Category: Blacklist Press

Warmer since when?

“the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming”

Only 11 times in London in the last 60 years has snow fallen on Christmas day, this was not always so.  The river Thames held its first frost fair in 1608 and the last was in 1814.  These took place during the Little Ice Age lasting from about 1300 to about 1850.  Clearly, we have warmed since then.  The Little Ice Age started without man made input and ended before any serious global industrialisation.  It’s almost as if temperatures change without a man-made cause.  Incidentally the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming.

“tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.”

What if I was to pick other dates, different dates to measure warming.  The English wine market is once again growing, centred in the south.  Of course, the Romans grew grapes and made wine at Hadrian’s Wall, not something we could do today without artificial heaters.  Later tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The later growing took place in the Medieval Warm Period lasting from around 950 to 1250 AD.  The warming during this period saw the Vikings break out of Scandinavia, conquer much of Europe and even grow barley in Greenland.  The same warming in the east produced more rain, and grass for the grazing animals that Genghis Khan’s Mongolian horseman rode and fed off.  This abundance allowed his descendants to conquer much of Eurasia.  The Medieval Warm Period was not caused by car journeys, aircraft, coal fuelled power stations or even the Saxons use of trial by fire.  The climate changes and it often has little to do with man.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The climate changes, yes, we know that.  Global temperature is not fixed, we know we had ice ages, we know we have had warming periods.  The premise here is the following (with thanks to Dennis Prager):

  • The globe is warming.
  • The warming is man-made – if this isn’t because of human influenced greenhouse gas emissions, then the currently prescribed actions are meaningless.
  • And finally, that the warming will be catastrophic – there is little point in acting if the impact is only two more weeks of summer and not much else.

Warmer since when?  For someone to say the globe is warming, requires them to state over which period they are measuring, and justify why that period rather than some other timeframe.  To believe the last two premises you must believe in the predictions of people who have told us food would run out in the 1980s, that New York City is currently underwater, that Britain would suffer a “famine” within 10 years from 2002 and that in 2009 we only had “eight years to save the planet”.  I ask anyone who believes these people to get in touch with me about a bridge I have for sale.

“All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels”

If we do assume global warming is a threat, then what can we do about it?  Let’s not start by throwing away civilizations’ manna from heaven.  All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels.  It is a manna showing no end.  We have more oil reserves than all the oil we have ever used, with new technology opening even further access to fuel.  If you have a proven, working, source of fuel that reduces pollution, great let’s use it.  If you are saying we need to change the basis of our modern civilisation and put at risk the food supply chains for billions of people, you better be dammed sure of your predictions.

Despite the supposedly dangerous level of CO2 of 1 part per 2400, life has never been better.  We may have a cost of living crisis, but prior to lockdown poverty had never been lower.  An estimated 3.2 billion people, or 42% of the total world population, are now in the global middle class.  Many of them enjoying today in countries we used to consider third world, a better standard of living than some of us grew up with.

Humans are exceptional.  200 years ago Global life expectancy was under 30, today life expectancy in the poorest countries is over 50, the global average is over 70.  When I was at school people starved in many countries, today hunger has almost disappeared except where war or governments stop food supplies.  Since the turn of the century the expanding economies of China and India have meant China has a middle class the size of the population of Europe, with India only a few years behind.

Despite expanding populations and doomsday predictions the number of people dying from extreme weather events continues to collapse.  The climate has changed for millennia before mankind, during our existence and will continue to change for many more years to come without our interference.  For over 30 years ‘experts’ on hefty grants have told us of impending doom from global warming, rising sea levels, agricultural failures, and a scorched planet.  None of this has happened, and the planet is greening every year.

Is global warming a threat? I don’t think so, but maybe. However I have no doubt by making use of the energy buried all around us, human ingenuity will not just rise to any challenge, we will excel and overcome it.

This article was first published in Blacklist Press’ Free Speech. 

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Being priced out of the job market – What’s wrong with paying the living wage?

By Mike Swadling

Many of us are used to buying and selling goods on eBay and similar sites. You will have bid, suggested, or offered a price, you will have agreed the price and exchanged the goods. As the buyer, would you have wanted the council to come in and tell you that price is wrong, and you have to pay more? As the seller would you want the council to have increased the price and have maybe lost you the sale?

