Of course it could be a handy excuse…

Ding dong the witch is dead.

“Congratulations to Mark. He never let on yesterday whilst giving a talk to the Libertarian Alliance with me and Shane Frith about how to promote classical liberalism through the Lib Dems and Tories!”

Well he will no doubt carry on promting the same line. No wonder he was such an ineffective head of communications for the Lib Dems.

Jock, why don’t you resign too. Then you could spend your time promoting Libertarianism via the Liberatarian Alliance and leave the Liberal Democrats to the Liberals.

Hear, hear Sesenco – let’s hope the rest of the ‘Vision’ crowd do the same and resign!

It’s not because I disagree with him – but because everytime I see him in press or media its as an ex LIb Dem head of communications setting up to diss the party. (contrast with, for example Olly Grender)

There is a difference between demanding resignations and not regretting them when they happen.

Following Stephen, “There is nothing more pathetic – or depressing – than Lib Dems demanding the resignation of other Lib Dems from the party because they disagree with them.” I have known Mark for 20 years, and he has been a consistent liberal for those twenty years. Are his interpretations of liberalism the same as mine in all cases? No, of course not. Are his strategic and tactical ideas the same as mine in all cases? No, of course not.

But this I will say this of Mark: he has a hunger for power, and a desire to get liberal ideas on the statute book that all of us could learn from. My sadness at losing him from our party is matched only by my excitement at what he can do at the IEA. The more well-funded think tanks that are run by liberals the better, in my book. As the Fabian blog says (and thanks for the link, Sunder), let battle commence! Good luck Mark, you will need it, and you deserve it.

“I’m sorry, have we suddenly abandoned all the policies around environmentalism, putting green taxes at the heart of our budget plan, proposing a green way out of the recession or something?”

Certainly the proposed green taxes have shrunk to the level of insignificance – admittedly not suddenly, but over the lifetime of a parliament. Apparently the actions of the present government have pretty much satisfied the Lib Dems’ green ambitions.

Stephen Tall says, “There is nothing more pathetic – or depressing – than Lib Dems demanding the resignation of other Lib Dems from the party because they disagree with them.” This view is echoed by Tim Leunig.

But that is a travesty of what is being argued. The view that I and many others in the party have argued is that right-wing libertarianism is outside the scope of the preamble to the Liberal Democrats’ party constitution. (The constitution is online here: http://www.libdems.org.uk/www.libdems.org.uk/party/Constitution.pdf )

This preamble makes it clear that our party believes in positive freedoms as well as negative ones. It also recognises the enabling role of the state. These views are not shared by libertarians. (Anyone wishing to explore the ideological differences in more detail is advised to read David Howarth’s article here: http://socialliberal.net/2009/02/12/what-is-social-liberalism/ ).

The Liberal Democrats are a broad church but even a broad church needs walls. As I argued in Liberator (June 2008), “A political party needs a clear set of guiding principles otherwise it has no point. But the necessary criteria require fine judgement. They should be broad enough for the party to be electable, but not so broad as to be meaningless. They should be precise enough to supply definition and direction, but not so narrow that they turn the party into a small and impotent sect.”

Our preamble meets those criteria and libertarianism falls outside. A preamble broadened to embrace both libertarians and existing members would be meaningless and the party would lose its point.

Libertarians have every right to express their views – but they do not belong in the Liberal Democrats.

“What party would you have JS Mill join instead?”

I hate to have to break this to you, but John Stuart Mill has been dead for more than 130 years.

Simon – “The view that I and many others in the party have argued is that right-wing libertarianism is outside the scope of the preamble”

Indeed Simon, but there is a self-defeating absolutism in your position. On the same basis we should for example exclude all economic socialists and those holding some socially conservative views.

We don’t do that and we don’t for sound practical reasons of politics. Our coalition would not survive. People’s views are often not that clear cut or consistent, and the most practical test of whether or not you should be in a political party is whether or not you agree with more than you disagree and are prepared to accept some compromise on the rest. Liberals build bridges not walls.

And as to the constitutional point I was Boy Scout at a time when we had to promise allegiance to God and the Queen. Resigning on the basis of my secular republicanism was always an option however I never saw much relevance in the Promise in respect of going camping or tying knots.

I must have been some kind of Scouting dissident. Should I have defected to the Woodcraft Folk or should I just have stuck it out until the Scouts changed?

People do ask themselves these questions when on the fringe or cutting edge or organisations (depending on your perspective) but it is not obvious that disagreement with a part of the values of a movement necessitates leaving it, it surely depends on the depth of the disagreement and the priorities of the individual concerned?

