Stepping Back from Party Political Activism

Two weeks ago, on a train journey back from Bournemouth, I spoke with a fellow Liberal Democrat PhD student. He is a student in Vienna and was considering stepping back from party politics. It is safe to say that both PhDs and party politics take up considerable time.

Last year, I had hoped informally to step back from party politics when I started my PhD. Over the previous 12 months, I have not been successful at this. Amongst other things, I attended several conferences, stood as a paper candidate in the local elections and helped to edit two Lib Dem related books (including writing a chapter in one of them).

This week, I am starting my second year as a Politics PhD student at Lancaster University. So far everything is going well, I successfully passed my first-year panel and was upgraded at the first attempt, a few months ago. My workload is likely to increase this year especially as I am starting teaching first year Undergraduate Politics seminar classes, which is an exciting opportunity to somebody who aims for a career in academic teaching.

This naturally means there will be extreme limitations on my time. Earlier this month I stepped back from my position on the Social Liberal Forum Executive, as their Vice-Chair North, the Chair of their Editing and Publishing Board and the Social Media Manager. However, I have now decided that I will stand down from the Social Liberal Forum Council next Summer when the Council is once again up for election.

In addition, I will be stepping back from using Twitter. My days as a “keyboard warrior” are gradually coming to an end. Twitter currently tends to reflect the echo chamber of our contemporary political crisis. This in turn reinforces tribal party positions and facilitates aggressive partisan trolling. Such an environment is not healthy for my personal anxiety levels, especially as someone who has a pluralistic approach to politics. So, I will be limiting my presence on Twitter to my new Twitter account devoted to my academic work, teaching and research.

However, I have also now decided that it is right for me to take a step back from most aspects of Liberal Democrat party politics. This is especially the case given the likelihood of a general election in the next couple of months. In the previous two general elections I was the election agent for the Liberal Democrats in Blackpool South; however, my participation will be limited at best to an odd afternoon of leaflet delivering for the party at the next election.

I am not leaving the party, of course, but my involvement in party related activities will be very limited for the next 2-3 years while I complete my PhD. It is also likely that my attendance at party conferences will be limited over the next couple of years. I wish the best of luck to all those who remain active in the Liberal Democrats during this time, I am extremely hopeful that several of you will be elected MPs in the near future. You will undoubtedly serve your constituents, your party and your country exceptionally well.

The party currently has the ideal policy in relation to Brexit; Revoking Article 50 following the election of a Liberal Democrat majority government, or in the event of a hung parliament, negotiating for a People’s Vote referendum where the party would campaign to Remain in the EU. I would encourage the party to make the social justice case for the EU not forgetting the vital protections for workers and the poorest regions of the Union, as well as arguing that the EU is the most successful peace process in world history. 

The party must be a vehicle for social liberalism and social democracy and I hope the party’s ambitious new welfare policies are not side-lined during the upcoming general election campaign. Social justice needs to be at the forefront of any future Liberal Democrat campaign, alongside our commitment to “Stop Brexit”. I encourage the party to reconnect with its radical political heritage, build on the big ideas of the past and develop new and imaginative narratives for the present.

As a lifelong social liberal, social justice and its capacity to advance individual freedom has been consistently my driving passion in politics and will continue to be so. It was after all the ideals of that great social liberal, Charles Kennedy which originally drew me into the Liberal Democrats in the first place. I would plea with the party to reach out more to working class communities and to recognise that the Remain cause is not just limited to middle class areas. In my native Blackpool for example, despite the high Leave vote in the EU Referendum, almost 22,000 people voted Remain. It is votes like these which could prove pivotal in any future People’s Vote referendum.

I hope my close Liberal Democrat friends will forgive me if I appear a little distant over the next couple of years. I will of course remain easily contactable on E-mail, Facebook and Twitter. I may be taking a break from party political activism, but my involvement in the study of politics as a social science is only going to increase. This is an exciting moment in the history of the Liberal Democrats. I will continue to be with you in spirit and wish you all the luck, good fortune and success over the next 2-3 years.

Radical Liberalism: The Lost Political Tradition

The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy

Liberalism is one of the oldest political traditions. Its roots stretch back to 1688. Far from being a philosophy of the status quo, liberalism has a rich radical history. For centuries it was the philosophy of radical political and social change. It is time that the lost political tradition of radical liberalism was rediscovered.

