We discuss the COVID posturing of various politicians, the TFL Bailout and the developing trade talks with the EU, Japan & the USA. We then have an interview with Jeet Bains, the Conservative Councillor for the Addiscombe East ward in Croydon. Jeet talks about his ward, his recent Parliamentary candidacy in Luton North, housing development in Croydon and how he believes the Tories can win back the Council. He also discusses the opportunities that Brexit can bring for Croydon.
Quotes from Councillor Bains. On the Election and government:
“Jeremy Corbyn for example, he in no way represented a thing called the centre ground”
“there are just certain things the British people will not countenance, for example Marxism. However you dress it up, nobody in Britain is interested in Marxism”
“quietly privately the British people will not put up with that kind of prejudice”
“from the LibDems it was clear you need a credible leader but also someone who is believable. For example Jo Swinson, who kept on calling herself the next Prime Minister, it just wasn’t credible it went beyond laughable”
“local action on the ground, there is no substitute for it. It’s still really, really crucial in elections”
“the public sector, there is a bias towards caution and inaction. That kind of thing at the best of times is not the best way to do things, but in the situation we have today could potentially be lethal”
On Croydon Council:
“contrast that with Labour. They are allowing residential homes to be converted into flats anywhere and everywhere, and not just allowing it they are positively encouraging it”
“if you live on a road there is every chance the house next door to you will be converted into a block of flats. We need to get that message across”
“being clear the existing folk are not monsters. They are very understanding folk who want to accommodate more housing provision, but we can do it in the right way and in a sensitive way”
“Why has Croydon signed-up pretty much unilaterally to a far higher housing target than Bromley and Sutton?”
On Brexit:
“it requires imagination, that was point, to simply keep on saying ‘Brexit equals threat, oh my god it’s so awful’. We’ve got to stop that, we’ve got to have, it’s an opportunity, the people have voted for it, it’s happening, stop it with the misery”
We are joined by Jeet Bains,the Conservative Councillor for the Addiscombe East ward in Croydon. Jeet talks about his ward, his recent Parliamentary candidacy in Luton North, housing development in Croydon and how he believes the Tories can win back the Council. He also discusses the opportunities that Brexit can bring for Croydon.
Duncan Forsyth was new to political campaigning when he became the Vote Leave campaign lead for Croydon North. Despite low expectations of the leave vote in the area, Croydon North still voted 41.2% Leave. This included surprise results in Selhurst Ward (52.32% Leave) and Bensham Manor Ward (49% Leave). Holding left wing views Duncan was part of a campaign that represented democrats from across the political spectrum. More details of the local campaign and vote can be found here https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/croydon-leave-campaign/.
Duncan thank-you for your time..
Duncan Forsyth
You describe yourself as a Libertarian Marxist. Many people see those as contradictory ideas. What do you think makes them fit well together?
Marx was a libertarian. “The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” – one of my favourite quotes from Communist Manifesto. Marx was never very clear how he thought his post-capitalist society would work politically, which was undoubtedly a sin of omission, but he did once say that he thought it would operate much like the Paris Commune, which was extremely democratic. Marx’s ideas are often blamed for the monstrous tyrannies that sprung up in the east in the 20th century, but I think this is a bit like blaming Jesus of Nazareth for the Spanish Inquisition. There’s no suggestion of support for totalitarianism in his writings.
On the modern left: “It gave up on freedom when it embraced state and corporate censorship of speech. And it gave up on democracy when it embraced rule by remote, unaccountable organisations such as the EU.”
What was your personal journey to libertarianism and Marxism and what made you get involved in politics?
I was a fairly stereotypical lefty in my younger days, concluding from history that all advances made by ordinary people were torn from the vice-like grip of elites by popular movements led by left-wing radicals that often went to the tower or the gallows to win the freedoms that we now take for granted.
As I exposed myself to works written by the left’s heroes, like Marx, and its folk devils, like Rand, I came to question the hypocrisy, historical illiteracy, paternalism and petty authoritarianism of today’s bourgeois left, finding it at odds with the ideals and values of left-wing tradition.
I remain a left-winger, albeit one that has essentially given up on the contemporary left. It gave up on progress when it embraced the deeply conservative ideology of radical environmentalism. It gave up on freedom when it embraced state and corporate censorship of speech. And it gave up on democracy when it embraced rule by remote, unaccountable organisations such as the EU.
