An electronic Conference on Kashmir’s Lockdown running quite separately and earlier than the global one was held last week. Various Kashmiri organisations, politicians, human rights activists and our (national) Self-Determinist pressure group Nations without States, attended.

Some notable attendees included the Conference Moderator Barrister M. Tramboo, Chairman Professor K. Buchner MEP (the Conservative Green ODP), and President in exile Carles Puigdemont (of Catalonia). The Conference discussed the need for the world to acknowledge Kashmir’s Self-Determination and Human Rights.

A Resolution was agreed by the participants calling the UN, EU, individual states and whomever will listen, to lobby for a solution (to follow). It was agreed that such conferences should be held on a regular basis.

Our Parliamentary petition was brought up as one initiative, amongst many, that supporters can get behind: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300570/

THE INTRODUCTION of a Universal Basic Income – UBI – is the subject of the first debate to be sponsored by the Isle of Wight Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party on the Isle of Wight.

However, before we can start this debate, it’ll be useful to know what a Universal Basic Income is. For those who don’t know, it’s an unconditional, periodic cash payment that the government makes to everyone. There’re no strings attached & it isn’t means tested. Essentially, it’s been described as a floor below which no one’s cash income can fall.

The Isle of Wight Voice (IoWV) believes that there’s four main practical reasons why some form of national payment is needed:

• MANY JOBS will be lost due to the rapid advances made in IT and robotics. If workers have no jobs, how will they pay their bills?

• A UNIVERSAL Basic Income acknowledges that people contribute to society in many ways – and not only via paid work. Here we’re thinking of those who carry out voluntary and/or charitable work.

• A GUARANTEED income will allow people to develop cultural & artistic skills. This will allow us to move away from an overly materialistic society, obsessed with GDP and excessive profits.

• THE BENEFITS system is a complete shambles. Some people are waiting weeks & even months for some form of payment. Some form of UBI will ensure that no one is left in absolute poverty.

Practical reasons aside, the introduction of a UBI is a subject that goes beyond the traditional ‘left’ & ‘right’ political divide. This is of great interest to us as we feel that the Establishment has been allowed to rule for far too long via its strategy of ‘divide & conquer’. As such, we’re not concerned too much about labels – we’re far more interested in ideas. Here, the IoWV wishes to nail its colours to the mast by declaring that we’re neither of the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ – neither are we capitalist or socialist. We’re not great fans of ‘Big Government’ so the actual mechanics of distributing a UBI worries us to some extent.

With all the above in mind, we’d ask readers to study this article – originally called ‘Universal Basic Income: Ruling class scam or step toward socialism?’ by Tim Libretti in the US leftist paper, the People’s World – and let us know what you think about UBI. You can do so when you see this article appear on the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

You can read Tim Libretti’s original article here: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/universalbasic-income-ruling-class-scam-or-step-toward-socialism/?fbclid=IwAR2HWl0yRHQYwIoI3Cr8gqdH_ OOfReQPUJgTANsIxD5XR8A47KOePuX8vkU Please note that we have left any North American spellings & phrases as they are. It goes without saying that there are no links between Tim Libretti, the People’s World, the National Liberal Party or the Isle of Wight Voice.

.

Universal Basic Income – Beyond Left & Right

Pictured from top left to bottom right: Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821), Major CH Douglas (1879 – 1952), Huey Long (1893 - 1935), Richard Nixon (1913 – 1994) & Martin Luther King, Jr., (1929 – 1968). All held different political positions & views but endorsed the idea of a minimum guaranteed income.

The more mega-capitalists like Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, and the like support it, the more some on the left grow suspicious. Left-leaning intellectual Chris Hedges (1), for example, characterizes the universal basic income as an oligarchical plot designed to defuse any call or movement for actual and substantial structural change to the capitalist system, the dynamics of which create the inequity and misery people suffer to begin with.

And, of course, we do need to recognize the truth that universal basic income policy is not designed to alter the structure of capitalism but rather provide some basic relief to the misery and poverty capitalism creates. Obviously, we need to keep our eyes on the prize of achieving the end of class society and exploitation and creating a world in which the fruits of our collective labors are shared.

