Wednesday, 20 June 2018

Category » Articles

From The Liberty Wall – The St. George’s Committee – Words Of Wisdom – John Ball

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 1)

DONALD JOHN TRUMP became the 45th President of the United States on 20th January, 2017. Since then he’s hardly ever been out of the headlines. The media, in particular, seem to be following a pre-planned narrative. Therefore, the headlines tend to revolve around lurid tales concerning his sex life, being under the control of the Russians or being a second Hitler.

For a long time Trump has been (and still is) what might be termed a ‘colorful and controversial’ character. His straight talking combined with some alleged politically incorrect views puts him light years apart from any former President, and indeed, many US career politicians. His extensive use of Twitter – thus circumventing the Mainstream Media – MSM – has also put many noses out of joint.

But who really is Donald Trump?

He’s been President for well over a year now and many of us still don’t really understand what motivates or drives him. In order to do so, we must put emotion aside and totally ignore silly gossip, rumours of scandal and all forms of character assassination. If we want to really understand Trump – and thus, US home and fioreign policy – we need to look way beyond the orange skin and strange hairstyle.

One way of learning about (and thus understanding) Trump is to examine what others say about him. Again, we’re not interested in articles that contain wild allegations. Instead we must look at more serious studies of him – no matter what side of the political divide they come from.

With this in mind, our attention has been drawn to an article by Caitlin Johnstone which was published by the US on-line publicatione Medium. We’ll be reproducing her article in sections but you can read it here: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/trump-isnt-another-hitler-he-s-another-obama-51ea7db498b4


Caitlin Johnstone describes herself as ‘an uncouth heretic and unapologetic rabble rouser writing out of Melbourne, Australia. Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonault. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper. You will disagree with me sometimes. That’s okay. And Medium declares that it ‘taps into the brains of the world’s most insightful writers, thinkers, and storytellers to bring you the smartest takes on topics that matter. So whatever your interest, you can always fresh thinking and unique perspectives.’

Caitlin Johnstone seems to suggest that President Trump is merely following on where President Obama left off. We’re tempted to agree with this analysis. The political style of Trump is completely different from that of Obama, but they’re essentially following the same path dictated to them by the US Military-Industrial complex.

We invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook sites here
https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ and here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between
Caitlin Johnstone, Medium and the National Liberal Party.

.

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 1)

Current US President Trump and former US President Obama. The political style of Trump is completely different from that of Obama, but they’re essentially following the same path dictated to them by the US Military-Industrial complex.

NOT A LOT of people remember this, but George W Bush actually campaigned in 2000 against the interventionist foreign policy (1) that the United States had been increasingly espousing. Far from advocating the full-scale regime change ground invasions that his administration is now infamous for, Bush frequently used the word “humble” when discussing the type of foreign policy he favored, condemning nation-building, an over-extended military, and the notion that America should be the world’s police force.

Eight years later, after hundreds of thousands of human lives had been snuffed out in Iraq and Afghanistan and an entire region horrifically destabilized, Obama campaigned against Bush’s interventionist foreign policy, edging out Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries partly because she had supported the Iraq invasion while he had condemned it. The Democrats, decrying the warmongering tendencies of the Republicans, elected a President of the United States who would see Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq and raise him (2) Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, along with a tenfold increase in drone strikes (3). Libya collapsed into a failed state (4) where a slave trade runs rampant (5) and half a million people died (6) in the Syrian war that Obama and US allies exponentially escalated (7).

Eight years later, a reality TV star and WWE Hall-of-Famer was elected President of the United States by the other half of the crowd who was sick to death of those warmongering Democrats. Trump campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy (8) saying America should fight terrorists but not entre into regime change wars with other governments. He thrashed his primary opponents as the only one willing to unequivocally condemn Bush and his actions, then won the general election partly by attacking the interventionist foreign policy of his predecessor and his opponent, and criticizing Hiillary Clinton’s hawkish no-fly agenda in Syria.

