Yeah, socialism is the way.

Quite like the Observer on a sunday.

The reason is that liberals have control of all things leftie in the media, and well middle class liberals are generally dull. There is no logical reason why a left leaning publication couldnt be humourous and have a sense of fun. A bit more Rob Newman and a bit left Robert Newman perhaps.

First because they’re terrified of being seen as ‘loony left’ but don’t want any right-wing or centrist content either so they end up publishing a fairly narrow range of views and not much that’s controversial.

Second because some – like Tribune – are linked to the Labour party (or the Tribune group of MPs and the Campaign Group in it) so spend too much time discussing how Labour can win elections or avoid losing them. The Guardian does the same but

Third because they’re always running on a shoestring budget from donations, subscribers and sometimes wealthy backers so they’re scared of taking risks.

Having said that Red Pepper, Tribune and the New Statesman all sometimes have good informative articles in them and interesting letters that make them worth reading.

The Guardian is not impressing me, at present, with Rory Carroll’s pro-US coverage of Latin America.

Mmmm… you mean libertarianism might be snuffed out, which is different to liberalism as you well know. Of course, and I’m all for the pragmatic and long term approach. Though, you might want to afford the same thought process to people more close to other parties too, and not assume that everyone who is on the left support New Labour policies, or even that anyone who is member of Labour agrees with govt policy. We’re all more pragmatic than we let on.
I’m honestly not passing judgement – just was curious about where you stood on various Libdem issues. I have nothing at all against broad coalitions or pragmatic politics, I sing its praises all the time.

Iain C – good food for thought. It also has a very questionable construction of “freedom”, centering (when you chip right down to it) on property rights rather than any other understanding of freedom

My thoughts exactly.

it’s a shame that Sally has managed to turn this in to a libertarian/liberalism argument again which I’m sure is purely her way of taking heat off of Labour and the socialists as per usual, as is usually the case I think Charlotte actually has the ability to put her points across with a more than a semblance of intelligence that those going around shouting “The right are stupid because…” and “Oh look, Tory Troll” could well do with trying to muster.

Nonetheless, however unsatisfactory Libertarian political philosophy might be, the Libertarian political critique can be a useful thing. We do need to watch out for what assumptions we make about the value, necessity and justice of state action, and Libertarians can be counted on for that.

Politically, the Liberal Democrats seem to be the natural home of Libertarians in the current party political structure in the UK. It’s a coalition in which their point of view can find a voice and at least some of their ideas be seriously considered for incorporation into a broader canvas. That’s never going to happen in Labour, and the Conservatives can be counted on to adopt Libertarian language precisely as far as it assists them in defending the privileges of the powerful.

A party without enough supporters to get the signatures to nominate a candidate isn’t a good option. FPTP requires broad church parties. Libertarianism is essentially an extreme form of traditional liberalism, indeed many consider that it’s more liberal than a lot of self-styled liberals. By the traditional British meaning of the word, a lot of contributors to this site aren’t liberal, but pretty much every libertarian I’ve ever encountered is. Given of course the very broad definition of liberalism that you need in order for the word to be meaningful.

Besides which, as she’s made very clear both up thread and in many posts on her blog, Charlotte isn’t the type of headbanging loon that you think of when you read the term Libertarian. Indeed, most of LPUK isn’t that bad (although some of them more than make up for the sane ones in the loony quotient).

When Life of Brian mocked the splitters, they were making a sound point. A liberal/libertarian socialist like me fits in acceptably within the broad church of the Lib Dems—indeed on many points I’m more likely to agree with Charlotte than I am with my more Social Democratically inclined colleagues.

But I’d rather a Social Democrat or a libertarian Lib Dem as my councillor, or even MP, than most of the modern Tory party, and these days what’s left of the rump Labour party, especially in the area I live, governed as it is by a Red/Blue group set up specifically to keep the only viable opposition out of office.

It’s true. I don’t even pretend anything else. I feel very strongly that the Liberal Democrats should be a liberal party, a party of personal and economic liberalism even if that’s out of fashion these days. If I, and others like me, abandon the Lib Dems altogether to the social democrats, then liberalism will be snuffed out of mainstream politics in the UK forever.

Whatever certain people might think about this sort of futile idealism is really a matter for them.