I originally wrote a version of this article in 2018 about my local councils plan to make Croydon “a living wage borough, not just a living wage council”. The council was already paying the living wage for their own staff and expecting it of its contractors. Predictably the council went de facto bankrupt with the issuing of now three Section 114 notices. 

The living wage is a voluntary minimum hourly rate for those 18 and older set by the Living Wage Foundation. In London, the rate is £11.95 per hour and in the rest of the UK it is set at £10.90.  This compares to the legal minimum wage of £9.50 per hour for those over 22. 

“If an employer can only make £10 an hour of value from someone, but must pay above this, they simply won’t employ them.”

Now on the face of it what’s wrong with paying people more, and who doesn’t want more pay?  The problem comes when some outside force, say a branch of government, decides the best rate of pay for an employer to pay. If an employer can only make £10 an hour of value from someone, but must pay above this, they simply won’t employ them. We know if governments increase the price of something it sells less, and we get less of it in the market. Tax on cigarettes has been part of the reason for the collapse in the number of people smoking. We tax energy to reduce its use to theoretically help the environment. It follows on that increasing the price of work will lead to less work.

” If, however, you want to earn some money but don’t have the skills to generate value above the living wage, then the rungs of opportunity have been removed from your ladder.”

What jobs are there going to be less of? It’s quite common for well-educated, middle-class children to use a period of unpaid internship as a means of getting into a profession. This is fine if you can afford periods of unemployment and are suited to the types of roles offering internships. If, however, you want to earn some money but don’t have the skills to generate value above the living wage, then the rungs of opportunity have been removed from your ladder. These aren’t jobs or wages that will sustain families but are jobs that give you opportunity to build and grow your skills.  In a cost-of-living crisis these might simply be jobs that allow you to heat your home or keep that roof above your head.

Rational people will take jobs that earn them the most money consummate to their skills and desire to select specific types of roles. Increasing your skills and taking risks improves your work opportunities. If, for whatever reason, you leave education with relatively few qualifications, you will likely need what the Americans call ‘burger flipping’ jobs, to build up your experience to a point where you can command ten, twenty, or more pounds an hour. With rampant inflation hurting those often-older people on fixed incomes, you might need these jobs to keep your financial head above water.  The government and many well-meaning councils, businesses, and charities are interfering in the rational choice and freedom of someone to earn the most, and cope as best they can.

This article was also published by Blacklist Press.

I told you so

By Mike Swadling

Originally published in Blacklist Press in March, Mike writes about the counterproductive nature of cancel culture. 

” Francis Fukuyama famously suggested we were witnessing The End of History.  If that were ever in any way true, The End of History ended when Russian tanks rolled into the Ukraine”

An appearance on the LibertariDan Live show this week got me thinking whether it’s the inefficiency of lockdown, the pointlessness of masks, money printing leading to inflation, windmills making us less energy secure or government overspending making us all poorer, right now libertarians have a lot of reasons to say ‘I told you so’.

Now normally the level of smugness associated with saying ‘I told you so’ is reserved for Remoaners who misunderstand the reasons people wanted to leave the EU, and is best avoided. But right now, in one particular area, I really feel we need to point it out.

At the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama famously suggested we were witnessing The End of History.  If that were ever in any way true, The End of History ended when Russian tanks rolled into the Ukraine.  Kiev arguably the father of Russia, first became part of the Russia Empire in 1667, a bookend to a 400 year fight to unite the Rus following their forced separation at the hands of the Mongol horde.  Those 400 years had changed Ukraine and created a closely related but separate nation.

