Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Libertarian Alliance on the New British Government

Expand Messages
  • Dr Sean Gabb
    http://wp.me/p29oR-3rn Free Life Commentary, A Personal View from The Director of the Libertarian Alliance Issue Number 193 16th May 2010 Linking url:
    Message 1 of 1 , May 16 4:45 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      http://wp.me/p29oR-3rn

      Free Life Commentary,
      A Personal View from
      The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
      Issue Number 193
      16th May 2010
      Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc193.htm
      Available for debate on LA Blog at http://wp.me/p29oR-3p4


      Two Cheers for the Coalition:
      The Libertarian Alliance on the New British Government
      By Sean Gabb

      I have been asked, as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, to make a
      response to the forming of a coalition government last week in Britain by
      the Conservative and Liberal Parties. In making this response, I do not
      claim to speak in every detail for the other members of the Executive
      Committee. But what I will say is broadly the opinion of the majority.

      Briefly put, we welcome the new Government. However dishonest the
      individual Ministers may be, however bad may be their ideological
      motivations, we believe that, in its overall effects, this Government may,
      by its own compound nature, be compelled to move the country in a more
      libertarian direction. We understand the dejection of our conservative
      friends. These regard the Coalition as a disaster. They were hoping for a
      Conservative Government led by conservatives. Instead, they have a
      coalition government that will not withdraw from the European Union, will
      be easily as politically correct as Labour, and that will push forward the
      Green agenda regardless of cost and regardless of the scientific evidence.
      This seems a fair assessment of how our new masters at least want to
      behave. Nevertheless, we believe that the Coalition – assuming it can hold
      together – is immeasurably an improvement on the Blair and Brown
      Governments that went before it, and that it may even be rather good. We
      may find much that is objectionable, and we have no doubt that there will
      be more. But there is no point in denying that we are quietly pleased.

      The worst possible outcome of the general election would have been another
      Labour majority. The Blair and Brown Governments had created a police
      state at home, and had involved us abroad in at least three wars of
      military aggression. They had on their hands the blood of perhaps a
      million innocents. That had turned the police and most of the
      administration into arms of the Labour Party. They had doubled, or
      tripled, or quadrupled, the national debt – no one seems to be quite sure
      by how much, but the debt has undoubtedly exploded. Though lavishing huge
      taxpayer subsidies on the Celtic nations, they were far advanced to
      destroying England as any kind of recognisable nation. Their commitment to
      the European Union was solely for a procedural device for ruling by
      decree. They had abolished habeas corpus and the protections against
      double jeopardy. They were working to abolish trial by jury. It is
      impossible to find any other government in British – or, before then, in
      English – history that had destroyed so comprehensively and so
      deliberately in so short a time. When I saw that Labour had lost its
      majority, I rejoiced. When I thought it might cling to power in some
      coalition of the losers, I trembled. When Gordon Brown finally resigned, I
      opened a bottle of champagne

      Nor, however, would we have welcomed a Conservative majority. David
      Cameron is – unless constrained – an arrogant and untrustworthy creature.
      Our conservative friends may have expected much of him. Or they may have
      thought they could extract much from him. But they were always deluding
      themselves. We knew, from the way he slithered out of his promise of a
      referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that he had no intention of looking at
      British Membership of the European Union. We knew that he would never lift
      a finger against coercive multiculturalism, and that he would drive on the
      Green agenda. In these respects, a Conservative Government would have been
      no different in its actions – rhetoric being another matter – than the
      actual Coalition Government will be.

      From our point of view, indeed, a Conservative majority would have been
      far worse than the Coalition. The Conservatives had promised to roll back
      much of the Labour police state. They promised to scrap identity cards and
      the national identity register. They promised to look at the thousands of
      new criminal offences created since 1997, and to restore many of the
      procedural rights taken away by Labour. We always regarded these promises
      as worthless. Conservatives – Thatcherite or Cameronian – have never had
      much commitment to civil liberties. They know something about economics,
      and have some regard for the national interest. But they have never been
      enthusiastic about substantive freedom and its procedural safeguards. If
      they denounce police states, it is usually because they think the wrong
      people are in control of them. The Labour police state, after all, was
      built on foundations laid down by the preceding Conservative Governments.
      The commitments on civil liberties were simply intended as bargaining
      counters between Mr Cameron and his traditionalist wing. He would deny his
      traditionalists any shift in European policy. He would buy them off by
      shelving the abolition of identity cards, and by cancelling any efforts to
      bring the police and bureaucracy back under the rule of law.

      And an outright Conservative win would have strengthened Mr Cameron’s
      position within the Party, and the position of all the worthless young men
      and women who had attached themselves to him. They would have regarded
      this as a mandate for their own remodelling of the Conservative Party. The
      purges and centralised control that began when Mr Cameron took over would
      have been carried ruthlessly forward.

      But, thanks to his general dishonesty and to the particular incompetence
      of his election campaign, Mr Cameron did not get his majority. Instead of
      being carried in shoulder high, he and his friends were forced to crawl
      naked on their bellies into Downing Street. He was forced to enter a
      coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These, to be sure, are not as
      liberal or democratic as they like to claim. Their belief in liberty is
      often little more than political correctness. Many of them are state
      socialists. Their cooperation with the Brown Government to deny us our
      promised referendum on the European Constitution shows what they think of
      voting when its result might not go their own way. No one can blame them
      for threatening Mr Cameron that they would go into coalition with Labour
      if he did not give them what they wanted. But we can doubt the sanity and
      goodness of those who continue regretting that there was no “progressive”
      coalition – a coalition, that is, with tyrants and murderers. Even so, the
      Coalition Government has now been formed; and there is some chance that it
      may compel each party to behave better than either might have by itself.

