New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | May 5, 2005

John Vaught LaBaume says that Britain's Liberal Democrats are repositioning themselves as... well, liberals. The good sort.

Comments

|5.5.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Based on the exit polls out so far, it doesn't look like the UK will be turning very yellow after all.

Do the LibDems still support jacking up the top tax rate to 50% and increasing the pension spending? Or did they come to their senses on those too?

|5.5.05 @ 7:52PM|#

Wow, that sure would be neat to see some economic liberalisation from the Brits, not to mention liberalisation in general. Hopefully some of it could translate to more liberalisation over here. Of course, there is the language barrier.

|5.5.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Shucks, that 10% tax hike is still in their platform:

"Three of our key policies are about creating a fairer distribution of the costs of public services:

Scrapping tuition and top-up fees for students. Cost: 1.2 billion pounds.

Introducing free personal care for elderly and disabled people. Cost: up to 1.4 billion pounds.

Keeping down the rate of local taxes. Cost: 1.7bn pounds.

These three items add up to 4.3 billion pounds and we will pay for them by one tax change, introducing a new 50% rate on very high individual income in so far as it exceeds 100,000 pounds a year."

The article seems to really whitewash their fiscal policy. Would that many US libertarians here really support the feds paying for all university tuitions, paying for all personal care for the elderly (dressing them, etc), jacking up Social Security payouts, and setting a 50% income tax on those making over $190,000? "Might fail to satisfy a Chicago School economist" indeed!

Just like in the US, there's a lot to hate about every party that has some power in the UK, LibDems included.

|5.5.05 @ 8:33PM|#

At the risk of being tarred as a groupie of the Lib Dems, I think the points are that:

1) They're moving a direction that's more economically liberal (in the classical sense) than where they used to be. I know, not enough to satisfy this crowd, but the fact that they're willing to move in that direction says something.

2) By European standards they're probably pretty liberal (in the classical sense)

3) Their right-ward moves on economics are not accompanied by right-ward moves on social issues. They aren't trying to be exactly half-way between Labour and the Tories on every issues, suggesting that their approach is distinctive rather than mere interpolation.

Finally, I have sympathy for third parties. Anything to remind the world that not all choices need be binary.

Personally, my favorite party holding office in a national legislature is the Swiss Liberal Party, and my second favorite is the Swiss Radical Free Democrats. (I've seen the name translated a variety of ways, including Radicals and Free Democrats.)

|5.5.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Time to tune in to CSPAN-2 and see what a real three-party election night looks like.

|5.5.05 @ 10:00PM|#

The Lib Dems aren't libertarian by a long shot. They're for the hunting ban, an Ireland-style smoking ban, and ridiculous levels of gun control.

|5.5.05 @ 11:22PM|#

The Lib Dems aren't libertarian by a long shot. They're for the hunting ban, an Ireland-style smoking ban, and ridiculous levels of gun control.

As thoreau pointed out, the point isn't that the Lib-Dems are libertarian. It's that they're becoming more libertarian, and are closer to something that US libertarians would support than the other parties. This is the great problem of libertarians (well, that and that most people don't support our policies) � we don't look at how good something is in comparison to the alternatives, we compare it to some standard in our heads. We, as a group, are far too focused on theory, and not nearly enough on practice.

Sorry, but this is what really bothers me. Basically, libertarianism is Christianity in the political world � we are constantly concerned with orthodoxy, so much so that we never actually do anything. Not that there's anything to do in this case, since few (if any) of us are British citizens. The point is that we're content to bitch about the problems, without looking at the potential good that might come if we did something.

|5.5.05 @ 11:39PM|#

Basically, libertarianism is Christianity in the political world � we are constantly concerned with orthodoxy, so much so that we never actually do anything.

I guess that means I'm the political equivalent of a Deist then.

Come to think of it, I think that on religion I'm actually a Deist who feels comfortable in the Catholic Church. Don't tell anybody.

|5.6.05 @ 12:15AM|#

The Lib Dems don't have a party line on the hunting ban - at least not one that they enforce. Not like that matters - they're so bad in so many other respects that other people have already mentioned. In fact as far as I can see, the Lib Dems only have two policies in common with big-L Libertarians: an increase in civil liberties, and decriminalisation of marijuana. They used to be far more classically liberal when they were just the Liberals, and they're headed in the wrong direction now.

That said, the political climate in the UK is very different to the US. Candidates there who suggest (for example) scrapping the National Health Service outright are not likely to win many votes, whereas candidates in the US who suggest socialized healthcare for all (Dennis Kucinich, anyone?) don't tend to do too well either. I would argue that a politician can't propose drastic changes and expect to get elected, and so successful politicians have to use gradual change to get to where they're going.

