Free markets and capitalism are not the problem – corporatism is. Corporate monopolies deny competition and prevent new competitors from entering the market. The dinners, lunches and special events with government ministers and officials are potentially disastrous for a representative democracy. Occupy Wall Street, especially, is working hard to expose these dirty relationships and tactics in the United States. Not only should the market be free, but the government should be free as well. Mussolini passionately advocated the singularity of government and corporatism, Western democracies should not be pandering to the philosophy of the defunct Partito Nazionale Fascista.

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, made reference to the murky world of corporatism in his 2010 Party Conference speech and cited Adam Smith to defend his remarks. The coalition government has a duty to ensure the unfair advantages of corporations are not damaging the reputation of government and the competitiveness of the economy. And the financial crisis must signal the end to the culture of bailouts and access to taxpayer’s money; capitalism is about profit and loss, and losses should not be underwritten by ordinary citizens. The car industry received £3 billion bailout in the United Kingdom back in 2009, it was not just the banking industry to receive the keys to the Treasury. As the Occupy Movement argued, if banks and other corporations can be bailed out, what about the taxpayer? Of course, knocking on the Treasury’s door and asking for some money will likely get you detained under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Occupy Wall Street might not be dancing to an overall liberal tune, but their anti-corporatism and exposing the influences over government makes a worthy vanguard worth encouraging and defending. The British equivalent has, alas, been hijacked by the unions but we should not allow Occupy LSX to damage a positive movement. The youth are finally realising the utopia of government is far from honesty and transparent, and thus failing to represent the interests of ordinary people. In a democracy, it is a government of the people and not the lucrative corporations. The Occupy Movement deserve a mention as a potential 2011 Liberal Voice of the Year.

But that liberty has been forsaken, forgotten, to a previous age. There is a reluctance to even consider the prospect of a government ever truly promoting liberty once again. Globalisation has significantly expanded economic liberalism, but the international institutions fail to protect the most common minority on Earth – the individual. Economic prosperity of free markets are fundamental to the human development, but I do suffer from prolonged ambivalence and scepticism towards globalisation.

Conservatives can articulate arguments against the European Union, which I do share on principle, but freedom from Europe would not necessarily guarantee prosperous individual sovereignty within our borders. The arbitrary supremacy of the state is the main inconvenience for the expansion and capacity of liberty in this country; too many people feel the state is a benevolent agent, when it is quite the opposite. Health and education is still dominated by state monopolies, denying the individual to any choice possible. Liberals have a duty to ensure people can make a decision-for themselves-without any form of coercion from the state or their fellow citizens. It is not the responsibility of the government to enforce whether or not that decision is correct; it is solely down to the person make the conscious choice.

It might sound basic, or redundant, but liberty is the right to live your life freely, as you please, without causing harm to others. However the risking of infringing on others has lead to the nanny state politics – banning practices, which someone finds offensive or immoral. Tyranny of the majority should be opposed; I believe fox hunting is wrong, but I choose to not participate in the activity; I would never seek to abolish it. When you grant a mandate to the state to define morality, we enter dangerous territory. Let us not forget, the previous Labour government restricted handguns and hunting with dogs (which were popular) but then proceed to curb civil liberties and fundamental rights against the wishes of the electorate. As liberals, we are anti-privilege and will not grant the state authority to provide solidarity to any association or individual. Whether its the media, corporations, unions, etc the state provides one law for all to abide by – it does not seek to choose sides. This switching of allegiance has lead to the corrosion of individualism in this country. Individual liberty, over the past 50 years, has discriminated against the many and been transferred to a few.

And this is the problem. We’d rather allow the state, not ourselves, to make the everyday mundane choices in life. Promoting individual liberty does not equate to despising government and advocating demolishing the state to its foundations – far from it. The Coalition’s decentralising scheme is admired and welcomed, but needs to define a far greater agenda. Britain needs to become a nation where the people, not the state, takes responsibility for their actions and consequences. As a US President once said, “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around”.

When William III arrived on these shores in November 1688, the new King proclaimed to maintain the liberties of England and vigorously defend the liberty of his subjects. In the subsequent months, Parliament adopted the Declaration of Rights – The English Bill of Rights 1689. The corner stone of our constitution, which is still in force to this day but sadly has become a forgotten relic of antiquity.

