Showing posts with label general election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label general election. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The Left: an utter failure of personal responsibility

Over at Forbes, Timmy has written an article about the difficult decision facing Greek PM, Alex Tsipras.
The general view is that the Greek endgame is coming ever closer.
...
The troika is insisting that Greece must not lower the pension age and also must liberalise some more the labour market. Syriza, seeing itself as the sort of left wing party that just doesn’t do those sorts of things is refusing: thus that red line argument. And it is fair to point out that Syriza are the democratically elected government and they were elected on a platform of not doing those sorts of things (or, in fact, those two specific things). 
But as I’ve pointed out before what you do with the money of the citizens who voted you in is one thing. Demanding to be allowed to do the same thing with money you’re borrowing from others is rather different. And if Greece is going to make the payments it needs to in the coming months then it needs that last tranche of that loan. But the troika refuses to hand it over while Syriza is threatening to do what it was elected to do.
Certainly, it's going to be interesting to see what happens—especially as the consensus seems to be that:
  • the Greeks do not want to submit to the troika's demands;
  • the Greeks can't pay their creditors unless they do submit to the troika's demands;
  • the Greeks want to remain within the Eurozone.
Or, to put it another way:
  1. the Greeks want all of the trappings and benefits of a massive, Leftist state that will allow them to sit about doing nothing much all day;
  2. the Greeks don't want to pay for it through their taxes and, indeed, will avoid them where at all possible;
  3. the Greeks want to remain within the Eurozone.
At least one of these things will have to change. Unless, of course, some miracle comes along (very unlikely). We live, as they say, in interesting times.

Anyway, the point that I really want to make is related to #2, above, i.e. the Greeks don't want to pay taxes and, indeed, will avoid them where at all possible. Now, many people will be outraged that I might suggest such a thing—except, perhaps, when I point out that a great many Greeks simply stopped paying tax at the end of last year in anticipation of a Syriza win.

Faced, as he is, with this tension between keeping his promises or keeping the Greek state solvent (for a little while), it would not be entirely unreasonable for Alex Tsipras to say:
"Look, chaps: I did my best to stand up for the interests of the Greek people. But the trouble is that, at the first possible moment, the Greek people simply didn't bother paying tax. 
"Because of this, we have no other options: either we give in to the demands of the troika, or we exit the Euro (which won't solve much, but will get the Germans off our backs)."
He could then hold a referendum—but I doubt that the Greek state can afford it.

Anyway, the point is that the Greeks want lots of stuff, without actually reaching into their pockets to pay for any of it.

Which is, as we saw after the recent General Election, very similar to the Left in this country.

My various feeds were full of idiots wailing and gnashing their teeth, talking about how all the poor people were going to be put down and fed to the myriad urban foxes. Or something.

A great many of them were complaining about how the poor were to be denied their benefits.

So to help out these poor souls—riven by grief and guilt about the poor—I decided to point out that they could help simply by reaching into their ample pockets. I helpfully pointed out that not only can they donate their time and money to charities, but they can actually donate money to the Treasury—and specify what budget they want their monies to go to!

So, if you are a Lefty scared of what will happen to the poor, simply send your cheque to:
The Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
Just convince all of your left-wing friends to do the same—this surely won't be difficult—and you can help out those causes that you care about. And, best of all, you won't be using the threat of imprisonment to force other people to pay towards these causes.

As an extra bonus, everyone can check online to see who has generously donated this cash to these good causes, so that we can praise you for your generosity and civic decency.

Or, of course, call you a bunch of fucking liars when you say that you'd "happily pay more tax".

This is the very definition, I think, of the phrase "put up or shut up."

Of course, many people will say that your humble Devil is being a little aggressive about this.

"Come on, DK," they might say. "You're a politics nerd—you cannot expect everybody to know about this voluntary tax thing."

To which I reply, "well, these people think that they are qualified to elect a government—shouldn't they know how that government works? They are prepared to use the law to force people to pay money to the Treasury on behalf of certain interest groups—shouldn't they show willing first?"

But, apparently, that's the thing with Lefties: they're very happy to reach into other people's pockets, and very reluctant to dig deep into their own.

Who knew, eh?

