Standing up for liberty – why I’ve left the Conservative party for UKIP

(Originally published at http://www.indhome.com/2012/04/standing-up-for-liberty/)

 

For those who have known me and my political beliefs, I expect you have probably seen this one coming from a mile off. After months of  publicly criticising the Coalition government’s authoritarian tax-‘n’-spend policies, I’ve finally defected to UKIP, the one political party in the UK that actually wants to reduce the size of government.

I think it’s very easy to see how uncomfortable it is to be a libertarian in the Conservative party. The recent assaults on civil liberties are not something we can blame the Liberal Democrats on, and the only effort to reduce the tax burden has in fact come from their party. I’m not afraid to admit that there are a few things UKIP policies that make me slightly uncomfortable too – for example, I am in full support of David Cameron’s plans to equalise our marriage laws, and my views on immigration differ slightly from UKIP’s in the fact that I am only anti-state handouts for immigrants, and not immigration per say. However, this is far outweighed by good, libertarian policies – for example, a flat-rate tax of 31% including national insurance, along with an increase in the personal tax allowance, would mean a tax cut for every single person in this country. Cutting spending down to 1997 levels is a step in the right direction towards the size of state I would like to see in this country. Farage himself supports the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, allowing individuals to make their own choices about their own bodies. The policy of leaving the European Union, a vile bureaucracy-loving authoritarian institution that now decides 75% of our laws, obviously speaks for itself. Yet it is certainly not the sole or even main reason I defected. When we compare party policy and manifestos, UKIP’s clearly outweigh the Conservatives; they are my natural home.

But why defect now? Quite frankly, it is an absolute waste of my time and energy to be in a party that I criticise more than I defend, that I’m frankly embarrassed to campaign for, and that has gone so far from the Thatcherite principles that made me wish become a member in the first place. I was utterly sick of it. I cannot, in my heart of hearts, go up to a member of the public and tell them to vote Conservative because a majority Conservative government would be the best thing for them to have, because I simply don’t believe that anymore. The latest budget was an utter farce on top of a string of policies that have failed to cut taxation to aid growth and put money back in the pockets of the people the government are so determined to take from. The recent affront on civil liberties in regards to internet privacy is a disgusting U-turn from a party that campaigned so strongly against Labour’s stance on freedom in opposition. Ten billion pounds given to the IMF, a veto that  turned out to be nothing of the sort; the list of left-wing authoritarian tendencies this government has displayed is endless. I would rather be “shouting from the sidelines” than betraying my principles on a daily basis from within. If this is childish, or cowardly, then feel free to label me as such, but I feel that I am doing the right thing. Waiting around for the Conservative party to go back to how it was under the days of Margaret Thatcher has become increasingly pointless when I know that there is a political party out there that believes in the same things that she and I do.

I also know from first-hand experience what a great party UKIP is to be part of. I will miss my friends from the Conservative party, many of whom are good people whose political views mirror mine. My decision to defect certainly is no reflection on the personal calibre of 99% of Conservative party activists. However, I already have many fantastic friends in Young Independence who are down to earth, like a damn good night out, and are exclusively motivated by principles and not career prospects. UKIP have been extremely welcoming to me already and I feel that I can speak out against any policies I disagree with without the constant presence of CCHQ breathing down my back as soon as I waver from the party line. UKIP is a democratic party that knows that it is there solely because of its grassroots members, something which the Conservative party seems to have forgotten. All in all, leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP feels like a massive weight off my shoulders. I can’t wait to campaign and get involved with a party that I feel I can be proud to be a member of, and stand up for liberty once more.

Tags: coalition, conservative future, Conservative party, defection, eu, liberty, ukip, young independence

London elections

Yesterday I received one of the most utterly ridiculous pieces of campaign literature I have ever seen from the Labour party. I felt the need to replicate it here.

Dear Christina Annesley,

I know you’ll be thinking long and hard about who to vote for as Mayor of London on 3 May.

Lots of people are still making up their minds and rightly so. It is a big and important job and we all stand to be affected by it.

Let me be straight with you, Boris Johnson is a funny guy. But that isn’t enough.

David Cameron and George Osborne want you to forget that Boris Johnson is a Tory. They want this to be a personality contest. But I hope you will agree with me that this election is about which party and which Mayoral candidate is best going to serve you, your family and London.

As Shadow Chancellor I’ve been going through the details of the recent Tory Budget and looking at its impact on London. The Tory tax cut for the super-rich is being paid for by extra taxes on pensioners and working families. And now the Tories are planning new changes that will hit donations to charities. Any victory for a Tory this May will be used to justify further Tory attacks like this both in London and across the country. 

