ISSUE 1 of New Horizon (NH) was launched by the National Liberal Party towards the end of 2015. Edited by Graham Williamson – a member of the NLPs ruling body, the National Council – NH is the NLPs online ideological magazine.

As the reproduced Editorial (below) notes, NH was designed ‘to showcase (and debate) the ideas and policies of the National Liberal Party, the ideology of National Liberalism and historical antecedents.’ Importantly it also encourages free thought and free speech. To do this, NH also attempts to take into consideration as many views as is possible in open debate. Thus, members and supporters are always encouraged to have their say. To this end, New Horizon puts into practice the well-known party slogan Debate is free with the NLP!

NH is also required reading for those who understand that the many social & economic problems we face are not going to be solved by screaming and shouting. Macho–posturing and gesture politics are of no interest to us. This means that we favour informed and reasoned debate. Here we concentrate on arguments, points of view and facts. NH is not definitely interested in personalities, prejudice or promoting self-interest.

Given the recent antics of our so-called ‘betters’ who sit in both Houses at Westminster, the need for a journal like New Horizon is greater than ever. That’s why we’re reproducing the Editorial from issue 1. We’ll also be reproducing articles from all four issues over the months ahead. In doing so, our aim is to promote the ideology of National Liberalism and build New Horizon. We hope that you will help us do both!

.

New Horizon – Issue 1 – Editorial

THIS MAGAZINE is designed to showcase (and debate) the ideas and policies of the National Liberal Party, the ideology of National Liberalism and historical antecedents. One of these latter, in the UK, was the Liberal National Party 1931-1948/68. This was basically composed of Liberals who had disagreed with their Party leadership’s policy to support the Labour Party in Government and a dogmatic refusal to support import tariffs in a time of recession.

These ‘rebels’ were eventually doomed to fail (and largely absorbed into the Conservative Party), but at certain times had more MP’s than the Liberal Party, once had more votes in a General election, and might have survived under a more visionary leadership. This ‘division’ was not without precedence, for earlier periods had thrown up their own contemporary ‘patriotic liberals’, whether Chamberlain’s Liberal Unionists or Lord Rosebery’s ‘Liberal Imperialists’. Indeed, there have been other ‘Liberal’ figures in and even outside the party who some suggest represent an ‘alternative liberal tradition’ (see http://www.davidboyle.co.uk/history/belloc.html ). Wider still, we can find empathy with early European national liberals such as Guiessepe Mazzini, Orla Lehmann and Gustav Stresemann.

Thus, today’s National Liberals, pay homage to an old and noble tradition; indeed the very title of this magazine, the New Horizon, is a nod to the Liberal National in-house periodical, first brought out in 1942.

In our first issue the lead article explains that liberalism and nationalism/patriotism, function in political philosophy like the head (liberalism) and heart (nationalism) in the human body i.e. “Thus a vital Nationalism and Liberalism within society can be seen as a perquisite for a healthy people as a vital head and heart is for a healthy body.” There are also Book reviews from yours truly on the Philosopher Yael Tamir’s seminal work ‘Liberal Nationalism’ and a recent biography on Liberal National MP and Minister, Leslie Hoare-Belisha.

We also include a section on party news which, in this issue, features articles based around some five key areas highlighted in a new Party recruitment leaflet. These discuss Civil Liberties (including the introduction of a CL watchdog), Democracy (in particular, greater use of Referendums), Environment (because to love your country must include loving your ecology/land), National Health Service (ensuring it has a greater national priority than present e.g. cutting overseas interventions) and the Economy (promoting apprenticeships and even a little of the Liberal National’s protectionism!). We would welcome contributions. Please email us at natliberal@aol.com

We hope you enjoy this issue of what we hope will become an important tool in the National Liberal Party’s armoury and assist in the revival of the National Liberal idea.

.

Most people may have heard of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin but few will know that it is unregulated I.e. no one will take responsibility if things go wrong. As this link highlights (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49177705) the growth in such currencies has gone hand in hand with the theft and fraud of them (as with fiat currencies) but without any recourse for victims.

Crypto Currency involves transfers of more than £25,000,000,000 each and every day. Much of that trading activity touches on the United Kingdom. UK Citizens have been defrauded by crypto criminals to the tune of billions. Sophisticated organized crime organizations make use of Companies House shell companies and the .io domain owned by the Crown to carry out many of their schemes with seeming impunity.

