Liberal Vision

The New Labour disaster in 4 minutes

Here’s Liberal Vision’s take on the rise and fall of New Labour – set to the unmistakeable beat of 99 Red Balloons by Nena. Contains graphic violence.

Despotic Wives

Strange goings in on the world of politicians and their wives, prompted by two of Westminster’s more outspoken members.

First up there’s woman-of-the-moment Nadine Dorries, who is a tad unhappy about the new Speaker.

Fair enough, some might say, but the reasons for discontent (outlined on her re-born blog) are rather notable:

“the Speaker’s wife, should he have one, plays a very important role” she explains. Yes, of course it does. Very important role. “We have all seen how often Speaker Martin’s wife has been named in the press over the years.”

Have we?

But now for the hammer-blow: “John Bercow’s wife is reported to be a socialist. ”

No! A socialist! I mean, bluntly, I don’t like them either, but as Nadine asks rhetorically – “Does this matter?”

“I think it does” she says! “A great deal”.

Crickey! But why, pray tell? Why? Ah I see, it’s because:

“The position has been held by socialists twice already.”

Well why the bloody deuce didn’t you say?! Twice, forsooth! Twice have the Speaker’s wives been socialists! Be’Jesus we really do live in a Soviet State these days.

Yet Mrs Bercow isn’t the only devious Socialist Wife to wreak havoc on our constitution, for Claire Short has elsewhere claimed that military-invasion-fan Tony Blair only joined Labour because of Cherie. He “would have become a Tory” otherwise, she claimed in the Sunday Mercury.

Responding to the claims on the BBC, Cherie said:

“Oh rubbish”.

Right ho.

Those who can, teach – like parents!

As a matter of principle, Liberal Democrats should support home educators in their opposition to Graham Badman’s recommendations in the Review of Elective Home Education in England.  However, I fear the Party leadership will not do so.  Instead, it looks at though it will be seeking to find a ‘balance’ between the rights of parents to decide for themselves how best to educate their children, and the collective welfare of children as a whole.

Why am I so concerned that the Party may side with collectivism as opposed to defending individual rights?  Upon seeking clarification on the Party’s policy on home education from Cowley Street’s policy boffs, and in particular on the Badman recommendations, I was reliably informed of the need to find that balance.  In short, I was told the Party is generally supportive of the Badman recommendations.

I have several problems with siding with this subjective piece of rubbish.  As a libertarian, I say the Party should not be endorsing coerced collectivism at all.  Sure, if a group of parents want to voluntarily come together and register their children with the State and the evil database that is ContactPoint, then let them do so.  I would say they are foolish in their choice but they should be free to do so nonetheless.

If however, parents decide they want nothing to do with the State, they too should be free to exercise their rights.

Under the Badman proposals home educators will not be permitted their rights.  They will be forced to register their children with their local education authority, and their children will be entered onto the ContactPoint register, and if parents’ standard or type of education doesn’t conform with that which is prescribed by the State – which most of us know to be crap – then the freedom to home educate their children will be denied them.  Opposition to this is a matter of principle for all Liberal Democrats.

Of course, if a child is being abused – which, as an aside, government do-gooders have attempted to use as a justification for more regulation and control of home education – then that is another matter.  No-one should be aggressed against contrary to their will.  If there are victims of abuse, then the full weight of relevant laws should fall upon the aggressors.

If however a child is not receiving an ‘adequate’ education, this in itself should be no business of the State’s to resolve.  Despite it being written in man-made Human Rights laws (that by the way also protect the State so should perhaps be referred to as Human and States’ Rights laws)  the truth is that under natural law no-one has a right to education.

Yes, it would be nice if every single human being on this planet had access to not just a ‘suitable’ education, but excellent education too; but I say this again, no-one has a ‘right’ to education.  For if they had, the question is then what standard of education?  Mediocre to poor?  For that is the general standard delivered by the State to our children.

If people want better than the State can provide, they should be able to opt out of State provision without fear of threat and hindrance from government and its agents.  They should have unrestricted freedom to choose what they believe is best for their own kids because – and this is a fundamental point – the kids belong to the parents, not to society or government!

Once bureaucrats gets involved and starts dictating the terms, quoting laws and targets, the already high standards that are achieved in most cases through home education – and indeed independent sector education – will be dragged down to State level.

I hope the Party leadership sees sense and doesn’t allow the collectivist malaise undermine home educators’ freedoms, for if it does, it may as well ditch the word ‘Liberal’ and replace it with ‘Social’.

Brown out in 9 months. Labour out in 11?

I had dinner tonight with a pretty significant journalist from a major broadcaster who relayed a story they felt in their own words “was a fraction shy of being reported on air” (and trust me, they have the power to run the story if they felt it could be stacked…).

As it happens a secondary source, at the last moment, was unwilling to be quoted.  So the story did not hit the airwaves.  But my dinner partner was “as sure as one can be” that the story stacked up.

I think it stacks up too. I heard it from another source just 24 hours earlier…

Question: Why didn’t David Milliband resign – as expected – shortly (hours)after the Purnell resignation?

Question:  Why didn’t Alan Johnson put the knife in ?

Question: Why did the PLP draw back from all-out  war with Gordon Brown when all the cards were theirs to play?

Answer : The “deal” was done “that evening” by the the Prince of Darkness… In return for the party backing down on Gordon ”right then”….. it was agreed that  Gordon Brown WILL  QUIT as leader shortly (i.e weeks) ahead of the general election – with Johnson taking on the crown and moving immediately into a general election.

The reasoning?  (a) Brown wants to hang on in the (vain hope) that his record is salvaged between now and then. And (b) Labour pollsters reckon this is the best possible option for a slim parliamentary win – or, more likely, retention of power with a pact with the Lib Dems.

Now. What will the Lib Dems do in face of this information ?

UPDATE 11am, Thurs. 25th June : This scenario is becoming “perceived wisdom” in the Westminster village.

You, Blogger – last chance to win £2,000

Shock reverberates around the blogosphere following Mark Thompson’s revelations that Martin Bright of The Spectator has never read a “classic” blog post.

Stop for a minute.

Stop.

Feel the reverberations.

But not only can you post your classic posts on Mark’s blog, you can also send them to the Bastiat Prize, so long as you do so in the NEXT WEEK.

If you do this, and you win, you get $3,000 and ’nuff respec.

CLICK HERE TO ENTER

Among the judges is Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, a website upon which I based almost an entire post-graduate degree.

Good luck now.