Skip to main content

The need for British Liberalism

Simon Jenkins attack on the Liberal Democrats in The Guardian is a bleat of pain from that section of the British establishment that no longer understands the modern world. Comfortable at home with his knighthood and his directorships, his occasional ventures out into the real world leave him confused and baffled.

For him politics is a binary choice: everyone is either a little Labourite or a little Conservative, and these two should take turns in power. Though the labels change, the perquisites of Sir Simon and the other soi-disant "great and good"will therefore remain unchallenged.

He does not understand that politics has changed- and that the British will no longer accept the cosy cabal of these two. The major trend over the past thirty years has been the consistent growth of the power of Liberalism. This growth has come despite repeated crises: the near disaster of the Thorpe trial, the rise and fall of the SDP, the near death of the merged Social and Liberal Democrats and the crisis of the last two years. Although disappointed by our failure to make more progress last week, the Liberal Democrats are within 1% of their highest vote ever.

There are two reasons why this is so, and why Simon Jenkins absurd critique is simply wrong headed. Firstly Liberalism is a set of clear principles based upon a philosophy of freedom. In many ways it is fair to call the Liberal Democrats the most ideological party- our policies, such as opposition to ID cards, are based upon setting limits to state power. Though we have not been so ideological about economics, increasingly we are developing Liberal ideas on taxation and administration based upon greater transparency, accountability and fiscal limits. We are the heirs to the sceptical intellectual tradition of J.S. Mill, and as such we hold to principle and not the convenient pragmatism that establishment figures like Sir Simon prefer to regard as the root of good governance.

To that end, of course Sir Simon hates the Liberal Democrats: we are revolutionaries.
We are determined to create a modern, liberal society from the rag bag of convention and compromise that big wigs like the former Times editor fails to notice has dragged down our country. He hates us because we believe in principles which do not necessarily give advantage to party, but which are the right thing for our country.

The fact that Simon Jenkins rant was published in the The Guardian- the most consistently anti-Liberal newspaper in the UK- simply reminds us that revolutionaries have few friends amongst the self-appointed philosopher kings of the left, or right.

Comments

Peter Mc said…
...simply reminds us that revolutionaries have few friends amongst the self-appointed philosopher kings of the left, or right.

Very good.
Anonymous said…
Splendid.
Liberal Polemic said…
I've never seen you so riled. You're practically having to wipe the foam from your lips.

Now you know why I don't read The Guardian.
Cicero said…
I increasingly loathe the Grauniad- the sanctimonious garbage of La Toynbee, the "we know better" Rusbridger Smugness, the whole Socialist arrogance of it.

So Let us no longer pretend that this is the Liberal "Manchester Guardian" of old- it has become the Morning Star without a moral compass.

And even the Torygraph gives us fairer coverage

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...