Now he’s approved the selling of arms to Ukrane (9) to use against Russia, a dangerously hawkish move that even Obama refused to make (10) for fear of increasing tensions with Moscow. His administration has escalated trop presence in Afghanistan (11) and made it abundantly clear that the Pentagon has no intention (12) of leaving Syria anytime soon despite the absence of any reasonable justification (13) for US presence there. The CIA had ratcheted up operations in Iran (14) months into Trump’s presidency, shortly before the administration began running the exact same script against that country (15) that the Obama administration ran on Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Maybe US presidents are limited to eight years because that’s how long it takes the public to forget everything.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

(2) http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/oct/21/jill-stein/jill-stein-green- party-candidate-correct-about-us-/

(3) https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush

(4) http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-failed-state-its-americas-fault-23325

(5) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/libyan-slave-trade-commodification_us_5a4f96a8e4b089e14dba6860

(6) http://www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.html

(7) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-war-on-syria-can-show-you-whats-happening-in-our-world-6df7de60fd27

(8) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-military/trump-lays-out-non-interventionist-u-s-military-policy-idUSKBN13W06L

(9) https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/12/21/trump-approves-us-lethal-weapons-sales-ukraine-angering-moscow/

(10) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html

(11) https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/19/16227730/trump-afghanistan-3000-troops-mattis

(12) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jim-mattis-on-syria-were-not-just-going-to-walk-away-after-isis/article/2176990

(13) https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/11/17/secretary-mattis-off-base-us-military-presence-syria-has-no-legal-grounds.html

(14) https://archive.is/6k3iB

(15) https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/us-empire-is-running-the-same-script-with-iran-that-it-ran-with-libya-syria-2bb37b5c5af

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Liberal Future Debate (4) – Is It Racist To Highlight The Sexual Abuse In Rotherham &

WELCOME to the latest Liberal Future debate. It relates to an article – reproduced below – by NHS psychiatrist Dr. Max Pemberton, which appeared in the Daily Mail at the end of March. Our attention was recently drawn to it as it related to the publicity concerning sexual abuse in Rotherham and Telford. In both instances, mainly troubled and vulnerable young white working-class girls were abused on what could be termed an ‘industrial scale’ by men of ‘Pakistani heritage’.

These men of ‘Pakistani heritage’ are Muslims. However, it is important to point out that Liberal Future (unlike the ‘right’) does not blame all Muslims for the actions of some. We are well aware that world Islam is not a monolithic bloc – like many religions, there are differences in interpretation. For instance, Islam includes very liberal Shiite Muslims such as the Alawites (probably the most well known being Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad) as well as extremely culturally conservative Sunni Muslims like the Salafists (who are the medievalist head choppers associated with Islamic State).

Liberal Future (unlike the ‘left’) is also more than happy to expose the behaviour of any section of the community – indigenous or immigrant – without fear or favour. The ‘left’ feels that the mildest criticism of any immigrant community smacks of racism, fascism and Islamophobia. We are not fussed about the colour of someone’s skin or what religious garb they wear – if they have done

wrong, they have done wrong. We need to sweep away any blinkered vision and establish the facts, no matter how uncorfortable or where these facts may lead. This applies to some members of the Muslim community (particularly in the North of England) as well as some members of the – presumably – Christian community who are alleged to belong to rich and powerful paedophile rings.

With the above in mind, we invite our readers to read Dr Pemberton’s article and have their say in the comments section once they see this article on the Liberal Future Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/706779429376233/

It goes without saying that there are no official links between Liberal Future, the National Liberal Party, Dr Pemberton or the Daily Mail.

.

It Is NOT Racist To Highlight This Abuse

Headlines relating to the Rotherham (left) and Telford (right) sex scandals. In both instances, mainly troubled and vulnerable young white working-class girls were abused on what could be termed an ‘industrial scale’ by men of ‘Pakistani heritage’. Should we be scared to speak out when such behaviour involves ethnic minorities?

WE MIGHT have hoped something was learned from the sickening scandal of abuse and depravity in Rotherham, but the Telford story shows nothing has changed.