London desperately needs a Mayor who will stand up to this Tory government. While Boris may put a smile on your face don’t you need someone who is actually on your side?

Boris Johnson has already had four years, but what has he actually done? 

I’ll admit the ‘bikes’ were a good idea. But they’ve been a good idea since Ken first had it. Maybe they should have been called Boris Re-cycles! 

Despite knife crime being on the rise, Boris Johnson has spent his time meeting bankers more than the police, and pushing the government to cut taxes for the super-rich. The way he dismissed the phone-hacking scandal as ‘codswallop’ shows just how out of touch he is.

You can say what you like about Ken, but he has a passion for London.

He stood up for Londoners by cutting fares in the 80s; as Mayor he brought in the Oyster Card, cut congestion, improved buses, delivered the London Overground and helped lead the bid for the Olympics. 

Now he has a clear, costed plan to reduce transport fares this year, making people £1000 better off.

He wants to help you with fuel bills, increase police numbers and bring back a London-wide Education Maintenance Allowance so young people can afford to go to college. He has solid Labour plans to tackle soaring rents and the cost of childcare. 

Ken is Labour. Let’s not forget for one second that Boris Johnson is a Tory. 

He pretends he isn’t a Tory but he is, in fact, more Tory than most – pressing Cameron to cut taxes for the richest, which pensioners are now paying for. 

Boris Johnson may make you laugh on the TV, but it’s at your expense. Behind the laughs his Tory mates are putting the NHS at risk, failing the 1 million young people out of work on benefits. Now their Budget has hit both charities and pensioners with the ‘Granny Tax’, all while they cut the tax rate for the richest. 

Whatever people think of Ken or Boris as personalities this is the bigger picture.

Never forget that a vote for Boris Johnson is a vote for the Tories. 

You wouldn’t do that in a General Election so why do it in a London election?

London deserves better than a Tory Mayor.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Balls

PS. After reading this letter I hope you will want to find out more about Ken’s vision for London – go to www.kenlivingstone.com/facts 

Firstly – how very nice of Mr Balls to include a link to Ken’s policies in a “PS”. Of course, the attacks on Boris and the Conservatives simply must take centre stage! This sort of negative campaigning reminds us what a vile man Ed Balls really is.

Secondly – some context. This letter was delivered to my house in Orpington, a strong Tory safe seat. Our MP is in fact Boris’s brother, Jo Johnson. My family has always voted Tory. It’s a fair assumption to make that in a Tory safe seat, the majority of people would prefer a more right-wing government. So why on earth remind your target voters that Boris is in fact “more Tory than most”?! Utterly ludicrous campaigning tactic.

But onto the main issue. Ken Livingstone is an odious little socialist and Boris has been an absolutely fantastic Mayor for our city who we need to win against Ken. I don’t need to remind people of that. However, I do urge those on the right of the Conservative party to give UKIP your first preference, and Boris your second. This is taking absolutely no risk of letting in Ken – smaller parties such as UKIP will be knocked out in the first round, and your second preference vote will be given to Boris when it inevitably comes down to the inevitable Boris v Ken knock-out. However, a boost for UKIP in the polls may send a message to this appalling government that they are failing to cut both taxes and spending hard and fast enough and are strangling our economy and our freedoms through remaining in the European Union.

Tags: boris johnson, Conservative party, ed balls, ken livingstone, london elections, ukip

The real problem with Workfare

I really shouldn’t be surprised at the sheer hypocrisy and idiocy of the left any more, but clearly I let my guard down on the issue of the Coalition’s new ‘Workfare’ scheme. I have seen many tweets and articles calling the scheme “slave labour” and somehow inhumane, because benefit receptors will lose their benefits if they do not participate in work. Essentially, if you don’t work, you won’t get your pay. Somewhat akin to those who actually, you know, have a job. Slavery implies that there is no choice, that you are physically coerced into working. You absolutely have a choice – work, or don’t receive money. Seems fair to me. I suppose one could argue that if you didn’t work you wouldn’t be able to eat or have shelter – of course, but the same applies to anyone with a regular job. Are office professions “slave labour” because to not go to work would mean starving to death? The only thing we are a slave to is our basic human requirements of food, drink and shelter. And that is undeniable in any political system. 

So the principle of Workfare is a good one. You want money, you work for it, you get work experience at the same time. Excellent. Some may argue that those on Workfare should be entitled to the national minimum wage or a fair salary; lovely in principle, but Tesco or any other participating company should not be forced to pay this by the government, and the taxpayer certainly should not be expected to fund these salaries. Overall, in principle, it seems just, and seems to be something that the right should support; nobody should get something for nothing at another’s expense. 

