Can the Lib Dems put forward radical, exciting, truly liberal policies and still attract substantial and growing levels of electoral support? According to Liberal Vision, which I helped set up last month, the answer is a definitive “yes”. In fact, adopting the former could well be the best way of achieving the latter.
Liberal Vision wants to see the party adopt a consistent approach to lowering taxes, reducing the size of government and extending personal freedom. At present, the party’s approach in these areas is patchy.
Whilst, the new tax package adopted at Bournemouth represents a dramatic step in the right direction, there is still a long way to go. I would like to see tax cuts even for those on relatively sizeable incomes, but am delighted that the party now at least believes the total tax burden should be cut, rather than increased.
But on the issues of smaller government and personal freedom, it’s sometimes difficult to divine a consistently liberal narrative coming from the party. Just ten days after party conference, Nick Clegg called for the imposition of minimum prices on alcohol sales in supermarkets. This is nannying and regressive. And the bureaucracy and red tape required to enforce such a policy would be enormous. It is simply isn’t liberal in the way I understand the term.
But quite apart from supporting classical liberalism ideologically, I am convinced that an unabashed agenda along more libertarian lines would aid the party’s media coverage and help to engage a more sizeable proportion of the electorate.
This doesn’t mean that if we suddenly support a lifting of the smoking ban, we are guaranteed outright victory at the next election. Of course not.
But we do need to give people a better idea of where we’re coming from. The “narrative” matters. The public don’t just vote for a list of policies and pledges, they often want to understand a party’s heart and soul.
I’d speculate that if the public were asked to define what we are truly about, they’d use terms like “middle of the road” or “moderate” or “somewhere between the other two parties”. I can think of worse things to be called. But as descriptions go, these wouldn’t suggest we have truly succeeded in communicating a radical, liberal alternative.
A key problem with our last General Election manifesto was that our ten central pledges didn’t hang together as a whole. Each policy may have had its merits, but they didn’t really add up to an understandable, coherent story about the future of Britain.
In consequence, the public – and the media – effectively have to learn our policies by rote. In the case of the latter, I’m certain this costs us a lot in terms of coverage. A genuine narrative would help programme editors make informed – and usually accurate – guesses about the LibDem line.
For example, because we are often ambiguous on our view of the nanny state, if a radio programme is setting up a discussion on, say, binge drinking, the LibDem press office tends to be a long way down the list of people to call.
Too often at present, we have to fall back on arguing for our “moral” right to airtime as a mainstream, major party with 6m votes. We also sometimes suffer from some of our stellar performers – such as Vince on the economy or Ming on foreign affairs – being deployed by the media more as experts or analysts than as advocates or campaigners.
A consistent call for “lower taxes, smaller government and more personal freedom” would have the enormous benefit of giving us real traction and cut-through in today’s highly competitive marketplace of ideas. But it’s a thoroughly sound position to promote too. We can be simultaneously more liberal AND more successful in communicating our message. What an opportunity.
Mark Littlewood is Chairman of Liberal Vision and a Liberal Democrat member.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
Matt Wardman
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
148 Comments
Excellent argument. Only when the party adopts truly liberal policies can it expect to gain respect and votes.
Littlewood,
What exactly would a “libertarian” environment policy look like?
Asquith,
Basically internalise the externalities (ok, not the snappiest soundbite).
In essence – as far as climate change is concerned – a tax on carbon. If – in very simple terms – you driving your car causes £1 a mile of damage, that’s what you pay.
Apart from the obvious impossibility of quantifying the damage caused by driving a car for a mile, what do you do about poor people who live in rural areas, who rely on driving relatively long distances because there is no viable public transport alternative?
Asquith, there are a couple of books on classical liberal approaches to environmental issues by Indur Goklany here and here, and a paper by some other bloke here.
The actual carbon tax system would be a little blunter than measuring the emissions from each car. Probably some sort of (ideally international) system not wholly different to the Bank of England setting interest rates to hit inflation targets. A carbon tax would be set to hit a carbon emissions target.
I don’t believe – per se – that those who live in urban areas should subsidise those who live in rural areas. Or that those who live in rural areas should pay for urban public transport solutions. proper devolution goes a long way to sorting this out.
The fatal flaw with this approach is that it seeks to ditch the history of the Alliance and the merger with the SDP. I joined as a Liberal but with the express aim of being part of a merged party which took inspiration from both traditions.
I remain on the liberal wing but I also recognise that a huge number of our members have very different views and that the ‘social democratic’ element is key to our new and continually evolving philosophy. Why not just accept that and move on?
If you want to be expressly liberal and drive away perhaps half our memebrship, a good proportion of our elected councillors and no doubt a sizeable chunk of our MPs, keep up the good work.
Alternatively, you could just join the rump loons in the ‘Liberal Party’ and leave the rest of us in peace.
COme to think of it, that’s a great idea!
Asquith,
I’ve posted some links which are presumably stuck in the filter here. Hopefully they’ll be released in a sec. If they don’t appear, feel free to drop me a Facebook message and I’ll re-send.
W&W,
You seem to be attacking LV for wanting to “drive away” some Lib Dem members – but then you explicitly say yourself that you want some of us to leave to join the Libertarian Party.
It seems that you are the one trying to drive people away. LV, on the other hand, is just contributing to a healthy internal debate; so I suggest we just stick to the issues.
Is it true that you were a Tory candidate in 1998 Mark? Would you ever rejoin them?
I think all the merger stuff is a bit previous now to be honest.
I can’t remember the numbers, but I think it’s now comfortably more than half of the party membership who joined after the merger. A high proportion of the youth wing weren’t even born before the Alliance wound up.
You put forward an odd tactical argument. Half the membership would walk out if we became “expressly liberal”, but those who want to pursue such an agenda should go and join the breakaway Liberal Party anyway?
This idea that we should accept things (especially things that happened twenty years ago) and “move on” is bizarre. And part of my worry is that the party is too often in a comfort zone and wants to be “left in peace”. That way lies stagnation, slippage and – ultimately – electoral impotence.
Yep, I was a Tory candidate in the 1998 local elections in Fulham.
I can’t seeing me ever rejoining them though.
They don’t tick very many liberal boxes at all. I am even concerned that some of their shift on key civil liberties issues (ID cards, detention without trial) may come under strain if they form a government.
You head your article “Opinion: A Truly Liberal Vision for the Liberal Democrats”
but you go on to say:
“I am convinced that an unabashed agenda along more libertarian lines would aid the party’s media coverage and help to engage a more sizeable proportion of the electorate.”
Liberal doesn’t equal Libertarian.
Personally I dont believe in selling my soul just to get more coverage or engage more of the electorate.
I, like many lib dem supporters and VOTERS dont give two figs for what happened in the Partys past or the SDP/Liberal alliance. I want us to be a forward-facing party – not one bogged-down in its own not-very-interesting past.
I care about its FUTURE. I think Liberal Vision offers a clear proposition for the Party that chimes with the views of a significant part of the population. Certainly chimes with me.
Liberalism IS what marks us out from the other parties. Thanks to the draconian legsilation and nanny-state approach of the Labour Party, an increasing and significant part of the population are rebelling against state intervention, are crying out for lower taxes and so are saying no! to further limits on personal freedom.
Tho a loyal party member I have been dismayed at the Party’s inability to find a simple clear proposition to the electorate.
I believe that Liberal Vision does offer a clear crisp message that occupies ground that neither Labour nor Tories can occupy. And it resonates with a significant under-served element of the population. And its liberal – and thats why I joined the Party in the first place.
Duncan, you’re right. In a way. I said “along more libertarian lines” NOT libertarianism per se.
The overall agenda I’d like us to adopt is usually characterised as classical liberalism, but is pretty libertarian particularly in areas of lifestyle freedoms.
I’m not suggesting any soul-selling, I hope. Just that a braver, sharper stance would also be a winning strategy from a comms point of view.
A key point I’m trying to make is that I sometimes think we’re too cautious and centrist and consensual (on say, the war on drugs, for example) in the mistaken belief that there is an electoral benefit in this.
The smoking ban is an interesting issue to flag up as something where you believe the party’s current policy is wrong, and where we could stand to gain votes. While it is possible, of course, to ‘internalise the externalities’ by ramping up the cost of cigarettes to account for the health implications they possess, to do so is to ignore unquantifiable social costs.
If my enjoyment of a night out is curtailed by the stench of smoke wafting from a nearby table, shall we put an additional penny on a pack of fags to compensate for my irritation? Does annoyance cost one pence?
Of course, one could put the argument in reverse. Since I wish to drink in an environment free of smoke, surely it should be me paying smokers not to smoke near me. Here, I bear the cost of restricting others’ choices, while above it is the smokers who bear the cost of restricting my choices in terms of pleasant drinking venues. Now, who should bear the cost of smoking-generated annoyance? And how do we quantify such a thing?
Now, of course you could argue that government has no business intruding into social costs of this nature. But it is not illiberal to say that if one section of society is having its choices constrained by another because the choices they wish to make are incompatible, government must intervene to find a solution which permits as much freedom as possible. Man does not exist in a vacuum, and it is certainly not the hallmark of a good liberal to think so.
It’s worth saying that, while on this occasion I stuck to Mark’s suggested headline, Lib Dem Voice editors often create the headlines for articles rather than authors (just as sensationalist subs often headline journalists’ pieces).
Adam,
I don’t believe it’s necessary to internalise the externalities on smoking tobacco in bars and restaurants. Individual owners and customers will make their own decisions. For me its a property rights issue. If you don’t like the smokey atmosphere (or the chocolate dessert, or the grumpy bar staff or the football fans) at the Dog & Duck, then go and drink at the Frog & Pheasant.
Of course man doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we need to out-trump individual choices. There is such a thing as society. But a large part of it is the web and network of choices, decisions and compromises we all individually make.