Nonetheless, as Daniel Ravenós and Julie Wark (2) have pointed out, so far the universal basic income “is the only policy being mooted as a way of universally guaranteeing the most basic right of all: the right to material existence.” And, in response to Hedges’ concerns, they point out that a universal basic income can nonetheless abet revolutionary class struggle, arguing that “while not a universal panacea, is one way of strengthening vulnerable members of society in their struggle against the oligarchs.”

And, hey, why not go along with the scam, as long as we don’t fall for it? Take the money and run right down the revolutionary road. Destination: socialism.

What is important is that we cultivate and sustain a political and class consciousness rooted in awareness of the fact that our current economic arrangement—capitalism—is precisely what generates the grotesque inequality we need to eliminate. And by extension that same system is responsible for the grotesquely inequitable distributions of political power that deprives the mass of our population the right of self-determination—denies them freedom.

The universal basic income, I would argue, is already beginning to shift our national consciousness in directions that can direct us on the road to socialism. It is bringing issues of class and inequality more into focus and making them part of the national conversation, though in theoretically insufficient ways.

Chris Hughes (3), for example, the co-founder of Facebook, has argued strenuously for a universal basic income as not necessarily a comprehensive solution but as at least a moderating analgesic for the severity of income inequality and poverty in America, asserting, “We talk about inequality—and the economy in general—in terms that make it seem like these are structural problems that we can’t do anything about. When in reality, we’ve created the rules of the road: the way the economy works now.”

While he might not fully articulate what a different economic structure or system would look like (he doesn’t say the “S” word), he does unsettle the notion that capitalism is a fixed and unchangeable thing. He raises the specter that another economy is possible and makes the important point that people control and build the economy, which means we can, in fact, change it and create it anew.

As a culture and in our political discourse, we tend to talk about “the economy” in ways that dehistoricize it and make it seem permanent, as if capitalism is the only game in town. We don’t hear many people in talking about our economy say “the capitalist economy” to distinguish it, say, from feudal or socialist economies. As a culture, this makes it a lot harder for us to entertain different kinds of economic arrangements.

While Hughes, I’m guessing, does not identify as a Marxist, his intervention in this debate does begin to offer a different language for talking about our economy and the fact that poverty is not simply the fault or just desert of lazy or feckless people, but rather a product of capitalist economy. This  language  opens  and  orients  the  national  consciousness  to  a  potentially  imaginativeconversation about what a socially just and humane economy might look like. It’s an opener, anyway.

Billionaire Mark Zuckerburg (4), similarly provokes thinking about both the effectiveness and fairness of class society—and by extension capitalism—in his advocacy for a universal basic income. In a commencement address he delivered at Harvard, he indicated how growing up with financial security allowed him the freedom to pursue his inventions, explaining, “If I had to support my family instead of having time to code, if I didn’t know I’d be fine if Facebook didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be standing here today.”

These capitalists point not just to the unfairness, even inhumanity, of capitalism, but they even hint at what Marx stressed in his analysis of the history of class society: Capitalism, while it unleashed the creativity feudalism had constrained, it also fetters human creativity and the forces of production overall, leading to an economy at once inhumane and inefficient.

Secondly, and more importantly, the universal basic income, in asserting everyone’s right to a material existence, accomplishes some important work in our cultural consciousness, in Marxist directions, in terms of dissociating or de-coupling the work people do from their ability to have their material needs met and, more to the point, to share in the fruits of our collective labor.

In other words, the implementation of a universal basic income can begin to erode the powerful meritocratic ideology that, as I have argued elsewhere (5) in the pages of People’s World, is a centrally insidious ideology sustaining capitalism. As a culture, we are for the most part perfectly happy valuing people’s work unequally, regardless of how essential it is to our lives. Our capitalist culture makes it seem normal and just that the doctor doing the important work of keeping us healthy deserves a lot more money—and hence access to more resources—than the farmworker who does the important and essential work of feeding us. As a culture, we lack a recognition that this very way of valuing work is a product of a capitalist economy, that the way we determine the “merit” of work grows out a capitalist mentality.

