Young Mr Nick Clegg has delivered a most inspiring and hopeful speech on the occasion of an event that passed me by some 150 years ago.
According to the historians, the parliamentary Liberal Party was formed on this occasion when Palmerston, Russell, Bright, Hartington and others met at Willis's Rooms, a little before today's date, for the meeting was on June 6th. I do not think I was present as I rejected the plan to remove Lord Derby's government and in many ways rejected Palmerston's statesmanship. However after Palmerston assumed the premiership, I agreed to resume my post at the Exchequer, for the good of the nation and also because I was increasingly in sympathy with others, such as Russell and Bright, who had joined the new Liberal Party.
Mr Clegg's argument is that today, yet again, the old party lines are no longer relevant and that today it is time again for a Liberal hour. This has been my perception but I am not sure the events of 1859 provide an example to follow.
Undoubtedly on that occasion Mr Bright and the Radicals represented the new generation of newly enfranchised electors. Was it opportunism that led the Whigs to seek to coalesce with them? Or was it merely force of habit inasmuch as the Radicals had in general given support to Whig governments?
There does not appear to be an equivalent circumstance now, even though there are four significant parties in the British parliament and an increasing number gaining support outside of Parliament.
The cause of progress is tainted by the failings of the present government; and indeed there is no clear liberal tendency within the governing party, although liberal causes are predominantly espoused by those on the left of that party. Indeed there is now a liberal wing of the Conservative party that is more overt and outspoken than that in the Labour Party, although its numbers are uncertain and one of its leaders, Mr John Bercow, has recently been elevated to the Speaker's Chair.
Nevertheless Mr Clegg is broadly correct that the best course for Britain to take in the near future would be under Liberal leadership, not Conservative nor Socialist leadership, just was the case in 1859. Now as then, the nation was emerging from a costly and ill-considered martial entanglement. The public would desire Mr Vince Cable to be Chancellor, as I was, and it is possible to imagine a coalition forming across the existing parties for that purpose, to give Mr Cable the support that is needed to fetter the power of those who have abused our financial freedoms and the power of the market and to disperse power from the wealthy to the populace. It is equally possible to imagine the polling numbers giving encouragement to the electorate to sweep away the present power structure, as seemed possible last month; for the most part that can only be done by voters placing their trust in Mr Clegg and his party.
It is most likely however that the electorate will hesitate and return to their comfortable habits, condemning the nation to a new period of incompetence and dishonesty under the platitudinous and deceptive leadership of Mr Cameron.
WEG
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The desperate state of the Commons
The Speaker of the House of Commons upholds the nation's liberties; the Speaker, it seems, is also now charged with upholding the honour of the honourable members of the Commons.
Tomorrow Great Britain is promised a fresh start, a clean sweep, by those who would blame the departing Speaker, Mr Martin, for the crisis that has enveloped the House. This, to my aged eyes, does not seem a likely event.
Indeed it is a matter of concern that the prime candidate for the majority party, the socialists, is tainted in many respects. I refer to Mrs Beckett, who does not appear to be a parliamentarian who is independent of the government; indeed she has been Foreign Secretary, Leader of the Commons and prior to that deputy leader of the Labour Party. Today we are told, in addition, that she has charged the taxpayer for her gardening expenses to the sum total of almost £11,000.
At the heart of the liberty of the nation, is the right to be represented on the matter of taxation. It is incumbent on those elected by the people to stand as guardians of the exchequer, watchers of the great departments of state and indeed of the Royal coffers. The British nation has fought at least two wars on this principle, and in both wars the State has lost the right to levy taxation without appropriate representation.
It does not seem to me therefore that this fundamental liberty should be upheld by one who is cavalier with the nation's finances. Indeed it would appear that hardly any of those who would aspire to this ancient post are untainted by the present problems and questions, including that most distinguished Liberal, Mr Beith, even if an innocent explanation for Mr Beith's alleged transgression springs readily to mind.