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Fake Charity of the Week #1: Tomorrow's People Trust

As some of you may have noticed, fakecharities.org is... ah... resting for a space (that site is shifting servers again, and I just haven't had time to sort out the re-install). Fear not, it will be back presently.

In the meantime, an email correspondant has alerted me to a particularly delicious example of a fake charity—the Tomorrow's People Trust. The charity describes itself in the following way:
An independent employment charity which works nationally with the long-term unemployed, helping people overcome personal barriers so that they can move into long-term, sustainable jobs. Our objective is to help those who are furthest from the labour market to get and keep a job, by preparing them for work and supporting them through their individual return-to-work programmes.

The actual document drawn to my attention is an investigation by the Charity Commission into the charity's contribution to the Conservative Manifesto—a document which includes a handy summary of the organisation's funding...
  1. The Charity’s accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2009 show an income of £7,981,260 and expenditure of £7,620,171. The charity’s income includes £6,717,834 funding from regional Government Offices, local authorities and the London Development Agency.

Well, there's some waste to be cut there, methinks. Except, of course, I am sure that the Tomorrow's People Trust is destined to be a front-runner in Call Me Dave's Big Society...

It is worth noting one of the points in the Charity Commission's judgement too: this states that...
  1. Contributing to an election manifesto or any party political publication would have the inevitable result of providing or encouraging support for a particular political party, or at the very least, the perception of doing so. As a charity cannot support or encourage support for any political party, the Commission is unable to see how a charity could demonstrate that it had sufficiently considered and managed all the risks arising from a decision to contribute to an election manifesto or party political publication.

Well, that's pretty clear, I think...

Saturday, May 15, 2010

An open letter to Byrne Tofferings

Byrne Tofferings helpfully posts the Libertarian Party election results, and comments thusly...
No comment, (I’ll resist the urge to take the Michael.) but seriously chaps, shouldn’t the sensible lot of you be in a party where you can actually make an impact rather than having the same effect as the same old SWP stands we see every Saturday?

Make an impact? Go on, big man: you try converting the Tory Party to being libertarian—sorry, Libertarian. When you've done it, why not come and tell us how successful you were...?

We formed the Libertarian Party because we were sick and tired of idiots telling us that the only party to vote for was the Tories.

Don't you understand?—the Tories are not libertarians. For example, next time you find a Tory MP advocating, in public, the total legalisation of drugs, you email me—OK?

I am sick and tired of holding my nose to vote for these bastards: that's another reason why we formed the Libertarian Party.

Oh, and if all those people in this country who professed themselves to be libertarian voted for us, we wouldn't be such a small party: unfortunately, the country is populated by those, like yourself, who are all mouth and no fucking trousers, i.e. those who profess libertarianism but who are totally prepared to vote for authoritarians because you are a bunch of cowards.

Go screw yourself, big man: you might as well get your arse ready for that great, big statist cock which is going to ream you from income to capital. I wouldn't mind, but that big, fat cock that you voted for (but I didn't) is going to stretch my arsehole wide too.

But, you're right: this is just angry petulance from myself.

The only way that Britain is going to get a libertarian government is when people like you realise that the Tories are going to fuck you up the shitter just as much as Labour did—it's just that the Tories won't dress it up as your moral duty.

And one day, maybe—when that Tory slave glyph is removed from the back of your neck—you will wonder why the living shit you voted for these bastards.

Until then, the libertarian government remains a dream. But unless someone fights for that ideal, it will remain forever insubstantial and fuckwits like you, just like The Dude, are part of the problem, not the solution. Feel free to drop me a line when you discover the courage to be part of the solution.

I'll not hold my breath.

You see, Toff, for people like you, power is the be all and end all of the whole exercise. For you, as long as Your Team gets into power, that's OK. Because, of course, Your Team is less bad than The Other Team.

However, for those of us who haven't sold our souls down the fucking river, for those of us who have beliefs and principles (try a dictionary, big man: you'll find a definition there), both Your Team and The Other Team are scum; it's just that, in this case, Your Team is a little less shitty than The Other Team.

You? You are willing to sell your worthless, piece-of-shit morals down the river for a little sniff of power: after all, you might get a jolly super unpaid internship with William Hague if you are a really good boy, eh?