The father of liberalism, John Locke, laid the foundations for the philosophy in his Second Treatise of Government in 1689. Government was only to be justified through the consent of the people and should any government violate the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property; then the citizenry had a right of revolution. Right from the beginning, there were two aspects of liberalism which often came into conflict with each other. These were the political aspects such as liberty, individual rights and government by consent; and the economic aspects such as private property, capitalism and a limited state. The political aspects became radical liberalism and the economic aspects became laissez-faire liberalism or modern day neoliberalism.

In 1776, the American revolutionaries took up arms against the British Empire. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers echoed John Locke by stating that man had unalienable rights such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Liberalism also inspired the French Revolution which began in 1789. The radical liberal philosopher, Thomas Paine wrote a staunch defence of the revolution in his "Rights of Man." Liberalism throughout the 18th century was seen as a radical revolutionary philosophy. In the name of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” the old aristocratic tyrannies were to be challenged and overthrown in favour of democratic governance.

Whose Land is it Anyway?

Liberalism's challenge to the power of the aristocracy took a different form at the end of the 19th century. Many nations in Western Europe had become republics or exchanged their autocratic monarchs for constitutional monarchs. In constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, the aristocratic land owners drew their wealth and power from the land and as a result many had wealthy estates. It was this fact that made radical liberals such as Henry George support land value taxation.

The taxation of land became a popular movement especially within the British Liberal Party in the early 20th century. Working class Liberals supported land taxation as a means of shifting wealth away from the aristocratic land owners towards the working poor.

Social Liberalism and Freedom from Industrial Inequality

Throughout the 1800s, liberalism had been the philosophy of the Industrial Revolution. Liberals such as William Gladstone had pursued a policy of laissez-faire. A century earlier liberalism had proclaimed "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" now it appeared to be the philosophy of a capitalist industrial elite. Liberalism was derided by socialists as being a bourgeois ideology, which they thought should be overthrown and replaced by a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

It appeared that radical liberalism had run its course and that it would soon be replaced by socialism. It was at the turn of the last century that the radical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries became the social liberalism of the 20th century. Social liberal thinkers such as Thomas Hill Green and Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse argued that liberalism needed to promote social justice in order to help the industrial poor. Equality was therefore seen as a means to advance liberty. Social reform was needed to combat the tyranny of unrestrained industrial capitalism. As a result liberals began to support welfare policies and workers rights.

The British Liberal Party under Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George began to lay the foundations of the welfare state. In 1942, another social liberal William Beveridge published a report calling for social security from the cradle to the grave and founded the modern welfare state. Liberalism had therefore gone from being a philosophy of a laissez-faire elite to a philosophy with a genuine concern for the welfare of the poorest.

Power to the People

Throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s the Liberal Party in Britain was seen as a political irrelevance by its opponents. It was during this period that the Liberal Party began to believe in placing power directly in people's hands. The Liberal Party leader, Jo Grimond placed great emphasis on cooperatives and workplace democracy. In the early 1970s a new philosophy began to emerge called "community politics." This was the legacy of a left wing libertarian group within the Young Liberals often referred to as "the Red Guards." Community politics emphasised the need for people to use power at the grassroots level. It was not just meant as a campaigning strategy but as a means of creating a more participatory democracy. The radical liberalism that had toppled regimes in America and France was now embarking on a peaceful democratic revolution in the way that power was used within local communities and in the workplace.

Neoliberalism: The Death of the Radical Tradition

If radical liberalism had been about anything it was about putting power into the hands of ordinary people and about holding the powerful to account. This changed in the 1980s as laissez-faire liberalism re-emerged in the form of neoliberalism. Early neoliberal politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan sought to unleash free market capitalism, privatise state assets, restrict workers’ rights and shrink the welfare state.

Far from bringing power closer to the people as neoliberal economists argued; in reality power shifted upwards towards global corporations. In an age of economic globalisation the ability of nation states to pursue welfare policies has been limited. Furthermore the ability to hold wealthy corporations to account is limited at best and non-existent at worst. Added to this global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank advocate and reinforce neoliberal philosophy. Neoliberalism is a reaction against the historic principles of radical liberalism and social liberalism.

Global Radical Liberalism

In the 21st century the principles of radical liberalism and social liberalism are needed to mitigate neoliberal globalisation. Radical liberalism sought to tackle unaccountable power. A new democratic globalisation based on radical liberalism is needed to hold the global corporate elite to account. Global institutions underpin contemporary economic globalisation. Therefore new global institutions will be needed to wrestle back democratic sovereignty from global corporations and the Washington Consensus. Hopefully, global radical liberalism will in time help to replace global neoliberalism.