Street stall in Croydon town centre
“The spectacle of the British everyman being threatened with arrest for allowing their children to play in their own front garden forms a timely lesson in the importance for our laws to include strong protections for the individual to prevent arbitrary treatment by the state.”
We are speaking in the time of lockdown for the Covid19 crisis. What do you think of the government’s approach and the balance between health and civil liberties?
I think that the lockdown could be initially justified, despite its obviously huge ramifications for civil liberties. Even libertarians accept the abridgement of freedom in cases where the individual’s actions can harm others. The outbreak is one of a novel virus, and began in China, a state known for its lack of transparency, so very little was known about its lethality. Under such circumstances, it seemed prudent to take precautions at least in the short term until the threat was better understood, particularly as early estimates of the infection fatality rate were much higher than is now thought. Having said that, the police have, predictably, been absolutely ridiculous, almost instantly exceeding the new powers handed to them. The spectacle of the British everyman being threatened with arrest for allowing their children to play in their own front garden forms a timely lesson in the importance for our laws to include strong protections for the individual to prevent arbitrary treatment by the state.
I have over time become increasingly critical of the government’s coronavirus strategy, and now class myself as a lockdown sceptic. It’s become abundantly clear that COVID is nowhere near as dangerous as was feared, it perhaps being not that much more lethal than a bad seasonal flu. Through the very useful counterfactual of Sweden, we can see that the lockdowns have most likely not been that much more effective at preventing transmission than the mostly voluntary social distancing measures being practiced in the Scandinavian country, despite their massively greater costs to liberty and prosperity. The lockdown is extended, seemingly interminably, despite ever increasing evidence that it is counterproductive, so I suspect that policy is now driven primarily not by empiricism, but by public opinion, which I see remains firmly in favour of maintaining the controls.
I will stick my neck out and say that I think that when the final tallies are done, it will turn out that the lockdowns were a greater cause of human death and suffering than the disease. A huge rise in excess death that is not virus related has already been recorded, which is probably down to a fear of infection deterring A&E attendance. And we are storing up much more tragedy for ourselves in future years. New cancer diagnoses have crashed, and suicides will inevitably rise due to unemployment and social isolation.
“in the closing weeks of the campaign, when the attitude of militant remainers morphed from complacency to blind panic as the polls moved in our favour.”
In the referendum you ran the campaign in Croydon North and were instrumental in the successful canvassing of New Addington. What are your best memories of the campaign?
Nothing quite beat the feeling of waking up early the day after the referendum and discovering that we’d won against the odds. We were always the underdogs, having been opposed by every major political party bar one, pretty much the whole of academia, plus the vast bulk of the legislature, the judiciary, the creative sector and the chattering classes more broadly, so that was a real buzz.
The canvassing of New Addington was a highlight, certainly more rewarding than the campaigning that we did further north in Croydon, where the atmosphere was more hostile, particularly in the closing weeks of the campaign, when the attitude of militant remainers morphed from complacency to blind panic as the polls moved in our favour.
This was the first ground campaign I’d been involved in, so there was a bit of a learning curve and the prospect of knocking on the doors of hundreds of strangers every week seemed quite daunting. It was a breeze after the first few, though, and it turned out to be a pleasure to get to know the burghers of New Addington.
Out in Thornton Heath
Campaigning in Selhurst
Looking back at the battle for Brexit in Croydon. What do you think worked well and what do you think worked less well?
Circumstances could hardly have been less propitious for the leave ground campaign. As UKIP was the sole political party recommending a leave vote, there was little in the way of existing campaigning organisation or apparatus that we could make use of. Leave activists were also initially split between the multiple organisations competing for the official leave campaign designation. These issues were felt acutely in Croydon North, where there was a lack of experienced hands, and it was left to raw recruits like myself to step up to the plate. It turned out that campaigning is not really a mystical art, and we muddled along OK.
The work we did in Croydon Central probably made the most impact, with ubiquitous large street stalls and the ambitious canvass of New Addington. The latter culminated in a comprehensive get the vote out operation on referendum day that I would say few believed feasible at the start of the campaign. Croydon Central returned a majority leave vote, one of only a few places in London to do so, and I would like to believe that we played a role in that.
If I was to have it over again, I would likely concentrate less resource in the north of the borough. It felt at times like we were achieving little except kicking a hornet’s nest.
Street Stall in New Addington
We still have the transition period to end, but we have now left the EU. In the journey the country had its foundations shaken, what would you like to see come out of this period of turmoil?