Indeed, many still avoid the issue of paedophile gangs preying on young girls. People would much rather post a #MeToo tweet and congratulate themselves for sharing a story of how their boss once touched their knee than tackle the thorny issue of what’s happening up and down the country to working-class white girls. Far easier to wear a black dress on the red carpet than use your celebrity to speak out for those voiceless girls being raped.

If we want to send a message that we won’t tolerate child sex abuse, we must crack down with unimaginanable force on the likes of those abusing girls in Telford and condemn them with one loud, unified voice. Yet I worry the questions raised by this are too challenging.

Children are abused by people from all sorts of walks of life, but it would be foolish not to understand there’s a cohort of men from certain ethnic minorities, in particular of Pakistani heritage, who view women in a different way from the rest of us.

Clearly, these men’s behaviour is not representative of their culture. But these scandals emerge from social mores that endorse or turn a blind eye to female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honour killings; a culture that believes because white women wear revealing clothes, they must be prostitutes; a culture that forbids women leading independent lives – or even learning English.

Like many doctors in inner-city hospitals, I’ve seen countless women able to communicate only through a relative who translates for them, subservient to their husbands, living lives of quiet desperation.

This is what provides the fertile grounds for these rape-gangs.

Talking about these cultural differences – and accepting that it is not racist to point them out – is the first step in sending a clear message to the wicked minority in those communities who refuse to alter their behaviour or beliefs.

• CHECK OUT our previous debates:

Liberal Future Debate (1) – Should We Lower The Voting Age Throughout the UK?

http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-debate-1-%e2%80%93-should-we-lower-the-voting-age-

throughout-the-uk

Liberal Future Debate (2) – Must The Earth Die Screaming? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-

future-debate-2-must-the-earth-die-screaming

Liberal Future Debate (3) – Do Sport And Politics Mix? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-future-

debate-3-%E2%80%93-do-sport-and-politics-mix

Liberal Future Debate (4) – Is Tony Blair A War Criminal? http://nationalliberal.org/liberal-

future-debate-3-–-is-tony-blair-a-war-criminal

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Caledonian Voice Debate (1) Universal Basic Income For Scotland?

WELCOME to the first debate hosted by Caledonian Voice, the voice of the National Liberal Party (NLP) in Scotland. As National Liberals we belive in the twin ideals of National Freedom and Social Justice.

Whilst most Scots understand the concept of National Freedom, could the same be said for Social Justice? We believe that Social Justice is best served not by Capitalism – which supports the ‘tyranny of the marketplace’ – nor Socialism – which tries to deny any form of private ownership. We feel that a just and sustainable social order can only exist in which the ownership of property and the means of production, distribution and exchange are widespread.

To achieve this just and sustainable social order the economic influences of the NLP and Caledonian Voice are extremely wide and varied. They include the liberal national interpretation of classical liberal free trade, Lord Rosebery’s call for Britain to become (and Britons to be part of) a ‘great property-owning democracy’, ideas such as the Distributism of GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, monetary reform ideas (including elements of Social Credit), even some early socialists such as Kier Hardie and Bob Blatchford and Guild Socialism (as advocated by the likes of William Morris, GDH Cole and Arthur Penty). The ideas of the Co-Operative movement, the Chartists and Levelers and support for small businesses and shopkeepers and some libertarian economists, are also of interest.

With this in mind this debate looks at the question of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for Scots. The article reproduced below – see the original here https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/28/universal-basic-income-why-some-countries-are-seriously-considering-handing-out-free-money.html
- comes from the US-based CNBC, which describes itself as ‘the recognized world leader in business news, providing real-time financial market coverage and business information to approximately 385 million homes worldwide’. It provides a basic outline of what UBI is and why it’s needed.

We invite anyone who is interested in UBI for Scotland to have their say in the comments section once they see this article on our Facebook site
https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, Caledonian Voice or CNBC.

.

Why Some Countries Seriously Considering Handing Out Free Money

IMAGINE receiving a pile of cash each month from the government, no strings attached.

