A quick plug here for a new and interesting initiative: Liberty Central. It's a non-party coalition of liberal-minded types who want to see constitutional reform to protect liberty.

Time will tell if it is successful, but the initial plans look good. A liberal constitution, along with electoral reform, is something that Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of. Perhaps this site, along with other developments such as the Power Inquiry Report are signs that these are ideas whose time has come?

The House of Lords has defeated the government over its plans to introduce an offence of 'glorifying' terrorism, by a slender majority of four votes.

What makes this victory so surprising is that the Conservative peers voting against the Bill did so against the orders of their own leadership. From the BBC article:

Conservative peers had been told by their leadership not to vote against the bill and to keep their powder dry for next week's vote on the ID Cards Bill.

But enough Tories ignored this advice so that the Lords voted to remove glorification once again.

I am still finding it hard to understand why the Tory leadership, faced with the prospect of defeating the government again, did their utmost to help the government in the passage of this Bill. Could it be that, perhaps, liberalism is no longer the flavour of the month at Cameron HQ? For a leader trying to defend himself from accusations of flip-flopping, this unprincipled move raises yet more doubts about Cameron's consistency.

For true liberals, the liberal philosophy is not something that can be applied only when we feel like it. Liberalism, by its very nature, requires toughness and self-discipline, the ability to detach oneself from the pressures of the situation to consider the long-term effects of decisions. Liberals have to be able to distinguish between what they don't approve of, and what they would pass laws to prevent. It's not an easy creed to follow as it sometimes involves defending the rights of people we don't like, in order to protect the rights of all. In caving in over this issue, Cameron is showing that he lacks the stomach for a real defence of liberty.

It is worth remembering that, just two weeks ago, the Tory front bench were lined up in opposition to the 'glorification' clause. Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP:

Glorification has no place and should have no place in our law. It is incapable of proper interpretation .... and risks criminalising those the Government does not intend to criminalise. It is, frankly, as a concept, rubbish.

So what changed? I take little enjoyment, as a genuine supporter of liberty and as someone willing to welcome Tories in support of the cause, in concluding that Cameron's commitment to liberty only goes as far as political posturing. But it seems that this conclusion is unavoidable, and that, should he continue in this vein, his credibility will be seriously damaged by the next election. The gap the Tories have to bridge is one of trust and credibility, after the cynicism of the Major years, and these mixed signals are doing nothing to build that trust.

ID cards. Laws against insulting or offending religious viewpoints. Detention for 28 days without trial. Orders which can make legal acts into criminal offences. Abolition of various long-standing elements of the constitution, with no real replacements and no increase in democratic accountability.

Terrible, isn't it? And yet, all of these things pale into insignificance next to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

This bill gives ministers the power to introduce or amend legislation without parliamentary approval. Yes, that's right. This includes the introduction of new criminal offences and modification of the definitions of existing criminal offences. We would be left electing 659 MPs so they can sit powerless whilst the government passes whatever laws it likes. Worse still, ministers are directly appointed by the Prime Minister and could well be Lords rather than MPs. And, due to Labour's botch-job of constitutional reform, the Lords are appointed. So we are faced with the prospect of a PM being able to appoint entirely unelected people to a position where they can pass new laws, without any possibility of democratic veto.

These are not the characteristics of a liberal democracy. These powers have more in common with autocratic and despotic systems of government. The idea that unelected officials can change the very laws of the land is anathema to liberalism, democracy and, if history is any guide, basic common sense.

So what am I trying to say here? That the Tory "demon eyes" poster was right, and that Blair is a modern-day Hitler? No, I am not. It's hard enough arguing for civil liberties without personal comparisons to Hitler being brought into play. But, as a case study in the decline of a broadly liberal democracy, the period immediately before Hitler's rise to power can be instructive.

The real parallel is not with Hitler, but with his predecessor, German President Paul von Hindenburg (under Hitler, the roles of President and Chancellor were combined into the role of Führer). Von Hindenburg was President from 1925 until his death in 1934. Under his presidency, various laws were enacted, strengthening the role of the President. Amongst these new powers was the power to create new emergency laws without the consent of the Reichstag (article 48), the power to dissolve the Reichstag (article 25), making the limitation on the former power useless, and power over the appointment of the Chancellor (article 53).

It was not von Hindenburg who annexed Austria, invaded Poland or instituted the "Final Solution". But without von Hindenburg's massive extension of executive power, it is doubtful whether Hitler would have been able to assume absolute power in the manner in which he did. von Hindenburg was not an evil man, but the tools he created were of immense use to a man who was evil. By establishing the supremacy of the executive over the legislature, von Hindenburg laid the foundations for Hitler's later appropriations of further powers.

