Category » Articles

G.D.H. Cole: His Life, Work, and Legacy

GEORGE Douglas Howard Cole (1889-1959) was an English Guild Socialist and an advocate for the co-operative movement. (Picture Credit: Free image from alchetron.com)

IT’S HARDLY a State Secret that National Liberals are interested in – and draw inspiration from – various alternative (and sometimes) non-conformist economic ideas. These ideas include, but are not restricted to, the co-operative movement, distributism, guild socialism, sovereign money and syndicalism.

Over the years, we’ve featured many articles examining these ideas. But we’ve not spent as much time looking at the people who’re credited with developing and/or promoting these ideas.

This is because we’re much more interested in ideas as opposed to personalities. Indeed, our view is that the idea must always take precedence over those individuals who serve it.

On saying that, we’re always interested to know more about those who do serve the idea. And it’s particularly useful to know if there’s anything in their background that would explain why they followed the path they did.

POINT OF REFERENCE

We refer to such people as a ‘Point of Reference’. By this we mean that they’ve said or done something that we find of great interest. (It should also be noted that one doesn’t even have to agree with a ‘Point of Reference’ to find that what they say or do is of great interest!)

However, it’s essential not to put anyone who is a ‘Point of Reference’ on a pedestal, so to speak.

This is because we humans are incredibly complex beings. It’s virtually impossible to think of anyone’s life (& ideas) in purely black & white terms. We feel the vast majority are made up of many, many, shades of grey! Thus, we must examine everyone in context, warts and all.

With the above in mind, for National Liberals one ‘Point of Reference’ has to be George Douglas Howard Cole, one of the earliest advocates of Guild Socialism (sometimes called Christian Socialism).

So, who was he, what was his life like & what were his influences?

George Douglas Howard Cole, commonly known as G.D.H. Cole, was an influential British political theorist, economist, historian, and a prominent figure in the cooperative and guild socialist movements.

Born on 25th September 1889 (and passing away on 14th January 1959) his diverse contributions have left an indelible mark on multiple disciplines and social movements.

EARLY LIFE & POLITICS

Cole was born into a family that valued education and intellectual pursuit. He attended St Paul’s School in London, where he excelled in his studies, particularly in the classics. He later attended Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied history.

During his time at Oxford, Cole became deeply interested in social and political issues. He joined the Fabian Society, which sought to advance its democratic socialist ideas via gradual and reformist approaches to socialism.

However, he soon became disillusioned with the Fabian approach and shifted towards guild socialism – sometimes called Christian Socialism – which was developed in 1906 by Samuel George Hobson (1870 – 4 January 1940). Hobson’s guild socialism was a movement that emphasised the control of industries by workers organized in

(The original guilds were formed during the Middle Ages, around the late 10th century. They were associations of artisans and merchants who oversaw the practice of their trade in a particular area. Guilds were intended to protect the interests of their members through mutual aid, regulation of trade standards, and control over the quality of goods and services provided. They played a crucial role in the economic and social life of medieval towns and cities, often holding significant political influence.)

Cole’s advocacy for guild socialism was not just theoretical. He was actively involved in the cooperative movement and worked towards the establishment of workers’ control over production. His influential works, such as Self-Government in Industry –

https://archive.org/details/selfgovernmentin00coleuoft/page/n7/mode/2up – outlined his vision for a society organised around guild principles.

ACADEMIC CAREER

After World War I, Cole embarked on an academic career that saw him holding various positions at prestigious institutions. He became a fellow at University College, Oxford, and later a professor of social and political theory at the same institution. Cole’s academic work was extensive and covered a wide range of topics, including economics, history, political theory, and literature.

One of his most significant contributions was his work on the history of socialist thought. His multi-volume A History of Socialist Thought – https://archive.org/details/historyofsociali0000cole – remains one of the most important reference for scholars studying the development of socialist ideas and movements.

Cole’s economic theories were closely linked to his political beliefs. He was a critic of both capitalism and Soviet-style communism. He advocated a ‘third way’ that combined elements of socialism and cooperative economics. These ideas influenced the development of the British Labour Party’s policies, particularly in the areas of social welfare and economic planning.

