Blog

Strange times, new politics? – The SDP

Opinion Piece by Andrew Bence of the SDP

This has not been the spring we social democrats hoped for. Building a political party is fiendishly difficult at the best of times, but as lockdown drags on, political engagement has become all but impossible for minnows like us.

We need to meet, to bond and to campaign. In the early months of this year we were planning, at very least, to consolidate our 2019 achievements. Regular branch meetings, local election campaigns and a conference in June would have been the building blocks taking us to the next level. Instead we have to look to the future.

On that score there are reasons to feel positive. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the need for the communitarian values we hold dear. The limitations of a globalism that leaves us over-dependent and under-powered has been acknowledged. The willingness of people to embrace the ‘we’re in this together’ approach has been striking. There is even consensus emerging around the need to avoid future austerity measures that would affect communities least able to absorb them.

Meanwhile, party leader William Clouston has produced proposals for a post-pandemic recovery programme, which is more than can be said for the Labour Party. They recognise that the shadow of Covid-19 will be broad and long and escaping it will be a national endeavour and a multi-generational task. Proposals involve the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identifying the aggregate excess public debt generated by the pandemic; making sure this debt neither imposes an era of austerity or undermines Britain’s financial credibility, achieved by transferring this debt to a separate UK Covid 2080 Sinking Fund which will pay the debt off over 60 years; and making the income from bonds issued within the fund tax-free for UK citizens.

But is this enough? In 2019, the struggle for Brexit and the hopelessness of the Labour Party were gifts for us. With so much at stake and a general election in the offing, we had purpose and our message was distinctive. Now, with both main parties converging on the middle ground, and the Liberal Democrats beginning their slow journey back to credibility, where do we fit in?

“we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour”

Perhaps ‘fitting in’ is the wrong aim. Rather, we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour. Advocating a social democratic nation state in a post-neoliberal world has been a radical stance in recent years, but now we need to go further.

The new normal – whatever it proves to be – will ask this of us. Post-pandemic, society has the opportunity to reconsider its aims and values, but the hyperpartisans will be the least well-equipped to respond. When a paradigm shift is required they will be found wanting. We are not like them. With others from the margins, including Blue Labour and unorthodox greens through to classical liberals and libertarians, we found common cause in Brexit. Post-pandemic, and still under the present electoral system, something similar is going to be needed if we are to have influence.

“Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented”

That outsider status may be key. As I write this, Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented. Once again these arbiters of so-called public discourse have been cowed by the race baiters into silence and inaction.

Meanwhile, China prepares to impose a new security law on Hong Kong, further limiting freedoms and silencing Beijing’s opponents. Unfortunately for them, any lingering responsibility (or just concern) we may feel for Hong Kong will have no effect as the UK’s media and political class are wholly preoccupied at the moment pursuing a personal vendetta against the prime minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings. And of course once this ‘story’ is done with, it will be replaced by another equally trivial distraction.

The point is, their agenda is not ours, and the gulf between us grows. That’s why so many of us have been driven online, where free thinking is still mostly permitted. Interested in serious debate, happy to address complexity and nuance, wary of tribalism and even open to the possibility of our minds being changed, we really are a very odd bunch, apparently. 

We’re the only ones, it seems, who understand how Trump could be elected or Brexit supported by people other than bigots. We’re often the ones challenging the tyranny of economic growth at all costs. The ones championing free speech and academic rigour. Decrying the idiocy of HS2, resisting the ‘gated institutional narrative’, exploring the ‘meaning crisis’, and laughing at woke’s many absurdities.

“The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness”

The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness. Cuddly libertarian Dominic Frisby reminds me of this in his recent tweet, ‘If you still have faith in government and government systems after Corona, Lord help you’. In addition, we will need to avoid the dangerous cranks. But there’s a parallel political universe out there – intelligent, tolerant, progressive even – standing in the wings. How much longer should we wait for our cue?

For further information read our interview with Andrew, contact the SDP at [email protected] or follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

Interview with Baudoin Collard of Parti Libertarien – the Libertarian Party of Belgium

Home of great beers, amazing Christmas markets, Crystal Palace striker Christian Benteke and sadly the EU, Belgium declared independence in 1830.  This followed the Belgian Revolution when the largely Catholic regions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands split from what we now call Holland and Luxembourg.  The Treaty of London (1839) guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium.  The so called “scrap of paper” led to the UK entering the first world war when Belgium was invaded.  Indeed Belgian resistance largely thwarted the Schlieffen Plan which allowed time for the Allied Powers to mobilise.

Thankfully today the fight for freedom and liberty in Belgium is much more peaceful.  We speak with Baudoin Collard of the Parti Libertarien (the Libertarian Party of Belgium).

Baudoin thank-you for the interview and for undertaking this in English.

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?

The ‘Parti Libertarien’ (Libertarian Party in English) is a Belgian party founded in 2012. It is mainly active in the French-speaking part of the country (the Brussels and Walloon regions) as well as in the German-speaking part.