As to encouraging people to leave, Stephen is right, picking and choosing parts of the preamble some libertarians might think less important to being a liberal democrat than you do is a disagreement of ideas. In my book for example the ‘widest possible distribution of wealth’ is one that doesn’t involve a heavy handed state discouraging people at both ends of the scale from achieving their potential through excessive taxation or inadequate access to education. Others might believe it is a prescription for high levels of tax on the rich and benefits for the poor. Both of these positions are consistent with that document.

One of the benefits Mark bought to the party is he could have probably made the above point in a sentence, and done so to a camera spontaneously without preparation. That I think is the sort of talent the party needs more of, whatever wing of liberal opinion it comes from.

@Simon “And there were no libertarians in the party until a few years ago, when entryism funded by the tobacco industry started, as well you know.”

I think that’s got to be entirely untrue hasn’t it, there have been small-state liberals in the party for as long as we’ve been a party. Whether they called themselves libertarians, or liberal libertarians, or just liberals, is I suspect a matter of popular labels of the time more than beliefs.

As to funded entryism Mark, like myself re-joined the party in 2002 when the PECP folded was into the Liberal Democrats. It was an organisation noted for it’s economic liberalism and pro-Europeanism. I am entirely sure that no part of that deal had anything to do with the tobacco industry; although Kennedy may have caged a fag off Mark at some point, I’m not sure that counts.

I also thought I should talk to Sunder and Matt’s point about detailed research. Mark’s most notorious clash with the party, or a somewhat over-excited representative of it, came from Liberal Vision’s report on the impact of the swing to the Tories on our seats. I suspect the level of anger was not unrelated to the level of the detail, with a quantitative seat by seat breakdown, not just the unwelcome message in the overview.

It is also perhaps worth saying that policy wonks in glass houses… I’ve yet to see a cogent piece of research that supports the party’s position on tuition fees, whereas Centre Forum did some very detailed analysis to show a) it doesn’t impact enrolement and b) is largely middle-class welfare… the mansion tax proposal is unsupported by any credible research… the lack of competent analysis around the economic and political impact of the local income tax policy caused huge problems in the last election…etc… we seem to pick and chose when we think research matters as a party…

AFAICR the only time I’ve questioned whether someone was in the right party was when after quoting several sections of the preamble to someone they responded by saying in that case the preamble needed changing. I think that was fair enough.

I’ve yet to see a cogent piece of research that supports the party’s position on tuition fees, whereas Centre Forum did some very detailed analysis to show …

Funded by? People with money will pay for research which concludes it’s good for them to keep that money. They won’t pay for research that says the opposite. Part of my fears here is around the way the right-wing in the party can get plenty of money to push their ideas, but the left can’t, and then we have crowing like this. How can we have a fair debate and policy development when there is so much money available to push it one way and none to push it the other?

“We believe the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals”. Absolutely. But that would be entirely compatible with moving to a system of universal health insurance, for example, as widely used in continental Europe, and praised by Nick Clegg. The role of the state does not have to be in providing services. Mark (or anyone else in the supposedly libertarian wing of the party) does not believe that health or education should only be available to people who can pay. The public services line is covered by the same.

“the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary”. Have you ever heard Mark oppose trading standards legislation? Fit for purpose legislation? The Plimsoll line?

I am still not sure how anyone can think that Mark’s beliefs fall outside the LD constitution or preamble, and remember, Tony Blair did not believe in Clause 4 when elected – it didn’t stop him being Labour’s greatest asset for some years. Constitutions do have to change from time to time.

“I’m hoping the liberal wing of the party will now be able to coalesce more effectively …”

As opposed to the other wing, which by definition is not liberal? Oh dear.

Alix

I assume you are not impeaching the impartiality of Centre Forum? If so, why? If you believe they are partial, then you should present proof

What they publish tends to be within the bounds of our party’s aims and objectives, yes, but it generally seems to be oriented towards a particular view of them, which often coincides with what right-wing commentators in the media generally are saying. I haven’t read all their stuff, but I don’t ever recall them publishing something which is more oriented towards the left of our party. The higher education tuition fees stuff is a good example – happy to see this issue raised and discussed, yes, but could you ever imagine CentreForum publishing a pamphlet putting the case for higher taxation in order to make Higher Education free at source? No. If you can give me a counter-example, where they pushing against rather than for the right-wing in our party, please let me know.

I also think it’s entirely fair to ask where any group publishing ideas for our party gets its money from. That’s a basic declaration of interest, and I think we are fully entitled to know it and then to use that to draw what conclusions we might like.

