Friday, 27 February 2009

Chris Huhne's 'Freedom Bill' is merely tinkering

It seems that we are to write yet again on this blog about the enigma that is Chris Huhne. Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, we challenged him last week to change the name of his party to the SDP to better reflect his illiberal views after he publicly backed the Home Secretary in banning from the UK an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, Gert Wilders.
Now we see that in a show of publicity, he is back in the news launching what he calls his 'Freedom Bill'.
Where do we begin to look at Mr Huhne's efforts, which on the face of it are a step in the right direction, which LPUK applaud, however, and with the LibDem's there is always an however...
I read the 'Freedom Bill' that was published on the LibDem site, then I re-read it because I thought that their published version was only a précis, but no, there it was in its entirety. Not once, not a single time does it mention the word Liberty.
This is not repeal being presented by Huhne, this is not winding back the injustice, this is just tinkering for political gain.
That indeed then prompted me to post the following comment on the presentation site: (which at the time of writing this post was still in moderation).

A start yes, however, simply removing 1 or 2 clauses in a number of Acts does nothing to remove the underlying evil behind much of this primary legislation, and can easily be put back in by a subsequent government.

I fear that this is merely window dressing in order to catch media and voter attention rather than a genuine Liberal attempt at restoring the Liberties to the UK population.

It is noted that it does not once use the words Liberty or Liberties, but Freedom. A strange choice of wording or perhaps not, as we know full well that the Acts will never be allowed to be repealed by the EU, of which your party is so fully supportive.

One item that I found both annoying and amusing was that it was so clearly obvious that the copy of 1984 that Chris Huhne received from the Libertarian Party had struck home. It had found its target as we had intended, as he used the very phrase that we placed on each book in his press briefing, when he said "George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a blueprint".
I suppose we should be flattered at the impact of the 1984 campaign, but the way in which Huhne is exploiting that targeting by delivering such a poorly constructed Bill just reinforces my view of him as a mercenary with statist ambitions.
My posting on the LPUK blog last week indicating that the Libertarian Party are leading the debate was spot on, definitely on the money. It is clear that Huhne is only FOLLOWING, but he is playing to the crowd with this gimmick bill, as he knows full well that he will not be able to implement one jot of it without also undertaking to leave the EU.

The EU will block every single item in Huhne's bill. I will reiterate again for the avoidance of doubt, the LibDems, or any other party, will not be allowed to undertake the repeal of liberty stripping laws whilst they support the EU.
Nearly every clause that Huhne was to remove through this Bill are included in the original Acts because they are fulfilling EU Directives. The only clauses that I am certain did not eminate from the EU is sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament) which were only added to the Act in a vain attempt to silence Brian Haw.

At this point I am happy to boast that The Libertarian Party is the ONLY party to promise to undertake both the full repeal of such liberty stripping laws, and to extract the UK from the EU.
Moving on, several things have also crossed my mind at the timing by Chris Huhne of this particular proposal. Firstly we know that the Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London, so Mr Huhne obviously wants to present the LibDem's as a party that is 'doing something'. This only serves to hoodwink the voters who are starved by Government and the media of any general knowledge of the EU and how far it now has its tenticles into the UK and its government.
Secondly, the recent civil war going on within the party over Liberal Vision has reached a stage where they are losing members, so this is a sop to try to win back those disaffected members with strong Libertarian views, and prevent them from abandoning what is essentially a very social democratic party where their views are neither heard nor acted upon, and he desperately needs to repair the damage he caused to himself over the Gert Wilders affair.
Lastly, it is an attempt at one-upmanship. David Davis will be the politician carrying the Keynote speech of note at the Convention on Modern Liberty, therefore Huhne wants to grab the media attention to water down whatever it is that Davis will be delivering.
Overall, whilst I would have hoped that the right intentions were there in the presentation of this Bill, I cannot see it. It delivers far too little, it is much too late to be merely tinkering, and provides no more safeguards on the Liberties of the population of this country than the current Government have deprived us of.
If this is the best attempt by those perporting to be Liberal at 'Modern Liberty', if this is the very best that is likely to come out of that Convention, then this nation still has much to fear for its future.

Monday, 23 February 2009

Libertarian Party Leader's First TV Appearance

A few days ago, Ian Parker-Joseph, Leader of the Libertarian Party, took part in a TV political discussion panel programme for Sky TV, called "Forum". The subject of this episode was "How corrupt are our MPs?". Also on the panel with Ian were Matthew Sinclair (Taxpayers' Alliance), Ian Senior (Author of "Corruption: the world's big C") and Michael White (former political editor of The Guardian). The programme was hosted by Nick Ferrari.

It was recorded last week, and is being broadcast tomorrow, Tuesday 24th February at 8.06pm on Channel 515, Press TV. It'll be repeated on Wednesday at 2.06am.