“I don’t believe – per se – that those who live in urban areas should subsidise those who live in rural areas.”
?
I didn’t say anything about people who live in urban areas.
I pointed out that what you suggested would hit the rural poor very hard.
But perhaps you don’t believe the rich should subsidise the poor, either…
I didn’t say that you did say anything about people who live in rural areas….
I do support welfare redistribution from rich to poor, but not redistribution based on other criteria (such as how built up the area your live in is)
Received, Julian H, & I’ll be looking at them.
Although I may sound as if I have a hatred of libertarians, I have taken on board a few of their ideas… not many, & I disagree with them on most things, but I’ll have a look at this shyte.
“I do support welfare redistribution from rich to poor, but not redistribution based on other criteria (such as how built up the area your live in is)”
I really don’t believe the point I made is as difficult to grasp as you are making it.
Of course I’m not suggesting redistribution of wealth “based on how built up the area you live in is”! In fact I’m not suggesting anything. I’m pointing out that _your_ suggestion would hit the rural poor very hard.
And that unless there were some mechanism of compensating them, it therefore wouldn’t be a very good idea – either in terms of social justice, or (if that’s not an important enough consideration for you) in terms of pure self-interest, thinking about the rural seats we hold in the south-west and elsewhere.
I don’t think the point you’re trying to make is hard to grasp. Just that it’s boring.
You can’t isolate one area of policy and measure its impact without considering the whole package in the round.
As an aside, hitting some people very hard without compensation doesn’t logically imply an assault on social justice.
Well, then we need to find a way to compensate the rural poor. We also need a carbon tax or some comparably effective way of driving down our oil burn, or else we’re all doomed!
(and I say that as no fan of Liberal Vision!)
Personally I couldn’t agree more. Our crazy mix of liberalism and social democracy served us well when Michael Foot was in charge of Labour, but it’s clearly not delivering us success now that Labour has firmly entrenched itself as the centre left.
Our ‘new and evolving’ anti-ideology is not capturing the imagination of the British public, and we struggle to establish ourselves as relevant or.. really establish ourselves as having any principles or values at all, in fact. We appear to the voters to be opportunistic and willing to say anything to win a vote or two.
Our tax cutting agenda has been viewed with intense suspicion as a result. We lack credibility because people do not understand what lies underneath our policies.
With the Tories, it’s simple: Bring back the Empire. With Labour it’s simple: Burn intellectuals at the stake. With us it’s… unpopular populism.
I fear that it will take a serious hammering in a General Election to snap us out of this idea that we’ll always continue to grow whether we adapt and change or not. I consider this General Election to be our pseudo-ideology’s last chance and if it doesn’t resonate, if it doesn’t make any real progress then I hope it’s advocates will be gracious enough to consider the alternatives.
So from that point of view what Mark is doing is important, because it’s starting serious debate on this subject.
As long as the public keeps saying ‘no’ to us, we have two choices:
Wait until the public magically comes round to our way of thinking, or keep trying a different leader every now and again who can, magically, bring people to our way of thinking
OR
Change what we’re offering.
Hmm I should blog this.
Mark Littlewood
Sorry if I’ve bored you. But your blase attitude regarding the impact of party policy on the poor is perhaps intrinsically interesting enough to excuse that.
David Allen
You’ll note that I wasn’t arguing against the suggestion per se – I was pointing out its impact on the poor and asking Mark Littlewood what he would do to mitigate that impact. Nothing, apparently.
Charlotte Gore
Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying.
You suggest we should change our principles because they are “clearly not delivering us success”.
And then you complain that we are viewed as opportunistic “and willing to say anything to win a vote or two”.
Has your sense of irony been surgically removed?
No I’m well aware of the irony.
But, you know, if principles = success and non-ideological random policies = fail then I’m in a tricky position, aren’t I?
If electoral success, rather than principle, is your prime consideration, why not simply join the Conservative party?
It always amazes me to see how much time the Liberals spend focusing on internal intellectual debate. The Electorate is keen to see a new type of Politics to old problems. If you want evidence of this, BARACK OBAMA.
Lower Taxes, Greater Personal Freedom and a Smaller State sound attractive as currently, the opposite has led to the creation of a nanny state in which we will continue to pay for the mistakes of the current administration for many years to come. This payment is hard earned taxpayers money…
If as a party you are unwilling to do this then you are missing an enormous gap in the political market place.
Thousands of households are feeling the pinch and crying out for an alternative. Tax and spend does not work and curtailing civil liberties encourages reactionary behavior. Bigger government does not mean better services. Under Labour this has meant more waste and inefficiency.
Good luck Mr Littlewood, your party is stuck in a time warp and does not wish to seize a golden opportunity. What a pity!!
I think the point about the SDP – Liberal Allaince is that at its best, it taught us all to think through political issues more broadly, and with a wider range of perspectives and objectives. As an SDP member, I sure learnt to appreciate what the Liberals brought to the party (especially when dear Dr Owen went ape!) For those who didn’t live through it – well, maybe they will have learned good things from diffferent life-experiences.
I find it fascinating that the very narrow, highly theoretical Libertarian approach sometimes comes up with bright ideas that might work, sometimes comes up with craziness that would have all sorts of unintended consequences and make us a laughing stock. At its best, the Alliance would have filleted out the good ideas and quietly buried all the others. That’s what we should do.
“If electoral success, rather than principle, is your prime consideration, why not simply join the Conservative party?”
Because I’m not a conservative and electoral success is not my prime consideration. I’m just saying that what we’re doing now can’t even be excused on the grounds that it works :S
Mark,
But what if the Frog & Pheasant does not exist? In a small village, the choices of the landlord of the single pub determine the outcomes for every drinker. Like it or not, once one puts one’s property into the public domain for purposes of commerce, it impacts upon the web of choices and compromises that, as you say, makes up society. We do not permit vendors to sell guns to infants, nor fissile material to any consenting adult. In perhaps a more appropriate analogy, we do not have legal provision for bars where it is acceptable to be racist, but which black people are free to avoid.
Constriction of the choices of others as a consequence of property ownership is no better than constriction of choice by a government. At the place where the choices of the property owner conflict with those of non-property owning individual, we require some form of adjudication if the choices of the propertyless are to be respected in any way. If we decrease the capacity of government to intervene, then we merely increase the capacity of the propertied to constrict the choices of the propertyless.
And herein lies my point. Your vision of liberalism will not grant us electoral success. There will always be more people whose interests lie in constricting the choices of those with property than the other way round. Even if your approach were correct, the maths will always be against libertarianism.
And, actually, you know what? I will not apologise for wanting principles and success. Principles without success is nothing. Success without principles is nothing.
So I won’t accept criticism of my position from people who believe that having no ideology and no success makes us somehow morally superior or more ‘advanced’ than other political movements.
All power to your elbow Mark. I’m not a libertarian and I agree with the smoking ban. But I’m more than happy to sign up for “lower taxes, smaller government and more personal freedom.” It’s a great narrative. Certainly much better than the one we don’t have at present.
“I’m just saying that what we’re doing now can’t even be excused on the grounds that it works.”
But it’s the mix of liberalism and social democracy that delivered our largest parliamentary representation since the 1920s, under Charles Kennedy.
“What we’re doing now” is moving to the right, with talk of tax and spending cuts, which is completely alien to the principles we’ve espoused for the last 20 years. No wonder people see us as opportunistic!
And I don’t think it is working. But to suggest that’s because we’re not moving far or fast enough to the right is to miss the point completely.
“But it’s the mix of liberalism and social democracy that delivered our largest parliamentary representation since the 1920s”
No, it was the war in Iraq.
I want better.
I wrote:
“But it’s the mix of liberalism and social democracy that delivered our largest parliamentary representation since the 1920s”
Julian H replied:
“No, it was the war in Iraq.”
That’s a remarkably silly thing to say, considering our representation reached successively higher peaks – all higher than at any time since the 1920s – in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
ADAM
The answer to your question about the lack of competition in the village is simple … either the landlord of the Dog and Duck realises that most people want a no-smoking pub and adjusts accordingly or – he splits his facilities to a part smoking- part non-smoking pub to cater for as many customers are he can or someone else comes along and opens a pub catering for the non-smokers.
I dont think we need a set of bureaucrats in Whitehall to determine the price of beer, the size of the beer garden, whether it allows in dogs, its family-friendly policy or indeed on smoking……..
Personally I – and I suspect the vast majority of people in this country- would rather trust the commonsense and judgement of the Landlord than the out-of-control bureaucrats in London.
Spot on Mark;
less government + less tax = more freedom
Liberal Democrats. Less is more.
Gets my vote!
Cleggs candid friend …
Hmmm You made the point well…..Our big electoral successes were indeed during the last three elections ….when the Labour Party was in power and the Tories were nowhere.
I think you will have noticed they are back … Lets see what happens now the Tories have come and parked their tanks on our lawn…..
So even MORE reason to get together a passionate unambiguous message about WHERE WE STAND. Rather than hope that a rather incoherent disparate set of policies will some how win the day.
Sorry, but the fundamental principle reflected in the preamble to the party constitution – that of balancing “the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” – is perfectly coherent, and preferable by far to both the simplistic right-wing claptrap of the libertarian wing, and the dishonest and opportunistic ploy of middle-class tax cuts being perpetrated by the current leadership.
Clegg’s Candid Friend.
You’re being disingenuous attributing our current tally of MPs to our anti-ideology, our hopelessly paradoxical dream of “liberty, equality and community”.
It was extremely hard and brutal campaigning by the PPC on local issues, taking advantage of anti-Tory sentiment in no-go zones for Labour, and anti-Labour sentiment in no-go zones for the Tories that won us those seats.
Taking part isn’t enough. This is not a politics club for your personal amusement.
And, you know, the fact is that that main opposition on LDV to the ‘libertarian’ wing as you call it seems to be hiding behind pseudonyms, while we’re using our names and standing by our beliefs and opinions.