Gosh. I admire you so very, very much.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Rainbow Coalition...

... is about as real as the pot of gold at the foot of it.

Why?

Because Labour and LibDems do not have a majority.

"Ah!" you cry. "But with the SNP and Plaid Cymru and all those other fringe parties, the Lib-Lab pact would have a majority of 14."

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. [Emphasis mine.]
For such a government to have a majority it have to obtain at least the acquiescence of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Both parties, however, as a matter of principle do not vote on English matters. This means that (assuming they can rely on the support of the DUP) the Conservatives would be able to defeat any measure brought forward by a putative anti-Tory coalition that applied only to England. On the other hand, even with a minority of seats in the UK as a whole the Conservatives would be able to rule England. This fact has been rather overlooked amid all the talk of deals and Parliamentary arithmetic, but it is really quite basic and obvious.

This means that it would be nearly impossible for the Lib-Lab coalition to get a majority at all, and almost impossible on devolved matters such as education, health, criminal justice, and more.

I just thought that was worth pointing out.

The coalition of the losers

Unlike Cramner, I have agreed with John Reid in the past—most notably when he stood up not just for the rights of smokers but for the rights of the working people whom he represents—but, now like His Grace, I find myself endorsing the words of Bruiser Reid again.



I've always felt that John Reid was an uncompromising bastard, which was a bad thing when he was advocating measures that one disagreed with but which, I feel, underpins his basic sense of honour.

And now, watch as Reid puts the boot into the Lib-Lab pact, whilst I go and scrub myself with wire-wool...

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Election 2010 fall-out

Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North of England wait for mummy South East to get home.

Your humble Devil wandered along to the Election Night Party at the Sports Café on Haymarket on Thursday night—the only time that I would ever enter a bar called "The Sports Café". There were a number of amusing people there—it was excellent to catch up with old friends, including (but not limited to) various fine members of the TPA, Dizzy, Tory Bear, Guido, Gawain, Trixy and others—but I was seized by a certain ennui throughout the night.

You see, whilst the Tories and LibDems (I met no Labour people) were thrilled when their parties took their respective seats, all that I could think was "they're all crap: I don't want any of them to win". For although I was happy when Labour got kicked—and was most especially pleased when Jackie Smith and that jug-eared thug, The Safety Elephant, lost their seats—simply being against something produces remarkably little pleasure, even to a perverse little git like myself.

As the course of the night continued, and the result looked ever less decisive, I could barely be bothered to continue watching. Only the continuing supply of half-decent booze (and it was only half-decent) could keep me on my feet.

The next morning, I wandered along to the post-election drinks reception hosted by Julia Hobsbawn's Editorial Intelligence, at which the drinks were at least free—and I was introduced as a "blogger extraordinaire" (I think that I have mentioned before that I am a vain man). There were also a collection of entertaining people there—covering the cross-section of business from finance, media, PR, as well as other Involveds—and there was a general consensus that no one quite knew what was going to happen. Most thought that my opinion—that the LibDems would ally with the Tories—was probably mistaken, many of then believing that the Lefty aspects of that party would block any coalition.

They may, of course, yet be right. Still, I enjoy these events since I am usually asked, and able quickly to articulate, what Libertarianism is all about (something that I was, of course, not given the opportunity to do when subjected to our "impartial" national broadcaster's tender attentions). Although most seemed astonished that I ascribed my party to neither the Left nor the Right, but a described it as the best of all options.

In any case, I stayed until the end came at about 2pm, then wandered out onto the sunny streets of London. Strolling along Regent Street, I met a member of the cricket team that I play for and suborned him into joining me in a pub for a swifty. I am very much looking forward to our first match of the season tomorrow. Anyway, this last has little to do with the election, so I shall move on...

The question is, of course, what happens now. Charlotte Gore, amongst others, is excited by the possibilities of combining the most libertarian bits of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties: indeed, your humble Devil would—and did—hope for just this kind of combination.
For some of us it’s all about that Freedom Bill, or some Great Repeal Act, rolling back 13 years of odious authoritarian legislation. The Conservatives have the biggest mandate, but not a comprehensive one. The Lib Dems can hold the Conservatives to their pre-election noises about civil liberties, ensuring the Digital Economy Bill gets thrown out, ID cards get scrapped etc.