The policy of the Financial Conduct Authority (www.fca.org.uk) is troubling:
“Consumers should be mindful of the absence of certain regulatory protections when considering purchasing unregulated cryptoassets. Unregulated cryptoassets (e.g. Bitcoin, Ether, XRP etc.) are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and consumers do not have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

The current policy is a non-policy. While our government professes to abhor organized crime and money laundering, it takes a hands-off approach to organized crime firms using crypto currency, many of them based in Eastern Europe. The sheer volume of transactions makes this a national security threat.

Therefore it is no surprise that none of the leading political parties in the UK have formulated a workable crypto currency platform.

The Conservative Party claims some regulating is in order but the lack of a coherent policy by the FCA belies that.

2. The Labour Party on the other hand believes Cryptocurrency is a Ponzi Scheme and would regulate it out of business according to Diane Abbot speaking as Shadow Home Secretary.

The National Liberal Party is the only UK political party to offer a coherent platform on cryptocurrency:

1. The NLP believes cryptocurrency is here to stay and offers an alternative to traditional currencies.

2. Criminal use of cryptocurrency however should be vigorously punished and treated as money laundering.

3. Victims of cryptocurrency crime and fraud should be compensated from a fund established by the cryptocurrencies and exchanges that do business in the UK. If a voluntary fund cannot be established, a transactional tax should be imposed to fund the initiative.

4. The misuse of Companies House and Top-Level Domain .io by crypto criminals should be investigated and measures taken to insure the Crown is not an accomplice to crimes.

5. The FCA policy of ignoring cryptocurrency should be reversed and victims given priority.

6. The UK should develop its own set of advanced initiatives designed to promote the responsible use of cryptocurrency and a self-regulation scheme should be promoted.

Therefore, we seek neither to ignore crypto crimes like the Tories or even abet it nor do we seek to heavily regulate like Labour. The NLP seeks a responsible regime where victims have recourse and a strong self-regulatory scheme that will make the UK a center of legitimate cryptocurrency finance and not the center for crypto crimes that it is today.

NLP stands for the future of finance and integrity. We must make the effort to understand new financial technology, not ignore or seek to destroy them. Cryptocurrency and the vast financial transactions involved can supply wealth, capital and jobs if only we take the time to understand and cultivate it in a responsible fashion.

AS NATIONAL LIBERALS we’re interested in looking at ideas which can probably be best described as being ‘Neither Left nor Right – Neither Capitalism nor Socialism.’ Indeed, we’re interested in ideas that go way beyond these positions.

As ‘points of reference’ we look towards the original Liberal National Party/National Liberal Party, Distributists like GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc and monetary reform ideas – such as Social Credit. Although we’re not Socialists, we’re interested in folks like Kier Hardie and Bob Blatchford and Guild Socialists like William Morris, GDH Cole and Arthur Penty. The ideas of the Co-operative movement, Syndicalism, the Chartists and Levelers and support for small businesses and shopkeepers, and some libertarian economists, are also of interest.

With the above in mind, Devon Voice – The Voice Of The National Liberal Party In Devon – is reproducing an article by Brian Bergstein from MIT Technology Review – see the original here https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611418/basic-income-could-work-if-you-do-it-canada-style/ – which looks at the introduction of a trial system of Universal Basic Income in Lindsay, Ontario, Canada. The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is generally understood to be a guarantee from the government that each citizen receives a minimum income which is enough to cover the basic cost of living. The UBI is also designed to provide financial security – particularly in the not-to-distant future where it can offset job losses caused by technology.

Originally called Basic Income Could Work – If You Do It Canada-Style, Devon Voice is reproducing it in three parts. This is part two and it should be read directly on from part 1: http://nationalliberal.org/devon-voice-debate-1-–-universal-basic-income-for-devon-part-1 As always, debate is free with Devon Voice & the NLP. Therefore, we’d appreciate your views on this article (and the idea of Devon introducing the UBI) when it appears on either the National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ – or the National Liberal Party Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ – It goes without saying that there are no official links between Brian Bergstein, MIT Technology Review, Devon Voice and the National Liberal Party. Please note that the NLTU has kept the original North American spelling and phrases as they are.