My biggest hope is that Brexit will begin a process of democratic renewal. Democracy has atrophied right across the West in recent decades. Our elites have never been more disconnected from the masses, with turnout at elections, membership of political parties and democratic engagement more generally at historic lows. Increasingly, decisions that affect us all have been taken by unaccountable, actively anti-democratic organisations like the EU.
One of the many inspiring aspects of the referendum was the high turnout. It was the first time this century that it had exceeded 70% in a national election, which shows that the demos will vote if they think that it will make a difference. The moment should be seized to begin a process of reform of all our ossified power structures. The House of Lords should be radically reformed or abolished, the country should become a republic, and most important of all, a Swiss style system of direct democracy should be adopted. I trust the British people to make important decisions far more than I do our crazed ruling classes.
“Thatcher’s anti-union and anti-strike laws would be the next to go. The right of workers to organise, associate freely and to withdraw their labour should be absolute.”
If you could introduce or repeal 3 laws (other than for Brexit) what would they be?
The laws that impinge upon freedom of expression would be the top of my list to repeal, and all legislation that abridges the freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom that humans have, because it is the freedom from which all other freedoms stem.
Thatcher’s anti-union and anti-strike laws would be the next to go. The right of workers to organise, associate freely and to withdraw their labour should be absolute.
A shake-up of the planning laws would follow. The passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and the subsequent creation of the green belts has caused massive damage to the social fabric of this country. The cost of housing has skyrocketed due to the difficulty of getting planning permission to build new residences in places where people want to live, leading to a whole generation of young people being priced out of home ownership, and with it the feeling that they have a stake in the orderly running of society.
Any other thoughts you want to leave us with?
In the midst of this virus crisis, we should be cognisant of the europhile attempt to exploit the situation to extend the implementation period, ostensibly to give us more time to negotiate a trade deal before the date that we become no longer subject to EU law. If early indications prove accurate we face economic calamity unlike any experienced since the 1930s. We will need all levers of government available to us to brace against the oncoming storm. We’d be fighting with one arm tied behind our back if we were still bound by EU law.
The task of the educator, whether they be for primary or academia, is to bring quality and qualified information to those who seek to not only engage with truth, but build their ability to function with higher detail and to further the expansion of the knowledge they have gained.
But this function of education, has been stifled by government interference. It should come as no surprise, that the modern format of most school systems were formatted around the era of the workhouse, and were shaped and standardised to fit the model of the workhouse; you are taught in the same manner, the methods are regimented, the process is regulated, and the system is standardised.
The desire to have a publicly funded education system is a sorely faulty one. The government is a centralised legal monopoly of force, and due to its central, top down approach, it cannot comprehend a complex system of education; it has to standardise teaching methods, qualification methods, and ultimately treats students (in our current subject case, children) as projects to be socially engineered to whatever type of citizen the government wishes to govern over, and it is with great thanks to a regimented system of schooling that the children are in a perfect position for moulding, rather than educating, (who reading this remembers when they were in school the way they were “taught” to multiply and the “two 2s are 4, three 2’s are 6” regimented style of teaching?)
“The parent knows how to talk to their child in order for them to understand something, whether that subject be simple or complex, in a manner which the child can best grasp”
This is not to say this method does not help any in an absolutist sense, there will be individuals who benefit from a teaching method of this kind, but a one size fits all education system, does nothing to improve the capabilities of those who learn best via other methods. This is why we should not only hold respect for parents who choose to home school their children, but encourage parents who can see their child is not making any gains from their education to teach at home; the parent knows their child better than any bureaucrat, teachers union, or politician. The parent knows how to talk to their child in order for them to understand something, whether that subject be simple or complex, in a manner which the child can best grasp at their development stage.
However, those who are kept within the regimented education system who do not benefit from it, will be left behind, unable to truly explore their potential. Even those who may benefit from this method, or are able to get by, will face little challenge and will be held back.
School is not meant to keep you in an immobile, easy to handle position, it is meant to enlighten you on unknown knowledge or challenge your held knowledge and expand it.
These are the social issues with the public, government provided school system, and these do connect to long term economic issues, such as due to their being zero choice with education alongside it being mandatory up to the age of 18 (it was 16 when I was younger, that’s how old I am), young people end up leaving the school system with no work experience, making it almost impossible to acquire the most basic of jobs, leading to an influx of higher education applications in order to acquire even no skill to low skill work; but we will delve into higher education later. This also leads to people entering permanent long term work at later stages in life, causing the retirement age to face a need of increasing.