And do you have any evidence for that assertion that the “right wing” (are we ever going to learn to stop using those ridiculous terms) in the party get plenty of money

“Right wing” is a shorthand. If you think it’s a ridiculous term, please suggest another. I think people know very well what I mean by it, there is an identifiable right-wing in our party, it tends to concentrate on solutions to problems which involve policies which bring comfort and get support from those running big business. In general I think the term “right wing” for people whose line is that those who are currently most in power in society are good people and need to be encouraged because their goodness and skills are what makes things work makes sense, as does “left wing” for those who challenge the current power structures in society and wish to change things so that those currently weak get more power.

There seem at the moment to be a very large number of policy-development organisations around which are working on a theme of “cut back the state, cut back taxation, let businessmen do more and take more profits, that will be to the good of society in the long run”. Fine, fine, fine that’s a perfectly valid position to have and to argue. But I think we are entitled to wonder whether the strength of this way of thinking comes about because there is a lot more money available pay people to develop policy in this way than to pay people to develop policy in the another direction which isn’t so beneficial to those who already have wealth and influence.

Yes, Geoffrey Payne and Matthew Huntbach, why do you deliberately mischaracterise Jock? It’s not as if you haven’t had his views, and the difference between them and wingnut American libertarianism of the type you fear explained to you often enough.

It might help his case if he didn’t have such a fondness for the sort of language used by wingnut American libertarianism. I don’t know if he has an American background, or it’s a pose, or he does it unconsciously because he mixes with those people. But it’s just one of a number of things where, when actually I’m trying very hard to sympathise with Jock and at least understand where he is coming from, put me off. If you think that’s unfair, consider someone who filled their writing with the sort of stereotypical terms we heard most often from Marxist-Leninists. Doing that would not help them in their battle to convince they really, really were quite different from the old style USSR and its defenders.

I think I have made quite clear my problems with Jock in all my encounters with him. Firstly his tendency to waffle and just point to various obscure writers and say “oh, you’re stupid because you aren’t entirely familiar with these oeuvres” rather than give a straight answer to a straight question. Secondly, however sincere he might be, some of his way of thinking and language HAS been used by American right-wing wingnut types, and the Thatcher/Reagan movements to justify what they have done, so I think I am entirely justified in asking from him for a clear understanding of how these things can go wrong if others pick the bits from them they like and use them.

For myself, the ability to be self-critical of one’s own ideology and aware of the arguments against it and how it may be misused is an important aspect of a mature development of it. I just don’t see this with the likes of Jock. If one prompts them with the hope of getting it, they just turn nasty and insulting. I myself am fairly much a moderate in politics, and I’m happy to understand the “libertarian” ideal as a valid criticism of my politics which involve acceptance that an active democratic state can be of value in building more liberal society. So, yes, reading their sort of stuff has helped me develop a more mature attitude and to know where my politics could go wrong if badly applied. But I just don’t see a reciprocity applied the other way round.

Stephen

I’ve known Jock for a decade here in Oxford East, and he has been an active member of the party, as a councillor, council candidate, deliverer, activist and thinker. Doesn’t mean I agree with him, but it does mean I respect him, and resent – deeply resent – the ill-informed attacks on him and his politics by those who have never met him.

I can only judge Jock by what I see of him here. Part of the problem is that I find it so frustrating is that I suspect there is a fair amount of common ground between us, but whenever I try to push Jock to find it, he reacts in a way that I find offputting rather than in a way that suggests to me he shares the strong criticisms I have of “vulgar libertarianism” and has convincing answers to my doubts.

“You can use different terms if you like, Herbert, I’m not fussed.”

Do you really not see that you’re liable to offend people if you imply they are not “liberal” because they hold views that are different from yours? Have you not considered that arrogance like this may lie behind much of the ill-feeling that you were quick to complain about above?

Hmm… Where to begin?

Stephen: I share your exasperation about the speed at, and depth to, which these descend. But I’m surprised that you are surprised. You’ve been editing LDV for long enough to know that anything in these pages that strays off a fairly narrow policy path quickly degenerates into intra-party mud-slinging.

Voter @ 12.45am: “Sometimes those who view themselves as economic liberals want to put forward the idea that if only we left companies alone, they would manage to get things right by themselves…I do not want to have to bail out more government-guaranteed banks (with my taxes) just because fallible humans cannot tell the difference between a short term trend and a longer term reliable pattern”

Can you not see the contradiction in what you are saying? Government guaranteed banks are the antithesis of a free market. Government guaranteed anything is the antithesis of the free market. This is why it was many of the “libertarians” who were arguing against the bail-outs, while the “statists” (including our very own Vince Cable) were arguing for a multi-hundred billion pound bailout. There has not been a free market in banking since at least the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and arguably ever.

