What is Liberalism For?

What is liberalism for? This was a question that the Liberal Party began to ask itself at the end of the 19th century. Following the defeat of the Liberal Party in the 1895 general election, it became clear that the Liberals had to examine their guiding philosophy. Liberalism, the radical ideology that had sought at the start of the 19th century to provide everyone with liberty and rights had ended the 19th century looking out of touch and unable to address the problems which people faced. The one time philosophy of radical reform looked uneasy and unable to acknowledge the vast inequalities that had emerged within industrial society. The defeat of 1895 helped the Liberals move away from the stale status quo of Gladstonian classical liberalism and towards the philosophy of new liberalism, what today would be called social liberalism (“The New Liberalism” The Liberal Democrat History Group http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=85&item=history). The transition to social liberalism enabled the Liberal Party in the early 1900s to become the champions of social reform; by laying the foundations of the welfare state, securing workers rights, and by redistributing wealth through taxation.

Today in 2014, it has become necessary for British Liberals to ask themselves once again, what is liberalism for? For almost 100 years social liberalism had been the dominant political discourse within the Liberal Democrats. In 2004 however a new brand of liberalism emerged in the Orange Book. Orange Book liberalism embodied a fusion between the social liberalism of the left and the old Gladstonian classical liberalism of the right. The answer according to the Liberal Democrat Orange Bookers was to promote a brand of liberalism that was directly in the centre of the political spectrum. The Orange Book narrative was that of a pragmatic party of the radical centre, hence the Liberal Democrats would be a party of power with the opportunity to form coalitions with either the Conservatives or Labour. A situation not too dissimilar to the German Free Democrats (FDP), who had up until recently assumed the de-facto status of being an almost permanent party of coalition government. While social liberalism seeks to foster social justice in order to enable the individual freedom of the disadvantaged, Orange Book liberalism seems to defend the status quo at best and at worst promote policies that undermine fairness and social justice.

The liberalism that is currently on offer to the British electorate is bland and seems to lack any radical and progressive perspectives for social change. Phrases such as social justice, tackling inequality, community politics, public services and redistribution have almost become dirty words or perhaps even more concerning, they have become in the minds of some "anti-liberal” words. Radical centrist liberalism far from being radical has become a defender of the status quo. Far from removing the Liberal Democrats from the traditional left-right axis, radical centrism has placed the party right in the middle of it. The Liberal Democrats should be a party of change willing to tear down the status quo, not propping it up through endless coalitions and bland politics. Currently British liberalism is in danger of being a valueless no-man’s land which is neither able to attract voters from the left or the right. This fact has been shown through the disastrous results for the Liberal Democrats in the 2014 Local and European Elections.
 

Whatever happened to the philosophy that guaranteed people's freedoms and wanted to hold the powerful to account through political reform? Whatever happened to the philosophy that created the welfare state? Whatever happened to the philosophy that sought to put power in the hands of ordinary people, while ensuring that the environment was protected for the next generation? Where is the Liberal mission in 2014? The reality is all of these aspects encompass the modern need for liberalism. The liberalism that actively enhances people's lives today while protecting their future for tomorrow. Liberalism (especially social liberalism) is needed to combat Labour authoritarianism, Conservative free market policies and the rising tide of right wing populism.

Liberalism must exist to address the concerns of 21st-century Britain. There are massive wealth and power inequalities in British society. The burden of austerity has fallen too heavily on the poorest, the most vulnerable and those who depend on vital public services. Unemployment is still a massive issue facing Britain, especially amongst young people. There are massive regional inequalities throughout the country with London and the South East seemingly benefiting from a recovery, while the rest of the country lags behind. This recovery is one that is being fuelled by a dangerous housing bubble at the same time when Britain needs hundreds of thousands of additional new homes every year. Many people continue to work in a situation of job insecurity ,where wages are low, future prospects are uncertain, and trade union activity and collective redress is limited at best and non-existent at worst. This is all set against the backdrop of the increasing encroachment of the free market economy into the NHS and the education system. Finally, looming over the world like a shadow is the imminent threat of global climate change. The Liberal Democrats must develop policies to combat these hardships facing many people in Britain today.

What is liberalism for? Liberalism is for freedom, social justice, local empowerment and the future. The status quo is failing millions of people across Britain and the Liberal Democrats need to challenge it. Those Liberal Democrat politicians who are not driven by this sense of mission, by the drive for change, those who forget the history and values of liberalism will surely face the wrath of a disillusioned electorate. Liberalism exists to help the people not to cling onto power; fellow Liberal Democrats we forget this fact at our own peril.

