BLOG » National Liberal Party | LIBERTY: INDEPENDENCE: DEMOCRACY: ECOLOGY

BLOG » National Liberal Party | LIBERTY: INDEPENDENCE: DEMOCRACY: ECOLOGY Thursday, 23 April 2026 BLOG STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES NEW HORIZON POSTS JOIN the NLP LIBERTY WALL St George’s Committee Nations without States English Green National Liberal Trade Unionist Fourth World Review Total Democracy Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? Liberal Future PARTY ORGANISATION National Council Campaigns Urge India and UN to send UN Peacekeepers to Kashmir and carry out a plebiscite Vote NLP 2021 European Election 2014 WHO ARE THE NATIONAL LIBERALS? WILLS & BEQUESTS POLICY BRIEF GOALS RESOURCES ELECTIONS HISTORICAL RECOMMENDED READING DONATE Old Campaigns AV CAMPAIGN Referendum News Campaign News SELF-DETERMINATION FOR ALL NATIONAL LIBERALISM Head & Heart HISTORY Historical Figures NATIONALISM VS LIBERALISM? THE THREE PILLARS OF NATIONAL LIBERALISM NATIONAL LIBERALS VS LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NATIONAL LIBERALS WORLDWIDE NLP Overseas NL Associations/Parties Country Report/Turkey National Liberals in Turkish parliamentary election Country Report/Russia Country Report/Lebanon For Economic Self-Determination Self-Determination is a human right Referendums Categories Recent Blog Posts Back To The Future? March 16 SUSTAIN WILTSHIRE is an initiative founded by Crapper and Sons Landfill Ltd.  It’s a family ru [...] Iran Has Been Attacked By US And Israel When Peace Was Within Reach March 9 WHAT ARE WE to make of the unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel at the end of last month – espec [...] Some Climate Change Deniers Are Like The Flat Earth Brigade! February 9 MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE that politics simply consists of making as much noise as possible via demonst [...] Electoral Reform In Westminster January 26 THE ELECTORAL Reform Society (ERS) describes itself as ‘an independent organisation leading the [...] 'Might Is Right' Is Wrong January 12 WHAT SHOULD WE make of the latest headline grabbing adventure brought to us by the US military– [...] Tweets by NationalLibera4 Back To The Future? SUSTAIN WILTSHIRE is an initiative founded by Crapper and Sons Landfill Ltd.  It’s a family run business that has been established for over 40 years.  They are based on the outskirts of Wootton Bassett. The initiative is committed to recycling, reusing and repurposing landfill sites to create sustainable energy and heat. This, in turn, enables year-round fruit and vegetable production. This is a new twist on the very old idea of a midden & is literally a case of back to the future.  (A midden is basically a pile or heap of waste materials, often organic such as animal dung, food scraps, or other household rubbish.)  Middens would be piled outside homes.  The waste decomposed, providing heat, material to burn and composted biomass. GROWING DOMES Sustain Wiltshire aims to place pressured growing domes on the surface of sealed landfill sites.  (These domes will be three times the size of a standard tennis court, and twice the height of a London double decker bus.) Methan gas – which is currently burnt off – will be used to generate electricity and heat.  Modern technology will ensure that a perfect growing temperature will be maintained all year round.  Low-impact ultraviolet horticultural lights will also extend the growing season. Growing methods would include hydroponics – a method of growing plants without soil, using nutrient-rich water to deliver essential minerals directly to the roots – raised growing beds and plant containers JOBS CREATED It’s predicted that each growing dome will produce 8,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables each year.  (In addition, 130 new jobs will be created, and the release of 3,800 tonnes of CO2 each year will be prevented.) And it’s believed that this initiative will provide 80% of all fruit and vegetable requirements for the local communities of Wootton Bassett, Brinkworth, Malmesbury and Purton. It’s believed that this form of localism – which includes a distribution hub & daily delivery service – will mean that the fruit and vegetables will be cheaper than those available from supermarkets.  In time, it’s hoped that deliveries could also include dairy products and meat from local farmers. We National Liberals are autonomists, decentralists, environmentalists & localists.  We also believe that each nation should be as self-sufficient as is possible (although we accept that it may not be possible to achieve 100% autarky.)  We are opposed to the idea of people being servile serfs & support the idea of people becoming sovereign citizens.  Therefore, we welcome this Sustain Wiltshire initiative as a move in the right direction. • TO FIND out more, check out uk/ Share: Date: March 16, 2026 Categories: Articles Iran Has Been Attacked By US And Israel When Peace Was Within Reach WHAT ARE WE to make of the unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel at the end of last month – especially when diplomatic talks were making headway? President Trump (in particular) has come under a lot of criticism over his actions.  However, he’s not really doing anything out of the ordinary for a US president.  