I was asked yesterday which sort of Liberal I was a social Liberal or a orange book Liberal. My reply that I was a liberal was a little flippant really but also I believe the appropriate one.

It has to be said on this issue that the difference between the two types is much smaller than the media blew them up to be and so the question a littler irrelevant.

However, despite that I’m going to wade into the topic area, or actually use it as a reference point to another topic. What do we mean by a Liberal? I’m not going to get lost Ain liberal theory but briefly lay out the discourse around the word.

It seems today that everyone wants to be a liberal, David Cameron is the best example of this, but I’ve also been told by a Thatcherite that he is liberal while I was a socialist, as somebody rightly pointed out yesterday Thatcherism is economically liberal, not though socially. When considering whether or not the “liberal” Tories are liberal we should consider not just their conclusions but also the attitude that leads them there. This is where the big difference lies.

On a US forum titled “Liberal Forum” actually contained any one who felt alienated by the American political structure. There were members of the far right to a self confessed Stalinist, the guru of the group who played the role of explaining liberalism to American was a Labour Blairite.

Even I am guilty of clouding the word in a shroud my own blog name Liberal Leslie suggests all that spews from my fingers is liberalism, I am liberal and claim the monopoly of liberalism. A more suitable name might be Leslie’s Liberalism.

The effect of all these people claiming the name for all their political views is paradoxical. On the one hand the word begins to mean a lot more; liberal could be used to describe just about any policy if someone is going to claim the name. As the mouth piece of Liberalism that is Liberal Leslie I could tomorrow say that feudal system is liberal, this is clearly an exaggeration of the situation but the trend stands. Despite the word taking on more, it means less. Imagine it has having a set mass, a kg of the old liberal before this effect took place was the size of a equivalent bag old sugar, a kg of the new liberal is like oxygen, its everywhere, has no form or shape. The word liberal is perhaps loosing all its real meaning, its specifics, a liberal in one of the examples above is simply the belief in free markets not in real human freedom or social freedom.

Its not time to start writing obituaries for the word liberal, but I do think the crowding of the label is a issue. But to finish with a real conclusion I turn the wisdom enshrined in the dictionary of Liberal Quotations:

“A liberal is a man or woman or child,
who looks forward to a better day,
a more tranquil night
and
a bright and infinite future.”

Bernstein

Despite trying to hang around as little as possible with them, I feel qualified to assert that there are essentially two types of Tories.

There are those who simply want power, and the ideologically Conservative.

Both are as nasty as the other, and don’t forget both qualify for bogey man status on the very grounds they are Tories.

Cameron falls comfortably into the first type. From Eaton, his politics is all about keeping power in the family. His whole move to the centre is nothing but a cynical ploy to get power. The number of Eatonians in his cabinet and the selection of Lit, the son of the local millionaire and land owner also signifies this.

The other side finally spoke up to do, led by Leigh the leader of the Cornerstone group and rival to Cameron in the last leadership contest. He’s a ideological Conservative, a real nasty.

Leigh was quoted in the Guardian website today as saying:
“This is what I suggest. A simple mantra: 'We believe in prosperity based on low taxation and deregulation. We believe in security based on strong defence and immigration control. We believe in stability based on marriage and social and individual responsibility. We believe in freedom based on consumer choice in education, health and pensions.'
"You will say, 'How hackneyed! We've heard it all before'. But that is Conservatism: the Conservatism of all successful Conservative governments anywhere in the world over the last 50 years.”

And pleading the Tories to:

“Be confident and stand up for what you believe in. Ultimately, the country will respect us for it. Otherwise they will wonder where we stand, what we believe in. The public have to know what you believe in, otherwise you'll never win."

Its refreshing to here a Conservative actually speak Conservative talk. Compare Camerons abandonment of Conservatism and retreat to the centre with;

So we do need to talk more about immigration, low taxes and Europe..."

I fear that should Cameron fail, and be ousted this is the way the Conservatives will go.