I stand with the 99% and so should the Lib Dems

A couple of weeks ago I went to visit the Occupy London camp outside St Pauls Cathedral. As a student studying politics at University as well as someone who was slightly sympathetic to the Occupy movement; I felt that it was a part of British political history that I just had to witness. Occupy London was the British arm of a movement that in the last few weeks has spread from Wall Street to Central Europe and from Oakland to London. The camp seemed to consist of two main groups your usual SWP Trotskyite socialist types and your typical anarchist types. The camp was a very far left institution complete with anti-capitalist banter and far left posters that reminded me somewhat of Soviet-era propaganda. This camp had been established for little more than a week when I visited it on Sunday, October 23, 2011. While I was visiting the camp they held a "general assembly." This acted as a forum for discussion and to report the progress the movement was having. While I was in attendance it had been decided that a midnight curfew should come into effect. At the time I did think it was not very anarchist for the Occupy LSX campaigners to be imposing a curfew on themselves; but I suppose they would argue it was the fact that they were choosing to impose it on themselves not an external force doing it for them. Overall the Occupy movement aims seem to be to represent the poorest 99% against the greed and recklessness of the top 1%. They are campaigning against corporate greed, gross inequality and corporate capital dominating our democracies. I for one felt it was refreshing to see that for once someone was standing up to the vested financial elites in the City of London whom got our economy into such a dire mess only a few years ago. It was about time that people stood up against this clear injustice. Despite some media coverage, not all the people in the Occupy London camp were anti-capitalist there were even some posters stating that the protest should not be viewed as one that was anti-capitalist. It is clear that they were campaigning against the unfairness of the present neoliberal economic order. Now although I do not sympathise with the ends that the extreme socialists and anarchists wish to achieve, I do sympathise with the fact that these people were making a stand against injustice and doing it so peacefully and carefully. Contrary to some reports it didn't seem to me like the protesters were seriously preventing the Cathedral from being used. They even seem to have taken great care to ensure that they received a good public hearing in the press.

On Saturday, November 5, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas addressed the Occupy London rally at St Pauls. Thus it is clear that the Green Party has given its support to the aims of a fairer country that Occupy London seem to promote. This was followed on the Sunday, by relative endorsement by the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband who declared himself to be a supporter of the 99% against the 1%. One has to wonder whether his record in government truly makes him out to be a worthy patron of the 99%. Especially when you consider the fact that both Ed Miliband and Ed balls were working in Gordon Brown's Treasury when bankers were earning obscene bonuses, company directors were earning extreme salaries and when the economic system was becoming increasingly more unstable due to a lack of financial regulation. Furthermore this is not to mention Labour's 13 year love affair with Rupert Murdoch something that even continued when Miliband himself became leader of the Labour Party. It is clear that during Miliband's time in the Treasury as well as during his time as a government minister the top 1% got wealthier and almost brought the global economy to the brink of destruction. I for one hope that Ed Miliband is not using the slogans of the 99% and the 1% to further his and his party's objectives through cynical opportunism and self publication; Miliband should not try to dominate concepts that go far beyond that of the Labour Party.

It is now time I believe for the Liberal Democrats to endorse the notion of being on the side of the 99%. Do not forget that the term 99% will encompass the poor, the working class and the overwhelming majority of middle-class people. It is hardly your usual class warring far left factions. I would seriously hope that Nick Clegg as well as other senior Liberal Democrats like Simon Hughes and Tim Farron can speak confidently about standing up for the 99%. It is the duty of a radical progressive party like the Liberal Democrats to do exactly this. I may not endorse socialism or anarchism but I do think we need a fairer society, economy and politics that moves beyond the current domination of neoliberalism. I would prefer (like some at the Occupy London camp) to have a fairer more progressive capitalism that works for everyone rather than no capitalism at all. It is this notion of a fairer more progressive capitalism, politics and society that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats should be promoting. Although this is nothing new to the Lib Dems it must be placed in the context that the top 1% need to pay their fair share and that the lower 99% need to be protected and supported from the excess and instability of neoliberal capitalism. Finally I hope that the Occupy London movement moves to encompass many progressive and left-leaning groups beyond the far left; especially political parties like the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens.

Big Money Politics Beware!

