Author Archives: Chris Whiting

Why I’ve realised I’m a Socialist, and why Liberals and Socialists must work together

For a long time, I simply considered myself a liberal. I believed in personal freedom, a strong but fair economy, and the power of government to create opportunity. I wanted a system that worked for everyone, but I also thought markets, when properly regulated, could be a force for good. But over the years, I’ve come to realise that these values of equality, fairness, and a society that serves all its people are not just liberal values. They are socialist ones too.

This isn’t about abandoning liberalism. My liberal resolve has never been stronger. But, I have been forced to recognise that if you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism. If you believe in fairness, then you have to acknowledge that an economy where billionaires accumulate wealth while millions struggle is inherently unfair. If you believe in democracy, then you have to ask why it stops at the ballot box. Why workers don’t have real power in their workplaces, or why people don’t have a say in the essential services they rely on.

For too long, liberals have sought to mitigate capitalism’s excesses rather than confront the system itself. They have pushed for fairer taxation, stronger public services, and better protections for workers. But these are reactive measures that attempt to manage inequality rather than prevent it. And the problem with inequality is that it isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. It’s a feature.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 21 Comments

It’s time for the Liberal Democrats to embrace limitarianism

Ed Davey recently summed up the essence of liberalism: empowering those without power and holding the powerful to account. These words are not just a rallying cry—they are a blueprint for action. If the Liberal Democrats truly want to live up to this mission, we must embrace limitarianism as a core economic policy, and we must do it now.

Limitarianism is the idea that there should be an upper limit to personal wealth. Beyond a certain threshold, the accumulation of wealth ceases to serve individual well-being and begins to entrench inequality, distort democracy, and hoard resources that could benefit society as a whole. Elon Musk, the member of the US government who just performed a Nazi salute at the inauguration of the world’s most powerful politician, and incidentally, the richest man alive, earns the national median wage every single minute of every single day.

Posted in Op-eds | 41 Comments

Lib Dems must get tougher on wealth inequality

It’s beyond infuriating.

We’ve waited 14 long years for a so-called centre-left Chancellor, only to find ourselves on the brink of more belt-tightening when we desperately need bold, transformative action. After the havoc of a global pandemic, a bruising cost of living crisis, and a recession that destroyed the livelihoods of millions, Rachel Reeves is already sounding the alarm for further austerity. Instead of rallying for the public investment we so desperately need, she’s searching for corners to cut and taxes to squeeze from the working and middle classes. But let’s be clear: the money to fund our public services is out there. The only thing missing is the political will to seize it.

We’re teetering on the edge of an inequality crisis so severe, it threatens to tear the very fabric of our society apart. The problem is not those on six figure salaries, it’s not even really the millionaires—it’s about the billionaires at the summit, whose wealth allows them to wield power and privilege in ways that are as undemocratic as they are dangerous. 

If we don’t embrace radical wealth redistribution, we’re condemning ourselves to a future where the super-rich rule over the rest, unchecked and unchallenged.

In the last few years alone, UK-based billionaires have seen their fortunes soar by 1000%, concentrating economic power in the hands of a microscopic elite. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is the poster child for this grotesque disparity. When Musk bought Twitter, he acquired a global loudspeaker to broadcast his toxic, transphobic race-war baiting rhetoric. This is not benign accumulation of wealth; it’s a direct assault on democracy itself. In a country like the UK, where social tensions are simmering at best, Musk’s actions are a recipe for disaster.

And let’s not forget  J K Rowling. Her wealth has given her a platform to dismiss the rights of trans people—a group she neither belongs to nor understands.

The influence of billionaires isn’t just a moral abomination. It’s a fundamental threat to the economy. Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of billionaires in the UK rose by 20%, while the rest of us were plunged in to a cost-of-living crisis and the highest tax burden in a generation.

When a handful of individuals control more wealth than millions of citizens combined, they can bend politics and policy to their will, sidelining the needs of the many.  This isn’t just wrong – it’s a betrayal of the social contract, a breach of the promise that every person should have a fair shot at success.

The billionaire class doesn’t just hoard wealth,  they weaponise it. They use their riches to lobby for tax breaks, deregulation, and policies that entrench their power and rig the system even further in their favour. This isn’t simply an economic issue,  it’s a moral crisis. A society that allows such staggering inequality to flourish is one where the social fabric is ripping at the seams, where the chance for upward mobility is little more than a cruel joke.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 21 Comments

A triumph on tenuous ground

The Liberal Democrats pulled off a historic feat in the 2024 general election, clinching a record number of seats and catapulting themselves back into the limelight. Becoming the third party once more and achieving the highest liberal seat tally in a century is nothing to be scoffed at.