I considered applying for a postal ballot in the UK, but then I realized that I dislike all of the parties. The least unacceptable party to me is the UK Independence Party, but I have a big problem with their rabidly anti-immigrant stance. Going to the effort of getting a postal ballot just to spoil it is, well, just too much like hard work.

|5.6.05 @ 12:16AM|#

I've been listening to the BBC 5 Live on the internet all night and with less than 100 seats leftg undecided, a big chunck of those from northern ireland where the three main parties don't exist, the Lib Dems are picking up 12 seats and have more people in parliment since the Liberals in the 20s.

They are becoming more libertarian as they become a bigger and more influential party -- that should be encouraged.

22% of the vote ain't bad considering the UK election system...

|5.6.05 @ 12:57AM|#

So I'm on the BBC website and it appears that in England (not Scotland or Wales), the Conservative party is dominating in the districts that are larger in land size and have a more spread-out population, while the Labour party is holding most of their seats in the smaller but densely populated areas. Not true in every area, of course, but that seems to be the general impression. (The swings from one party to another seem to exist in mid-size areas that are not either very dense or spread out.)

Interesting. Something England and the US have in common, I guess. The Conservatives seem to be getting most of the marginal (hotly contested, that is) seats they were really gunning for, though.

|5.6.05 @ 1:18AM|#

grylliade,
I think you have a point, at least as far as my wine-addled brain can tell :-0

The key to promoting libertarian ideas isn't in winning political office, it's in convincing typical people of the wisdom of our ideas. I find many people are receptive to the idea of "minding your own business". True, that doesn't always extend to things like legalized heroin (which of course I support), but they can relate to drinking a nice shot of scotch before bedtime.

One step at time is the way to do it.

|5.6.05 @ 1:33AM|#

"Conservative party is dominating in the districts that are larger in land size and have a more spread-out population, while the Labour party is holding most of their seats in the smaller but densely populated areas."

true, but if you look at where the tories gained seats, it was in suburban london and other suburban areas. The tories have generally always held the large rural districts with some lib dem presence in the south and south west.

|5.6.05 @ 1:52AM|#

I find many people are receptive to the idea of "minding your own business".

Everyone says they're for minding their own business until righties see a gay couple holding hands or lefties see people engaging in laissez-faire capitalism. Then you find out people don't support the idea quite as much as you thought they did.

|5.6.05 @ 2:05AM|#

Does anybody think it's a coincidence that the British held an election after the Iraq war? I know some people here are absolutely incapable of giving George Bush and Tony Blair credit for doing anything right, but the fact is that Tony Blair called an election after the Iraq war. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge that point has excluded himself from reasonable discourse.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

|5.6.05 @ 3:01AM|#

Thoreau, just let the joke die at some point before the next national elections here... :)

|5.6.05 @ 3:13AM|#

Everyone says they're for minding their own business until..

That's about the size of it.

|5.6.05 @ 3:35AM|#

Everyone says they're for minding their own business until righties see a gay couple holding hands

Unlike libertarians, who mind their own business until they see 2 women holding hands and then try to get involved with that couple's business cuz, hey, why not try? ;)

|5.6.05 @ 3:59AM|#

To be serious, the most amazing thing about the Liberal Democrats is that they defy Duverger's Law: The observation that when you use plurality voting (as opposed to, say, run-offs like the Swiss do) to elect just a single legislator per district (as opposed to, say, proportional representation like the Swiss do), there will only be 2 parties winning significant numbers of seats. And in many places with free elections (including the 50 US states, each its own experiment in representative government) that observation seems to hold.

Yet the LibDems have persisted in Britain. They have waxed and waned but never died over the past 80+ years. And while other British third parties with seats in Parliament are ethnic or regional parties (e.g. Plaid Cymru), the LibDems are more like a regular party.

Even more interesting, unlike the US the Brits have a parliamentary system, so there's arguably more at stake than in a Congressional election. One would think that the incentives to support a "lesser evil" would be even stronger.

Somehow the LibDems have defied the conventional wisdom and remained a (small but) significant third party in England. Does anybody know how?

Also, this should put the LP to shame. It is possible for a third party to overcome the "wasted vote syndrome" in a system similar to ours (well, similar in how people are elected, although obviously different in how it operates after the election).

Any thoughts?

|5.6.05 @ 4:42AM|#

Here's a spiritual sister of many a paper LP candidate!

Kevin

Larry A|5.6.05 @ 1:06PM|#

I find many people are receptive to the idea of "minding your own business".

Only trouble is, this is properly a two-part question:
1. "Do you believe people should mind their own business?"
2. "Are you willing to mind your own business?"