It seems that we in Britain have forgotten about our hard struggles to gain our liberty. When it comes to foreign affairs, especially the European Union, we understand how unique individual sovereignty and liberty is; we do not seem to defend those rights domestically though. Countless governments, most notably the previous Labour administration, destroyed personal freedom in this country and took advantage of financial and security fears in order to provide more power for the state. The rhetoric was extremely totalitarian towards those who believed in traditional liberties and defending the individual rights of British citizens – suggesting that some of us were appeasing terrorists.

In the name of fairness and balance, Margaret Thatcher had one of the most centralised governments in British history, yet she is routinely referred to as a social libertarian. Conservatives should be aware of previous clandestine approaches to expanding the power of the state, by Conservative governments.

This current coalition cannot truly be described as the guardian of liberty. Pre-charge detention of 14 days is still too far long. Suspects will still have their freedom of movement restricted thus the old fashion innocent until proven guilty is redundant and the market is obstructed by government influence over the economy. Businesses, including financial institutions, should be allowed to fail because that is the nature of economic liberalism and the nature of a true free market.

Liberal Democrats should be arguing for a new constitutional settlement between the people and the Crown. The current Bill of Rights does not provide adequate protection from the executive and international institutions. Sovereignty of Britain should be declared in the people, not the Parliament, and the Commons should be given the authority to vote on appointments of Ministers; it should no longer be a requirement of Her Majesty to authorise the selection of government. The mandate should be given by Parliament. Thus finally making the executive accountable to the British people.

As Nick Clegg announced at the Spring Conference, we [the Liberal Democrats] are the party of the people. It is liberals who trust the people to govern the nation and make the decisions; it is, to quote the famous phrase, government by the people and of the people. But if we are to become that true party of government, then the aspirations and liberty of this great nation must be defended and maintained by the Liberal Democrats.

Daniel Furr blogs at Too lib·er·al [adj.] .

And this is the current insult: Israel will stop settlement buildings if Palestinians acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state – including Israel’s Arab population will have to take an oath declaring it. Provocative, yes. But the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is either nonchalant or ambivalent on the prospect of a two state solution, after allowing his ultra orthodox coalition partner to control the Ministry of Housing. A party, that believes in Greater Israel, is extremely pragmatic in the settlement program and fuelling the religious extremists who believe the Messiah will return once Israel expands her boarders to that of King David’s Kingdom. With that superstition encouraging and influencing a section of the Israel government, how can we ever envisage a potential two state solution?
The West bank resume its battle against colonalisation and destruction of East Jerusalem. Gaza is, effectively, an open prison camp. United Nations is useless due to the United States vetoing and restricting all attempts to criticise or hold Israel responsible for its violations of international law.

Majority of Israelis, on the other hand, are critical of their governments neglect and treatment of the Palestinians – the Israeli Supreme Court is the most vocal of the opposition at times. But alas, while the settlement movement is financed by sponsors in the United States, the persecution continues.
According to the (PCBS) Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, over 7,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails (as of 2010), of them 264 under detention without trial. Comparisons with South Africa, during the vile apartheid regime, is an association the Israeli’s fear. But, without cooperating with the international community and refusal to treatment the Palestinian population with some dignity then the apartheid labelled needs to attributed. Including the sanctions and boycotts that were placed on South Africa.

No more polite negotiating and nonchalant attitudes. We must achieve a State of Palestine, with open borders and freedom to move – without blockades and restriction of movement from Israel. The injustice and the tragic story of the Palestinian homeland needs its hopes, dreams and aspiration to be defended and promoted by those of us who desire for their liberation. And for those who criticise my stance or accuse me of anti-Semitism, how am I discriminating against the Jewish people? For far too long we’ve allowed superstition and Messianic beliefs to dominate the Middle East and, now, it is time to focus on this physical reality and address the scale of our problems. Do we really believe a section of the human race should be denied the right of statehood, dignity, human rights and the ability to raise their children without the fear of occupation?

The suffering has been continuing, with bloodshed and isolation, for over 60 years. The occupation must end and a nation called Palestine needs to be born. And it is in the interest of Israel to encourage it and not prevent the inevitable.