The Parti Libertarien participated in several elections in Belgium, albeit with limited success: in 2014 (federal and regional elections), in 2018 (provincial and communal elections) and 2019 (Federal and regional elections).

In 2015, the PLib (Parti Libertarien) was one of the 12 founding members of the IALP (International Alliance of Libertarian Parties – http://ialp.com/)

Our party is also active on internet:

“For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)”

What are the main issues in Belgium you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

We stand for a strictly limited government and support laissez-faire capitalism. Our main engagements are the following:

  • restore Belgian military neutrality; 
  • focus the State on its sovereign functions; 
  • remove all taxes other than VAT; 
  • restore absolute respect for individual, civil and economic freedoms; 
  • abolish all “legal privileges”; 
  • promote private initiatives in the fight against poverty ;
  • guarantee the free movement of goods and people;
  • end drug prohibition; 
  • free up and put currencies into competition and
  • cancel Belgian public debt

For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)… We also made educational presentations on new topics such as cryptocurrencies. We also campaigned against the expensive purchase of new fighter airplanes.

“We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and the Euro?

We strive for a Europe that Europe protects its individuals against their own governments: a EU that guarantees human rights, that puts an end to protectionism, that defends the freedom of circulation. Alas, for some time now, the EU has turned into an imperial project of technocratic domination.

We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals.

Regarding the monetary policy, we are highly sceptical of the Euro project and we propose instead to free the financial system and to privatize the emission of money with competing entities.

Belgium recently went a year without a government, was it liberating?

For most of the people most of the time, it didn’t really have much impact. First, we still had a (relatively limited) federal government responsible for the day-to-day management. Secondly, Belgium has a complex organisation with multiple layers of governments: federal, regions, communities, provinces and communes.

Libertarians conspire zealously to take over the world then leave you alone.

Every so often we hear about a possible partition of Belgium, what’s your party’s view on this?

Our party has no specific stance regarding a possible partition of Belgium, but we support the right of the people to self-determination. So if the Flander (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) wishes to secede, it should be their right and it should be respected. In this case, there will be a need to reach a balanced agreement regarding complex questions such as the status of the Brussels Region and the federal debt…

“the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed”

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 and your nation more generally view Brexit?

In the same way, the Plib respects the democratic referendum taken by the people of Great-Britain and we now look forward to a mutually beneficial agreement between EU and Great-Britain. We published an article on that subject (in French): https://www.parti-libertarien.be/le-brexit-un-nouveau-depart/.

That being said, our members are generally supportive towards Brexit and the EU is more and more seen as a bureaucratic and centralized entity, increasingly diverging from its original purpose. We at the Plib, are very attached to the principle of subsidiarity.

On the other hand, we fear that by losing British parliamentary representation in the European Parliament, the liberal opposition to the liberticide measures initiated by the European Commission tends to be reduced. Indeed, the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed.

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?

In previous elections, we partnered with other associations focused on liberty in order to share the effort and gain more visibility. It is also a nice way to get to know different people and share ideas and experience, even when the others don’t necessarily have the same point of view on some subjects.

What’s your party’s plan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?

In the Walloon and Brussels region where we are established, the economic education of the citizens is rather limited and as consequence, a lot people are easily fooled by the promises of populist parties. To give an idea, at the last election in 2019, extremist parties from the far-right and far-left won 30 seats in the parliament, compared to only 5 in the previous elections.

People in general have a limited understanding of economic mechanism and often have a negative view of capitalism, so one of our main mission is to raise awareness of economic realities and the benefits of liberalism for economic development and people well-being.

Be the first to find our standard bearer on the festival and win a cold beer 🙂

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

  • Fiscal reform toward a flat tax
  • Instauration of referendum
  • Cannabis legalization

“To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration”

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?

Belgium has suffered the worst casualties (in terms of death per million) to the Covid19 and our government has a big responsibility in this crisis.

First the government was completely unprepared for this epidemic, having notably destroyed a large strategic stock of masks just a few months before the crisis. 

Then our health ministry has largely underestimated the gravity of the crisis at the beginning, and refused to take measures to accompany people coming back from affected areas in Italy or cancelling big events to limit the spreading of the virus. 

Once it was no longer possible to deny the gravity of the crisis, our government decided to centrally manage all the aspects of the crisis with the help of ‘experts’, and was given special powers by the parliament to do so. The government then restricted the sales of masks and disinfectant to the population but was not able to buy masks on international markets, thus worsening the shortages. 

The government also strictly limited and controlled the use of screening tests, thus artificially limiting the supply unnecessarily. Notably, the government insisted for weeks that masks were useless for the general population. 

To mitigate the spreading of the virus, the government implemented a strict lockdown that will have a huge economic impact but failed to take effective measures to protect the elderly in nursing homes which were the main victims of the crisis. The government even issued strict instructions to keep the elderly affected by the virus from going to hospitals, consequently, around half of the victims of coronavirus died in nursing homes, not in hospitals.

To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration, improve its efficiency and greatly simplify all the bureaucracy that is a burden for the citizens.