LITERATURE

In addition to his academic and political work, Cole was also a prolific writer of detective fiction. Alongside his wife, Margaret Cole, he authored over 30 mystery novels that were well-received by readers. Their collaborative works added a unique dimension to his already extensive intellectual portfolio

LEGACY & IMPACT

G.D.H. Cole’s legacy & impact is multifaceted. He contributed to (and was particularly interested in) political theory, economics, history, and literature. His ideas on guild socialism, cooperative economics, and workers’ control continue to inspire scholars and activists – including, as we’ve previously noted, National Liberals.

It has been said that Cole’s commitment to social justice, democracy, and intellectual rigor serves as a model for those seeking to create a more equitable and just society. As such, we think that the man & particularly his ideas are worthy of further study.

Date: May 20, 2025

Categories: Articles

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 6

Our picture shows the Chamber of the House of Lords which is dominated by the Royal Throne. It was designed by A.W. Pugin for ceremonial use, and – in particular – for the official opening of the House of Lords in April 1847.
Picture Credit: https://victorian-era.org/history-westminster-palace.html

OVER THE last few months, we’ve been looking at the existence & purpose of the House of Lords.

We accept and understand why it was founded. And that’s to provide a vital counterbalance to the House of Commons. A series of checks and balances are a good idea when applied to many aspects of life (such as business and finance). But this is particularly so of politics & especially when the government of the day has an overwhelming majority.

However, it’s clear that the mere existence of the House of Lords remains a bone of contention for many people.

SUPPORT THE HOUSE OF LORDS

We’ve previously examined the arguments those who support the House of Lords and its workings.

In particular, they highlight the valuable role it plays in scrutinising legislation (which has previously been passed in the Commons).

However, they also acknowledge that the debate over whether to reform – or even abolish – the House of Lords often reflects broader philosophical discussions. These discussions revolve around tradition versus modernisation and meritocracy versus aristocracy.

We feel that many of those who support the House of Lords as it stands are culturally very conservative (almost to the point of absurdity). They favour tradition & aristocracy over everything else.

OPPOSE THE HOUSE OF LORDS

We’ve also looked at the arguments of those who criticise & oppose the Lords.

In a nutshell, they claim that it is an outdated and undemocratic institution. In particular, they point to the presence of hereditary peers as evidence of elitism and inherited privilege.

With the above in mind, we now look at some of the potential reforms relating to the House of Lords:

Elected Senate. One of the most proposed reforms is the creation of an elected Senate. This would replace hereditary and appointed peers with elected representatives. Supporters claim that this would ensure that the upper chamber has democratic legitimacy.

An elected Senate could be structured similarly to other bicameral systems (1) around the world. Here, members could be elected via proportional representation (PR) or the current First Past The Post (FPRP) system.

Supporters claim that having elected representatives – as opposed to hereditary peers – would enhance accountability. Additionally, the legislative process would be more reflective of the electorate’s will.

Non-Partisan Appointments. Another popular alternative is to reform the appointment process for the upper chamber, focusing on non-partisan appointments.

This approach would involve creating an independent commission responsible for appointing members based on their expertise and contribution to society, rather than political affiliation.

The goal would be to retain the benefits of having knowledgeable and experienced individuals while eliminating the influence of political patronage and hereditary privilege.

Non-partisan appointments could ensure that the chamber remains a source of expert advice and thorough legislative scrutiny.

Reforming Hereditary Peerage. Instead of abolishing the House of Lords entirely, some propose reforming the hereditary peerage system. This could involve gradually phasing out hereditary peers and replacing them with life peers or elected members.

Existing hereditary peers could be allowed to serve out their terms, but no new hereditary titles would be granted. This approach would mitigate the undemocratic aspects of inherited privilege while maintaining the institution’s historical continuity and tradition.

• To be continued.

(1) A bicameral system refers to a legislative body that is divided into two separate chambers or houses. Typically, these two chambers are known as the lower house and the upper house. Each chamber may have different responsibilities, powers, and methods for selecting its members. The term bicameral comes from the Latin words bi meaning ‘two’ and camera meaning ‘chamber.’

In countries with a bicameral legislature, the two houses work together to review, amend, and pass legislation. The intention is often to provide a system of checks and balances, ensuring that laws are carefully considered from different perspectives before becoming official.

For example, like the UK, the United States Congress is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate.

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-1

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-2

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-3

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-4

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 5

https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-5

Date: May 5, 2025

Categories: Articles

The Lost Promise Of The Digital Age

REGULAR READERS will know that the National Liberal Party has a long-standing policy of publishing articles to promote – even provoke – free thought & debate.

