British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Dane Clouston · 30-07-2008, 11:06 AM

I have much enjoyed reading this interesting and well-informed discussion between Tom Wilde, Dilke and others.

Just to recap the bit of history discussed, I was very much in favour of the merger between the Liberal Party and the SDP, having already controversially joined the newly formed SDP while being Chair of the Oxfordshire Liberal Group at the time of the merger. It seemed that it would take the party towards fairness and effective freedom for all and away from Conservative minded preservation of privilege for the few However, I left the LibDems as it became a kind of heresy in it to want the UK to leave the EU and the CAP. I did indeed join UKIP for a while but left them because the local activist was of the school of thought (or whatever!) that thinks that "all tax is theft"! (And now they want to abolish Inheritance Tax!). So it was a great joy and relief to rediscover the Liberal Party when Steve Radford spoke at a Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting in Reading opposing the Euro (which the DimLibs of course supported - thank goodness they had no influence at the time). In view of comments in earlier posts above I will mention that he is a charismatic leader and speaker with a far wider Liberal and Liberal Party view than just EUscepticism.

I originally mistakenly thought the party was the original and continuing Liberal Party but later discovered that it was a re-formed Liberal Party but with the original Liberal Party Constitution. That is the sense in which it is the continuation Liberal Party. I rejoined and greatly enjoyed the 120th Liberal Party Assembly in 2005 and those since. It is a currently small but highly significant party, with a long historical tradition, which I hope will play a major part in influencing the LibDems away from their hiding-to-nothing EUphoria and towards support for taking us out of full membership of the EU and the CAP and into a looser European Economic Area with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway and other countries which wish to follow, including Turkey - this would help Christian/Muslim relations - not that I am either - and save Turkey's face if and when France and Germany do not let Turkey into the EU. And possibly including Russia in due course..

I do so agree with Tom Wilde when he says "I think there is a difference between a defining policy and a distinguishing policy. EUscepticism is not the defining policy of the Liberal Party, but it is currently the policy which most clearly distinguishes us from the LibDems."

When I was standing for Parliament for the Liberal Party in Newbury in 1974 I clearly distinguished my position from BOTH the Conservatives and Clause IV Labour by calling for "A far fairer country (with greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth,), without nationalisation". It nearly worked (C 24, Li 23, La 10). (Incidentally, I am horrified that the Liberal Party currently appears to be in favour of adopting the old Labour Party's Clause IV and re-nationalising some utilities, but no party is perfect for any of us all the time and I hope that this aberration will pass.) It is high time that we overcame the harmful and inauthentic pretence on the part of those who reasonably expect to inherit or whose children expect to inherit that vast inequalities of gifted and inherited capital are not relevant to opportunity for all. They are! We need 'inheritance, inheritance, inheritance' for all as much as 'education, education, education' for all.

Today, if I were standing, I would distinguish our position from ALL other parties by calling for FAIRNESS AND INDEPENDENCE - for "A far fairer country, (with greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth), without full membership of the EU and CAP". This does not of course define the Liberal Party. But it is what we (most of us) believe. It distinguishes us from the LibDems and all other parties. It would be electorally effective and popular, particularly in the forthcoming 2009 EU elections.

Incidentally I might mention that in the interest of greater equality of opportunity, in addition to a basic minimum British Universal Inheritance for all at 25, I would also personally be in favour of putting VAT on all expenditure on private education and private health - where free alternatives are available - in order to exacerbate what I read is the current squeeze on middle class people into the free National Education Service and the free National Health Service and so to use the proceeds and their consequentially involved influence as parents and patients to improve State Schools and the NHS (preferably without prescription charges) for all. I am submitting a draft Assembly Resolution to this effect and hope that it will become Liberal Party policy at this year's Liberal Party Assembly. If adopted, it would of course be at the same time both controversial, electorally popular amongst the majority of people in the country, although not in some areas, and instantly newsworthy.

