–

As part of our recruitment campaign we have produced some new posters – here are three of them (please click on poster for a downloadable PDF). More can be copied from the resources page under ‘The Party Organisation’ tab.

THE National Liberal Party is working on the first issue of its ideological magazine, New Horizon. This was previously the name of a journal published by the Liberal Nationals/National Liberals between 1942 – 1968.

New Horizon will initially be produced as an e-magazine. The first issue is expected to include articles on Democracy, the Environment, the NHS, the Economy, Civil Liberties, as well as Reviews and much, much more.

The e-zine will be edited by Graham Williamson, a leading figure in the National Liberal Party.

Graham Williamson

Graham has also written an article about the NLP for issue two of Liveable Nation. LN describes itself as the ‘Newsletter and Think-Tank of Progressive Nationalism’.

Graham said:

“I was asked by the editor of the think-tank Liveable Nation for an article explaining the tenets of National Liberalism. In the article I explain how the NLP draws upon the tradition of patriotic liberalism once predominant in 19th century Europe, with a long lineage in Britain from Chamberlain to Roseberry to Hoare-Belisha.

It also calls upon people to get involved in building a modern day progressive patriotic movement – one which will carve out a niche in British politics – by joining the National Liberal Party.”

It’s expected that Liveable Nation will appear within the next couple of weeks. And the first issue of New Horizon is due to be issued in September. Watch this space!

AROUND 750,000 state employees are set to go on strike at the end of this month. Industrial action – in opposition to government cuts and pension reforms – is scheduled for June30. Areas affected would include schools, councils, the NHS and Whitehall.

If this month’s strike action doesn’t wake Cameron and Clegg up, the next one might!

For it’s being now being suggested that millions of public sector workers should walk out during the first week of October. This would be timed to coincide with the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.

Many ordinary British workers are angry at Con-Dem plans to make them work on longer and to fiddle with their pensions.

Contrary to the government’s lies, the vast majority of public sector workers don’t end up with ‘gold-plated’ pensions. For instance, many workers in the health service don’t get too much more that the National Minimum Wage. How are they going to walk away happily into the sunshine when they retire? What sort of money will they have to get by on?

Clearly rocky roads ahead!

The Tolpuddle Martyrs and Freedom

IN THE run up to Magna Carta Day – on Wednesday 15 June – the National Liberal Party will be taking a look at the concepts of Liberty, Independence and Democracy. We’ll also be looking at the various threats to our traditional rights and freedoms.

One of the freedoms that we take for granted today is the right to join a Trade Union. Wikipedia – the free online encyclopedia – gives this reasonable definition of the aims of such a movement:

“A trade union (British English) or labor union (American English) is an organization of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members) and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with employers. This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers.” (1)

However, this wasn’t always the case. Years ago, ordinary working folks faced absolutely appalling working conditions – including impossibly long hours and very little pay. They really did live on the bread line.

We were recently reminded of the great fight to establish trade unions by an editorial – The Fight Goes On! – which appeared in issue 4 of British Worker, the magazine of Solidarity Trade Union.(2) It contrasted the ideals of both the early Trade Union movement and Labour Party with the actions of those who lead them today. In part it noted:

“THE ROOTS of the modern Trade Union movement can be traced back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs of 1834 and the origins of the Labour Party lie in the late 19th century. Both organisations were set up with the honourable intention of representing ordinary workers.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs – George Loveless, his brother James, James Hammett, James Brine, Thomas Standfield and Thomas’s son John – formed the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers. This trade union was formed to protest about their poor pay and a third wage cut in as many years. Two of the early Labour Party pioneers were Keir Hardie and Bob Blatchford. Both were patriotic socialists – indeed, it’s thought that Blatchford founded the slogan Britain for the British!

How times have changed!”

The web-site of the Tolpuddle Martyrs Museum (3) also gives an indication of the hardships endured by British workers, the fight to establish Trade Unions and their part in ensuring that employees enjoy some form of liberty and freedom:

“The Dorset countryside is beautiful but in the 1830s life in villages like Tolpuddle was hard and getting worse. Workers could not bear more cuts to their pay. Some fought back by rioting but this brought harsh punishments.

