Letter: Taking liberties
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: If Ken Livingstone (Comment, 13 January) wishes to accuse Philip Gould of "a complete ignorance of British history" he should brush up on his own history first.
Arguing that the Liberals were in decline from the 1850s, and seeing the 1886 split as sealing the party's fate, reckons without the landslide of 1906, and the radical government it ushered in. True, there was a dramatic split in 1886, but the party recovered completely.
It is an oversimplification to say that the Liberals were a party of classical laissez-faire capitalism. Again, Ken Livingstone overlooks the party's reforms from 1906 on issues such as pensions, which most historians agree amounted to the foundation of the welfare state. Later, in 1928 it was not laissez-faire capitalism but creative government action in areas such as public works that Lloyd George promoted in an attempt to conquer unemployment.
Dr RICHARD GRAYSON
Director
Centre for Reform
London, SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments