We Should Protest In Defence Of Lib Dem Values

Today Britain has seen the latest in a long line of protests along with strikes from several major national trade unions. These protests and strikes have been in response to pension reform plans put forward by the government as well as on the issues of cuts, tuition fees and the NHS reforms. Estimates regarding those who have gone on strike range from 50% to 85% and potentially three quarters of a million workers had the option to go on strike today. Now we can discuss whether or not the strikes and protests were legitimate today, but as Liberal Democrats the question remains whether or not we should be protesting against proposals put forward by the Coalition government of which we are apart.

Surely if we were not a part of the Coalition government and the Conservatives or Labour were running the country by themselves we would find it a lot easier to determine whether or not to protest, however actually being in government leads us naturally to think twice before deciding whether we should take any action. Just to clarify by action I mean democratic protests and peaceful protests not in undertaking any violence, vandalism or occupation. Surely we should be willing when necessary to stand up for the values that we have always held as a party. Although we are in Coalition and that naturally means making compromises, surely we should still hold the values for which we have cherished for many decades. Many Liberal Democrats have deep concerns about some of the cuts and reforms that the Coalition is enacting. Whether this is the speed and pace of the cuts in general, the fear of enhanced private-sector influence in the National Health Service, the tripling of tuition fees and yes even concerns over how public sector workers are being treated. It was over mainly the latter over which the protests and strikes were happening today. I for one believe it is a worker’s democratic right to withdraw their labour and go on strike democratically and responsibly. I'm from a working-class background myself and would never scoff at those who choose to protest and strike like some in the right-wing media would because contrary to right-wing belief it is not a decision that is easily taken by many working people; to go on strike and lose a day's pay as a result.

Today, in Lancaster I attended a rally in the centre of the city hosted by trade unionists and workers. I wasn't the only Liberal Democrat member in the audience either. There were also many members of the Labour Party and the Green party attending the rally. Personally, my main reasons for going to the rally was over concerns regarding the NHS reforms and the raising of tuition fees however I also harboured some genuine sympathy for the public sector workers who were demonstrating. There were many moderates like myself in the audience; however there were also many representatives of the far left there as well. The far left speakers ranged from anarchists, moderate socialists and fully signed up Marxists with their usual rhetoric of class struggle, class war, solidarity and revolution. I strongly disagreed with the extreme rhetoric used by the far left considering that I am a supporter of capitalism and consider the us and them approach that they used to be dangerous and divisive. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that we should be actively disagreeing with policies that are against our social liberal values while offering a moderate buffer to the extremist veil of the far left. In addition, we must be willing to stand up for the poor and working people that we have supported for decades while ensuring that they aren't swept up by the stance of either Labour or the Greens.

We must not be afraid to peacefully and democratically protest against any policies that go against our values. Didn't many Labour supporters go on protest against the war in Iraq? And of course there is more than just one way to protest. Yes there are marches and rallies but there are also letters, petitions and discussions. In the heat of strikes we must never forget the latter forms of protest. An excellent example of which was the Social Liberal Forum petition calling for modifications to the NHS reforms. I hope this blog entry hasn't been too controversial but I feel that as Liberal Democrats we have spent a lifetime protesting against the policies of different governments, we should occasionally think about moderate protest again. After all 80% of the government is of the Conservative Party.

In Defence of Our Civil Liberties

I began supporting and subsequently joined the Liberal Democrats due to the issue of civil liberties. To me it is one of the most important issues in British politics and politics all around the world. The freedom of the individual is quite literally the ‘bread and butter’ for all liberals and Liberal Democrats. It is on that basis that the issue of civil liberties will always be such an important one to anyone who identifies themselves as being a liberal. Liberals have always and will always oppose government authoritarianism that seeks to erode civil liberties. A key example of this liberal tenacity was shown by the Liberal Party member, Clarence Henry Willcock, who in 1950 refused to show his identity card to a police officer. Willcock stated that "I am a Liberal. I am against that sort of thing." (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=111&item=history).