David L.G: Another spot-on point. All the major political parties are broad churches. I think it was Anthony King who argued that the advantage of the first-past-the-post system is that it forces UK governments to forge their coalitions before the election. Those who are expressing their joy and fond riddences in this string might want to bear in mind that those parties that put ideological purity above the formation of a broad church tend to find themselves relegated to the political fringes, with nothing to show for their efforts but a handful of councillors and a lot of wasted time.

Jock: Your first comment was just deliberately stirring up the hornets’ nest. Shame on you! :oD

Oh, and as for the actual article….

Good luck to Mark in his new role. The IEA do excellent work and I hope that Mark both enjoys his time there and helps them bring liberal views to a wider audience.

Whatever you say about him – good or bad – Mark is simply not experienced enough to take on such a responsibility. I am afraid that being media savvy is just not enough for any think tank.

Jock, I do not see that as a misunderstanding.

Implicit in what Alix said is a call for deregulation. This is just I was referring to when I said “left companies alone”. Are you saying that Alix is misunderstanding something?

Alix, I understand but I do not see how that makes what I wrote a misunderstanding

Rankersbo @ 12.18: It is a shame you haven’t met him. In person he is the mild-mannered janitor. OTOH, the animus between Matthew and Jock goes way back to the days when LDV was in black and white, so what you may be detecting is exhasperation.

Voter @ 2.06pm: “I do not see how you can privatise infrastructure”

Extremely easily, as the M6 toll road, the QE2 bridge, and our various ports and airports show. As for banks, banks are not infrastructure. I agree that one should not hand anything over to the failing private sector. Fortunately, teh failing private sector tends not to be able to afford stuff, as only the successful private sector has any money. By comparrison, failing government has lots of money because it either takes it by force from the private sector (aka. you and me) or prints it, thus devaluing all that the private sector (aka. you and me) has built up.

If your system is dependent on having no bubbles and no loose money, you are putting the cart before the horse since I cannot see either of those going away in the near future.

We have to deal with the world as it is when designing any plans to transition to a new system.

As to the idea that competition is a defense against future Lehmans, why should it be? If one bank can make money out of a rising bubble, then two banks can as well. Competition does not seem like a plausible solution.

Julian – Dave Allen and Barbara (Blowin’ a) Gasket. Sign me up!

Tony Grieves: I am reminded of the joke New Zealanders tell about every migrant from there to Australia raising the average IQ of each country. Or is it vice versa?

PS Whatever happened to Barbara Gaskin?

Matt I think at that level of detail only the report’s authors could respond,

Tony I think Mark will be pleased to learn that his last action the party has made a sweet vulnerable old man happy,

Oh gee, another F@cking libertarian witch-hunt thread on LDV. How utterly, utterly tedious. I dread to think what the browsing public think of this party when they see the likes of Titley, Payne and Huntbach etc\banging the drum of expulsion whenever they see people they disagree with in the party. Even I get bored of this toss and I actually like politics. Those narrow minded purists will be the death of this party as a serious force in British politics if they get anywhere near power in the party… for crying out loud people please make sure they never get beyond the pathetic, sniping, small-minded and self-obsessed clique of Luddites that they come across as.

Andy Mayer

Tony I think Mark will be pleased to learn that his last action the party has made a sweet vulnerable old man happy

There are few people – perhaps no people – who have contributed as much towards the survival and revival of the Liberal Party than Tony Greaves. Without Tony there would be no party for you and your lot to try and steal.

Alix

@Andrew, that’s my feeling. I’m hoping the liberal wing of the party will now be able to coalesce more effectively, whether around the newly de-Littlewooded Liberal Vision or not.

And here we have the supreme arrogance. This tiny group of extremists who hate what our party stands for as expressed in its constitution love to describe themselves as a “wing”, as if they are somehow one half of the party. And not just a wing, but the “liberal wing”, so they are the people who really stand for what this party is about, so much more than those of us who have been long-term active members for decades. so much more than the “sweet vulnerable old man” who was the prime mover in actually rebuilding the thing.

“You know what, I missed this the first time round. I’ve been unemployed and I’ve gone through the last year at sub-minimum wage levels. And yes, I still “believe in” classical liberalism. What is this supposed to prove?”

Doesn’t it suggest to you that the market is rather bad at assessing the merit of job applicants?

Jock – is that a handy summary of this thread so I needn’t scroll through the hundred odd messages above 🙂

Andrew Chamberlain wrote: “I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Alix. When I hear the word libertarian I think of Nozick, Friedman and the Tory right.”