Radical liberalism might date back to the end of the 17th century; however it is needed once again in the 21st century. Transnational corporations are the unaccountable kingdoms of the 21st century. In the age of globalisation; the lost political tradition of radical liberalism needs to be rediscovered.

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.

Why I want to stand for the Social Liberal Forum Council

           There are many challenges that face Britain today. Social and economic inequalities are still rife in society from people having to use food banks, to the issue of low wages and the problems caused by welfare reforms. Britain needs to rediscover its spirit of social justice, and its concern for the most disadvantaged members of society. When I first got interested in politics it was over the issues of civil liberties and my opposition to the War in Iraq. There was only ever one party that spoke to me on these issues and that truly inspired me, the Liberal Democrats. But that's not all, in the mid-2000s, the Lib Dems were the only main party willing to stand up for social justice in the face of the social hardships ignored by New Labour and caused by the Conservatives that came before them.

            Today, four years into the Coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, that spirit of social justice may seem like a world away. The Coalition has adopted some progressive policies such as raising the income tax threshold, the pupil premium and most recently free school dinners for the most disadvantaged pupils. Although there have also been some regressive policies such as the NHS reforms, welfare reforms such as the “bedroom tax” and an economic strategy that has placed too much of the burden of austerity on the poorest.

 

            What is often missed by media commentators is the excellent work done by members of the Social Liberal Forum in standing up for the traditional social liberal values that the Lib Dems have had for over a century. The SLF has been vital in calling for reforms to the government's economic policy to ensure that it focuses more on a house building stimulus and taxing the wealthy and less on slash and burn cuts to public services. Furthermore, they have consistently backed Lib Dem motions opposing the NHS reforms, opposing food poverty, backing a living wage, opposing the bedroom tax and being critical of the approach to free schools. If the spirit of social justice is to be found anywhere within the Liberal Democrats; it is to be found within the Social Liberal Forum.

            The Social Liberal Forum is on the verge of having elections to its ruling council and I am very eager to run for a position on that council. I have always been somebody who has proudly stood on the left of politics and I firmly believe that the Liberal Democrats are at heart a centre-left party. The SLF represent the historic centre-left traditions of the Lib Dems. As someone who has always been committed to social justice; I am very proud to be a member of the SLF. It is vital that we stand up for the poorest and most disadvantaged people in our country, many of whom lack a voice and are alienated by political parties who turn a blind eye to poverty and inequality.

Some might say that there's no place for an advocate of social justice in the Liberal Democrats today. However, I understand my Liberal history; the Liberal history of social liberalism that goes back to 1906. In 1942, the social security report by the Liberal Party social reformer, William Beveridge ensured that there was a national minimum, beneath which no one would be allowed to fall. The defining feature of social liberalism is the belief that social justice can enable the individual to reach their full potential. In this regard, Beveridge’s welfare state has done more to free people than any other institution since the establishment of democratic governments. The Beveridge report has been fundamental in freeing people from poverty, unemployment, ill-health and a lack of education. I am very proud of the history of great social liberals such as William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes and David Lloyd George as well as the great Lib Dem titans of British politics such as Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy. This history proves that the Liberal Democrats are a centre-left party of social justice and social liberalism. And if I get elected I would hope to continue that tradition.

There are many problems facing Britain today and social liberalism has many of the answers to them. Social liberalism rejects the false choice of choosing between promoting liberty or tackling inequality; simply put you cannot achieve one without the other. A more just society is a more free society. To be free from poverty is just as important as being free from the authoritarianism of the state. You cannot truly enjoy freedom if your capacity to achieve and develop is held back by poverty and inequality.

Hence, the powers of the state must be kept in check; but also there must be a progressive alternative to the free market consensus of the last thirty-five years. Social liberals must promote a living wage, land taxation, British federalism, community politics and workplace democracy especially through cooperatives. Above all, social liberals must aim to give a voice to the poor and the disadvantage and ensure that they have a stake in British society again. A stake that free market economics has denied them.