I think today’s the day you’ve made me realise that we’re going to win. Thank you.
I have to say that I really object to Libertarians who think they are the only true liberals. The truth of the matter is that the Liberal party and the Liberal Democrats has never been a libertarian party. Although it has always had a critique of the state, and rightly so, it has never been ideologically opposed to legislating change if that was the best option available. It has never opposed laws restricting the availability of guns as libertarians would do for example.
If the Liberal Democrats were true believers in libertarianism, then Vince Cable would not be the Lib Dem superhero he is today, because we would not have proposed during the banking crises to nationalise Northern Rock, and instead of proposing more regulation of the markets he would have to propose less. I doubt he could even be a member of such a party.
I am not sure that a “Carbon tax”, excellent policy such it is, has anything to do with libertarianism. After all it is a government that has to set it. In fact libertarians in general have been very weak, if not counter-productive on the environment. Many libertarian “think tanks” are front organisations funded by businesses who lobby governments not to pass regulations to protect the environment, particularly in the US.
I know there are some libertarians who want their philosophy to be identified as “Green”, but when it comes to ideas for mitigating global warming – the biggest challenge facing us today – libertarians are noticably absent from the debate, including at Lib Dem conference.
It is noticable that on the home page of Liberal Vision, the words “global warming” or even “environment” are missing. In fact I wonder if they exist anywhere on the website. Incredible! What world are they living on?
I do not think that the 3 themes even go together. A “smaller state” – it depends how much smaller. For example for much of Afghanistan the state barely exists. Instead of being some kind of Liberal Utopia, it is the exact opposite. Personal freedom is not determined solely by the size of the state. It is determined by the nature of the state, whether it is democratic and whether it can maintain law and order and deliver public services.
It would be a complete disaster if the Liberal Democrats were to become “Libertatian” and would mean that all the activism I have put in the party over 25 years would have been a complete waste of time.
Thankfully I think the tide is beginning to turn against Libertarians now that we have seen the effects of giving markets too much freedom, and how they completely cock it up.
Charlotte Gore
“Taking part isn’t enough. This is not a politics club for your personal amusement.”
Thanks, but as an active member of the party for more than 20 years I certainly don’t need to be patronised by you.
The arrogance of the 20-something Internet Rightists in this party never ceases to amaze me.
I am not a Libertarian – at least i never thought I was – but i do agree with the Lib Dems adopting a coherent message around smaller state, lower tax and more personal freedom.
That fits with me being a Liberal and personally I think that a bit more liberalism from the Party is well over due.
As far as I can tell the Lib Dem Party is now wholeheartedly behind a lower tax regime and a smaller state. I hope they will also move towards more liberal policies on lifestyle choices.
I can’t see how cutting taxes across the board would be popular or, indeed, sensible. I can see quite plainly why cutting taxes for lower and middle incomes is sensible. I can also see why it is better to keep income tax rates at today’s levels, rather than going up to the 60/70/80 percent of 30 years ago (not that many are proposing to restore that).
But I really can’t see how cutting tax for the wealthiest in our society, at a time when the OECD is saying we still have one of the highest levels of inequality in the world, is sensible, liberal or popular. Trickledown economics is wrong. How do you propose to cut inequality if we pursue some pseudo-Elysium where government is small? How do you propose to reduce health inequality if you are cutting back the NHS?
The principles of the Liberal Democrats have always been social liberalism combined with economic freedom, but tempered by a safety net for those at the bottom. Moving towards classical liberalism would be a betrayal of principles, not very liberal (in the modern sense) and quite unpopular.
Geoffrey Payne makes a good point (not something I often type). He correctly points out that there’s nothing terribly libertarian about carbon taxes, if one defines libertarian as ‘opposition to government doing something’. Clearly carbon taxes require a government to administer and would represent a whole new form of taxation which does not presently exist.
Might it be possible to glean from this that perhaps there’s something wrong with our definition of ‘libertarian’ if we take it to mean knee-jerk opposition to anything that might have had state involvement at some point? Might the real definition be a bit more subtle? I realise that most blog commenters don’t do subtlety, but perhaps we could all take a leaf out of Geoffrey’s book and engage our brains instead of fighting some pantomime political-philosophical battle.
What I think Geoffrey has highlighted is that the issue isn’t so much government presence but the nature of the government presence. Is the government making arbitrary and unpredictable interventions in people’s lives, or is it setting basic rules which can be understood by all? That is the real divide, a divide over whether or not individuals get to exercise some degree of control over what happens to them. I’d describe myself as being a skeptical libertarian; I think we do better when we let people decide for themselves and I’m very dubious about the centralisation of power. And I take these things seriously enough to think that we might, at some point, have to draw a line and say “that’s enough government”. So I find myself agreeing with those who think that we can probably trim down the current state (seriously, the amount of wasteful spending is absurd; it isn’t all going on health and education and generally-agreed common goals and that really is a scandal) yet I also find myself agreeing with those who think that fundamental public services need to be funded fully. Government does need to do less, but it needs to do some things a lot better than it does now.
Beyond that, we want to ensure that government isn’t behaving in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner – the 42-day detention proposal was a good example of the government attempting to gain the powers to treat some people very differently from the rest of us which we rightly opposed for that reason. We want a fair, level playing field for everyone. Libertarians want that just as much as anyone else. Finally, I think there really is a strong element of personal character which goes into determining what we think about these things; libertarians are generally systematic thinkers which is why they’re (I suppose that should be “we’re”) over-represented on the internet as many libertarians work in IT/tech fields and also tend to enjoy a good argument. Libertarians perhaps lack a bit of empathy and emotional intelligence, which is why they sometimes end up trampling over other people’s cherished beliefs. That said, they’re often justifiably frustrated at how… illogical (and I mean that in the nicest possible way!) other people can be sometimes. This is really just a plea for understanding on all sides, on the basis that the level of disagreement is actually quite small and is only exaggerated by the fact that we’re all trying to make each other see things from our own unique perspectives.
“…we have seen the effects of giving markets too much freedom…”
All we have really seen, Geoff, is the effects of nation states giving a totally free lunch to those private institutions and individuals who make it their business (literally) to devour publicly created wealth.
A free market doesn’t yet exist; merely a market that is continually distorted by the ongoing failure of national and international governments to charge for monopoly and privilege, who instead blindly tax the productive output of work and capital, enslaving us all.
Liberalism is surely about setting people free to fulfil their lives as they choose, allowing them to keep the fruits of their labours and recycling the ‘common wealth’ they create for the public good. Its promise is a genuinely liberated, automatically redistributive and naturally green political-economy, one that doesn’t require constant welfare or subsidy inputs, and in which – by definition – the role of the state is vastly reduced.
And it’s neither right, nor left.
Don’t wreck the Party, Mr Littlewood. Your small government, low tax agenda is exactly what most Lib Dems have been fighting against for 30 years or more. The Party’s current policy is better than Labour’s complex tax and benefit system, but don’t push it so far to the right that the voters – and activists -who elected 63 MPs desert us. The next election is a balancing act. But afterwards, if Labour lose power, and swing to their leftist roots like in 1980, the Lib Dems will do well to have social democracy still in their locker.
I agree with most of the diagnosis, but not with some of the thinking behind the prescription.
The libertarian alliance (web linked on Liberal Vision) suggests that your tax bill should be no bigger than your phone bill. Anyone want to suggest what Govt. would be provided by my £300 ? Hardly enough to empty the bins – certaily not enough to provide schools and hospitals.
I doubt very much if a ‘government is bad for you’ line has a strong electoral appeal. It might be distinctive, but then so is the Green Party. The reality is most people aren’t crying out for the ability to set up their own schools.
we could offer better government, more responsive government, and a reform of politics (rather than jsut being anti-politics or angry as has been suggested)
It’s telling that Mark doesn’t spell out what he means by relatively sizable incomes, when he clearly means people over 50k, who rarely pay much tax anyway.
(Mark, give yourself a tax cut, stop smoking)
Rob Knight made a very interesting post – >Libertarians perhaps lack a bit of empathy and emotional intelligence – frustrated at how… illogical ….other people can be sometimes.
Rob did not mean this is in a derogatory way – but the probability is that most people are illogical and emotional
“Anyone want to suggest what Govt. would be provided by my £300 ? Hardly enough to empty the bins …”
But in the Libertarian Utopia your bins will be emptied for free by scavenging wildlife (some of it human). At least, I assume that’s what’s meant by an “automatically redistributive and naturally green” economy.
“You’re being disingenuous attributing our current tally of MPs to our anti-ideology, our hopelessly paradoxical dream of “liberty, equality and community”.”
Ah yes! We didn’t actually win all those seats on the principles that we stood for in 2005 (and also in 2001, and 1997, etc, etc). We won because the public intuited, somehow, that we were about to get infiltrated by a bunch of right-wing entryists, who would set about trying to dismantle everything we stood for!
Right then. This popularity issue.
Liberal Vision, it was you guys who intervened just before the Conference vote, with your blood-curdling list of all the seats we were set to lose if we didn’t vote for the tax cuts. Wasn’t it?
That’s a pretty “robust” way of making your point, isn’t it?
“Vote for Right-wing Populism if you Want to Save your Skins!”
I think we just about hit rock bottom, in moral terms, that day.
Well now, wise guys, the Party duly did what its leader asked, and voted for tax cuts “for all but the richest”. And our poll ratings duly went downwards.
Are you now going to release an even longer list of seats which we are now set to lose – because the Party has abandoned its principles, and thereby lost its credibility with the electorate?
People who suggest here that the only people who would run away from the party are those of us who remember the Alliance are wearing heavily tinted spectacles, I would say Orange tinted but I won’t let the libertarians steal our colour too.
I can’t think of a single member of my local party who would agree with them, or indeed a single grassroots member who would either – and I don’t just mean activist.