Podcast Episode 29 – COVID Border Controls, EU Trade Talks, LibDem Leadership & Croydon Council’s Finances

We discuss the proposed COVID Border Controls, the Brexit Trade Talks & Labour’s flip-flopping along with the upcoming Lib Dem Leadership contest. We then consider Croydon Council’s financial woes and the potential political fallout.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Long term implications of UK Coronavirus lockdown “disastrous.” – Sputnik Radio Interview

Mike Swadling was interviewed on Sputnik Radio about the Coronavirus lockdown.

Teachers Unions and local councils are putting pressure on the British Government to amend their decision to allow certain schools to re-open in June, amid the ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic. Questions have been asked about whether social distancing could realistically be enforced in areas such as classrooms and playgrounds, and if enough personal protective equipment for teaching staff would be provided.

Interview with Fernando Sobrinho of Partido Libertário – the Libertarian Party of Portugal

The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was sealed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, and is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force.  During that time the Portuguese people have struggled with their fight for freedom and only became a democracy after a coup in 1974.

Their path to personal liberty is now taking on a new chapter.  Partido Libertário (Libertarian Party) of Portugal is a member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties and is in the process of being constituted as a formal party.  In Portugal parties need to be formally recognised by the Constitutional Court.

We spoke with Fernando Sobrinho one of the party’s founders.  Fernando thank-you for your time, and undertaking this in English.

Fernando Sobrinho

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about yourself and your party?

My name is Fernando Sobrinho, I am one of the founders of the Association that aims to be the Portuguese libertarian party, Partido Libertário.  I was the first president of this Association and was leading it when we were accepted as members of the IALP – International Association of Libertarian parties.

Partido Libertário’s president is now Carlos Novais and we have about 60 members. We have organized a National Meeting every year since 2014 and we invite libertarians from other countries to attend to it. We have had the honour of receiving Daniel Martinez from P-LIB, Spain and JF Nimsgern from Parti Libertarien, France.

Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Portugal

Your party is currently in the process of collecting signatures for formal registration.  Can you tell us about that process and how is it going?

We are in the process of the legalization of the party, 7.500 signatures are needed, but we are focusing in having more effective members. it does not make sense to establish a party if we do not have enough people willing to speak up for us in multiple forums.

Privatizes Everything – Minimum state maximum freedom

“Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year”

What are the main issues in Portugal you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

As Portugal ranks 15th in the personal freedom Index of CATO and 34th in the Economic Freedom we do most of our work fighting taxation and economic regulation on our country. Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year.

“The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and their thoughts on your membership of the Euro?

What we like in European Union is some degree of freedom of trade of goods and services as well as the freedom of capital and people to invest and work wherever pleases you better. What we oppose to is to its numerous entities that are aimed to supervise these natural rights, like the European Council, European Parliament, etc. Their regulating instincts are a threat to the free zone that we would like Europe to be.

Having the EUR as a national currency is a progress compared to having a Escudo that was printed in massive amounts to meet the socialist plans of the governments we have had in Portugal on last 46 years, all kinds of socialism…

The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt.

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 regret that UK has left the EU but we believe that it can be as positive to UK, as it will be more open to world trade, as to EU, since the loss of revenue that UK was bringing to European budget is now missing. We hope that Brexit will make Euro bureaucrats a little bit more wise on the impact to freedom of their regulations.

The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.

“Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.”

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

The 3 major laws Portugal need to change are:

1. Labour Law (minimum salary, impossible to fire workers, labour unions over-protected, collective contracts, etc.)

2. Taxation (Reducing Corporate Taxes to competitive level, decrease progressivity on IRS-Income Tax, and reduce VAT and other consumption taxes).

3. Public Employee Status (Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.)

What do you think of your country’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to done to help the economic recovery?

The way Portugal handled the Covid-19 crisis was not different from other south countries, like Italy, France or Spain: The measures taken and their timings were basically the same. I guess that the good results achieved, in terms of DPM (Deaths per Million inhabitants) were just pure luck.

The worst, that is, the economic consequences are still to come, especially because the socialist government is willing to step up and do their thing – bring money to the cronies!

Partido Libertário are on the web, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram.

Podcast Episode 28 – COVID Posturing, TFL Bailout, Trade Talks & an interview with Councillor Jeet Bains

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.

Jeet can be found on twitter at @Jeet__Bains and for more information read our interview with him.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

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.

Interview with Duncan Forsyth – Croydon North Lead for the EU Referendum Vote Leave campaign.

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.

Duncan can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/grumblemunta.

Disrespectful Remain Campaign in Croydon North using a War Memorial as a campaign prop.

Schools vs States – A Limitless Possibility For Education

Opinion Piece by Josh. L Ascough

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.

Josh L. Ascough is on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/j.l.ascough/

London Libertarian (Online) Meet Up

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.

If this is for you join us Friday, 15 May 2020 anytime between 7:30pm to 10:30pm.  Go to https://www.gotomeet.me/CroydonConstitutionalists and download the GoToMeeting app.

The invite details are also on Facebook.