“Economics is all about human action, choice, and the outcomes of these choices; a public education system completely erodes choice, because the individual has no say as to where their resource (money) goes”
But what about the purely economic?
This is where the government formula can be best seen; a monopoly on force, plus an assumed consent to take resources from private citizens, alongside an assumed value on behalf of the individual from the top down, creates an economically and socially stagnated school system.
In order for any transaction to increase value, it must be voluntary and consensual. It must also serve a need which the individual who holds said need wishes to satisfy via the relationship between the use value and exchange value of all parties involved.
Economics is all about human action, choice, and the outcomes of these choices; a public education system completely erodes choice, because the individual has no say as to where their resource (money) goes; even if the parent doesn’t value or places a low value on the education that is being given to their child which could arise for various reasons, such as unsatisfactory quality, it not meeting the educational needs of the child, lack of religious elements; all of these and others can decrees the overall, subjective value the parent holds for said school. Yet the parent is forced to pay for the school via their taxes, as well as the entire system as a whole.
In most of our everyday lives, operating in the world of commerce, if you are unsatisfied with a product you pay for on a regular basis, you can cease further transactions and search for a good which provides use value to you for the duration of time required for it to satisfy your need. Or in another instance, if there is a product which serves no value to you, or if there is an industry which produces economic goods which do not serve any need to you, and therefore no use value, you are under no obligation to enact any transaction or give any money to said industry or purchase any product; with public education on the other hand, that is not the case. A government run and owned education system holds a legal monopoly, and regardless how many people hold no value to it, it will continue to receive funds via forced extraction; taxation.
This legal monopoly creates no incentive for improvement or to consider what the customers (i.e. the citizen) values, and ends with a system which faces no risk; solely relying on the (forced) selflessness of others to provide quality (it is entertaining that we are told constantly that human beings are selfish and evil, yet we persist in creating publicly funded industries which rely on humans selflessly devoting themselves to others via sacrifice of their value and being idealised angels).
Do not misunderstand this as an attack on teachers, the problem isn’t with teachers, as most enter this roles because they have a passion for working with children and young adults; they love passing on knowledge or they are dedicated to a particular subject (maths, English, history, economics etc.) and the teaching of the subject is an added bonus, the attack and criticism is directed towards the education system, not those who are at the end of the system. It is the standardisation, regimentation and regulation of schooling; the format which has been chosen for each individual on their behalf with the magic of assumed consent, and the legal monopoly of the school system, which creates these rigid environments for both teachers and students; if the teachers have little to no wriggle room for methods, because it doesn’t “fit”, then ultimately it is children who suffer, and all of this boils down due to a lack of real choice.
“A private, market education would allow education providers to supply schooling models, methods, and qualifications which parents actually valued; in a market we all vote through the price mechanism”
So how can we solve this problem? How can we create school choice?
I would propose the solution to be very simple; markets.
We should focus on the complete privatisation of the school system, and the establishing of a school voucher program.
Education is an economic good, and like all economic goods it requires the pricing system to determine how to allocate resources, and how to calculate choices based on demand (prices are determined by the equilibrium of consumer demand and producer supply; which allows the consumer to calculate an economic goods use value and the producer to calculate its exchange value).
A private, market education would allow education providers to supply schooling models, methods, and qualifications which parents actually valued; in a market we all vote through the price mechanism, if a school is producing outputs which large numbers of parents do not value, that school will lose out on income and have to adjust to programs that are valued. An additional measure should be considered, that being, adding a “pay-per-package” aspect to schooling. What I mean by this I will explain:
Suppose you have a child and you wish to send them to a private school which specialises in teaching methods best suited for your child; this could be a hands-on approach, a focus on exams, strong levels of independence for students or a greater emphasis on interactions with teachers. The school teaches Maths, English, History, Art, Science, Geography, Cooking and Religious Studies; Maths and English are mandatory subjects, as they are required not just for any and all jobs, but for the child to be able to make basic functions in the real world, all others are optional. Under a pay-per-package system, the parent would be able to choose which subject(s) they value for their child’s growth. A parent could decide they’d rather teach cooking at home as they can supervise much better, and so would not purchase the cooking classes. Or, if the family isn’t religious they could decide to not purchase the religious studies. This system would ensure parents are truly having what they value for their child’s growth provided, and only paying for what they consent to, and what they actually value.