Definitive of Marxism for me is the principle made famous in The Communist Manifesto which Marx reiterates in his Critique of the Gotha Program, namely the idea: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” This notion challenges, indeed explodes, the idea that the work people do should bear any relation to their ability to meet their needs or have access to the fruits of our collective labor.

The American dominant culture, however, forcefully insists upon not only differentially valuing work but also linking the work one does to one’s ability to consume or access resources (purchasing power) to live. A vital piece of Marxist thought is precisely this powerful gesture of de-linking the work people do (or not) from their right to a material existence.

The universal basic income, as a policy, does this important cultural work of de-linking people’s merit—people deserving nourishment, housing, healthcare, education, safety, and other basic human rights—from the type of work they do, how much they work, and even from whether they work or not.

Moving to a socialist culture and imagination means we must recognize and eradicate the capitalist values infecting us. Meritocracy is a deeply rooted capitalist value many in America do not even recognize as capitalist.

Mayor Michael Tubbs (6) of Stockton, California, however, has been able to implement a universal basic income in his city, with a plan to be piloted on a small scale beginning in 2019. What motivated him was precisely the socialist imagination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which he has invoked explicitly, recalling reading King’s Where Do We Go From here: Chaos or Community, in which King calls for a guaranteed annual income.

While certainly no remedy for or alternative to capitalism, the universal basic income can address poverty and improve lives while at the same time altering our entrenched thought patterns and inspiring an imagination to ease us on down the road to socialism.

1.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 2.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 3.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-04/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-wants-universalbasic-income 4.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-universal-basic-income-in-2017.html 5.https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/meritocratic-thinking-devalues-all-work-job-talk-series-part-3/ 6.https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww. washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fpost-nation%2fwp%2f2018%2f06%2f04%2fa-city-ponders-whether-500-amonth-no-strings-attached–would-help-reduce-poverty%2f%3fnoredirect%3don%26utm_term% 3d.860279bf2be3&noredirect=on&utm_term=.860279bf2be3

Coronavirus. Where did it come from and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time? Is it just another form of flu – if not, how does it differ? And why are governments talking about introducing drastic measures to counter it?

WHAT SHOULD we make of the Coronavirus? Where did it spring from – and by what means – and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time?

These are just some of the questions that people are asking since the outbreak began in China and then spread rapidly into Europe, North America and the Middle East.

It’s generally accepted that the Cronoavirus (Covid-19) originated in late September in the Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market in city of Wuhan. Wuham is the capital of Hubei province in Central China. Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market is also sometimes described as a ‘wet market’ – and it’s where live animals such as bats, snakes, rabbit and birds are said to be illegally sold

To give an idea of scale, the population of Wuhan’s metropolitan area is 19 million whilst the population of Hubei province – in 2015 – was 58,500,000. Wuhan serves as a major transport hub and the political, cultural, and economic hub of Central China – which could explain why the virus travelled so fast within China – and Hubei is known as the ‘Land of Fish and Rice’.

It also seems to be clear that Northern Italy was the first area in Europe to be hit. And it was hit hard. Many people – including ourselves at Harrow Voice – are mystified as to why this should be. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

The rapidly moving situation (relating to Covid-19) makes it next to impossible to accurately predict how many people locally, nationally and internationally will contract it, or, sadly, die from it.

The main thing to remember at the moment is that – unfortunately – the UK figure is liable to rise as the government believes that coronavirus will spike in around two weeks time. Hopefully, the figures will go down after that, but there’s still no indication of when things will go back to relative normality.

Despite this – and along with many other people – Harrow Voice (HV) has an odd feeling about what’s going on. We fully admit that we can’t quite put our finger on it, but we’re wondering why various governments are going to such extraordinary (and unprecedented) lengths to tackle this virus.

This Live Science site https://www.livescience.com/56598-deadliest-viruses-on-earth.html

provides some context and we certainly recall the SARS and Avian flu scares from yesteryear. We’re also aware that ‘ordinary’ flu kills thousands of people each year. However, a health scare has never been used to effectively crack down on the civil and religious liberties of our people – so much so that it’s been suggested that we’re sleepwalking into authoritarianism.

