We’re all fiscal conservatives now – whether we like it or not

Danny Alexander has just finished speaking; and it painted a very optimistic future, but bleak short term outlook. Whether party members like it or not, the deficit reduction plan will reduce the budgets of expensive spending areas – mainly welfare. As the conferenced vowed to oppose welfare cuts, Danny was direct and precise: it’s going to happen. Deal with it.

Senior Liberal Democrats have, reluctantly, adopted fiscal conservatism; that is, vowing to ensure public spending, the national debt and deficits are monitored and contentiously reduced – regardless of the economic circumstances. Even Tim Farron, party president and to the left of Alexander, took to the stage yesterday to oppose a motion calling on the party to abandon its fiscal mandate. Throughout the conference, senior figures are not shy to publicly silence the left on fiscal policy. More significantly, though, was the new attitude on taxation.

During the speeches of both Danny Alexander and Vince Cable, taxation on income and work were described as “too high”. I’ve read official conference policy debate literature, that discussed the potential adoption of abolishing National Insurance as future commitment.  But what about income tax- would a future Liberal Democrat government lower the top rate even further, possibly below 40%? Introduction of wealth taxes *could* create a capital flight and any government would have to prevent this. Liberal Democrats are preparing themselves to be the first party to actually explain, and begin, the much needed reform of the British tax system – I hope.

But as I mentioned in the title, we are more or less a fiscal conservative party now. And we have to deal with it.

 

Read Full Post »

Malcolm Bruce is right; liberals and socialists don’t mix

Malcolm Bruce sums up brilliantly, better than I could, why a liberal party should not go into coalition with Labour;

It also requires a rose-tinted view of the Labour party. For a start, Labour is as divided between New and old Labour as the Conservatives are between one-nation and ultra-conservative Tories. While the vested interest and prejudice that characterise Conservatives are among the negative reasons why I am a Lib Dem, nevertheless, socialism is illiberal – it subordinates the individual to the collective and has ridden roughshod over our hard-won civil liberties.

Bravo. Socialism does not recongise the individual and seeks to merge us with the state; collectivism is very much illiberal and any liberal party proudly promotes individual choice and freedom. No liberal wishes to live in a country where the state negates society by influencing our lives; Of course, many make the mistake to assume liberalism is socialist-lite or apart of the Labour movement. Including some Liberal Democrats (who still believe in social democracy)

It is nice to discover another liberal who understands the need to establish a true and credible liberal party.

Read Full Post »

On reflection, I’m still a proud liberal

I walk down the street with my head held high; I am a proud member of the Liberal Democrats and a proud citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, I desire much more from the coalition and greater protection of liberty and  a more radical economic strategy. But being a liberal is something I am still proud to be.

The government, probably,would be much more authoritarian and continuing to operate a anti-terrorism stance based purely on coercion; the immigration policy could’ve seen Britain implement a inhumane opposition to the free movement of people. It is a unjustified restriction on the ability of the individual to live their lives; non-security immigration restrictions can never be fully tolerated by a liberal.

Yes, I’m disappointed by the Freedom Bill – the potential was there for something far greater; but it’s a start and I’ll accept it. The alternative was far worse. Doing nothing. This should be viewed as the foundation to maintain, and build, a pro-active defence for civil liberties and rights – the coalition needs to providing more controls on arbitrary power. If the coalition is to survive post 2013, it needs to build on some recent, albeit timid, achievements.

Being a liberal should not be negative or a risky dilemma; liberals are proud people. Unlike socialists and conservatives, we trust people – not the state or corporations. As a former US President once said;

“If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy

Read Full Post »

Orange Book 2.0 – International Democracy (part one)

Liberals have always believed in internationalism. Gladestone saw the British Empire as a blue print for a world government, with regional Parliaments and a central forum (or Imperial Parliament) at London; with free trade and democracy as the premise of this network. Even in the early 20th Century, after the First World War, American President Woodrow Wilson advocated internationalism and a belief in a league, or alliance, of democracies. Subsequently, the League of Nations was created (ironically, the United States did not join) which was the forerunner to the United Nations. It was the first attempt of genuine internationalism based on mutuality, trade and honest diplomacy; the belief was a governing body, at international level, would prevent power blocs, spheres of influences and another global war.