Many would ask how are parents expected to pay for this type of schooling, and this is where a voucher system comes into play.
The voucher system would act as a money substitute, being valued to the equivalent of a certain amount of money, to ensure children from poor households are able to obtain an education. The voucher would be an anonymous program, meaning only the voucher holder and the head of the school, will know who is in use of vouchers; this would ensure children are not ostracized for using or not using a voucher or money.
A voucher program should only be seen as a temporary measure during a transfer period from the public system to a private system; if a voucher system is kept as a permanent aspect, then it runs the risk of causing more demand than there is supply, resulting in prices rising very rapidly, disincentivizing schools from finding ways to lower costs (since like higher education, they’d be guaranteed in getting the money and so would face no incentive for cost reductions) or a combination of both.
After said period schools would be free to create their owns payment options and special offers. These could be in the form of a subscription basis, pay-per-package, a pay-per-class program, a pay in advance program for couples about to start a family as to reserve a place for their child, or the school in question could run its own voucher program for children in care or who are disabled.
In the end, we need to recognise that education is one of the most important things in this would, and the last people we should want running it, are those who face no cost or risk for bad choices on behalf of others, resulting in those people suffering due to the decisions of others.
The very heart of the education issue, should be held on the principle of freedom of choice.
The Croydon Constitutionalists are a non-partisan group, but like to work with parties and groups that support our aims and support Classical Liberal ideals.
We are delighted to host the ‘London Libertarian (Online) Meet Up’ with our friends in the Libertarian Party. Open to anyone with Libertarian sympathies and views but led by the Libertarian Party.
The desire to be free is something deep within the human spirit and not restricted to one group of people or nation. A member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties the ‘Partei der Vernunft’ (PDV) or Party of Reason is the German member of the group.
The party was founded in 2009, and campaigns for a minimal state, free markets, decentralization of political power, and direct democracy. It rejects nationalism, racism and any kind of anti-democratic politics.
Whilst the PDV doesn’t have any representatives in the Regional Parliaments or Bundestag they have won elections to local councils.
We interviewed their party leader Friedrich Dominicus, who we are grateful for being able to do this in English.
Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?
Well we are a party, whose program is based on Austrian School Economics especially from Ludwig von Mises. We’re Liberal in the good old European sense, and partly even Libertarian.
Property and law and freedom
What are the main issues in Germany you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?
Very simple overall: Less government and especially a sound money system.
“We are against the Euro because we want sound money and competition among diverse currencies as espoused by Hayek“
What’s your party’sview of the EU and the Euro?
Critical against European Union, but we are for free trade worldwide. We are against the Euro because we want sound money and competition among diverse currencies as espoused by Hayek.
Germany has seen a rapid rise in immigration in recent years, what’s your party’s view on this and what’s your policy going forward?
We are for controlled but quite open borders. The main point with us is that no-one should have to pay mandatory for immigrants.. If they cannot care for themselves, they should have to find some warrantor(s) for that.
“We are very fond of Brexit and do envy the British quite a bit about it. We’re the only party in Germany which really want to end this kind of European Union”
The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party view Brexit?
We are very fond of Brexit and do envy the British quite a bit about it. We’re the only party in Germany which really want to end this kind of European Union. We do want free trade and the allowance that anyone can offer his manpower in all the countries. We also are for free choice of the right of domicile.
Dear Censors, this is a hate posting! Please intervene immediately. We hate injustice.
Different countries campaign in elections in different ways, what methods does your party focus on, and do you have any interesting stories from the campaign trail?
Well we are a very small party and so we have to go online. Yes we have some interesting stories, but they are not short ones ?.
What’s your party’splan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?
As always, we point out where the problems are and what comes from following social democratic ways. But liberty is simply not a volitional goal for too many Germans even though we had Ludwig Erhard as Chancellor.
Dear Censors, this is a hate posting! Please intervene immediately. We hate totalitarian ideologies.
If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?
2) We have to change our Grundgesetz (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) to something much more liberal
3) Get out of the European Union, or at least end this kind of EU.
Like us they like to share Thomas Sowell quotes “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
“Simplify the laws for taxes and make it much easier to offer your working abilities on the market.
And we’d cut down government as much as one possibly can”
Lastly how do you think your government is handling the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done to help the eventual economic recovery?
Not much, because their only plan is printing money and higher the debts.
What we would do is simple. Simplify the laws for taxes and make it much easier to offer your working abilities on the market.