It’s also about being practical about the desirability for a majority Government if we’re going to deal with the deficit properly.

I’ve just finished writing a pro-Lib/Con piece for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free and rumours abound of an open “Do the Deal” letter going around that I’ll hopefully get to sign. We might not be a very strong or big voice, but from outside tribal bubbles, with no particular attachment to any one party and as someone who agonised over whether to vote Tory or Liberal (and, in the event, I feel pretty good about my choice), this is almost a dream outcome.

All the usual caveats about neither party being especially libertarian apply, but the two together? That’s a leap into the unknown and one that could, if the Lib Dems play it right, show the British People a very different and radical flavour of Government to the one we thought we’d be stuck with.

Maybe the outcome will be of benefit to the libertarians of this country. Perhaps we would get the LibDems' £10,000 Personal Tax Allowance combined with the Tories' educational reforms. Or maybe we'd just get a mish-mash of half-way-house policies combined out of ideas that were, in any case, merely tinkering at the edges of the problems facing us today.

I most certainly reject the idea that Britain voted for a "progressive coalition of the left". Quite apart from anything else, I am of the same view as Longrider—that anyone who describes themselves as "a progressive" is an odious little shit who should not be trusted with a pari of scissors, let alone control of an entire society.
Then there are the progressives themselves – a term that is becoming increasingly bandied about. When someone declares themselves a progressive, my hackles rise. What they mean in reality is that everyone else must be forced to bend to their vision of society, to conform to the socialist utopia they espouse, to be a good little prole. Progressives have no place for independently minded individuals. Progressives are the enemy of individualism, and are, therefore, the very essence of misanthropy. They choose to forget that society is composed of individuals. Progressives are to be despised utterly and completely. Perhaps, most of all is their mangling of the language. Progressives do not want progress, but regression to the dark days of the cold war eastern bloc style of living – the tractor stats will always be going up, despite the enslavement of the population and the collapse of the economy. There is nothing progressive about a progressive, just as there is nothing liberal about a liberal.

These people are, quite frankly, the worst people on earth and—as I have opined before—they are the ones who expect to be giving the orders: trust them at your peril, but do not ever ask me to approve your choice. But then, were you minded to support them, you would not be asking for my approval and would barely mind my opprobrium.

The other "grand narrative" that has come out of this "unholy mess" is the fact that, once again, England has been denied a Conservative government by the troublesome Celtic fringes—and cries have gone up again for those provinces—and most particularly Scotland—to be cut loose.
"The answer to our woes, is a devolved English Parliament. Let the four constituent nations go their own separate way. let Scotland have independence, let Salmond have his way. Lets the Welsh & the Welsh and Northern Irish go. We moan on this site about the Internal Aid department, well how about we look a bit closer to home. England again has voted overwhelming Conservative, except this morning we are still governed by a party that is led and draws its legitimacy from the huge client state that is Scotland. All the usual suspects will whitter on about the unfairness of the FpTP system, whilst ignoring the biggest unfairness of all."

Written by a character called Paul B, over at the Spectator's Coffee House blog.

I happen increasingly to agree. While I yield to no-one in my admiration for much of what Scotland has brought to Britain and to the wider world - this book is a wonderful description - the brutal fact is that Scotland is now exerting an outrageously one-sided, and disproportionate, influence on British affairs. Its politicians have carefully natured a client state in the big cities such as Glasgow, where a huge proportion of the locals subsist on state benefits. If, as the Coffee House commenter suggests, we were to make it possible for Scotland to operate as an independent nation, then the Scottish Labour Party machine, a profoundly corrupt one and similar to the Chicago Democrat machine that gave the US Barack Obama would no longer exert its malign influence on England's affairs.

It is time to cut Scotland loose, both for its interest, and more to the point, for those who want to see the back of the Scottish Labour Party and its arm-lock on UK affairs for the past decade and a half.

I remember similar arguments after the 2005 election, when more people voted for the Conservatives in England than voted Labour and, once again, the Scots saved the Labour Party's hide. At the time, I was living in Edinburgh and, even so, had some sympathy for the argument (perhaps I am, at heart, an Englishman even though I have never felt so at home anywhere as Edinburgh. Mind you, most Scots would be of the opinion that this confirms me as an Englishman!).