It would appear, therefore, it was a mistake to remove the hapless Mr Martin with such haste and seek to make him a scapegoat for the widespread abuse of tax revenue. I do not blame those such as Mr Clegg who sought his removal. I lay blame at the door of the Prime Minister, who cannot see that he presides over a discredited parliament and that, regardless of the outcome, it is time that democracy took its course and that the people of Great Britain were given a chance to elect men and women of probity.
I spare some sympathy for Mr G. Brown as it is indeed true, as he has stated, that the consequences might be chaotic and unsettling. It is also not apparent that the British people are equipped to distinguish the honest from the dishonest, candidates of principle from chancers. Sadly, however, the present Parliament has lost its authority and is unlikely to regain it tomorrow.
* I note, with sadness, that the Liberal Democrat Party has been embroiled in a matter of receiving substantial sums from a gentleman who defrauded a number of individuals. It is disturbing that the party spokesman states it has no legal obligation to make provision for repayment. It is most likely that this statement is correct; for the party must have believed that the donation came from properly earned profits. It has now learned this was not the case.
It seems to me that the party should align itself with this individual's other creditors and offer to pay a portion of this sum to the administrator of his estates as if owed the whole sum by the aforesaid Mr M. Brown.
WEG
Tomorrow Great Britain is promised a fresh start, a clean sweep, by those who would blame the departing Speaker, Mr Martin, for the crisis that has enveloped the House. This, to my aged eyes, does not seem a likely event.
Indeed it is a matter of concern that the prime candidate for the majority party, the socialists, is tainted in many respects. I refer to Mrs Beckett, who does not appear to be a parliamentarian who is independent of the government; indeed she has been Foreign Secretary, Leader of the Commons and prior to that deputy leader of the Labour Party. Today we are told, in addition, that she has charged the taxpayer for her gardening expenses to the sum total of almost £11,000.
At the heart of the liberty of the nation, is the right to be represented on the matter of taxation. It is incumbent on those elected by the people to stand as guardians of the exchequer, watchers of the great departments of state and indeed of the Royal coffers. The British nation has fought at least two wars on this principle, and in both wars the State has lost the right to levy taxation without appropriate representation.
It does not seem to me therefore that this fundamental liberty should be upheld by one who is cavalier with the nation's finances. Indeed it would appear that hardly any of those who would aspire to this ancient post are untainted by the present problems and questions, including that most distinguished Liberal, Mr Beith, even if an innocent explanation for Mr Beith's alleged transgression springs readily to mind.
It would appear, therefore, it was a mistake to remove the hapless Mr Martin with such haste and seek to make him a scapegoat for the widespread abuse of tax revenue. I do not blame those such as Mr Clegg who sought his removal. I lay blame at the door of the Prime Minister, who cannot see that he presides over a discredited parliament and that, regardless of the outcome, it is time that democracy took its course and that the people of Great Britain were given a chance to elect men and women of probity.
I spare some sympathy for Mr G. Brown as it is indeed true, as he has stated, that the consequences might be chaotic and unsettling. It is also not apparent that the British people are equipped to distinguish the honest from the dishonest, candidates of principle from chancers. Sadly, however, the present Parliament has lost its authority and is unlikely to regain it tomorrow.
* I note, with sadness, that the Liberal Democrat Party has been embroiled in a matter of receiving substantial sums from a gentleman who defrauded a number of individuals. It is disturbing that the party spokesman states it has no legal obligation to make provision for repayment. It is most likely that this statement is correct; for the party must have believed that the donation came from properly earned profits. It has now learned this was not the case.
It seems to me that the party should align itself with this individual's other creditors and offer to pay a portion of this sum to the administrator of his estates as if owed the whole sum by the aforesaid Mr M. Brown.
WEG
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Unimaginable
Never in the wildest of my dreams did I envisage sitting with my friends and a jug of ale, receiving the declaration of elections to a Parliament of the whole of Europe. I am only dismayed that in this unimaginable future so many of the British people seem to wish not to participate in this great Parliament, either by the recourse of failing to cast a ballot or by indicating a preference for parties that would separate our island once again from the great continent.
WEG
WEG
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A Liberal future
You spy the swallow but it may not yet be summer. The appearance of the swallow offers me a pretext to lay out a grand narrative; even if it provides inadequate support for such a narrative.