I’m with Neil on this, although I’m not sure about the social libertarianism side of things, especially as they were split across the middle on the HFE Bill, and I’m interested why that debate was never had in the open about why so many Libdems opposed the woman’s choice to abortion at 24 weeks.

However, that aside, I’m interested in where Charlotte stands on many of the issues Sally means, for curiosity’s sake.

If you want to be a libertarian, there is a party especially for you:

http://lpuk.org/

“If you really are a libertarian, the nearest thing to it is the Conservative party. Certainly regards economic libertarianism”

Perhaps, but it’s also true that the economic argument is only part of a much broader whole. There’s also the issue of the liberty of the individual citizen and the extent to which the state can or should constrain a citizen’s liberty. On that score, the Lib Dems are certainly more in tune with libertarian thinking than Labour or the Conservatives, both of whom have practiced a fondness for the restriction of personal liberty. So without dipping too far into a political philosophy I’m not an expert on, I don’t think a libertarian would be as out of place in the LDs as they would in Labour or the Tories.

If you really are a libertarian, the nearest thing to it is the Conservative party. Certainly regards economic libertarianism. But again, they are not real libertarian, because no such thing exists in my view. Apart from a few nuts who live in huts in the middle of Alaska.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we’re both libertarians and are so committed to our beliefs that we write about them every day despite the scorn and ridicule heaped upon us from Labourites, Tories and lots of people in-between. Let’s also imagine that we’re civic-minded enough to join a political party, but would rather advocate for a more libertarian approach in one of the major parties than stick with a group which has greater ‘purity’ (LPUK, for example) but, thanks to FPTP, has zero chance of ever having representation in Parliament. Which party do you pick:

a) Labour?
b) Conservatives?
c) Liberal Democrats?

As an imaginary libertarian, I’d go for the Lib Dems, and it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that there are many others besides Charlotte who do the same.

Also, I think there’s something to be said for a party which has a Charlotte Gore AND a Charles Kennedy. If nothing else, I bet it’s a lot more fun at conferences.

No , I didn’t bother to read any of the stuff you put up because it is all pretend libertarianism, Just like most of you Lib Dem Libertarians.

Your position is ludicrous. As for straw men you would know far more about that than me.

“Until Sally demonstrates an ability to read replies or explanations, ignore her, as we’ve had this conversation with her too many times before and she still repeats the same fallacies and half truths.”

Have you bothered to read your parties manifesto of the last 20 years? Because it ain’t libertarian that’s for sure. Me thinks you should start reading your parties own policies before you lecture other people on what they should read.

To claim that you are a libertarian Lib Dem means you fundamentally disagree with almost everything your party supports. That is just ridiculous.

No.

To be the strawman libertarian that you think of whenever you mention the word perhaps would be, but given that what you think of as a libertarian and what actually is proposed by libertarians within the Lib Dems are completely different, it’s you that’s being ridiculous.

Did you bother to read any of the stuff I linked you to last time we had this discussion, or are you simply going to regurgitate talking points without actually listening to what anyone else is saying?

Charlotte? Until Sally demonstrates an ability to read replies or explanations, ignore her, as we’ve had this conversation with her too many times before and she still repeats the same fallacies and half truths.

Sunny,
you are right that a political party has to be a coalition of different people. But there are limits. Of course you won’t agree with everything your party does. However, The Lib Dems support State funded health care, education, pensions, welfare etc etc.

To claim that you are a libertarian Lib Dem means you fundamentally disagree with almost everything your party supports. That is just ridiculous.

Yes, but will the managers and owners move with the business. If they want to move to China, fine , but they should sell their large houses in Surrey , take their children out of private schools and go with them. Other wise it smacks of hypocrisy. They want to stay living in a democracy , but prefer their workers to have no say.

Of course, and I wouldn’t force them to do anything. But that is still blackmail – saying ‘either you drop your standards or we move’. Similarly, the argument that if you force people to pay the full tax they earn (by closing loopholes) we’ll drive out rich people is also blackmail. Its just not said in such a way because we don’t see rich, successful people as malicious generally.

I believe Lee answered your other point.

Sally – I think your point is rather unwarranted. Every political party holds together a coalition of people (even if Libdems try and pretend all Labour supporters are authoritarians).