In fact, can you recall the last one who didn’t start a war anywhere in the world? The optics are certainly different – Trump’s manner & presentation are notoriously blunt – but it’s simply business as usual.  The US is a capitalist state and, as we’ve explained countless times, Trump is a National Capitalist. Capitalism requires three elements to function – cheap labour, an ever-expanding market & raw materials.  These elements are usually acquired via the boardroom.  If peaceful wheeling & dealing fails, the US military–industrial complex swings into action & uses brute force. By sheer co-incidence, Iran has large reserves of oil and natural gas.  It also has abundant deposits of copper, iron ore, coal, lead, zinc, gold, and other minerals. (These resources make Iran one of the most resource-rich nations in the Middle East, and they play a key role in its geopolitical and economic significance.). if the US wanted to dismantle that state they would have supported the numerous national minorities that live within that state’s fringes but they haven’t. The Shia Muslim majority in Iran tend to be conservative & less materialistic in nature.  That’s absolutely no use to the US capitalist state. We feel that the US views Israel effectively as its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East.  Israel know this which is why it also attacked Iran (which is very much opposed to Zionism) and is effectively allowed to do what it wants in the area. As we noted earlier, all this happened when it appeared that diplomacy was working.  To try and make sense of the situation, we reproduce an article by Dr. Bamo Nouri which recently appeared on The Conversation website. You can read the original here iran-has-been-attacked-by-us- and-israel-when-peace-was- within-reach-277175 The Conversation is a network of nonprofit media outlets publishing articles by academic researchers in their respective areas of expertise. It goes without saying that there are no links between Dr. Bamo Nouri, The Conversation & the National Liberal Party. Iran Has Been Attacked By US And Israel When Peace Was Within Reach US AND IRANIAN negotiators met in Geneva (1) earlier this week in what mediators described as the most serious and constructive talks in years. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, spoke publicly of “unprecedented openness,” (2) signalling that both sides were exploring creative formulations rather than repeating entrenched positions. Discussions showed flexibility on nuclear limits and sanctions relief, and mediators indicated that a principles agreement could have been reached within days, with detailed verification mechanisms to follow within months. Sensing how close the negotiations were — and how imminent military escalation had become — Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, made an emergency dash to Washington (3) in a last-ditch effort to preserve the diplomatic track. In an unusually public move for a mediator, he appeared on CBS to outline just how far the talks had progressed. He described a deal that would eliminate Iranian stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, down-blend existing material inside Iran (4), and allow full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — with the possibility of US inspectors participating alongside them. Iran, he suggested, would enrich only for civilian purposes. A principles agreement, he indicated, could be signed within days. It was a remarkable disclosure — effectively revealing the contours of a near-breakthrough in an attempt to prevent imminent war. But rather than allowing diplomacy (5) to conclude, the US and Israel have launched coordinated strikes across Iran (6). Explosions were reported in Tehran and other cities. Trump announced “major combat operations,” (7) framing them as necessary to eliminate nuclear and missile threats while urging Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow their leadership. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting US bases and allied states across the region. What is most striking is not merely that diplomacy failed, but that it failed amid visible progress. Mediators were openly discussing a viable framework; both sides had demonstrated flexibility – a pathway to constrain nuclear escalation appeared tangible. Choosing military escalation at that moment undermines the premise that negotiation is a genuine alternative to war. It signals that even active diplomacy offers no guarantee of restraint. Peace was not naïve. It was plausible. Iran’s approach in Geneva was strategic, not submissive. Proposals involving economic incentives – including energy cooperation (8) – were not unilateral concessions but calculated compromises designed to structure a politically survivable agreement in Washington. The core objective was clear: constrain Iran’s nuclear programme through enforceable limits and intrusive verification, thereby addressing the very proliferation risks that sanctions and threats of force were meant to prevent. Talks had moved beyond rhetorical posturing toward concrete proposals. For the first time in years, there was credible movement toward stabilizing the nuclear issue (9). By attacking during that negotiation window, Washington and its allies have