So what makes Covid-19 so different and does the government know something that we don’t? And what’ll happen once this is all over?

To be fair, no one outside of a select few could probably answer the first question. However, HV would like to give some pointers in an attempt to answer the second. And we hope to expand on these ideas in future debates.

First of all, we think that the slogan Small Is Beautiful! makes even more sense now than it ever did. No matter how coronavirus originated we get the feeling that one vital aspect of globalism – the entirely free movement of people – has helped to spread it. Therefore, more should be done to protect our territorial integrity. We feel that it’s entirely reasonable and sensible to know who’s in our country at any one time – especially if they are harbouring highly contagious viruses.

(On saying the above, and we want to make this perfectly clear, it does not excuse any personal attacks on Chinese nationals here or anywhere else. Such attacks are completely out of order – not to mention counterproductive – and it’s important to remember that the vast majority of people, Chinese or otherwise, are in no way responsible for the actions of their respective governments.)

We also feel that it would be preferable to be more autonomous and as self-sufficient as possible. This should apply across the board and includes individuals, local areas – such as our borough of Harrow – and all nations. And when we talk about self-sufficiency we’re talking in terms of food, energy, water, recycling and so on.

In particular, we need to start investing in Research and Development here and encourage a wide industrial base by making things ourselves rather than importing. That means investing in education and training and not relying on importing skilled or unskilled workers.

On a similar theme, we’re more convinced than ever that capitalism (as well as socialism) has to go. We need to go back to our economic roots in terms of small businesses, local independent businesses, sole traders, family farms, Co-Operatives and so on. These should form the backbone of the economy. Indeed, we really need to wean ourselves off of our over reliance on massive supermarkets and fast food chains. In short, we need to move away from centralisation and promote a more decentralised, organic – or rooted – way of living that’s in tune with nature.

Autonomy, decentralisation & self-sufficiency also ties in with our belief in ‘small government’ – meaning that we should be less reliant on central government.

Whilst we’re on the subject of autonomy, we believe that there’s something to the argument that London (along with many other cities – and the South East of England as a whole) is now far too large & over crowded to be sustainable.

For instance, Greater London, of which Harrow forms a part of, covers 1,572 1,572 km2 (607 square miles) and the population, as at the 2011 census was 8,174,000. Therefore, Harrow Voice has some sympathy with the belief that the capital city should be scaled back to its original inner boroughs. This would mean that outer London boroughs will return to their original historic counties. Thus Harrow will become part of Middlesex again.

As with our first debate (see the link below), we’d appreciate you comments – especially if you have any specialist knowledge relating to Covid-19 – on any of the points we’ve raised here. Just look out for this debate when it appears on our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ – or the National Liberal Party Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

• ALSO check out

Harrow Voice Debate (1) – What Do You Think Of Universal Basic Services? http://nationalliberal.org/

.

REGULAR READERS will know that the National Liberal Party (NLP) intended to stand up to 25 candidates in theGreater London Assembly elections – which were scheduled for 7th May.

Here, we were going to campaign on the issue ofSelf-Determination ForAll! The election would have provided us with an excellent opportunity to hone our social media skills and build a powerful Self-Determinist electoral bloc. However, as we reported two days ago – http://nationalliberal.org/public-notice – they have now been postponed for a year due to thecorona virus outbreak.

With this in mind, the NLP has cancelled its planned donors dinner (27th) and election meeting (29th) until further notice. But this doesn’t mean that we’ll be placing less emphasis on Self-Determination. In fact, we’ll be stepping up a gear! In the same way a dog is for life and not just for Christmas, we feel that Self-Determination is for life and not just for elections!

We believe that the principle of Self-Determination can be applied largely in three areas – National, Political and Economic. Our intended Greater London Assembly (GLA) election campaign would have mainly focussed on National Self-Determination. However, we also intended to look at matters relating to Political & Economic Self-Determination as well.

The first article (in this series of three) looked at Economic Self-Determination – see For Economic Self-Determinationhttp://nationalliberal.org/for-economic-self-determination However, in this article we’ll be looking at Political Self-Determination.