30-07-2008, 11:06 AM	#62 (permalink)
Dane Clouston Newbie Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4	I have much enjoyed reading this interesting and well-informed discussion between Tom Wilde, Dilke and others. Just to recap the bit of history discussed, I was very much in favour of the merger between the Liberal Party and the SDP, having already controversially joined the newly formed SDP while being Chair of the Oxfordshire Liberal Group at the time of the merger. It seemed that it would take the party towards fairness and effective freedom for all and away from Conservative minded preservation of privilege for the few However, I left the LibDems as it became a kind of heresy in it to want the UK to leave the EU and the CAP. I did indeed join UKIP for a while but left them because the local activist was of the school of thought (or whatever!) that thinks that "all tax is theft"! (And now they want to abolish Inheritance Tax!). So it was a great joy and relief to rediscover the Liberal Party when Steve Radford spoke at a Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting in Reading opposing the Euro (which the DimLibs of course supported - thank goodness they had no influence at the time). In view of comments in earlier posts above I will mention that he is a charismatic leader and speaker with a far wider Liberal and Liberal Party view than just EUscepticism. I originally mistakenly thought the party was the original and continuing Liberal Party but later discovered that it was a re-formed Liberal Party but with the original Liberal Party Constitution. That is the sense in which it is the continuation Liberal Party. I rejoined and greatly enjoyed the 120th Liberal Party Assembly in 2005 and those since. It is a currently small but highly significant party, with a long historical tradition, which I hope will play a major part in influencing the LibDems away from their hiding-to-nothing EUphoria and towards support for taking us out of full membership of the EU and the CAP and into a looser European Economic Area with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway and other countries which wish to follow, including Turkey - this would help Christian/Muslim relations - not that I am either - and save Turkey's face if and when France and Germany do not let Turkey into the EU. And possibly including Russia in due course.. I do so agree with Tom Wilde when he says "I think there is a difference between a defining policy and a distinguishing policy. EUscepticism is not the defining policy of the Liberal Party, but it is currently the policy which most clearly distinguishes us from the LibDems." When I was standing for Parliament for the Liberal Party in Newbury in 1974 I clearly distinguished my position from BOTH the Conservatives and Clause IV Labour by calling for "A far fairer country (with greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth,), without nationalisation". It nearly worked (C 24, Li 23, La 10). (Incidentally, I am horrified that the Liberal Party currently appears to be in favour of adopting the old Labour Party's Clause IV and re-nationalising some utilities, but no party is perfect for any of us all the time and I hope that this aberration will pass.) It is high time that we overcame the harmful and inauthentic pretence on the part of those who reasonably expect to inherit or whose children expect to inherit that vast inequalities of gifted and inherited capital are not relevant to opportunity for all. They are! We need 'inheritance, inheritance, inheritance' for all as much as 'education, education, education' for all. Today, if I were standing, I would distinguish our position from ALL other parties by calling for FAIRNESS AND INDEPENDENCE - for "A far fairer country, (with greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth), without full membership of the EU and CAP". This does not of course define the Liberal Party. But it is what we (most of us) believe. It distinguishes us from the LibDems and all other parties. It would be electorally effective and popular, particularly in the forthcoming 2009 EU elections. Incidentally I might mention that in the interest of greater equality of opportunity, in addition to a basic minimum British Universal Inheritance for all at 25, I would also personally be in favour of putting VAT on all expenditure on private education and private health - where free alternatives are available - in order to exacerbate what I read is the current squeeze on middle class people into the free National Education Service and the free National Health Service and so to use the proceeds and their consequentially involved influence as parents and patients to improve State Schools and the NHS (preferably without prescription charges) for all. I am submitting a draft Assembly Resolution to this effect and hope that it will become Liberal Party policy at this year's Liberal Party Assembly. If adopted, it would of course be at the same time both controversial, electorally popular amongst the majority of people in the country, although not in some areas, and instantly newsworthy.