For many decades the two biggest parties in British politics have had a financial edge over their opponents. There is a clear link between the achievement of power and the ability to receive vast sums of money from party political donations. The very concept of big money politics is arguably quite regressive to a modern liberal democracy, because the party that has the best policies should win the election not the one with the biggest bank balance. Also it's worth noting that big money politics is linked to the corrosive effects of lobbying with the party more concerned about their next big donations and not what is in the best long-term interests of the country. Furthermore, the political parties become so reliant on big money donations that they do not strive to create a party with a mass membership; hence party politics suffers as a result. The Conservative Party has been in the pocket of big business and corporate Britain for over the past 40 years. While the Labour Party on the other hand, has been in the pocket of the trade unions literally since its creation in 1900 and has been exclusively in the receipt of trade union donations since the 1920s. Big money politics has been a factor in Britain for decades (if not centuries) and it seemed like this big money consensus between Labour and the Conservatives would go unchallenged with big business and the trade unions eagerly funding their preferred party. However could this be about to change?

Today the Independent reports that Nick Clegg is intent on tackling the big money politics that has dominated our political discourse for so long. The Liberal Democrats are Britain's third-largest party and currently the junior partner in the ruling coalition. They have never been reliant on the support of big business or the trade unions; they have just been dependent on private donations from supporters and party members; much like all the other smaller parties. Mr Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister is putting forward some radical plans that would see the wide scale reform of party political donations. Amongst the Deputy Prime Minister's ideas are to cap individual donations to political parties at £50,000. He is also considering whether small donations to political parties should qualify for tax relief, similar to the current situation for charities.

Naturally, the vested interests in both Labour and the Conservatives are concerned about Mr Clegg's plans. This would seriously curtail the financial clout that the trade unions and big business have over British politics. Although this may have a positive effect on party politics as parties will need to go out of their way to recruit new members to ensure that they receive adequate income, hence parties being more focused on the concerns of their members than the concerns of their donors. In this Independent article, it also outlines recent donations made to the main political parties. Between April and June this year, the Labour Party received £3.2 million in donation, £2.7 million of which came from trade unions. In the same period the Conservatives received £4.2 million in donation, a million pounds of which came from wealthy companies and £2.4 million in donation came from wealthy individuals. The Liberal Democrats received just short of £1 million in donation of which over half a million came from wealthy companies. Here is the link to the Independent article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-worried-by-cleggs-plan-to-cap-party-donations-2343467.html.

I for one hope that Nick Clegg succeeds in tackling big money politics in our country. It has been a long-held aim of the Liberal Democrats to tackle big money politics and I sincerely hope that they succeed in doing so. Should Mr Clegg and his Liberal Democrat party be successful it will be a good day for British democracy with the tarnish of big money politics removed and hopefully our democracy and our political parties will be strengthened as a result; without the albatross of big money financial interests hanging around their necks.

The Labour and Conservative Love For Murdoch

The world ended yesterday well the News of the World anyway. The jewel of the Murdoch Empire has been shattered after the recent developments in the phone hacking scandal. Added to that the former Editor of the News of the World as well as the former spin doctor for David Cameron, Andy Coulson has been arrested by the police. This scandal has put News Corporation and its master Rupert Murdoch at the top of British news agenda (well with the exception of the Sun and the Times). But there’s another angle to this story to consider and that’s the relationship between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and Rupert Murdoch.

A few weeks ago both David Cameron and Ed Miliband were at one of Rupert Murdoch’s parties, both were trying to win favour with News International. This was just the lasting wooing of the media tycoon by Labour and the Conservatives. In 1992 the Tory PM, John Major had the support of the Sun when he narrowly won the General Election, the myth was born that Murdoch had a hand in determining elections. This myth continued in both the Tories as well as in Labour Party. Tony Blair and New Labour were dependent on Murdoch’s support as was Gordon Brown. Within days of the formation of the Coalition Government, Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street to meet his latest Prime Ministerial admirer, David Cameron. For too many years Britain’s two largest parties have been under the influence of Rupert Murdoch and it must end. The Liberal Democrats must be the first party of government in over three decades not to be under Murdoch’s spell. We as Liberal Democrats must once more take the fight to Rupert Murdoch.

Nick Clegg has called for a judge led inquiry into the actions of News International. The Deputy Prime Minister is continuing the Liberal tradition of not siding with elites and vested interests. Just remember when Vince Cable was caught by undercover journalists declaring war on Rupert Murdoch. The Lib Dems are only one of the main parties to have never allied themselves with News International.