Civil liberties are thus at the core of what it is to be liberal. The previous Labour government, tried to enact several proposals that would seriously undermine civil liberties in the name of tackling terrorism and achieving greater security. Labour attempted to revive the ID card scheme that had been so clearly rebuked by liberals such as Willcock. Detention without charge limits were almost increased to 90 days. These detention limits would have been the highest in the Western world and would put Britain in the same league as dictatorships such as those in China and Zimbabwe. The DNA database was created and expanded to such a degree that millions of innocent people were placed on it without being charged of an offence. Children were placed in detention while waiting for extradition from immigration centres. Labour introduced control orders with the ability to have a house detention system for potential terrorist suspects. Finally the Labour administration oversaw the extraordinary rendition of many British terror suspects, who were taken to foreign military bases and quite likely subjected to torture, like the water boarding practised at Guantanamo Bay. It is essential that liberals oppose these extraordinary extensions of state authority and state power that although used in the name of counterterrorism and security often can apply (potentially in all these examples of how Labour eroded civil liberties) to completely innocent law-abiding citizens. The state has no right to impinge upon the individual freedom of innocent citizens. Furthermore by taking such illiberal erosions of civil liberties the government is likely to create a climate of fear and mistrust which further undermines society and the ability of the individual to act freely.

Since coming to power of the Coalition government has overseen the scrapping of identity cards, the reduction of detention without charge to 14 days, restrictions to the DNA database, the ending of child detention and a watering down of control orders to remove components of the control orders that would simulate house arrest. Furthermore we should be hopeful that the Coalition will not repeat the practice of extraordinary rendition that was used during the Labour Party's time in office. Although the Coalition has repealed much of what the Labour Party did to erode civil liberties, there is much more that still needs to be done. The Coalition is still pressing ahead with some policy initiatives that may erode civil liberties. Firstly, 14 days detention without charge may still be increased to 28 days detention without charge in the event of an emergency. It should be the case that 14 days detention without charge remains exactly that and I for one would like to see the government considering whether or not to lower the detention without charge limits even further, to perhaps even as low as seven days. Secondly, although control orders have been rebranded as TPIMs, the Home Secretary still has considerable power to limit the freedom of individuals based on secret evidence. Thirdly, the reformed DNA database still holds information potentially of millions of people and as recently highlighted the DNA of innocence rape suspects who have not been charged will be kept. Liberal Democrats within the Coalition should be careful before supporting any measures that may further erode civil liberties and in the spirit of liberalism shown throughout the decades, seek to limit the authority of the state where it may erode individual freedom.

The Forgotten Deficit of Social Justice

Every evening on the news, we are reminded of the fact that Britain has a massive economic deficit. This is reinforced by the notion of hard times and austerity that the country is currently going through, along with further threats of future cuts and public service strikes. Although it is widely accepted that this deficit is in need of being tackled (all three main parties were committed to the tackling deficit in their 2010 manifestos) we mustn't lose sight of another deficit that has been looming over the United Kingdom for more than the past 30 years. This is a deficit of social justice. We in the current climate of austerity may find it easy to believe that now is not the best time to be promoting social justice or seeking to combat the economic inequalities between the poorest and the richest. In many respects given our current economic climate, it may be believed that social justice has become the forgotten deficit.

Between 1979 and 2009 the gap between the richest and poorest grew. (graph six, http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml?2). In 2009, the income inequality gap was higher than at any time in the previous 30 years. Also in a decade from 1999 to 2009 the average income for the poorest 10% of the population decreased by 12% whereas the average income for the richest 10% increased by 37% (graph one, http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml?2). These statistics show quite clearly that in previous years the gap between the richest and poorest has continued to grow. Since 2009, Britain has embarked upon a period of austerity designed to tackle the deficit in Britain’s economics. Although it is necessary to ‘balance the books’; they should not be balanced on the poorest people in our society.

It is evident that one factor in the current economic hardship was the excesses and risk-taking practised by many banks and bankers, which almost led to the collapse of the financial industry and which led to costly bailouts and fiscal stimulus. Given that the overwhelming majority of the economic crisis was not caused by the poor why should they have to pick up the pieces? It is vital in tackling the current economic circumstances that we don't further impoverished those who have been neglected from government to government over many decades. The poor may not have the loudest voice and they are often vilified in the right-wing press as being feckless, dole spongers or chavs but we mustn't forget our social obligations to them. No one in a rich western country like Britain should have to choose between feeding themselves and their families or choosing to put the heating on.