If I get elected to the Social Liberal Forum Council, I will stand up for social freedoms, social justice, the rights of the poor and the rights of people with disabilities (of which I am one). I aim to represent the Liberal Democrats’ historic centre-left principles of social liberalism. Overall, I hope that the Liberal Democrats can be a party that can once again stand up to injustice. This can only be done through the great work of the Social Liberal Forum; great work to which I hope to contribute. I hope that

Empowering The Poor and Tackling Poverty at the Local Level

In 1909, the Liberal Party Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George delivered his People's Budget. During his delivery he stated that;

"I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests.”

One hundred and three years on from the People's Budget how close are we to seeing David Lloyd George’s "good time" when poverty will be remote to this country? Well in the previous century, Britain has developed a strong welfare state, built a National Health Service (NHS) and established progressive taxation, much on the foundations laid by Lloyd George. However despite these progressive achievements poverty still remains in 21st century Britain.

The United Kingdom is currently going through a period of harsh austerity measures. The nature or austerity means that it will naturally impact on the poorest and most vulnerable, especially when cuts are made to the welfare budget and to social services. The charity, Save the Children in its first ever UK appeal says that too many children in Britain today from poor families "are going without hot meals, new shoes and winter clothes" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/05/save-the-children-uk-campaign).

For most of the last few decades the poorest people in Britain have been suffering. This was long before the latest period of austerity. During this time Britain has seen both Conservative and Labour governments come in and out of power. Take my hometown of Blackpool in the mid-2000s for example, I had many school friends whose parents struggled with food bills and struggled to feed themselves and their children properly. Added to this, many of their parents couldn't afford new clothes and often had to put up with damaged and worn out shoes. Food and clothing are the very basics in life, and yet in the mid-2000s during what Labour would have you believe was an age of plenty, the poorest in our country still struggled to afford them. Many poor working class areas, most of which vote Labour have in many cases been abandoned by the tradition party of the working class.

In-order to tackle poverty we need a multi-pronged approach. An approach that includes a redistributive welfare state, free healthcare, a good education, tackling personal debt, tacking addiction and community engagement and local empowerment. I shall focus mostly on the last one of these prongs, community engagement and local empowerment.

It is time for a truly localist route to tackling poverty. We must tackle poverty at its local grassroots. Firstly we need local authorities to be actively engaging with their poorest communities. This should include establishing community leaders that can work alongside the local council, local councillors, police officers, social workers, trade unions and local charities. This should establish an active and positive dialogue between communities and local authorities and charities. This community engagement should be used to recognise what the social issues are that prevent poverty from reducing. The community and local authorities should cooperate in addressing the social issues.

Secondly, their needs to be an efficient targeting of resources at a local and community level. National government should devolve funding and recourses to local government specifically for tacking local poverty. Local councils should be able to target this funding at the poorest areas where it would be most effective at eradicating poverty. The funding should be directed according to what problems need to be tackled to reduce poverty and increase opportunity. This funding could be directly redistributed to the poor, used to improve underperforming schools, used to tackle alcohol and drug addiction or used to renovate poor areas and communities.

Thirdly we must ensure the poor have an effective democratic voice. Having the vote and actually feeling part of the democratic process are two different things entirely. What is needed in order to give the poor an effective democratic voice is community politics. Community politics is the doctrine of empowering individuals within their communities. It is an ideology of “social transformation” (The Theory & Practice of Community Politics: http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/aldc/commpol.htm).

Community politics is a doctrine that is most practiced by the Liberal Democrats. It involves active local politicians engaging with communities to determine what local issues are affecting those communities. Local politicians and local people then campaign together by delivering leaflets, lobbying the local authorities and by organising local petitions. The hope being to achieve the enactment of the policy being campaigned upon.  Examples of community politics may include the need to have a new playground built, to prevent the closure of a youth centre or to protect local hospital services.

Community politics should form the liberal and democratic foundations of any attempt to tackle poverty as well as any attempt to empower and engage with poorer communities. In short, community politics should be perused to give our poorest communities a genuine stake in the democratic process. We must not only strive to tackle inequalities of rights, wealth and opportunities, but we must also tackle inequalities in power between the rich and poor as well.

To tackle poverty in the 21^st Century, we must empower people especially the poor. We must ensure that society has a social minimum below which no one is allowed to fall. Rights, wealth, opportunity and power must be openly available to everyone. It has been 103 years, since Lloyd George’s budget and poverty is still not “remote to the people of this country”, far from it. But if we are to tackle poverty we must not just redistribute wealth through an active welfare state, but actively seek to engage with, direct resources to and democratically empower our poorest people at the local level.

