Are Liberals immune to euro-skepticism?

We are hearing a lot recently about how both Labour and the Tories are divided over the EU. Meanwhile Tim Farron recently said that he wants the Liberal Democrats to be leading on the 'in' campaign. At a glance it might seem like the party is unanimous in this, but does that mean Liberals as a whole are?

Speaking for myself alone, I can say I believe that people have a democratic right to have this explained to them properly, instead of just being told how some very clever people think we should stay in the EU and that it would be wise to listen to them.

For instance, while I'm fine with the concept that our economy, as a unit, will be better off in the EU, I'm not convinced that this translates to a healthier internal economy. The single currency, for example, appears to allow capital to move around extremely quickly resulting in unpredictable local markets. I'm not arguing that this is true, just that it's something that appears to be true.

Now looking around to other people, there's a @LibDemsForLeave twitter page. This doesn't say much about disagreement within the party, but it does clearly show that some disagreement is indeed present.

So, no, there is plenty of healthy euro-skepticism to go around, and Liberals are not immune.

Next I'm going say something that many may find ridiculous: I feel that UKIP supporters (if not members) are generally liberals. What sets them apart from the Lib Dems to these people? Well, for a start UKIP gained it's momentum on anti-Westminster feelings, more than anti-EU feelings. It's certainly not based on xenophobia, but rather a fear of being ruled over by far off people with no connection to the everyday lives of citizens.

I'm not saying this is what the actual UKIP membership feels, maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know. It's just clearly a powerful aspect to the proven appeal of the party among the disenfranchised. They are seen to say the things that nobody else says, to ask questions that nobody else is even willing to talk about, seemingly.

The reality is, in my view, that UKIP is not really answering many questions, or providing any real solutions. Much of the populist support for them is thought to be draining away in favour of Corbyn, who is now the peoples' man-on-the-inside, there to show Westminster who's boss.

As much as this might be true for Corbyn himself, he faces threats from both sides. Obviously the Tories hate him, by and large the base hates who they are told to hate, almost. Many in labour strongly disagree, and apparently without seeing the irony publicly rebuke their own party leader for fictional slights like a conspiracy to oust MPs who disagree with him.

The other side is also a threat to Corbyn's chances because, most topically, they are the ones who may oust perfectly electable MPs for disagreeing with them. To some extent there's a democratic argument that this is right and proper, which I'll admit plays on my own sympathies. Corbyn's grassroots support is part anti-Westminster democrats, and part 'radical social progressives'.

The reason I can say that with any certainty is that I am one of those democrats. What pushed me away was the irrational nonsense from the ideologues who seem to shout so loud nobody outside of these grassroots can hear anybody else. I and people like me are liberals. We don't like the head-in-the-clouds matter-of-fact attitude of the Westminster elites and we want a decent, representative democracy. This means healthy skepticism of the EU and just who among us it is actually good for, and democratic transparency on things like TTIP.

Just like what seems to be happening a bit with the SNP and UKIP, the liberals among the Corbynites will begin to wonder whether they are in the right place. With the recent bursting of the Westminster Bubble at the heart of the Lib Dems I suspect that I wont be the only one coming back to the fold.

Liberal Democrats North West Conference

Until Saturday I wasn't certain that I really belonged in the Lib Dems (or any party for that matter). My views are often met with condescension or even hostility for not being of a particular school of thought. So, this being the case, I went along to the north-west conference intent on ruffling some feathers to see how people responded.

I can't say I was feeling brazen when I got there, but early on I spotted a face I'd seen before: Clive People. I told Clive my desire to test the waters and we spoke about the wide net of the Liberal Democrats. I chose to quietly reserve judgement and filed this as a mark in favour.

The conference kicked off with man-of-the-hour Tim Farron delivering a speech of predictable content but surprising vigour. I think the best insight I got for my own purpose was when Tony Greaves spoke about 'Corbynism' and described it as old labour plus a new faction of 'radical social progressives', some of which may have voted Green in frustration at the establishment and now saw Corbyn as the potential champion of democracy. Eventually, he said, these people would see labour for the irreconcilably anti-democratic body that it is and perhaps look elsewhere. Little did he know there was such a person in the audience already looking.

The final push off the fence came when John Pugh talked about the party's massive parliamentary losses this year. He was open and frank about what happened and why, there was no blame-the-other game played by labour. For the Lib Dems at least, the Westminster Bubble has well and truly burst.