In 1834, farms workers formed a trade union. When six leaders of the union were arrested and sentenced to seven years’ transportation, a massive protest swept across the country. Thousands of people marched through London and many more organised petitions and protest meetings to demand their freedom.

Their ‘crime’ was to take an oath of solidarity in forming a trade union.

The protest campaign proved successful and they returned home in triumph.

Their story is now part of the development of a free and democratic society. It is celebrated in the small museum in Tolpuddle and at the Festival on the weekend of the third Sunday in July.”

Interestingly, whether by accident or design, the six founders of the union in Tolpuddle sometimes used to meet by a sycamore tree in the village. Fittingly, those who today continue the fight for freedom regard the tree as a universal symbol of liberty.

To read the full editorial which mentions the Tolpuddle Martyrs (as noted above), simply contact Solidarity Trade Union solidaritygb@aol.com and ask for a pdf copy of the latest issue of British Worker.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

(2) http://www.solidaritytradeunion.com/

(3) http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/

Freedom of the press?

THE RECENT furore over several ‘Super-Injunctions’ (and the Ryan Giggs affair in particular) has attracted the interest of both press and politicians.

The press are outraged that the ‘rich and famous’ can legally prevent them revealing celebrity private secrets to the benefit of their readers, to those selling their story and – they hope – to their circulations.

Prime Minister David Cameron opposes the injunctions whist High Court judges support them. Liberal Democrat MPs have once again exposed their present schizophrenic role in politics.

On the one hand, John Hemmings MP revealed the identity of ‘the well-known footballer who plays for an English Premiership team’ in Parliament. This ‘allowed’ the press to report what the injunction had prevented.

On the other hand these very same Liberal Democrats are the victims of press speculation (partially motivated by political malice) on a private, although potentially illegal, matter involving Chris Huhne MP.

More crucially, these Super-Injunction cases have also highlighted many questions of principle.

FREE PRESS

As National Liberals we support a ‘Free Press’ as one element in maintaining our individual liberties by holding authority to scrutiny and exposing abuses of power.

As believers in individual liberty, however, we also value the right to privacy from intrusive surveillance or interference.

The ‘Giggs’ affair has highlighted the inherent conflict between total transparency and privacy. So what should our view be?

The press rightly oppose curbs to their ‘freedoms’ citing the expense scandal as an example of the need to prevent the ‘rich, famous and powerful’ from hiding their misdemeanors. They say that it’s in the national and/or public interest to expose the behaviour of ‘public figures.’ Does this apply in this or similar cases?

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Firstly, there is a difference between what is, allegedly, of interest to the public and being in the public interest. Exposure of whoever has abused their positions of power or authority or broken the law is clearly in the public interest. Who has or has not had an affair (which however distasteful is not illegal) is not in the public interest.

Secondly, long gone are the days of the ‘crusading press’. A circulation war in order to protect vital advertising revenue has meant appealing to the lowest common denominator. Sadly this has meant sensationalist reporting which has encouraged entrapment, illegal bugging and ‘kiss n’ tell’ stories rather than facts. Although the broadsheets attempt to distinguish themselves from the Tabloids in their content the circulation of the latter far exceeds the former. The exposure of so-called stars is therefore not motivated by the public interest. It is moot point whether the press are following the public’s (or a large section of) prurient interest in other people’s personal lives or the other way round? Either way we don’t believe the law is designed to enshrine that as a right.

Thirdly, whilst it is arguable that a ‘moral lapse’ may reflect or impact upon the judgement or invite the pressure/blackmail of public figures, it is of little relevance when it involves so-called ‘celebrities’. The argument that they are somehow role models is perhaps more in the mind of critics (and is possibly motivated by jealousy and/or envy) than the public. How exposing human frailty will assist in elevating such a role is difficult to imagine? Indeed exposing their ‘human’ weaknesses undermines their so-called role model status (and presumably provides a negative influence?). We cannot expect however a public figures moral behaviour (within the law) to be that much different from members of the ‘ordinary’ public so any aberration is not in the public interest.