We do this by presenting a diverse range of opinions that may be of interest to our readers. These opinions are from right across the political divide.

We’ve previously reproduced articles by Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab.com (which describes itself as a ‘free speech technology company owned and operated by Christians.’) Torba describes himself as a Christian Nationalist.

As National Liberals we obviously have differences with Christian Nationalists & Torba. However, we find his articles & thinking very interesting.

The following – which originally appeared on 1st May – is one such article. It looks at the Amish & their relationship with the modern in general & technology in particular. We were struck by Torba’s view that the Amish ‘aren’t anti-progress. They’re anti-frivolity’.

The Amish – who could be described as an ethnoreligious group – are of interest to those who’re interested in community & positive identity. Various non-conformists, including anti-materialists and those into self-sufficiency & living off grid would also find them worthy of study. On saying that, we should always remember never to view any group though rose-tinted spectacles.

The original article can be found here https://news.gab.com/2025/05/the-lost-promise-of-the-digital-age/ & we invite readers to leave their comments on the National Liberal Party Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty or on the National Liberals Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

A picture – that accompanied the original article from Gab.com – of the Amish. Can various non-conformists learn anything from this ethnoreligious group, particularly in respect of Information Technology?

.

The Lost Promise Of The Digital Age

WHEN THE INTERNET first emerged, it was framed as a tool for liberation. We believed it would democratize information, give a voice to the voiceless, and foster a global village of informed citizens. In many ways, it has. We carry pocket-sized supercomputers that grant us instant access to medical research, ancient literature, and the collective stories of humanity. Yet, instead of fostering deeper understanding, the Internet has become a battleground of chaos, a playground for algorithms that prioritize outrage over insight, and a mirror reflecting our most fragmented selves.

Today, the paradox is undeniable: We are more connected than ever, yet lonelier; more informed than ever, yet more confused; more entertained than ever, yet emptier than before. Studies show that rates of anxiety, depression, and social isolation have skyrocketed alongside smartphone adoption. Birth and marriage rates have plummeted. Political discourse has devolved into performative tribalism, where nuance is drowned out by the next viral hot take. Even our relationships with truth have frayed—how can we distinguish fact from fiction when every click rewards sensationalism?

Every year, my family and I visit Lancaster County, a place where time seems to bend backward. The Amish community there lives without smartphones, social media, or even electricity in many homes. Their one-room schoolhouses, horse-drawn buggies, and sprawling farmlands feel like a relic of another era. But what strikes me most is their quiet, unshakable contentment.

Here, children play in dirt yards, their laughter unmediated by screens. Families gather for meals without the hum of notifications. Neighbors work side by side to build barns, their hands calloused by labor, not keyboards. The Amish aren’t just avoiding technology; they’re rejecting the frenetic pace and fragmented attention it demands. They’ve chosen a life where time is not a commodity to be optimized but a rhythm to be lived.

This isn’t nostalgia—it’s a deliberate philosophy. The Amish evaluate every technology through the lens of community and faith. If a device threatens their values (like individualism over collective well-being), it’s rejected. Their birth rates, four times the national average, and their low rates of mental health crises suggest a parallel society thriving in ways the modern world struggles to replicate. They aren’t perfect, of course, but their approach invites a provocative question: What if less really is more?

The Internet promised liberation but delivered a new kind of bondage. We’ve outsourced our attention spans to push notifications, our memories to search engines, and our social skills to emojis. The result? A culture of superficiality where deep thought is rare and genuine connection rarer. Even our sense of purpose feels diluted — how often do we scroll through endless feeds instead of engaging with the physical world, our loved ones, or our own creativity?

The Amish, by contrast, live in a world where every action has weight. Their work is tangible: planting crops, crafting furniture, baking bread. Their relationships are rooted in proximity and shared responsibility. They don’t “network” — they nurture. Perhaps most importantly, they have no illusion that happiness lies in keeping up with the Joneses (or the Kardashians, as the case may be). Their simplicity isn’t a lack; it’s a focus.

The Amish aren’t anti-progress. They’re anti-frivolity. Their rejection of modern tech isn’t about ignorance but intentionality. They’ve sidestepped the dopamine-driven cycles of consumerism and digital validation that ensnare so many of us. Without screens to mediate their lives, they’re forced to confront the raw, messy, beautiful reality of existence, something we’ve largely forgotten how to do.