The NLP definesPolitical Self-Determination as a system which ‘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).’

As the title of this article –A Referendum Is An Act Of Self-Determination – suggests, we would like to see representative democracy replaced by participatory democracy in the form of Referendums (as well as Preferendums). The NLP feels that direct democracy should be the only show in town.

For those who don’t know, a referendum is ‘a method of referring a question or set of questions to the entire electorate directly.’ Since 1973 the UK has held 11 referendums, the most famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view!) being the EU Referendum of 2016. (1)

We would prefer that referendums were held on a much more regular basis – as they do in Switzerland. In future articles we’ll take a more in-depth look at referendums (and look at some examples from Switzerland itself).

Referendums are usually decided on a simple ‘Yes/No’ vote. However, it could be argued that preferendums are more democratic in that they allow the electorate toselect a range of different options (generally, three or more) in order of their preference. It’s thought that the use of a preferential voting system – rather than a simple majority – also accurately allows everyone’s point of view to be taken into account.

Other elements of Political Self-Determination must include replacing the ‘First Past The Post’ (2) voting system with one of Proportional Representation. As indicated in the articleFrom The Liberty Wall – Total Democracy – We Want Total Democracy! there also needs to be a ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) option on the ballot paper (3) and a process of Voter Recall.

We’re also interested in the system whereby members of the public can create petitions which can be debated in parliament if they attract100,000 signatures or more (4). However, it has obvious flaws in that the Petitions Committee (which consists of around a dozen MPs) has the power to decide what and can’t be presented for debate.

Again, we’ll be looking at these issues in more depth in the near future.

So far we’ve concentrated on Political Self-Determination initiatives that are largelyNational in nature. However, we feel that many of them can also be adapted toLocal government. With this in mind, we’ve recently been advised of a system employed in Spain whereby locals have a direct say in the spending of a portion of the local budget. As this brief article (5) from The Post (a Spanish-based weekly English language paper) of early October 2019 notes:

‘Residents of San Pedro del Pinatar can have their say on the local budget until October 13, the town hall announced last week.

The council has allocated€200,000 to a participative budget scheme (presupuesto participativo), for which residents can send their proposals via the municipal website, www.sanpedrodelpinatar.es

Proposals can be made by any resident aged over 16, who is registered on the municipal register (padrón) and the cost of carting them out cannot exceed the €200,000 budget.

Council technicians will then select the most feasible proposals and these will be posted on the website so that they can be voted on between November 18 and 22.

The winning proposal will be included in the budget for 2020.’

The NLP feels that a similar system could be introduced by UK local authorities. This’ll give local communities some say over the spending of a proportion of their rates and would be an effective form of local political Self-Determination.

1. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/
2. We believe that the current ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) electoral system is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it could be argued that FPTP is anti-democratic. It’s certainly injust as it actually allows governments to be formed with only a fraction of the overall vote. For instance, the 2005 Labour government only had the support of 35% of the electorate whilst in 2015, the Tories formed a government with only 37% of the vote https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/
3. http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-total-democracy-–-we-want-total-democracy
4. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/sign-a-petition/
5. https://issuu.com/rotativosdelmediterraneos.l./docs/post_628

Left: Sajid Javid (50) attended the University of Exeter & studied Economics and Politics. He joined the Tories whilst at University. Before entering politics full time, he worked in the banking industry, initially joining the New York City-based JPMorgan Chase Bank. He later joined London-based Deutsche Bank AG as a director. He went on to became a managing director and then global head of Emerging Markets Structuring. Right: Rishi Sunak (40) went to Lincoln College, Oxford. He worked for Goldman Sachs – who describe themselves as a ‘leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm’ - between 2001 and 2004. He then worked for hedge fund management firm The Children’s Investment Fund Management becoming a partner in 2006. He later joined another hedge fund firm - Theleme Partners. He was also a director of investment firm Catamaran Ventures, owned by his billionaire father-in-law, Indian businessman N. R. Naravana Murthy.