I am beginning to think, as a Liberal Party member at merger, that I need to rattle some of the social democrats from that time with experience of Militant to deal with the tendency we now find among us.
No CCF. Under a Liberal government, your bins would be emptied by public or private operatives, depending on how your democratically accountable local council had chosen to contract that particular service, and would be funded by recovering the unearned economic rent accruing to the owners of properties benefitting from this essential public service. Environmental dividends result automatically from a fiscal regime that appropriately values and recycles natural and community created wealth. OK?
So if you (the party traditionalists) all hate and fear the idea of ‘libertarians’ gaining influence, there’s a very simple way of getting rid of the ‘threat’.
Prove the worth of your version of liberalism. Prove that it can resonate with people outside the party, and work in a level deeper than simple anti-X voting or by individual PPCs and constituency parties bucking the national trend against the odds with extreme effort.
Get us through the next general election with more MPs, and prove that you have within you a distinctive, coherent and consistent policy platform that will deliver the sort of change that would make all this effort worthwhile. Show why we need better state intervention, not less state intervention, and prove to the public that this party can do it ‘better’ than the others. Get us consistently in the high 20s on the opinion polls, at the very least.
That’ll take the steam away from people like me. No doubt about it. The more successful you are, the stronger you become.
Here, here, David Allen and Duncan Borrowman. There is a need for the mainstream centre-left of the party to reassert itself well before the next conference. To many of us that worked so hard for this party, Liberal means enabling and empowering people, not abandoning them to the unregulated free market. That ideology was always just a fig leaf to hide the self interest of the super rich, and persuade suckers on middle incomes to vote against their own self interest. It has no place whatsoever in a truly Liberal party or society.
No Charlotte. I will just stick with defending what it says on my membership card if that is OK with you. I don’t need to prove anything to people who don’t believe in all of it.
But surely you’re prepared to fight for what you believe in, yes?
“Get us through the next general election with more MPs …”
Fat chance of that, when the party has already been hi-jacked by a slightly less extreme version of your right-wing ideology!
But how typical of an ideologue to respond that the new policies are only unpopular because they haven’t been embraced wholeheartedly enough …
By the way, Charlotte, why do you put the word libertarian in quotation marks, and qualify it with the phrase “as you call it”, as if we’re somehow being unfair?
Your blog is only one click away. There you describe yourself as “a libertarian Lib Dem”. That’s just before you wax lyrical about “the superiority of Capitalism over all other known systems”.
Charlotte Gore
Some of us have beliefs and principles beyond harvesting votes.
Some of us believe that the rights of the individual must be cherished and protected, yet also balanced against the rights of others.
Some of us joined this party proud to be part of an organisation that had morals and did no pull cheap stunts just to win a handful of votes.
Some of us are here to try and make Britain a better place, not to play trite politics and attack others without understanding one iota of what they believe or why.
Some of us think that if none of this appeals to you whatsoever you should clear off and solicit donations from Russian oligarchs.
I have nothing to hide, or to gain. I am posting in my own name and not trying to push traffic through some misguided, taudry, libertarian blog.
Some of us have beliefs, passion and morals – and we’re proud of them! They are not optional or for sale, or to be ditched when inconvenient. If this is blowing your mind I strongly suggest clearing off and looking to get your kicks elsewhere as actually this deranged state of affairs is blinking common amongst real members.
Reading some of the ridiculous rightwing/libertarian ranting makes me wonder why us awkward squad lefties don’t rise up and form our own organisation, like “Liberal 20:20 vision” for example…… C’mon this lot need an eye test if they think their eye-catching little displays will ever translate into anything meaningful……or even coherent
Terry, I don’t want to be pedantic. OK, I do want to be pedantic.
The phrase is “hear hear.” Or are you doing it on purpose? The Wikipedia article states that, “It is often incorrectly spelled ‘here here’, especially on websites.”
In either case, it totally undermines all your arguments. 🙂
Terry Gilbert said,
So do you not think having a free market would be enabling or empowering? The market system we have now is not ideal, granted, but neither is it free. I always fail to see how putting up more barriers will help empowerment.
Considering Free Trade was one of the very first things liberals fought for I can’t quite see your reasoning there.
Of course I will defend what I believe in. That is what is written on the membership card of the party I belong to. I do not need to defend myself from those who have joined the party but don’t believe in the ideals of the party as written on the card they carry. If they don’t believe in what they have joined they should go and join something else instead.
Laurence, I don’t give toss what Wikipedia says. It is hear here.
It’s a shame that the argument seems to have descended into principles v popularity.
Just not worth point-scoring on this.
I’m not going to get into an e-bay bidding war on the price I’d sell my granny for.
I actually think we can be truly liberal and popular.
But returning to the matter in hand, I do so hope we can all be friends. The £20 billion tax cut agreed at conference means that things are roughly moving in Mark’s direction for the moment.
As far as the membership card is concerned, I like the bit that says, “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” It’s why I’m against faith schools, but this is an argument which doesn’t get much traction from Lib Dems in general.
I wonder what Mark thinks about faith schools? If he wants them abolished, then I think I’m ready to drop my fishing nets and follow him. But I’m guessing he’ll say, “live and let live.” Groan.
Wit and Wisdom makes a valuable point…i find it laughable when we are supposed to be chasing after Labour seats that you think that the best way to appeal to them is to totally alienate them and trash things they would readily self-identify with…
Now more than ever it is worth defending the concept of an alliance for the party to succeed….
As for a carbon tax I make no bones about opposing this; without the establishment of a decent public transport system it is going to be a huge tax burden on people which will negate any cuts to income tax….
Mark, principles v popularity. Now remind me who said “I am convinced that an unabashed agenda along more libertarian lines would aid the party’s media coverage and help to engage a more sizeable proportion of the electorate.”
The libertarians here have been nothing if not inconsistent.
Lawrence,
Thanks for your temperate message.
On faith schools, I just honestly don’t know. (with the exception that I certainly support the disestablishment of the CofE as the official religion of the state).
One of my very best friends wrote his D.Phil on the subject – focusing on the USA principally and taking a very strong line against teaching children creationism.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view.
But it remains one of (very few) issues I just keep chopping and changing about (abortion and fox-hunting are two others).
Sorry not to provide greater clarity!
Duncan, I believe:
(a). in adopting a more classically liberal stance ideologically AND
(b). that this would assist our electoral chances.
Some folk might believe A but not B. Some folk might believe B but not A. Some folk might believe both. Some might believe neither.
I’m in the happy position of believing both and therefore feeling unconflicted by my principles and tactics.
Well I certainly have no intention of getting into a debate that cannot be won.
If we lose MPs at the next election, it’ll be the influence of the libertarians.
If we gain MPs at the next election, it’ll be because we resisted the influence of the libertarians.
Oh well. That’s politics.
Actually I suspect Mark isn’t going to thank me for trying to help. :S
Oh well. For what it’s worth, I believe A and B too. I’m against populism for it’s own sake.
People might disagree with them, but no-one’s ever accused me of lacking principles.
Darrell: “Wit and Wisdom makes a valuable point…i find it laughable when we are supposed to be chasing after Labour seats hat you think that the best way to appeal to them is to totally alienate them and trash things they would readily self-identify with…”
Why are we “supposed” to be targeting Labour seats? Says who (really)?
Most people I have spoken to think the “we are gunning for Labour in 50 seats” story was a stunt. Maybe a very good one (I’m not against the leader talking tactics to get headlines). But the psephology doesn’t stack up – and there is little evidence of any serious transfer of funds from the federal party to the local parties in the top 50 v Labour list. Thankfully.
Something more reflective this time:
“What I think Geoffrey has highlighted is that the issue isn’t so much government presence but the nature of the government presence. Is the government making arbitrary and unpredictable interventions in people’s lives, or is it setting basic rules which can be understood by all? That is the real divide, a divide over whether or not individuals get to exercise some degree of control over what happens to them.”
Good analysis. I would add that Tory / Labour Government does not just make “arbitrary and unpredictable interventions in people’s lives”, but more to the point, it repeatedly intervenes at the behest of powerful vested interests. The Tory and Labour parties are funded by big business, trade unions and producer interests, and dodgy millionaires on the make. They serve their paymasters. Both parties therefore believe in big, bossy, centralised YesMinister government (despite belated protestations to the contrary by the Tories now they are out of power).
Liberal Democrats believe in standing up for individuals against vested interests. That’s why we reject ID cards, truly take climate change seriously, work in local communities, and seek to meet need not greed. That’s why to us, democracy isn’t just a battlefield – it’s a weapon.
In short – Our principles and policies are a million miles away from those of the other two parties, whether or not there is an Iraq war going on. We don’t need libertarianism to make ourselves look distinctive.
Come to that, we don’t need Clegg’s new Orange “shrink the state” ideology, either. We don’t have to starve Government of the funds it needs, just so as to prove that we would govern in a very different way from NewToryLabour.
Charlotte. I will not thank a single libertarian for winning a seat at the next election if that helps your personal trauma.
Listening to the ‘libertarian’ line I’m convinced they would want to change Clegg’s ‘Make it Happen’ to ‘Let it Happen’.
My problem is with the description of policy aims as “lower taxes, smaller government and more personal freedom.” This sounds all fine and dandy for the present, but by being a bit open-ended and nebulous it fails Mark’s test of presenting a clear alternative and also leaves us open to attack once reductions have been achieved.
I like the paradoxic statement of ‘liberty, equality and community’ in our preamble, as this forces us to continuously rebalance the demands of each.
The public may be confused more often than not about what we stand on specific issues, but I am happy to challenge people to scratch their own heads and think for themselves rather than doing as the other parties wish and strangling them with a comfort blanket by pandering to their baser desires.
Mark,
Well Labour voters remain the ones most likely to be looking for a new party at the next election. Regardless of that I still think the principle of the alliance is a good one to maintain unless of course you actually want to cleave the party in two or dont really care because there clearly are two trends within this party.