But is it actually? The problem with Workfare as it stands is that it is actually one of the most obvious examples of government interference in business that there is – corporatism at its finest. In this case, Tesco are essentially benefiting from free labour whilst the taxpayer picks up the bill for their workers’ pay (benefits). Free markets have to work both ways; if companies don’t want to be crippled by excessive regulation and taxes, they should not expect the state to provide them with help – be it in the form of free labour in this case, or government bail-outs. This is the corporatism that the left so frequently rail against and confuse with true free-market capitalism, and as conservatives and libertarians we should not be encouraging it.

So what is the solution? In the same way that somebody providing labour for a private company gets a salary in return, so should the recipients of state benefits give something back to the hand that feeds them. By placing them in public sector jobs, such as doing paperwork at the local council or hospital janitors, they will be fulfilling this repayment. The work experience will still be there, as should time off to ensure the capacity to look for work in the private sector, and no private sector companies will undeservedly benefit from the scheme. It also most importantly would have the added plus point of shrinking the state; instead of having to hire extra hospital cleaners or council secretaries, they would be able to use people who are already recipients of state money, thus saving the taxpayer money. 

If we are to take a true interest in shrinking the state and eradicating corruption in politics by ending the partnership between big business and politicians, we need to retain the principle of Workfare, but  - and this is not something you will often hear me say – nationalise it.

Tags: benefits, coalition, corporatism, public sector, workfare

Abortion and the nationalisation of the uterus.

Abortion is one of those issues that always attracts controversy. Frankly, I have never been able to understand why, as distasteful as the medical procedure may be, the ownership of a person’s uterus could ever be under question. I should say straight-up that I hold the extremely unpopular view that abortion should be legal until birth – that is to say that the state should have no say in the matter. If a doctor does not wish to perform an abortion, he should feel free to seek a position in a hospital that has an opt-out clause for that specific procedure. There are a number of practical reasons for why I support this that I intend to lay out, but most importantly are the ideological ones. I would like to stress that medical or philosophical arguments about when life begins are entirely irrelevant to my argument. 

In the practical sense, forcing women to have children that they cannot afford to have inevitably ends up being a burden on the state. I do not wish my taxes to pay for your benefits simply because your contraception failed and the state decides to draw an arbitrary moral line based on some loose scientific concept of ‘viability’ that decides whether or not you are allowed to terminate. Underpopulation is not a problem in this world – we don’t need more children. Then there is the argument of adoption, which would be lovely if there weren’t far more children needing adopting than prospective parents wanting to adopt. Add to that the levels of bureaucracy and hoop-jumping the prospective adoptees must suffer from and anybody would agree that adoption is hardly an easy alternative. Another practical sense is the sheer chance that an unwanted child would have a happy upbringing if forced upon a mother against her will – children should be loved and wanted, not seen as burdens because the state has outlawed adoption.

Practically there is also the opposing argument concerning the issue of state-funded abortion, namely abortion on the NHS. Obviously as a libertarian I oppose the NHS. However, if we are to have an NHS, it should not be subjected to the moral whims of politicians. The state should not say whether or not a medical procedure is immoral or not, nor should it be deciding when life begins. Thus, we must simply treat abortion like any other medical procedure. Some may cry that pregnancy is a self-induced condition and should not be treated on the NHS much like the arguments against gastric band surgery or treatment for alcohol or smoking related illnesses. Frankly I would argue that the unwanted side effects of pregnancy are more comparable to sports injuries than they are to obesity or alcoholism – sex is a normal, healthy aspect of modern life, just like sport can be, and if practised safely, is no more likely to result in unwanted pregnancy than you are to break your leg on the football pitch – however, it must be acknowledged that there IS still a chance. Even unprotected sex does not escape this analogy – it is an incredibly risky and frankly stupid activity, likely to result in unwanted after-effects, much like I would argue that extreme sports such as bull-riding are risky and frankly stupid activities, likely to result in unwanted after-effects. We would not refuse to treat somebody with even non-life threatening injuries resulted from sports such as facial disfigurement; similarly, if we MUST have an NHS, we should not refuse to treat abortion patients. 

