Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Let's expose another statist lie...
So Cigarettes and alcohol go up again in the budget - in tobacco's case a whopping 7% rise means paying £7 for a deck of 20 is a not unusual occurrence in the shops. Of course, our paternal big brother who always knows best has been telling us for years that this is to offset the costs to the precious 'sacred cow' of the NHS in terms of liver failure, lung cancer and what have you. However, I distinctly remember a buget 10 years ago where the price of cigarettes went up to around £4 for 20 when we were told the increased duty would pay for these expenses. Makes you wonder why the state never got off the escalator. The suspicion that the real intent was of course to change people's behaviour is clear, and there was just the faintest hint of his before the budget when Dave boasted about the reduction in the number of smokers nationally. It is of course no business of the state to use taxation to change a person's lawful behaviour patterns, and part of me wishes a government would actually have the balls to follow through its statist instincts and propose banning tobacco and alcoholic drink of all kinds. Then we could finally have an honest discussion about the kind of country we want to live in. Meanwhile, here's one for all those with private medical insurance - as your filthy drinking and smoking habits cost the NHS the square root of nothing, keep all your receipts for cigarettes, whiskey whatever and at the end of the financial year, write to your local HMRC asking for some kind of rebate. After all, it's your medical insurance, paid for out of your own pocket that is picking up the tab. £20 says their reply will be an admission that the it was never about money it was about behaviour control. Wouldn't it be nice to see the bullies and control freaks being honest with us about their agenda for once?
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Debating AV
Here's a recent televised debate between the Establishment politician Margaret Beckett and Jonathan Bartley, who heads the campaign group "Yes to Fairer Votes". Personally I think Mr Bartley got the upper hand in this debate, but you make your own mind up:
On 5th May, we're all going to get the chance to vote for or against the introduction of the Alternative Vote system (AV), a seemingly small but significant change to the existing First Past The Post (FPTP) system. The difference with AV is that you number the candidates in order of preference, so you put 1 next to the guy you want to elect, 2 next to your second choice and so on. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes to be elected, then he's eliminated and your vote gets transferred to your second choice. This should eliminate the problem of tactical voting - instead of voting for whoever you think has the best chance of beating the guy you really don't want to get in, regardless of whether you like them or not, you can give your first preference to your favoured candidate without fear of your vote being wasted.
Although it's not a proportional system, it's an improvement on the current one. Not only will it eliminate wasted votes, it should also give a clearer picture of what kind of government the electorate actually want. The Libertarian Party supports this proposed reform, as do a broad range of other minority parties. Funnily enough, it's less popular with Establishment politicians, who seem to be generally happy with the system that got them elected (very often on small minorities).
5th May is going to be an opportunity to introduce a beneficial constitutional reform and give us, the general public, a bit more say in how this country is run. Don't miss the chance to vote Yes to fairer votes.
On 5th May, we're all going to get the chance to vote for or against the introduction of the Alternative Vote system (AV), a seemingly small but significant change to the existing First Past The Post (FPTP) system. The difference with AV is that you number the candidates in order of preference, so you put 1 next to the guy you want to elect, 2 next to your second choice and so on. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes to be elected, then he's eliminated and your vote gets transferred to your second choice. This should eliminate the problem of tactical voting - instead of voting for whoever you think has the best chance of beating the guy you really don't want to get in, regardless of whether you like them or not, you can give your first preference to your favoured candidate without fear of your vote being wasted.
Although it's not a proportional system, it's an improvement on the current one. Not only will it eliminate wasted votes, it should also give a clearer picture of what kind of government the electorate actually want. The Libertarian Party supports this proposed reform, as do a broad range of other minority parties. Funnily enough, it's less popular with Establishment politicians, who seem to be generally happy with the system that got them elected (very often on small minorities).
5th May is going to be an opportunity to introduce a beneficial constitutional reform and give us, the general public, a bit more say in how this country is run. Don't miss the chance to vote Yes to fairer votes.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Happy New Year from the Libertarian Party
The North West branch of the Libertarian Party would like to wish everyone a peaceful and prosperous new year.
It's true that the country is still in a bad economic situation, and will be for some time (at least in my opinion), but things can change for the better - it's just taking longer for us to recover from the recession than it should do, but even the most misguided economic policies can't completely stifle the entrepreneurial spirit.
2010 wasn't a bad year for the Libertarian Party. For the first time since our formation in late 2007, we fielded four candidates for election at the same time - two in the General Election and two in the local elections. No big breakthroughs yet, but you don't just set up a new party and get swept to power overnight. Every election we fight, we'll get better at it and we'll get better known, so watch out for us in this year's local elections.
