The sorry end of liberalism in the liberal democrats

****

The papers have been filled with Clegg inspired testosterone as the might Deputy prime Minister regales his followers with all the things he has stopped from happening - you know the things like developing choice and competition in care, health and education.

And this is pretty sad because I thought Nick was a liberal. You know what I mean? The sort of politician who believes in the power of independence, in giving people choice and that responsibility comes from freedom not from government dictat.

It would appear not. It would appear that the last vestiges of liberalism have faded - Clegg now leads a social democratic party virtually indistinguishable from the social democratic party led by Ed Miliband.

I'd hoped that having liberals in the coalition would push my party away from the state-directed controls to which we were wedded - be it on the environment, on crime or in public health.

Sadly it appears not. Indeed I hear more genuinely liberal voices from the right of my party and (inconsistently it must be said) from UKIP.

The Liberal Democrats are no longer a 'liberal' party, Shame really as Britain needs one.

...

Permanent 'coalition' - a really bad idea

****

I don't know how much is mischief making and how much is real but the Conservative leadership needs to be very careful about suggestions of a more permanent arrangement with the Liberal Democrats at any election, let alone the next General Election. It is bad enough that this leadership appears to be allowing the media to believe that Conservatives are standing aside to give Liberal Democrats a fair wind in the forthcoming Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.

So when Conservative MPs start speaking of some continuation - even a merger - I feel they are stepping beyond their remit. The comments of Francis Maude and Nick Boles do not sit easily with those of us who have spent years facing the nasty, spiteful, social democracy that typifies the Liberal Democrats in my neck of the wood. Mark Pritchard is right to call out those trying to destroy the party through an unwanted and unnecessary merger.

I am not a 'thatcherite' - whatever that means - but I do not believe the Party is served well by those who allow the expedience of successful government to get in the way of campaigning for the things we really believe in. If 'Orange Book' Liberal Democrats wish to join forces with us, that's great all they need to to is go here, complete the necessary forms and fight with us!

....

Looking both ways...thoughts on the Coalition

When the coalition deal was first struck, those of us with something of a liberal inclination smiles a bit. Indeed, even some of the more rabid libertarians pointed to the proposals with acclaim. Some folk suggested that the coalition - oh, how the media savoured that word - meant that the nasty Tories would be reined in by sunny, smiling, progressive liberal democrats.

And some good has come to pass - the Government has got to grips (more or less) with the fiscal train wreck left behind by Gordon Brown. We have begun to see a welcome loosening of that great bastion of social control, the planning system. The great lumpen barriers to individual progress - out benefits system, our school system and our housing system are being challenged. And the horses are getting frightened - even the 'catch 'em and string 'em high' brigade have been pushed back as Ken Clarke begins to inject some sanity into our criminal justice system.

Those who know me will appreciate that I would go a great further and rather more quickly but for once I happy to cheer on the government - indeed a government that puts an end to the arbitrary tyranny of speed cameras is one to be celebrated.

But there's another since - the side of "nudge". Or rather "ramming you fist into my midriff". This is the world of the fussbuckets - legislation will arrive over the hill to control the "sexualisation of children". We can expect more weaponry to be handed over to social workers who, caring though many of them are, remain almost wholly uncontrolled and unaccountable.

There is no sign of the puritans losing their grip on public health - we're going to get yet more passive-aggressive attempts to stop us smoking, drinking, eating burgers and other lifestyle choices. The denormalisation of our choices is one of the great offences of government and anyone laying claim to the title of liberal should oppose the smoking bans, controls over alcohol and the failed war on drugs.

And we are witnessing the 'good cop, bad cop' approach to the Internet. On the one hand, the Government recognises that the web ain't free and resists trying to regulate how ISPs and search companies operate. This is great. But at the same time, we are told that access to pornography must be controlled - "for the children". And will this be followed shortly by bans on violence in computer games, by the tightening up of licensing regulations and by a "you can only look at what we approve" attitude to the Internet?

I have no doubt at all that the coalition - how that term still sticks in my craw - is vastly better that the Labour alternative. But, we still have too much "Government by Daily Mail Headline" and not enough extending the bounds of freedom.

....

"I am a socialist..."

Yet again we’re discussing what on earth the term “socialist” means. And I guess if Ed Miliband wants to be prime minister we need to understand what exactly he means when he says – following an admission to being a socialist - that:

I’m not embarrassed about it. I’ll tell you why I’m not embarrassed about it. Am I a socialist? Look, my dad was a... he would have considered himself a socialist too, but he would have said we need to have public ownership of everything. I don’t... or many of the most important things of society. I don’t subscribe to that view. What I do say is that there are big unfairnesses in our society, and part of the job of government is to bring about social justice and to tackle those unfairnesses. And that’s why I’m a politician, that’s why I’m in politics.