not only derailed a diplomatic opening but have cast doubt on the durability of American commitments to negotiated solutions. The message to Tehran – and to other adversaries weighing diplomacy – is stark: even when talks appear to work, they can be overtaken by force. IRAN IS NOT IRAQ OR LIBYA Advocates of escalation often invoke Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011 as precedents for rapid regime collapse under pressure. Those analogies are misleading. Iraq and Libya were highly personalised systems, overly dependent on narrow patronage networks and individual rulers. Remove the centre, and the structure imploded. Iran is structurally different. It is not a dynastic dictatorship but an ideologically entrenched state with layered institutions, doctrinal legitimacy and a deeply embedded security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its authority is intertwined with religious, political and strategic narratives cultivated over decades. It has endured sanctions, regional isolation and sustained external pressure without fracturing. Even a previous US-Israeli campaign in 2025 that lasted 12 days failed to eliminate Tehran’s retaliatory capacity. Far from collapsing, the state absorbed pressure and responded (10). Hitting such a system with maximum force does not guarantee implosion; it may instead consolidate internal cohesion and reinforce narratives of external aggression that the leadership has long leveraged. THE MIRAGE OF REGIME CHANGE Rhetoric surrounding the strikes has already shifted from tactical objectives to the language of regime change. US and Israeli leaders framed military action not solely as neutralising missile or nuclear capabilities, but as an opportunity for Iranians to overthrow their government. That calculus – regime change by force – is historically fraught with risk. An incoming missile crashes into the sea off the port of Haifa in Israel as Iran retaliates. AP Photo/Leo Correa The Iraq invasion should be a cautionary tale. The US spent more than a decade cultivating multiple Iraqi opposition groups – yet dismantling the centralised state apparatus still produced chaos, insurgency and fragmentation. The vacuum gave rise to extremist organisations such as IS, drawing the US into years of renewed conflict. Approaching Iran with similar assumptions ignores both its institutional resilience and the complexity of regional geopolitics. Sectarian divisions, entrenched alliances and proxy networks mean that destabilisation in Tehran would not remain contained. It could rapidly spill across borders and harden into prolonged confrontation. A REGION WIRED FOR ESCALATION Iran has invested heavily in asymmetric capabilities (11) precisely to deter and complicate external intervention. Its missile, drone and naval systems are embedded along the strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy — and linked into a network of regional allies and militias. In the current escalation, Tehran has already launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military bases and allied territories in the Gulf (12), hitting locations in Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (including Abu Dhabi), Kuwait and Qatar in direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s cities, including Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. Explosions have been reported in Bahrain and the UAE, with at least one confirmed fatality in Abu Dhabi (13), and several bases housing US personnel have been struck or targeted, underscoring how the conflict has already spread beyond Iran’s borders. A full-scale regional war is now more likely than it was a week ago. Miscalculation could draw multiple states into conflict, inflame sectarian fault lines and disrupt global energy markets. What might have remained a contained nuclear dispute now risks expanding into a wider geopolitical confrontation. WHAT ABOUT TRUMP’S PROMISE OF NO MORE FOREVER WARS? Trump built his political brand opposing “endless wars” and criticising the Iraq invasion. “America First” (14) promised strategic restraint, hard bargaining and an aversion to open-ended intervention. Escalating militarily at the very moment diplomacy was advancing sits uneasily with that doctrine and revives questions about the true objectives of US strategy in the Middle East. Tehran and other Iranian cities have come under heavy bombardment from Israel and the US. AP Photo If a workable nuclear framework was genuinely emerging, abandoning it in favour of escalation invites a deeper question: does sustained tension serve certain strategic preferences more comfortably than durable peace? Trump’s Mar-a-Lago address (15) announcing the strikes carried unmistakable echoes of George W. Bush before the 2003 invasion of Iraq (16). Military action was framed as reluctant yet necessary – a pre-emptive move to eliminate gathering threats and secure peace through strength. The rhetoric of patience exhausted and danger confronted before it fully materialises closely mirrors the language Bush used to justify the march into Baghdad. The parallel extends beyond tone. Bush cast the Iraq war as liberation as well as disarmament, promising Iraqis freedom from dictatorship. Trump similarly urged Iranians to reclaim their country, implicitly