A Lib Dem Five Point Plan For Economic Growth And Stability

Today it has been revealed that for the second quarter of this year, the British economy has shrunk and failed to grow. I for one have never been very enthusiastic about austerity and I personally think it can only ever be enacted alongside strong policies to ensure economic growth. We should aim to balance growth and austerity. The policy of outright austerity in Britain has seemingly failed to work and our economy is now continuing to decline, while being in recession. and unemployment remains stubbornly high. The political and economic discourse in our country should turn towards growth.

As a member of Liberal Democrats, I believe we need to start promoting strong policies to create economic growth alongside austerity. We cannot ignore the changing political reality across Europe with the election of Francois Hollande in France, the continuing crisis in Greece and the potential of a bailout being needed for Spain. Labour often sight their “five point plan” hence I have created a Liberal Democrat equivalent. This is a five point plan that covers Lib Dem policies that are desperately needed in order to get growth and stability back into our economy.

1. Regulate and immediately break-up the banks

We must remember that the current economic crisis initially began as a crisis of confidence in the banking system as a result of a decade of under-regulated by the last Labour government. The financial risk-taking and rampant speculation in the big banks destabilised the global economy and threatened to bring the whole banking system down. As a result taxpayers around the world had to bail out the banks to prevent people losing their life savings. This must never be allowed to happen again. The banks, as recommended by the Vickers Report must be immediately split up between their risky financial investment arm and their retail arm creating an economic firewall in case of a future banking crisis. Furthermore sufficient checks must be put in place to ensure that the aggressive speculation and rampant risk-taking of the banks never again leaves the taxpayer and our country exposed. This will free the government from the fear of having to use public expenditure to bailout the banks in the future. The government must also get the banks lending again to small and medium sized businesses.

2. Ensure Fairer Taxes

The richest in our society must always pay their fair share especially during times of economic difficulty. This means that a fully fledged mansions tax must be introduced at a rate of 1% on houses worth over £2 million. We should also seriously consider introducing a land-value tax to ensure that wealthy landowners make their necessary contribution. Furthermore the highest rate of income tax should be raised back up to 50p in the pound and should apply to everyone earning over £150,000. The extra revenue raised through these taxes should be re-invested into the economy to help achieve points 3 and 4.

3. Build More Houses

Four years after the housing property bubble burst, houses remain ruinously expensive and far out of the price range of first-time buyers. We should seek to build 100,000 more homes a year, as suggested by Lord Oakeshott. This would stimulate the construction industry which is in much need of growth. It would also provide houses for thousands of people who need them and as supply catches up to the demand, house prices will become more affordable.

4. Invest in a Green People’s Budget

Liberal Democrats have always been passionate about the environment and tackling climate change. Also it is 103 years since David Lloyd George’s famous “People’s Budget.” It is time for a “Green People’s Budget” to advance a green Keynesian strategy for a green stimulus plan. This would be a nationwide plan to ensure green project spending, green jobs and ultimately green growth. This would include constructing both onshore and offshore wind turbines as well as developing and building other forms of non-carbon and renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, HEP, kinetic and possibly nuclear. This will stimulate the construction sector and the science and technology industry. The aim of the plan should be rapidly reduce out carbon emissions to meet a target of 30% reductions by 2020, as once suggested by Chris Huhne. We are going to have to invest in these technologies sooner or later and when it comes to tackling climate change, time is of the essence. The green investment bank and the green deal are a great start in this direction.  The plan would create jobs for thousands of people and ensure that while tackling climate change would also be tackling our economic difficulties as well.

5. Do not renew Trident

Finally for one of the most unique and popular policies of the entire Liberal Democrat political platform. The Trident nuclear weapons system would cost £100 billion over the course of its lifetime and is unaffordable in the current economic climate. It is a Cold War weapon system that no longer has any place in a world that is no longer dominated by two ideological opposed superpowers. We must find a much cheaper alternative to Trident. The extra revenue raised by not renewing Trident would be used to help achieve points 3 and 4 and to directly reduce the structural deficit.

1.     Regulate and immediately break-up the Banks to get them lending again.

2.     Ensure Fairer Taxes: a mansion tax, a land-value tax and a 50p top rate of income tax.

3.     Build 100,000 more houses per year.

4.     Invest in a Green People’s Budget to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020, by ensuring green growth and green jobs.