Cheers!
It's true that the country is still in a bad economic situation, and will be for some time (at least in my opinion), but things can change for the better - it's just taking longer for us to recover from the recession than it should do, but even the most misguided economic policies can't completely stifle the entrepreneurial spirit.
2010 wasn't a bad year for the Libertarian Party. For the first time since our formation in late 2007, we fielded four candidates for election at the same time - two in the General Election and two in the local elections. No big breakthroughs yet, but you don't just set up a new party and get swept to power overnight. Every election we fight, we'll get better at it and we'll get better known, so watch out for us in this year's local elections.
Cheers!
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Are the Young, Free and Ugly the new oppressed?
Listening to Stasi Radio is a useful way of gaining an insight into how the other lot think and hey I pay the compulsory licence fee so why not while it's there? A fascinating conversation broke out 2 weeks ago on the airwaves between a man who wanted to force marriage upon everybody (presumably by drawing lots amongst us singletons) and a cohabitee with kids who seemed nice enough and saw tying the knot as a lifestyle choice she had chosen not to make.
"Marriage is best" apparently - people whose parents stay married regardless of whether they can still stand each other do better in education and thus have better employment prospects. What the Tory/religious/busybody tendency invariably neglect to mention is that teenage pregnancies, addiction problems and their social side effects (i.e. single parenthood and broken homes) tend to spike in areas with failing comprehensive schools and subsequently low aspiration.
These houses of broken dreams have made a niche of unleashing illiterate and innumerate young men into a society where work is scarce in a failing economy but welfare is everywhere you look. The reality is it is the social ills and the lack of opportunity that are feeding single parenthood and broken marriages, not, as the Tories would have you believe, the other way round.
But Iain Duncan Smith, a good man who is right every now and then, has decided that the real issue is that not enough of us are getting hitched, or into a civil partnership if you're that way out, and I thought, "it didn't take the Tories long did it?."
In the past, their pet hate was gay people, most clearly illustrated by the introduction of the repulsive Section 28 in 1986. So last year, in his attempt to convince us all he was some sort of 'liberal', Dave turned up at Mardi Gras and Pride, apologising for the law and promising any new tax break or benefit for marriage would apply to civil partnerships too.
However, nobody becomes and stays a Conservative for no good reason. As a breed, they are a judgemental lot (I'd know from being in CF for two years) and I always got the impression that they had a league table of 'ways of life' that they kept in their pocket or at least mentally. "Married, two kids, churchgoer, captain of local cricket team" was at the top, while "gay, single, no ties" was rock bottom. Now in a marriage of convenience between Cameron and the 'pink and proud' community, it is the unmarried hetrosexual who finds himself as the scum of the Tory earth.
When people talk about giving a handout to someone, I never hear it asked, "ah yes but who is paying for it?. Who is putting the money in the pot and walking away so someone else can take it?" Personally, I find it obscene that a single person on a modest income should subsidse the lifestyle choice of a couple who may be on thrice the takehome pay of the individual funding the largesse. It has already been accepted that the money is highly unlikely to steer a couple one way or the other, so it can only be a highly expensive gesture that does marginal damage to some and no good to anybody.
Once we get to work on the real issues, these questions tend to take care of themselves - personally the idea of getting married doesn't interest me at this point in time, and when IDS and his friends act like the street pushers of the tied knot, its appeal becomes even less.
"Marriage is best" apparently - people whose parents stay married regardless of whether they can still stand each other do better in education and thus have better employment prospects. What the Tory/religious/busybody tendency invariably neglect to mention is that teenage pregnancies, addiction problems and their social side effects (i.e. single parenthood and broken homes) tend to spike in areas with failing comprehensive schools and subsequently low aspiration.
These houses of broken dreams have made a niche of unleashing illiterate and innumerate young men into a society where work is scarce in a failing economy but welfare is everywhere you look. The reality is it is the social ills and the lack of opportunity that are feeding single parenthood and broken marriages, not, as the Tories would have you believe, the other way round.
But Iain Duncan Smith, a good man who is right every now and then, has decided that the real issue is that not enough of us are getting hitched, or into a civil partnership if you're that way out, and I thought, "it didn't take the Tories long did it?."
In the past, their pet hate was gay people, most clearly illustrated by the introduction of the repulsive Section 28 in 1986. So last year, in his attempt to convince us all he was some sort of 'liberal', Dave turned up at Mardi Gras and Pride, apologising for the law and promising any new tax break or benefit for marriage would apply to civil partnerships too.