I would be quite happy for liberterians to remain within the party but can liberterians say they would be happy for social democrats to do the same??
But how exactly does the party do that?
Surely giving people more freedom would do this more?
“My problem is with the description of policy aims as “lower taxes, smaller government and more personal freedom.” This sounds all fine and dandy for the present …”
But the problem is “smaller government” doesn’t mean more personal freedom for the people who rely on public services.
And for those people we’re talking pretty basic freedoms – not just a bit more money in their pockets to be squandered on the latest techno-toys.
CCF,
oddly, I think we’re on the same side in this one.
Andrew,
exactly. It’s about balance. We’ve got to ask ourselves whether it isn’t damaging for freedom to be throw at us all in one go and whether gradual incremental increases in freedom are actually less open to abuses.
CCF is bang on right….
Oranjepan,
It’s funny you should say ‘Let it Happen’ because I spent a few hours tonight writing a blog post with that as a title, saying we should move away from “make it happen” to “let it happen”, until I realised I’d got enough grief for one day.
Darrell,
Interesting point on Labour voters. If you mean those who voted for Blair in 1997/2001/2005, then possibly you’re right. If you mean the “spot price” in the polls at the moment, I think you’re wrong.
At 29% or 30%, the Labour vote is down to its core. The key floating voters are the 10 – 15% who didn’t vote Tory last time but are saying they would do so now.
This is “doubly” true because so many of our key battles are against the Tories, not against Labour.
I can’t speak for “liberterians” (sic), but we must get away from divisive discussions about which group or faction we wish to expel from the party. This is insane indulgence for a third party with 10% of the MPs and tracking at about 17% of the vote.
We’re a broad church. But we need to become broader. We need to be a cathedral to actually win an election.
A part of growing up as a party is having the maturity to accept different positions, stances and views without arguing this means the destruction or expulsion of one particular group/ideology/faction etc.
But a second part is to accept that acting as a major party involves folk of differing opinions actually arguing for them, prosecuting them, testing them etc.
For example, not only do I think that Tony Greaves should be a member of the Liberal Democrats in 2008. I actually want him to be. Within the areas that divide us, I am happy to debate with him, challenge him, or support a candidate against him. That’s politics. I will try never to descend to personally slating people because I disagree with their particular views. And I’d hope and expect him and others to agree.
We need the liberal family to get broader and more self-confident. Not narrower and pathetically purist.
But if you want to know my purist beliefs, I have set them out endlessly.
Disgaree with me by all means. Argue against me, of course. But let’s have the self-confidence and maturity to act like serious political people in a broad coalition, not like a bunch of self-indulgent, never-going-to-win immature activists.
Mark,
Very noble sentiments except they dont really amount to much when what you want is unity based on accepting your way is the right way which is not unity at all is it because there is no compromise involved.
CCF
You don’t agree with my narrative.
That’s fine. And obviously, it’s your absolute right.
I just fear you may be the sort of person who gives a million reasons for not doing X rather than the one reason to do it.
Guess what? Under my narrative, not everyone’s a winner. Not every sector of society is compensated. Not every social or economic problem can be conquered. Not all people will be our friends. But I’ll stand and argue for it all the same.
Can I sing for the decentralisers in this cathedral then, please, Mark (my voice isn’t up to much)?
Darrell,
I’m not arguing that everyone must unite under the great leadership of Mark Littlewood! I’m just putting forward my own, genuine, unalloyed point of view.
Dissenters will NOT be round up, shot, blacklisted or expelled.
I think the right way is X.
I’m therefore arguing for X.
No ifs. No buts. Simple as.
Oranjepan – if your voice isn’t up to much, are you any good on the electric guitar? Also, a lot of the choir seats have already been sold…I have a big extended family 🙂
Mark,
I am not saying that they will but they might feel a bit uncomfortable arguing for a puritans programme and that is rather a problem isnt it. Where are the concessions you are willing to make to people like CCF??
Maybe I could dig out my set of bongos from the loft? I’ll just have a lookee-see.
Well, on a forum like this…none. Of course, I want him to be a member of the party. Let’s debate our ideas. Let’s cross-examine each other’s views.
But this can’t be – surely – a debating forum in which we threaten each other with expulsion or worse? That would be insane.
My guess is that I won’t get everything I want (e.g. I wanted the tax cut policy to go further), but – hey – even if I do, I hope most folk who know me don’t consider me a spiteful or petty individual.
In the meantime, let’s argue vigorously – but with good grace and civility – about the way we want our party to go.
To be blunt – having had direct experience of it – I’d rather be working shoulder to shoulder with LibDems I actually disagree with on a specific policy area than with Tories who might sign-off on a specific Liberal Vision policy pledge but look at the world in a wholly different way.
Mark,
Nobody is threatening anybody with anything; what we are discussing is the practical implications of what you are arguing for.
It is hard for you to come against factionalism though when you are a member of one. I agree wholeheartedly that the best way forward is a vigerous debate and it is indeed the truth of politics that nobody will get entirely their own way – which is probably a good thing.
Also, you argue that this program is the best way forward and this discussion originally started when I flagged up what Wit said; of course you are going to argue that your view is best as I will mine as is the right. However, all I have done is flag up one of the damaging side-effects of your programm to the intergrity of the idea of an alliance.
“I just fear you may be the sort of person who gives a million reasons for not doing X rather than the one reason to do it.”
What does that mean? I have a different opinion from you. Why does that make me “the sort of person [etc]”?
You say you are arguing for your point of view. But when I pointed out that one of your suggestions would hit the rural poor very hard, your response was (1) to say that this was “boring” and (2) to add that “hitting some people very hard without compensation doesn’t logically imply an assault on social justice”.
Actually, I think hitting the poor very hard without compensation _does_ amount to an assault on social justice. Why should the poor have to bear the brunt of tackling climate change? That goes against everything the party has stood for during all my time as a member, and what it still avowedly stands for under Nick Clegg.
Politics isn’t about naive slogans like “lower taxes, more freedom” and simplistic solutions. Any action that government takes or – for the libertarians – any inaction on the part of government is going to benefit some people and harm others. It’s going to increase some people’s freedom and decrease the freedom of others.
Surely that’s the level at which grown-up politics has to be argued. Where do you strike the balance? And if the idea is to give a tax cut bonanza to the middle classes and let the poor go hang, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of justification.
Well, Darrell…ok, maybe it wasn’t a threat…but what I’m saying is that we need to openly embrace different views within the liberal family without worrying too much about which bunch of 30,000 members are about to walk out.
I don’t accept I’m a member of a faction, really.
Ideologically, I’m on the “right” of the party re: economics and on the very radical end of the party re: “everything else” (abolish the monarchy, legalise drugs etc).
Liberal Vision is a vehicle for promoting these ideas. Ok, it’s a controversial set of ideas. Not safe or “mainstream”. But our genuine aim has been to promote these ideas in an interesting and engaging way.
Two totally packed (c. 100 at each) fringe meetings at party conference (in a slightly dingy underground bar, with no free booze or food and a promotional budget of about £200), gives me confidence that LV are at least talking about the issues that conference reps care about.
In terms of the “integrity of the idea of an alliance”, neither you nor I nor LDV should entertain the idea that this would be the forum – or the personnel – who would be at the heart of it.
Discussion – yes. Ideas – yes. Tactical considerations – double yes. And very valuable too, but let’s not believe this is the forum in which strategy will be set.
Mark,
Well i think we should if we are debating the forward march of the party should we not be concenred about diminishing its strength by engendering splits.
Liberal Vision has a coherent program, its own identity and its own independant structute; thats a faction.
What does your last sentence mean? To me an alliance includes all of the above thats what it makes an alliance.
CCF,
Hmmmm…quite a few leaps of logic and fact there.
I stand by point (1) – namely, that what you said was boring.
I also stand by point (2) “hitting some people very hard without compensation doesn’t logically imply an assault on social justice”.
You then go into some rant about poor people.
I didn’t mention poor people.
The people in (2) include bankers on £1,000,000 losing their £500,000 Xmas bonuses.
That’s a hard hit. Nothing to do with poor people though. (but is very much a hit I would inflict without compensation).
The people who should “have to bear the burden of climate change” are those who are causing it. That’s not to do with wealth or poverty – it’s about carbon emissions.
My grandmother sits at home, watching TV and collecting expensive DVDs of her favourite ballets. My equally rich/poor great uncle chooses to spend his disposable income on Co2-heavy sports cars and driving them at 60mph whenever he can. In my tax system, my great uncle is getting it in the neck and my grandmother gets a tax break.
I didn’t really understand some of your adjectives. If you want to critisise a slogan, fine, critisise it. Putting the adjective “naive” in front of the noun doesn’t make your case obviously stronger.
Similarly, the use of the term “grown up” prior to the noun “politics”…..
If you want to be “grown up” and against being “naive”, prove it. Don’t just type out the words.
Darrell……
“Liberal Vision has a coherent program, its own identity and its own independant structute; thats a faction.”
….do you really mean this?
Yes. What distinguishes a faction from the trend or a ‘think-tank’ is what I said; you have an organisational structure that runs in parrell to that of the party, this makes you a faction. You can even sign up to be a supporter of Liberal Vision which isnt quite but very close to a dual membership running alongside that of the party. Liberal Vision is not a ‘think-tank’ it’s a factional platform.
Err…so…Darrell, you presumably consider Women LibDems, Green Lib Dems, LibDem Trade Unionists, LibDem Lawyers, Liberal Youth, Liberty Network…. to also be “factions”.
I can’t work out whether what you have said is trivial or wrong. It’s certainly one or other. Maybe both
Mark:
“You then go into some rant about poor people.
I didn’t mention poor people.”
Oh, please. The people reading this weren’t born yesterday.
