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

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it. Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that