Now, onto ideology. Many have argued that it is entirely possible to be a libertarian and oppose abortion, on the principle that a fetus is a life with all the property rights of a person; the right to be protected from somebody else interfering with its body and right to life just like anybody else. I am not going to bother disputing when life begins – I certainly don’t think that it begins at conception, but that is not for me to decide, nor is it for the state. It is in fact irrelevant to what I believe – basically, that no human being has the right to use another’s body without their permission, even for the purpose of staying alive. My favourite illustration of this is Judith Jarvis Thompson’s ‘Violinist’ argument, in which a famous violinist falls into a coma and can only be saved by you alone being hooked up to him for nine months. You are captured by fans of his whilst asleep, hooked up and have this scenario explained to you. Remaining attached to the violinist for nine months would obviously be a very generous gesture, but most would agree that you had no obligation to do so and to unhook yourself from the violinist would not be regarded as ‘murder’, or an immoral act. Similarly, a pregnant woman should feel no obligation to continue her unwanted pregnancy, because no human being should be under any obligation to allow another to be physically dependent on them. 

It is because of this dependency that the outlawing of abortion is, essentially, the nationalisation of the uterus. By telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body – even and indeed especially if somebody else is dependent upon it – you are placing that body under state control. You cannot protect the rights of the parasite without infringing on the rights of the host. This may be unpleasant terminology for some, but it is not intended in a negative sense; it is merely scientific fact. And it is the host’s rights, as the original and autonomous individual, that should always triumph.

Tags: abortion, morality, nationalisation

What’s liberal about democracy?

An amusing quirk that I noticed when visiting St Petersburg in 2010 was how the Russians used the word ‘democratic’ as a synonym for ‘good’. When describing a nightclub the drink prices were ‘very democratic’, or a hotel would be said to have ‘democratic room service’. I assume this misuse of the term is a backlash against their past history of unelected dictatorships, and rightly so. However, it did get me thinking about how much the system of democracy is revered and untouchable in Western politics. It is included in the name of so many political parties: Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats. Yet the system so often actively conflicts with our liberty.

 

Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried. He was thoroughly correct. Democracy has a noble history; it overthrew unelected monarchs, tyrants and dictators. It stopped the arbitrary whim of one person being forced upon the rest of the population. There is no doubt that any reasonable human being would rather live in a democratic society than one under authoritarian dictatorship. Democracy does protect us from dictatorship of the one. What it does not protect us from is dictatorship of the masses. 

 

Democracy actively contradicts liberty. If 51% of the population voted to ban alcohol, that is dictacting to 49% what they can or can’t do with their own body. Likewise if 51% voted for more taxation; the 49% are forced to comply under a democratic system. Democracy is preferable to dictatorship purely because it is less likely that a significant mass of people will vote for insane policies; however, to those not in the majority, it is dictatorship all the same. For those who object to their legal right to do what they will with their own body and property being taken away from them, it won’t matter WHO banned alcohol or raised taxation, be it a majority of the population, a hereditary monarch, or an authoritarian dictator. It is essentially a collectivist system, ignoring the rights of the individual and prioritising the “public good”.   

 

So what is my ideal solution? In a true libertarian society, there would be no need for elections. The minimal government that we would have would be able to do their duty to protect the people and ensure property rights – police, army and the courts – and nothing else. Thus it would not matter who was elected to do them: a night watchman state would not be permitted to grow, and would not be able to take your money to do so. Politicians and parties couldn’t therefore run on platforms of spending schemes and budgets, as they would not be able to raise taxes to fund them. And if you would like to live in a more collectivised society, you are quite welcome to set up your own communal town, but you would not be permitted to force others to live there – participation would be completely voluntary. 

 

What does need to be made clear is that to shrink to state to anywhere near this kind of size tomorrow would be entirely impractical and would probably result in absolute chaos. It would take generations to ever achieve this kind of society. I am in no way advocating the removal of democracy from our system – indeed, if we must have democracy, we should be seeking to improve and devolve it. I am merely pointing out the fact it should be remembered that although it may undeniably be more compatible with liberty than dictatorship, democracy does in fact actively conflict with liberty. By promoting the latter, we will have no need for the former. It is liberty we should be holding as our ultimate ideal, not democracy. 

Tags: democracy, dictatorship, libertarianism

The hypocrisy of social conservatism.

It is a curious case that amongst most economically right-wing parties across the globe are also associated with socially conservative values. Although the Conservative party today do not generally adhere to this pattern much anymore, the Republican Party in the US is a relatively extreme example of this. I have always found this to be rather unusual from both a political and philosophical perspective.

When I refer to social conservatism I am primarily referring to views on moral issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty or drugs. Of course, there is nothing politically contradictory about holding economically conservative views and socially conservative views if the latter is in a personal capacity. Feeling that abortion is immoral, drugs are dangerous, and that marriage should be between a man and a woman are perfectly valid views to hold and do not necessary have anything to do with an individual’s opinion on taxation, spending and the state. It is when these views are politicised that the hypocrisy comes into play – when a conservative actively believes that the state should, by the use of force, prevent people from partaking in certain activities (for this is essentially the definition of outlawing).