Have you ever read Nozick or Friedman? Can’t imagine either of them for instance supporting Section 28 or a ban for abortion. It should be also mentioned, that Friedman was instrumental in repealing conscription in the U.S. Nozick argued for animal rights and probably wouldn’t have approved fox hunt

Voter wrote:

“Sometimes those who view themselves as economic liberals want to put forward the idea that if only we left companies alone, they would manage to get things right by themselves.

However, history suggests that this does not always happen. Lehman Brothers, acting in what it believed was its own interest, still failed.”

Government also had it’s part in causing the current recession. I suggest you’d read to learn more.

The point is, market may not be perfect, but neither is the government which should control it. Which is smaller evil, a free market or a big government is for each of us to decide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6448038/The-Tories-need-a-rethink-on-the-minimum-wage.html

Disgraceful ! Hope you choke on your caviar and that the Champagne goes down the wrong pipe ! Figuratively speaking of course.
Just what we need. More neo- fascist sellouts. Thirty pieces of silver was it ? Nah ! Less than that I’m sure.

“Nevertheless, it is always interesting to hear people dismissed because they died x years ago. You would not utterly dismiss the likes of Newton …”

I haven’t “utterly dismissed” anyone, but I have pointed out that it’s a very long time since these economists wrote, and that the world has changed almost beyond recognition in that time. It’s ridiculous for people to invoke them continually as though their works are some kind of holy writ, because their response to radically different economic conditions might well have been different.

As for Newton, you could scarcely have picked a worse example! Because, of course, Newtonian mechanics – once believed to be absolute truth or something close to it – has been superseded. It is a useful working approximation in some circumstances, but under conditions different from those Newton was able to experience the rules are quite different.

My reading of this debate is that it’s between two groups of people based on the following division: on the one hand, those who believe in the ability of economic incentives and (reasonably) rational individual calculation to bring about a good society, and those who believe in the necessity of strong [tax-funded, democratic] institutions to achieve the same. The imagined outcome, for both sides, probably looks quite similar (and would match up quite well to the aims that the party sets out in the preamble to the constitution). Both groups are liberal in outlook and believe that their own proposals would lead to the ‘most liberal’ outcome.

The first group can probably be called the ‘economists’ and the latter group the ‘political scientists’ (I think that I’m borrowing these labels from some literature I’ve read on the subject, but I apologise if I’m using them in error). For clarity, Jock and co. are the economists, Matthew and co. are the political scientists.

The economists believe that the power of economics can be harnessed to create a better society. They believe that people can spend their own money better than third parties could do so on their behalf, and hence favour lower state spending. In order to tackle (abolish?) poverty, they propose direct cash transfers to the poorest in the form of a basic income, again based on the premise that the poor would benefit more from being, well, less poor than they would from having state-run programs designed to help them. They also believe that taxation should be applied to ‘externalities’, that is the side-effects of personal actions which can harm others. This creates an economic incentive to do less harm to others and the economists believe that people will respond to this (this is the rationale behind green taxation).

The economists are generally skeptical about state institutions because these tend to offer little choice to individuals and often deliver their services in a way that does not accord with economic incentives. For example, ‘benefit traps’ can mean that it’s more profitable for an individual to remain unemployed than to work, or that the financial gain from working is so small that it’s not worth it. They would also point out, from a liberal perspective, that state institutions can be used for coercive purposes, for surveillance and, with the wrong (i.e. fascist) government could be used to do great harm to the people. They believe that these institutions are largely beyond reform and the only solution is to abolish them in their present form and replace them with voluntary (private-sector) alternatives. Given the basic income mentioned above, it is presumably imagined that, at the very least, individuals would be able to afford to pay for the same level of service they would receive from present-day state institutions, with the added bonus of greater choice and less coercion. Taken to its logical conclusion, this view is skeptical of all corporate institutions – including companies. Companies are, after all, state-backed institutions – limited liability and corporate personhood exist by force of law. When someone earlier in the thread mentioned ‘leaving companies alone’, the economists will probably have been frustrated by this characterisation of their views, as the consequence of getting the state out of the business of regulating companies would be that no companies (in their present limited-liability) form could exist at all. Cooperatives, partnerships and other smaller-scale models would be the norm.

It should be pointed out here that there are those on the right wing who share some of these ideas but wish to serve right-wing ends – these are commonly called ‘Thatcherites’. The primary difference is that they would not be at all interested in a basic income, believe that having a sizable class of poor people is inevitable and even necessary for the functioning of the economy and are skeptical about taxing externalities where this might get in the way of business. They regard the limited liability corporation as something perfectly admirable and are often confused when told that this is a state-backed institution.