In any case, my argument now is the same as it was then—Scotland should be cut free. But I also believe that this is not nearly enough. For, in most cases (with the notable exception of London), the Labour strongholds are mostly located in Wales, Scotland and the North. This would be of little import, except that these places—indeed, the whole of the UK—are essentially subsidised by the South East. As such, these areas continue to vote themselves more and more state money—money which is only provided by the hard work and profitability of the over-whelmingly Tory South East.

Consider, if you will, these maps of the constituencies of the UK (provided by the BBC).



As we know, Labour's heartlands are in the inner cities which, due to the population densities, also provide numerous small constituencies. As we can also see—most notably in the proportional map—Labour is most popular in Scotland and the North and, of course, in London.

As regular readers will know, I support none of the main parties, believing them to be statist, authoritarians with few redeeming features. I remind you all of this, only because—having couched my argument in terms of the election results—you might believe me to support any one of them in what follows. I do not.

What I would like to propose is simply this: that the entire United Kingdom be broken up into almost completely autonomous federal regions, with the Westminster Parliament handling only defence and a few other "federal" competencies (as the national government in the US was supposed to).

The motivation is primarily economic, of course, but there are vaguely libertarian reasons too. The former is, at first glance, easy to see: the entirety of the United Kingdom is propped up by the tax revenues from the only profitable region—the South East.

But there are other advantages to doing this. Whilst the first, and most obvious, is that the rest of the country would cease to be a drain on the South East, there should be benefits to the rest of the country too. It is to no one's advantage that, in some regions, government spending amounts to more than 70% of the economy: the "free" state services crowd out profitable businesses and thus causes a lack of profitability.

Those "poor" areas of the country which—instead of adapting as heavy industry died, took the option of suckling on the state teat—would find that there was no more state money. They would have to build a viable economy or die—in their thousands. Humans are incredibly ingenious creatures and, of course, extremely industrious when their livelihood is threatened—the people of these areas would have to progress or find themselves in ever dire straits.

Further, these areas would not have a meaningful government centre. Look at the main centres of business in each of the provinces of the UK—London, Edinburgh, Cardiff. All of these places are traditional centres of government, and attract business because of that: more government centres would build more centres of business (much though I would wish it were not so).

These areas might also continue to vote Labour—but the people would soon cease to do so once they found that that party was unable to deliver the free money that they promised, simply because there was none.

There has been a narrative of localism recently—the concept of the devolution of power closer to the people. This is a good thing from a libertarian viewpoint, but also from an economic viewpoint. But it has been rendered pointless in practice, simply because it is the central government that has the power to raise taxes and to disburse said monies.

Let's stop this insane state of affairs and, instead, break the UK up into fiscally autonomous areas—mapped vaguely on the old kingdoms—that contribute small amounts to the central government's defence budget, and see how our prosperity rises.

Anyway, it is late and I am not making the most forceful argument: I should be interested in your comments and then shall return to the fray tomorrow evening—after I have played some cricket...

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

There's an easy solution to this...

Via EU Referendum, it seems that huge numbers of mysteriously coy adults have been appearing on the electoral role in certain areas of the country.
A dozen voters have been registered to the home of a Labour candidate in an East End of London borough where police are investigating allegations of electoral malpractice.

The number registered to vote at the home of Khales Uddin Ahmed, running to be a councillor in Tower Hamlets, has risen from five to twelve in recent weeks. But a neighbour said that only three people live in the maisonette on a council estate in Bromley-by-Bow.

It is one of several cases where new names have been suddenly added to the voting register as living at addresses occupied by Labour candidates in the borough, which has a history of allegations of voting irregularities.

The Times article goes on to detail numerous other suspected abuses. Whilst some have commented that this type of tactic seems to be most adopted by a certain ethicity, I would not dream of discriminating in any way.

All I would point out is that, for a short time, we had a mechanism that would have seriously reduced the incidence of this kind of... er... creative voter registration.

It was commonly known as the Poll Tax...

Monday, May 03, 2010

Voter quote of the day...