Either is good for me, at the moment in less he is a strait up liar Cameron’s leadership will stop Conservatism from making any progress because it has no party. If someone like Leigh gets power then Conservatism would get its party back, but said party would be launched into political oblivion. That said the less press given to Leigh’s views the better.

More to the point, we must take note, the opposition party (just like the last 10 years at least) is in chaos, Conservatism in confusion. The results of the BNP leadership election paint the same picture for the far right. Such circumstances should be a rallying call to Liberals and Lib Dems, to continue the offensive on both types of Tories

I got the date of the BNP leadership vote wrong so only accidentally fell on the results any way here they are.

Griffin: 3363 (91%)
Jackson: 337 (9%)
Turnout: 43%

Jackson in a vote that was substantially rigged by Griffin against him managed to get his vote up by over 300% (100 people needed to launch the vote). The abstention rate of 57% is enormous and shows a real lack of support for Griffin, he’s leadership often seen as corrupt.
The low turnout is also significant because it shows a lack of enthusiasm in BNP troops which effects much more.

For more details and analyses click here

Oh come on

The Liberal Democrats aren’t really rocking at all at the news of three councillors lost in Bideford. What’s created the sudden loss of these three; it is there, “integrity and principal.”

The trio left after they found out one of their own worked as a stripper. Stripper isn’t exactly the most respectable job out their, but there’s a lot worse. But to leave the party in disgust is perhaps the clearest sign that they weren’t really liberals in the first place.

The Lib Dems do have a bit of a problem in attracting people who aren’t exactly presentable, this stripper and Opik are good examples of this. None the less they do deserve to be able to compete or ask to stand. If the party fails to properly vet those we put up it creates problems like those in Bideford.

But to find working with a stripper a problem to your “integrity and principal”, well …. come on.

Why is Big Brother such a big deal, here’s my suggestion for one cause. Back in the good old days there was such a thing as community and part of that was what became known as garden wall chats.

Ok I don’t really go for all that community stuff; a community is a group of individuals, the workings of the group is a matter out of anyone’s control.
The demise of the garden wall chats is however a well recorded passing. The garden wall chat was essentially gossip between neighbours. The growing isolation that we keep our selves in today now keeping much smaller and tighter company than we previously did has meant such conversation has been starved of substance to maintain it.

Perhaps in reaction to this we have turned to creating a virtual world from which the gossip can derive. No longer knowing about Mr Smith’s (from down the road) affair with Mrs Jones (across the road) we instead get to gossip about Charley’s latest bust up with pretty much anyone else in the house.

Today apparently marks the sad demise of Bedford County, presumably announcing the birth of Bedford and Kempston Borough gaining far greater power, matched with the rural boroughs of Mid Beds and North Beds or South Beds combining to create a rural administration.

The move for Liberals and especially Lib Dems has it goods and bads. On the one hand the new administrations will rule over less people making power more local and closer to those it governs over. It also takes power from a legislative body that was ruled by Cameron’s Conservatives (although knowing the area I doubt their reading of Burke is the same as Cameron’s if he reads Burke that is.) with no hope of the Liberals taking it. The new set up; leaves one area where the Liberals can contest for real power and sacrifices one totally to Cameron’s Conservatives.

Of course the power granted to Bedford, will go to the directly elected mayor who lucky for him has next to no checks on his power and was re-elected in a election that shocked independent watchdogs.

The problem at hand though is that it yet confuses once again how the UK and differing areas are governed. On the train I counted about eight levels of government that ran across the UK depending on the area you live in they would have differing amounts of power and may or may not exist. This essentially the result of decades and decades of Lab – Con centralisation, mixed in with half hearted devolution.

If Liberals constitutional reform and localism we need to effectively answer the question of what we mean by local control. Do we mean that a community we should govern itself and services mean 70,000 or 140,000 people? To encourage a civil society and real political engagement amongst other things more localism is not the complete answer. We need to make government simpler to, clearer to those who it governs and we ask to interact with it.

The Liberal program for reform should not just be more local government, but clearer and smaller to.