linking force to regime change. In Iraq, that fusion of shock and salvation produced not swift democratic renewal but prolonged instability. The assumption that military force can reorder political systems from the outside has already been tested – and its costs remain visible. The central challenge now facing the US is not simply Iran’s military capability. It is credibility. Abandoning negotiations mid-course signals that diplomacy can be overridden by force even when progress is visible. That perception will resonate far beyond Tehran. Peace was never guaranteed. It was limited and imperfect, focused primarily on nuclear constraints rather than human rights or regional proxy networks. But it was plausible – and closer than many assumed. Breaking the bridge while building it does more than halt a single agreement – it risks convincing both sides that negotiation itself is futile. In that world, trust erodes, deterrence hardens and aggression – not agreement – becomes the default language of international power. What we are witnessing is yet another clear indication that the rules-based order has been consigned to the history books. (1) articles/c86yjnw4x49o (2) world/live/2026/feb/26/us- iran-nuclear-talks-middle- east-latest-news-updates (3) news/2026/2/27/omans-foreign- minister-meets-with-uss-vance- as-middle-east-tensions-rise (4) topics/iran-1870 (5) topics/diplomacy-79 (6) live/cn5ge95q6y7t (7) 2026/02/28/trump-iran- operation-00805558 (8) 27f02d44-a223-4934-8f2b- 7cfd8772b181 (9) articles/cvg1vd95nl9o (10) the-us-and-israels-attack-may- have-left-iran-stronger-260314 (11) irans-evolving-military- complementing-asymmetric- doctrine-with-conventional- capabilities (12) news/2026/2/28/multiple-gulf- arab-states-that-host-us- assets-targeted-in-iran- retaliation (13) middle-east/iran-fires- missiles-gulf-arab-states-one- killed-abu-dhabi-2026-02-28/ (14) briefings-statements/2025/01/ president-trumps-america- first-priorities/ (15) v=o-E7DIctrzo (16) v=3Cx3YjKV-L4 Share: Date: March 9, 2026 Categories: Articles Some Climate Change Deniers Are Like The Flat Earth Brigade! MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE that politics simply consists of making as much noise as possible via demonstrations, pickets and so on.  Whilst various forms of street activism are important, they’re not the be all & end all of politics. In fact, it’s probably true to say that more than enough serious political work goes on behind the scenes, as opposed to on the streets.  Indeed,  well disciplined & orderly large-scale street activities simply wouldn’t take place if it wasn’t for backroom planning. But working behind the scenes is not as exciting – or ‘glamourous’ – as taking part in demonstrations.  Therefore, many people are put off by what are viewed as boring & repetitive administrative tasks. It could be argued that writing letters to the press – especially the local press – falls under this category.  Nevertheless, it remains a great way of getting National Liberal points of view across to the public and/or promoting constructive & respectful debate. An example of this is reproduced below. Here, Brent Cheetham, the NLPs well-known Councillor for Cuffley (in Hertfordshire) managed to get a letter published yesterday in the Hertfordshire Mercury under their banner headline of Some Climate Change Deniers Are Like The Flat Earth Brigade! Hopefully, this form of respectful public engagement will help promote the ongoing debate about climate change. Dear Sirs, In my humble view Mr Jeremy Hall asks some valid questions regarding some folks’ attitude to “climate change” and the environment. At one time there was great opposition to having plumbed in hot and cold running water to our houses. Something taken nowadays for granted and something that the health of the country has greatly improved due to better sanitation. There were protest meetings held across the country as to the imposition of this much needed improvement to the nation’s health and well-being. And just like some of the so-called climate change deniers, such folk even refused to acknowledge that there was a problem even though such a problem was held in plain sight. Most folk nowadays just laugh at the opposition to plumbed in water, and the most famous saying at the time against plumbed in water was “If you give baths to the working class, they will only use it to store coal.” Probably most folk of my generation will be pushing up daisies before climate change has a real impact on us? This is beside the point, as what we should be thinking about is not ourselves but future generations and not the short-term benefits that fossil fuels can provide. We need to discuss our over reliance on such fuels. Some of the more extreme climate change deniers remind me of that small group of individuals who still claim the earth is flat. My guess and hope is that future generations will just laugh at those folk today who refuse to move on and are just stuck in the rut of the past. Are they becoming just part of the cultural residue of a bygone age? Share: Date: February 9, 2026 Categories: Articles Electoral Reform In Westminster THE ELECTORAL Reform Society (ERS) describes itself as ‘an independent organisation leading the campaign for your democratic rights.’ It was formed way back in 1884 as the Proportional Representation Society.  Here, academics, parliamentarians and members of the legal profession discussed the inadequacies of – and sought solutions to – the voting system. Nearly 150 years later they are still leading the charge for electoral reform.  It’s clear to all fair-minded people that the current ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) is actually undemocratic.  But what should replace it? To answer this, our attention was recently drawn to this interesting article – the original of which can be found here uk/campaigns/electoral-reform/ – from the ERS. It’s no secret that the National Liberal Party prefers the voting system known as Proportional Representation (PR).  However, we’re more than happy to look at other systems such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) as advocated by the ERS.  In short, anything has to be better than FPTP! It goes without saying that there are no links between the Electoral Reform Society & the National Liberal Party.  As usual, we’ve posted this article up to stimulate debate.  Readers can comment on the NLP Facebook page – NationalLiberalParty – or the National Liberals Facebook page – groups/52739504313 Electoral Reform In Westminster The way we elect our MPs is not fit for purpose GENERAL ELECTIONS are supposed to be the big events that allow us all to influence the direction the country will take over the next few years. Everyone has an equal voice in their vote, and the ensuring government can pass laws in our name, on the basis that we elected it. But that’s not what happens. The way we elect MPs to Westminster means that our parliament doesn’t represent Britain. The link between how popular a party is at the polling booth and how many seats they get in the House of Commons is weak and unpredictable – and only gets more chaotic the more parties there are. This means that the issues that are important in Westminster aren’t the same as the issues the public feels strongly about. When Parliament doesn’t represent public opinion, it has a real impact on life in Britain – it’s time we made sure seats matched votes to put voters back in control. GENERAL ELECTIONS In 2024 Labour won 63% of the seats in parliament on just 33.7% of the vote In 2019, the Conservative Party turned 43.6% of the vote into 56.2% of the seats in parliament. In 2017, the Conservatives had a lead of 2.5% in the popular vote over Labour, yet nearly had enough MPs to govern alone. In 2015, The Greens and UKIP won nearly five million votes but received just two seats between them. MAJOR ISSUES CAN BE DISREGARDED The way we elect MPs to Westminster means that politicians can ignore major issues. People who vote for candidates who don’t get elected aren’t represented at all. In the 2024 General Election, 58% of voters in the UK (1) ended up with an MP they didn’t vote for. But votes that stack up for winning candidates don’t make a difference either. Once a candidate has enough votes to win, any extra doesn’t make them win more Millions of people voted yet had no influence on the outcome. The issues they care about can be easily tossed aside, to be only dealt with when they are too much to ignore. This isn’t inevitable. Most parliaments around the world use systems that mean they have to work on the major issues the public care about – because voters are in charge. You can find out about different ways of choosing MPs in our Voting Systems (2) section. AN ENGINE OF INSTABILITY The foundation of political stability is popular support – something not needed under our winner takes all system that sees parties handed large unearned majorities, and the power that comes with them, on minority support. No party has won a majority of the vote in a UK general election in almost a century, yet due to First Past the Post we have near-constant single-party governments setting the rules for everyone. Our parliaments never represent the views of the public, allowing small cliques to dominate the political agenda. Governments in the UK are like castles built on sand. FOSTERING DIVISION BETWEEN US Westminster’s voting system artificially divides the country, polarising us rather than allowing us to come together. While the results map can only have one colour per constituency, in reality, you’ll never find a town where everyone is the same. Westminster’s one-person-takes all system makes everything black and white, hiding the many areas of agreement. Every issue becomes a stick to defeat an opponent, rather than something to be solved to the advantage of all. It’s impossible for one MP to represent everyone in their constituency – which is why in most countries around the world you get a group of MPs for each area (3), representing the mix of opinions in that area. That’s the core idea of proportional representation – opinions in society are represented in proportion to their numbers. NO GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT WINNER Westminster’s First Past the Post electoral system normally delivers governments the majority didn’t vote for, but it also sometimes puts parties in power, even if they came second in the popular vote. In 1951 48.8% of voters wanted a Labour government and 48% wanted a Conservative government. Yet there was a