I don't believe that Blair appreciates this lesson from history. It is impossible to examine his recent record - just go back to the top of this post to remind yourself - without realising that, in the wrong hands, the powers he is creating could be extremely dangerous. We face many challenges ahead, with international terrorism, declining energy supplies, realignment of international power structures and doubtless myriad threats of which we cannot presently conceive. There may well be ample excuse for any aspirant dictator to use the tools that Blair has created, justifying tyranny by invoking some great threat. If this happens, our ID cards may become a means of imprisoning us, laws against religious offence may be used to prevent debate, the 28-day detention rule may be extended into a form of internment and the principle of ASBOs may be extended to ban any activity deemed "undesirable".

It is often said that Blair cares greatly about his "legacy". If he really does care about this, he would be wise to consider just how terrible that legacy might be if he continues on his present course.

I should point out, at this point, that much of the above post strays into what would commonly be regarded as paranoia. I am not unaware of this, and so I must point out that I do not, by any means, believe that the above scenario is inevitable. I generally subscribe to the views laid out in Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and that, as it is a road, it is possible to travel in either direction. It is my belief that, as a general principle, the only direction we should ever travel in is the direction of greater liberty and democratic accountability. To travel towards greater authoritarianism and less democratic accountability is to risk going too far, and arriving at tyranny.

Until now, I haven't publicly declared support for a particular candidate. Partly this is because of the fact that I'm not too interested in the leadership election itself. This may seem odd, but I find the jockeying for position dull and the focus on personality to be a distraction. I'm not a liberal because of admiration for specific individuals, I'm a liberal because of my admiration for specific principles. Finally, I'd rather be training my fire on our enemies than pointing out the weaknesses of those on our own side.

So I've held off making this post for a while. Since most people have now cast their votes, I might as well explain who I voted for and why. To cut a long story short, I voted for Menzies Campbell as first preference, and Chris Huhne as second.

Like many, I followed the initial twists and turns with avid interest. I feel that Charles Kennedy's downfall was mishandled, but we were bound to be in for some negative publicity whatever happened. Having run the "Tory crisis" story for the last ten years, and holding off on the "Labour crisis" story until Blair's departure becomes imminent, "Lib Dem crisis" was the only story that the papers were interested in writing. For us, it has been something of an education. We are no longer the obscure third party and we should expect tough scrutiny, even occasionally unfair coverage, from the press.

The Mark Oaten story was depressing mostly because it moved the debate even further away from issues of policy and principle, focussing on lurid personal details. Likewise the "outing" of Simon Hughes. But when the dust finally settled, it was clear to me that I had a choice between two candidates: Campbell and Huhne. Why not Hughes? It certainly had nothing to do with his bisexuality, or even his handling of that issue. My view of him has partly been based on the comments of others, relating to his notorious disorganisation. This view seems to be backed up by his general message - relentlessly positive, but light on the details of how to achieve it. He talks of great ambitions for the party, but can point to little achievement in his time as Party President. He also seems unwilling to take on difficult issues that may divide the party. Having said that, he is undoubtedly a passionate advocate of our cause and must have a leading role to play in the future.

Chris Huhne is undoubtedly the surprise of the campaign. When the race looked like Campbell vs Hughes vs Oaten, I was entirely sure that Campbell would get my first preference and quickly came to the conclusion that Hughes would get the second. But Huhne gave me considerable pause for thought. His economic experience was an obvious plus point for me - I generally think that we need a much more in-depth discussion of economic issues in politics and Huhne seems very willing to do that. His campaign has shown purpose and drive, something that is needed. Following Kennedy's laid-back approach, Huhne looks like much more pro-active. However, I do have to take issue with his approach of laying out policies, particularly his green taxation proposal. In another context, his proposals would be very useful, but it is not the leader's job to make policy by fiat. Nor should the leadership campaign be a referendum on policies - we have a conference for that.

That brings me to Ming Campbell. His campaign has not been policy-heavy, but it has demonstrated a solid commitment to liberal principles. I believe that when voting for a leader, I should vote for the person most likely to stand up for the principles that I believe in. Of all three of the candidates, Ming Campbell is the most consistent in doing this. Much has been made of his "gravitas" and, although I think this can be exaggerated, I think he has the credibility to ask serious questions of the government. His questions at PMQs have been good, regularly putting Tony Blair on the back foot. A lesser debater than Tony Blair would have been seriously embarassed by some of the questions, and it is only Blair's ability to ignore the details and focus on the soundbite for the evening news that shields him. Against Gordon Brown, Campbell may well fare better.