And we’d cut down government as much as one possibly can.
We are joined by Harry Fone, the Grassroots Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, as we discuss ideas for a Post Lockdown economic recovery, the TPA’s Town Hall Rich List and their Axe the Tax campaign to scrap the BBC Licence fee. We then chat with Harry about his role at the TPA, his campaigning experiences and current and future TPA campaigns.
7 minute excerpt of Harry Fone, the Grassroots Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, as we discuss their “Axe the Tax” campaign to scrap the BBC Licence fee.
8 minute except with Harry Fone, the Grassroots Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, as we discuss the TPA’s Town Hall Rich List.
3 minutes except with Harry Fone, the Grassroots Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, discusses ideas for a Post Lockdown economic recovery.
13 minutes except with Harry Fone, the Grassroots Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance. We chat with Harry about his role at the TPA, his campaigning experiences with the Libertarian Party and the TPA and current and future TPA campaigns..
Formed in 2012 the Scottish Libertarian Party is separate from the Libertarian Party UK and with good reason. Being both pro-Brexit and pro-Independence for Scotland, gives the party a key different priority. Tam Laird the party leader is a former infantry soldier and lives in Edinburgh. We speak to Tam about the campaign for liberty in Scotland.
Tam thanks for giving us your time…
Can you tell us about your journey to becoming the leader of the Scottish Libertarian Party?
I think probably my journey from Authoritarian to Libertarian is a more interesting story, but let’s not answer a question I wasn’t asked. At the beginning of my association with the Scottish Libertarians I had no interest in joining let alone hold office. That’s not a reflection on the movement it’s an indication of my attitude towards politics in general. Completely disillusioned, agnostic and cynical. It seemed no matter who I voted for, I ended up with the government and government is a cancer. So I hadn’t even voted for about 16 years. I was convinced by John Watson, who was Secretary at the time, to stand in a local by election. It seemed to me it was not so much about gaining votes as it was a good way of getting the libertarian free market message out. I was elected Deputy Leader soon after and was Deputy when I stood in the Edinburgh Central constituency against Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in 2016. After that election, due to his extensive overseas business commitments our previous Leader was persuaded to step aside and I was voted in.
Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?
We are a party of principle committed to free markets, free speech and individual rights and liberties. Accordingly we believe that self-determination is a fundamental individual right. For more information on policy and our full constitution check out our website.
“it’s not just a matter of Scottish Independence. What drives it is our belief in the right to self-determination all the way down to the individual. We support English independence. If Yorkshire, Cornwall or even Milton Keynes wanted to be independent we’d support it”
The party is pro Scottish independence. What drives this and what sort of Scotland would you like to see once independent?
Echoing my previous answer, it’s not just a matter of Scottish Independence. What drives it is our belief in the right to self-determination all the way down to the individual. We support English independence. If Yorkshire, Cornwall or even Milton Keynes wanted to be independent we’d support it. Whether it’s a good idea or not is a matter for those constituents. What we’d like to see is a Scotland that absolutely protects the individual rights and liberties of each person. In fairness that’s a long way from what the Scottish National Party (or as I call them Sturgeon’s Notionalist Party) is even capable of delivering if they had the will. Which they don’t. It’s worth mentioning that there are many party members who fear Scottish Independence as a precursor to an authoritarian socialist state under the SNP. I respect that, and those individuals are free to vote accordingly.
“A good start would be to NOT have a Central bank. Have competing currencies on a national level exactly the same as we have it on an international level. Anyone who wishes should be able to start a bank and issue their own currency. It’s called a free market”
The Scottish government’s budget deficit and what currency an independent Scotland would use were major questions from the independence referendum. How would your party address these?
I think the first step is to reduce the tax burden on individuals and business. In tandem public spending has to be cut back massively. Starting from the top. It’s pretty pointless cutting back on subsidies to the vulnerable in society if you are going to give out generous corporate welfare to the likes of Amazon. Unfortunately the SNP have convinced many Scots, especially the young, that free education, healthcare, housing are all God given rights. That’s tough to roll back.
I think the currency issue is a bit of a red herring. We can use any currency we like. We can use Rupees if we like provided someone else will take them. The issue, I suppose, is the currency of ‘last resort’ but it’s not an issue that can’t be solved with a will do so. A good start would be to NOT have a Central bank. Have competing currencies on a national level exactly the same as we have it on an international level. Anyone who wishes should be able to start a bank and issue their own currency. It’s called a free market.