Consider their approach to education. Amish schools stop at eighth grade, emphasizing practical skills and community values over abstract theory. Yet their adult literacy rate is near 100%, and their children grow up with a clear sense of purpose. Meanwhile, in the digital world, we binge TED Talks and online courses while feeling increasingly unmoored. The irony is crushing.

I’m not suggesting we all abandon our smartphones and take up farming (though there’s something appealing about that). The Internet has undeniable benefits: it connects us to distant loved ones, provides lifelines for dissident voices, and drives innovation. But the Amish remind us that technology is a tool, not a master. Their lives are a testament to the power of boundaries, of choosing what serves the soul over what merely serves the ego.

Maybe the solution isn’t to quit the digital world entirely but to become more Amish in spirit. What if we turned off notifications, reclaimed our evenings for conversation instead of streaming, or prioritized local communities over global networks? What if we put the phones, tablets, and screens down for one whole day a week (the horror!) What if we asked ourselves, before every click or post, “Does this bring me closer to what matters?”

The Amish don’t just avoid technology; they interrogate it. Before adopting a new tool, they ask: Does this strengthen our community? Does it honor our values? Does it free us, or will it bind us to systems we can’t control? This is the question we’ve avoided with both the Internet and AI. In our rush to “innovate,” we’ve treated technology as an unqualified good, blind to its costs.

Perhaps the real answer isn’t to retreat into an analog cocoon, but to adopt a similar philosophy of discernment. What if we approached AI and other new technology not with blind faith but with the humility of asking, “What might this break?” What if we shared the Internet with the world not as a monolith, but as a platform adaptable to unique cultures rather than flattening them into a single, corporate-defined mold? The Amish remind us that progress isn’t a straight line, it’s a negotiation between what we can do and what we should do.

The Internet didn’t ruin humanity. It simply amplified what was already there: our brilliance, yes, but also our capacity for self-destruction. The Amish didn’t escape this truth—they embraced it, choosing simplicity as a bulwark against chaos. Perhaps their greatest lesson isn’t about rejecting the modern world but about remembering that we always have a choice. After all, the best tool is the one you control, not the one that controls you.

So, as I return to my inbox and the buzz of daily digital life, I carry their quiet wisdom with me. In a world drowning in noise, maybe the most radical act is to unplug, look someone in the eye, and ask, “What’s new?” without a screen between us.

Date: May 5, 2025

Categories: Articles

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 5

Most of what we recognise today as the Houses of Parliament – officially known as the Palace of Westminster – was constructed in the nineteenth century. The House of Lords was completed in 1847 & the House of Commons was finished in 1852. Many people believe that the Houses of Parliament stand as a symbol of British democracy – but is the Lords, in particular, truly democratic? (Picture credit: Free image from pixabay.com https://www.pexels.com/photo/london-28111450/)

QUESTIONS RELATING to the future of the House of Lords simply won’t go away.

We feel that most people accept that there needs to be a body that can scrutinise legislation passed by the House of Commons.

However, as we’ve previously noted, opinion is sharply divided. Some want to keep the Lords as it is. Others want to see a measure of reform – or to do away with it altogether.

In March, we examined the main arguments put forward by those who support the House of Lords as it currently stands.

We now look the three main arguments against the House of Lords.

Hereditary Privilege: Critics argue that the hereditary peers in the House of Lords represent an outdated & undemocratic vestige of feudalism. The idea that individuals can inherit political power is viewed as fundamentally unjust and contrary to the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity.

Lack of Democratic Accountability: Opponents contend that the House of Lords lacks democratic legitimacy – as its members are not elected by the public. This unelected body has significant legislative power, which is seen as undermining the democratic process and the sovereignty of the electorate.

Impediment to Modernisation: Many believe that the House of Lords hinders the modernisation of the British political system. They argue that reforming or abolishing this institution is essential to creating a more equitable and representative democracy, where power is based on merit (and the collective will of the people) rather than on birthright or appointment.

• To be continued.

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-1

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-2

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-3

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-4

Date: April 21, 2025

Categories: Articles

Free Speech – A Personal View

DEBATE ABOUT free speech rages on and on, so I’ll add my halfpenny’s worth to it.

A POSTER produced by the National Liberal Party in support of Free Speech.

Over the last few years, there have been extremists (from all groups, be they religious, far right or far left) whose prime focus is to close debate.

