Tom Wilde

I think Liberal policy on the EU is pretty clear, though admittedly more nuanced than UKIP's policy and perhaps harder to sell for that reason. For some time I steered clear of the Liberal Party because I found their EU policy unsatisfactory, but now I think I rather like it. If it was possible to achieve a reform of the EU so fundamental as to meet all my various concerns about democracy, accountability, over-centralisation, corruption, etc etc then I might well prefer that to British withdrawal from the EU. I don't object to European co-operation in principle - only to the particular, deeply undemocratic, form it has taken in the EU. For a brief moment I even thought that by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, we might be able to create a chance for the sort of wholesale reform that Liberal policy envisages. However, as the LibDems helped to get this unpopular Treaty ratified without a referendum, that option may now be closed. (Unless the Czechs, Poles and Irish save us!)

The irony is that the LibDems, by destroying the opportunity for meaningful reform of the EU, may indeed cause the Liberal Party to adopt a simpler, easier-to-understand, eurosceptical stance which might well have much more electoral appeal. If this happens, then the LibDems may find an unambiguously eurosceptical Liberal Party to be much more troublesome competition than it has been so far.

The Tories created UKIP by forcing through the Maastricht Treaty ratification - and caused themselves a world of troubles in the process. It would be funny if the LibDems turned out to have done the equivalent with the Lisbon Treaty, wouldn't it?


(Incidentally, re your point on the ratification of Maastricht. At the time I hugely respected the LibDems for backing a referendum on that treaty despite knowing that if it were held, they would almost certainly be on the losing side. I'm very glad that the Liberal Party has now adopted the stance that the LibDems held back then regarding referenda. Yes, the Liberal Party may have been inconsistent, just as you say, but "what the con Libs said about a Maastricht referendum" was said more than 16 years ago, whereas "Clegg's position on Lisbon" was just last month.)

Dilke

Tom you are a euro-sceptic first and foremost; for you, Steve Radford, et al euro-scepticism is more important than Liberalism, if Britain’s withdrawal from the EU could be achieved by illiberal means in truth you’d use illiberal means to do it. Which is why Steve Radford was a speaker at the Henley UKIP public meeting, his bitterness towards the EU is greater than his liberalism. Even the arch-euro-sceptic NEC member Dane Clouston pleaded with Cllr Radford not to go on the UKIP platform, to no avail.

Yes the public is mildly euro-sceptic, but not in favour of total withdrawal. The EU isn't the most important thing in their lives; the con Lib policy of stopping parents sending their children to the school of their choice, is likely to be more unpopular with voters. Anyway the voters have a perfectly sound vehicle to show their disapproval of the EU in UKIP.

In the past the continuity Liberal Party pricked the consciences of Liberal Democrats, whilst the Lib Dems had all the Liberal membership and organisation cards, the continuity Liberals certainly had the all philosophic and intellectual Liberal cards – but not now.

The con Libs have jettisoned many principles (not just policies), that in the past they claimed to be enduring liberal values. Ironically the con Libs are more social democratic than the Liberal Democrats, with abolition of school choice and nationalisation of railways and utilities.

Moderate UKIPers might well find a comfortable home in the con Libs, but it won’t be a liberal party anymore, at least six of the 27 councillors will leave, if the party adopts a total ‘leave the EU policy’.

BTW does any other Liberal Party in Europe agree with the con Lib policy (NB the Freedom Party is no longer in the Liberal International).

Tom Wilde

Dilke, I've enjoyed debating with you here but am a bit flummoxed by your comment in the post above:

On what basis do you make that astonishing claim? How can you state with such certainty what I would do under what circumstances to achieve what? We've never even met!

You are in any case utterly wrong. I've been a liberal with a small 'l' for most of my adult life and my euroscepticism derives from my liberalism, not the other way around. Therefore I certainly would not use any means I saw as illiberal to withdraw Britain from the EU. (Incidentally, what 'illiberal means' do you have in mind? It seems an odd thing to suggest anyway.)

While I do not personally know Steve Radford, I am aware that he has been a very hard-working and well respected Liberal councillor for more than 25 years (ie since well before the merger crisis) so your remark about him also seems presumptuous.

I won't get all pompous and demand an apology, but I do believe your remark above to be a little out of order. The kindest interpretation I can think of is that you define liberalism as "the personal philosophy of Dilke", and thus regard liberalism and euroscepticism as automatically opposed.

Dilke

Well I'm sorry if I've offended you Tom, certainly not my intention to cause you offence – and if I have I apologise unreservedly.

I still believe Steve Radford on a UKIP platform, which even the most ardent Liberal euro-sceptic like Dane Clouston clearly found very uncomfortable, shows he puts euro- scepticism above Liberalism.

It is one of the reasons I believe the continuity Liberal Party is no longer an adequate vehicle for Liberalism.

SuperiorSteve

Education is very important but it doesn't take up the whole day to study. A student can study during the day and then during the evening work a few hours somewhere, there are plenty of bar jobs around.

There are many people who find it difficult to work, or rather, they are restricted in what job they can do. As someone who is restricted due to clots which cause breathing problems I know how difficult it is when all the jobs advertised are those you cannot do but I am working and it is only something extreme that can really stop someone doing all jobs. If someone really cannot work then they should receive assistance from the Government.

__________________
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" Cecil Rhodes

Tom Wilde

No problem, Dilke.