The political scientists, on the other hand, believe that institutions matter. Furthermore, they believe that there are many (though certainly not all) problems which require an institution of some kind to solve them. The core functions of the state – police, judiciary, defence – are institutions that almost everybody supports. But the political scientists also think that healthcare, education and other forms of social welfare should be delivered by institutions, as there is no better way of delivering them. The question for liberal political scientists is not ‘how can we abolish these institutions’ but ‘how can we make them democratic and liberal’. They regard the economists as naive and dangerous, and believe that institutions offer stability, accountability and a sphere of democratic choice that is not present in the more anarchic society of the economists. They value the common endeavour represented by health and education systems that are shared by all, and regard improving those services as their highest calling.

To a political scientist, a democracy without institutions is no democracy at all. What would there be left to vote on? This emaciated democracy would merely stand by and watch as whatever forces society and the economy unleashed did their work. Institutions provide safety because they allow us to create change by the power of our votes and our voices, influencing the powerful through the simple fact of our citizenship rather than our wealth and value to others. Creating better, stronger forums for democracy is the goal of the political scientist, and it is their belief that the democratic process of reform and improvement will eventually deliver the liberal society we all want.

The right-wing version, however, believes that the same institutions can be used to create a society that is more conservative, more rigid and ordered, driven by nationalism or another ideology of central command and control. I would include Stalin’s Russia in this, despite the fact that it was nominally ‘left-wing’ it was a state which centralised power and allowed the elite to control the lives of the people. Institutions are powerful, but that power can be used for harm as well as good.

I hope I haven’t patronised anyone in my characterisations above. I just thought that with all the shouting back and forth that’s going on, I’d try to help the two sides understand each other better. Maybe they already understand each other perfectly and the loathing is truly mutual, but I somehow doubt it. After all, the end point that we all want to reach is probably quite similar. What seems to be the case is that both sides are assuming that the other side is, in some way, a stooge for their right-wing equivalent. While nobody questions Jock’s honesty, some might legitimately wonder if his libertarian paradise is just a convenient fiction supported by those whose real agenda is to roll back any checks on the power of the rich. Likewise, the libertarians cannot easily understand how vesting more power in the state is a good idea if, for most of the last century, that state has been run by our ideological opponents and may, in the future, be run by those who are even more fundamentally opposed to our view of a good society (the ‘Road to Serfdom’ argument). I don’t think that either of these arguments are, alone, good enough to ‘win’ the debate for either side.

To be honest, I’m not sure that the two views can be reconciled as they rest on a fairly fundamental difference about the mechanisms that we should use to improve our society. But I’d like to be proved wrong on that, and I can only hope that the debate moves beyond name-calling and begins to engage – in a slightly more generous spirit – with the best arguments from both sides, rather than the worst straw-men that can be conjured in their place.

MatGB

For the first part, what you’re failing to understand, despite having had it restated many times in this and many other threads, is that Thatcher et al, let alone Blair, did not implement anything close to a genuinely free market.
They implemented an economic system that favours corporations and big business, and erects massive barriers to entry, the very antithesis of a free market.

No, I am not failing to understand what you have said. Looking back, I have done so in a message timed 10.18pm last night, and then again and more facetiously in a message dated 10.56 last night. If Thatcher at al were not at all moving politics in the direction you “real liberals” as you claim to be wish it to go, were the people at the time who were the true supporters of your true free market ideology deriding them, were they voting Labour in 1979 and 1983, and backing Tony Benn for leadership of the Labour Party because Thatcher and Blair and the like were so far removed from what they wanted? No. They were cheering on Thatcher and Blair. Their criticism was only that they were not going far enough.

You arrogantly assume I have “failed to understand” when I understand perfectly what you say, and I reject it. You arrogantly assume that your politics is so wonderful that anyone who understood it would be fully in favour of it, so anyone who rejects it must just be a stupid fool who does not understand it. In your arrogance you cannot even contemplate the idea that perhaps you are wrong, or perhaps there are people who really do think differently from you. My reading of JS Mill “On Liberty” is that this sort of arrogance is one of the main things he is writing against.

This debate could be ended instantly on an “agree to differ” agreement where I say “I see what you are saying, but I do not think things would work out as you say they will if your politics were implemented, and I have not seen what I feel is a safe path to what you regard as the ideal society from where we are now, rather I have seen when people attempt to push things in your sort of direction it goes wrong and does not have the outcomes you say.” And you say “OK, I see where you are coming from, you are perhaps a pessimist who is more cautious in politics than I am, and sees things differently than I do”. If this is getting angry and testosterone filled, it is very much because of your continual accusation that because I disagree with you, or am not convinced by your arguments, that I must be some stupid person.