Much to my surprise my last blog actually got a reply from the UK co ordinater of One Voice, my surprise because hadnt really assumed my readership was much beyond my one suscriber.
Any way I am well aware that my last blog was more than a bit confussed.
I want to for a start reliterate that i am not at any means oppossed to the goals of the one voice group.
It also turns out though that i was wrong about my assertion that they were a US based group. Taking what Jake has told me it now seems that the One Voice movement in its actions and leadership is run by Palestianians or Isrealis while US UK etc wings of the group deal with money raising etc. This makes a enourmous difference to my perception of the group, where i believed that the US ran policy.
On a personal note which I probably should of made the first blog I still wont be recording a message if I see the launch. What exactly do you say? Hi I support you so I'm putting £5 towards your charity while my goverment won't recognise the goverment you elected after insisting you elected one and sells arms to the Isreali goverment.
I have no objection to supporting financially the moderates on either side, but a message of support when I live in the lap of luxery compared to those I would be speaking to... It may be just one of my nuances but not for me.

It would be pretty standard for me to talk at length about the 2 letters of no confidence in David Cameron, the awful press on him today and references to him as the Conservatives no wait Cameron’s Conservatives Neil Kinnock but there’s one party I loath more than the “Cameron’s Conservatives” and that’s the BNP.

Today we learnt that in the expectation of chaos following the peak oil crisis the BNP will implement their pre prepared plan. It will not to be to launch a coup against the Lib – Lab – Con alliance, it wont be to cleanse Britain, they wont even stick around to help in non Nazi like ways. Oh no they’ll piss of.

Yes I can proudly tell you that Britain’s leading Nationalist will in Britain’s great time of need run away. They will abandon England’s green and pleasant hills for a self sufficient farm in the village of Knin in Croatia.

Now if they were going from one country to another to flee chaos and anarchy, might I be right in suggesting that made them asylum seekers. The only way this could be more poetic is if Knin was in Poland.

So there you go Nick Griffen protecting Britain, until he emigrates.

It does rise though the real issue that renewable energy sources are not just good for the environment but also for making Britain self sufficient. We have to look at Iraq and Russia and ask if we really want to be reliant on gas and oil for energy.

The One Voice Movement will launch in the UK this Wednesday apparently. One Voice Movement is a organisation/pressure group that seeks to highlight “mainstream” Israeli Palestinian views against those of the extremists.

The cause and the aim of the group are virtually angelic, and morally impeccable, I say nearly because nothing can be perfect.

The nagging thing for me is though that it is an American based program. It works with Israeli and Palestinian moderates, rather than been run by them. I always feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea of Johnny foreigner wondering in and asking the two people to simply play nicely.

When I’m challenged to why I still believe the Iraq war was a mistake despite it bringing in democracy I follow the same basic feeling. Democracy is meant to be all about bottom up power, that is democracy the masses selecting a few to rule for a period of time. If as in Iraq democracy is imposed top down then said democratic regime immediately loses that quality.

On Wednesday they will apparently be asking for MPs and I think the public to record messages. What exactly are they going to say though? Stop attacking each other.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully behind their cause, I just don’t feel comfortable with the means. Despite the virtues of the aims I can’t feel comfortable with the idea of uninvited messages of support and advice to moderates. Perhaps if the roots of the organisation were in the Middle East it would feel more genuine and a little less well “White Mans Burdenish”.

We can voice our support for moderates all we want but we must at the end of the day the solution to the Middle East Tragedy lies with the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.

Could blog about how happy I am that “Cameron’s Conservatives” came third in the big by election push. Let’s not forget he made that election 100% about himself. He stuck he’s own name on the ballot. Actually worse than that not they were his, actually written down on paper they called themselves his conservatives.

The Conservative party aren’t Conservatives any more their Cameron’s Conservatives do they have no respect really. Actually now I know what I will do, I’ll change my tags to Cameron’s Conservatives.

