Social Liberal Forum, Liberal Vision... so many fences to sit on, so hard to choose...

Someone of immense wisdom* suggested to me the other day that the Liberal Democrats are at their best when the three drivers of Party activity - organising, campaigning and thinking - are all heading in the same direction at the same pace. In order to do that, you need people in each of the three strands who understand the value of the other two, and who are influential enough to make it happen.

I have to admit to a sense that, to some extent, the campaigning strand has dominated in recent years, leading to a situation where we have become better and better at conveying messages, whilst simultaneously getting worse and worse at developing the messages to be conveyed. Yes, we can deliver dozens of leaflets, but what goes in them? Is it enough to be simply against 'them', whoever they might be? What are we offering that makes us a better choice, that demonstrates how we will put our principles into action?

And so we have seen the rise of groups based on ideas, first Liberal Vision, who have never really broken out from their perceived libertarian box, and now the Social Liberal Forum, who appear to have struck a rather sharper note if reports of their conference this weekend past are to be believed. I am still to ascertain what it will lead to in terms of a communicable message, but it is early days yet.

Meanwhile, the organisational branch of the Party continues its long trek towards constitutional perfection, seemingly oblivious of the impact of mounting regulation designed to cover every circumstance imaginable, whilst failing to reflect the struggles of small, fragile Local Parties, barely able to run a slate of candidates at local level, let alone take seats and win councils.

It is time to bring the three Liberal Democrat tribes together, for each to start thinking about the impact of its actions on the others, so that we can build a better machine, capable of surviving the next General Election.

Of course, that assumes that we can all come together. My dilemma is one, I suspect, that is shared by many within the Party. I worry that the social liberals are a bit too 'warm and fuzzy' on questions of economics, yet the economic liberal voice is, as I put it, 'as warm and human as a thrown knife'. And you can't really sit on the fence between the two - there's quite a lot of intellectual territory between them, albeit with the odd areas of overlap.

So, neither a social liberal or an economic liberal shall I be - at least, for now. I'm keen for the debate to go on though, if only so that I can be a small, still voice pointing out that it's about more than just ideas, or campaigning, or structure. Which reminds me, there's something that I want to do...

* Yes, that would be Ros...

Liberal Vision - as warm and human as a thrown knife?

I read with some interest the latest missive from Liberal Vision, another condemnation of the works, culture and morals of the Liberal Democrats, and find myself asking the question, "If you dislike us, and most of what we stand for, why do you bother?".

In posting after posting, Liberal Vision's contributors criticise our sense of compassion, our internal structures, our leading personalities, with nary a positive word. Is there nothing about the Liberal Democrats that is pleasing to their rather jaundiced eye? That said, I'm not one of those that suggests that, as an appalling group of neo-liberals with no comprehension of, or sympathy for, the underlying values of the Liberal Democrats, they should leave on the first helicopter out - they are within the spectrum of politics that is liberalism.

However, it is dispiriting to see a relentless stream of sarcasm, carping and disapproval, especially from a group whose activities are a lightning rod for those on the left who accuse us of being 'yellow Tories'. It is hard to stand up for a group who behave in such an unlovely manner.

From issuing a report claiming that swathes of Liberal Democrat seats would be lost unless the Party accepted their policy prescription, to promoting an anonymous witch hunt against prominent Party figures, their approach has appeared designed to alienate rather than persuade, to court publicity rather than seek debate. The sustained support of key Liberal Vision activists for the rehabilitation of Lembit Opik rather than someone whose credibility is more widely accepted is another indication of a divorce, or at least a trial separation, from mainstream Liberal Democrat thinking.

That is not to say that mainstream Liberal Democrat thinking is always right - the fiasco of tuition fees is a reminder that the majority view isn't always optimal. But to be so far from the mainstream so often is a lonely place to be and, if it were me, I might begin to wonder whether campaigning from beyond the constraints of a political party might be more inviting than attempting to do so from within.

Liberal Vision told to "resolve" accuracy issue or "it will come back to haunt us"

So, my cynicism regarding the return of 'Liberal Vision' is renewed by the stance taken in another piece demanding that the Federal Executive do something about Lord Rennard.