Ultimately, I want a leader who reforms the party. Not in the way Labour have reformed, by purging themselves of their history in the pursuit of something "new", nor in the way the Conservatives have reformed by pursuing policies at odds with the opinions of their core supporters. The Liberal Democrat reform must be about organisation, strategy and ambition. It must be based on a confident belief that our message is strong and that we are offering something that people will vote for and want to see implemented in government. We must focus on putting forward a united and coherent argument about what a Liberal Democrat Britain would look like. I believe that all of the candidates could do this, but on the balance of the evidence available to me, I think that Menzies Campbell is the candidate most likely to achieve it.

This post by Lib Dem blogger Andy asks whether liberalism has to apply to everything - specifically, whether it has to apply to the economy.

He takes a certain view and, at least on my first reading, it is a view that I agree with in part, but differ with on some key points. This is not to say that our views are polar opposites or even all that far apart; the extent of economic liberty is a question that has occupied the minds of many people, many of whom came to conclusions much further from my own position. There is also an extent to which these differences are more a matter of emphasis or presentation, than fundamental differences.

However, I think it's important to state that the burden of proof should lie on those who wish to restrict liberty in any field; I start from the presumption that liberty is a good thing unless comprehensively demonstrated otherwise. Even then, I feel it would often be better to tolerate some negative consequences, because I see liberty as its own reward. With that in mind, I do have to take issue with some of Andy's points. I hope that this will be taken as a constructive disagreement, rather than an outright rejection.

To subscribe to unreconstructed economic liberalism is in my view a very unhealthy move, and it perturbs me to see quite so many people seemingly making this argument that Lib Dems are people who believe in liberalism both personally and economically, but see the personal bit as more important. In my case, it is precisely because I believe in personal liberties that I oppose economic liberalism in its uglier forms.

There are many entirely legitimate restrictions on our liberty in even the most liberal of societies; the law sets out many things that we are not permitted to do, because these things have the consequence of infringing the rights of others. We cannot murder, because this infringes the right to life. We cannot steal, because this infringes the right to own property. The key point about these restrictions is that they act to preserve the liberty of others and without such restrictions nobody would have any liberty at all. Therefore, the idea of completely unfettered liberty to do anything is false. Part of the law restricts the activities of businesses.

I see economic liberty as being liberty under the rule of law. Just as the right to life is protected by laws against murder, and the right to own property is protected by laws against theft, economic rights must also be protected by law. No cartel can be allowed to close a market to new competitors, no monopoly can be allowed to restrict the liberty of potential competitors, no law of the land can be bent or broken by any corporation, no matter how powerful. I know of nobody within the Liberal Democrats (and only a bare handful outside) who believe that money should be able to trump the force of law.

To an economic liberal like myself, terms like "ugly" are indicative of a disdain for business and capitalism in general, as though it were a grubby, slightly dirty practice. I might be wrong, but it carries an implicit set of assumptions that I disagree with. Personally, I think that economic liberty has brought fantastic benefits to many of those countries which have practiced it. I am profoundly thankful for my good fortune in being born in a country where economic opportunity is so great, when so many of the world's countries and economics are far more heavily restricted.

So, a free economy restricted only by the laws necessary to guarantee liberty for all. Just as in other areas, freedom for all with the limit being the point at which the rights of others are infringed. This is where I draw my line. I think, thus far, that Andy and I agree. As he states, he disagrees with the idea that the state should take arbitrary powers to control the economy.

The difference appears to be over what the laws are, rather than how they are applied. Unfortunately, a single post is not enough for either of us to lay out a complete vision for economic law, so there are no specific points to argue. I would, however, take issue with this assertion:

But I do see a role for strong regulation and limits on competition, in order to ensure a level playing field. Ultimately, it comes down to the same point that MPH and Oxfam and all that lot make about free trade: It's not the same thing as fair trade.

Firstly, "competition" is a very broad term. I can't see any compelling argument to limit competition, since competition is the engine of progress. It underpins all progress in science, where theories compete for acceptance. It underpins progress in technology, where superior products and methods replace inferior ones. Indeed, competition is at the very heart of nature itself. Without knowing what type of competition is being referred to, I cannot comment further.

