Daily View 2×2: 16 June 2009

2 Big Stories

Should we be pleased that Labour are finally granting the public an inquiry into the Iraq war? Not when it’s held in private, as Gordon Brown suggests in the case of the long-awaited review. The BBC has the response of Rose Gentle, mother of a British soldier who died in Iraq:

We have fought and fought for this but it will be no use and it could all be for nothing behind closed doors.

Nick Clegg was also unimpressed.

Meanwhile, neighbouring Iraq, the ramifications of Iran’s disputed election continue to play out with protests in Tehran and at least one fatality. The Guardian Council have now permitted a recount, John Leyne reports:

I hear from the Guardian Council that they are ready to recount those ballot boxes queried by the opposition.

My understanding of that would be that the opposition can then just query every single ballot box, in effect launching a complete recount.

2 Must-read Blog Posts

Yesterday, Bernard Salmon offered his response to Scotland’s Calman Commission:

Although Calman did make an effort to take evidence from a range of groups, there now needs to be much more public involvement in deciding how we proceed.

And the best way that can happen is if we have a referendum on the proposals, with independence being the other option.

Elsewhere, I enjoyed – but had some big problems with – a post by Tristan at Liberty Alone:

The reality is that a freed market will be regulated, but not by third parties. The regulation will be done by us, the market participants. Who do you trust more to regulate the market? Those freely engaging in exchange or some bureaucrat or politician who not only does not know anything about the exchange but who is also open to bribery (or open to bribing others through use of their power)?

I know who I’d prefer – those acting in the market.

But can we have the perfect information necessary for constant citizen-consumer social regulation? I like the emphasis on community entrepreneurship, but the problem of perfect information means there’s rarely a truly free market in practice. And hence there is sometimes a need to frame markets in order to secure individuals’ freedom in shaping their own lives – rather than have them shaped by market forces.

What do you think? As ever, feel free to discuss any of these stories or issues below…

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Daily View.
Advert

One Comment

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jason Connor
    I agree with Jana, well said by the way, and support the ban 100% and the government on this issue. It can cause a great deal of damage, harm and trauma to youn...
  • Jason Connor
    The coalition years did much of the damage in labour facing seats. The Green Party have now moved into that space. Many social liberal policies were jettisoned ...
  • Jason Connor
    I am against ending the triple lock and believe it's non negotiable. Many pensioners struggle with the cost of living and rising energy costs despite the recent...
  • David Le Grice
    Nigel Jones I think the issue is more that even lib dem seats aren't immune to voters behaving like we're in a two party system, Labour took Inverness and Roch...
  • Simon Banks
    There is certainly a place for Social Democracy within the Liberal Democrats, but it is not Social Liberalism. At the base of Liberalism is empowerment. Origina...