A piece containing two major inaccuracies designed to create a stir is published. It then mysteriously gets a prominent place in the blogs of the two leading Conservative commentators, neither of whom could be described as being entirely objective. Describing Liberal Democrat Voice as Cowley Street-backed and conflating Alix Mortimer's personal views with comments made by someone completely different does rather smack of an underhand attempt to force the agenda. And, given the author's undoubted media skills, you'd have to accept that it looks more like conspiracy than cock-up.

Oh yes, by the way Charlotte, saying that misrepresenting someone and, as a result, getting them plenty of coverage, is a good thing is a mite disingenuous.

Now, for the record, I'm not convinced that I've been wildly impressed with Alix Mortimer's approach to the expenses scandal - just a bit too willing to condemn first and consider the rebuttal later for my taste. However, I'm a bureaucrat and I tend to a 'shades of grey' stance rather than a 'fluorescent' one. And, of course, Alix wins awards and I don't, so I'll assume that she's doing something right (that's a compliment Alix, just so that you know...). However, rewriting someone's words, and quoting their private e-mail without permission does smack of abusing someone to do your dirty work for you. It is disrespectful and potentially impacts on Alix's ability to do what she does so well for LDV.

I don't know what will happen regarding the accusations against Chris Rennard and, at the time of writing, I don't know what happened at Federal Executive - you'll have to wait for comment from someone who was there. However, if people want to attack him, I'd rather they did it themselves. After all, we're all in favour of openness and transparency, aren't we?...

Liberal Vision - if it wasn't nailed to its perch, it would be pushing up the daisies...

Three months ago, we all got terribly excited about 'Liberal Vision'. It was all about freedom, removing the dead hand of government from the lives of the people. Not a concept that, in itself, that I was particularly troubled by.

On the other hand, they did feel it necessary to mark our MPs for liberalism - their 'poster boy' promptly calling for a ban on the sale of cheap alcohol by supermarkets - using a set of criteria heavily weighted towards lifestyle-related issues and thus somewhat distorted. They also suggested that most of our MPs would lose their seats unless we pledged tax cuts. As a form of attention seeking, it worked very well, even if such an open display of disloyalty made it difficult to attract public support.

However, they had made an impression, and attracted media interest. Indeed, Mark Littlewood got plenty of air time to perfect his impression of a critical friend of Liberal Democracy. Since then, nothing, nada... not so much a thinktank as an accursed castle, asleep for a hundred years.

Of course, a cynic might suggest that the launch of Liberal Vision was merely a means to gain a platform, and that two rather weak papers were sufficient to fool the mainstream media into giving a 'wannabe' a higher profile than his record merited. Indeed, we've been here before. Ben Ramm, whose almost mythical publication, 'The Liberal', gained him a notoriety arising solely from an uncanny ability to use media opportunities to denigrate the Party.

Liberal Vision's sole asset is Mark Littlewood. He has, regardless of what one might think of his politics, a proven record of attracting coverage. What else might help Liberal Vision to develop a veneer of credibility is yet to become apparent, presuming that it aspires to be anything more than a vehicle for personal vanity...

Anyone would think that there was a problem with freedom

I'm intrigued by all the talk from the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee of banning the sale of cheap alcohol.

Admittedly, I have come to expect such an attitude from Labour, and it is entirely consistent with their philosophy that government knows what is best for us. However, the Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. Why?

1. They claim to believe in the free market. So why do they think that it is right to tell retail outlets what price they should set for their product?
2. They claim to believe in a smaller state. So why are they creating extra regulation, leading to an increase in the need for people to police it? Or are they suggesting that police and/or trading standards officers should give up other work to deal with it?
3. They claim to believe in personal responsibility. So why don't they trust us to regulate our own behaviour - or face the consequences?

Now I don't claim that I am a libertarian, but I do think that we should punish an act that is illegal, not an act that isn't. There is no evidence to suggest that just because I have a few beers, I am likely to go out and punch someone, and I like to think that the people I choose to spend my time with are similarly unlikely to do so. However, if they do commit a crime, I expect them to be punished in a manner which satisfies our definition of justice.

On the other hand, it seems somewhat suspect to claim that you are a libertarian yet call for a ban of the sale of cheap booze by supermarkets. At least I can safely assume that Liberal Vision will be considering such stances when judging our MPs on their liberalism next time. That said, given that it's gone awfully quiet over there since Bournemouth, one wonders if there'll be a next time...