I wrote, at 5.47, “I’m pointing out that _your_ suggestion would hit the rural poor very hard.”
You responded, at 5.55, “As an aside, hitting some people very hard without compensation doesn’t logically imply an assault on social justice.”
If you want to debate policy, do so by all means. But this kind of games-playing is an insult to the intelligence.
Oi, don’t forget the secularists! One final thing Mark, do you believe in philosophical free will. I have always understood this to be essential to the libertarian position, though maybe this just applies to the more right-wing versions. I don’t believe in free will. I think I was always going to write this blog comment and phrase it in precisely this way!
CCF,
What’s the insult to the intelligence?
My point is thus:
Some people would be hit hard by my policies.
I don’t understand your 5.47 v 5.55 audit trail. I honestly dont’t.
Please explain?
No games-playing on my part. I reckon I speak a little better than I type, but maybe not by much.
If I’ve misunderstood or misinterpretted an argument here, please put me right. I reckon that’s the best way to learn.
Lawrence,
At the risk of losing your fishing net…yes, I do believe in free will.
That doesn’t mean that human behaviour is wholly unpredictable (e.g. Southampton FC are always crap and disappointing..even when they win).
But -in all philosophical seriousness -I do believe that people make free – or roughly free – choices and that these are defining in a way that sex, race, sexuality etc. are not.
I therefore – in broad brush terms – judge folk by their choices. And not – as far as possible – by their age, sex, race, religion etc.
That’s pretty much why I categorise myself as a liberal.
Mark
Well, what can I say?
Imagine that you put forward a policy, and that someone suggested it would hit the poor very hard, and that that wouldn’t really advance social justice, and suppose that you then responded by saying “hitting some people very hard without compensation doesn’t logically imply an assault on social justice”.
And suppose further that your critic observed “hitting the poor very hard without compensation _does_ amount to an assault on social justice”. Then if your response to that was “I never mentioned the poor”, do you really not see why your critic would suspect you of being disingenuous, to say the least?
Hope this is some help with your learning process.
If we simply apply a carbon tax to fuel, its effects on household fuel bills would be sufficient to bring down governments long before it even matches current petrol duties. That is why you need to think in terms of rationing or ‘rationing-lite’ (e.g. higher taxes above a certain monthly fuel/emissions allowance).
Long-distance road tolls is another approach against profligate car use.
CCF,
Let’s be frank.
Its 3am.
It is points scoring.
Logically – but deeply, deeply tediously – the issue of the poor only came in late.
How totally dull – especially given that everything that you and I have written is there for anyone to read. God help those who choose to…
That doesn’t make you Jeremy Paxman, by the way.
And this isn’t an episode of Ironside or Murder She Wrote either.
Let me spell it out:
(a) Some folk will gain and some will lose under my recommendations
(b) Some folk in rural areas will lose
(c) Some folk in urban areas will lose
(d) Some rich folk will lose (mainly, it will be them that lose, actually)
(e) Some poor folk will lose (yes, I confess, some poor folk will be worse off under my proposals)
(f) Some poor folk in rural areas will lose. (very few)
Mainly, however, folk will win.
Ok?
Jim,
Interesting point.
If folk believe that their gas and electric bills are factors of the democratically elected legislature, then all hell could break loose.
On money supply, we got to a position (c. 1997) in which there was widespread acceptance that it should be depoliticised.
We also seem to generally accept that serious criminal trials, their “refereeing” and the sentences issued in the event of conviction should not be strictly democratic, but carried out through a non-democratic, due process.
I hope people don’t start screaming for more “democracy” in jury trials, interest rates and fuel bills. But they might. If they do, liberals should resist.
“I therefore – in broad brush terms – judge folk by their choices. And not – as far as possible – by their age, sex, race, religion etc.”
Well that’s a bit odd – including religion in the list as if that was genetic or something. Maybe a late night slip. But apart from that, what you have said is, at one level, sound common sense. Clearly we judge folk by their choices – we might even send them to prison in extremis. But at another level, I don’t believe we have any real choices. Sure it feels like we have free will, but I think that is just an illusion. That is why ultimately I think we have to move away from judging people’s choices and focus upon criticising bad ideas in the abstract. Bad ideas would (among other things) be racism, socialism, and religion (in my book).
My motto in life is: “There but for the grace of God go I, except that there’s no God!”
Yes, secularism is a concern.
There is a great problem within many religions with homophobia, misogyny, & general hostility to human progress & rationality.
There are elements within all religions which are fighting for liberalism & secularism. You can find the details from Johann Hari’s archive.
I think a liberal government would unashamedly take the side of the secularists, rather than letting the biggest wolf in the jungle (sorry for the mixed metaphor) prevail.
There should be a network of schools run by, for example, syndicates of parents & some charities, rather than corporate sponsors as now. The state could fund this education (not “provide” it, but the financing is important as those who are not educated are unfree by any even vaguely reasonable definition).
I do not think the private & mutual schemes for health care & education should have been done away with as they were after 1945, & the liberals never said they should, as Jock Coats etc. have been at pains to point out. But Gladstone, Asquith & Beveridge were all aware that the market was fundamentally not enough to provide these goods & the state needed to play some form of role.
This is still true.
Less government than there is now, with the abolition of most tests. The reforms of higher education which were in yesterday’s Independent sound to me very progressive, & the abolition of SATs for 14 year olds likewise. There should always be some form of internal marketing system, yes.
But people want public services for themselves & their children & are prepared to pay in general taxation so long as this is reasonable. While there should be as much freedom as possible, it seems to be very fair to insist on some strings if public money is involved, & I would insist on no religious teaching taking place in any such schools.
I would do away with “faith” schools as they are fundamentally illiberal. The Catholic Church, the more aggressive strands of Islam, & the evangelicals in America (& even the likes of Stephen Green & Peter Cardy in this country) spit in the face of liberal ideals.
A free for all may well lead to them having undue influence. A strongly liberal, secular state which knows what it is about will be able to offer them resistance.
In any dispute between liberalism & political correctness I will always take the liberal side, as to do otherwise is a betrayal of vulnerable people. Liberalism goes round the world, & it seems to me that a hands off approach is not always the way to accomplish this as a great number of people are not liberal.
Mark,
Sorry, went to bed. Some yes some no. What makes a faction is a clear distinct programm; whether that aims to change party policy; whether it has an independant structure. Groups that represent a section of the party itself are not factions but Liberal Vision doesnt differ much from what Militant was to Labour in the 1980’s except of course with opposite politics.
Mark
“Logically – but deeply, deeply tediously – the issue of the poor only came in late.”
Eh? The first comment I made on this thread was about the impact on the rural poor. It’s the fourth comment after your article.
I’m actually surprised at your reaction, not because I had expected you to be particularly concerned about the poor, but because it is such an obvious problem with raising the price of petrol – both from a social and an electoral point of view – that I’d have thought you must have considered it before.
To hear you trying to write it off as “boring” and “point scoring” is depressing. To be honest, your approach comes across almost as a religious rather than a political one – ideological purity seems to be the objective, and consideration of how the policies will affect people in the real world is dismissed as a distraction.
Oh and I almost forgot you are running your own candidate for a senior position in the party…i have no problem with factions at all but to be honest I do if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and argues its a sheep.
I think Mark has it right when he talks about the need for a consistent approach. When we talk of the Social Liberal wing of the party we are not talking about a consistent set of views. In my experience all members of the Social Wing of the Lib Dems want to ban different things and hence don’t easily form a consistent position.
What we should be engaged in here is an exercise in persuasion within the party.
For example the commentator who wrote
If my enjoyment of a night out is curtailed by the stench of smoke wafting from a nearby table, shall we put an additional penny on a pack of fags to compensate for my irritation? Does annoyance cost one pence?
needs to answer WHY he believes that he has that right. He has entered someone elses bar and is likely driving down their profitability by driving away other customers. If it is that he has the necessary force available through the police and democratic stuctures then we need to articlate a view that says the Lib Dems stands for banning things our memebers don’t like and we will use the force of the state to achieve this. I would like to know where this ends. Are we going to stop people who drink quietly after the commentator wanted to go home, who utter blasphemy, who decide they want to eat a hash cake or who behave in a way that is liable to deprave and corrupt other people in the bar. I suspect that the writer does want to lock all these people because this is the law at the moment.
Liberal Vision is the only organisation I have found in the party that proposes a coherant view I think we need to have a look at how their approach can be adopted by the party without driving support away.
Ed Joyce
Darrell,
factionalism is a good thing so long as it doesn’t provoke splits, so your criticisms of Mark’s contributions to the ‘vigorous internal debate’ are spurious, especially considering how your own contributions could be considered equally outside the mainstream of party thought (and are equally welcome, I might add).
So any comparison between Liberal Vision and Labour’s Militant (which was a direct challenge to the leadership of the party) only makes you look silly, that is unless you are also comparing yourself.
It is right that the commitment of our party (as well as those of all our members) to democratic means remains under scrutiny, but your accusations do not amount to this: if you have a case to argue, then argue it.
Short answer to that Ed, it cant be.
On the issue of tax and the size of the state I’m strongly in favour of the principle of a tax-switch to increase fairness across society and that the details of how this is achievable should have the consequence of reducing the size and intrusiveness of the state. If it is done badly or attempts to increase fairness fail then we can expect the state to continue to expand in response.
I think the size of the state is a result of the failure of individuals in both private and professional capacities. The state is not the cause of our failings, nor is it the absolute insurance against them. The state is one more instrument of dealing with the world at a wider representative level – and a necessary one at that.
Looking at environmental issues or civil liberties for example the state can be part of the problem, but it can also be part of the solution.
Oranjepan,
Err it really doesnt. Im an individual. Liberal Vision is an organisation and there is a big difference between the two things are their not??
Lets just be clear on this; I write a blog with my own individual views some of which are outside the mainstream I agree. Liberal Vision has its own structure, an invitation for people to support ‘it’. I really dont see how you cannot see the difference between two things.