David Cameron has now agreed to hold a judge led public inquiry. Another person to also call for a judge led inquiry as well as for Rebekah Brooks’ resignation was the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband has been praised across the media for daring to distance himself from his would-be master, Rupert Murdoch. However, I for one view Miliband’s decision as being hypocritically opportunistic. If the Labour Party was serious about distancing itself from Murdoch it could have done so when the phone hacking scandal began to emerge in 2006. Even Ed Miliband harboured hopes of gaining Murdoch’s affections or else he would not have attended the media tycoon’s parties. If Labour had won the General Election and maintained the Sun’s support would they now be opposing Murdoch? After 13 years of worshipping Murdoch; I doubt it! So how is Ed Miliband or David Cameron in a fit state to criticise News International after decades of their respective parties hanging on the word of Rupert Murdoch. We need Nick Clegg to take the political lead on this issue.

Frankly neither the Conservatives nor Labour can be trusted to bring News International to account over the recent scandals given their previous love for Murdoch. Nick Clegg was absolutely right to call for a judge led inquiry and it is now up to the Liberal Democrats to hold Murdoch and News International to account. Also and almost as important we must not let Labour and the Conservatives paper over the past, they were allied to and dependent on Rupert Murdoch for decades; and we shouldn’t let them or the British people forget it. It is good to know that for all that time there has always been one party that hasn’t been obedient towards the likes of Rupert Murdoch; the Liberal Democrats!  

The End of Murdoch’s British Empire?

Has the Last Post begun to sound for Rupert Murdoch’s British Empire? Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the United Kingdom consists of four major newspapers: the Sun, News of the World, The Times and the Sunday Times. Rupert Murdoch also has a large stake in the television media and is seeking to complete a takeover of British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB). Several years ago rumours began to emerge about News Corporation journalists from the News of the World hacking into the phones of major celebrities and politicians. It has since transpired that many individuals indeed did have their phone messages hacked into by journalists working for newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation. However the last few days has taken this scandal from the world of celebrity and politics into the country at large. This is due to the fact that it appears that the mobile phone of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler may have been hacked into by journalists of the News of the World. Further suspected cases of phone hacking may also include the murdered Soham teenagers, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as well as the bereaved families of those who lost loved ones in the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14040841). Tonight, it has also transpired that the families of dead soldiers may have had their phones intercepted and hacked into by the News of the World (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909). I for one would like to echo the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg who described the recent developments in the phone hacking scandal as "beneath contempt" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-mps-milly-dowler). All of these allegations arguably put the future of the planned takeover of BSkyB at as well as the career of the head of News International, Rebekah Brooks at risk.

But what are the political implications of the scandal that is now engulfing Rupert Murdoch's dealings in the United Kingdom? Firstly there are the BSkyB takeover and the Prime Minister's relationship with Andy Coulson. However there is a much more central issue regarding politics and Rupert Murdoch in Britain. This is due to the fact that for many decades Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have been senior backers and donors to both the Labour and Conservative parties. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron have sought strong links to the Murdoch press because they were dependent upon their support. Politicians for decades from both the Tories and Labour viewed the endorsement of Rupert Murdoch as a key steppingstone to achieving power. No politician of the two largest parties with any prospect of a political future has dared to criticise News International; but as Nick Robinson from the BBC speculates could that be changing? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14045722) At any rate both Labour and the Tories have been dependent on Murdoch's empire, it is up to the Liberal Democrats to hold News International to account. This is especially the case now that we are in government. We as Liberal Democrats were not afraid to criticise the Murdoch press when we were in opposition and we certainly shouldn't be afraid now that we have influence in government. The one continuing factor throughout all the decades when the Murdoch Empire was either endorsing Labour or the Tories is it was always hostile to the Lib Dems, a third-party that would seemingly never achieve power. It wasn't the Sun that won it for us, far from it. It is important that those who are directly responsible for these latest phone hacking scandals are brought to account. Rebekah Brooks's position as the head of News International is looking increasingly untenable and the planned takeover of BSkyB should now be halted as it is clear that Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is not a fit and worthy company to be running such a large swathe of the British television media. Nick Clegg it is now up to you to carry the Liberal Democrat baton that has always opposed Rupert Murdoch and call for Rebekah Brooks to resign and also call for a halt to the planned BSkyB takeover.