Party activists and elected officials, in the Labour party, believe we despise the coalition and would rather be associated with them. The media are portraying this narrative too. But it is not true. Our special conference overwhelmingly voted in favour of being in government. Liberals have taken 800,000 people out of income tax, a pupil premium for the less fortunate and a grand constitutional reform package not seen since the Great Reform Acts.

We need to start defending the coalition, not side stepping the issue or suggesting we’d do it differently on our own. The Conservative Party have no problem defending their party’s association with the coalition, whether it is Member’s of Parliament or activists – they are not afraid to fight back against Labour’s tribal criticism. Us Liberals need to start deploying the same tactics.

As we campaign for a fairer voting system, the Labour party – financed by the trade unions – are gearing up to prevent the public from being consulted. Labour, who claimed to be the tutelage for the liberal society under Tony Blair – have returned to their tribal past. Harriet Harman has admitted the party is in a “militant mood.” It is clear, Labour would rather create problem instead of solving them. Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is now the party of “no” and are a roadblock for reform.

Society, and the British people, are demanding change but the hierarchy of Labour are deliberately denying it. For the first time in our modern history, we have a party that is unwilling to acknowledge a democratically elected government – Labour MP’s are even claiming the Prime Minister has no mandate (even though he commands a majority of the Commons.)

History shows socialist parties, in their decline, become vicious and extremists in nature. Their mentality shifts into a mindset of “to hell with it” and the country suffers. We saw it in the 1980s with militant tendency and the union manipulation of the Labour party – which is starting to resurface again.

We must start returning fire on our opponents. The coalition is already implementing productive programs to make Britain a stronger nation and society, nothing should prevent us from transforming this nation into a true liberal society. If Labour wishes to resist then it is time for us to stop acting like we are still in opposition and to fight as a governing party. We are proud of our achievements and we should be proud to defend them.

By asking the public for their ideas and recommendations for public sector cuts, the Coalition Government has intelligently put the Labour party in an uncomfortable place. The unions are threatening general strikes and the average voter recognises the ideological and partisan attitude of the union movement. The “union barons”, who are on the most generous salaries, are not representing their workers interest or even the general public. It’s a defence, very inept and timid, for a belief system that is no longer supported in the post-Marxist world. However, what do Labour do? Join the coalition in developing a mature and non-partisan approach to the national crisis or side with the union paymasters? Either way, Labour is staring into the abyss.

The situation is not helped by the self appointed Labour cyber-tsar, John Prescott. Of course, he is a very passionate gentlemen, who loves his party, but his coup d’etat over the grassroots will bring much joy to Cameron and Clegg. Attacks against millionaires, bankers, tax the rich, fight the cuts, no to union legislation and “no to AV” will not hurt the coalition -in fact, it will provide much more support. The coalition, especially the Conservative party, wants Labour to resort to left-wing policies. And senior figures are falling into the carefully planned trap.

A quick glance across the benches during the weekly, gladiatorial, Prime Minister’s Questions and we witness former minister in deep apathy. The acting leader, Harriet Harman, tends to ask questions related to women rights or narrowly minded partisan points. Either way, the Labour backbenchers are not very interested and majority of them are to the left of the front bench. A significant minority of the new Labour MP’s would rather side with Prescott in an onslaught of criticism of Liberals and Ed Miliband has publicly stated he wants the coalition to end very quickly. In fact, according to his philosophy, Labour should seek to end it. Tony Blair, in a recent public event, declared Cameron’s administration as “a centrist government” and Labour insiders were furious at this deceleration. According to Prescott, Cameron and Clegg were Thatcherites and even Labour leadership candidates were regularly declaring this in the Mirror every day.

With the government seeking to curb union powers, including their donations to the Labour party, we have to ask ourselves one question: what on Earth are Labour planning to achieve by agreeing with John Prescott and carrying out an ultra offensive campaign? Harriet Harman in her speech during the Queen’s Speech debate said Labour would be a constructive opposition. Well, they have a funny way of showing it. Either it is frustration at their predicament or tiredness, but it seems Labour is acting as if it does not want to govern the country again.

The Monarchy is old-fashioned, undemocratic, unrepresentative of society, and lumpen. Prince Charles’ ambition to be a “political Monarch” not only violates the constitutional monarchy, but undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Labour’s administration remains silent, as Prince Charle damages construction projects, and contradicts government health and environmental policy. Monarchists need to understand the concept that no member of the Royal household can give a public political opinion. It’s against the constitution.