I am a member of the Conservative party because I believe the state should not intervene into individual people’s lives. I think people do best without a paternalistic government presuming it knows best for them. I presume that this to some extent is the reason the majority of grassroots members are also members of the Conservative party (or UKIP for that matter.) We manifest this belief by opposing high taxes and redistribution, as well as New Labour’s erosion of civil liberties and “nanny state” regulations. Why, then, should we believe that the state can succeed in enriching our personal lives when it fails to improve our financial lives? The attitude of keeping the state out of the boardroom whilst allowing it to intervene in the bedroom seems inherently hypocritical. Practicality aside, there is also a moral argument AGAINST social conservatism. If we take the position that taking 50% of somebody’s income is an immoral form of state intervention, why is it moral for the state to hinder your personal liberties by, for instance, telling you who you can and cannot marry, or what you can do with your own uterus? The conservative defence of property rights appears to cover your house and your income; it does not appear to stretch to your own body.

It is for this reason that whenever I am asked my political views, I will not use the word “conservative.” I am a libertarian first, and a member of the Conservative party, capital C, second. I am extremely proud of my party’s progress on matters such as same-sex marriage, and pleased that the attempt to socially engineer society by providing financial incentives to marry has been dropped. Critical as I may be that the party as of late seems to have turned away from Thatcher’s commitment to shrinking the state for moral, ideological reasons, I am happy about the fact that it would be difficult to describe my party as socially conservative anymore. Because people should be free to practice their own code of morals throughout their lives, but to enforce it on others for their “own good” is as equally as repulsive to me as government-sanctioned theft is.

Tags: abortion, Conservative party, libertarianism, morality, social conservatism, SSM

Reclaiming the far-right

I have always found that one of the sure-fire ways to wind up socialists is by calling the BNP left-wing. They splutter and protest and cry that their views are nothing like theirs, that socialism isn’t racist or nationalistic, that everybody knows they are a far-right party and that their views are socially conservative and authoritarian and have so much more in common with the Tories than Labour, who champion racial and sexual equality and seem to have a monopoly on generally being a decent human being. It’s absolute nonsense. The amalgamation of social and economic views creates so much confusion to the electorate. It is biased towards the left, forcing the Conservatives (and UKIP) as ‘centre-right’ to associate ourselves with the BNP in voters’ minds, and it needs to be stopped.

I am not centre-right. I believe taxation is theft, redistribution is unjust, and that the state should be the size of a microdot. I don’t believe in the NHS. I don’t believe in the welfare state. A quick glance at my political compass on the ‘about Christina’ page will show you how extremely right-wing my views are. I would never consider myself anywhere near the centre. Surely, then, I would be considered ‘far right’. At the same time, I believe in same-sex marriage, drug legalisation, and raising the abortion limit. If these views are ‘left wing’, surely that should drag me somewhere near the centre, as a socially liberal Conservative. Similarly, a authoritarian socialist would be dragged to the same place, yet our views are entirely opposite. It’s clear that the linear left-right spectrum is nonsense. The political compass, by adding an extra authoritarian-libertarian dimension, creates a far clearer position.

So let’s take a look at the BNP’s 2010 manifesto. It’s clear from their immigration policies and general racist nastiness that they are an authoritarian party. However, they also pledge to increase the state pension, heavily regulate the banking industry, nationalise the railways and guard against privatisation of Royal Mail, build a high-speed inter-city rail network (hmmm…), ensure local councils have a legal obligation to a certain amount of new council houses a year, close down legal loopholes for tax evaders, reverse budget cuts on education, offer free university education to deserving students, end NHS underfunding by reallocating money from the foreign aid budget, and provide training for the unemployed. Not one of these policies would look out of place on a Labour or Green party manifesto. It is absolutely clear that they are an economically left-wing party – pro-regulation, pro-nationalisation, pro-welfare state, and anti-free market. Nazis and fascists similarly advocated high state control of industry. Mussolini made the trains run on time because the state made the trains run on time. Ever heard Hitler described as the ultimate free marketeer? Of course not.

Why, then, do the left make such a fuss when anybody describes these ‘far-right’ parties as what they are? Nationalistic, authoritarian, left-wing parties. Nobody is trying to associate racism or bigotry with socialism – it is perfectly possible to be a socially liberal left-winger. Indeed, 99% of Labour party members that I know are! So let’s end this ridiculous trend of attempting to associate authoritarianism with the right and accept that political ideology is – at the very least – two-dimensional, not linear. Let us libertarians reclaim the right.

Tags: BNP, far right, labour, libertarianism, socialism