Dane Clouston

Just to confirm that having controversially joined the newly formed SDP while being Chair of the Oxfordshire Liberal Group at the time of the merger, I was very happy about the merger, but left the merged LibDems because it became a kind of heresy in that party to want to leave the EU and the CAP. I did join UKIP for a while but left because the local activist was of the school of thought (or whatever!) that thinks that "all tax is theft"! I then rediscovered the Liberal Party when Steve Radford spoke at a meeting in Reading opposing the Euro (which the DimLibs of course supported - thank goodness they had no influence at the time). He is a charismatic leader and speaker with a far wider Liberal and Liberal Party view than just EUscepticism.

I originally thought it was the original and continuing Liberal Party but later discovered that it was a re-formed Liberal Party with the original Liberal Party Constitution. That is the sense in which it is the continuation Liberal Party. I rejoined it with a great sense of relief and greatly enjoyed the 120th Liberal Party Assembly in 2005 and those since. It is a currently small but historically great party, with a long history, and I hope will play a part in influencing the LibDems away from their EUphoria 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 maybe 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 (C 24, Li 23, La 10) I clearly distinguished my position from 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".

Today, if I were standing, I would distinguish my position from ALL other parties by calling 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 and would be electorally effective and popular, particularly in the forthcoming 2009 EU elections.

Incidentally, in the interest of greater equality of opportunity for all, rather than privilege for the few, in addition to a basic minimum British Universal Inheritance for all at 25, I would also personally (not yet Liberal Party policy) be in favour of putting VAT on all expenditure on private education and private health, in order to exacerbate what I read is the current squeeze on the middle class into the free National Education Service and the free National Health Service and so to use the proceeds and their involved influence to improve State Schools and the NHS (preferably without prescription charges) for all.

Dane Clouston

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.

Dilke

Dane, I don’t think the Lib Dems are going to be influenced on the EU by a very small rival party. Arthur Sargill’s Socialist Labour Party doesn’t influence Labour. Except that the very existence of your party weakens the position of the many Lib Dems who want to see the EU reformed.

You acknowledge that the party has taken a socialist stance on nationalisation, which I believe makes the con Lib claim to be the only true Liberal party null and void; I accept the con Libs are Liberals but the Liberal Democrats are also a liberal party and now the more effective vehicle for Liberalism. Don’t you think your ideas for universal inheritance would have a better chance of being adopted if championed by the Lib Dems. Clegg’s new tax policies – reducing the overall tax burden, but giving the proceeds to the low paid – suggests Clegg is on your wave-length.

Personally I want the UK to leave the Common Fisheries Policies, and see major reform of CAP. Unfortunately I usually end up being an apologist for the EU, countering the exaggerations and downright lies peddled by UKIP et al, albeit most of the UKIP rank and file are decent people who sincerely believe it to be true. And the con Libs takes at face value some of the distortions, like the :The EU has not had its budget and spending successfully audited and signed off for 11 years Line; however as a Danish Liberal MEP has pointed out this is because national governments have failed to account for funds, not because the EU is institutionally corrupt. Rather ironic that the con Libs parrot a UKIP line and ignore an explanation from a Liberal.

When it comes to reforming the EU it is commissioners and MEPs from our sister Liberal parties who are leading the way.

Dane Clouston

I do not seem to have got the hang of quotes and responses in contrasting background colours, so please forgive my use of Bold to make the contrast!

quote=Dilke;528955]"Dane, I don’t think the Lib Dems are going to be influenced on the EU by a very small rival party. Arthur Sargill’s Socialist Labour Party doesn’t influence Labour. Except that the very existence of your party weakens the position of the many Lib Dems who want to see the EU reformed. "

I don't see it like that. If the Liberal Party does well in the EU elections, and the LibDems do badly, as I hope they will after their Lisbon perfidy, that ought to make more LibDems think harder about the party's pro-EU conformity.

"You acknowledge that the party has taken a socialist stance on nationalisation, which I believe makes the con Lib claim to be the only true Liberal party null and void;"

The Liberal Party has regrettably taken the same stance in the past before it merged with the SDP . I remember in a Conference in Blackpool speaking against a motion which opposed the privatisation of electricity and water. I said that they were only opposing for opposition's sake and that they would never vote to renationalise either. When it came to the vote I was in a minority of three on electricity and a minority of one on water. So much for my persuasiveness on that occasion! But they had the protest bit between the teeth. And so much for my ability to see the future on this question!

"I accept the con Libs are Liberals but the Liberal Democrats are also a liberal party and now the more effective vehicle for Liberalism."

'Con Libs' instead of Continuity Libs leads me to think more frequently of 'DimLibs' for the LibDems! Perhaps a truce is called for!

"Don’t you think your ideas for universal inheritance would have a better chance of being adopted if championed by the Lib Dems."