So, after my first party conference, I can say with certainty that I am a Liberal Democrat. I've started at the end of the story though, so I'll now outline what brought me here.

My earliest memory of any political opinion is a deep respect for Charles Kennedy, I was disappointed to see him step down. Nevertheless in 2010 i cast my first general election vote for the Lib Dems but when Nick Clegg squandered the opportunity for real electoral reform by denouncing Gordon Brown and letting the Tories get their ideological claws back into Downing Street again, I felt betrayed.

I turned away from politics, I had bigger concerns: I failed out of school and multiple jobs before being diagnosed with ADHD /Autism after more than two years trying to see an expert and get medication. Part of my problems are my memory, but I think this was around 2010; I do recall thinking how typical it was that when I finally might be able to work, the job market shriveled.

It wasn't that simple of course, I basically had to learn how to think all over again. During this time I tried my luck with ESA and spent over a year on appeal. I had help from 'Mind' and the BDDA pretty much handled the appeal for me. When it finally came through and I was placed in the support group I received the arrears payments -- more money in one go than I had survived on in the whole year previous -- of which I gave about half away immediately to more needy people. This experience saw me very frustrated at the establishment and pretty far to the left.

Being in the ESA support group left me more than four times better off but no less jaded. This coincided with my first year back at sixth form college, trying to get my A-levels and move on with my life. Over the internet I was really beginning to become one of these 'radical social progressives' Baron Greaves mentioned at conference.

What split me from the pack, I think, was the #GamerGate controversy. Most people in the neo-progressive sphere were ready and willing to assume that 'Gamers' were a bunch of misogynistic hate-mongers but I knew better. At first I rationalized this discrepancy such that surely it was a minority of gamers and that GamerGaters were a different breed, but the more involved I got the more it seemed that it was actually the anti-GG groups that spewed the most hate and perpetrated illiberal acts of censorship and social control. There's even a young man in Canada at the moment awaiting trial for internet "harassment" (disagreeing with some so-called feminists who wanted to deliberately bully someone they didn't like to suicide).

I got my head back into liberalism somewhat by watching videos from people I initially disagreed with strongly but I felt that was exactly what I aught to be looking for. Most prominently YouTubers "Liana K", "Sargon of Akkad", and more recently Professor Gad Saad of Concordia University. Generally the circles that led me to these people call the 'radical social progressives' "Social Justice Warriors" or "SJW's". In particular Sargon of Akkad has put some effort into explaining to people prone to equating all the left as 'Liberal' that true Liberalism is very different from the ideology espoused by the people Professor Saad likes to call 'regressives'.

So I was back on board with Liberalism, and again proud to identify as one. Even so, by the 2015 general election my conversion was not really complete and I hadn't forgotten my feelings of betrayal from how the coalition was formed, so I voted Green. I think the vast majority of the public were very disappointed with the result but the one part that did not even slightly surprise me was the near annihilation of The Liberal Democrats. When Paddy Ashdown said he'd eat his hat I thought "well you're going to have to eat it, then!"

To my shame I was not willing to even consider voting Lib Dem again, but then Nick Clegg stepped down and I first saw Tim Farron speak. I thought about it for maybe a day before joining the party to vote for him. Though then my loyalty was split between Farron and Corbyn, both seemed to be a friend to people like me. I registered as a labour supporter and voted for Corbyn, though in that case it was more out of disgust at the prospect of the opposition being led by people who thought their best bet was to agree with the Tories about everything and be pushed around by the press. As the campaign wore on I grew to like Corbyn more, but I also began to like New Labour even less than I had done before if you can imagine.

So finally we arrive where I began telling the story. The conclusion? Well, I am still rather sympathetic to Corbyn, if it ends up a choice of red or blue i'll take red every time no matter what some will say from the comfort of their warm homes and their certainty of their next meal. At the end of it all though I'm a Liberal Democrat through and through. I might like Corbyn for now, but the Lib Dems will always be the home I come back to from now on.

A Lesson In Gerrymandering

"The Tories are removing twice as many people from the electoral register in Britain's poorest areas as the richest" is the headline of an article on The Independent's website.

It's a very reasonable first assumption to think that this is perhaps more alarming than the truth behind the headline, but actually this is only the tip of the ice-berg.

In terms of just being registered to vote, that is something that can be sorted out in time, and indeed there's plenty before the next general election. The reason this story is rather alarming is that it is being used in conjunction with incoming new constituency boundaries to gerrymander The Conservatives into a disgustingly undemocratic advantage.