Sadly, it didn’t. It failed to achieve such outcomes. However, the experiment was not an outright disaster; it did give insight into a potential future global organisation, which could promote peace and prosperity. This help lead to the much improved, but still deeply flawed, United Nations and then the regional bodies such as the European Union. Of course, these institutions have ensured humanity has not engaged in another brutal global war, but it still fails to provide stability to specific regions in the world and globalisation has left a giant void between international organisations and the people of Earth.

How do we connect the United Nations to a child, living in poverty, in Kolkata? or restore confidence of the international community in Rwanda or Darfur – or even Syria? Globalisation gives the impression of only being relevant, and beneficial, to those living in North America or Europe. If humanity is to take its next evolutionary steps and become a type 1 civilization then it must be truly global; everyone, regardless of where they’re born on Earth, must experience the rewards of globalisation.

International organisations have to be accountable to regional governments and elected bodies; and, in relation to the United Nations General Assembly, it needs to be democratically elected. The United Nations has to finally implement the recommendations and original plans – the UN needs to be the international figurehead of democracy. Globalisation cannot be a benevolent dictator or restricted to the elite.

This is an introduction post for a series of blog posts on international democracy. Next comment will focus on global free movement of people and labour market reforms.

Read Full Post »

Orange Book 2.0 – a second revolution is needed

The Orange Book has served its purpose; the party has swiftly embraced, and understood the liberal values, of market based economics. To great annoyance, Thatcher was a strong advocate of economic liberalism (neoliberalism is a meaningless term) and implemented a taxation and fiscal policy which is rather natural for many liberals. As I stressed at the start, the Orange Book ‘s duty has finished and the philosophy is very much apart of the Liberal Democrats fabric.

Once again, though, liberals find themselves lost in the political world and seem to be lacking. Government has changed the nature of the party and once held traditions have been altered, or replaced, and a giant philosophical black hole has emerged. Many arise, with the Orange Book in hand, and request the ‘good book’ should be invoked again. This is a feeble and pointless position to take; majority of the ideas and discussion points have given birth to policy or, even, actual legislation already – we would literally be advocating a completed project.

Orange Book 2.0 is just a name to a potential new philosophy, something on similar influence of the Orange Book (but not necessarily politically similar); several factions have arisen, with contradictory paths and solutions. A little bit more conservative or a little bit more socialist are, apparently, the only two options.

But what about a third?

What about a little bit more liberal?

The ‘second revolution’ is a forgotten realm, once soaked strongly in liberalism: Foreign affairs. Liberal Democrats need to build a powerful foreign affairs strategy for the 21st Century. This has been my position for years, but this spell in government has exposed a blind spot on party policy. The platform I present for you, which I will develop over several blog post is this;

International democracy.

It will be the main premise and focus point of ‘Orange Book 2.0′; it will advocate a strong and passionate defence of democracy, human rights and liberalism across the world. Yes, controversial points shall be included, but liberals should exist solely to challenge and oppose – we are not appeasers.

The party needs a second philosophical revolution. And needs one soon.

Read Full Post »

Liberals and England; a proud relationship

My good friend Jonathan Calder will assure you liberal England is not dead; on the contrary, liberals and England do not have this alleged difficult relationship. The Whigs (fathers of us modern liberals) were very much heavily involved in the Glorious Revolution and helped construct the modern constitutional settlement of England; it was the Tories who were aligned to  the dethroned King James II – Whigs saw the Catholic Church, and James II, as a great threat to liberty and freedoms of the English.

