Liberal Vision

Liberal Vision votes in LDV’s “Liberal Voice of the Year poll”

Much has been said on the subject of  LDV’s “Liberal Voice of Year Poll”. Having read a good number of thoughts, on a range of blogs and posts, about who people think should (or shouldn’t) get the vote… we thought we might lob our two-penneth in.

It probably won’t surprise you to discover that we think it should be Mark Littlewood, founder of and former contributor to this very blog.

Why? Curiously NOT because he has easily been the most effective “free market freedom fighter” of the past year. That should perhaps count… but we think there are other reasons…

First off, as many of you know (and some may have forgotten) Mark is a true liberal. Not only has he done his turn working for Liberty, Mark co-founded, and was chief spokesman for, NO2ID for quite a stint. It is easy to forget that without the simply brilliant and relentless work of NO2ID (hats off here to Phil Booth and Guy Herbert as well) we would almost certainly have seen ID cards being rolled out by now. That alone should earn him some form of recognition.

And whilst on the subject of noble causes let us not forget his stint as chief spin doctor for the party. Not many people will know the extent to which he totally modernised the Lib Dem press office – recruiting and promoting some of the brightest and the best in the business (several of whom are still doing their bit for the party in government today), changing structures and practices that made party’s press operation one the best in the business.

But perhaps the real reason why we here at Liberal Vision think that he deserves to win is that he has, almost single-handedly, championed the cause of personal freedom. He has taken on ministers over regressive plans to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol; tackled lobbyists over the crippling smoking ban; called for the legalisation of drugs. He has demanded time and time again that adults should be treated as adults and not patronised; not spoken down to; not dismissed by those in power. He has been THE VOICE for all those people out there who believe that Government meddling, nannying or nudging is insane, frequently counter-productive and too often unfair – but have no opportunity to say so. He speaks for millions.

Of course we should not overlook his credentials as the “free market freedom fighter” – a term that truly reflects both the passion he has for the subject and the sheer amount of work he does (when is he NOT on the media somewhere or other?). He was without any shadow of any doubt THE free market Voice of 2011. We understand that not everyone shares his views. But what people can not deny is his willingness to engage in the intellectual argument surrounding economic liberalism.

Whilst here at LV, Mark was always insistent that whenever we ran into people who disagreed with our views, the only way to tackle it was to engage and discuss. Those of you that follow him on twitter today will know that he pursues that philosophy to this day. Liberal Democrats have always valued discussion and debate more than any other party. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from the other parties. And Mark must be one of the exemplary figures in doing just that. Yet another damn fine reason why he deserves the title of Liberal Voice of the Year.

The cat is well and truly out of the bag

On the whole, as I reported previously, I thought we had a pretty good conference up in Birmingham. Having now seen Ed Miliband’s joke of a speech and the Conservatives fall out big time over a cat of all things, I take it all back. We had a brilliant conference!

How on earth the Conservatives have let the “cat” story (unimaginatively dubbed “cat-gate”) run for three or four days goodness only knows..but it has. The latest shock revelation today, in the Telegraph, is that the man at the centre of the Clarke-May row, Ranzo Avila, who admitted shoplifting from a high street store in London, in 2007,  received a police caution but was never convicted for shoplifting! Under Home Office rules, that doesn’t pass the threshold for deportation (which is when a foreign national has been sentenced to at least a year in prison). So no cat story at all then!

Of course dear old Ken did not exactly smooth ruffled feathers (or fur in this case) when he described May’s use of the cat case as “laughable and childlike”. (Though you’ve got to admit he has a point!).

You have to ask what on earth is going on at NO10. Not only did one of Cameron’s most important set-piece speeches have to be rewritten hours before delivery, after the briefed speech had to be binned, but now we are seeing a silly childish spat between the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary being played out across the media. You would really think Cameron might have more important things to deal with – like the economy.

I am afraid that all this points to the fact  that Andy Coulson’s replacement – Craig Oliver- is just not up to the job. He may have been  safe pair of hands – but is he politically astute enough? – with enough clout to do the job? My bet that Oliver would not last the year is looking good.