Because quite frankly I haven’t the faintest inking of what on earth Ed Miliband is prattling on about. Indeed, there are times when the word ‘socialist’ is simply meant to suggest being ‘caring’, ‘having a conscience’ and, of course, not being an Evil Tory Bastard. I guess socialists are like this (courtesy of James Delingpole):

“…devil-may-care; good in bed; raffishly tousled; cool; sexy. They: sympathise with the underdog; hate injustice; respect the working classes and people of all races and creeds; regardless of looks, physical ability or gender; nurture the environment; have great taste in music; oppose violence; loathe inequality; and kind to children and to small furry animals with lovely bright eyes and floppy ears and expressions on their sweet pink little mouths you could almost mistake for a human smile.”

But somehow this remains deeply unsatisfying and takes us no closer to what exactly Ed Miliband is prattling on about. He says he doesn’t agree with his Dad – the refugee from totalitarian socialism who supported its imposition on the nation that saved him – so what does he agree with? What is this ‘socialism’ stuff he professes to?

Now there are some out there who really do believe in socialism – in the imposition of that totalitarian state Ed’s Dad wanted. A kind of Cuba with fish and chips. Or maybe an East Germany with irony? I don’t get the attraction of all this but at least these people – let’s call them socialists – have a vision of society. A nasty, unpleasant, dictating, controlling and authoritarian vision but nonetheless a vision.

Ed Miliband seems mostly to believe in a mushy, cuddly, ‘aren’t we nice’ kind of socialism. One that uses regulation rather than ownership. Controls, limits and guidance rather than outright bans. And a kind of passive-aggressive, ‘you’re not really welcome here entrepreneurs (unless of course you bung loads of money to the Party in which case will sort it for you)’ approach to the creativity of the private sector. Ed Miliband’s socialism is the selfish, ‘right-on’ of the wealthy left-wing elite – filled with sanctimony and fuelled by a long attachment to the teat of public funding. This is the socialism of Polly Toynbee, Michael Foot, assorted Benns and a host of wealthy, posh publicly-funded panjandrums within “The Arts” and media.

However, Ed Miliband may be different. He may actually believe that those “unfairnesses” can be addressed, that the lives of the poor, the sick and the unlucky can be made better through the choices that Government makes. In which case he’ll support:

1. An education system that gives a more equal chance to children of similar intelligence?
2. A welfare system that encourages and rewards work, discourages idleness and comforts misfortune?
3. Health care that is built around people’s needs, is flexible and treats us like humans rather than numbers
4. A tax system that doesn’t take money from the poor to give to the relatively well-off
5. A system of public finances that gives priority to the needs of all and the concerns of the poor, sick and unlucky rather than the pastimes of the well off
6. A housing system which doesn’t feature people on £50,000 plus living in subsidised housing while others sleep in boxes under bridges
7. Scrapping an international trading system where our goods are freely traded while poor countries goods are barred by tariffs and import controls
8. International relations founded on conversation rather than the aggressive, post-colonial exporting of “democracy” to places without any effective, functioning government of any sort

If this is what Ed Miliband wants – and therefore ‘socialism’ – then I’m a socialist. And funnily enough so is the current government because that list is a list of coalition aims. Some of the things our Government wants to achieve.

Sadly, I fear Ed Miliband just wants high taxes, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more control, more guidance and greater centralisation. If that’s socialism it’s what we don’t want since it means more poverty, more illness, fewer jobs and business and a dull, stagnant, uninspiring land.

.....

Dave "..didn't mention climate change." So what!

****

According to the Friends of the Earth (and with friends like that who needs enemies) David Cameron’s speech today was a poor do. He failed to mention ‘climate change’:

"With not a mention of climate change, this was not the speech we would have expected from the Prime Minister of the self-declared 'greenest Government ever'."

So what?

Cameron didn’t mention a load of really important things – he didn’t mention housing, he didn’t mention transport, he didn’t mention devolution, he didn’t mention the deportation of Gamu and he didn’t mention the sale of Liverpool football club to an American baseball magnate. As far as I know he didn’t talk about the common agricultural policy, about free trade or about proposals for a landfill site in Denholme. All things that matter just as much to some as 'climate change'.

I could go on filling page after page with things that David Cameron didn’t mention in his speech today. And you know, it doesn’t matter – what matters is what is actually done by the Government not what its leader says on a stage in Birmingham. That’s just rah-rah – cheery stuff (and a bit of a thank you) for the folks who stomped the streets, knocked on the doors and pulled out the votes that gave Dave the job.