Throughout the 18th and 19th Century, the significant reforms and legislative programs occurred under Whig, or late Liberal, administrations.; Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, Reform Act 1832, Slavery Abolition Act 1833, Catholic Emancipation and religious freedom was all extended by the proactive politics of liberal forefathers. Prime Ministers Lloyd George and Gladstone, arguably among the two greatest ever in the history of the United Kingdom, helped shape the modern political, economical and social fabric of modern England in the 20th Century.

Socialists fail to foresee the reforming agenda of Clement Attlee, especially on health and welfare, would not have occurred without the foundations built by liberals. Sadly, though, liberals fail to defend our proud history in modeling the United Kingdom; instead, we allow our critics to define our heritage.

Liberals were/are civic nationalists. We are proud and promote nationalism, but we are most certainly not jingoistic or hostile. St George is flown with passion and warmth, not aggression. The European Union, alas, has clouded the minds of some Liberal Democrats with a minority yearning for a European identity and not necessarily English or British. But it should not make liberals ashamed to be proud of England, or any other region of the United Kingdom.

You can be English and European.

For those who celebrated the Diamond Jubilee on the weekend and had a holiday off work for it, I have two facts: the modern constitutional monarchy, which Queen Elizabeth II represents, was established by the Whigs. Holidays with Pay Act was a Prime Minister Lloyd George reform. And who said liberal England was dead?

Liberals are England and England is liberal.

Read Full Post »

Liberals must embrace republicanism (from 2009)

Back in 2009, I argued in favour of republicanism on Liberal Democrat Voice (was a non-party member at the time);

The current head of state is a lame duck. If Her Majesty – at the demand of The Sun – dissolved Parliament and dismissed her government over the expenses scandal, the Crown would be instantly attacked (and removed) via the governing party. Any Royal power would be seen as a provocative act towards Parliament (the Royal veto was last used in 1708). A Presidential system could solve many constitutional problems because, significantly, the President would have a democratic mandate to rule with authority and be political. Liberals may have led the way on electoral and House of Lords reform, but our voice is needed to justify the removal of the Crown. Britain, and her future, is better off under the administration of a republic.

……

The Liberal Democrats have a political duty to argue against the Crown. Monarchists will, inevitability, deny us the right to question the Crown and propose a counter-system. But we cannot steer away from the debate. A monarchist once asked me to choose between President Blair or President Thatcher, but the beauty is, as I said, both can be voted out of office. Queen Elizabeth cannot.

Read Full Post »

Why liberals exist

Liberals exist to promote and defend the greatest minority on Earth: the individual. We oppose both conservatives and socialists, who use the state to promote moral or economic values. The individual should be able to live their life freely as possible without fear from arbitrary power; according to our philosophy, governments are not self justified and any hierarchy carries a burden of proof.

No body of authority should be trusted. The clandestine nature of government should be accountable and transparent to the public, with checks and balances. A free market economy needs to be truly free without restrictions on entry and competition due to the state or cartels. The basic premise is about the ability of people to exchange goods and services, at an agreed value, without permission or restrictions from the state. Simple, but effective, free market.

To paraphrase Hayek, our existence is based on the very principle of opposing basic conceptions; liberals do not, and should never, engage in populism to achieve electoral success. In a democracy, all views are treated equally and the minority is protected against the tyranny of the majority. A nation is not free if 51% can dictate and impose its views on fellow citizens; Prime Ministers’ are not democratic dictators and Parliament is the highest authority in the land. Our precious representative democracy means Members of Parliament are their to uphold and defend the liberty of the people.

Any liberal party, regardless of its size, needs to ensure a continuous revolution is maintained on constitutional reform and the individual is more freer than last year. Prosperity is not just about capital; promotion of free of speech, freedom of expression, right to protest and human rights are fundamentally significant, too.

Liberals exist to ensure the individual is free – in every sense of the word.

 

 

Read Full Post »

The role of liberal interventionism is still required in the post 9-11 world.