In the second half of the paragraph you seem to think that it is infiltrators that are pushing a free market line that is, somehow, against the principles of the party you’ve been involved with forever. Well, sorry, but I’ve studied my liberal history, and I sure as hell have actually read my JS Mill and my David Ricardo. You think that those favouring markets and genuine competition don’t belong in this party.

I have argued by quoting from the pre-amble to the constitution of the Liberal Democrats which states the basic aims and objectives of the party. I have not said that the use of markets and competition is wrong in all cases, which is what you are accusing me of here. I am simply noting that I feel, and it is down to the imbalance of power given by imbalance of ownership and an imbalance in knowledge and an imbalance in human relationships, that the simplistic line that the removal of all government intervention and of all government provision of services will increase freedom for everyone all round is wrong. I don’t think it will work like that.

I think it is the mark of the fanatic that if someone criticises his ideology, the fanatic automatically assumes that person is a strong and fierce opponent of every aspect of that ideology. The fanatic cannot tolerate moderation and free debate and reaching a balance and agreeing to disagree. To the fanatic, you are either with him or against him, so if you disagree with him, you are the enemy who hates everything he stands for. It is impossible to argue with the fanatic, because if you try and express doubt about some of what he says, he rounds on you and refuses to accept that perhaps you are trying to find common ground by airing the problems you have with what he says. He accuses you instead of not understanding him, of being the enemy, or maybe even of not being human or of being some plant with a hidden agenda, because the fanatic cannot even get it into his head the idea of someone who is different from him and so doesn’t see things the way he sees them. Part of my political development came from meeting that sort of fanatic on the socialist side and being repelled by that attitude. That so many people who called themselves “socialist” had that sort of fanaticism led me to be quite clear that I did not feel myself to be any sort of “socialist”. I am sorry now to find people who claim to be “liberals” exhibiting a similar sort of fanaticism. I had myself up till now thought liberals were against that sort of thing.

My own reading of what 19th century Liberals were doing suggests they were not all saying everything the state does is wrong and there should be no provision of public services, rather it should be left to free enterprise to provide them. Rather I see that the provision of public services was all very much part of what Liberals were about then. We may of course disagree about the most suitable balance between state and private, between power exercised by spending money and power exercised by the ballot box. But your line that liberalism is all and totally about diminishing the power of the ballot box and increasing the power of money and ownership and that that’s what it was about in the 19th century seems to me to be wrong. We have a song we sing “Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hands?” which I think dates back to the 19th century. Why would we sing that song if our line was that the state should have no power, that government is always wrong, and that therefore what can be done through the ballot box should be diminished to nothing?

I would also note that things have changed since the 19th century, so there are aspects now of diminution of freedom which were less apparent then. Back then, industry and ownership of the infrastructure which supports basic human existence was on a much smaller scale. When “free market” mean the local butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers competing with each other, perhaps it could be viewed in a different way than when it means huge global corporations dominating and competing with each other. Back then, the established power of the aristocracy and church seemed to be the pressing thing to fight against to increase real human freedom. Now, perhaps, these have been replaced by other powers, which are equally dominating and in their dominance restricting, though they need not necessarily have the “state” label. To me, a more true inheritance of 19th century liberalism would be seeing this sort of thing, seeing where power now lies and how it may be challenged.

If you favour something else, please do feel free to tell us a) what it is, and b) why you think it’s more liberal than liberal economics? Because all I see is you constantly railing against a basic tenet of liberalism.

No, you see me railing against those who over-emphasise one basic tenet to the exclusion of others.

I have no idea what you’re actually for.

I think I have already said that all I am doing here is defending the sort of thinking which is laid down in the pre-amble to the constitution of the Liberal Democrats. When I looked at that when it was quoted in this debate, it seemed quite a reasonable expression of what I am for. So if I am for that, and you are not, doesn’t this suggest I am onto something when I use the word “infiltrator” in regards to people who are in the Liberal Democrats and yet think like you?

My paragraph above starting “I would also note ..” indicates where I would like to be moving onto in the development of new political ideas. I wish I was amongst friends who could join me in this. I do find it tiresome this constant debate with people like you who seem just to be repeating the tired old orthodoxy which has been dominant since 1979 with your only difference being that you want it more and deeper because you claim that will resolve the problems observed in milder versions of it.

Rob, I’d echo Malcolm’s comments above.

