He described a post-war Britain in which people had learnt the value of working together. His idea was that working together meant State ownership and, far from debating the whether the mines needed to be closed, he attacked the individualist world that was created by the destruction of the destructive unions.

I thought that intellectual socialism was dead in the UK. I thought that the young who would have joined the CND and marched in protest at anti-Union laws in the 1970s and 80s, had now moved on to supporting (un)Fair Trade and complaining about Global Warming (while simultaneously defending people who don’t believe in science when it suits them). But it appears there are a still few stalwarts the BBC can dig out to attack the consensus and provide ‘balance’.

Far from causing an age of selfishness, a period of genuine capitalism would have increased charitable giving and would have enabled all in society to benefit from the fruits of economic growth. Those fruits, which come from being competitive, do not just benefit the so-called fat cats, they also provide employment to the masses through direct employment by the successful companies but also through employment providing services to those employees. By working against each other in a competitive spirit (which isn’t nasty and aggressive) everyone benefits. I imagine a deeply depressing world inside Ken Loach’s head and I feel pity in a way which I am sure would cause him to become angry at me for patronising him.

But Newsnight tried to suggest that the ideological age was behind us; tried to imply that consensus politics had arrived and the debate was over a smaller middle-ground. I think that is dangerously naive. Aside from the obvious dangers of extreme left-wing players in the form of the BNP, Respect and Islamic Fascism, we also have the idealogical split between those who believe in freedom and those who do not.

The truth is there are three major parties two of which claim to believe in personal freedom to some extent (Conservatives, Liberal Democrats), and one which does not (Labour) and there are three minor parties that believe in freedom (Libertarians, UK Independence Party, Cannabis Alliance) and countless that do not.

Skip ad

But at any election, if a member of the public believes in the repeal of RIPA (nationally) or in the abolition of Civil Parking Enforcement (locally) or in a withdrawal of Council services that would be better served by charities (nationally or locally) who should someone vote for? Cameron’s new Bill of Rights is more promising than the offers from other parties hence my affiliation, but there’s really no chance of the Road Traffic Act being amended.

Socialism has been mortally wounded but environmentalists, Fair Trade advocates (you know it’s being promoted in schools?) and europhiles still pose a significant danger.

Classical liberals are now fighting on two fronts and it is by no means certain that we will win eventually. It is important that debates continues, that good science (biology, chemistry, geology, palaeontology, physics) is allowed freedom from attack by the religious, and that good people do not hide behind the most frightening phrase of our time: “If you have nothing to hide…”

It may seem really, really lazy to link to another blog and direct readers to read the post, but this time it’s worth it.

The post in question describes, possibly without realising it, how we can reach Nineteen Eighty Four. It describes the changes the government has successfully made to the way people think (read Crichton’s State of Fear for a better understanding of that) and how these changes could be used in the future to control us.

So take a look at the best post Devil’s Kitchen has come up with in a long while. Happily, it’s also expletive-free!

My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Right: 0.44, Libertarian: 5.6

Political Spectrum Quiz

I think this test is actually a little more accurate than the one I completed in June 2006. James Hellyer, where are you?

This from the Guardian:

Last night Tory opposition was also growing with Tim Loughton, the Tory frontbench spokesman on children and MP for Worthing East and Shoreham, cancelling a visit to Birmingham so he could oppose the proposal and Lord Baker, the Tory former cabinet minister, deciding to vote against the measure in the Lords.

At least some politicians appear to care about right and wrong — it’s a shame so many of them are in opposition.

Let’s hope David Cameron can be convinced not to abstain, but instead to show that he believes in democracy and whip up a vote against Gordon Brown’s abuse of power.

Howe had written that the election of Johnson might trigger a mass exodus of older African-Caribbean migrants back to the West Indies.
Wadsworth wrote on his blog that McGrath responded: “Well, let them go if they don’t like it here.”

How sensitive we have become. It is not racist to respond to a particular question in this way. Would it be considered racist if a Labour Minister had responded to questions about the net emmigration of people born in the UK to places like France and Spain “well let them go”? I imagine such a conversation has been had, and I cannot believe anyone would get upset about it.