However, nobody becomes and stays a Conservative for no good reason. As a breed, they are a judgemental lot (I'd know from being in CF for two years) and I always got the impression that they had a league table of 'ways of life' that they kept in their pocket or at least mentally. "Married, two kids, churchgoer, captain of local cricket team" was at the top, while "gay, single, no ties" was rock bottom. Now in a marriage of convenience between Cameron and the 'pink and proud' community, it is the unmarried hetrosexual who finds himself as the scum of the Tory earth.
When people talk about giving a handout to someone, I never hear it asked, "ah yes but who is paying for it?. Who is putting the money in the pot and walking away so someone else can take it?" Personally, I find it obscene that a single person on a modest income should subsidse the lifestyle choice of a couple who may be on thrice the takehome pay of the individual funding the largesse. It has already been accepted that the money is highly unlikely to steer a couple one way or the other, so it can only be a highly expensive gesture that does marginal damage to some and no good to anybody.
Once we get to work on the real issues, these questions tend to take care of themselves - personally the idea of getting married doesn't interest me at this point in time, and when IDS and his friends act like the street pushers of the tied knot, its appeal becomes even less.
Sorry Students - the Statists let you down
When discussing LPUK policy with a distinctly statist friend of mine a couple of weeks ago, we got onto the subject of welfare reform, and explored our basic aim of incrementally rolling back a great deal of the welfare state. He said to me in a rather animated fashion "look Daz, I've been paying into the system, so if I lose my job tomorrow why should I not get the dole?". This brought to me that what we are really looking to do is renegotiate the terms and conditions between state and citizen in a way that we believe will benefit the individual in the long run, and was at the front of my thoughts while watching the first genuine riots seen in this country for many years.
The state currently guzzles almost half of GDP in Britain, a frightening statistic, and one which we all want to see gradually brought down to a figure that leaves a skeletal safety net while causing minimal infringement on people's ability to live prosperous, free and fulfilling lives. However, if one works from the assumption that big brother takes 45-50% of the cake, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say "yes I want an education and a state pension to come out of that - after all if you hadn't taken the money from me/my parents that is what I/they would have spent it on". Not everybody has even a basic grasp of economics, and the importance of risk vs reward equations in driving growth in the private sector. Nor is it fair to expect everyone to read Milton Friedman...the Welfarists of Labour and the Corporatist Tories have lied through their teeth to people and tried to run an unsustainable system for decades.
Now we are where we are, and the students of today wonder why the education that had been 'free' to their parents (who had the same 'tax-welfare contract') is no longer free to them. They were misled, and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the system finally imploded. Yes I feel sorry for them.
The conversation people always seem to have is "do we want a health system run on NHS principles?", "do we want comprehensive education directed from the centre?" and "do you want taxation to fund a state pension?". Scared of change or that their taxes will not be cut in line with reduced state provision, many answer "yes". What is very rarely if ever asked, certainly not in the statist media, is "is that model sustainable given the country we have now, and the changing demographics from the birth of welfarism 60 years ago?". I'm no economist but even a layman can see that what we need more than anything is real growth, a rapid reduction in the relative size of the state in terms of spend, and a fundamental shift in what government takes from you and gives back in return.
In the short-term, perhaps we should go back to the old arrangement of free degrees, but with only the best and brightest doing them (this is purely a personal view and not LPUK policy), Further downstream, allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned will mean that many will be able to look at these choices themselves more proactively, whereas the challenge for us will be seeing the best of the American model adopted over here. Nobody who gets a place at Harvard ends up declining it because of their background and encouraging a climate of social mobility out of the rubble of the present will not be easy. Neither will re-visiting the state-citizen contract that has been in place since 1945, but when something is not nice, that normally means it is necessary.
The state currently guzzles almost half of GDP in Britain, a frightening statistic, and one which we all want to see gradually brought down to a figure that leaves a skeletal safety net while causing minimal infringement on people's ability to live prosperous, free and fulfilling lives. However, if one works from the assumption that big brother takes 45-50% of the cake, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say "yes I want an education and a state pension to come out of that - after all if you hadn't taken the money from me/my parents that is what I/they would have spent it on". Not everybody has even a basic grasp of economics, and the importance of risk vs reward equations in driving growth in the private sector. Nor is it fair to expect everyone to read Milton Friedman...the Welfarists of Labour and the Corporatist Tories have lied through their teeth to people and tried to run an unsustainable system for decades.
Now we are where we are, and the students of today wonder why the education that had been 'free' to their parents (who had the same 'tax-welfare contract') is no longer free to them. They were misled, and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the system finally imploded. Yes I feel sorry for them.