For a LibDem supporter from the SW, you seem remarkably well-informed about Oxfordshire Liberal Party discussions! Yes, I did see some emails to that effect. However, I understand that Dane (a) is a former UKIP member himself and (b) was entirely happy for Steve Radford to address the UKIP meeting until he discovered that it is UKIP policy to abolish inheritance tax. Dane (as you may know) has very strong opinions on this subject and advocates a Universal Inheritance system, which through his efforts has now been adopted as official Liberal Party policy. Anyway, for this reason he then opposed Steve sharing a platform with UKIP. So his objection (as I understand it, and I may be wrong) was on a much narrower issue than you indicate. Dane then suggested that Steve should address a Green Party meeting instead, and Steve was happy in principle to do so as well (he is happy to promote the Liberal Party on any reasonable platform, rightly in my view). However, by that point there were no scheduled Green Party meetings left.

Why again? I still don't get this. Because Steve Radford spoke in favour of Free Trade at a UKIP meeting? Why shouldn't he?

Dilke

Clearly not as well informed as you, I had no idea Dane was a former UKIPer, I was sure he was a pre-merger Liberal candidate – but then UKIP’s founder Dr Alan Sked fought Paisley as a Liberal in 1970, so it's possible he was both.

Yes I have read something about Dane’s ideas on inheritance in some publication or other, and he had a letter published in the Liberal what struck me was the similarity to the old Limehouse Group (an SDP faction) ideas for a ‘Social Credit’ system.

An anti-EU position is a credible liberal position; but not if it becomes the all defining policy of the party to the near exclusion of everything else. For the con Libs Steve Radford has made it so; outside the liberal family those who know of the existence of the con Libs, know of it because of its EU policy. Steve seems to spend most of his time on anti-EU platforms – fair enough, but aren’t there other liberal causes, when did he last share a platform with a Lib Dem. However at Henley he was in effect endorsing the UKIP candidate, because of the shared policy on withdrawal from the EU, and ignoring other policy differences.

Dane as I understand it, rightly opposed giving UKIP an endorsement, because though he agrees with their EU stance, he believes UKIP’s other policies are illiberal, the inheritance tax thing being an example of the wide divergence in Lib and UKIP policy.

Tom Wilde

Yes, I think that's right. Dane was the Liberal parliamentary candidate for Newbury three times in the 1970s:

Newbury (UK Parliament constituency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

He more than doubled the Liberal vote and came close to winning the seat in Feb and October of 1974. I think he was in the LibDems after the merger, then later joined UKIP, then heard that the Liberal Party was still going and switched to that. I may be wrong about some of that though, as I only know him slightly from emails etc.

I think there is a difference between a defining policy and a distinguishing policy. I don't think euroscepticism is the defining policy of the Liberal Party, but it may currently be the policy which most clearly distinguishes the party from the LibDems.

The defining position of both the Liberals and the Liberal Democrats is liberalism, but the LibDems seem to have a big blind spot when it comes to the EU and are apparently unable to see how illiberal it is - which for me is a pretty good reason to support the Liberal Party instead. However, liberals choose to support the Libs over the LibDems or vice versa for a variety of reasons, not just policy towards the EU. (Non-liberals obviously aren't going to support either party anyway!)

Steve doesn't spend most of his time on the EU issue - have you seen his blog?? It is pretty clear from that that he spends most of his time on Liverpool city problems of one kind or another. On national issues, he has recently spent a lot of energy campaigning for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but has also campaigned against ID cards, for instance. I believe he has spoken at anti-ID card events, and presumably there have also been LibDem speakers at those events. (At least, I jolly well hope so!) Does that answer your question?

He made clear that he was speaking there because of a shared policy but that this didn't constitute an endorsement of the UKIP candidate or an endorsement of UKIP's other policies. He has said he would be happy to speak at meetings of other mainstream parties about policy agreements with those parties. He supports working with other parties to get things done, and for a little party like the Libs that seems an entirely realistic attitude. The Libs in Liverpool don't get on with their LibDem opposite numbers there due to the general uselessness of the Liberpool LibDem administration and the spinelessness of the Labour group on the city council. Effectively the Liberals provide the opposition there. However, in some other parts of the country the Liberals and LibDems do co-operate and Steve Radford so far as I know has never objected to that. And neither do I.

Tom Wilde

What, the Austrian Freedom Party of Haider etc? Was that ever in the Liberal International? Bizarre!

A quick question for you, Dilke. Do you know why the Liberal Party isn't in the Liberal International? I read somewhere that their (our?) application was rejected. Is that true? If so, do you know the reason given? Just wondering, as the LI seems to be something you know much more about than me.

Dilke

Yes the Freedom Party was in the Liberal International, but was kicked out when the Nazis took over. In 1994 a new liberal group in Austria – Liberal Forum (with the pan-europeanist Hapsburgs as members) became the official affiliate.

I don’t know why the LP isn’t in the LI, they did apply, it may have something to do with David Steel, who is very highly regarded in the LI. DS had a real dislike for Michael Meadowcroft. DS tried to stop MM getting on the British Group of the Liberal International executive.

There are two UK parties affiliated to the LI the Lib Dems and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. The LI is quite a broad church, there are two competing Dutch Liberal parties affiliated, the V.V.D. and D66; so I can’t see there is an ideological reason for the LP to be rejected.