The concept sounds radical, but it’s an economic theory gaining traction from Silicon Valley to the Nordics, called universal basic income. Free money experiments are underway in a handful of countries as governments face evolving workforces and strained welfasre systems.

What is universal basic income?

The International Monetary Fund defines universal basic income as ‘a cash transfer of an equal amount to all individuals in a country.’

Universal basic income differs from other government transfers, like tax refunds or welfasre payments, in that every individual receives the same amount. Receipients can spend the money however they like, and they aren’t required to report how they spend it.

Who supports it?

Tech titans in Silicone Valley like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg are some of the biggest advocates of universal basic income. They say free money could provide flexibility for workers who could lose their jobs to robots or automation.

But the idea has been around for centuries. Philosopher Thomas Paine proposed payments ‘made to every person, rich or poor’ in his 1797 work Agrarian Justice.

In 1967, Martin Luther King Junior proposed a “guaranteed income” pegged to the median income level of socirty as a way to combat poverty.

Free-market champion Milton Friedman also advocated for a negative income tax, similar to basic income, as a way to simplify welfare and reduce bureaucracy.

Today universal basic income has support across the political spectrum. Senator Bernie Saunders has called it a “very correct idea” to address income and wage inequality, while some libertarians say it would provide a more efficient, simpler alternative to the existing welfare system.

Has it ever been done?

According to the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), no country has instituted universal basic income as a ‘principal pillar of income support for the working-age population.’ But several countries are experimenting with the idea in a small sample of the population.

Finland launched a trial at the beginning of 2017 where 2,000 unemployed people will receive 560 euros (about $665) each month for two years. Researchers will assess how the free money affects recipients’ incentive to work, and the Finnish government hopes it might reduce bureaucracy in the existing welfare system.

Other basic income experiments are underway in the Netherlands, Kenya, Canada and the United States.

How much free money are we talking about?

There is plenty of debate over the costs of universal basic income.

The 560 euros per month payable in Finland is roughly in line with the amount of unemployment assistance recipients would already receive from the government. Researchers in Finland said other benefits would need to be reduced to pay for a universal basic income across the country.

Yet, in a 2017 report (1), the OECD found that reducing existing benefits to pay for basic income could actually have a negative impact on poverty levels.

‘Overall poverty rates (and gaps) can in fact increase significantly in countries that currently have tightly targeted systems of income support,’ the report said.

Instead of replacing existing programs, some advocates say universal basic income should be an added benefit.

“The better way is to see basic income as a transformation of what’s already there,” said Louise Haagh, chair of the advocacy group Basic Income Earth Network.

(1) https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Basic-Income-Policy-Option-2017.pdf

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

English Voice Debate (2) – Towards An English Parliament?

THE first English Voice debate – http://nationalliberal.org/english-voice-debate-1-%e2%80%93-independence-for-england – appeared towards the end of last year. It examined the democratic deficit imposed on England by Westminster – in that England is the only ‘Home Nation’ which doesn’t have its own Parliament or Assembly. In practical terms this means that the Scottish Parliament sits at Holyrood, Ulster has Stormont and the Welsh have the National Assembly for Wales. The only people who don’t have a say in the running of their own country are the English.

We also noted that – besides the National Liberal Party – others are calling for some form of self-determination for the English nation. The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) was established in 1998. This pressure group campaigns ‘for an English Parliament with powers at least as great as those of Scotland’s, i.e. a Parliament and Executive (Government) that can make Acts (primary legislation) on the same domestic issues (e.g. health, welfare & education) that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.’ As far as we’re aware, all English Advocates (both individuals, groups and parties) all want some form of English Parliament or assembly.

Arguably the most high-profile campaigner for an English Parliament is Labour MP for Birkenhead, Frank Field. In June 2008, he joined calls for the establishment of a devolved parliament for England. And last year he wrote a thought-provoking article on English self-determination – https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/834711/frank-field-english-parliament-constitutional-reform-brexit – for the Daily Express.

