Is this Tristan Mills dark secret?

Perhaps this explains how Liberty Alone is funded?

If so, it should make the Autumn conference more amusing!

Our place in Europe

As Tristan has noted, Cicero has another well-thought-out post on his blog. Personally, I’m kicking myself as I nearly went to Andrus Ansip’s lecture at the LSE but bailed out at the last minute. (I might have known Cicero’s true identity!).

Cicero writes “The Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to speak out for a genuinely Liberal Europe… in favour of free trade and freer movement in services and agriculture, [and] against a European super state and "ever closer union". He is spot on.

I have been advocating for some time a shift in emphasis for the Lib Dems from “The party of Europe” to “The party of European reform”. This would contrast with Labour, who are largely in favour but have learnt to keep quiet and not rock the boat for fear of alienating the voters, and the Conservatives, who largely want to leave but have learnt to keep quite and not rock the boat for fear of alienating each other.

I agree that it is in Britain’s interests to be in Europe, but it is not in Britain’s or anyone else’s interests for Europe to pursue “ever closer union” or to develop into a socialist state.

The European Union needs to trim down its areas of competence and embark on a massive liberalisation and deregulation programme. As liberals we should not meekly go along with the European agenda; we should be pressing loudly for an end to farm subsidies, an unfettered free-market within Europe (for goods, services, labour and capital) and less protectionism against imports (from any of those four categories) from abroad.

What is more, “harmonisation” should not be used as an excuse to eliminate variety, innovation and competitive advantage. There is no reason why a single market cannot thrive where different tax codes, different regulatory regimes and even different currencies exist. Of course Europe should not tolerate manipulation of regulatory regimes as a covert form of protectionism, but neither should we assume that bland uniformity from Athens to Aberdeen is a necessary feature of any market. There is no amount of economic efficiency or market clarity that justifies refusing to allow individuals to transact in their traditional quantities and measures.

Neither is there any reason why job protection should be the same in every corner of the Union: can workers not judge for themselves when considering taking a job abroad how the labour laws will affect their future? Or do we need a paternalistic super-state to protect us from the effects of making a decision.

Again, there is no economic justification for suggesting that one member state should not be allowed to experiment with a low-tax high-growth model while others opt for a high-tax high-welfare system (Oh! That the UK could be allowed such variety!). Efforts to impose tax harmonisation are an attempt by high tax economies to undermine the comparative advantage of lower tax competitors in the name of the “level playing field”.

Britain’s place is in Europe. But it is in a liberal Europe. The Liberal Democrats should press that point home in Brussels, Strasbourg, Westminster and their constituencies. It will appeal far more to voters than unquestioning loyalty to European integration or a shy admission of support. It is also the right position to take.

Have I earned Brian Micklethwait's “particular ire”?

I don't know what I said in response to Brian Micklethwait’s condemnation of the unpredictable and inconsistent Liberal Democrats (though if you want to know what I said you can read it on his site or on mine), but whatever it was it has prompted him to reply:

All parties are coalitions, but some more than others.

I stand by my prejudice about the Lib Dems being more coalition and less coherence than the other two. If all we knew about someone was that he was Labour, or Conservative, or Lib Dem, and nothing else, we all make better guesses about what the Conservative or the Labourite thinks than the Lib Dem, and that includes if a Lib Dem is doing the guessing. Of course we’d often be wrong about the Conservatives and Labourites, and perhaps more wrong in recent years, but Conservative and Labour opinions do have a vague pattern to them. We’d only randomly be right about the Lib Dems.

What do I base this on? Well, a lot of talking and a lot of listening, in the flesh and on the telly and in the newspapers, and now the blogs. Is there any actual survery evidence on this? Maybe. My prejudice, of course, is that it would support me, and not Tom Papworth.

As for those libertarian noises emerging from the Lib Dems, that’s entirely consistent with the above. They echo everyone’s opinions, including mine. That’s why they arouse my “particular ire”, when I’m in the mood to be irate about politicians that is, which is not always.