Conservative majority (4). And in the February election of 1974, Labour won 301 seats to 297 for the Conservatives – despite the Conservatives beating Labour in votes by 0.7%. First Past the Post is the worst possible system for electing our representatives. We want to see the Single Transferable Vote, a fairer, more proportional voting system (5) that makes seats match votes – and means no one’s voice is ignored. (1) electoral-reform.org.uk (2) uk/voting-systems/ (3) uk/voting-systems/types-of- voting-system/single- transferable-vote/ (4) uk/on-the-anniversary-of-a- stolen-election-let-1951s- wrong-winner-vote-be-a-lesson- to-us-all/ (5) uk/voting-systems/types-of- voting-system/single- transferable-vote/ Share: Date: January 26, 2026 Categories: Articles ‘Might Is Right’ Is Wrong WHAT SHOULD WE make of the latest headline grabbing adventure brought to us by the US military–industrial complex?   Here, the events of 3rd January in Venezuela will probably soon feature in the Guinness Book of Records as the quickest regime change in history. With President Nicolás Moros & his wife behind bars, Delcy Rodríguez is acting president.  However, her hands are tied. She’ll have to do as she’s told by the US. We’ve maintained for a long time that US President Trump is a National Capitalist & everything is about making money.   Thus, his mentality leads him to believe that everyone and everything is seen as a ‘commodity’ to be bought and sold for a price. Any form of capitalism requires three elements to function – cheap labour, an ever-expanding market & raw materials.  By a sheer co-incidence, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, the ninth-largest natural gas reserves, and vast untapped minerals including gold (1). Trump has previously talked about taking the US down a non-interventionalist path. However, now he’s acting as a frontman for Washington-Wall Street internationalist interests.  (Why the change in direction – is there some sort of powerplay going on behind the scenes?)  For the moment, however, it seems that greed and the need to acquire yet more global power & wealth is winning. To try and make more sense of what’s happening in Venezuela –we reproduce an article – the original of which can be found here might-is-right-is-wrong – by Paul Embery, which appeared yesterday. Embery became a member of the Labour Party in the early 90s.  He’s also a trade union activist (with the Fire Brigades Union – FBU).  His views are probably best described as a form of patriotic & traditional working-class socialism.  We’ve also reproduced his article as part of our ongoing strategy of promoting debate, particularly between those who hold alternative & non-conformist points of view. It goes without saying that there are no links between Paul Embery, the Labour Party, the FBU & the National Liberal Party. ‘Might Is Right’ Is Wrong Civilisation itself rests on the principle that the strong must not be given licence to attack the weak Photo: Molly Riley, via Wikimedia Commons I NEVER cease to be amazed at how members of our political elite doggedly refuse to learn the lessons of history. Worse, some of them appear to have no knowledge of the past beyond the previous fortnight. How else might we explain the support shown by certain voices for the decision by President Trump to bomb Venezuela, seize its sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and effectively turn the country into a US colony? Let me stress that, while I am on the left, I am not blind to the socialist Maduro’s misdeeds. There is strong evidence that he stole the 2024 presidential election, and that crime alone would be reason enough for Venezuelans to want rid of him. But who decreed that the White House should act as the planet’s law enforcement agency? What gives Trump the right to launch a military assault on another sovereign nation – one that posed no clear and present threat to the US – without consulting the United Nations, fellow world leaders or even his own Congress? We’ve seen this movie many times. US-led interventions in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq became wars of attrition before ending up as military and political catastrophes. Similarly, the 2011 US-backed Libyan escapade – almost entirely ignored by the political and media classes these days – sparked a seismic migration crisis which plagued Europe for years thereafter. The pretext for such interventions is usually the liberation of an oppressed population and the promotion of democracy and human rights. The reality, however, is that the US has a grubby history of collaboration with despotic and corrupt regimes across the globe. It’s just that those regimes happen to serve its interests in a way that the Maduros of this world don’t. ‘Realpolitik’, they call it. Utter hypocrisy, I say. We should, I suppose, at least commend Trump for not trying to fool us with guff about defending democracy and human rights in Venezuela. On the contrary, he was searingly honest in his admission that this intervention was all about oil and strategic advantage. He is plainly willing to use the mighty war machine at his disposal in the service of a new American imperialism, and he doesn’t care who knows it. Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO-member Denmark, is next on the hit list – and that’s when the balloon will really go up. (1) news/2026/1/8/what-resources- does-venezuela-have-apart- from-the-worlds-most Share: Date: January 12, 2026 Categories: Articles More About Mondragón Left: José María Arizmendiarrieta (1915-1976) provided the vision for – and was the driving force behind – the Mondragón Corporation, which is situated in the Basque Country. Centre: A female worker employed at the Mondragón Corporation headquarters building. Right: A male production worker at one of the many co-operatives that make up the Mondragón Corporation. Picture credits can be found under our article EARLY last month we looked at José María Arizmendiarrieta, who was the founder of the Mondragón Corporation (which is situated in the Basque Country). He arrived in Mondragón in February 1941.  Just two years later he established a technical school (now part of Mondragón University) to train young workers in skills like engineering.  From here, in 1956, he encouraged five graduates to establish the first industrial co-operative in Mondragón. HUMBLE BEGINNINGS From these humble beginnings the Mondragón Corporation grew to become the largest worker co-operative network in the world. To this day, it’s still rooted in – and strictly adheres to – its core objectives.  They include worker ownership, democratic governance, solidarity, and social responsibility.  All this is done whilst competing globally in various sectors including industry, finance, retail & knowledge. The latest available statistics that we’ve come across (from 2024) are very impressive: Employment: Over 70,000 workers worldwide (approximately 30,660 in the Basque Country, 29,340 in the rest of Spain, and nearly 10,000 abroad). Around 85% in core co-operatives are member-owners. Sales/Revenue: €11.213 billion in 2024 (a 1.6% increase from 2023’s €11.056 billion). Profitability: Net profit of €632 million. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation (EBITDA) up 11.8% to €1.661 billion. Investments: €377 million in 2024, contributing to €1.692 billion over the past five years. Structure: The Mondragón Corporation is comprised of approximately 81 core co-operatives. The above statistics remind us of the well-known saying, ‘From little acorns, mighty oaks grow.’ As we’ve previously noted, the Mondragón Corporation grew from José María Arizmendiarrieta’s vision of a social economy based on co-operation. LEADING FORCE From very humble beginnings it’s grown to become Spain’s 10th-largest business group and a leading force in the Basque economy. It generates wealth through competitive enterprises in manufacturing (producing the likes of appliances, vehicle components & machine tools), retail (Eroski supermarkets), finance (Laboral Kutxa bank), and education/research (Mondragon University). Interestingly, the failure rate of co-operatives is very low (historically around 5%).  And when co-operatives do fail, the workers tend to get new jobs very quickly. SOCIAL IMPACT It’s also interesting to look at the social impact of these co-operatives: Worker Democracy and Equity: One-person-one-vote governance.  Pay ratios are capped between 3:1 to 9:1 (with the average being 5-6:1). This is way below the typical corporate CEO-to-worker gaps. (Incredibly, this can be up to & over 300:1.) Solidarity Mechanisms: Inter-cooperation funds support struggling co-ops. This minimises layoffs.  The fund also provides internal relocation/unemployment benefits. Community Commitment: There is an intense focus on job creation, education, and local development within the Basque Country.  (It should also be noted that the Basque Country has lower than average unemployment than the rest of Spain.) Initiatives promote growth, talent attraction, and alliances for social transformation. Sustainability and Innovation: Mondragón aligns with the UNs Sustainable Development Goals. This places emphasis on the circular economy, digitalisation, AI, and reducing any impact on the environment. Projects here include energy cooperatives, Research & Development in green tech, as well as commitments to health and local products. The Mondragón Corporation invests heavily in innovation (for instance, there are well over 2,000 R&D staff) and has launched initiatives like MONDRAGON Sostenible for sustainable transitions. With the above in mind, it’s probably safe to say that both José María Arizmendiarrieta and the Mondragón Corporation remain an inspiration to many people around the world. We National Liberals are deeply interested in alternative economic systems. And we’re fascinated by Mondragón in particular, as it’s a practical & visible example of where a co-operative benefits both the workforce & local community. Picture Credits: José María Arizmendiarrieta: el-cura-que-creo-un-imperio- cooperativo/ Female worker: corporation.com/en/ headquarters/ Male production worker: abci-corporacion-mondragon- tenemos-desigualdad-menor- finlandia-gracias- cooperativismo-201904280214_ noticia.html?ref=https%3A%2F% 2Fwww.abc.es%2Feconomia% 2Fabci-corporacion-mondragon- tenemos-desigualdad-menor- finlandia-gracias- cooperativismo-201904280214_ noticia.html Share: Date: January 5, 2026 Categories: Articles « Older By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. Close