English Advocates come from right across the political spectrum. As English Voice readers will know, Frank Field is ‘old school’ Labour. He’s culturally conservative, very outspoken on immigration, is opposed to the EU (he supports Brexit) and is concerned at the effects of globalisation.

The article featured below was written by Guy Parfitt (the constituency manager of UKIP MEP William Dartmouth in the South West of England) for BrexitCentral - https://brexitcentral.com/about/ – an ‘online home for all wanting to follow the twists and turns of our departure from the EU and hold the government to carrying out the instructions of the British public’. BrexitCentral transcends the traditional ‘left/right’ divide and features articles from ‘political figures from a variety of parties representing all corners of the UK, businesspeople, economists, campaigners and commentators based both at home and abroad.’

Guy Parfitt’s article is reproduced below – but you can read the original here https://brexitcentral.com/taking-back-control-democracy-demands-creation-english-parliament/ – and suggests that now voters have opted for a future outside of the EU, it’s time to establish an English Parliament elected via proportional representation. We think that it’s the next logical move for those of us who believe in self-determination and true democracy. But what do you think?

The NLP is also noted for its strong commitment to free speech. That’s why we – in association with English Voice – would like to open up this important debate to all English Advocates who believe in some form of self-determination for the English Nation. We invite anyone who is interested to have their say in the comments section once they see this article on our Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/

It goes without saying that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, English Voice, BrexitCentral, UKIP or Guy Parfitt.

.

Taking back control of our democracy demands the creation of an English Parliament

IF THE EU referendum result showed anything – other than the desire of the British people to exit the EU – it flagged up how completely and utterly out of touch the political class of this country are with the citizens they purport to represent.  The immediate years before the Brexit vote, and since, have illustrated for me the need for constitutional change within England.  I believe that an English Parliament within the UK, elected by a system of proportional representation, could re-align the shires with the rest of Britain, and give a voice to those outside the Westminster bubble.

Why do we need change?  Quite simply, Westminster doesn’t represent England.  In January 2013, the electorate saw the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, only announcing he would grant the people a say in the future of their country’s sovereignty in order to shore up his party’s grassroots support, and to eliminate a political rival, as it was said at the time – to ‘shoot the UKIP fox.’

For years previously, elected representatives had dismissed Eurosceptic concerns in the English counties.  In 1997, Eurosceptic opinions were confined to the margins, with the Referendum Party and UKIP both shut out due to the First Past The Post System.  And with little electoral power, these parties and their supporters were cut adrift from the debate, and could be easily elbowed out of the discussion by the mainstream establishment in politics and the media – until the rise of the internet.  To complain was to be ‘left behind’ or ‘racist’ and disgruntled voters were told to ‘get with the programme’.  Globalisation was king – and inevitable – and anyone who objected was viewed as living in the past, lost in a black-and-white world of antiquated British nostalgia.

The majority of the inhabitants of both the House of Commons and House of Lords backed Remain, and many in their private thoughts still back a globalised Britain, shrugging their shoulders at the growing disbelief across the English shires over reckless levels of migration, and the associated impact on the NHS, job security and housing – a situation enabled through the EU’s principle of free movement of people.

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had the machinery at least to provide a mouthpiece in shielding parts of the UK, with smaller parties finding space to represent opinions that have not been commonplace at Westminster.  Would Scotland have ever had the Independence referendum, if not for the success of the SNP, which grew in size despite earlier derision, and had the space to articulate a desire for independence, held by over 44% of voters in 2014?

And now, in recent months, as the Westminster government kept saying they will honour the will of the people, Brexiteers watch a House of Lords, dominated by unelected Remainers, seek to prevaricate and slow down the UK’s exit from the EU.  Further mistrust stirs, yet who can be found in either House to speak for England?  Mainstream fears are confined to the backbenches, political commentators, radio phone-in programmes and YouTube.