What are the Liberal Democrats for?

Graeme Archer’s piece in the Telegraph on the Liberal Democrats is not exactly flattering to say the least. He clearly doesn’t have much time for the party and believes that if it didn’t exist no one would invent it.

Angela Harbutt commented that while not agreeing with everything, Archer has a point. Others have responded and can be read below the link Angela posted.

I suspect third parties, whatever they stand for, will always have trouble justifying their existence. After all, you can join a main party that you feel some affinity towards and then hope to persuade party members to support your views.

But what about what the Lib Dem MPs do in the Commons. Assuming that some would never join another party, because for whatever reason they feel that the Lib Dems is the only place for them, would Britain be better or worse off without them?

There is one particularly example that I think answers Graeme Archer’s question. John Hemming MP recently wrote a blog post for Halsbury’s Law Exchange. HLE is a virtual think tank that is supported by the company I work for.

It details his campaign for families who have their children taken away by local authorities. You can read the post here. As far as I know, Hemming is the only MP to take up this issue. It touches upon liberty, the law and the State.

If nothing else, taking on such a cause might be a good enough reason to invent such a party if it didn’t exist.

A libertarian guide to Valentine’s Day

It’s that time of year again when every economic liberal can celebrate the reduction of our highest emotional connection with another human being by supporting the greeting card, floral and sugar processing industries, whilst ignoring the troubling history of the festival.

The original St. Valentine, about whom little is known, is claimed as a  priest martyred in the reign of Roman Emperor Claudius II (@270 AD). His principle crime was helping Christians marry, the pre-medieval equivalent of birth control.

His doom was only confirmed after arrest when the pagan Emperor tired of his endless attempts to convert him, and romantically sent him clubbing with his mates; where upon he got hopelessly stoned and entirely lost his head. He was reportedly buried on February 14th.

The Saint’s Day itself was inaugurated in 496 AD by Pope  Gelasius and may have been a direct replacement for the Roman Festival of Lupercalia. A thoroughly unpleasant 3-day rite that began with animal sacrifice, involved young nobles running around town naked, and concluded with the beating of women with whips in the hope of improving their fertility. A tradition continued today by young British holidaymakers throughout the summer.

There are references throughout history after that including the acres of greeting-card quality poetry in the age of courtly love; Shakespeare’s cheery musings in Hamlet; up to the modern reinterpretation of the Valentine ode “Roses are Red, Violets are blue” by the balladeers of Aqua.

Why should libertarians care about this festival?

First it  despised by anti-consumerist elements on the left. Antivalentinism detests the crass commercialism of the festival and worries it distracts attention from the true joyless collectivist meaning of love, something unfairly distributed and horded by those rich in social skills and good looks in the capitalist system. Besides which they harbour strong suspicions that Kraft and Hallmark could pay more tax.

Second it is loathed by authoritarians. Saudi Arabia occasionally  bans it as a Christian holiday, and consequently enjoys a black market in roses. Gay rights campaigners in China use the day for protest marches. Nationalists in India threatened to shave the heads of  celebrants in 2004.

That cheesy card you send extolling the virtues of your dear one beyond any actual qualities they might have is a direct snub to dictatorship.

Third the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was a direct consequence of prohibition, and the gangsterism it encouraged.

Fourth it’s not a state-approved official holiday. Whether or not you participate is up to you.

So whilst sitting in an over-priced restaurant filled with over-perfumed couples anxious about whether or not to reciprocate a relationship status update on Facebook, might not be your thing… it is surely your duty to support the cause of global freedom today by buying your loved one a walnut whip. Or not.

Enjoy the freedom to choose.

Anti-war what it is good for?

Sadly, only for making partisan political points it seems. A theme of foreign policy debates recently has been: ‘where did the anti-war movement go?’. The protests and venom aimed at George W. Bush’s foreign policy have all but nearly disappeared. The anti-war movement was political motivated, however, just because an action is politically motivated doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. ReasonTV makes an interesting point: