Browse > Home / Archive: March 2011

| Subcribe via RSS



Can we really be sanctioning the murder?

By Angela Harbutt
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:43 am | 6 Comments | Posted in International Politics

We at Liberal Vision usually agree – but on Libya it appears we don’t.

From over here this looks like a mess of gigantic proportions. We seem to have gone from a United Nations agreement some 3 days ago to install a “no fly zone” over Libya – to a policy that appears to allow the military to do anything and everything they like, from bombing Libya at will – taking out swathes of Tripoli and elsewhere – to murdering the current head of state. Talk about mission-creep.

But ludicrously it appears not to be the military with the blood lust – but the British Government. 

General Richards appears on TV stating that the murdering of the Libyan leader “is not allowed under the UN resolution..” . Phew thinks I (not entirely sure how a “no fly zone” policy can have escalated quite that quickly to UN sanctioned murder in just a couple of days)… Only then to be told that Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were saying the General was wrong– and that assassinating Gaddafi is legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.

And Government  disagreement with the General does not come just from “un-named sources”. William Hague (who surely cannot last in his role much longer) has point-blank refused, when asked, to rule out murdering of Gaddafi. “It all depends on how people behave”he said. Does it ? Really? Is that really what the UN thought it was agreeing to ? Do we really think they will hold the rest of the Middle East in this unholy alliance whilst squabbling on tv about the legality of murdering a head of state?

So the British Army thinks we can’t murder Gaddafi – the British Government believes we can.

Am I the only one who is worried here?

Is this really what Cameron was talking about on Friday? Did I miss the part of the speech when he said we would murder the head of state, bomb Libya to hell and well do pretty much anything we like but don’t worry chaps it’s all ok providing we don’t actually put our dirty great International Coalition boots on the sand?

Then again we clearly DO have dirty great big Coalition boots on Libyan soil…. we have been told that at least one 3 storey building in Tripoli was destroyed by a missile from HMS Triumph because it was identified as a “crucial target” by “British special forces operating deep behind enemy lines”. What else are they likely to do whilst they are out there I wonder?

And whilst I think it would be very nice if plan A occurs…and Gaddafi supporters do all “lay down their arms ” and join the forces of light. Supposing they don’t? Can I ask what plans Mr Hague and Fox have in the event of massacre the other way round?  What if the Revolutionary Council or it’s followers decide to march on Tripoli – as they are being encouraged to do – and start murdering the wives and children of Gaddafi followers? Is that OK ? Or does Mr Hague believe that UN sanction 1973 allows us to start assassinating them too?

Surely this is already spirallng out of control. ? I may be in the minority right now. But I believe this whole plan to be ill-conceived, poorly planned and showing every sign on going hellishly wrong.

'

They will fight in the shade

By Andy Mayer
March 18th, 2011 at 9:48 am | 2 Comments | Posted in International Politics

The UN Security Council’s decision to agree not just a ‘no-fly zone’, but “all necessary measures”, against expectations of a Russian veto, is remarkable and welcome.

The UK will be involved, and on this occasion in a dispute that is legal. Many lives will be lost, but many more will be saved from murder and torture at the hands of the incumbent Government. It is hoped the pressure will break the loyalty of government forces quickly and encourage the Gaddafis to flee.

We cannot know that. We cannot predict how many casulties will be suffered in the process of destroying Libyan armour and air defences. We do not know whether the Opposition will come to be dominated by liberal democrats or militant zealots. War is a conversation in the language of unintended consequences.

It is though a moment of hope, for millions of Libyans in their darkest hour, as the drone of  engines close in on their last redoubts in Benghazi and Misratah.

This is still their civil war to win. The international community has not offered to disarm mercenaries in Tripoli. But at least they will fight in the shade of our warbirds.

All our hopes for a swift resolution are with the brave men and women who are to provide that cover, fight on the ground, and negotiate peace when the outcome is clear. The long overdue global collapse of authoritarianism inched a little closer today.

Freedom Forum: 1st – 3rd April 2011

By Sara Scarlett
March 16th, 2011 at 12:58 pm | 1 Comment | Posted in Liberty League, UK Politics

Last month Students for Liberty, an organisation that seeks to support student groups that hold a wide-range of philosophical beliefs that all share an underlying dedication to liberty, hosted the 4th Annual International Students For Liberty Conference at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Founded in 2008, it’s not hard to see why this organisation has grown. The excellent attendance (500+ delegates increased from around 300 in 2009) shows that the liberty movement in the United States is thriving in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the jaded left-right dichotomy. But it’s not just that. This organisation is incredibly high quality, run for student, by students. It began with pure energy and has gathered momentum ever since. I had the pleasure of attending ISFLC and it was the most invigorating experience in my time as an activist. The quality of the sessions and debate was excellent. The atmosphere was electric. Aside from hosting Conferences, SFL distributes literature and support for pro-liberty groups across the United States and international partner organisations through its network of some of the most competent and dedicated student organisers I have ever had the pleasure to work with.