“Democracies tend not to (if ever) go to war with each other. Disputes about sovereignty no matter how fraught the circumstances are resolved peacefully.  Norway split from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, the U.K. left the EU all peacefully”

Putin’s invasion of Russia was the act of a dictator.  Democracies tend not to (if ever) go to war with each other. Disputes about sovereignty no matter how fraught the circumstances are resolved peacefully.  Norway split from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, the U.K. left the EU all peacefully.  Whilst the separation of what is now the Republic of Ireland from the U.K. can hardly be called peaceful, it was relatively so, compared to say the breakup of Yugoslavia or the wars fought since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Being a liberal democracy is a good thing. Being a dictatorship of whatever political bent is a bad thing.  Living in a dictatorship is likely to limit your life choices, you economic prosperity and your life expectancy. For all its ills we should be proud of the system of Government we have, and we should be able to shout about how much better it is to the system of government in say Russia.

Except of course those of you who have made it this far it the article are thinking… but we’ve not in almost anyway been a liberal democracy for the past 2 years.  Yes, I agree, and this is why we have to say ‘I told you so’.

With the banning of RT (formally Russia Today) across much of the west, the cancelling of Tchaikovsky in Cardiff and the banning sports stars, the west can’t hold itself as a paragon of virtue against the dictatorship in Russia.  We are playing into the hands of Putin’s propagandists.  Those of us who believe in liberty should be shouting from the rooftop, ‘I told you so’. I told you when you cancel those you disagree with, you provide no defence against Russian propaganda.  When you cancel RT, you give them an excuse to cancel the (however imperfect) western media. When you don’t provide a platform for even the most unappealing voice in your society, you give the dictators an excuse to dismiss you.  When you lock up your citizens for peaceful protest, they can unashamedly lock up theirs.  When you are not even aspiring to be a shining city on a hill, you arguably give dictators the moral cover to invade their neighbours. 

Would cancelling cancel culture have stopped Putin invading the Ukraine, probably not, but would it have been harder to invade had the west upheld its principles and its economies these past 2 years? Yes!

“Rather than cancelling RT why not pillory it in the same we did Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti aka Chemical Ali”

Rather than cancelling RT why not pillory it in the same we did Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti aka Chemical Ali (who ultimately received a death sentence for genocide and was hung).  The BNP fell when their leader appeared on Question Time and people could see them for what they are.  As a child it felt like every other comedy programme was someone mocking the Nazis, good.  Today merely mentioning them, even to criticise, is by some be considered beyond the pale.

With the quick feedback loops of a war, ‘I told you so’, becomes a powerful argument as the protagonists supressed intellectual freedoms in the same way as the woke mob here.  History didn’t end with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world isn’t full of just good people, many are bad, and only with a united stand for freedom will our side, the good guys, win.

Incidentally, if you don’t already watch, look out for more from Dan at https://www.facebook.com/LibertariDanSpeaks

Unabashed patriotism 

By Mike Swadling

Back in March I spent a week in Florida, a trip to see among other things, the USA Men’s Soccer team play Panama (they won 5-1).  Why would I (a Brit) do that, you might ask. Well apart from the sunshine, the lack of lockdown with commitment to freedom in Florida, and the opportunity to find myself drinking cocktails on Daytona beach, a mate had a spare ticket.

As anyone who has ever visited the United States will understand, the impression I came away with was one of unabashedly patriotism.  Which leads to two thoughts, why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media, and how do we get some of that in the UK or even just England?

‘Soccer’ as our cousins in the US insist on calling our noble game has been growing rapidly in the US in recent years.  Their topflight football ‘Major League Soccer’ (MLS) has expanded from 20 teams to 29 teams since 2016. After failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup in Russia the national side has now qualified for Qatar 2022, with a team of an average age of 24 who should be at their peak for the 2026 World Cup jointly hosted by the USA, Mexico and Canada.  

“Soccer support in the US runs somewhat as a counterculture, for people who fall outside the mainstream.”

Football is best played in a stadium where supporters are close to the pitch, fans are singing, and they have roofs over much of the stands to keep the noise in. The Exploria stadium in Orlando ticked the boxes for the physical requirements, and the US fans sure brought the noise.  Soccer support in the US runs somewhat as a counterculture, for people who fall outside the mainstream. It has a base both in the universities of the well-travelled middle class, and in recent immigrants who bring their soccer traditions to the US.  

Match day means a few drinks to warm up for the game. Fan zones nearer the ground and general enterprising zones of pubs further away. The Stars and Stripes were ubiquitous but then they often are in the US. The crowd on route was a mix of accents, races, regions, all routing for one thing, the USA.  

