believe in individual empowerment, especially for the poor. We believe in choice, not just for the outcomes a market brings, but for the basic fact that we treat people like individuals who should have control over their own lives.

I really fail to see why its such a taboo such that it becomes something for leadership contenders to hit each other with. With our state education system failing so many so badly, why is it taboo for senior members to suggest making substantive changes? Its frankly ridiculous and risks the wellbeing of so many people. For me our failing education and health systems are more important for people in this country than climate change. They should be two of the central issues of our time, but we continue to just pretend that the current system is all hunky dory and just needs some tweaks to make it work.

Chris Huhne has successfully been painted as the radical candidate, yet he’s run an incredibly conservative campaign.

I can’t help feeling that this reflects the state of the ‘radicals’ in the party. The so-called radicals I’ve come across seem to be incredibly conservative and formulaic.

Its a shame, we need radicalism in the party. I try to provide some from the market liberal and social libertarian viewpoint, I see some others giving some radical positions from other directions too, but those who are most readily identified as radicals just seem to be saying the same things as they’ve been saying for years, many of which are just the status quo (and havn’t worked out that well) or things which are widely accepted in the party (localism is the prime example).
Others seem to be more ‘Radical Tories’ than liberals, or socialists in their radicalism (state socialism took much from the radical Tories).

There are many issues today which could do with some radical thinking from the party, many which would benefit from a really good liberal, individual based approach. How can we empower individuals? How can we ensure that people can form communities and support each other voluntarily? Why are our institutions failing and what can we do about it?

Its not all bad news, last time round Chris Huhne was fairly radical (within the contexts of UK politics anyway) and has got some good policies through. Nick Clegg has had some good things to say at Home Affairs as well.

There are too many areas of comfort though, too many where people dare not tread for fear of upsetting the party*. We need radicals to shake this up, even if they’re wrong they will start a debate. That’s the only way we can improve policy and create a very distinctive, liberal vision to take the party forwards.

(* in my view this is why Clegg hasn’t taken the party out of its comfort zone in this campaign, it would be leaped upon by Huhne and possibly upset too many party members)