There seems to be far too much shouting and not enough reflection. Once again I’m reminded of the scene from “Life of Brian” where Brian tries to join the People’s Front of Judea.

Personally, I think there is far too much rigidity on either side of this debate – public good, private bad and vice versa. To me, it hinges not on provision method but upon scale; far, far too much of the modern world relies on huge public and private institutions. Individuals get lost in the massive scale of these institutions, and that’s where problems start.

There is interesting research that shows that the optimal size for a human grouping is c150 (which, interestingly, is about the size of group we would have lived in as primates/primitive peoples). At this level an individual can develop meaningful interpersonal relationships within that organisation that help it to function better on a social level and in terms of delivering what the organisation is supposed to.

And ultimately – this all boils down to power and its diffusion, the traditional Liberal touchstone.

Fair enough Jock. However – and I say this as someone who thinks you’re probably right – there’s no real prospect of the state being “ditched” any time soon. We can move in the direction of less state interference in people’s lives, less state control of public services and a fairer and less distortionary tax system. If we do those things and they work, people may begin to gain an appetite for going further with more radical reforms. But until there’s some evidence that the “baby steps” (LVT, basic income etc.) actually work, the more radical ideas will be dismissed as too extreme. A second avenue is to actively build – here and now – alternatives to state provision. With your mutual housing scheme it sounds like you’re doing that already, and I think that everyone in the party ought to be supportive of your efforts.

My point is that your “hardcore” positions are just extreme versions of the opinions that are mainstream within the party, not something that lies outside the liberal political landscape.

“I know MatGB tends to call himself (half-jokingly) an anarcho-syndicalist – maybe the ‘left-libertarians’ in the party would get more respect if they called themselves anarchists?”

Ah – so we’re more into “Holy Grail” territory then:

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don’t have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,–
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: –but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more–
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh — who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ‘ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,

I do not see myself as either an economist or a political scientist. Nor do I regard either the state or the private as good, whilst labelling the other bad. I am concerned that people are hoping that simple solutions will work. H L Mencken said “for every problem, there is a simple, obvious and ineffective solution” or something like that. I do think that there have been government mistakes and yes this is down to both parties in the states and all three main parties here. That is one reason why I participate in debate, to improve policy.

Now that we have lived through the history, I would like us to learn from it.

Citing people from the past does not address this. And if gravity stopped working suddenly, we would very quickly have to rewrite Newton. Newtonian physics continues to apply and we can still do physics experiments in the classroom.

Why can we not apply the same principles to economics? Do experiments and see what works. Instead of this, we seem to have people who seize hold of the current problems and attribute them to not enough competition (or whatever their favoured tool is) which conclusion seems to require a large amount of speculation.

Gordon Brown deliberately went for a light touch regulation approach and, according to my understanding, this led to banks and building societies getting involved in risky items like mortgage-backed securities or relying on the continued openness of the wholesale money market. RBS person Fred Goodwin admitted that he was just doing what everyone else was doing.

I cannot see how a pure market solution can prevent the problems. I suggest that all the elements which exist in a pure market solution also did not prevent problems with Northern Rock, RBS, Dumfermline. Yet there still seems to be a strong apetite for doing things which did not work in the past.

Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it

If anarcholibertarians really believe that their solutions are good, let them put forward a precise theory and cite an article in a peer-reviewed journal which shows that the evidence does accord with it. Otherwise we are just left with an “instinct” that the market can curb human nature even though the market did not prevent Lehman.

Like Avon in Blake’s 7, I distrust instinct.

Alan Greenspan believed for years and years that self-interest would be sufficient to get companies to look after themselves. He was wrong.

I want to move to a more evidence-based approach where we take hypotheses (such as, can self-interest cause companies to act in a particular way) and see if they actually hold water. This is actually what the Lib Dem are leaning towards in other areas. Chris Huhne was on a television crime conference event and there they seemed to be using people’s actual experience in the relevant areas.

I do not want to have the government bail out more banks just because it continues to think that risk can be managed. My preferred solution (at present) would be to get the taxpayer out of the risk business. Governments would stop guaranteeing high risk institutions. Of course, confidence in the certain markets might collapse and investment banks could die, but I think this is a better way forward than to guarantee banks which are speculating.

Currency? That does not follow.

The problem was the risky speculation which should end.

Interesting, so who else is in favor of abolishing the minimum wage, Charlotte? Alix?

Presumably this plan also involves some changes to benefits too? Would you explain them? I mean rational economic man won’t work for sub minimum wage levels if he could just take benefits that pay more.

If Mark Littlewood left the Liberal Democrats in 2009, why is that the BBC four years later still put him in front of their cameras and microphones as a leading member?