What strikes me is how similar the Liberal Vision approach is to Michael Howard circa 2005. Tax cuts, end the nanny state, angry about “you’ve paid the taxes so where are …”
It didn’t work for the Conservatives so why should it work for the Lib Dems? Top of people’s concerns are the economy and crime –
not the smoking ban.
Interesting polls showing that just 7% of people think the Lib Dems have the best policies on the economy, but that 51% agree with the Lib Dem tax cuts (not the green switch but the £20 billion) whereas 71% agree with the Conservative freeze council tax proposal.
How ironic that any poor person smoking 40 a day at £10 a day, (£3650 a year) is not going to get any tax cut better than stopping smoking.
Darrell,
just because you operate an organisation of one, it doesn’t mean the principle applies any differently to you.
All advocacy presents its own challenges to leadership whether it is supported by a group or an individual.
So as long as what anyone says proposes reform rather than directly challenging the leadership then it won’t cause any splits. If anyone wishes to mount a challenge we have democratic processes for that, of which debate is an ongoing one.
Oranjepan,
Errr an individual is not an ‘organisation of one’; a concept I find absurd frankly. When have I asked for ‘supporters’? Ive argued my case which is something different. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
The absolutism on this thread is annoying, and even worse it betrays a lack of thought on all sides. Many people are caricaturing their opponents’ views as being the diametrical opposite of their own, rather than as a mildly different emphasis on a different area of party thinking. Seriously guys, this is not Ayn Rand vs. Karl Marx, this is a discussion between two broadly similar schools of thought within the mainstream of modern liberalism; it’s largely a question of emphasis and urgency rather than principles.
We’re already, presumably, committed in principle if not in policy to the idea that the central (we might one day call this the “federal”) state should be substantially reduced in size. We call this “devolution” and I doubt that there are many people within the party who would disagree with it. We’re also committed to reducing corporate welfare and subsidy, and the substantial abolition of the DBERR (successor to the DTI). We’re furthermore committed to cancelling the ID card scheme and scaling back some defence projects (Trident and others). All of this should result in a smaller central state. Is this a scary libertarian plot? No? It’s just common sense liberalism, isn’t it? I see the libertarian-leaning people within the party as simply those who want to see more of this kind of thing. I think you’d have to be quite wilfully spoiling for a fight if you saw any of this as being a dangerous libertarian agenda.
What annoys me about the factionalism going on here is the fact that there must be substantial areas of agreement which we all share, and we could devote more effort and energy to promoting those. Furthermore, I think Mark’s project suffers a little from the fact that there seems to be an unspoken assumption that if we only adopted the ‘right’ (no pun intended) policies, the British people would suddenly acknowledge the fundamental rightness of our point of view and vote for us en masse. If the last few months have taught us anything, it’s that being right about the facts isn’t all that helpful. Where did being right about the credit crunch get us? We failed to connect our predictions with ordinary people. I think that Liberal Vision similarly fails to connect its proposals with the lives of ordinary people and seems to rely on a vague process whereby the people will come to support us because of a philosophical affinity with the idea of small government liberalism. I’d love to believe that this would work, but it won’t. Endlessly trying to refine our philosophy isn’t going to make a jot of difference. We’re already the ‘small state’ party of the big three (though we would simply move the state’s roles to local level rather than abolish them) and we have to do a better job of explaining to people what this means for them.
The discussion does seem to have moved on somewhat from my original point but I would like to respond to what otehrs said about that.
The merger of the two parties is part of our tradition and we should not forget that. Liberal Democrats are different from the Liberals.
Someone very well educated once said something along the lines that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. That remains as true of political parties as it does for everyone else.
This is a sterile argument along the lines of the Tory right wing, which took over that party during recent decades. Look where that got them.
I think the whole party has moved on from the SDP-Liberal merger.
Whilst there are indeed some Lib Dems who don’t class themselves as liberals (and indeed always will be), both our parliamentary party and conference consistently define ourselves as such – in such documents as “It’s all about freedom” and indeed in the new “Make it happen” document.
I am a liberal, I am also a Liberal Democrat. Like the majority of the party.
It seems to me that Mark’s broad point is that we really should be sweeping up the vast majority of broadly liberal votes in this country (which we are not doing), and one part of doing that would be in being more consistent in the representation and communication of the views that most of us hold to be true.
Seems reasonable – odd debates about carbon taxation (which incidentally is no more “right” than “left”) aside.
Goodness, what were you all on last night? 3am posting? All this “standing and fighting”? I’m all for low taxes and small state and localism, but this is bloody exhausting.
Seriously, this thread is an object lesson in why no-one should ever bother triggering a discussion about which “side” of the party people consider themselves to be on. Any such discussions need to be framed in terms of a specific policy. This sort of deeply useless my-tribe-your-tribe slanging match, which has no reality markers to keep people from floating off into hyperbole, just wastes time.
Newsflash for Mark & supporters: “fighting” for what you believe in is not going to cause the social democrats on this thread to quail before your deathless prose and say “Oh, ok, I suppose you’re right, we’ll re-self-identify”. So why bother? Like you say, party policy is moving in the classical liberal direction anyway. You want input into that, you’ve got opportunities for it – FPC, your self-made opportunity as a think tank. If people seriously don’t like the direction that you like, then they’ll leave the party. But if they stay, and decide their contribution and voice is needed, they’re deeply unlikely to be persuaded that they’re wrong even to have reservations by a bunch of messianic classical liberals (sorry guys, but that’s what you sound like at certain points in this thread). Like it or not, the party is still about a dialogue between the two parent ideologies. I for one happen to value that. I find the idea that there is some sort of ideological battle to be “won” or “lost” here intellectually crude and also self-important in the extreme.
On the communications points, Mark, you display an assumption that cutting out one parent ideology will make the remaining one easier to explain. This strikes me as the kind of neat, symmetrical argument which makes perfect abstract sense but has no empirical basis whatsoever. It *should* be true in a decent, rational world, but it’s still basically a guess. Liberalism and democratic socialism are only confusing if you already know about both of them. We all see evidence every day that people hold all kinds of mad, conflicting beliefs. They just don’t make the ideologically pure demands of political parties’ narratives that you suggest. Otherwise the ideology-free Tories would have been dead in the water decades ago, and our greatest electoral success to date wouldn’t have come off the back of a totally nonsensical platform of tuition fees and Iraq.
None of which is an argument against our discussing and refining our ideology of course. We’d just be daft to expect to be able to do only that and then sit back and watch the votes roll in. That kind of thing only happens in the ideal world of the uber-rationalist.
Anyway, if anything, current circumstances point precisely the other way: out of borderline socialism and classical liberalism, what do the public “get” more instinctively? What do they have more ready-made images and associations for? Our whole problem surely is that no-one has a ready-made definition of “liberal” in their head. If we were going to pick a parent influence on the basis of how successful it would be in terms of communication, surely we should pick democratic socialism.
Charlotte, if I may, the last time I remember you being this convinced you’d found The Solution To Everything was when you supported Clegg during the leadership election. You didn’t just hope that he might take the right policy direction, hold his parliamentary team together well, scotch all talk of leadership wobbles from the newspapers and get on well with people. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall it your particular belief was that his ability to communicate with people would basically be the silver bullet that would inevitably save the party. Pretty much in that many words.
I could have told you then that expecting the talents of one man to be The Solution was never going to work, even the talents of one man and some decent policies. Will you believe me if I suggest now that the one true way of libertarianism isn’t necessarily holding The Solution in its grubby mit either?
Just a postscript to this, while i was writing my blog i discovered that Liberal Vision does have it’s own membership structure (not that these members have any democratic rights to determine policy or the positions of Mark and Chandila)…also you dont even have to be a member of the Liberal Democrats to join Liberal Vision…so how, Oranjepan does this compare with a blogger blogging?
When is Mark going to be honest about what Liberal Vision is??
How Wikipedia describes a faction:
A political faction is a grouping of individuals, especially within a political organisation, such as a political party, a trade union, or other group with a political purpose. It may also be referred to as a power bloc, or a voting bloc. The individuals within a faction are united in a common goal or set of common goals for the organization they are a part of, not necessarily shared by all of that organization’s members. They band together as a way of achieving these goals and advancing their agenda and position within the organization.
And what Liberal Vision say about themselves:
We seek to bring together all LibDem supporters who support lower taxes, a smaller state and an extension of personal freedom. Not all of these people will agree on every policy point, but we believe we can achieve a lot by working together…
simply by bringing together LibDems who share our values of low, tax, small government and more personal freedom. But we also intend to operate within the party’s constitution to promote these ideals by proposing and supporting policies consistent with these aims and assisting candidates within the party who share them…
If it looks liek a rat, and smells like a rat…
Alix, yep, I was wrong. 🙂
Duncan: please explain the connection between ‘faction’ and ‘rat’. In what way is a faction or grouping a bad thing? Unless I am much mistaken, we’ve always had groups who seek to influence party policy by applying their particular perspective, experience or insight to a political problem. Is this only a bad thing when the people doing it don’t share your perspective? I’m sure that’s not how you mean it to appear, but that’s the impression I’m getting from you and others.
Well, the objective wasn’t to wring an admission out of you. The objective was to suggest that Mark Littlewood’s perspective isn’t any more likely to be the one true answer to all our problems than the election of a good leader was, however much you (and I) agree with the general gist of classical liberalism. It’s possible to passionately believe something must work – often because it works on oneself – and still be totally wrong about it. What about my susbtantive communications points? And what about Rob’s point – that we’re already the party of small-state liberalism, we just need to communicate that better?
I s’pose the trouble is it would be boring for all of us to go back to saying it’s a communications problem (which it is) because there’s not much we can do about that. We’re shut out of the party machine that gets it wrong.