I just have the strong sense that similar arguments to this one are happening all over the political spectrum, on diametrically opposed blogs and chat rooms to this one, all about how the Lib Dems are the “best bet” for . . . whatever it is, regardless of what it is. Which party is closer to the [fill in the blank] ideal? Always: the Lib Dems, but only in the sense that there’ll always be a Lib Dem making those noises. There’ll be a Lib Dem making any noise you care to imagine.

Nick M’s original Samizdata comment confirms this prejudice, which is why I copied and pasted it. Is he wrong? Was he imagining it? Maybe, but I don’t think so.

Brian Micklethwait on 01/09 at 08:59 PM

Well, he admits it's a prejudice, which is a start!

I maintain that it isn’t so easy to predict who stands where based on party. In mid-2003, were Mr. Micklethwait - unencumbered with prior knowledge – to have met Labour Party MPs Anne Clewyd and George Galloway, he would have found their positions somewhat diverse. Both New Labour and Cameron's Conservatives bear little resemblance to their forebears. One might argue that the Liberal Democrats are neither the party of Gladstone nor of Jenkins, but that only proves that all parties are unpredictable.

I have met Tory libertarians, imperialists and isolationists. US Republicans have neo-cons, paleo-cons and religio-cons. Democrats include hawks, doves, free-traders and isolationists. New Labour is devoid of any recognisable ideology.

Perhaps some real survey evidence would be useful; I'm sure there are research companies capable of carrying out the necessary quantitative and qualitative analysis, if only somebody has the cash with which to finance such a project. I suspect - regrettably - that the desire to be elected would be the strongest force in all politicians.

In the end, just as Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom "to the socialists in all parties", perhaps Mr. Micklethwait should welcome the libertarians in all parties, no matter how much they differ from their colleagues. It is through them that a libertarian consensus will arise.

Are the Lib Dems libertarian enough?

Having scored a miserable 67 points on the libertarian purity test, perhaps I am not the best man to fight the redoubtable Brian Micklethwait over whether the Liberal Democrats have it in them to be a libertarian party or not.

However, Tristan has been highlighting Brian Micklethwait's constant attacks on the Liberal Democrats for some time, and I felt the need to reply to Mr. Micklethwait's most recent criticism; I couldn't resist! My reply is reproduced below (now, with hotlinks!):


In we all pile, fists flailing!

I think your suggestion that the Liberal Democrats are somehow more diverse and less disciplined or harmonious than the other parties is ludicrous, as is the belief (which I infer) that the Tories somehow embody (at least economic) liberalism.

All parties are coalitions - John Major described his Government as "a coalition of one", and Gordon Tullock's theory of logrolling demonstrates that all politics is compromise (he might also have something to say about your suggestion that only Lib Dems are interested primarily in re-election!).

Labour is torn between New Labour and old socialists, the Conservatives between Thatcherites and new-Butskellites, and the Lib Dems have their Social Democratic and their Liberal wings. I cannot believe that you can claim with a straight face that David Cameron's acceptance of Labour's tax-and-spend rate or newfound fondness for the prattlings of Polly Toynbee are consistent with the work of Lord's Tebbit and Howe.

In fact, which party is now closer to a libertarian ideal? Which is the party that believes in open borders for economic migrants? Which would devolve power to local authorities? Which is the most likely to remove the last vestiges of legal discrimination against homosexuals? Which mooted reconsidering prohibition of cannabis for consenting adults? Which has just announced a raft of income tax cuts? Which is closest to land value taxation, beloved of classical economists? I could go on (you might think I already have ;o)

You are right that the Lib Dems need to be more careful to ensure that their message is more consistent. The easiest way of achieving that without a command-and-control style central office (such as the one that sacked Howard Flyte for going off message) is a strong philosophical basis. I hope that that philosophy will be liberalism in its most classic form.

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps we can have a chat over some of John Blundell's free wine.