I have been wondering for some time if the British people will ever put right the mistakes made a century ago, when the great Liberal Party appeared consigned to oblivion. Tomorrow it seems an opinion poll of the public will suggest that the Liberal Democrat party is now the second party of British politics. The margin is small and the possibility of error large; but it is significant that the third party has overtaken the party of government; and in the present febrile atmosphere of British politics it may be reinforced in the few short days before voting takes place on Thursday.
The Conservative Party intends to gain from the weakness of the socialists; in the immediate future they may well be beneficiaries. But a short period of government will expose their contradictions; even before that happens the public may become heartily fed up of a party whose true soul, whose arrogance towards government is exposed daily.
So I do not say the pendulum will cease to swing. Yet a pendulum that is left alone will swing ever slower and its span will diminish with each cycle.
For while the 20th century played out the last epic struggles between capital and labour, these are not the battles of this century. The British people may still pretend they hate foreigners but their real spirit is liberal; it is liberal to an extent to which I find astonishing and hard to countenance. No matter. The essence of liberalism is that the people can be trusted; for when they are not oppressed, when the constitution is sound, they will live in peace each with the other.
Neither the party of labour, nor the party of the ruling classes has a place in this future. They may to some extent bear the aspirations of sections of the population. Labour lays claim to what is known as "social justice". It claims it helps the poor and even that it, and it alone, can aid the poor to escape from poverty and even from the class to which they were once assigned by birth; the Conservatives will deny this. They will seek to articulate the aspirations of the British people for order, for moral standards.
Yet neither party is fit to undertake these tasks. For each, the true purpose has long been to govern, to be in power and to struggle with each other and within their own ranks for highest office. Their constitutions do not allow people of true worth to flourish within the political realm.
It may be the purpose of a Liberal government, yet again, to dissolve itself and disperse its power, as once the party did by supporting the aspirations of the workers. For too long the British people have clung to two large parties as if to their childhood nanny's skirts. There is a new generation of Britons, sprung from many races, tutored in many schools and universities and articulate in discussion and impatient of those who would patronise them. Having exercised choice in elections, as they will on Thursday, they will wonder why they are denied choice in the greatest election of all, the election for Parliament; they will wonder even more how a collection of scoundrels, toadies, cronies and discredited politicians can now sit in the hallowed chambers of the one-time so glorious House of Lords.
This is both the spirit of liberalism and the essence of reformist liberal politics. Almost daily it seems people seek to form new parties, frequently funded by the very wealthy. These are a conceit and the British public recognise this. Where is the Jury Party or Libertas, even now, where are they?
I will not seek to set out how this great change will be achieved; one would wish those with true care for the future of this great country to support Mr Nick Clegg. For it was the quality of our governments, the virtue and intelligence of our leaders across the country, that made them great, and gave me the privilege of leading a great force for reform.
WEG
I have been wondering for some time if the British people will ever put right the mistakes made a century ago, when the great Liberal Party appeared consigned to oblivion. Tomorrow it seems an opinion poll of the public will suggest that the Liberal Democrat party is now the second party of British politics. The margin is small and the possibility of error large; but it is significant that the third party has overtaken the party of government; and in the present febrile atmosphere of British politics it may be reinforced in the few short days before voting takes place on Thursday.
The Conservative Party intends to gain from the weakness of the socialists; in the immediate future they may well be beneficiaries. But a short period of government will expose their contradictions; even before that happens the public may become heartily fed up of a party whose true soul, whose arrogance towards government is exposed daily.
So I do not say the pendulum will cease to swing. Yet a pendulum that is left alone will swing ever slower and its span will diminish with each cycle.
For while the 20th century played out the last epic struggles between capital and labour, these are not the battles of this century. The British people may still pretend they hate foreigners but their real spirit is liberal; it is liberal to an extent to which I find astonishing and hard to countenance. No matter. The essence of liberalism is that the people can be trusted; for when they are not oppressed, when the constitution is sound, they will live in peace each with the other.