BRITAIN’S REACTIONARY RACISTS recently got their knickers in a twist when Rishi Sunak – a rising star in the Tory party – was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But who is Sunak and why did the racists go ape when he was appointed?

Sunak has been the MP for Richmond (in North Yorkshire) since May 2015. Richmond is a safe Conservative seat – and has been held by them for over 100 years – and this was reflected in Sunak’s huge majority of 19,550. In the 2017 election he increased his majority to 23,108. He bettered this in last year’s general election where his majority was an incredible 27,210 (his total vote was 36,693 – 63.6%).

Sunak has simply been promoted by Boris Johnson to the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here he replaces Sajid Javid, who resigned in mid-February (after rejecting an order to fire his team of aides, saying “no self-respecting minister” could accept such a condition).

Sunak is no stranger to the Treasury Department – as he’d served under Javid as Chief Secretary to the Treasury from July 2019 – February 2020 – so he was the obvious choice.

The only real difference between Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid that we can see is that the former is a teetotal Hindu whilst the former enjoys the odd drink and – whilst his family are Muslims – Javid is non-religious. Apart from that, they both have impeccable Tory credentials. Both have been to university and have worked in & have extensive contacts within the banking sector.

As we’ve already noted, Britain’s reactionary racists were up in arms over Sunak’s promotion. The reason for this is because of the regressive form of identity politics that they adhere to.

Indeed, the reactionary right is gripped by a great universal conspiracy. They tend to live in a fantasist-like parallel world and view anyone with a light brown skin as an Islamic terrorist – irrespective of their religion! (In fact, we’d wager a bet that many reactionaries wouldn’t know the difference between Muslim’s, Hindu’s or Sikh’s let alone those who interpret Islam in differing ways.)

Reactionaries are also fond of ignoring facts and prefer to make grand and sweeping statements. (However, whether they actually believe what they say is open to debate.) They tend to lump all members of entire religious and/or racial communities together and judge those communities on the actions of a few.

Unlike the reactionary right, the National Liberal Party couldn’t care less who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We’ve absolutely no interest in their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

As we mentioned earlier, the reactionary right (like those on the reactionary left) are obsessed with regressive identity politics. As such, they’re fixated on the individuals who’re facilitating the capitalist system – and have nothing of interest to say about the capitalist system itself. In fact, the only time the reactionary right take time out to address the banking system is if they can link it to ‘the Jews’. And because of their out-and-out opposition to all Muslims, they fail to understand that the Islamic banking system forbids usury!

This fixation on personalities illustrates the shallowness of both the reactionary right (and left). To some extent, it doesn’t matter who’s in government – for powerful corporate big business and banking elites rule the roost.

The reactionary right’s approach is about as meaningful and effective as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The National Liberal Party, on the other hand, isn’t interested in changing the Chancellor – we want to change the whole banking system itself!

• CHECK OUT Facebook/National Liberals

THIS IS the third in a series of articles reproduced from issue 1 of New Horizon – the ideological publication of the National Liberal Party. This series to copper-fasten a central tenant of National Liberal belief – that the ‘Idea’ is all important and that it trumps everything else. It even transcends concepts such as a ‘Leader’ and the ‘Party.’ National Liberals also recognise that at times – usually in regrettable & extreme circumstances – the ‘Leader’ and the ‘Party’ are not one and the same as the ‘Idea.’ In short, sometimes leaders and political parties come and go – but the idea remains. The former are there to serve the latter.

We feel that this viewpoint sets National Liberalism miles apart from Conservatism or Socialism. Whilst we’re obviously interested in examining the lives of those who we regard as ‘points of reference’ (in that they’ve said or done things that we find interesting) we’re certainly not into ‘hero worship.’ But just look at the way some Labour Party supporters (depending on how they define ‘Socialism’) view Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn through rose tinted lenses. The same rose tinted glasses are employed by many Conservatives who harp back to the days of Margaret Thatcher or who think that the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson can do no wrong. National Liberals believe that it’s unhealthy – almost cultist – to view ‘Leaders’ (and, indeed, the ‘Party’) in this way.