      There probably will now be a considerable rolling back of the Labour
      police state. Identity cards and the national identity register will
      almost certainly go. We do not believe that the extension of detention
      without charge will be formally reversed. But we do believe that it will
      be surrounded with safeguards that effectively reverse it. We hope it will
      be the same with juryless trials and the DNA database, and with police
      powers in general. There will be at least a limited return to freedom of
      speech as it was enjoyed before 1997, and of the right to peaceful
      protest, and of security of our homes from arbitrary searches and
      seizures. As said, we never believed any of the Conservative assurances
      about civil liberties. But the Liberal Democrats will demand their full
      implementation – plus a little more. They will demand this to settle their
      own consciences for supporting cuts in government spending.

      Turning to the economy, here as well the Coalition may do good work. The
      Labour Ministers never understood economics. They were fundamentally
      Marxists in expensive suits. Intellectually, they never appreciated the
      nexus of individual choices that is market freedom as other than some
      aggregated box called “The Economy” into which they could dip as they
      pleased. What they described as their promotion of enterprise never went
      beyond trading favours with big business.

      The Conservatives and many of the Liberal Democrats do seem to understand
      economics. They know that taxes and government spending are both too high,
      and that the objects of government spending are often malign. They believe
      not only that the current nature and scale of government activity is
      unaffordable, but also that it is immoral. They will deregulate.

      Now, economics was always the Conservative strong point, and it may be
      thought that the Liberal Democrats have nothing of their own to offer.
      However, we in the Libertarian Alliance have never liked the Conservative
      approach to economic reform. Their tax cuts favoured the rich. Their
      deregulations turned those at the bottom into casualised serfs. Their
      privatisations turned state monopolies into income streams for their
      friends in big business. They were better in all these respects than
      Labour. But we are interested to see what the Liberal Democrats will now
      be able to contribute with their belief in raising tax thresholds for the
      poor at the expense of the rich, and their belief in mutual institutions
      to provide public services in place both of the State and of big business.

      As for political reform, we hear the complaints of our conservative
      friends that the Constitution will be overthrown if the electoral system
      is changed, or if the lifetime of a Parliament is fixed. We are also
      astonished at these complaints. We are not about to suffer a revolution.
      We have already had a revolution. Since 1997, Labour has come close to
      destroying the whole constitutional settlement of this country as it
      emerged after 1688. However unwise or evil it may have been to do this, it
      has been done, and there is no going back to the old order. We need a
      thorough reform of our political institutions to safeguard such liberty as
      we retain, or such liberty as may be returned to us. We see nothing wrong
      with any of the changes so far suggested.

      Our conservative friends defend the current electoral system as ensuring
      “strong government”. We know what they really mean. Their fantasy is that
      they can stage some coup within the Conservative Party and then get a
      majority in Parliament on about a quarter of the total possible vote. We
      are still waiting for them to take over the Conservative Party. While
      waiting, we have endured thirty one years of strong – and usually
      disastrously bad – government. If neither the Conservative not Labour
      Parties had got a majority since 1983, it is hard to see how this country
      would be worse off than it is. It might easily be better.

      Another objection we hear to electoral reform is that it would put the
      Liberal Democrats permanently into government. This claim is based on the
      assumption that the three main parties would continue in being. In truth,
      all of these parties are diverse coalitions brought together by history
      and kept together by the iron logic of the first-past-the-post system.
      Give us some less random – or perhaps less biased – correlation of seats
      in Parliament to votes cast, and all these parities will be gradually
      pulled apart, and their parts may then be recombined into more natural
      groupings.

      We will not comment on the proposed fixed term to the current Parliament,
      or on the enhanced majority needed to bring down the Coalition. We
      understand that these proposals extend to this Parliament alone. If they
      are found to be convenient, they may continue by statute or by convention.
      If not, they will not continue. But these are not libertarian issues.

      In conclusion, the Libertarian Alliance wants more – much more – than all
      this. We want the full relegalisation of drugs. We want the right to keep
      and bear arms for self-defence. We want complete freedom of speech and
      association, and this includes the right of consenting adults to free
      expression of their sexuality. We want the removal of all corporate
      privilege from the rich and well-connected. We want the poor to be given
      free opportunity to make themselves independent of both state welfare and
      wage labour. We want taxes and government spending cut back to where they
      stood before the Great War – and that is only a beginning. We believe in
      freedom in the fullest sense. The Coalition will not come close to giving
      us what we want.

      Nevertheless, we do welcome what we have so far seen of the Coalition. Its
      nature may force both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to do
      better than either would have done given complete freedom. The
      Conservatives may be compelled to deliver on their civil liberties
      promises. The Liberal Democrats may be forced to think seriously about
      their mutualist leanings now that their preferred state socialist option
      is off the table. The British electorate is not a single creature. It is
      only a singular noun that describes several dozen million individuals and
      a system that allocates votes to seats almost randomly. But we can
      understand those who claim that the British people, in all their wisdom,
      have stood up at last and given themselves the very best government that
      was on offer.

      NB—Sean Gabb's book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives
      Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from
      http://tinyurl.com/ya4pzuh
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.