Essentially, they want to base the new boundaries on registered voters, not actual population, as of 1st December 2015. Coupled with the fact that the 'reforms' to voter registration will disproportionately kick more people off the register in poorer areas -- as high as 22.9% compared to only 2.96% in wealthier areas.

So, yes, these poorer people (with less secure housing) will be able to sort out their right to vote in time for the next general election, but will be very hard pressed to get everything sorted out in time to be counted for the new constituencies, which were already expected to favour The Conservatives.

Poorer areas are going to be merged into fewer seats, meaning that the votes of the poor will carry less weight than the votes of the rich. It is tempting, I know, to think this is mere provocation or some sort of conspiracy theory, but I'm very sorry to tell you: This is actually happening!

What can be done is to work to get as many people back on the electoral register as humanly possible to limit the affect of this hostile take-over. If you thought your vote was meaningless with two similar parties vying for power, just wait until you've sampled living in a one-party state.

On David Cameron's "historic opportunity to reform the NHS"

This morning I came to be reading this article on The Telegraph's website.

It starts off in the form of listing problems in the NHS, failing to explain the causes, generally the opening achieves it's evident goal of saying to the reader "The NHS is broken"

Eventually the article gets to it's second premise, which is that David Cameron has the public support to "fix" the NHS..

It concludes by urging the Prime Minister to "Grasp the nettle, Mr Cameron. Reform the NHS and secure your place in history. "

There's a lot wrong with this reasoning, despite the well formed syllogism.

For a start it misses the fact that the NHS, despite not being cut, remains underfunded in real terms due to a reluctance to increase spending appropriately as the cost of health has increased nominally.

Translating this from economic jargon to English, The NHS has seen it's funding drained from it slowly, the apparent protection from cuts is a half-measure meant to fool those not versed in the details.

Another problem is that much of the inefficiency that does exist within the NHS is due to top-down revisions from government. The only advantage a privately owned/run health service has over a public one is that The Tories don't have an ideological incentive to sabotage the private sector.

We need only look to The US to see what a fully private health service looks like, one in which spending on health per person has been TWICE that of our own and even then the poor go un-treated.

That is all I will say of the former premise for now I wish to discuss the latter:

"Mr Cameron, like many Tories, is instinctively wary of doing anything that could be caricatured as privatising or dismantling the NHS. He should have more confidence. This year, he roundly defeated a Labour Party whose campaign was based on such a caricature. Voters are more open to NHS reform than politicians believe. "

Roundly defeated? Oh no he didn't!

Oh indeed, The Conservatives gained the majority of seats and labour lost a 'surprise' coup in Scotland. Really though when you look at the sheer quality and competence of that political campaign, the voters' fear of an SNP coalition and the appeal of populism vs. the Westminster bubble..

All of this combined to achieve a Tory vote of ~25%  of the electorate. Many of those votes were cast in uncertainty and fear, with the hope that they would be better off, and the assurance of the Prime Minister that tax credits would be safe...

Despite the supposed un-electability of the opposition, David Cameron may well have sealed his party's fate for 2020 already, never mind what could happen if he 'reformed' the NHS!

"If only he could figure out that socialism is a bad idea, perhaps I could really like the guy properly."

So again, I, a staunch capitalist and a detractor of actual hard left twits am cornered into defending Jeremy Corbyn:

There's more to what prompted me than just this, but the final sentence and indeed the tone of the article I do not wish to name-and-shame was:

"If only he could figure out that socialism is a bad idea, perhaps I could really like the guy properly."

To which I say:

It’s good that he’s not the chancellor then, isn’t it? While Corbyn might prefer socialism he respects democracy and McDonnell’s economic ideas are perfectly viable.

For instance: Tax Credits – I get what they are trying to say when they talk about taxing people and then giving the money back – but that’s not really what is going on – the system could be refined sure, but The Tories keep going on about it as if it’s the SAME people being taxed and then supported…

As for the economic “realism” of cutting tax credits, it should be painfully obvious to anybody who knows what ‘The Marginal Propensity To Consume’ is that this will slow down the economy.

In fact the belated recovery we have struggled to could have been achieved by giving a bumper pay rise to public servants and a probationary boost to tax credits followed by a spending review around now (assuming this had been done at the outset). In fact we may even have been running a surplus by now!

I’m so sick of seeing people go on about how unrealistic opposing austerity is when there’s more anti-vaxx doctors floating around than there are economists who think austerity is a good idea..