Neo-puritanism: a Liberal opportunity

I don't normally watch More4 news, but this evening they carried an article suggesting that what with the apparent backpedalling on casinos, the reclassification debate about cannabis and the suggestions of small tax bribes for married couples both the Tories and Labour are entering a period of politics focussed on puritan ethics and, as Tim Worstall would say "bansturbation". Reading the runes of news stories it looks to me as if they may be preparing the ground to retreat on twenty-four hour drinking as well.

So it seems to me that they are leaving open an opportunity for a truly liberal party, say one that has the word "Liberal" in its name, to live up to that name and to take a completely opposite tack and lay claim to what I personally believe most of Britain would prefer given half a chance - a radical social liberal option, verging on libertarian. And one should say that this does not imply permissiveness or license. Most would naturally want grown adults to take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences, but in order to do so they've got to have the right to make choices, not have their freedoms limited for them.

On drugs, Ming and Clegg should speak out right now, while the issue is to the fore, about our own party policy for decriminalization and social supply of cannabis and a full commission on the best way to handle all drugs in future. Perhaps even endorse the "Beyond the war on drugs" report from Transform I've mentioned a couple of times in the past couple of days. We know that up to 80% of property crime at least in some places is related to the illegal drugs industry. We can wipe that out almost entirely almost instantly, and save billions - perhaps the equivalent of a fifth of the public sector budget. Oh, and don't give me that comeback about international treaties - it seems to me that the main narcotics treaties are about financing drugs in other countries - we can produce many of the more popular drugs here without recourse to imports if we wanted and, it would appear, stay within the letter and spirit of those treaties.

With the savings we can be harsher on people who use their new freedoms to harm others.

On marriage and family life, we could make clear that where people take responsibility for a significant other in a co-dependent relationship, whatever their legal relationship, the state should recognize that they take some of the burden from the state and be rewarded by some fiscal incentive.

The casino issue irks me. I did not agree with the idea of a government sanctioned super-casino, but not because of its potential effects on addicted gamblers - if they are that addicted I'm sure they can get to Las Vegas for less money than a return rail fair to Manchester frankly - but because it was rent seeking and protectionist corporate welfare of the worst kind. Whether a locality wants to host significant sized gambling outlets ought to be down to that locality, answerable to local trading standards and taxed locally.

The people of Britain deserve a choice - freedom or the continued nannying of the Tories and Labour. Let's seize this opportunity and give them that choice. With choice comes responsibility. We should believe that the responsible people of Britain would act sensibly given the chance.

Technorati Tags: lib dems, liberty