Westminster politicians may argue that regional assemblies in England are the answer to providing greater accountability and representation.  Yet there is little support for them.  John Prescott’s attempted North East Assembly was defeated by over 77% of voters there in 2004.  A national parliament for England would acknowledge the civic existence of the country – as the Welsh Assembly did for the people of Wales after their referendum in 1997, a cultural symbol as well as a forum to promote the interests and opinions of over 3 million people.

It’s fair to say that in order to take back control of UK sovereignty, borders, laws and money, we need to take back control of our democracy.  Simply returning powers to the same hands who were willing so freely to give them away will not instil public trust.

A parliament for England, elected by PR, would set it in line with the other nations of the UK and bring powers a step closer to the grassroots.  Then we can continue where we left off in 2016, with a genuine representative institution for England and at the same time protect the hard won referendum result from those who would overturn it and subsume us into a centralised United States of Europe.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Regionalism – Small Is Beautiful!

Artwork produced by the long-standing and well-respected publication Fourth World Review – 4WR. This artwork celebrates the life of Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher, who wrote the book Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered. We would encourage all those interested in regionalism to read it.

THE NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY is well-known for its stance on self-determination. As our web-site – http://nationalliberal.org/ – notes, the principle of self-determination ‘can be applied largely in three areas; National, Political and Economic.

National Self-Determination seeks to ensure decisions affecting the collective future of a nation are taken by ALL the people via referendum. This may be ‘External’, for example: the creation or maintenance of a nationstate, or ‘Internal’ – framing/updating a constitution to reflect how a people should rule themselves. (We favour independent nations and liberal, democratic, states).

Political Self-Determination seeks to ensure that the collective will of the people as well as the variety of political opinion is reflected in decision making. Thus, for example, we favour greater use of referendums to meet the former, and PR to reflect the latter (we favour a system close to the Swiss model of Direct Democracy).

Economic Self-Determination seeks to distribute ownership as widely as possible and as close to the individual as practical by favouring home owndership, self-employment, small businesses, cooperatives and employee shareholdings. (We believe that ownership is the key to economic and social health: where workers obtain a just reward for their labours and gain a feeling of well-being through their having a genuine personal stake in society).

The above principles underpin many National Liberal policies but others are rooted in common sense and usually aim to strike a balance between conflicting opinions, as befits a centrist party.’

With the above in mind, it follows that National Liberals favour decentralisation – and our idea is to decentralise power down to the lowest possible level. Indeed, early last year the NLP produced this artwork http://nationalliberal.org/the-national-liberal-party-supports-decentralisation to promote the idea of decentralisation.


This all ties in with our opposition to gigantism and our support for the concept that Small is Beautiful! To quote the ‘mantra’ of the long-standing and well-respected publication Fourth World Review – 4WR - we support ‘the world of small nations, small communities, small farms, small shops, small industries, small banks & the inalienable sovereignty of the human spirit.’
.
In its introduction on the National Liberal Party’s Liberty Wall –
http://nationalliberal.org/liberty-wall-3/fourth-world-review4WR also notes:

‘All through history man has quested for democracy and largely he has failed; in the past it has often been because of military dictatorship and tyranny, but in modern times this factor has been abetted by another, one still mainly unrecognised, that of size.

It was unrecognised that as an electorate grew in size the power passed from individual members to party machines. Nor did it stop there; with the development of mass newspapers, of radio and of television, new forms of power, new ways of influencing popular thinking emerged which ensured that the electorate did not so much control the government but rather the government controlled the electorate.

So great has been the power of the media that it has reached a stage where boardroom ownership power, coupled with the boardroom power of private investment and banking, today largely controls the power of government. This is clearly expressed in the modern development of a united EUrope in defiance of the general will, and which all the major parties are afraid to oppose. The way forward is not through mass party machines, but through the development of local community governing powers to a maximum level to ensure we have government not from the top down but as much as possible from the base up. A Fourth World of peoples’ power.’

In future articles relating to the issue of regionalism, we hope to provide information on both the historic regions of our nations and ways in which we can develop ‘local community governing powers’ such as building an alternative economy, media, culture and other vital services.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close