You need to register to read it unfortunately, but registration gives free access for 7 days. (Remember to cancel – it’s one of those annoying registrations where you have to give credit card details!)
In particular, Gladstone mixed a belief in free trade and laissez faire economic policies with, over the years, an increasing support for new forms of regulation as required by the country’s swift social change – a mix which cuts across conventional left/right dividing lines but sits comfortably with many modern Liberals and then Liberal Democrats.
Indeed. Gladstone recognised the shortcomings of what those who endorse it today like to call “19th century liberalism” or even “Gladstonian liberalism” in the face of the technological and social changes he saw later in his life. That’s what makes him a greater man than them. Everything that made simple laissez-faire not nearly as “pure freedom” as the simplistic suppose has grown hugely more so since then. Gladstone could see it in its infancy, simpletons who call themselves “19th century liberals” today can’t see it now, maybe they still think we’re living in the 19th century.
Matthew: Gladstone did not abandon his individualism. Indeed in 1894 after he had relinquished the premiership, he wrote: “I am thankful to have borne a part in the emancipating labours of the last sixty years; but entirely uncertain how, had I now to begin my life, I could face the very different problems of the next sixty years. Of one thing I am, and always have been, convinced—it is not by the State that man can be regenerated, and the terrible woes of this darkened world effectually dealt with.”
Gladstone supported intervention by the state on a small scale when it was clear no other solution was forthcoming. It is extremely hard to imagine him advocating a national health service, for example. Indeed such a scheme is the antithesis of his self-help philosophy.
What I’ve been reading (via LibDig.co.uk)
Here’s the 1992 Economist editorial Dr Biagini mentioned: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-12150017.html
You need to register to read it unfortunately, but registration gives free access for 7 days. (Remember to cancel – it’s one of those annoying registrations where you have to give credit card details!)
Thanks for posting that helpful link.
In particular, Gladstone mixed a belief in free trade and laissez faire economic policies with, over the years, an increasing support for new forms of regulation as required by the country’s swift social change – a mix which cuts across conventional left/right dividing lines but sits comfortably with many modern Liberals and then Liberal Democrats.
Indeed. Gladstone recognised the shortcomings of what those who endorse it today like to call “19th century liberalism” or even “Gladstonian liberalism” in the face of the technological and social changes he saw later in his life. That’s what makes him a greater man than them. Everything that made simple laissez-faire not nearly as “pure freedom” as the simplistic suppose has grown hugely more so since then. Gladstone could see it in its infancy, simpletons who call themselves “19th century liberals” today can’t see it now, maybe they still think we’re living in the 19th century.
Matthew: Gladstone did not abandon his individualism. Indeed in 1894 after he had relinquished the premiership, he wrote: “I am thankful to have borne a part in the emancipating labours of the last sixty years; but entirely uncertain how, had I now to begin my life, I could face the very different problems of the next sixty years. Of one thing I am, and always have been, convinced—it is not by the State that man can be regenerated, and the terrible woes of this darkened world effectually dealt with.”
Gladstone supported intervention by the state on a small scale when it was clear no other solution was forthcoming. It is extremely hard to imagine him advocating a national health service, for example. Indeed such a scheme is the antithesis of his self-help philosophy.