Browse > Home / Posts by

| Subcribe via RSS



Liberal Democrats need a forum for economic liberals

By Simon Rigelsford
October 16th, 2011 at 6:00 pm | 25 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

At conference, I had the pleasure of meeting many members of the party who, to my surprise, reacted positively and largely in agreement when I described myself as a classical liberal and sympathetic to free market economics.

A few weeks before conference, I had heard that some party members were considering forming a grass roots organisation that aims to bring together and facilitate discussion and policy development amongst those in the Liberal Democrats who are sympathetic to economic liberalism, i.e. the ‘Orange Bookers’.

I believe that there is definitely a demand for such an organisation, and a large number of people, myself included, have already put themselves forward saying that they are ready to get involved and help out in any way they can. Things are very much still in the planning stages at the moment, but that is why any support would be all the more welcome.

I asked Mike Bird, who first proposed the idea, to send me a few paragraphs outlining what he hopes to achieve. Here is his response:

The aim of this organisation is provisionally to promote economic liberalism within the Liberal Democrats. We hope to be a ‘big tent’ of opinion, and will welcome anyone who feels that there are areas in which the party could be more open to promoting a free market. We seek to co-operate with other groups within the party, and would like to integrate ourselves as part of the liberal mainstream in this country.

Our outlook is not solely economic: we wish to see our party advocating four-cornered liberalism – liberal economics, in a framework of personal, political and social liberalism.

This is an unploughed field in British politics: other parties have appropriated the language of economic freedom (while often lacking it in practice), but it is in our heritage. We shouldn’t let anyone else monopolise that. Capitalism is about much more than big business, and it can’t be left to social conservatives to represent the dominant economic system of the United Kingdom.

We hope you’ll be hearing much more from and about us in the near future. Contact me if you’re interested!

Mike Bird (mbird91@gmail.com)

All of us at Liberal Vision wish them the very best.

'

Liberty League Freedom Forum 2011

By Simon Rigelsford
April 4th, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Comments Off on Liberty League Freedom Forum 2011 | Posted in Uncategorized

This weekend I was one of over eighty classical liberal university students to attend the UK Liberty League’s first ever Freedom Forum conference in Birmingham. Speakers included Mark Littlewood and Steve Davies (both of the Institute of Economic Affairs), Alex Deane (formerly of Big Brother Watch), Guy Herbert (NO2ID), Simon Clarke (Forest), Mark Wallace, Simon Richards (Freedom Association), Graham Aitkin (Students for a Sensible Drug Policy), Tim Evans (Cobden Centre), Conservative MP Sajid Javid and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. Liberal Vision’s Tim Cox was a panellist for a discussion on how the current crisis can help us make the case for a smaller state, alongside Tom Clougherty (Adam Smith Institute) and Josie Appleton (Manifesto Club), while I was a panellist debating so-called libertarian paternalism with Claire Fox (Institute of Ideas), Oliver Cooper (Progressive Conservatives) and Joe Finlayson (Liberty society at Leeds University). In addition to the speeches and panel debates, there were also useful workshops on fundraising and campaigning, using social media, public speaking and public relations.

There were quite a lot of hyperlinks in that paragraph above, but if you are unfamiliar with any of the individuals or organisations mentioned, I strongly recommend that you take a look at their websites, as they include some of the most articulate and effective defenders of a free and liberal society we have in the UK today.

It was fantastic to meet so many young like-minded people, and it was also encouraging to see that pro-liberty campus activism is clearly on the rise, something which is likely to be reinforced by the skills developed, ideas exchanged and links between societies strengthened as a result of the Freedom Forum.

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.