If the planet’s pals want to know what the Government is doing – read the Coalition Agreement and look to see whether it’s being implemented. We don’t need off the cuff, on the hoof policy announcements just to get a headline - Blair and Brown did that and look at the mess it got us into.

And we certainly don’t need – at a time when most ordinary people are bothered about their jobs, their mortgages, their kids education and conditions at the local hospital – a load of self appointed guardians of the Earth’s interests (as if they’ve clue) to talk about ‘climate change’.

I am really delighted Dave didn’t mention climate change. It shows he’s getting his priorities right.



....

Consensus, collaboration, cooperation - whatever! Is it all such a good thing?

We‘re all (or most of us are) in a rather consensual, cuddly and collaborative mood. And what a shift from the confrontation of the election – the accusations, challenges and cutting damnation of carefully constructed straw men are all set aside as we march together into the glorious, bright co-operative future!

Now don’t take this the wrong way folks as I’m all for working together to deliver betterment, but I’m a little concerned by all this consensus malarkey. Mostly because it isn’t really consensus or co-operation – it’s compromise. It’s like some kind of policy top trumps – I’ll let you have regulation of drinks pricing if you let me have a supermarket ombudsman (and yes, I’ve deliberately chosen unpleasant controlling, interventionist policy choices where the nannies have won over those who believe in freedom).

So we get compromise – no problem where the difference between the parties is small you say? Well look at the public health and anti-social behaviour agenda – schools won’t be allowed to fingerprint children but there’s nothing about stopping them bullying governors into agreeing to weigh kids. And we see again the straw man of “24 hour licensing” blamed for drink related anti-social behaviour.

Compromise risks indecisiveness and dither. Compromise leads to policy dumbing down – to the lowest common denominator rather than the right choice. And compromise undermines challenge and question – it reinforces received wisdom and further elevates the sacred cow. Above all, consensus and compromise hands to organised groups set up for the purpose of special pleading – mostly calling for more restrictions, more constraints and less freedom – the ability to play divide and rule.

I may support the “coalition” – and much in the programme is admirable – but I am not so starry-eyed as to believe that it represents some magical new dawn in our politics. Indeed, the themes of recent years persist – there’s still a shoot the messenger attitude to advertising, there’s still a planned assault on personal freedom in the guise of public health programmes and there remains a view that saving and investing is somehow a reprehensible activity.

So let’s have a realistic response – less of this bubbly, frothy, ooh-ing and ah-ing over the new government and a little more perspective. Consensus and collaboration are here because they are unavoidable not because Nick or Dave – let alone their respective armies – wanted to adopt that approach.

Here’s to the revolution!

....

How I'm strangely cheered by coalition....maybe

****

So we have a coalition – a “working-together”. I find this strangely cheering but am not sure why. After all I wanted and campaigned hard for an outright Conservative victory and would do so tomorrow. And – despite having many enthusiastically Labour supporting friends – I cannot understand at all why anybody who retains their marbles and a modicum of common sense can vote Labour.

But I am cheered. Firstly I think it’s because it’s gone surprisingly smoothly since the inconclusive election result. Credit for this must go to David Cameron who set out a willingness to negotiate a coalition right from the start. And to my party for avoiding (so far at least) a monumental fit of the grumps over having to co-operate with another party.

Secondly I am cheered because there are some areas (other than their truly bonkers economic policy) where the Liberal Democrats are more consistent than my party. I’m hopeful now that we will get a bonfire of Labour’s authoritarianism. This will cover ID cards, DNA databases for sure. I hope it will include the unnecessary Digital Economy Bill (although I support property rights including copyright – and will campaign against any attempt to water down the protection of those rights), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and a string of provisions under various Terrorism Acts.

Lastly, however, I am absolutely delighted that Labour is no longer in power. Not just Gordon Brown but the entirety of that controlling, bigoted, judgmental, interfering, dissembling and institutionally unpleasant excuse for a political party. Yet again Labour has done untold damage to my country. Not just bringing the world’s fourth largest economy to its knees but compromising our international reputation, creating the infrastructure need to institute a police state and destroying, on the spurious grounds of health or safety, a central part of English culture – the pub.

I’m looking forward to the coming months. I know there will be some disappointments. I doubt whether the health gauleiters will allow relaxation of the smoking ban or the unjustified assault on the drinking habits of harmless folk. But I am confident that some of the decisions and changes will begin to unpick worst of Labour’s poisonous legacy.

....