Who really represents the working class

Having posted a couple of criticisms of fellow bloggars’ postings recently (hating the sin and not the sinner, I hasten to add!), it is a pleasure to be able to cite an excellent entry by Tristan about David Cameron’s recently announced aspiration to make the Conservatives the party of the working class.

Much as we may want to ridicule this, Tristan is right to note that for a long time the Tories appealed to the naturally conservative tendency within a big proportion of the population, while Labour’s intellectually-driven egalitarianism only appealed to the working class when it was combined with cynical class-war populism.

Where I would question Tristan (there’s no point in just agreeing meekly with him, after all!) is where he writes that “Neither party could ever truly claim to be the party of the working class, and no party can today…” This overlooks the very interventionist sentiment that suffuses much of the working class (though if his point is that interventionism isn’t a class issue I would have to agree, for the middle classes seem equally convinced in the merits of paternalism).

One thing that Margaret Thatcher did brilliantly (better than we ever did, sadly) was to convince large swathes of the population that it was in their interests to vote for a party that espoused economically liberal doctrines. For the past decade the majority of voters in the UK have been of the opinion that their interests are best served by paternal government – so much so that the Conservatives have now jettisoned their economically liberal beliefs and are returning to the Conservative-Interventionist position that they occupied in the third quarter of the twentieth century.

My first reaction to this is to shake my head sadly as these auxiliaries abandon their association with liberty as soon is it no longer advances their real aims. But in fact there is an opportunity here, if we have the courage to seize it. I believe that David Cameron is making a mistake in shifting his party back towards the interventionist axis just as people are beginning to tire of Brown’s “nanny state.

With less and less discernable policy-space between the Conservatives and New Labour, the Liberal Democrats alone can argue the case for a society based on individual autonomy and limited government. Rather than appealing to any one class, we should appeal to that part of every voter that recognises that they are best placed to make decisions about their own lives.

I am frankly tired of being associated with the Conservatives just because they have on occasion shared with us an opposition to socialism. Too often when we champion the market or question state monopolies we are accused of being Thatcherites. The fact that the Tories arrogated our beliefs in a free economy has created a daft situation in which economic liberalism is seen as Conservative philosophy while the Liberal Democrats are left with only the social aspects of liberty. This perception is widespread in the media and even some within our own party are afraid of liberal economics because of its association with the old enemy.

So let David Cameron try to win the working class by stripping them of autonomy and expropriating their assets. Let us empower them and offer them freedom. It may seem at present that intervention and the large state dominates, but the tide will turn. The voters, be they the over-taxed middle class or working class playthings of bureaucracy, want freedom.

The strange death of Libertarian Home

Libertarian-minded colleagues will know that a month ago a new blog was launched that sought to be "the leading portal bringing together the libertarian movement."

LibertarianHome.com hopes to be the missing link between the millions of people who have libertarian-leaning views and the libertarian movement. Our aim is nothing short of a revival in libertarian thinking.

It started well. On 24 November an article was published calling for the privatisation of marriage (it's either a legal contract, which can be administered by any lawyer, or a religious union, which is the preserve of priests). Articles appeared defending Acid House parties ("We wanna' be free... to do... what we wanna' do") and attacking Guantanamo Bay. There was a space (Your Platform) where one might submit a short article, and regular round ups of the days news from a libertarian perspective. LibertarianHome received mentions in Tristan Mills's blog among others. Hopes were high.

They have since fallen rather flat. The last time the home page, which provides the libertarian news round-up, was updated was 7 December. The Liberty Log, providing original news and articles, has not been updated since 4 December. And the last time that anyone else had anything published on the Your Space section was 2 December - and not for want of material.

Blogs are, of course, often reliant on one individual, and it may be that Alex Singleton, the apparent editor of LibertarianHome and Director General of the Globalisation Institute, is unable to devote enough time to it. If so, it is a sad false-start. There remains the blog of the Libertarian Alliance (I am unclear as to whether their website is here or here), but the vaunted aim to revive libertarian thinking has yet to be realised.