Skip to main content

Speaking for a Federal Britain

The past two years have been brutal for the Liberal Democrat brand. 

It is understandable. 

Liberalism is rooted in a clear set of principles, and yet as the coalition has become established we have discovered that we have either been forced to abandon key elements of our agenda- such as the tuition fees fiasco- or have discovered that we have not sold our ideas well enough to the electorate- the fiasco of the AV referendum. The result is that we have lost about half of the voters who supported the party in 2010.

The party has assumed a grimly determined approach to repeated setbacks. It has been the only realistic response to the battering that we have taken. Yet we have also lost many fellow travellers and and long term supporters. The party is clearly weaker than we were. 

Only the creation of a proportionally elected House of Lords may keep the Liberal Democrats in a position to retain influence at the national level. That is clearly why the party leadership is investing so much into the process of House of Lords reform- it may prove to be a lifeboat for the Liberal Democrats at the national level- ans as a result it will come under renewed challenge from our political opponents, who would dearly like to return to the old two-party system.

Yet while much or our agenda- Europe, Human Rights- remains scornfully rejected by the mainstream of both left and right, there is an area where the party should now be speaking up, since our ideas seem set to become the basis for a major reform. That area is the solution to the crisis of Scotland.

The Liberal Democrats has always supported Home Rule for Scotland- it still does so today. Yet that support was also bound up in a vision of  wider reform of the whole of the British State. We argued that all of the people of Britain should be able to get control of their own affairs. Increasingly as the implications of the Scottish referendum sink in across the rest of the United Kingdom,  it is becoming clear that a Federal reform of Britain is now a critical part of a solution that will keep the four nations of the common state together.

We have argued for a flexible system- similar to that of Spain- where different areas take on the decisions that are right for them. This goes well beyond the simple creation of a unified English Parliament, which Conservatives now advocate, and to be honest the creation of such a Parliament renders the British State simply Greater England rather than Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The time has come to inject the decades of Liberal discussion on the subject into the national debate.

Constitutional reform, for the Liberal Democrats, is not just about electoral reform, it is about addressing the increasingly real concerns of the different nations and regions of the UK- and the Liberal Democrats have a well-thought out agenda for change. The legislation that Tony Blair enacted for devolution for Wales and Scotland (and later, Northern Ireland) was always going to be destabilising if the issue of English government was not address as part of a wider British settlement too- and we said so at the time.

If Nick Clegg and the Ministerial team want to recover distinctive Liberal Democrat ground- then they would be best putting forward the Lords reforms as part of a wider settlement of the British constitution. 

Not only is Right, Not only is it Liberal, it may even be popular.


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…