.

Basic Income Could Work – If You Do It Canada-Style (Part 2)

A Canadian province is giving people money with no strings attached – revealing both the appeal and the limitations of the idea.

Basic income as a social equalizer

‘Points of reference’ for Devon Voice - The Voice Of The National Liberal Party In Devon – include social and economic ideas advocated by the likes of Sir John Simon (top left), GK Chesterton (top right), John Hargrave (bottom left) and Robert Owen (bottom right). In an effort to protect British industry, Sir John Simon, the leader of the Liberal National Pary/National Liberal Party supported a form of protectionism. GK Chesterton was a well-known advocate of Distributism, which advocates the widespread ownership of both property and the means of production. John Hargrave was the leader of the Green Shirt Movement for Social Credit (aka The Green Shirts) which battled both Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and the Communist Party of Great Britain. Also, in opposing the power of the banks, Hargrave promoted economic reform. Robert Owen is best known for his efforts to improve the conditions of factory workers. He is regarded as one of the founders of the wider cooperative movement.

The Olde Gaol Museum is indeed an old jail, but it’s also a showcase for things that reveal the texture of Lindsay’s history—uniforms that nurses from town wore in France during World War I; tools and maps used by railway workers when this was a hub for eight railroad lines; 19th-century paintings by a local artist who depicted the timeless regional pastimes of canoeing and fishing. When curatorial assistant Ian McKechnie gives me a tour, he stops and plays a lovely tune on a foot-pumped organ called a harmonium that was made in Ontario more than a hundred years ago.

McKechnie, 27, has worked at the museum for seven years and is devoted to it. Unlike his previous job, when he was briefly a laborer at a goat cheese factory, it offers a chance to be creative and connect with many people in the community. He doesn’t just give tours: he researches and organizes exhibits and writes supporting materials. But on the day we meet, the museum is not paying him to be at work, and therein lies a story about why he and the Olde Gaol’s operations supervisor, Lisa Hart, both signed up for the basic income.

The museum gets almost all its revenue from grants, and one just expired. The manager of the museum recently left, and so it falls largely to McKechnie and Hart to keep things going until another grant comes in. Even when it does, these won’t be lucrative jobs—perhaps $20,000 a year for McKechnie’s. They could find positions in the area that pay more, but both would much rather continue their labor of love at the museum. Leaving now might undercut its momentum toward a more sustainable future, which could include a new cultural center that would connect the museum with a local art gallery.

Thanks to the basic-income trial, both can afford to stay on with the museum. And in the meantime, Hart says, she will no longer put off buying new eyeglasses. The basic income “allows you to spend time on something that’s valuable,” she says. “It’s very sad to walk away from something where you’re valued and doing something meaningful for the community because it just can’t pay you a lot.”

This highlights an intriguing aspect of basic income: it functions in different ways for different people. The way Hart describes it, it’s fuel for cultural development. For Dana Bowman, who might now take classes in social work and regularly volunteers at a community garden, it’s a food subsidy, an educational grant, and a neighborhood improvement fund all in one. For a married couple who own a health-food restaurant that barely covers its costs, it’s a small-business booster. A man who hurt his back working in a warehouse told me he hoped it could augment his employer’s disability payments. A student who was about to graduate from a technical college and had a job lined up said he planned to use the extra income to pay down school loans and start saving for a house.

For McKechnie, the basic income is something broader: a social equalizer, a recognition that people who make little or no money are often doing things that are socially valuable. “It gives one the assurance that the work you’re doing is not in vain, even though you’re not working in a bank or doing other things that are considered part of a career,” he says.

Even if a basic income turns out to be a flexible and efficient government program, it’s not clear that it would be a great way to respond to technological unemployment. Over and over again, people in Lindsay told me it won’t reduce people’s demand for jobs.

As a practical matter, the Ontario trial doesn’t pay enough to eliminate most people’s need to work or to rely on family for support. But even if a richer payout were feasible, that wouldn’t change the philosophy of the program. Basic-income supporters want to improve the odds that people will take better care of themselves and their families. They want a humane and dignifying way of helping people who simply can’t work. But they also argue that most people generally want and expect to work. “It’s not supposed to be welfare for people displaced by technology,” says one of the basic-income advocates, Mike Perry, who runs a medical practice in Kawartha Lakes.