Yes, I do, but while I want to see British Universal Inheritance introduced, I would like the Conservative Party to adopt it as the most EU-sceptic of the major parties - or any other EU-sceptic party, but UKIP, astonishingly, is in favour of abolishing inheritance tax altogether, being keen on inequality of opportunity, I suppose. I would not like the policy to help the LibDems. The fewer LibDem MPs there are in the next Parliament, possibly holding the balance of power, the better the chances for the future independence of the UK. Also, such a radical policy is often adopted in mild form by a right of centre party, rather as Disreali made use of steps towards Universal Suffrage to gain power. Then Liberals can build on the back of the small first step.

"Clegg’s new tax policies – reducing the overall tax burden, but giving the proceeds to the low paid – suggests Clegg is on your wave-length."

Clegg thinks only in terms of tax on the stream of income and expenditure rather than on the stock of capital wealth. LibDems talk of redistribution and then merely of a few pence on or off income tax. Many people who expect to inherit, or whose children who expect to inherit, have a blind spot when it comes to the redistribution of inheritance. There is a kind of collective inauthentic pretence that opportunity and social mobility in a capitalist democracy are affected only by education, and not by inheritance of capital. So vast inequalities persist, while people complain earnestly and avoid doing anything about it.

"Personally I want the UK to leave the Common Fisheries Policies, and see major reform of CAP"

Good, but unfortunately the French farmers will never allow the reform that is needed, which is to abolish all agricultural subsidies overnight, as New Zealand did in 1984. We would have to leave the EU to achieve that.

"Unfortunately I usually end up being an apologist for the EU, countering the exaggerations and downright lies peddled by UKIP et al, albeit most of the UKIP rank and file are decent people who sincerely believe it to be true. And the con Libs takes at face value some of the distortions, like the :The EU has not had its budget and spending successfully audited and signed off for 11 years Line; however as a Danish Liberal MEP has pointed out this is because national governments have failed to account for funds, not because the EU is institutionally corrupt. Rather ironic that the con Libs parrot a UKIP line and ignore an explanation from a Liberal."

My impression is that there is more to EU corruption than that. A lady Accountant, amongst others who questioned matters, was given the boot, I seem to remember reading in our national press. The very fact that accounts are not closed off, for whatever reason, would seem to facilitate fraud.

"When it comes to reforming the EU it is commissioners and MEPs from our sister Liberal parties who are leading the way."

Unfortunately, they mostly accept the ideal of "ever closer union", which I wish I had realised in 1975 was a serious and almost religious ideal, to which I am strongly opposed. I prefer a Europe of cooperative but independent progressive nations. I do not like being ruled in so many tiresome ways from Brussels. I would personally like one UK Liberal Party including the LibDems that would take us out of full membership of the EU, but not an EU-fanatic/phile/phoric Liberal Democrat one!

Dilke

I wish people would think harder about the EU policy, however a kicking at the polls won't change minds (debate and reason will). Lib Dems always do badly in the Euros, UKIP beat us last time, the Greens humiliated us back in the nineties , and a ‘Literal Democrat ‘ robbed Adrian Sanders of the Devon seat, allowing Giles Chichester to win, and so ‘whoops a daisy’ he could pay his own company nearly half a million quid. Yet today we have more MPs since Lloyd George's day.

But even in 2004 in the SW the Liberal Democrat/Liberal Party List (that’s the Gibraltar Liberal Party) increased its vote by 2%. Even if the rumour of a rich plutocrat /generous donor funding you for the Euros is true, I can’t see you over-taking the Lib Dems.

Money alone is not enough. If as I suspect, the counties are at the same time as the Euros, the Lib Dem activist base will be stirred and Lib Dem county councillors and their families will be out campaigning (I’m sure Labour always called the GE at the same time as the local elections to motivate disgruntled activists). Since 1999 we have MEPs, who will have a strong vested interest in motivating the party beyond the usual lacklustre euro campaigns of the past.

The public has a plethora of small euro-sceptic parties to vote for, UKIP have cornered the anti-EU market with a simple and easily understood ‘get out of the EU’ message – your , ‘reform or we threaten to leave’ policy , helps party cohesion – it allows different members interpret the policy differently , but isn’t exactly a snappy slogan – it sounds like a fudge. Harden the message and you risk a schism.

Fair enough

You’d rather see a Labour or Tory MP than a Liberal Democrat? So euro-scepticism trumps Liberalism! Doesn’t that confirm my argument that increasingly euro-scepticism, rather than Liberalism is the defining ideology of the continuing Liberal Party. What about my Lib Dem MP who defied the whip (but kept to conference policy) to vote for a referendum on Lisbon. You are fast becoming UKIP-Lite, with moderate UKIPers looking for a new home, they might easily take the Liberal Party over.

In many cases the tiresome regulation is a result of British civil servants ‘gold plating’ EU rules – best practice becomes absolute requirement. We are a grossly over regulated society, frankly it doesn’t matter if the source is Whitehall or Brussels, we need to be liberated from big government.

Just imagine you win an MEP, which group does this ‘real’ Liberal join? They couldn’t possibly join the Liberals in European Parliament!