...it is that The Liberal isn't much good.

The latest issue seems to be an improvement though. As we don't have a leader at present (or atleast just an acting one) it doesn't waste time on telling us why he ought to resign (is there another way for Ben Ramm to get publicity?)

And there is pretty good review of Liberty: Is the future of liberalism progressive?, an IPPR book that was launched (an more or less sunk) at Harrogate. The theme of the editors is that liberalism is clapped-out and past it, and the importatn thing these days is to be progressive (which seems to mean NuLabour). Simon Kovar (for it is he) exposes much of what is wrong with the book and wraps it up like this

Today’s Liberal Democrats require above all a coherent liberal philosophical definition, and a narrative in continuity with the party’s rich and radical history. One positive aspect of this volume is that the strands of liberal thought are evident in the contributions of politicians as diverse as David Laws and Steve Webb: the nourishment of individuality, a critique of political and economic privilege and monopoly, and the fostering of liberal-democratic citizenship. Each of these strands has a social dimension, beginning with a commitment to education (a striking absentee from any collection claiming to strike new ground). Implicit in the subtitle is a question about whether the future of liberalism may be termed ‘social democratic’, or whether, at the very least, liberalism ought to concede the mantle of forward-thinking to social democracy. Is the future of liberalism progressive? No, it’s liberal.

You can read the whole article here.