The reason such groups do this is not just to air an opinion, but to ensure their respective opinions are translated into law. And if such opinions are of an intolerant nature this is where the problem arises.

The philosopher Karl Popper once made the shrewd comment that if we are tolerant on the intolerant, then the intolerant will always win. So, to my small mind, we shouldn’t let the views of such extremists go unchallenged (no matter where such views emanate from).

The answer is not to close down debate but to open it up.

Everyone should be free to air their views. To do otherwise will give a free meal ticket to those who wish to impose their respective narrow-minded views/laws on us all.

If we don’t open debate to all, democracy will just wither and die a slow death.

No group (or individual) should dictate what books, films, plays, music we should or shouldn’t read, view or listen to. I believe that we should be given a choice & decide for ourselves as to the merits – or otherwise – of any given point of view.

We shouldn’t allow any arrogant third party decide (on our behalf) what is right or what is wrong and what is the correct viewpoint. Let folks decide for themselves.

In effect, what such extremists are claiming is that they are superior to the rest of mankind. They believe that we’re all too stupid to make valid conclusions for ourselves.

We should never forget that there’s no clear demarcation line between religion, culture and politics. All should be open to a critique.

The old Medieval blasphemy laws that were brought about to stop debate were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2024. (They remain in force in Northern Ireland.) However, it seems to me that the likes of Facebook are trying to bring back blasphemy laws via the backdoor as they are desperate to close debate. They even have a special button to press if you think any comment is offensive to your religion. (It should be noted that it doesn’t matter if any such comment is factual – but just might give offence.)

We’re allowed to give offence to our political parties. So why should any religion feel they are exempt?

We live in a dangerous world. We shouldn’t allow any group to close debate in the name of any cause. I fear the sands of time may be against us, but we should try and make a moral stand whilst we can!

Cllr Brent Cheetham (National Liberal Party), Cuffley, Hertfordshire.

Date: April 7, 2025

Categories: Articles

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4

THE HOUSE OF LORDS remains a subject of contention.

John Francis McFall, The Lord McFall of Alcluith, is the current Lord Speaker of the House of Lords. He is elected by the members of the House of Lords & is expected to be politically impartial. His position is similar to that of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(Picture Credit: https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McFall%2C_Baron_ McFall_of_Alcluith Fair Use)

Critics argue that it is an outdated and undemocratic institution, pointing to the presence of hereditary peers as evidence of elitism and inherited privilege.

On the other hand, supporters highlight the valuable role it plays in examining legislation and providing a counterbalance to the House of Commons. (This is particularly so when the government of the day has an overwhelming majority & can steamroller legislation through the House of Commons.)

The debate over whether to reform or abolish the House of Lords often reflects broader philosophical discussions about tradition versus modernisation and meritocracy versus aristocracy.

With the above in mind, the first three articles in this series have examined the history & purpose of the House of Lords.

This is because deciding the future of the Lords requires deep analysis, thought and debate. Indeed, the very last thing we need are decisions based on kneejerk reactions.

We now turn to look at the three main arguments in favour of retaining the House of Lords.

Historical Tradition: Proponents argue that the House of Lords represents a cherished historical institution that provides continuity and stability within the British parliamentary system. It embodies centuries of tradition and a unique British heritage, which adds a layer of depth and legitimacy to the legislative process.

Expertise and Experience: Supporters claim that the House of Lords benefits from the diverse expertise and experience of its members, many of whom are appointed life peers with distinguished careers in various fields. This expertise allows for more thorough and informed scrutiny of legislation, contributing to more refined and effective laws.

Checks and Balances: The House of Lords serves as a critical check on the power of the House of Commons, ensuring that proposed legislation undergoes rigorous examination and debate. This dual-chamber system is seen as a safeguard against hasty or poorly considered laws, enhancing the overall quality of governance.

• To be continued.

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-1

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-2

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-3

Date: March 20, 2025

Categories: Articles

Categories

Recent Blog Posts

Thomas Sankara: A Point Of Reference For National Liberals

Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts – Sign The Petition!

Distributism: An Alternative Approach to Economic Justice

For Self-Determination & Peace!

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 7

Category » Articles

G.D.H. Cole: His Life, Work, and Legacy

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 6

The Lost Promise Of The Digital Age

.

The Lost Promise Of The Digital Age

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 5

Free Speech – A Personal View

Free Speech – A Personal View

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4

THE HOUSE OF LORDS remains a subject of contention.