... comes from Dick Puddlecote, who was giving a helping hand to Martin Cullip—the Libertarian Party PPC for Sutton and Cheam—on Saturday.
For now, though, a comment from a Sri Lankan Brit which had me at first confused before being doubled up in laughter, deserves a wider audience. He'd read the leaflet and asked about policies. Quite liked them in fact.
He: The thing is, the three main parties are all the same. Who wants to vote for them?
Me: Exactly.
He: I'm going to vote BNP.
Me: BNP? Really?
He: Yes, because if they get in, they will repatriate me out of this bloody country!

And with a wink and a smile, he was off.

Heh.

Screwing business—the LibDem way

Iain Dale has a letter from one of his readers concerning the LibDim manifesto policy of taxing capital gains at 50%.
Sorry for emailing out of the blue, but I thought you may be able to help me hi-light an issue with the Lib Dem's manifesto that has gone largely unreported, despite its potentially damaging consequences for the economy and in particular to those who dedicate themselves to starting and growing businesses (and creating jobs for others) such as ourselves.

I'm a young entrepreneur (26). I've so far set up two, soon to be three, companies that between them employ 7 full-time members of staff - hopefully more soon. We've undoubtedly suffered through the recession (one of the companies is involved with graduate recruitment, a particularly hard-hit sector), but we've managed to make it through.

The NI increase put forward by Labour wouldn't be great for any of the companies at this time, but there's a bigger issue that hasn't been getting very much attention - the Lib Dem's proposed Capital Gains Tax changes.

From the point of view of an entrepreneur these changes are a real kick in the teeth. They basically mean that, should any of their endeavours bear fruit in the form of the sale of a company, they would be taxed not at 10-18%, but at "income" rates of up to 50% (and with a reduced annual allowance too). That's hardly encouraging anyone start or grow a business; in fact quite the opposite.

It's even more worrying when you consider investors. I'm not sure about your own ventures, but two of my companies are backed by 'angel' investors. They have been prepared to take a large personal risk with not insubstantial sums in order to help these businesses get off the ground. Part of the reason they've been able to take these risks is that their investment gains are taxed at 0% (if EIS relief is granted) to 18% (standard rate). Under the Lib Dems, they would also be taxed at up to 50%. This would effectively make the investments of many such 'angel' investors, once risk is taken into account, uneconomic - they therefore just won't invest. This could cripple many startup companies at a time when we should surely be looking to expand the economy and create jobs by encouraging new businesses.

As someone who has always worked for small businesses, I can appreciate how important it is to get investment. It is always hard to do so and, with the banks still bruised, it is even harder to do so right now.

This policy will screw new businesses. And it is new businesses that create new jobs—studies have shown that large, established businesses tend to be static in terms of vacancies.

And I know that this may seem obvious, but the LibDims' exciting Personal Tax Allowance of £10,000 is worth stuff all when you've got no income at all...

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Cameron finds some balls

Encouragingly, it seems that David Cameron may actually have found a pair of testicles down the back of his shiny Kamerun sofa. Either that, or he has realised that it is not merely us bloggertarian cranks who are seriously concerned about the erosion of the civil liberties in this country and—in a last, desperate throw of the dice—has decided to raise the issue. Finally.
DAVID CAMERON has unveiled a detailed blueprint for the first days of a future Conservative government as the polls suggest he is on course to win the largest number of seats in the general election.

In a Sunday Times interview, the Conservative leader revealed the four pieces of legislation that would dominate his debut Queen’s speech.

Cameron also promised that on “day one” Tory ministers would each be paid 5% less than their current Labour counterparts.

“We have got to get started straight away,” he said.

Well, yes, cutting the pay of politicians is always an excellent thing to do. Although, as Guy Herbert at Samizdata points out, this now restricts the amount by which Cameron can practically cut public sector pay to about... well... 5%.
A 5% cut in ministerial pay, and freezing it for the life of a parliament, is easy populism. "Slashing" the BBC calls it. However, in practice it is trivial; and, much worse, it puts a ceiling on what can be done to tackle the deficit. Ireland has already cut all public sector salaries—by an average of 13.5%. Had he said ministers will be paid a third less, and hinted at serious cuts in other public sector salaries over £60,000 (representing impossible wealth to most voters), then he could have been populist with room for manoeuvre. But now Cameron will be very hard put to do as much as freeze the wage bills of the bureaucracy. Even though ministers are arguably underpaid, getting much less in real terms than their Victorian forebears, it will be impossible now to cut the salary of any signficant public sector interest group by more than 5%. Protecting the NHS forces greater cuts from every other department just to stand still.