Ian says it went well, he was a bit nervous at first (this being his first time on TV) but reckons he did OK over all. I look forward to seeing for myself. Unfortunately I won't be able to watch the programme as it's transmitted - I can't afford good stuff like satellite TV at the moment - but fortunately episodes of "Forum" are archived here so I'll watch it when it's posted.

If you can't wait for the TV programme, and would like to here Ian's thoughts on the current state of the UK and the role of the Libertarian Party in putting things right, he recently did a pretty good podcast, which you can listen to here. Definitely worth a listen.

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

How Liberal are you?

Created by LPUK

That's my score. It would have been 100%, but I do believe that knocking off foreign tyrants is sometimes justified. That's not currently the Libertarian Party's policy though. Why don't you take the test yourself and see how you do?

Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Let's Legalise Liberty

Here's a very good unofficial video in support of the Libertarian Party:

Sunday, 15 February 2009

Peter Schiff versus Labour MP.

Ron Paul's economic advisor refutes the madhouse economics of Kelvin Hopkins:

If Kelvin Hopkins thinks we can improve our wealth by printing money, he should take a trip to Zimbabwae. Let's hope he doesn't come back.

Thursday, 12 February 2009

Gold price nudging £21 per gram.

Gold didn't get more valuable. Legal tender just got less valuable.

The thirty year gold price history underscores this point.

The real beauty of gold is that governments can't create it at will.

Saturday, 7 February 2009

Guardian writer admits bailout won't work.

Listening to the BBC over the last few weeks, all the pundits told me that Gordon Brown was a Man of Steel whose bailout package put into practice what the economist J.M. Keynes had preached. However, someone at the Guardian newspaper appears to have actually read Keynes.

This fellow has enough common sense to figure out that Keynesian spending programs only work in countries that accumulated surpluses during the boom years. Doh!

Surplus? Doesn't sound like Britain, does it? Sounds more like China.

Is it my imagination or has this Guardian writer been reading Chicago School economics?

Wednesday, 4 February 2009

When did YOU join the Youth Academy?

Here is a brief passage from Henry Metelmann's autobiographical book "Through Hell For Hitler".

I was in the Hitler Youth. A law had been passed saying that there could only be one youth movement and my church youth group was taken over by the Hitler Youth. I liked it. All my friends were in it. My father said I had better stay in it because under the prevailing conditions it would be bad for him, and for me, were I to leave.

When I left school at 15, my father, a railwayman, got me a locksmith's apprenticeship on the railway. The first question on the application form for that apprenticeship was: "When did you join the Hitler Youth?" You probably didn't get the job if you had never been a member - there was indirect pressure (not a law) to persuade youngsters to join the Hitler Youth. But I admit I loved it. We were poor and I had few clothes, sewn by my mother. But in the Hitler Youth I was given a brown shirt. My father would not buy it for me because he could not afford it, but at the next meeting I was given a parcel to take home. It contained two brown shirts. My father hated it and had to watch me wearing it. He understood what it meant. We Hitler Youth marched with drums and swastikas and I was so proud, accompanied by fanfares. It was a very disciplined environment.

I loved the camps which took place in lovely surroundings, such as a castle in Türingen. All of us young children had the chance to play plenty of sport. When we wanted to play football in our poor streets, nobody could afford a ball, but in the Hitler Youth all was provided. Where did the money come from? It probably came from the contributions of arms manufacturers. Hitler was put into power in order to prepare for a war which could save Germany from economic collapse.

I remember when there were 7 million unemployed. Within 18 months of Hitler coming to power there were very few unemployed left. The docks started building warships - the Bismarck, the Eugene, the Uboats. Germany was actually becoming short of workers. People thought that was wonderful, but my father said that if you can only get work by preparing for war something was very wrong.

In the Hitler Youth we learnt to shoot and throw hand grenades, occupy and attack trenches. We played great war games. We were being taught round big bonfires where we sang Nazi songs: "If Jewish blood drips off our knife", and suchlike. My parents were horrified that we were going back to barbarism. But I didn't question it. We were being prepared for fighting a war.

A few years after that Germans had occupied vast areas 4 or 5 times the size of the UK. These areas could be held down because German youth had been prepared for it in the Hitler Youth. I believed that we Germans would sort out the mess the world was in.

The following article from the Liverpool Echo reminds me strongly of Metelmann's warnings.

How long will it be before Britain's under-21s find the question: "when did you join the Youth Academy?" on their job application forms?

Sunday, 1 February 2009

Will the real Banksters please step forward?

The following BBC article on "Banksters" is a very clever piece of spin. It highlights public anger towards the banking system - in America alone - and neatly shields the Central Banks from blame.

Why is Gordon Brown in bed with the Bankster? Shouldn't it be Mervyn King?