Neither the party of labour, nor the party of the ruling classes has a place in this future. They may to some extent bear the aspirations of sections of the population. Labour lays claim to what is known as "social justice". It claims it helps the poor and even that it, and it alone, can aid the poor to escape from poverty and even from the class to which they were once assigned by birth; the Conservatives will deny this. They will seek to articulate the aspirations of the British people for order, for moral standards.
Yet neither party is fit to undertake these tasks. For each, the true purpose has long been to govern, to be in power and to struggle with each other and within their own ranks for highest office. Their constitutions do not allow people of true worth to flourish within the political realm.
It may be the purpose of a Liberal government, yet again, to dissolve itself and disperse its power, as once the party did by supporting the aspirations of the workers. For too long the British people have clung to two large parties as if to their childhood nanny's skirts. There is a new generation of Britons, sprung from many races, tutored in many schools and universities and articulate in discussion and impatient of those who would patronise them. Having exercised choice in elections, as they will on Thursday, they will wonder why they are denied choice in the greatest election of all, the election for Parliament; they will wonder even more how a collection of scoundrels, toadies, cronies and discredited politicians can now sit in the hallowed chambers of the one-time so glorious House of Lords.
This is both the spirit of liberalism and the essence of reformist liberal politics. Almost daily it seems people seek to form new parties, frequently funded by the very wealthy. These are a conceit and the British public recognise this. Where is the Jury Party or Libertas, even now, where are they?
I will not seek to set out how this great change will be achieved; one would wish those with true care for the future of this great country to support Mr Nick Clegg. For it was the quality of our governments, the virtue and intelligence of our leaders across the country, that made them great, and gave me the privilege of leading a great force for reform.
WEG
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Deja vu
I am suffering from a bout of what we came to call deja vu. So little changes in British politics.
It is apparent that one party calls for reform - and the other calls for reform when it is convenient. It has been said that the only institution, which the Conservative Party truly wishes to conserve is the Conservative Party. There was a time when I felt otherwise and believed that the party had leaders with the interests of the British people at their hearts; but they were few and far between. For it dawned on my consciousness that the only time when that party will gesture an offer of power to the many is when it is necessary to conserve power for the few.
There is now a third party in Britain claiming to pursue the path of reform; yet in truth it only ever sought power for its own class - and when its own class diminished and dispersed, it also became a vehicle for achieving power for an elite of its own creation.
That has been obvious for a while to those who observe these things and is now, it seems, made clear to the British people at large.
It is therefore pleasing to observe that the Liberal Party has always pursued a path of reform, has continued to advocate trust of the people, even when for a period it forfeited that trust itself.
I am therefore neither staggered nor jubilant when I hear the Conservative leader, Mr David Cameron, offering a programme, which he claims, in sonorous tones, will promise reform and "dispersal of power". It is little surprise that the measures he proposes are trivial; as Prime Minister he would wish to continue to appoint a favoured few to the once mighty House of Lords. As Conservative leader, he would perceive 50 per cent of the vote as unachievable and therefore would wish to retain a failed system that would allow him to seize power without the fulsome support of the British people. He talks of "considering" fixing the term of each and every Parliament - but he only gives a promise of consideration.
He should look to Ireland, which seems to have delivered reform and progress for much of the last century. There was a time when his party looked to Ireland briefly - and it was only brief. For when it suited Mr Disraeli, he was in favour of Irish self-government; when it was no longer convenient, he no longer favoured the measure. Such has been the Conservative approach to reform throughout the decades. Somehow I could never persuade our dear Queen of the man's duplicity; I do not know what hold he held on the dear lady.
The British people should be aware that Mr Cameron will deliver a mere half of the few trifles that he has grandly packaged as a promise of "reform".
WEG
It is apparent that one party calls for reform - and the other calls for reform when it is convenient. It has been said that the only institution, which the Conservative Party truly wishes to conserve is the Conservative Party. There was a time when I felt otherwise and believed that the party had leaders with the interests of the British people at their hearts; but they were few and far between. For it dawned on my consciousness that the only time when that party will gesture an offer of power to the many is when it is necessary to conserve power for the few.
There is now a third party in Britain claiming to pursue the path of reform; yet in truth it only ever sought power for its own class - and when its own class diminished and dispersed, it also became a vehicle for achieving power for an elite of its own creation.