A promise to cut just made cutting nearly impossible. That is a terrible mistake.

Still, never mind—let us plough on and see what else Dave has to say...
The centrepiece of the Tories’ Queen’s speech, to be held within the next month if the party forms a government, would be a “great repeal bill”.

This would scrap ID cards, home information packs and dozens of rarely enforced criminal offences introduced by Labour over 13 years.

Yay! Finally. I wonder if this Great Repeal Bill is modelled at all on Douglas Carswell's crowd-sourcing wiki of the same name? Douglas certainly seems to think so...
The idea of a Great Repeal Bill—first proposed by Daniel Hannan and myself in The Plan two years ago—has now been taken up by David Cameron, who has announced it as a priority for the next government ("The centrepiece of the Tories' Queen's Speech ..." no less).

With so many unnecessary laws and regulations passed by the government over the past decade, which ones should we repeal? Our suggestion is that we involve those most suffocated by all the red tape - the people.

Last July, I asked people to help draft the Bill. Rather than just leave it to the wisdom of those in SW1, I suggested that we "crowd source" for ideas to include in the Bill.

The Great Repeal Bill isn't just an opportunity to get rid of overbearing rules and regulation. It's a chance to practice wiki-politics and direct democracy in the age of the internet.

I doubt that Carswell's effort in its entirety will be enacted—I can't, for instance, see the European Communities Act 1972 being repealed. However, there are a number of notable outrages against the British people included on that list—not least Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (known as the "death of Parliament Bill"), European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (which gives force to the Lisbon Treaty), Terrorism Act 2006 (28 days detention), Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (makes illegal the possession of "violent porn"), Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (allows the government to declare a dictatorian martial law on the flimsiest of pretences) and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (and all amendments thereto, also withdrawal from all treaties relating to the control of drugs). There are lots more, but the repeal even of the above would remove some of the worst excesses of the Labour government.
Cameron also wants his education reform plans to be put into law by the end of the summer so that the first new “free” schools could open in time for the new academic year in September. “In terms of education, we don’t want to wait around,” he said.

Good. Although, it has to be said that there are a significant number of problems with the Conservatives' "free schools" plan—mostly centring around the utterly crucial areas of permission, selection of pupils, the allowability of profits and payment for pupils—and I seriously doubt that any "free schools" will be seen for a few years yet.

As regular readers will know, education is one of your humble Devil's enthusiasms—apart from anything else, I know what a good (and broad) education looks like.
A Conservative government would introduce a bill to create elected mayors in every big city and legislation to jump-start enterprise, including plans to improve broadband services.

Meh. This will be part of Cameron's localism agenda but we will see just how effective this is.

Generally speaking, all of this is good news—especially on the civil liberties aspect. Let us see if David Cameron does actually implement all of this. Of course, it may not be possible with a hung Parliament.

On that subject, quote of the day goes to Alistair Darling—quoted in the same article.
Amid growing signs of turmoil in the Labour camp, Alistair Darling, the chancellor, yesterday insisted that a hung parliament posed no risk to the recovery.

“It’s utter tosh that it’s bad for the economy,” he told The Sunday Times.

“Take Germany. They have had a hung parliament since the second world war, and they manage to organise themselves.”

Heh.

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Er... Really?

Chicken Yoghurt has been blogging the progress of the election in the Brighton and Hove area; apparently, he has received an interesting election leaflet.
Here in super-marginal Hove and Portslade, in a poorly photocopied ‘personal’ GENERAL ELECTION 2010 letter from the incumbent New Labour candidate Celia Barlow, she tell me…
If the Tories are to form the next Government, they know they have to win here and they are spending huge amounts of money from the tax evading Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft, to try and buy the votes they need.