Moreover, while giving poor people money helps them, it still leaves urgent and difficult questions unanswered about the impacts of automation and globalization. What will it take to ensure that entire regions aren’t left far behind economically? What can be done to boost the supply of good, steady jobs? Basic income “is only the beginning,” says Roderick Benns, former vice chair of the Ontario Basic Income Network. “It’s not just ‘cut a check and get on with building the corporatocracy.’ We have to ask what else we are doing as a society to get people to reimagine what they can do with their lives.”

Benns, the author of several books, grew up in Lindsay. Until recently, he and his wife, Joli Scheidler-Benns, lived three hours away, but the pilot is so important to them that they moved back so he can chronicle it in a new publication called the Lindsay Advocate and she can do research for her PhD on the subject at York University. After Benns describes how basic income should augment job training and other social programs, Scheidler-Benns, who is originally from Michigan, nods and then adds: “I don’t see how it could work in the US.”

Protesters fly inflatable blimps of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnston (left) and US President Donald Trump (right). However. We believe that both Johnston & Trump are mere State actors. Corporate big business and the banking elites hold real power. Are they likely to be worried at the sight of a couple of balloons?

EXACTLY three weeks ago – on Tuesday 23rd July – Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (aka Boris Johnson) was announced as the new leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party. In a two-horse race, he was by far the popular choice of Tory members. Indeed, Johnson won by a landslide with 92,153 votes (66%) compared to his rival Jeremy Hun who picked up 46,656 votes (34%). The next day he was appointed Prime Minister, following the resignation of Theresa May.

Before, during and after the Tory Party leadership contest and his ascent to PM, the vast majority of media outlets concentrated on examining Johnson’s image and private affairs. Here he’s usually depicted as a cross between a wannabe Winston Churchill and a village idiot. It seems that the media concentrates solely on his Etonian background, mannerisms, plummy accent and personal antics – contrived or otherwise – such as his many extra-marital affairs.

Interestingly, the media obsession with Johnson’s persona is similar to that relating to US President Donald Trump. Here, many people seem to oppose Trump simply because of his bizarre image & looks – his orange skin and odd hairstyle. In both cases, the cult of personality seems to outweigh who is really pulling the strings, In short, very few people try to determine who is the real power behind both thrones.

With this fundamental question in mind, National Liberals wonder if the clownish bluster & buffoonery of Johnson & Trump is all an act? Indeed, are they both simply playing to the gallery? They both act the fool and you are expected to either laugh, scowl or cringe in utter embarrassment.

However, it strikes us that the antics of Johnston & Trump are similar to those employed by a magician. It’s all a form of distraction. For instance, many a magician uses various techniques (like wands & scantily clad women) as a means of distraction. Both Johnston and Trump are master actors and showmen. The heads of, what could probably accurately be described as the Westminster and Washington terror-machines, know exactly what buttons to press to get the media – and the electorate – reacting in a certain way.

We feel that Johnston and Trump are mere figureheads – they’re literally State actors. So who really is pulling the strings? National Liberals believe that powerful corporate big business and the banking elites hold real power. Their underlings – the politicians – seem to be happy enough with the trappings of power.

Thus Johnson and Trump are not a heroes, anti-heroes or harmless clowns. They are simply the latest mouthpiece for two of the most brutal and dangerous regimes the world has ever known. In the US, the Military–Industrial complex (MIC) is there for all to see. In the UK, it adopts a more subtle position in the background.

As a movement, we must not get bogged down in discussing personalities and soundbites or waste our time laughing at ridiculous or embarrassing photographs of Johnston or Trump. Additionally, chanting inane slogans at demos attended by thousands of champagne socialists – which also feature huge inflatable blimps of Johnston and/or Trump – is hardly going to have the elites quaking in their boots.

Instead we must focus on a dual strategy. The first is to build the infrastructure of a powerful alternative mass media of news, views, sport and entertainment. This media can then be used to expose the elites who lie behind politicians like Johnston and Trump. We must also build a counter power to the current capitalist system. Promoting local alternative currencies, economics. community action, home schooling, culture and growing our own food will effectively sweep away the carpet upon which the power of the elite rests.