Tomorrow the fine people of Ealing and Southall prepare to go to the polls, all three leaders not just Ming will be put to the test. Lord Rennard apparently has predicted a recount; it seems to be open to any and all which is precisely what all the parties want you to believe.

Yesterday when I went I somehow managed to avoid Uxbridge road no mean feat in itself. Outside the commercial areas orange diamonds actually seem to be the leading trend rather than personality cult sized banners of Lit. Lit is by the way a classic Tory candidate, the local landowner which rumours state can and is threatening shop owners if they refuse a poster. He’s far from Cameron’s something new, actually I dare say Lit the multi millionaire heir will fill at home with all the old Eatonians. You would of thought Black would have been enough of a warning to Cameron about welcoming media moguls into the Conservative party.

Further a field the political betting blog for the second time I’ve seen suggests towards upset in Sedgefield.

Boris seems to of chosen to run for mayor of the run to run for mayor of the one town in the UK that he hasn’t offended yet. He defiantly one of Cameron’s men though in Ealing we are given a man who can only lightly be called a Conservative considering how long he’s been a member and the donation. For London we’re given a Eton graduate with who hates to put his flag any where with one of the worst voting records in the House.
Has anyone thought about what Boris’s nack for offending people will do to the Olympics??

Andrew Rawnsley’s Observer column predicts a harsh and bloody future combat between Cameron and Brown in the run to the next parliament whenever that will be. It will be personal and bloody.

The truth is that it has to be personal because they have no policy or ideological differences. Cameron far from being the end to partisan politics, where real practical policy comes over stubborn opposition is the pinnacle of party politics. Abandoning everything, all philosophy and ideology in the cynical attempt to get the Conservative Party back in power. It’s not about the merits of a Conservative approach only the party.

Such is shown by the now disastrous Lit affair the whole donation scandal will blow over if Cameron performs well, but failure to do so will really hang over Cameron’s head. That said all three party leaders have a lot invested on these by elections.

The Observer once again the wee corners of its editorial starts sticking its all so patronising noise in Lib Dem business saying that if Ming performs badly we will need to assess our leader. This coming from the newspaper group, which in the 2005 GE, flip flopped between reluctant support for New Labour and announcing the wholesale corruption of the Third Way. Perhaps when the Observer and Guardian show real leadership themselves and support the Lib Dems which they sometimes seem frustratingly close to doing I will consider their opinion of Ming important.

The BNP are apparently having a bit of a leadership crisis after disappointing local elections ( well actually I’m quiet pleased) apparently a old hack Chris Jackson will take on Griffin for being wait to dictatorial.
I’m personally quiet entertained by the idea that the BNP following a ideology based around the sovereignty of the state rather than the individual would find their leader to dictatorial.
Interestingly Nasty Nick is already causing problems, having called a quick election to stop Callous Chris from campaigning to raise his limited profile. Griffin has also limited Jackson’s access to membership lists and restricted campaigning to just about a single flyer.

This is not to say that Jackson is any nicer, he took a holiday to celebrate the birthday of Franco and is essentially the candidate of ex leader Tyndell who promised to challenge Griffin in 2005 for amongst other things trying to let non whites into the party.

The election is so far quit messy rumours that Jackson is about to take Griffin to court and at least two sites one that has been closed down one apparently holds a video of Griffin really enjoying himself with a man rather than his wife.

Brown today apparently launched a review into the super casino plans launched and much supported by Blair. This review is though popularly seen as the death of super casino plans as a means to redevelop some inner city areas.

The whole debate over the super casinos always slightly confused me surely casinos are businesses like all others they both provide positive externalities and negative ones. The whole debate about the wrongs of casinos seems to begin with the assumption that potential users of casinos can’t really handle it. That once you enter a slippery road of addiction and the entry to crime.