Al Qaeda preached violence and terrorism as the mantle for martyrdom. Sacrificing your own life and maiming countless others in the process was a heroic death; but the Arab Spring refuted that doctrine. Completely negated it. Martyrdom was restored to the disciples of liberty and freedom. On the 10^th anniversary of September 11^th, the revolutionary movement of the Middle East is a remarkable tribute. These young men and women helped captivate the true essence of the Arab people; they refused to be defined by Osama Bin Laden and rejected a call for bloody Jihad against the West and Israel. The principles of liberty and freedom were not just American values, but were genuine principles of humanity.

In the last 10 years, many have questioned the role of the United States-and the West-in foreign affairs. Especially the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Critics will argue policy makers were consciously unaware, or ignorant, of increasing the threat of international terrorism during the ‘War on Terror’ and the subsequent attacks in Madrid and London justified those concerns. The adversaries of Britain and the United States were receiving unimaginable recruiting opportunities due to military conflicts in the Middle East, according to critics. With Mubarak and Gaddafi deposed; Assad losing authority and an uncertain future Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the role of liberal interventionism unfairly stigmatised?

As I liberal, it is my duty to oppose authoritarianism – whether domestically or aboard. Tyrants are the antagonists of liberals and liberty. Granted, it is extremely controversial position to undertake, but it is morally correct. Opposing liberal interventionism because of the United States is a deeply preposterous position to take. There seems to be this fallacy, or moral equivalence, that Britain and American foreign policy is automatically wrong. For example, Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity towards his own people (and Iranians, during the Iraq-Iran War) but it was never mentioned during the Iraq War build up. The condemnation fell towards the West, not the actual fascist dictator. I recall an interview featuring John Stewart, where he said it was absurd for the left to characterise Bush as a war criminal and not reference the crimes committed by Saddam (he was later criticised for those remarks). And John Stewart opposed the Iraq invasion. The Earth will become a very dark place if the great democracies of this world became subjected to Vietnam Syndrome. Libyans would still be under the authority of a mindless dictator, if we turned a blind eye to their suffering.

In time, though, Brazil and India will no doubt join as potential protagonists for liberal interventionism. Brazil already maintains a significant role in the United Nations Peacekeeping operations and I suspect their expanding superpower status will provide an umbrella to the repressed in Latin America and other parts of the world. The stability and future prospects of Afghanistan will require a protective India, to ensure Pakistan does not exploit its neighbour and create a client state. The mantra of liberal interventionism should be a requirement of all democracies and their foreign policy, not a select few. Democratic nations have a moral duty to nurture young free nations, especially those building a free and open society.

The post 9-11 world showed how fragile we were, but how strong democracies could be. Revolutions in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and others provide the true insight into the political aspirations of the Arab people. Liberal interventionism is not a form of 21^st Century imperialism, but a vital tool in promoting and defending democracy.

Read Full Post »

Question: Where is the liberal foreign policy?

There is a great silence in Westminster. A lack of ambition, a sense of reality and, dare I say, cowardice. After strong support of Libyan intervention the party, apart from Sir Ming Campbell, fell desperately silent on Libya and the Arab Spring in general.  Vietnam Syndrome has left a vacuum within the party; an unwillingness to contribute to foreign affairs due to the “anti-war” tag associated to us. Opposition to Iraq should not define our attitudes to foreign affairs or military expeditions in general.

Liberals are becoming a hybrid mixture of the old American “do nothing, know nothing” isolationist movement of the 1930s.  Ministers’ would rather give free range to their Conservative colleagues to discuss Afghanistan and Libya; which comes across as extremely disinterested. I’m strongly against our politicians selecting ‘popular’  topics to discuss with the press – it’s insulting to the general public.

Cabinet has collective responsibility and all have a duty to defend/promote the government agenda. Including its foreign policy. Which Cameron, to his best, is building a very coherent and articulate liberal approach to most foreign developments. How ironic, though, Liberal Democrats are unwilling to be associated to it.

Read Full Post »