Another thing that sets us apart from others is our love of internal & external debate. Indeed, the National Liberal Party – as well as our various publications – has been promoting regular debates for many years now. Eagle-eyed readers will also know that (from the start of last year) we’ve introduced a series of eye-catching posters, all designed to promote discussion & debate on all matter of subjects. The most recent poster-based debate – from just a couple of weeks ago – can be found here: http://nationalliberal.org/the-national-liberal-party-asks-…-does-big-pharma-have-too-much-power-join-the-debate

Therefore, whilst we obviously believe in the validity of our ideas, we’re not ideological purists in the Stalinist sense – where even the mildest (or constructive) criticism is rejected out-of-hand.

With all of the above in mind, we’d appreciate any comments – good, bad or indifferent – relating to our ideas. Simply post them up when this article appears on either our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/?fref=nf – or our NLP Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

.

National Liberalism In Action!

ISSUE 1 of New Horizon – the online ideological magazine of the National Liberal Party - was launched towards the end of 2015. To get hold of a FREE pdf copy, simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com

WHILST New Horizon is dedicated to promoting the ideology of National Liberalism, we cannot forget those National Liberals who are attempting to put this into practice. We know that there are individuals (groups?) who ascribe to the movement’s ideals throughout the Europe, from Turkey to Scandinavia and beyond, even globally. Here in the UK some are involved in pressure groups such as English Green (a non-socialist green movement), whilst others are in the political party – the National Liberal Party.

.

We shall dedicate a section each issue to those operating in the ‘real’ rather than our ‘cyber’ world. In this first issue we host articles supporting and expanding on the NLP’s latest recruitment campaign that focused on Five key policy areas; Civil Liberties, Democracy, Environment, and the NHS.

.

The Nature of Democracy

.

To hear David Cameron and William Hague on television and radio, anyone might be forgiven for believing that the United Kingdom, in its democratic institutions, is the last word in ‘democracy’. Westminster flatters itself as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ which implies that it is a model for other nations to emulate.

.

We do have much to take pride in. For much of the past millennium the word of the Sovereign was law. The King was set on his throne by God and had a ‘divine right’ to govern in any way he pleased, however capricious and arbitrary he might have been.

.

Magna Carta

.

This arbitrary power was first challenged in England in 1215 at Runnymede when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta – the Great Charter of the Liberties of England – by feudal barons. This set down the principle that the King is also subject to the law of the Land.

.

When Charles I refused to be bound by the Law he had to be defeated by parliamentary armies in 1642-49 and eventually executed for his treason.

.

The Glorious Revolution of 1689 finally vanquished the doctrine of ‘the Divine Right of Kings’, as practised in France by the ‘Sun King’, Louis XIV. Louis was the absolute dictator of France and James II wanted to have the same dictatorial powers in England, Scotland and Ireland.

.

In England, the principle had become well established that elected representatives of his subjects should check the King’s actions and that those representatives should be able to make laws. It was by no means truly democratic, but it was a significant step away from absolutism. It is not surprising that James encountered strong opposition, which led to his removal by William of Orange and his defeat at the Boyne. The Constitutional Monarchy and parliamentary government finally put down roots.

.

At first the vote in the UK was restricted to certain classes; all of them male. New Zealand adopted universal suffrage for all citizens in 1893. In Britain it was in 1928 and as late as 1971 in Switzerland. Democracy as an idea seems to be catching on, albeit slowly.

.

What is Democracy?

.

But what exactly is ‘democracy’? We hear of ‘liberal democracy’, ‘representative democracy’, ‘parliamentary democracy’, ‘majoritarian democracy’, ‘direct democracy’ and ‘consensus democracy’. All that these have in common is that somewhere in the process, somebody gets to cast a vote and somebody or something wins a majority. Is that it then?

.

Is democracy simply the rule of a majority?

.

Apologists for the ‘First Past the Post’ system of parliamentary representation argue that it is. A candidate with the support of, say, 26% of the total poll is deemed elected even though his ‘majority’ is tiny. What counts is that he is out in front. The fact that 74% of voters supported other candidates is deemed irrelevant. According to its apologists, this system enables stable government with a workable majority in parliament. Its detractors, in contrast, point out that such a government is in danger of losing touch with the people it purports to represent. Once ‘the people have spoken’ their elected representatives can ignore their wishes for up to five years. These parliamentarians are often at the mercy of party whips that use a mixture of threats and promises to keep them in line.