I’m not going to deny the fact some people do get addicted to gambling and that casinos also draw in crime if badly managed. Let’s follow the idea of addiction to its end though first, we have from Gordon the suggestion that the introduction of Casinos would lead to addiction a social ill and so should not be introduced. But then we allow smoking, drinking, pornography and even gambling on races all things that we can get addicted to but we wouldn’t ban those activities although saying that the government does discourage many of them. It seems them that there is no basis on which to attack casinos on the basis of social ill. Like all other firms they offer a service that rational consumers buy into, like all other firms they come with a level of social bad, the government must leave it up to consumers to decide what they which to do with their money

Now lets deal with crime again any concentration of private property is going to attract crime. It’s the basic problem of capitalist economics supply is based around scarcity, all firms encourage crime in that people will rob to gain what they otherwise cant have without committing a crime.

All in all then I don’t really see what the difference is between one business and another or rather a casino, and the truth is that there really isn’t one. Just as central government recognises that is none of its business in intervening whether or not a off-licence opens down the road its none of central governments business where casinos open. Much like the spirit rather than the practise of alcohol and tobacco tax the casinos and their customers should pay for the negative cost of their business paying towards gambling addiction treatment and extra policing rather than banning the freedom to gamble all together.

The Tories are promising all the good god fearing crowds of middle england tax cuts if they pursue the all inportant social duty that is marriage.

As they put it the tax system they propose will, recognise the benefits of marriage. Now marriage and a lobing family is wonderful and full of benfits, but the tax system is not designed to recognise thoose benefits. The Tax system shouldnt take moral stances it should raise money from soiceties individuals and with that provide services. The is rrom for the tax system to also correct the market so that thoose who have benefitted most should pay most and actions that cause harm otherwise known as negative externalities are corrected, such as ciggerette smoking and tax.

Tax rather than trying to mould society and encourage certian actions should be simply collecting tax directly from individuals. Where indirect taxes do occur such as with smoking tax the tax should (not the case with UK tobaccoe tax) be about enocuraging or discouraging actions but making the consumer pay for the cost of their habit. So tobaccoe tax should pay for the cost of smoking caused healthcare.

The latest Conservative proposals are yet another attempt from the enternal party of big goverment, paternalism and the nanny state in trying to dictate to people into certian "moral actions". The Conservatives have shown once again that they see it as the goverments role to engineer and set out society and will use any power it has to do with.

One of the most significant changes and probably the best change to going into 6th form was the luxury of free periods, in which you “could” study and most significantly leave school. Being the swat I am I never actually to advantage of the “could.”

Last year the 6th form head was replaced by someone out of school, he was bought in by the governors to seriously improve the schools ailing A level results.

Rumours followed him like a dark cloud, the introduction of a school uniform for 6th form, the end to free period etc etc. Me and my year that had already done a year were safe from the reforms. The year coming in weren’t so lucky, compulsory general studies and a lecture every other week on work skills. The social area was closed down during free periods you now had to study rather than could. This year the new intake found that free period was closed down completely with the ending of the right to leave school. Next years school uniform will have a uniform.

Now I am not about to claim that the right to free periods is a sovereign right but it is symbolic of how our rights will be taken and tyranny created. It took two years for Hitler to set up the Nuremberg laws after taking power, four to take control of the army.

In the UK Labour edging slowly and blindly in the same direction. Talk that complicated business trials should have no jury, laws than ban forms of pornography, which ban collected protest or protest in any form outside of the UK parliament. Laws that allow the Home Secretary to at their leisure define areas, in which no one should be allowed to protest, ASBOs that allow police to break up groups of only two.

Labour I don’t believe consciously aim at overturning our liberties and civil rights that to jury enshrined in British law since the Magna Carta. Their dithering, messy and attempt at negotiation of our liberties and rights is dangerous and wrong. It sets a precedent for those more malevolent rulers to collect and centralise power around them. It sets in motion a trend in which liberties will be gradually eroded.

It is to easy and a precarious assumption to say that if you a good citizen you have nothing to fear, one day the law may be changed and you will become the citizen who has done wrong. One day if the trend is allowed to continue the balance between providing security and providing tyranny will of tipped and only afterwards will we know it.