The conversation people always seem to have is "do we want a health system run on NHS principles?", "do we want comprehensive education directed from the centre?" and "do you want taxation to fund a state pension?". Scared of change or that their taxes will not be cut in line with reduced state provision, many answer "yes". What is very rarely if ever asked, certainly not in the statist media, is "is that model sustainable given the country we have now, and the changing demographics from the birth of welfarism 60 years ago?". I'm no economist but even a layman can see that what we need more than anything is real growth, a rapid reduction in the relative size of the state in terms of spend, and a fundamental shift in what government takes from you and gives back in return.
In the short-term, perhaps we should go back to the old arrangement of free degrees, but with only the best and brightest doing them (this is purely a personal view and not LPUK policy), Further downstream, allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned will mean that many will be able to look at these choices themselves more proactively, whereas the challenge for us will be seeing the best of the American model adopted over here. Nobody who gets a place at Harvard ends up declining it because of their background and encouraging a climate of social mobility out of the rubble of the present will not be easy. Neither will re-visiting the state-citizen contract that has been in place since 1945, but when something is not nice, that normally means it is necessary.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Press Release Relating to the Electoral Commission
This afternoon the following email was received from the Electoral Commission and is their considered opinion on Vince Cable's attempt to remove Andrew Withers as Leader of the Libertarian Party through the Courts.
The current proceedings taken against you is a matter for the Courts to decide. If the party makes an application to appoint you as Leader, then we shall consider the application in accordance with PPERA taking account of any implications of the Court decision. If approved, we shall update the party's registered entry.
So the considered opinion of the Electoral Commission is that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has the right to determine who shall and who shall not be the Leader or an officer of a political party.
Also that it is the Electoral Commission's considered opinion that it is up a Court to decide whether Andrew Withers will be the elected leader of a registered political party, not the members, and that the Electoral Commission will approve an 'application' from the Party, not a notification from the members that a new Leader has been elected.
Freedom of Association has been the bedrock of our Parliamentary Democracy, under the Coalition that will be decided by the Government.
Ends
The current proceedings taken against you is a matter for the Courts to decide. If the party makes an application to appoint you as Leader, then we shall consider the application in accordance with PPERA taking account of any implications of the Court decision. If approved, we shall update the party's registered entry.
So the considered opinion of the Electoral Commission is that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has the right to determine who shall and who shall not be the Leader or an officer of a political party.
Also that it is the Electoral Commission's considered opinion that it is up a Court to decide whether Andrew Withers will be the elected leader of a registered political party, not the members, and that the Electoral Commission will approve an 'application' from the Party, not a notification from the members that a new Leader has been elected.
Freedom of Association has been the bedrock of our Parliamentary Democracy, under the Coalition that will be decided by the Government.
Ends
Saturday, 20 November 2010
The media and pro-royal sychophancy - pass the prozac
So Prince William and Kate Middleton are getting married...good for them I suppose. The refusal of many, this writer included, to acknowledge the validity of the monarchy as an institution should not extend to out and out hatred of the individuals within it and it is clear that Wills is marrying the love of his life. This at least makes a pleasant change from some of the recent history within the palace, although the attempts by some in the media to claim that this is the monarchy 're-inventing' itself have been rather amusing. Kate Middleton may not be an absolute toff or have actual blue blood running through her veins, but she hardly qualifies as 'common as muck' either. This is another instance of the mainstream media and their curious love affair with the elite - watching the hysteria over the last few days has been at best perplexing and, more realistically, enough to drive any sane meritocrat up the wall.
Watching and listening to the BBC or Sky News, or reading any of the major news publications, one would think that there was not a soul on these isles who was not overcome by the news that an immensely posh young man and a slightly less posh young lady were finally tying the knot. You could be forgiven for believing that those deprived of work, hope and aspiration by the failed corporate state would forget their failed search for purpose and income and rejoice in the 'wonderful news' that would 'cheer up the nation'. So David Cameron slept on the mall the day before Charles and Di wed...he really should have kept this to himself. Who are these people who take such delight in toadying to the establishment? Do they not have lives, interests and hobbies of their own? (then again, this is a man whose idea of rebellion was trashing a restaurant with his Bullingdon club mates then getting daddy to pay for the damage). Having heard that 'Britons have never had it so good' in the same week, can a kind contributor confirm that we have not all been taken on some obscene 1950s time warp?