“These Americans no matter where they were born were proud to be American; ‘why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media’?”

It’s fair to say many people on route did wonder who these people were in sports kits. Soccer for all its progress is still a minority sport in the US. But once people knew that the USA, their team, their nation, was playing at frankly anything, they could not have been happier to see us, even to see the English bloke tagging along.  

Back to my two questions. These Americans no matter where they were born were proud to be American, ‘why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media’?

“To quote C J Cregg from the TV show The West Wing, “Being considered an ‘average American’ is something Americans find to be positive and comforting”

The media, political, ‘expert’ class who frankly blight our lives too much don’t get it. To quote C J Cregg from the TV show The West Wing, “Being considered an ‘average American’ is something Americans find to be positive and comforting”.  I think this is equally true if most Brits, all too often we’re just not meant to show it.  

Maybe it’s that bad news sells, but surely somewhere we should see that Americans love America, they couldn’t be happier to celebrate their nation, which in many cases is their new nation. It’s common among US soccer fans to have their state name and the number it joined the union embraced in the back of their replica shirts. This leads to little more than some gentle ribbing and largely becomes a great conversation starter. You would struggle to imagine that in the UK.

Which makes me wonder ‘how do we get some of that in the UK. or even just England?’ There have been various initiatives to get the Union Jack n government buildings. Although it often feels they are swapped out as quickly as possible. It’s never been the case that local councils, government agencies, schools and other state institutions routinely fly the flag or flags.

“For societies to function we don’t need high taxes or welfare systems, but humans do need to feel part of a community at multiple levels.”

The 1st century BC, Hillel the Elder said “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”.  The elites might not be, but Main Street USA is certainly for the USA.  For societies to function we don’t need high taxes or welfare systems, but humans do need to feel part of a community at multiple levels. For us to respect each other’s rights to say things we disagree with, the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ needs to feel the other person is stuck on the same bus with them.  

Here in the UK, we could stand up that bit more for the country, for our nation within the UK and for the country as a whole. For all the problems with our history we should remember all the good our nation has done, we should remember we are part of a 54-nation commonwealth. We are a democracy and broadly, although under constant attack, we have free speech. We should also remember we have no hope of living in a harmonious society, if we refuse to believe in the nation, we live in.

It was great to see unabashed patriotism in the US.  A belief in their state, their team, their country. I don’t for one moment think waving a flag, or all the flags of the UK will bring everyone together and solve all of society’s ills, but in a world where more people are from more places, we need to find ways to build communities.  Unashamedly getting behind our flag, and our nation, isn’t a bad place to start. 

This article was originally published in Blacklist Press.

Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?

Photo by The original uploader was Blakwolf at Italian Wikipedia. – Transferred from it.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5

First published in February Mike Swadling writes about the Laffer Curve.  It felt for a short while under Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng as if the Conservatives had rediscovered the problem with high taxes, but alas no more.  Once again, we are back in the situation described by Winston Churchill as “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

“The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government.  Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government”

Johnny Leavesley the former Conservative Party treasurer party donor, in an article in the Telegraph asked of the Government “Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?”.  You have to wonder.  Surely a Conservative government, a Conservative government would have heard of the Laffer Curve, but alas it appears not. This is a government that has increased corporation tax and is increasing National Insurance rates.  Do they really believe this will raise more money?

Whilst it is unlikely anyone reading Free Speech is unaware of the Laffer Curve it is maybe worth just noting what it is in case anyone from the government is reading. Named after Arthur Laffer, the Laffer Curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue.  The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government.  Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government.

Separate to a moral case for keeping more of your own income, even if you believe in a high spending government, higher tax rates make no sense.  People often assume the higher the tax rate, the higher the tax take but this is not the case.  As a little thought experiment do you believe more income would be raised with an 80% tax rate or 20% tax rate?  If you think of your own circumstances, it’s likely that at a 80% tax rate it would not be worth your while working in your current role.  It is quite possible you would look for cash in hand work and you certainly wouldn’t be looking to take on more hours in a role taxing you at 80%.  Whereas at a 20% tax rate is possibly less than you pay today.  You might be tempted to work more hours or take on a more stressful but rewarding role knowing you get to keep more of your money.

“Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it.”

My own experience with the Laffer Curve came some years ago working with a team of engineers who were all approaching a new higher tax bracket.  Much of our work involved weekend overtime and everyone’s hand would shoot up at first opportunity to work a lucrative Saturday.  Then suddenly our incomes that year had breached the threshold, we noticed we were no longer taking home the lion share of our income for the weekend, instead it was split fairly evenly with government.  Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it. From that point onwards finding someone to cover a weekend became increasingly difficult, and ‘bribery’ in the form of overtime no longer automatically worked.

The great mistake people often make is to forget that working itself is a cost, the cost is your free time, your energy, time not spent with your family or friends.  This all has to be weighed up against the rewards you receive for working.   This is equally true for businesses, setting up a business requires an investment of money and energy. Many people set up businesses in areas they’d already worked and where they could already draw decent income. When you take on the risk and extra effort of running your own business you need to see the extra reward.  What feels like a small increase in corporation tax maybe the difference from someone starting their own enterprise, employing people, and creating value or staying in a role they have today and letting somebody else hold the risk.

Nevertheless, the government seems committed to the idea that raising tax rates will raise the revenue needed so recover from the economic armageddon of lockdown.  Prior to the pandemic the UK government had been spending just over 39% of GDP, it shoots up to over 52% last year and is likely to remain over 40% for some years to come.  What does the government know that we don’t, and why do they think increased tax rates will somehow help?

“The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.  The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%.  Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.”

Since the 1970s tax receipts have never exceed 38% of GDP, mostly that have hovered around 35%.  In this time, we have had governments of Labour, Conservative, LibLab Pacts, Conservative Liberal coalitions, the UUP prop up James Callahan, and the DUP prop up Theresa May.

The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.  The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%.  Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.

Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue, something this government has clearly never heard of.

This article was first published in the Blacklist Press Free Speech newsletter.

Podcast Episode 74 – Chris Wilkinson: New Cabinet, Energy Pricing & Choice Party

We are joined by Chris Wilkinson, the founder of Blacklist Press and now a co-founder of a new political party – Choice, as we discuss Liz Truss’ new cabinet, the proposed energy price cap and Chris’ new party. We then chat with Chris about Blacklist Press and his soon to be published book about the late Labour Party leader John Smith.

Spreaker

iTunes

Google Podcasts

Podchaser

Podcast Addict		Deezer

Spotify

Stitcher

Amazon

Chris’ new book ‘John Smith: A Reappraisal: A critical analysis of the leadership of the Labour Party’s lost leader’ is now available at https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BGCXJKJ5.

Sat too long here for any good you have been doing

Image: U.K. Prime Minister, OGL 3, via Wikimedia Commons

“At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage”

During the 2008 London Mayoral election campaign my local paper, The Croydon Advertiser, asked a series of questions of then-Mayor Ken Livingston and Conservative candidate Boris Johnson about issues in the borough. Ken’s answers were as I recall perfectly adequate, but Boris’ I remember thinking at the time were written as if he had been a lifelong resident and his heart would always be in the town. Eight years later reading Zac Goldsmith’s answers to a similar set of questions, I thought he came over as if he had never been to the borough, had no intention of ever visiting, and the best we could hope for was he might mention the place to his staff in passing. Why am I writing about this? Well, it was clear Boris knew how to get a crowd onboard. Also, with Croydon being one of those outer London boroughs, a Conservative Mayoral candidate needs to pile on the votes to have any hope of winning. In stark contrast to the next Tory candidate, he or his team knew this interview mattered.

By the time Boris left office as Mayor, he had returned to parliament and was the leading light of the Vote Leave campaign. At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage. He delivered, at least in part, Brexit. The man who broke the Red Wall to win a stonking majority in the end simply ran out of steam.