Yet, beneath the surface of this triumph lies an uncomfortable truth: the newly minted caucus is both artificially bloated and alarmingly fragile. Whilst the party will no doubt aim to make hay while the sun shines, the shimmering successes of last week could quickly turn sour if the party misreads what’s to come.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 52 Comments

A view on the leadership election from a former Lib Dem member

I joined the party in 2014, and resigned my membership just over a month ago. I didn’t leave because of any ideological difference with the party’s direction per se but because I have lost faith that the party is capable of winning and putting our values in to practice.

In the second half of 2019, I thought our watershed moment had arrived when the party had managed to surge in the EU elections, and attract a raft of exceptionally talented and likeable MPs from the other two parties. Like we had seen in Canada in 2015, and France in 2017, I thought the UK was about to be engulfed by a wave of liberalism in the 2019 election.

I still maintain that this was achievable for the party, but like many have correctly recognised, there were fatally bad strategic decisions made in our national campaign that unthinkably left us with fewer MPs than we had in 2017.
I believe the key questions for the leadership candidates are rather complex and existential. It seems to me that the party has a greatly embedded culture of strategic incompetence that causes us to squander each and every national electoral opportunity we’re presented with.

In my view, the party needs to accept that whilst electoral reform is what we all crave, we have to play the game of politics under its current rules – and not the rules we would like to play under. With that in mind, we need to decide which party we want to replace in this binary political system.

It seems obvious to me that the Lib Dems would ultimately supersede the Labour Party as Britain’s primary progressive force. Yet, our voter demographics do not seem to indicate this as a remote possibility.

My view is that the 2015 collapse that has ultimately led us to this sorry state of affairs is because our party had spent many years building voting blocs via local reputation that had no coherency in a national setting – so when our vote started to crumble, there was no obvious subsection to target and preserve.

Much of this is due to the party’s inability over multiple leaders to carve out a ‘core vote’. It is widely acknowledged that Labour’s power bases are urban centres and the Tories have their base in rural shire counties – but who do the Lib Dems represent?

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 52 Comments

Four things I want from the next Liberal Democrat Leader

Vince Cable has made the difficult but correct decision to stand down as the leader of the Lib Dems. And now, for the third time in four years, we’re left looking for a new leader.

It’s certainly frustrating for us Liberals to see arguably the worst government and worst opposition in living memory still absolutely trouncing us in the polls.

What is clear in a relentlessly unpredictable political climate is that opposition to Brexit is not an automatic ticket back to the top, and the shadow of the coalition years looms larger than many of us realised.

With a leadership election anticipated …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 22 Comments

The choice for Lib Dems – embrace radicalism or die

I’m not going to mince my words or toe the centre-line in my summary of the Liberal Democrats’ election result for reasons that will become clearer the further you read.

Our result on the 8th June was embarrassing, demoralising, and worst of all, irrelevant. 7.4% of the vote was all that our party could accrue; 40,000 votes fewer than our 2015 performance which we naively thought was our floor. When the country was crying out for a party of the centre with both Labour and the Conservatives lurching to the extremes, we didn’t answer the call.

Whilst our swelling membership and activist base can feel rightly proud of their efforts in the campaign which saw an increase in Lib Dem MPs, they should also feel aggrieved at the lack of support our national message gave to them.

As a party we have failed to broaden our support, something that would have seen unthinkable in the wake of the 2015 election or even just a few weeks ago. We must address why we are primarily appealing to the white middle-classes and not other groups. As per Lord Ashcroft’s exit poll, just 6% of BME voters lent their support to the Liberal Democrats in this election, compared to 9% of white voters.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 69 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jana
    @Chris Cory “ we have a crisis of democracy which is manifesting itself in increasing support for extremists on the left and right” No, it is not a cris...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    I wasn't sure whether I agreed with Matthew, but I damn well agree with Chris Cory....
  • FS People
    So it does sound like the view across the board is defence of the status quo....
  • Chris Cory
    Not quite sure what would constitute "ungovernable" but the idea (@Paul Barker) that this is "bollox" (like the Irish spelling, somehow makes it feel less aggre...
  • Paul Reynolds
    NOTE FOR READERS. Since we have almost zero information from Burnham on his foreign, security and defence policy approach (and that of international trade), I h...