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.


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…
Tom Papworth 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

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…