Hey, I know, it must just be because we haven’t quite refined the perfect essence of our ideology instead…
Rob,
If you scroll up you will see me say I have no problem with factions per se; what I have a problem with is Mark Littlewoods smoke and mirrors and to be honest his crass political dishonesty.
Just as an addendum…to put another nail in Oranjepan’s argument I also see from Liberal Visions website that it ‘encourages’ non Liberal Democrat members of Liberal Vision to ‘enter’ the Lib Dems exactly in the same way Militant did its members Labour….
There’s a real danger that the membership is being overwhelmed here by the views of the leadership and conference – I know conference is elected representatives, but frankly the nature and timing of conference means (in my view) that it doesn’t accurately reflect the membership of the party. For example, I’d be really interested to know what proportion of representatives at Bournemouth were from Scottish constituencies, and how this compares with the % membership as a whole.
I don’t believe that activists who have spent a considerable time on the doorstep over the last 10 – 20 years or so would support a more libertarian policy. As a Lib Dem, I’ve always been more comfortable with the American definition of liberal as thrown at the Democrats by the Republicans. Frankly, if the party took the swing to the right as proposed by Liberal Vision, I don’t know where I’d go – not to the Greens (too loony,) not to Labour (ditto,) not to the SNP (don’t support independence) and certainly not the Tories. I suspect that, like many, I’d probably just drift away from political activism.
We’ve got where we are with the values we have. We can either stick to them, with minor tweaks to suit circumstance, or we can do a “New Labour” and ditch them altogether in the race to get elected. I know which I prefer.
Also, for what it’s worth, I have not been calling for our party to go in a libertarian or classically liberal direction. It might be what I would like to see, and I do tend to believe that it would have benefits for our party, and I’ll support those who are working towards it.. but I’m a realist. Liberalism without the Special Edition “Social Democracy” bonus pack is not available on the market.
Or maybe I have. But not.. consciously. Not a deliberate campaign.
Darrell, what you said was “It is hard for you to come against factionalism though when you are a member of one.” I’m afraid that’s fairly meaningless. It’s perfectly acceptable for someone to A) form a group to promote a point of view and B) argue that such groups can co-exist and cooperate without threats and insults (Mark: “we must get away from divisive discussions about which group or faction we wish to expel from the party”). You’re arguing against this for reasons which I can’t easily understand.
The problem is that once you start making arguments which are that illogical just to score a point in an internet argument, you undermine your own case. Whatever legitimate disagreement you have with Mark on policy is undermined by the cheap jibes about “crass political dishonesty” which appears to be based on the aforementioned view that one cannot be part of a faction and against factionalism. To clarify, what you actually appear to be saying is that you’ve got no real argument against LV, but you’re going to continue attacking Mark over what looks like a very unreasonable interpretation of what he’s said.
We should be able to do better than this, surely?
Rob,
You cannot plausibly claim that Liberal Vision isnt a faction which pretends it is a ‘think-tank’ and this is the basis of my claim. It is also dishonest of a member of what is clearly a faction to come out against factionalism. The reason he wants to ‘get away from those kind of discussions’ is because he is in a faction that doesnt want to admit what it is and obviously those kind of things make him uncomfortable.
I am happy to confirm I am only a member of one organisation; the Liberal Democrats where as Mark is a member of two as even his strapline says to this article. I am happy to disagree with Mark on policy too (although Liberal Vision doesnt have any ‘yet’).
*clears throat*
I agree with Rob that factionalism can be a good thing when it concentrates on specific policies (in the direction Alix nudges us).
The best way to describe for Darrell the difference between the faction of the libertarians (nominally on the right, as represented by the think tankers in the form of Liberal Vision) and the faction of the democratic socialists (nominally on the left, as represented by the blogger blogging in the name of himself) is that he gets to publish his ideas more often while they get wider publicty for their ideas when they publish theirs, and that they are able to support a candidate in any internal election while he has the potential to be a candidate to be supported.
It is two sides of the same coin.
By circulating this coin better and faster we will increase its currency.
I would be most pleased if each side was able to learn from the other ie that groups Liberal Vision were more regular and more specific on the policies it felt desirable to push rather than the wishy-washy generalised slogans of present and that individuals like Darrell were able to go into greater depth with greater expertise that the same-old same-old generalised commentary of present.
Neither of these factional sides are comparable with those of other parties because no other party describes themself as Liberal Democrats. Our paradox is that we aren’t like other parties – we are coherent and we are consistent (even if it doesn’t sound like it)! The threat to us isn’t entryism, but entryism causing splits – we welcome converts to our cause (even if many people on our side have yet to be fully converted)!
*gets out bongos*
So can I sing the praises of this open dischord?
This is what decentralisation sounds like.
Democratic debate lacks harmony.
We need some more instrumentalists.
And we need to keep making sure our conductors are hitting the right notes.
(if this riff sounds hackneyed, I apologise)
Personally I do not have a problem with factionalism. It has always existed in all political parties and is a fact of life. At their best they can generate a creative tension. At their worst they can tear a party apart.
If anyone wants to join the Geoff Payne faction then get in touch (but don’t all rush at once!).
I do feel perplexed at the arguments by Charlotte that seem to conflate Liberalism with Libertarianism, but hey we are lumbered with Social Democracy and thats too bad.
What nonsense.
When I joined the Liberal party in 1983, no one had even heard of libertarianism. We were against fox hunting by a margin of about 4 – 1, with the social democrats in a different party. That shows how libertarian we were back then. Ie we weren’t.
Our problem with the SDP was that they were too right wing rather than left.
Unfortunately significant aspects of social liberalism has jettisoned and many good Liberals have gone and joined the Greens or the Scottish/Welsh nationalists. Many of our supporters are just as likely to make that similar shift, particularly if libertarians get their way. The Scottish elections show it has already happened.
I will admit I would happily work with Libertarians within the party to try and change party policy to reject British possession of nuclear weapons, and also to end our futile attempts at supporting nation building in Iraq & Afghanistan (would be nice if it can be done, but it can’t so we should stop trying).
However if libertarians get their way in “liberalising” the guns laws, I have no doubt the Liberal Democrats will quickly sink without a trace, and my years of activism would have been better spent looking after my garden.
The very idea that a society in which criminals can get guns more easily than at present is the opposite of a Liberal society.
Darrell: would you apply your criticisms also to, say, The Beveridge Group? How about ALTER?
Also, it is not dishonest to be a member of a ‘faction’ and at the same time say that we need to avoid factionalism. There’s nothing wrong with a group of people getting together and saying “we believe that we have some good ideas and we’d like you to listen to us”. There would be something wrong if they were saying “you must agree with us” or “you can’t be a member of the party if you don’t agree with us”, but nobody is saying that. All of this applies equally to other groups within the party which hold views that are not universally shared. Nobody has a monopoly on the policy-making process and nobody can define what the rest of the party ‘should’ think. Mark’s group has a right to a place and a voice just as other groups do.
The whole thing about being a member of only one organisation is nonsensical too. Would you disapprove of people who belonged to a trade union or a chamber of commerce or an environmental NGO which made political statements that the party doesn’t fully agree with? What about the various pressure groups within the party that push for the adoption of policies on the environment, tax policy, equality, electoral reform and countless other things? These are all factions, they all have their views, and they all deserve to exist, though you can happily ignore them if you choose.
I can’t really understand this debate about factionalism. The only thing wrong with belonging to a “faction” would be if its aims are obscure or its methods underhand. So far as I can tell, Liberal Vision is all above board on both counts.
“looking after my garden.”
A landowner! Champagne socialist, I say!*
But returning to something appraoching seriousness, a couple of points. Firstly, Geoffrey Payne Vision, I’m glad you stressed common ground, especially on issues on which I wholeheartedly agree (nuclear proliferation / war). There are of course more, and it should be noted that at the second Liberal Vision event I believe Mark Littlewood himself commended LD MPs on their records on matters of constitutional liberalism, for want of a better term (ie. ID cards, 42 days and so on).
Secondly, at the same event Malcolm Bruce MP (who is no libertarian) explained his regret for voting in support of the post-Dunblane gun legislation. This, he said, was because the legislation has not worked. Today, of course, it is extremely easy for criminals to get hold of guns, and so the assumption of causation between lack of legislation and ease of access is a false one.
People who want to liberalise gun laws do not want to live in a society in which everyone strolls around casually shooting bullets into one another’s faces, but rather they feel this would be less likely to happen than with failed legislation.
For what it’s worth, though, there is disagreement among libertarians on this point. I, for one, think it should be illegal to carry such weapons in public, and I certainly don’t side with the “you can shoot anyone who happens to be on your land” brigade.
Anyway, let us not delve off too much on yet another unhelpful tangent; and so returning to the point, I feel that anyone who has assumed that Liberal Vision wants a “fight”, and seeks to “drive away” LD members, has been mistaken.
On the contrary, being a group within the LDs, it cannot appeal to all LDs, otherwise there would be no point in it existing. So, just like ALTER, LDs for Palestine, and any other group, it is quite open about its own views, and is presenting them for debate (if necessary, including via the internet until early hours of the morning).
We may agree, disagree, or most likely be somewhere in the middle; and so our internal liberal democracy flourishes.
The End.
* for the benefit of Sesenco: this is a joke. A shit one, perhaps, but a joke nonetheless.
You know, and looking especially at myself, we all need to learn to write succinctly.
It’s almost a shame that all of our factions don’t get the space they deserve to advertise all their ideas – maybe more of us would be interested in joining them if we did.
I wonder if Mark Pack or anyone else would care for instance to tell us the number of daily hits any of the factions/groups’ websites recieve and if there are any ways in which we can drive traffic to them through LDV or by including them as a separate category on the aggregator…
‘Increase our connections, improve our communications’ – that’s my idea for the day (or something like it)!
What about the ones who don’t belong to a faction, eh?
We all believe in something, Asquith, even if we aren’t members, eh?