5.     Do not renew Trident.

The Social Liberal Alternative to Neoliberalism

The present system of free market capitalism known as neoliberalism is clearly teetering on the edge of a major crisis. ‘Occupy’ protests have swept the Western world in recent days and more and more people are becoming hostile to the notions of austerity and additional bank bailouts. Capitalist globalisation is clearly in need of radical reform. However the issue is not whether we should abandon liberalism but rather how can we strengthen it. Neoliberalism in my opinion is not liberal; despite its namesake. It does not promote social justice and greater fairness, it does not enhance our democracy and it does not value individuals acting within their local communities. It is necessary to find a different outlook that can truly further liberal aims in the 21st century. This outlook is social liberalism. I have written an article for the Social Liberal Forum that outlines a social liberal alternative to neoliberalism. I also critique the new and emerging Labour Party antidote to neoliberalism known as ‘Blue Labour.’ Please read my article for the Social Liberal Forum in full by following this link: http://socialliberal.net/2011/10/15/the-real-alternative-to-neoliberalism/

Great Simon Hughes Comment Piece

There’s a great comment piece by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes for today’s Observer. The comment piece comes as a response to the recent English riots. Read the comment piece here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/14/profits-top-simon-hughes?intcmp=239.

Please Vote Lefty Liberal Paul

A few months ago I started this blog to advance ‘Lefty Liberal’ and Social Liberal viewpoints within the Liberal Democrats and beyond. Also I thought it was important to advance centre-left politics more generally. Now it’s that time of the year again when Total Politics wants people to vote for their favourite blogs. Can I ask everyone who supports centre-left Social Liberalism or who just likes this blog to vote for Lefty Liberal Paul in the Total Politics poll. Here is the link to the poll:

http://www.totalpolitics.com/surveys/total-politics-blog-awards/

Please show your support for centre-left Social Liberalism!

I agree with Tim!

There’s a very interesting piece on the Independent website, with calls by the Liberal Democrat Party President, Tim Farron to distance the party from the Conservatives in the Coalition. So that party members can ‘hold their heads up high.’ Give the article a read it is very agreeable from a centre-left prospective.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-faces-calls-to-distance-his-party-from-the-conservatives-2334134.html

Please Sign The Anti-Death Penalty Petition

The death penalty has been a very serious and divisive subject since its abolition as one of the main social reforms of Harold Wilson's Labour government in the 1960s. Following the social reforms in the late 1960s the only act that was punishable by death was treason. Since then almost every parliamentary term has had a vote on whether or not to bring back the death penalty. The last vote occurred in the early 1990s. In 1998, Parliament passed the Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law; this act of Parliament once and for all abolished entirely any notion of the death penalty in the United Kingdom.

This week, the Coalition Government has launched a new program of e-petitions on the Internet. The right-wing blogger, Guido Fawkes announced that he would launch a petition calling for the return of the death penalty and if the petition is successful this will be debated and voted upon in Parliament. The death penalty is a barbaric and authoritarian measure whereby the state can legitimately murder its own citizens. As Mahatma Gandhi once said ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.’ Britain would be morally blind if it allowed the return of the death penalty. That is why I encourage everyone to sign the anti-death penalty petition. This petition has been submitted on the government’s e-petition website by the chair of Liberal Youth, Martin Shapland. This petition submitted by the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats seeks to counter the calls made by Guido Fawkes to bring back the death penalty.

Please show your support and sign the anti-death penalty petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1090

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.

One Year of Liberal Democrat Governance

Yes it has been one year since that beautiful scene in the Downing Street rose garden between Nick and Dave. Its one year since the political civil partnership of the Coalition Government. Its one year since Nick Clegg pretended to walk away from David Cameron (a few regretted that he turned back, not including myself). Its one year since Britain was painted in yellowish blue. And yet although we could not see what the future had in store for us; know one can say that the last 12 months of British politics from the perspective of any party especially the Liberal Democrats has been particularly boring. Speaking as a centre-left Liberal Democrat to see the object of Cleggmania stood next to the heir to all things Thatcherite did make me feel unsure whether a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was a good thing. However as time has worn on, I have begun to warm to the Coalition Government. If not in an entirely fanatical way.