Um... Now, we all know that Lord Ashcroft's tax status is a little... er... opaque, but surely accusing him of tax evasion—a criminal offence—is... well... libel? Let us hope, for Celia's sake, that Chicken Yoghurt has misrepresented her words.

Or that Lord Ashcroft has more of a sense of humour than Wiggy's employers...

Friday, April 30, 2010

On standing for Parliament

Martin Cullip has a rather good post over at The Free Society, explaining why he is undertaking the seemingly futile act of standing as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Libertarian Party.

All of it is interesting—and true—but it is his conclusion that best sums up what we are doing.
My father wasn’t under any illusion that he would have much impact on the 1974 general election, but he felt he had to do ‘his bit’. Likewise, as a candidate for the nascent Libertarian Party, I’m not kidding myself that my standing will do much more than raise a few eyebrows.

I can’t contemplate not voting, though, and if there is no party to vote for when none of them show any interest in restoring the liberties that they have all contrived to take from us, what else is there for a guy to do but stand up for his beliefs and for those who have been similarly disenfranchised?

And, if nothing else, at least I can now vote for someone I know I can trust.

So many people have asked why we have undertaken to start this party: "what is the point," they cry, "when you haven't got a chance of being in government?" I think that Martin's article answers that question perfectly.

Although, I would also add the riposte, "because no one else will."

Ha! Apart from Old Holborn who, you have to admit, has balls. Your humble Devil had a long conversation with the man—unmasked—before the Adam Smith Institute's Blogger's Bash last night, and he detailed, with relish, the colossal amount of fun that he's having standing for Parliament in Cambridge.

When faced with having to put down his address, he simply said that he was "homeless". When challenged, by the Electoral Commission, to give his name for the count, he changed his name by deed poll. I particularly liked his assertion that, should he actually get elected, he would change his name, for the first day, to David Cameron. And, since he's a man in a mask, we could all have our day in Parliament.

I really hope that he does get elected—it would be so much fun...

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Your vote at the general election

Various people have asked me what I think will happen at the general election—I reply that I think that people will vote. Tee hee.

In all seriousness, I think that not many people will vote—I anticipate a very low turnout. I also anticipate a hung Parliament, with the Tories as the largest party. I think it likely that they will form a coalition with the Lib Dems—a coalition that may even be beneficial to the country. After all, I like the Lib Dems proposal for raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 (although I would like to see it up at £12,500, personally) but I think that the Tories' education policy has a good deal of merit too.

Ultimately, however, your humble Devil will still be donning the nose-pegs when wandering out to vote in this general election—once more, I shall be voting for the party that I dislike the least. Some of you, however, have the chance to vote for liberty; some of you have the chance to vote for a Libertarian candidate.

Westminster PPCs


Nic Coome
Candidate for the Devizes constituency.
nic.coome@lpuk.org
Visit his website: NicCoomeLibertarian.com

Martin Cullip
Candidate for the Sutton and Cheam constituency.
martin.cullip@lpuk.org
Visit his website: MartinCullipLibertarian.com
Or find him on FaceBook.

David Kirwan
Independent Candidate endorsed by the Libertarian Party for the Wirral West constituency.
Visit his website: www.davidkirwan.co.uk

As Anna Raccoon has reported, Martin has already been having a little trouble with his oh-so-diligent local press—being comprehensively stitched up by a reporter who is, apparently, a supporter of one of the other minor parties in that constituency. It is, it seems, par for the course but has the added bonus of giving bloggers the opportunity to mock the MSM for their pathetic standards of journalism.

The Libertarian Party is also standing a couple of local candidates.

Local Election Candidates


Tim Carpenter
Candidate for Walpole Ward, London Borough of Ealing.
tim.carpenter@lpuk.org

Stuart Heal
Candidate for the Miles Platting and Newton Heath Ward, Manchester City Council.
stuart.heal@lpuk.org

Do go out and vote for your local Libertarian candidate. Wouldn't it be nice, when people asked you how you voted, to be able to avoid all of the excuses and hedging with which one often finds oneself justifying one's vote?

Wouldn't it be nice to be able say, quite simply, "I voted for freedom—mine and yours."

1 minute of Labour

Via Tom Paine, this is actually a rather good advert from the Tories.



As Tom asks, why didn't they do this from the start...?