That has been obvious for a while to those who observe these things and is now, it seems, made clear to the British people at large.
It is therefore pleasing to observe that the Liberal Party has always pursued a path of reform, has continued to advocate trust of the people, even when for a period it forfeited that trust itself.
I am therefore neither staggered nor jubilant when I hear the Conservative leader, Mr David Cameron, offering a programme, which he claims, in sonorous tones, will promise reform and "dispersal of power". It is little surprise that the measures he proposes are trivial; as Prime Minister he would wish to continue to appoint a favoured few to the once mighty House of Lords. As Conservative leader, he would perceive 50 per cent of the vote as unachievable and therefore would wish to retain a failed system that would allow him to seize power without the fulsome support of the British people. He talks of "considering" fixing the term of each and every Parliament - but he only gives a promise of consideration.
He should look to Ireland, which seems to have delivered reform and progress for much of the last century. There was a time when his party looked to Ireland briefly - and it was only brief. For when it suited Mr Disraeli, he was in favour of Irish self-government; when it was no longer convenient, he no longer favoured the measure. Such has been the Conservative approach to reform throughout the decades. Somehow I could never persuade our dear Queen of the man's duplicity; I do not know what hold he held on the dear lady.
The British people should be aware that Mr Cameron will deliver a mere half of the few trifles that he has grandly packaged as a promise of "reform".
WEG
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Stand up for the concert of Europe!
I am astounded to learn there is a party contesting the current elections with the sole purpose of removing the United Kingdom from the concert of Europe. Indeed my current estimate is that this party may well collect as much as a two fifths or one half of the votes that are cast, such is the present mood of public anger at the political classes in Westminster.
Indeed it appears that the main parties are loath to confront this UKIP, this party not of Independence but of Isolation. For it is feared that if votes are not cast for the UKIP, they will be cast even more wildly and dangerously, perhaps for the party that rejects the history of Empire, that rejects the purpose of Commonwealth, that rejects our mingled heritage and pays some confused homage to what - Germanic, Celtic ancestry.
It is therefore time for politicians of moral worth, for Mr Nick Clegg, Mr Vince Cable, Mr Norman Baker and even Mr David Cameron to stand up to the pretensions of the UKIP. I have spied their slogan, which proclaims "time to get back control of our borders" or some such. This is a party that would set this nation back 200 years, beyond the era of John Bright, of Richard Cobden and even, dare I say, of myself. It is a party that would have us live in the splendid isolation of the Napoleonic conflict.
For it is a wonder of the present age that trade flows freely throughout Europe and indeed quite freely over the globe. Even at a time of economic stagnation, Great Britain and Europe enjoy immense and unthinkable prosperity.
A success for the UKIP would place a contingent of Neanderthals, of regressives, to represent our country, to be our ambassadors within Europe. It is a party that will seek to make gain from the failings of the two tired parties of the 20th century, the socialists and the Conservatives, and yet will send representatives to indulge in the flesh-pots of Europe whilst denying the right of that Parliament to exist or to deliberate.
I cannot imagine how our dear Queen would have viewed representatives of that party, she who did so much to unite Europe and whose fragile heart would have been broken yet again by the events that followed her death.
WEG
Indeed it appears that the main parties are loath to confront this UKIP, this party not of Independence but of Isolation. For it is feared that if votes are not cast for the UKIP, they will be cast even more wildly and dangerously, perhaps for the party that rejects the history of Empire, that rejects the purpose of Commonwealth, that rejects our mingled heritage and pays some confused homage to what - Germanic, Celtic ancestry.
It is therefore time for politicians of moral worth, for Mr Nick Clegg, Mr Vince Cable, Mr Norman Baker and even Mr David Cameron to stand up to the pretensions of the UKIP. I have spied their slogan, which proclaims "time to get back control of our borders" or some such. This is a party that would set this nation back 200 years, beyond the era of John Bright, of Richard Cobden and even, dare I say, of myself. It is a party that would have us live in the splendid isolation of the Napoleonic conflict.