The previous 12 months has been a rollercoaster ride for us Lib Dems. And yes there have been some negative things some of which I have disagreed with like the rise in tuition fees or some of the budget cuts which are less than progressive to say the least or the completely right wing marketisation proposed in the government's NHS reforms, however there are many things as a Liberal Democrat that I can only applaud. The reason I began to support the Lib Dems was because of their stance on defending civil liberties. It is fantastic that over the last 12 months the Coalition Government has been able to undo many of the authoritarian injustices inaugurated in the previous Labour Government. ID cards have been scrapped, detention without charge has been reduced from 28 days to 14 days, child detention has been ended and control orders have been watered down. Just on the basis of this defence of civil liberties, the Liberal Democrats have not been afraid to put our liberal agenda into action. We are delivering on our four main manifesto commitments. Already over 800,000 of the poorest people in our country have been taken out of paying any income tax. The pupil premium is well within the pipeline of the coalition agenda. Chris Huhne over at the Department of Energy and Climate Change is driving forward our green new deal to create a more sustainable green economy. We have even made great progress in terms of political reform despite the loss of the AV referendum, don't forget Labour promised to have a referendum on electoral reform in 1997 and after 13 years they failed to deliver even that basic progress, however we wasted no time in putting the Alternative Vote to the people.

Another factor which has strengthened my support for the coalition government is the rank opportunism of Ed Miliband’s Labour Party. The claims that Ed Miliband would make Labour more progressive, seem to me to have been too little effect. Firstly, although I disagree with some (but certainly not all) of the government’s spending cuts, I do believe that we need to reduce the deficit. Ed Miliband promised a Labour deficit reduction plan by the time the Coalition published there’s however over six months into Ed Miliband's leadership Labour has yet to produce such a program. Former Labour ministers from across the party still defend Labour's record on civil liberties. As regards to political reform Labour as a party seems completely unwilling to enact change. This was hammered home by the streams of former Labour ministers lining up to speak on behalf of the No to AV campaign.

The last year has been very interesting for Liberal Democrats. It has been the ultimate political rollercoaster from Cleggmania to tuition fees riots and deficit reductions. With serious progress potentially being made in the near future on issues like progressive taxation, the pupil premium, Lords reform, carbon emissions reduction and protecting our NHS from privatised cherry picking; the words from the Lib Dem grassroots can only be a cautiously nervous, ‘four more years.’

Painting The Red Rose County Yellow

This is my first ever blog, so I assume it would only be polite to apologise in advance for any spelling mistakes or inaccuracies in grammar. I hope that you enjoy reading my blog and that you take many insightful things from it. I suppose I should start by introducing myself. My name is Paul Hindley, I’m 20 years old and I’m a student at Lancaster University who is studying politics. In my blog I intend to express my opinions and comments on contemporary current affairs issues locally, nationally and globally.

As no doubt you will have realised by now I intend to blog about social liberalism especially from the perspective of the British Liberal Democrats. I suppose my liberal use of the colour yellow (forgive the pun) in the title header and the words centre-left Liberalism would have been quite a giveaway. I first became interested in politics at the age of 12 in 2003, this was during the most controversial period of Tony Blair's New Labour government, when this country was taken to war illegally against Iraq in a neoconservative mission topple Saddam Hussein by means that were unlawful according to the international community. My outrage at the war in Iraq was swiftly followed by my outrage towards the Labour Party's authoritarian stance toward civil liberties embodied by nothing more symbolic than the identity card. I subsequently gained a deep scepticism for the authoritarianism embodied by New Labour and the Thatcherite economics espoused by the Conservatives.

 All things considered, it is little wonder that ended up supporting the party that I did and in 2008 merely one month after my 18th birthday and in the middle of an A-level politics course I finally joined that party. Much has happened since I joined the party, I have been to 2 party conferences, I have become the Treasurer in my University’s Liberal Democrat society, I have stood for a council seat for Lancaster City Council and most of all I have watched my party transcend from opposition to Coalition government. Even after everything that has happened to the Liberal Democrats over the past years some good, some bad I am still a very proud supporter of my party and its centre-left roofs. It is essential, especially in these times of coalition that centre-left social liberals such as myself can convey thoughts and opinions about politics in general from a liberal left perspective. This is my main reason for wanting to start this blog.

I am Lancashire born and bred, I have lived here all my life from my hometown of Blackpool to my current studying in Lancaster at Lancaster University. Hopefully you'll enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of at least this centre-left Liberal Democrat over the blog entries to come and together perhaps we can do our bit to paint the ‘red rose county’ yellow.