Liberal Vision (Again) - Pressure Group ? Faction ? Entryists ?

Let's be clear, I have an inherent dislike of closing down debate and respect there are many libertarians who pose questions and raise issues that otherwise would go unheard in the Lib Dems. In that context, they firmly belong within the broad church that is, and should be, the Liberal Democrats.

Now my formative political years were spent (like Messrs Littlewood and Fernando) in, ahem, another political party. My time as a Labour member and councillor saw the rise of the 'Militant' faction within the party. Despite being on the 'left' the damage this group did to the wider left and to Labour in particular is now a matter of record. They had a separate agenda, a different ideological base and ran parallel to the party they resided within. They were not too keen on their own internal democracy either. To my mind Liberal Vision [LV] share some of these 'entryist' and factional tendencies.

Mark Littlewood argues that they are no different from any other organised group within the party (minus internal democratic elections of course), such as ALDTU, Women Lib Dems, DAGGER et al. But, there is a difference the SAO/SO groups all sign up to the preamble of the party, rather than the pick and mix approach of those who support the politics of LV.

As I said in a previous post, LV is I believe a subsidiary of Progressive Voice and has a remarkably similar narrative to the UK Libertarian Party. Just take a cursory glance at the policy proposals of the UK Libertarian Party and compare them to the proposals of Progressive Vision.

As for the policy thrust of LV, consider this currently unpopular truth. It has been a progressive centre and centre-left agenda influenced by liberal and social democratic thought that has delivered over the last three elections (1997 / 2001 / 2005) for this party the greatest number of parliamentarians for us since the 1920s.

Although critical of an over-bearing state the Lib Dems and it's predecessors have never been afraid to legislate and be 'interventionist'. The welfare state has a Liberal DNA running right through it. The LDs, since it's foundation, has been a progressive tax party to fund improved public services. Now it seeks to be the party that offers a quasi-Thatcherite helping of tax and spending cuts. This looks like an opportunist attempt to stem the Tory tide across a swathe of southern English seats.


The party, rightly, continues to be interventionist. Presently it has offered distinctive positions on policy debates relating to issues as diverse as 'nationalisation' of banks through to minimum prices for alcohol (although I strongly disagree with this very illiberal proposal - booze for the wealthy only - what a vote winner !!!).

LV has little to say to the poor, little to say on the environment. Further as Thomas Gilbert remarks on Lib Dem Voice many Lib Dems have fought against the small government, low tax agenda for years. Mr. Littlewood and others like him wants us to spin around 360 degrees and offer the electorate something totally inconsistent with what the Lib Dems have offered since the formation of the party, thereby putting at risk the coalition of support built up thus far.

Even so far, the mild shift in emphases doesn't appear to be working. But to suggest that’s because we’re not moving far or fast enough to the right, that we are not radical enough is nonesense to my mind. This line of argument reminds me of Tony Benn and others arguing that Thatcher's victories over Labour were because they were not sufficiently socialist enough ! He also saw the disasterous Labour performance of 1983 as several million votes for 'socialism' ! Pity those of us less well off who had a torrid time under Thatcher, at least we could console ourselves with the fact that an impotent Labour Party had turned to the left. Let's not allow the Lib Dems to repeat elements of that kind of experience through our own internal battles and striving for a vote-losing LV inspired narrative.

Luckily the shrill voices of many libertarians and classical liberals online may not match the reality in the constituencies. I know of no-one active within my local party (Torbay) that would subscribe to the ideas being promoted by LV and others. Is this the same for others ?

One of the things I've most enjoyed about the 4 years or so of LD membership, some of them active and some not, is the lack of organised factionalism. However, it might be necessary, and with some reluctance, for the 'left' of the party to come together, become organised and challenge the classical liberals / libertarians in the party. An open, democratic organisation, maybe modelled on the lines of the Compass grouping within Labour, might be a useful starting point. The Beveridge Group, if it opened out beyond the 'great and the good' might do this, but otherwise we need to do it for ourselves. What do people think

Chandila, Liberal Vision & the LD Presidency

One vital criteria that I believe is important for the postholder of Lib Dem President is ideally that someone should be respected across the party, politically and geographically, and have the ability to be the bridge that brings together the voluntary party and it's senior elected parliamentarians.

Chandila Fernando says many things including the downgrading of party membership in favour of creating party 'supporters'. The US parties already have such 'fan clubs'. Their role is limited to being hired hands at conventions, leaving decision making and policy to the 'great and the good'. This is not a model I can accept for the Lib Dems. Chandila might have experienced this kind of 'engagement' whilst in the Tory party, but this is not how the Lib Dems do things.

His personal hobby horse, Liberal Vision [LV], is an 'interesting' organisation, with Chandila as Director and Mark Littlewood as Chairman(sic). Neiher of these people are elected to these positions by anyone. Indeed on Liberal Vision's FAQ page is the following : "It is an unincorporated association which is run as a “benign dictatorship”. If you expect internal democratic elections, AGMs, committee meetings and minute taking, this may not be the organisation for you." Being a democrat I am instinctively wedded to democratic mandates for officers, that goes hand in hand with membership of an organisation.

Linda Jack asked and Chandila answered : As someone more on the “left” of the party, why should I vote for you? I have in my heart the passion of an activist and the courage of a lion to take on the establishment." What he ought to have said is that I'm a uber-libertarian far removed from the ideas you hold Linda ! It is worth looking at LV. They are a wholly owned susidiary of Progressive Vision, whose politics and ethos are uncannily more akin to those of another party - the UK Liberttarian Party - than the values, practices and policy positions of the Liberal Democrats.

What I am not saying is that such people should be 'banned' from the party. As a liberal, even a 'left wing' one, I am instinctively against banning things or people. Libertarians bring a differing perspective to the party. Many are long-term committed Liberal Democrats and long may that be so, no matter how much I heartily disagree with them. However, uber-libertarians, such as Gavin Webb, surely would find the UKLP far closer to their strident libertarian outlook ?

You may say that the President is a party figure head and non-political. But that person has a key role [and vote] on the Federal Executive, therefore personal political positions are of some importance. Clearly Chandila is ambitious, but his proposals for limiting the usefulness of party membership and the lack of a democratic structure in the organ he does run mean for me he is entirely unsuitable to be LD President.

He might 'overlook' his politics in running for election. I do not. Why be so shy about your libertarian credentials Chandila ? Further, Chandila is said to have left the Tories when Michael Howard came to the Conservative leadership. Presumably then he had no quarrel with Hague, IDS and Major ? None of these are paragons of liberal virtue. Be honest Chandila, tell us what you are about ?!

I may stand corrected, but it is hardly inspiring to know that even his LV colleague, Mark Littlewood, is voting elsewhere ! The poor quality website, the divisive politics, the re-branding marketing speak all show clearly that Chandila is not the man for the job. So who am I voting for ? It'll be a vote for Ros Scott, a safer mainstream option, with a good track record in the party. That may not sound overly exciting, but after it's fair share of upheaval at the top of the party in recent times a unifying figure I think would be the best choice.