To declaim the monarchy, and advocate its removal, is still a political taboo. But the threat of King Charles III should be challenged, especially if this individual is proclaiming the introduction of a political king. Britain cannot afford to turn back 400 years of reform by refusing to question the accountability of the monarchy.

Ask to see Her Majesty’s accounts or even the financial status of the Duchy of Cornwall? Notice the wall of silence and the refusal to announce basic, fundamental details. The public expressed deep anguish and antipathy towards Members of Parliament and their expenses, but what about the royal family? Bias towards this out-moded model of governance, especially by the media, denies us the very opportunity to debate accountability and even reform. Parliament, due to an arcane law, still cannot debate the position of the Crown. The population is gagged and forced to become a subject, not a citizen of Britain.

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 Royal palaces of the French Republic attract, year on year, more tourists than her British counterparts. And Britain is still a monarchy. This ridiculous argument that tourists would vacate London without a Crown is a puerile reason to maintain the status quo. In fact, the Royal palaces would be more accessible to the general public, and tourist trade, under a republic. The economic argument does not make sense. As for tradition, without sounding utterly facetious, slavery was once considered a British tradition along with discrimination towards religious sects – we relinquished those practices centuries ago. Tradition cannot justify the undemocratic state of Britain: society changes, and the institutions must change with it.

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.

* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.

This is not a winsome notion, we are reaching the next geopolitical evolutionary steps for our civilisation and global federalism will eventually creep its way on to the international stage. Of course, the general public of the United States will be hostile to any bureaucratic institution that is Napoleonic or Europeanised “socialism.” But if the IMF and World Bank featured and were under the control of a United Nations Economic Council, then international regulation and cooperation would be easier to facilitate and implement. In fact, a World Bank – reconstructed and based upon the European Bank – could manage global interest rates and currencies. As the Chinese government have argued, maybe we do not need a global reserve currency but a global currency. But of course, I am digressing from the main substances here.

If we are to save capitalism and restart global economic growth, then an international forum needs to be created or reorganised. Personally, we do not need new organisations – we already have the IMF, World Bank and the United Nations. The UN already has an international mandate and the ability to manage the global economy, with the IMF acting as a treasury and World Bank as a central bank. A democratically elected UN assembly would benefit the population and give a mandate for officials to create financial and other regulation. Tragically though, not all UN members are democracies.

To play the role of the devil’s advocate and antagonist here, there is one problem. H.G.Wells, in The Shape of Things to Come (1933), proposed that a world government would be a benevolent dictatorship and did believe a World State is the solution to our problems. In order for the United Nations to operate in its new reform role, a connection with the population is needed to justify its control over the international economy. Before I am criticised by the right wing cabal, can I point out the G-20 and G-8 meet, without a mandate, and discuss the World economy – is that morally right? Surely the United Nations Headquarters is best placed and not some hotel in Sussex. I am perplexed by the paranoid and conspiratorial thinking of libertarians and conservatives, a new world order is needed.

If we are serious about reforming the international economic situation and creating a prosperous future, then economic centralisation on a global scale is needed. Global governance is a serous reality that we should not let slip, but if we do not take this opportunity, a dark and dissolute future awaits us.

* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.

France and Germany, at first, rejected any Anglophile influence within the European Union and rejected the economic liberal stance of Britain. It is difficult to understand or justify the positions Europe once took, especially over the Chinese arms embargo, which the EU wanted to end. But Europe is now starting to adopt liberalisation of markets, and is building an ethical foreign policy, stronger military partnership, and abandoning plans to maintain the Chinese arms embargo.

This experiment is now 27 members strong, and recently expanded to create a Mediterranean Union within the current system. However, the Mediterranean states do have access to the European market, and vice versa, because a minority of the Mediterranean members wanted to join the European Union but were denied access on the grounds of not being “European”. So the EU created a union within a union.

It is difficult to predict if the Mediterranean Union will work; Turkey, after all, still wants to join the EU. The misfit and unorthodox transition has put Europe in an uncomfortable position within the world and the new Union is located in uncharted waters; the Middle East process has been inadvertently placed into the hands of a nervous, yet powerful cabal.