For it is a wonder of the present age that trade flows freely throughout Europe and indeed quite freely over the globe. Even at a time of economic stagnation, Great Britain and Europe enjoy immense and unthinkable prosperity.
A success for the UKIP would place a contingent of Neanderthals, of regressives, to represent our country, to be our ambassadors within Europe. It is a party that will seek to make gain from the failings of the two tired parties of the 20th century, the socialists and the Conservatives, and yet will send representatives to indulge in the flesh-pots of Europe whilst denying the right of that Parliament to exist or to deliberate.
I cannot imagine how our dear Queen would have viewed representatives of that party, she who did so much to unite Europe and whose fragile heart would have been broken yet again by the events that followed her death.
WEG
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Glory of the Land laid low!
The Glory of the Land is laid low! The mother of democracy's purity is tarnished, like a Jezebel.
For a while words failed me; I was stuck dumb, like the father of the Baptist, but not by the sight of an angel, no by the venality, the greed of those who now purport to represent the British people.
Odysseus served his King for ten years with nothing but a sword and a shield by his side; Our Lord himself instructed his followers to set forth with "neither staves nor scrip, neither bread nor money; neither have two coats apiece." Such sacrifice of personal pleasures appears not to have occurred to those who have sought to inhabit Parliament's hallowed halls in this century. The nation should mourn, not rage; it should clothe itself in sack-cloth and ashes. For not since the time of Cromwell himself has a Parliament been in such disrepute, have the public representatives so demanded that someone should thunder "Be gone and do not darken these doors again!".
He hath put down the mighty from their seats and hath exalted men of low degree.
Such, it seems, was the rise of the Labour movement a century ago. But now it has become mighty, over-mighty, and it is time it was put down. For the most part its leaders are not men and women of low degree; even though possession of a good degree from a modern university appears not to have imparted wisdom.
Mr Nick Clegg, rightly and honourably, talks of reform. The Queen's ghillie even promises reform; but only it seems to avert the public outcry. The leader of the Conservatives remains silent for fear of what may be revealed about his own party. Reform is necessary but so is honour. And while the public may cry out in anger, let them ask themselves: how often have they voted for a Member regardless of that person's moral fibre, regardless of that person's dedication to the task?
For while the rules of Parliament may be deficient, so is the character of those who have abused these rules. It is said that some have amassed fortunes through the purchase of property aided by the state. Even the first Prime Minister, Mr Walpole, would not have dared to assist his followers through such an extent.
It is time for a clear-out.
WEG
For a while words failed me; I was stuck dumb, like the father of the Baptist, but not by the sight of an angel, no by the venality, the greed of those who now purport to represent the British people.
Odysseus served his King for ten years with nothing but a sword and a shield by his side; Our Lord himself instructed his followers to set forth with "neither staves nor scrip, neither bread nor money; neither have two coats apiece." Such sacrifice of personal pleasures appears not to have occurred to those who have sought to inhabit Parliament's hallowed halls in this century. The nation should mourn, not rage; it should clothe itself in sack-cloth and ashes. For not since the time of Cromwell himself has a Parliament been in such disrepute, have the public representatives so demanded that someone should thunder "Be gone and do not darken these doors again!".
He hath put down the mighty from their seats and hath exalted men of low degree.
Such, it seems, was the rise of the Labour movement a century ago. But now it has become mighty, over-mighty, and it is time it was put down. For the most part its leaders are not men and women of low degree; even though possession of a good degree from a modern university appears not to have imparted wisdom.
Mr Nick Clegg, rightly and honourably, talks of reform. The Queen's ghillie even promises reform; but only it seems to avert the public outcry. The leader of the Conservatives remains silent for fear of what may be revealed about his own party. Reform is necessary but so is honour. And while the public may cry out in anger, let them ask themselves: how often have they voted for a Member regardless of that person's moral fibre, regardless of that person's dedication to the task?
For while the rules of Parliament may be deficient, so is the character of those who have abused these rules. It is said that some have amassed fortunes through the purchase of property aided by the state. Even the first Prime Minister, Mr Walpole, would not have dared to assist his followers through such an extent.
It is time for a clear-out.
WEG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