One of those organisers is Anton Howes, a student at King’s College, University of London and a member of the incoming SFL Executive Board. Along with Will Hamilton and James Lawson he has founded the UK Liberty League, a non-partisan organisation that seeks to further the pro-liberty network in the UK.

On the 1st to the 3rd of April, the Liberty League have organised the first annual Freedom Forum. If you are a likeminded student, professional or academic, this is an event you can’t afford to miss. Book your ticket now, spread the word and be part of enriching the liberty movment here in the UK.

The state should not subsidise the arts

By Simon Rigelsford
March 14th, 2011 at 4:00 pm | 13 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Dame Helen Mirren, David Tennant and others recently wrote to the Observer demanding that no cuts should be made to arts spending. My view is that state subsidisation of the arts is one of the most unnecessary, illiberal and regressive things that government does, and should in fact be cut by considerably more than has been proposed in the Spending Review.

Given the subjective nature of artistic creation, it is unacceptable that the state should decide that we are valuing the “wrong things”, or not valuing certain things enough, and therefore need to pay extra tax so that the “right things” can be subsidised by a government which corrects our supposed ignorance. If an artistic venture fails to make a financial return, it simply means that not enough people think it’s worth paying for. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that the state should not promote any particular conception of “the good life”. If the state is to fund the arts, then it cannot decide which artistic creations are worthy of funding without violating that principle.

Another thing which I have found odd is that many of those in favour of state funding for the arts describe themselves as progressive and left of centre. Not everyone is interested in theatres, art galleries and museums – these remain primarily middle class activities even when they are entirely subsidised by the state and entry is free of charge. Why should those who do not particularly enjoy such things be forced to subsidise people with more expensive tastes, especially given the fact that those with more expensive tastes tend to be higher earners?

The cultural welfare state should be dismantled. What artistic productions flourish should be determined by the voluntary interactions of individuals; we should not allow a committee of bureaucrats to tell us all what’s good for us, especially when it comes to art and culture.

Forward to a better managed yesterday

By Andy Mayer
March 13th, 2011 at 1:16 pm | 10 Comments | Posted in health, Liberal Democrats

Debates about the organisation of the NHS, much like those about the Church of England, fascinate insiders and leave most people confused, albeit with strong instincts as to which side they’re on.

Most public NHS debates then are emotional spasms in response to beliefs about public and private provision. Saturday’s Liberal Democrat Party conference rebellion against market aspects of the Government reform programme is in that vein.

I find it hard to believe for example that most of those present had strong feelings on demanding  “a much greater degree of co-terminously between local authorities and commissioning areas“, or  “celebrating “the social solidarity of shared access to collective healthcare“, or “requiring GP Commissioning Boards to construct their Annual Plans in conjunction with the HWBs“.

The main debate was about “the complete ruling out of any competition based on price” in order to “ensure that healthcare providers ‘compete’ on quality of care”.

Despite evidence that competition and price signals are essential in driving quality in health the same as any other service, and the slide of UK health provision versus the world over the lifetime of the NHS, it remains the fond hope of the left that they will yet find a perfect planning committee, presumably attached to an infinite budget such that no tough decisions about priorities ever need be made.

The actual consequence of planning without prices is two-fold. First low cost, low quality providers get paid the same as the good, a lemon market. The second related point is reducing incentives to improve. If you can’t charge more for better services, why innovate. That in turn inhibits the good from growing to displace the bad. The reason many NHS services are sub-par is that they are never allowed to exit the market, just linger for years killing and maiming the sick, in order to provide patients with “social solidarity of shared access”.

Commentary today suggests that this vote might force the Conservatives to water down their already not very radical proposals.

I’m not so sure. It will certainly provide some theatre of dissent. When Nick Clegg says “no to privatisation”, that doesn’t means much. Privatisation wasn’t on the table, and many parts of healthcare are already private or third sector. Removing private companies entirely from health provision would require such mad steps as nationalising pharmaceutical companies and banning all agency staff. Too far even for the writers of the motion.

Nick in this instance has just created yet another future rod with which to beat him by ‘disappointed’ activists.

I suspect there will be something as a gesture to the anti-reform sentimentalists, in order to allow our Ministers to say they listened and got concessions. But that in part has already happened. It would also be seen as a fairly normal part of Parliamentary processes under Coalition, if this country had much experience of the same.

Otherwise those of a Liberal Vision point of view are having a good conference. Nick Clegg opened with a call with the party to hold their nerve, much as we suggested last week, and his speech today is about fighting for the centre-ground (not being left-wing), much as we suggested last year. The narrative is going in the right direction, despite the best efforts of some to hold it back.