FREE SPEECH VS RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

Moving from the moral to the legal, a great deal of legal wrangling is over which ‘right’ as enshrined in the Human Rights Act trumps the other? Is it the right to privacy in Article 8 or the right to free speech in Article 10? There are no grey areas i.e. no qualification of those rights, so the contradiction remains. Introducing the Courts into the equation also throws up questions of who guards or takes away our rights. Do the Courts become our moral guardians? Does money make the difference? Can they (should they?) regulate social networking mediums?

Common sense however should be able to distinguish between the right of free speech and the spreading of gossip and the right of privacy and the right to cover-up corrupt or illegal practices. A footballer’s moral foibles should not be the focus of a free press who should conduct themselves in a moral way by not wallowing in the gutter. The present press/public obsession with celebrity private lives is clearly unhealthy.

Since however self-regulation is clearly not the answer given the pressure to sell papers, then it must be exercised either by the Courts (which requires lots of money and may precipitate a constitutional crisis) or by another body.

COMMONSENSE AND STRONGER ‘IN-HOUSE’ REGULATION ABOUT THE RIGHT BALANCE

Former head of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Lord Wakeham has suggested that the Courts only grant injunctions where the issues “impact on public authorities and the state” and the slack taken up by an enhanced PCC. There may be merit in the idea providing they wish to ‘uplift’ press behaviour i.e. in what they report and how, and make the crucial distinction between what is in the public interest (and therefore open season) against what is in the interest of the public (which must not be allowed to override an individual’s privacy). Whilst it is difficult to legislate/write rules which clearly define the difference, an application of commonsense and a much stronger PCC could allow us to find the right balance between the ‘freedom of the press’ and the freedom (of privacy) of the individual

The National Liberal Party believes that no one ‘minor’ party is likely to sweep to power in the UK however much they might wish or dream of such. The reasons why are legion yet the alternative provides only a small window of opportunity which require a radical re-think for most parties. Whilst no one party will be able to successfully breakthrough the ‘closed shop’ of Westminster we believe it may be possible for a group of parties working together to do so. Without surrendering their independence a cooperative network of like-minded groups should be able to work together on common campaigns and potentially electoral alliances. One such network is known as the People’s Alliance.

Starting as a local electoral alliance in the borough of Havering it has tried to create a national version with varied results. Whilst it requires egos to be shed and policy differences to be accepted we nevertheless believe it will soon become a growing phenomena that will bear fruit for participant parties. In the meantime we are delighted to report on another local version of the PA, this time in Devon. We are indebted to the Third Way think-tank for their report:

SATURDAY 4 JUNE – St.Petrock’s Day, the patron saint of Devon– saw the launch of the South Devon People’s Alliance (SDPA).

The SDPA is a local campaign group which seeks “to campaign outside the murky waters of mainstream politics for the people and the environment of South Devon.”

The SDPA feel that there’s a real need for a local movement to represent the ordinary people of South Devon and to protect the local environment for future generations. The SDPA feel that “mainstream politics has distanced itself from the people, and now simply represents a stable for self interest and political aspirations as opposed to representing local people.”

The group is Chaired by Glen Nicklasson, a well-known local trade unionist. The General Secretary is Rick Heyse, a keen environmentalist. The SDPA aims to campaign in four main areas – community values, localism, environmental protection and democracy.

According to the South Devon People’s Alliance:

“Our direction can be described as localist (as we believe in supporting local businesses and decentralisation, eco-conscious (as we believe in protecting the environment and support animal welfare), patriotic (as we believe in defending the nation state and our national culture) and liberal (as we believe in defending the civil liberties of the individual).”

To back this up the SDPA have produced an extensive list of policies looking at areas like housing, crime, local services, the local economy and public transport.

Their first campaign will be on June 15 (Magna Carta Day). Here they hope to plant a ‘Liberty’ tree.

The Third Way Think Tank welcomes the news that the SDPA does not discriminate on membership on any grounds, and its membership is open to people from across the political spectrum.

We’re also interested in its idea of working – and forming alliances – with “other organisations and individuals.”

Its strategy is also flexible in that it may contest future elections or offer its “support to a candidate that we believe will fight for what we believe in, or political parties that support our localist, eco-conscious agenda.”

To find out more about the South Devon People’s Alliance check out their web-site:

www.southdevonpeoplesalliance.com and their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_118327944917524