.

Democratic deficit

.

In a divided society this can be dangerous if one section of the community is, in effect, always excluded from decision-making by a form of parliamentary despotism. The (failed) attempt to replace FPTP with the Alternative Vote earlier this year was intended to address this democratic deficit. AV would have been an improvement on FPTP, but inferior to the Single Transferable Vote system of Proportional Representation as used in Northern Ireland.

.

Northern Ireland has one major flaw in its system, however, as it is governed by a mandatory five-party coalition. There is no opposition, so no alternative government is waiting in the wings to take over if the incumbent regime messes things up. No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in!

.

In Westminster FPTP elections, we get the chance to ‘throw the rascals out’ every four or five years, but once elected our parliamentarians can do whatever they like without reference to the electorate.

.

Direct Democracy

.

One suggested improvement might be a system of direct democracy where Members of Parliament act as popular delegates. This worked well in ancient Athens where everyone knew almost everyone else but seems impractical in a modern largely anonymous society. How are MPs to be brought closer to the people?

.

The National Liberal Party suggests that we introduce referendums as a regular consultative constitutional measure. The party is circulating an on-line petition which states:

.

Everyday important decisions are made by Government which directly affects the people. However the people are never consulted as part of the decision making process. The war in Afghanistan is just one example of this.

.

The National Liberal Party and the undersigned call for the introduction into law the use of Referendums based on the successful direct democracy system used in Switzerland, allowing people to vote on major issues such as Europe (including renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty), Nuclear power, immigration, the creation of an English Parliament and going to war.

Go to http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/consult-thepeople.html

.

Switzerland: a practical application of ‘Direct Democracy’

.

In Switzerland regular elections are held to elect representatives to their Federal (national) Parliament. As in Northern Ireland, the use of PR ensures that the party split in the number of representatives more closely resembles a party’s percentage vote than clearly is the case in Westminster. This allows government to reflect the ‘popular will’ by forcing the main parties to act in coalition. Significant minority opinion and minor parties are not shut out of influence. The government will still get in, but it will vary in response to the shifting strengths of the constituent parties in the parliament.

.

In addition to this superior electoral system, Switzerland operates three mechanisms of Direct Democracy: Referendums, Initiative and Recall. Referendums cover votes on Government proposed changes to the Constitution, important Federal (National) laws or International treaties. Initiatives allow the public themselves to call for changes to the Constitution or Federal law. Recall allows the electorate to petition for a reelection of public officials for unacceptable behaviour. Had a similar system been operating here, electors could have petitioned for the recall of those MPs who fiddled their expenses to pay for duck ponds and for similar abuses of office.

.

This form of Direct Democracy institutionalises the voters’ right to decide on issues themselves. Implementation of these measures would go a long way to address the ‘democratic deficit’ in the United Kingdom.

.

These ideas are anathema to the European power elite for whom democracy is a bit of an inconvenience. Whatever might be said of the former Prime Ministers of Greece and Italy, they were at least elected to office. Not so their ‘technocratic’ successors. It ought to be astonishing that these changes of government were given such an easy ride by the press. Witness the howls of protest when Mr Papandreou announced his intention to put a euro-zone bailout scheme to a popular referendum. Within days he was forced to cancel the referendum.

.

For the EU ‘Eurocrats’, democracy is all very fine as long as the people make the ‘right’ decision. When this does not go according to plan, the aberrant nation is bullied into voting again, as happened when the people of the Republic of Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a constitutional referendum.

.

In contrast, Switzerland today is prosperous, peaceful, democratic and not a member of the European Union. There’s probably a lesson there for us all.

.

• ALSO Check out:

Build New Horizon! http://nationalliberal.org/build-new-horizon

New Horizon – Head & Heart http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-head-heart

New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – Civil Liberties http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-national-liberalism-in-action-–-civil-liberties