We have now left the EU and are in the transition period. How do you think Brexit is going and what position would you like to see us in with the EU come 1st January 2021?
I think the way Theresa May handled it was a shambles. Which is to be expected as she was not a believer in it. It should have been No Deal = Good Deal from square one. The way the opposition parties handled it was nothing short of disgraceful and even treasonous. I hope by January 21 the EU is a distant memory. May it implode from within and die a horrible wasting death.
You ran in the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections in Edinburgh Central. How did you find the experience, and do you have any interesting stories from the campaign trail?
It was an interesting, and slightly surreal experience. It couldn’t have been that bad as I’m determined to do it again in 2021. I’d advise anyone running to go to the count and keep an eye on the adjudication of “spoiled ballots”. I spotted about 6 that were absolutely fine and couldn’t get to the bottom of how they ended up in the spoiled ballot pile. Before heading onto the platform for the return results, I jokingly quipped to Ruth Davidson that it wasn’t too late to join the SLP. She replied that “there’s a libertarian streak in us all”. I hope she makes it a wee bit wider next time. It would be nice to be able to see it manifest. I won’t hold my breath.
What’s your party’s plan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?
We plan to fight as many council and parliamentary by elections as we can. The former cost very little or nothing, and get the party name on the ballot papers. We also plan to field as many candidates as possible in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in 2021.(Provided it goes ahead in view of Covid) Ideally I’d like to fill all the regional lists and additionally have a candidate in at least four key high profile constituencies.
In a hustings for the 2019 general election you said “Well okay, I can only speak within my own family. I know some people in my family who use food banks and they’re at it. And that’s just a fact”. “But I do think the answer to poverty is more jobs.” How did that go down in the hall, and with your family?
Could have worded that one better. But I stick by it. In fairness I was referring to extended family. Haven’t had anything back, but then getting upset would be tantamount to admitting you were the guilty party. I think there was a some incredulity in the hall, but I articulated what a lot of people know and think but won’t say. The Daily Record appeared to try and do a hit piece, but if so it backfired as most of the feedback I got was positive.
“laws prohibiting government from interfering in private life and business. Provided there is no harm, injury or loss. If so it’s a matter for the police, not the government”
Other than Independence and Brexit, if you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?
I’m not keen on introducing laws, but I guess a law prohibiting government from using force or coercion to collect taxes would be a start. Also laws prohibiting government from interfering in private life and business. Provided there is no harm, injury or loss. If so it’s a matter for the police, not the government. I’d repeal any laws that infringed on the right to freedom of association. It’s difficult, because what you really are asking is what I would do if I was an absolute monarch. The reality in a democratic system is it’s almost impossible to get things done without a huge majority Even then it’s tenuous. As we have seen with the Brexit farce that played out over two years.
Lastly how do you think the governments of both the UK and Scotland are handling the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done to help the eventual economic recovery?
I think the governments are handling the crisis as only government can. Disastrously. I think Boris had the right idea at the start, then he did a Thatcher and blinked. Look, I’m not an expert epidemiologist, but many who are have questioned the wisdom and efficacy of the lockdown. I agree with them. I think in the end the economic fallout will be far more devastating than the virus itself. What would I do? I think I’d have started by not promising mass bailouts to everyone. Also I wouldn’t have allowed an economy to become so bankrupt that it couldn’t survive this crisis. I’m not optimistic about the outcome. There’s nothing the government is even planning to do that can put this right.
Perhaps we could start by telling Richard Branson to sod off?
Mike Swadling was interview by Sputnik Radio about Government’s plans to procure more personal protective equipment for the NHS, the overall handling of the pandemic, and how the economy will recover from the impact of Covid-19?
“I think the Government has done a tremendous job in meeting our unprecedented amount of demands, and it does appear that some more manufacturing could be done in the UK, but we haven’t yet hit a crisis when frankly it wouldn’t have been unreasonable if we had.”
“the comments about there being no risk of a second peak worry me immensely; to my understanding, there is always a risk of a second peak, that needs to be measured, and this came out the same day that Nadine Dorries put out a tweet saying that we can’t end the lockdown until we find a vaccine, but what happens if we never find a vaccine?”
“the best way to bring in more tax revenue is to lower tax rates if you raise tax rates; you see investment dry up, the most capable people will leave the country, and you remove incentives for people to work harder, so it’s absolutely critical that we lower tax rates to collect more tax revenue”
