Bright's Blog

8 comments from readers

Jonny Mac
11 July 2008 at 10:47

"The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, could have taken the genuinely liberal argument to Davis rather than giving him a free run." What?! Are you saying that supporting 42 days is "the genuinely liberal argument", which sounds bananas to me, or have I misunderstood?

Martin Bright
11 July 2008 at 16:46

You have misunderstood

Carl Jones
11 July 2008 at 19:50

The Liberals did the right thing. This was a justified principled stand by DD and it was aimed a Labour. The Greens shot themselves in the foot....they have no principles.lol The turnout was HIGHER than expected...voters who supposedly support 42 days had an opportunity, but failed to take it. Of course, most opinion polls are worthless based on the pathetic questions asked.

Either way, we the public are stuffed, the SIS will continue its policy of false flag terror and the fitting up of Muslim patsies....we can`t win, you the public must live in fear because you need to believe that politicians are required to keep us all safe.LOL

knave
12 July 2008 at 06:39

There was an interesting speech delivered by Cameron this week.

It was pure Gladstonian Liberal Thatcherism.

Blaming the poor for their ills.

Wor Kev Maquire challenged him in the Mirror.

The rest of the journos in this country applauded it or as in the case of Martin and Tory Nick Cohen ignored it because it didn't fit into their "progressive " tory agenda.

Funny old world.

taghioff.info
13 July 2008 at 14:52

I understand that there are sections of the British Left that are very upset with and tired of New Labour, but what form does a genuine liberal alternative take, and more to the point, what role does a European-style welfare state have in this?

Surely we are beyond the point where we believe that freedom is exclusively about non-interference from the state, beyond the point where we think leaving people to their own devices will free them from their needs (like education and health) so one has to ask, what is genuinely liberal in such an alternative?

Surely you need a strong state in order to be able to protect people's rights? Is it such an alternative we are referring to?

knave
13 July 2008 at 19:48

Tag

I couldn't agree more. The freedom of an individual can be enhanced through opportunity.

gnuneo
15 July 2008 at 19:32

"Surely we are beyond the point where we believe that freedom is exclusively about non-interference from the state, beyond the point where we think leaving people to their own devices will free them from their needs (like education and health) so one has to ask, what is genuinely liberal in such an alternative?

Surely you need a strong state in order to be able to protect people's rights? Is it such an alternative we are referring to?"

in classic liberalism, such as the writer adam smith, it was strongly recognised that for a society to be "liberal", then strong and excellent public services MUST be provided, such as free education (of the best possible quality), free healthcare, social benefits to end the desperate poverty that drove people to work for others for nothing, because they understood that without equality of opportunity, there can be no meritocracy, no real democracy, none of the bases for calling a society 'liberal' would be truly there.

what is wrongly called 'liberal economics' now, is actually 'neo-liberal economics', which emphasises wealth concentration in few hands, and the 'struggle to survive' for the majority that epitomises both feudal and fascist societies.

therefore classical liberal economists saw a strong role for the State in its role of providing social services and reducing the wealth gap, the countries of Scandinavia are probably following the pattern of Classical Liberal Economics, as espoused by Adam Smith, most closely. He would have been more of a social democrat, in todays terms, than the neo-liberals who now try to claim his name.

as for david davies reelection - well, good on him for making the point, and i think all the parties actions in this were honourable, including the Greens. Let us hope this bill is laughed out of the Lords, or failing that, more Labour MPs remember that one of the most serious Duties of a Member of Parliament is to protect, and increase the Rights and Freedoms of the British People, their spineless act in voting for this measure already has caused grevious damage to our civil institutions and civil liberties, you are still the supine toadies you were when Blair took us into Iraq.

rights once lost to the State, are very hard for a population to get back. Think about that when you go to vote.

shan oakes
16 July 2008 at 10:23

Carl: just to clarify...The Greens stood on principle. Davis stood as a Tory. Tory (and Labour) policy supports unethical growth - the cocktail of war, weaponry and corporate takeover which is stoking profit-driven paranoia which in turn leads directly to erosion of civil liberties.

best wishes Shan Oakes (Green Party candidate in the H&H b-election)