I respect Johnson very much, but he should have stood by his man; otherwise we are all at risk for making innocuous and non-racist comments.

If people who immigrated then choose to emmigrate because of the result of a democratic election, that’s not really the business of the electee. Especially one who has made it clear he is working for all Londoners.

I believe we should always attempt to reverse all aspects of a proposition to decide whether or not it is fair. And if the colour of the people, or the direction of flow were reversed, there would be no accusation of racism. None.

Whatever you think of David Davis’ decision to resign he has definitely kept the issue alive. The question “Is it okay to imprison innocent civilians?” would have become just another abuse of freedom had Davis not made his unusual decision.

And he’s highlighted another problem — the BBC and ITV who are supposed to be completely unbiased have continually described the situation as ‘bizarre’. As part of BBC dumbing down they have long sought to explain the implications of situations in news articles rather than just presenting the facts. But on this issue it is quite clear that they are going beyond simple explanation and clarification. If the situation is unusual (and it is) then that is fine, but to say that Davis may have “committed political suicide” or that “David Cameron… is furious” is to make leaps beyond the facts.

Let us be clear too: This is about locking away innocent people. There will be no trial, no evidence will be presented to the victim (of the state) and no news will be delivered to him. This man is losing all rights without being able to help show why he is innocent; and he shouldn’t need to do that.

European Constitution

The other key issue is the European Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Prime Minister said the other day that the Lisbon Treaty is 95% the same as the Constitution. And the public in Ireland look like they have done for us what we were denied by our liar Prime Minister. Thank God.

Last night’s debate, and the brave Labour rebels in particular, showed that democrats from across the spectrum care passionately about rights and freedoms. MPs of all parties hold courage and conviction about these values and few more so than David Davis.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty

I feel a little sick.

Now, watch the first half of that video (and don’t get suckered in — religion and politics are separate things and I cannot condone the Christian parties that are united behind this candidate) and tell me whether you see anything offensive. I don’t.

Now, back on message:

Vote Boris in London
Vote Kennard in Buckingham Ward
Vote Conservative in Adur

But in a previous post I also criticised the US’s can’t-pay-then-die system which is, to put it simply, wrong. In a civilised country it is right that provision of healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay is made from general taxation. If that makes me an impure libertarian then so be it.

But this system does not have to be the NHS. It doesn’t even have to be in place somewhere else. So here’s what I propose:

The railways in the UK were privatised by the last government in the most awful way. Ticket prices are not set by individual operators and so if I buy a ticket from Brighton to London it effectively does not matter which company’s trains I use. This ruins the point of privatisation — competition.

Oops, I just lost some of my audience by talking about privatisation; well come back will you?

The NHS needs genuine competition. The way I propose to introduce that is to allow half of all hospitals in each area to be run privately. Whatever the state spends per patient, the private hospital in the same area would get the same money. The incentive, then, would be to attract patients to your private hospital in order to receive some of that funding. Money that is not required to provide patient care is then made available to the private hospital’s shareholders. The drive for efficiency to create profits would be balanced by the need to attract patients and so be better than the NHS hospital.

The private hospital would be free at the point of use (because it receives matching funding from the state) and would be heavily regulated in the same effective way the financial services sector in the UK is (and which is clearly not working in the US).

Alongside this revolutionary healthcare system would be a change in incentives for drugs companies. Currently there is a clear conflict of interests whereby drugs companies can make more money from treating illnesses than from curing them. So the drug companies need an incentive to attempt to cure ailments. This should be done by using a competitive prize system where prizes are larger than the likely profits from symptom-relievers. I challenge some philanthropist to start up a charitable foundation to fund these prizes — I would happily contribute to that fund!

And finally, let’s be clear, Sicko is not even as unbiased as the BBC; it is a propaganda work which sits on a body of fact and then changes aspects to suit the maker’s own ends. I enjoyed Sicko, I found aspects of it (that are true) disturbing and I found aspects of it laughable. The reactions of British patients and doctors was clearly genuine — Brits do tend to laugh at that sort of question in a way that Americans do not.