But what can be done to tackle inequalities in wealth given the current economic circumstances? The Coalition Government has shown flashes of social justice in their key policies such as to take almost 1,000,000 of the poorest people out of income tax and to attribute a pupil premium to the poorest children to ensure that they get the best start to their education. But this does not go far enough to tackle the long-term deficit of social justice. Any revenue reaped from taxing the bonuses of the bankers should be redistributed to the poorest who have suffered due to the bankers’ malpractice. The government should also regulate energy companies who try to hike their prices up unnecessarily, which can impact hard on poor families. Land value taxation may also be introduced to tax those wealthy individuals who own land and shift the burden of taxation of the poorest, as well as giving the government more resources to tackle the social and economic injustices faced by the poor. If progressive taxation and regulation was used in such a way to protect the poor and to redistribute the wealth from the richest it may go some way to help tackle the vast gulf in economic inequalities. Of course taxation and regulation are only parts of a potential solution; other things for consideration would be the socio-economic conditions that keep a poor person within the poverty trap. However, first we need to acknowledge at the highest level that tackling the gap between the rich and the poor is a major priority. The poorest should not have their opportunities curved by a lack of economic resources, and no rational government should bring about circumstances that would make the plight of the poor worse. In a time of austerity cuts we should not hurt the poorest more than the richest. While tackling the deficit in our economy we must not yet again forget about the deficit of social justice in our society. Social justice is an issue that needs confronting and we cannot allow it to be neglected any longer; the opportunities of future generations should not be determined by the circumstances of their birth and their lack of resources but by the range and scope of their talents.

The Coalitions Governing Lancaster

It's been a while since I did my last blog, due to me finishing my second-year exams at Lancaster University. Before I move on to discuss what’s been happening in Lancaster locally, I would like to thank Ryan Cullen for highlighting this blog in his list of new Liberal Democrat bloggers on Liberal Democrat Voice. Thanks Ryan. (http://www.libdemvoice.org/welcome-to-the-new-bloggers-31-24465.html).

          Over the past weeks the new executive of Lancaster City Council has been sworn into office. Lancaster has a long history of strange and relatively rare executives being formed between numerous political parties compared to many other local councils. This is because there are five main political parties that stand locally in the Lancaster area. Obviously there are the three main parties, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Conservative party. There is also a very strong Green party in Lancaster, which is arguably the strongest Green presence in the North of England. Furthermore there is a local based Morecambe party called the Morecambe Bay Independents (MBIs). And it is also worth noting that Lancaster City Council has a large number of independents and a group of Free Independents who are independent of the independents and who are also independent of the Morecambe Bay Independents. So there are a lot of independents in Lancaster; if you're still following me. So due to there being so many different political groups on the council, there exists the possibility for many different political outcomes.

          The 2007 local council election had resulted in Labour having 15 seats, the Conservatives and the Greens both having 12 states, the MBIs having 11 states and the Liberal Democrats and the Independents both having 5 seats. Hence the 2007 election created a massive hung council with it being impossible for even two parties to form the council executive. Initially, a three-way coalition between Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats was formed. This was followed by a new executive led by Liberal Democrat councillor, Stuart Langhorn, which was formed by the use of a proportional representation cabinet. This meant that the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Conservatives, the Greens, the MBIs and the Independents were offered seats on the council cabinet. This all party executive (which was subsequently boycotted by the Conservatives) reflected the fact that no party had the ability to govern by itself.

          This changed however following the 2011 local council elections, which ended in Labour having 24 seats, the Conservatives having 16 seats, both the Greens and the MBIs each received 8 States and the Independents received 4 seats. Unfortunately we lost all five of our seats meaning an end for now anyway to any Liberal Democrat representation on our local council. This was surely not a reflection on the efforts of local Liberal Democrats and what we have achieved locally but more a reflection on national issues regarding the Coalition in Westminster. Following the results of the local election a new administration in the council was formed in a coalition between the Labour Party and the Green Party. There are currently six Labour seats on the cabinet compared to only two seats for the Green Party. It'll be interesting from a political perspective to see how a Red-Green alliance delivers for the people of Lancaster and Morecambe. Stereotypically, this new executive may become an alliance between authoritarians and hippies, although it's sometimes difficult to say which party those labels best apply to. Going from the fact that I know a few Labour councillors personally and a few former Greens candidates personally, the calibre of those on the council is potentially a very high one. It'll be interesting to see over the weeks and months to come how a national Coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will impact on a local Coalition between Labour and the Greens. One thing is for sure; that considering the transition from a PR cabinet to contrasting coalitions between national government and local government, local politics in Lancaster is surely to remain one of the most interesting in the country.