Israel, Palestine and Syria are part of this new Mediterranean Union – all leaders expressed a desire for peace and President Sarkozy congratulated the willingness for change. These enemies once expressed their desire for Europe to lead the crusade for peace, which automatically undermined and undercut American influence in the Middle East. It is difficult to suggest how Europe will take this new found role of the most dominant diplomatic force in the world when the Commission is hell-bent on integration and constitutional reform.

European leaders are forlorn and frustrated. Until we reject constitutional window dressing and start using this new profound influence, Europe will just be a modern Austrian-Hungarian Empire: a monolithic collection of nation states and nationalities associated with political infighting leading to eventual breakup. In other words, a powerful federation unable to work together.

The Union is a potential superpower: the EU can defend and promote European virtues across the world. Historically, foreign affairs traditionally resulted in ‘Old Europe’ descending into diplomatic fallouts, as once again happened over Iraq. Tony Blair became the ‘traitor’, and was banished by the French. Now Blair is a potential President of Europe – funny how times change. Blair made Europe realise the world needed a strong European Union, which was willing to play a significant role in the international community.

Europe, when combined, has a collective population of 500 million citizens and the largest economy in the world (if you includ non-Eurozone members). We are living in the post-American world where the US superpower is declining and entering a similar stage to that of Great Britain in the 1930s. These years of uncertainty have led to a Europe achieving goals by accident and unsure where the journey into a global force will venture to. Human rights, democracy and justice are the values we Europeans to seek to promote – not enforce or impose – to all four corners of the Earth. But is the current method the best solution for the European community?

The future for Europe is unclear and hard to evaluate. Influence, and the spreading of it, will be vital for the aspirations of the European Union. In the new global community the Union cannot be seen as protectionist and isolationist, when China and India will be seeking to expand their sphere of influence. The reluctant United Kingdom, however, could remain the Achilles heel of Europe unless we see an administration with a pro-active policy towards the EU: we could become the protagonist and the leader if only a government wanted to be more European.

Many will disagree with my comments – others will object passionately – but maybe we can all agree on one point: Europe needs to reject achievements by accident and start making significant distinctions in foreign affairs. The EU should be moving away from internal talking to repositioning itself as a potential superpower. If Europeans do not, then Europe faces a future as a voiceless power in the world.

* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.

We liberals believe in a society based on liberty, justice and a constitutional government, whether it is in are own country or abroad. But we have struggled since Iraq to maintain the common principles following the Liberal Democrats’ vote against the war. And to hear Nick Clegg at the last conference shun “neo-con wars” was almost unbearable to listen to. Why criticise foreign intervention or the ‘Blair doctrine’ because it is immoral, and then sit along side the new left who support groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah? I fail to understand modern Liberals.

Saddam was a fascist dictator who tortured his own citizens and gave financial support to terrorist organisations that declared war against Israel. Removing him from power benefited the West and the Middle East, even though the planning of the war was a disaster for Iraq and the coalition (but that is a different matter.) Now we are faced with Iran, a theocracy ruled by an undemocratic council and with a poor human rights record towards women, homosexuals and reformists. Will we liberals stand by and allow President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to mock and violate international law once more?

Zimbabwe is another nation, too, which is suffering from the exploitations of a tyrant and requires foreign intervention. South Africa and the African Union have allowed Mugabe to go unchallenged for far too long. Britain would be justified in using military force to remove Mugabe and the people of Zimbabwe would welcome UK action – the Catholic Church of Zimbabwe said Britain would be morally justified – but there is no chance of this because liberals have ruled out the idea of humanitarian intervention. Iraq has allowed the very idea to be seen as imperialistic in nature.

Whether it will be Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma or Sudan, we liberals will continue to play the Iraq card in relation to foreign intervention. The Liberal Democrats have placed themselves in the isolationist field of foreign affairs, which is both tragic and depressing.

That is why I am an independent liberal. My views and beliefs are different to some, and my support for the neoconservative agenda has isolated me amongst liberals. But if the liberalism we hold so dear is based on liberty and democracy, then we of all people have the moral right to spread it.

* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.

Editor’s note: ‘The Independent View’ is an occaional slot for non-Lib Dem members to put across their viewpoint. If you’re an LDV-reading non-party member – or if you know someone you think would be a good contributor – and would like to write an article, please do get in touch with the editor at .