Hearing Chris Evans refer those not taken in by it all as 'a few sad republicans' this week was infuriating but perhaps not surprising. Evans is a lot more intelligent than he looks or sounds, but his journey from hip pioneer of avante-garde television and radio 15 years ago to safe-as-houses replacement for Wogan on Stasi radio is clear evidence that 'growing up' is not always a good thing and that 'normality' turns young people into tired old ones at an alarming pace. This writer has written an e-mail to Evans reminding him of his duty to report on the news with fairness and impartiality and will of course blog his reply on here should one arrive. Moreover, if the day of the wedding is declared a public holiday as has been mooted, this writer will be making a point of turning up at his place of work, even if it is only to twiddle his thumbs and browse the internet.
Us subjects/peasants are, one presumes, supposed to be eternally grateful for the extra day off - sounds like a pretty pathetic bribe for monarchist support if you ask me. If enough of us refuse to take the bait and turn up for work at the usual time, our managers will be forced to get out of bed even if it is only to send us all home. Should it become a nationwide thing then the pro-royal media would have to report it. And that would really stick in the craw, believe me.
...................................
EDITOR'S NOTE
Just as a point of clarification, I'd like to make it clear that the Libertarian Party is not a republican organisation - but we're also not a royalist organisation either. Some libertarians are royalist and some are republicans, and when the Libertarian Party was formed we made a deliberate decision not to have a party line on this particular issue. Let's face it, there are more urgent things to take care of, like crime, unemployment, taxation, debt and the police state. I personall would like Britain to become a republic, but that's an issue that goes beyond party politics - if it happens in my lifetime, it will have to happen as a result of a national referendum. I see no other legitimate way to bring about such a basic constitutional change.
In the meantime, we live in the system as it exists now - and when the Libertarian Party meets for its AGM on Saturday, I'm sure I won't be the only libertarian republican who will raise a glass to the future happiness of Mr Windsor and his bride.
Watching and listening to the BBC or Sky News, or reading any of the major news publications, one would think that there was not a soul on these isles who was not overcome by the news that an immensely posh young man and a slightly less posh young lady were finally tying the knot. You could be forgiven for believing that those deprived of work, hope and aspiration by the failed corporate state would forget their failed search for purpose and income and rejoice in the 'wonderful news' that would 'cheer up the nation'. So David Cameron slept on the mall the day before Charles and Di wed...he really should have kept this to himself. Who are these people who take such delight in toadying to the establishment? Do they not have lives, interests and hobbies of their own? (then again, this is a man whose idea of rebellion was trashing a restaurant with his Bullingdon club mates then getting daddy to pay for the damage). Having heard that 'Britons have never had it so good' in the same week, can a kind contributor confirm that we have not all been taken on some obscene 1950s time warp?
Hearing Chris Evans refer those not taken in by it all as 'a few sad republicans' this week was infuriating but perhaps not surprising. Evans is a lot more intelligent than he looks or sounds, but his journey from hip pioneer of avante-garde television and radio 15 years ago to safe-as-houses replacement for Wogan on Stasi radio is clear evidence that 'growing up' is not always a good thing and that 'normality' turns young people into tired old ones at an alarming pace. This writer has written an e-mail to Evans reminding him of his duty to report on the news with fairness and impartiality and will of course blog his reply on here should one arrive. Moreover, if the day of the wedding is declared a public holiday as has been mooted, this writer will be making a point of turning up at his place of work, even if it is only to twiddle his thumbs and browse the internet.
Us subjects/peasants are, one presumes, supposed to be eternally grateful for the extra day off - sounds like a pretty pathetic bribe for monarchist support if you ask me. If enough of us refuse to take the bait and turn up for work at the usual time, our managers will be forced to get out of bed even if it is only to send us all home. Should it become a nationwide thing then the pro-royal media would have to report it. And that would really stick in the craw, believe me.
...................................
EDITOR'S NOTE
Just as a point of clarification, I'd like to make it clear that the Libertarian Party is not a republican organisation - but we're also not a royalist organisation either. Some libertarians are royalist and some are republicans, and when the Libertarian Party was formed we made a deliberate decision not to have a party line on this particular issue. Let's face it, there are more urgent things to take care of, like crime, unemployment, taxation, debt and the police state. I personall would like Britain to become a republic, but that's an issue that goes beyond party politics - if it happens in my lifetime, it will have to happen as a result of a national referendum. I see no other legitimate way to bring about such a basic constitutional change.
In the meantime, we live in the system as it exists now - and when the Libertarian Party meets for its AGM on Saturday, I'm sure I won't be the only libertarian republican who will raise a glass to the future happiness of Mr Windsor and his bride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)