Secondly, free trade and fair trade are not incompatible. The fair trade movement is an example of the free market in action, since it presents consumers with a choice. Consumers can choose to pay more in the knowledge that this extra money will, hopefully, benefit those who worked to produce the product. Companies selling such coffee have to be scrupulous in their behaviour, because if people believed that the workers were not gaining a benefit from it, then it would simply be overpriced coffee and nobody would buy it. This is competition in action. Not competition to lower prices, but competition to add ethical value to a product.

Free trade simply means the elimination of tarriffs on trade. In the end, the choice over what to buy is made by the consumer. By allowing for the maximum amount of trade to take place, we give people the widest field of choices to make. Not all choices will be good choices, but I have more faith in the collective wisdom of the people than I do in the committees of government or international trade bodies (heavily lobbied by corporate interests as both are) to make the right choices.

This brings me on to my final point, which I hope will be a point of agreement. Many see economic liberalism as somehow linked to "big business". This is flat out wrong, a misconception that stems (in my view) from the Thatcher government. Economic liberty means lowering the barriers to action, it means making it easier for businesses to start and operate. This benefits small businesses and new startups far more than it benefits the global mega-corporations, with their armies of lawyers and accountants. Planning permission is a far bigger hurdle for local shops than it is for Tesco or Asda. Raising the bar simply means that only the biggest can jump over it.

When we consider how "regulation" is often decided, it becomes obvious. Government often "consults" with "industry leaders" about new regulation. This is often presented as being an economically liberal thing to do by the government. The reality is that established industry interests often want to see more regulation, or at least more of the type of regulation that will raise the barrier to entering their industry. If it is made harder to enter an industry, the established companies are given an advantage. Regulation restricts competition, but who benefits here? It can hardly be the consumer, who is now served by a restricted field of companies who have less incentive to improve because they have less fear for their position.

Of course, this is not a case for abolishing all regulation. But it is a case for radically different regulation, which focusses more on setting tough penalties for illegal behaviour than on insisting on costly and bureaucratic compliance exercises. I think that this is something that, as liberals, we should all be agreeing on.

I'd like to end this post with an observation: I began fired up by a sense of righteous indignation, feeling that I had to defend my views which I felt were under attack. Yet as I proceeded to write the post, this feeling ebbed away as I considered the actual differences. I think that the whole question of economic liberalism has become weighed down with emotive language and knee-jerk reactions which far outweight the differences at stake. Economic liberalism isn't "devil take the hindmost", nor are all laws and regulations quasi-communism. I feel that much of the current government's economic regulation is wrong-headed, but that does not mean that my alternative would be anarchy. In this, I think we all agree far more than many of us realise.

First of all, apologies for light blogging recently - busy time, unfortunately.

However, I can't let the Dunfermline by-election pass without comment, because it is the most important thing to have happened since Charles Kennedy's resignation.

The media narrative since Kennedy's downfall has been that the Lib Dems have been fundamentally damaged, even discredited; that our appeal lay in the showbiz personality of Charles Kennedy and a general, if some what fuzzy, reputation as nice, honest folk and that Kennedy's departure, followed by Mark Oaten's revelations, had forever tarnished that image. The result in Dunfermline comprehensively refutes this.

It is evidence of something that is difficult for many to appreciate: that events in the Westminster bubble are largely irrelevant to mainstream politics. David Cameron has charmed everyone at Westminster, yet the Tories were down from 10% to 8%. Conventional wisdom has it that Gordon Brown is an immensely popular PM-in-waiting, and that once Blair goes, a "Brown Bounce" will guarantee Labour victory at the next election. Yet despite Brown's personal intervention, as a resident of the contested constituency no less, Labour saw an 11,500 majority wiped out on a 16% swing.

If one based one's understanding of British politics entirely on the output of the media, then stepping out into the fresh east coast Scottish air of Dunfermline would have been like stepping into a bizarre mirror world, in which those believed to be discredited were winning, and those believed to have a political midas touch saw their efforts turn to, well, something considerably less pleasant than a bar of gold.

For Liberal Democrats, it proves that the fundamental appeal of the party is still strong - strong enough to win elections, and that's what counts. It is something many have long believed; that the fundamental position of the Liberal Democrats is good, that the real alternative to Labour is not Labour-lite in the form of David Cameron, but genuine liberalism. It is a point that blogger Cicero made today. Liberal Democrats should take strength from this victory, and be reminded that no matter what the papers say, the votes of the people shout loudest of all.