“A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered”

What will be Johnson’s legacy? My personal view is I believe him to be the worst Prime Minister in British history. Johnson was the man who placed in a form of house arrest sixty-seven million healthy people based on a computer model. The evidence from Sweden, and across the United States where similar states had radically different lockdown policies shows his withdrawal of our freedom didn’t save any lives. Indeed, the economic calamity, social impact and changes to our lifestyles may well be responsible for the ongoing increase in excess deaths. A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered. However, I am aware, all too many were willing to accept lockdowns. So how do I believe he will be more generally viewed?

Boris campaigned in 2019 to “Get Brexit Done”. In that election he not only saw off the threat of Corbyn, but he also cemented a new Conservative coalition that broke the Red Wall and enabled us to retain our nations democratic traditions by delivering Brexit. It’s worth thinking through a counterfactual on delivering Brexit. Boris was handed Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. He had two choices, make the best of that, or scrap it and try to get a more complete Brexit deal through a Remain voting parliament. With new parties being formed to stop Brexit, the Supreme Court and the House of Commons Speaker doing all they could to block the will of the people, Boris had little choice but to plough on with the deal he had. Once he had won that eighty-seat majority on a manifesto that included that deal, he had little choice but to deliver it. The Remain crowd arguably lost because they would accept no compromise. Their attempts to stop any form of Brexit meant we had to, at least for Great Britain, fully leave. Boris making the best of the cards he had been dealt, with help from the Brexit Party standing down candidates, took the only practical steps available to get us out of the European Union.

“The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues”

In winning that majority, Boris oversaw the completion of a journey that had been taking place for some years. Working class voters, who had traditionally voted Labour, moved from voting on predominantly economic grounds to more cultural and specifically patriotic grounds. Many of these voters had moved to the Conservatives, via voting UKIP or Brexit Party. With the Brexit Party stood down and UKIP imploded, Boris’ Conservatives rather than Brexit-betraying Labour became their natural home. At the time of writing, voting for the next leader is about to get underway. Whoever wins needs to retain that coalition of suburban and country middle class, and patriotic working-class voters for the Conservatives to win the next election. The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues. To secure this the next Prime Minister should act on the following:

  • Immediately ease the cost-of-living crisis by suspending or better still removing Net Zero targets and reducing environmental obligations and VAT on energy bills.
  • Get the economy going, by cutting taxes, speeding up the opening of free ports and opening fracking sites.
  • Stop the cross-channel traffic of illegal immigration. No government can claim competence when it can’t even defend our sea border.
  • Take a stand for free speech. Most areas of the culture war are a minefield, the Conservatives don’t want to be seen as the nasty party, but they can take a stand for free speech. In doing this they can pitch themselves as standing up for the little guy against the social media giants of Silicon Valley, which will resonate with direct speaking working class voters and older voters who grew up proud we were part of the free world.

Failure to act to retain the new coalition will not only see the Conservatives leave office at the next election it will destroy what little is left of Johnson’s legacy.

This article originally appeared in the Blacklist Press, Free Speech bulletin 18th July 2022.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it

Image U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikimedia.

By: Mike Swadling

“The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark.  5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies”

The Jubilee proved a great opportunity for local neighbourhoods to come together in street parties, for local communities to decorate town centres and hold festivals, and for the nation to celebrate as a whole.  This was an almost unique opportunity for a nation like the United Kingdom, that doesn’t otherwise have a national day of celebration, and being formed by 4 component nations, doesn’t have many natural ways to bring our United Kingdom together except in honour of our Monarch.

The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark.  5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies.  The 20 Happiest Countries In The World In 2022 according to Forbes includes 10 parliamentary constitutional monarchies.   Looking at regions, Japan (monarchy) is arguably the best country to live in its region, Malaysia and Thailand (monarchies) are probably preferable to Myanmar, Vietnam, or Indonesia.  The Bahamas (monarchy) is perhaps the best of the Caribbean islands states to live in, and Belize (monarchy) the best country on the mainland of Central America.  Are you starting to see a pattern forming?  There are 208 countries in the world, just 13% (27) are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, yet they are overrepresented on every list of countries where you would want to live.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. No matter how illogical monarchies, are they clearly work.  The parliamentary Brexit wars of 2016-2019, confirmed to me the hereditary House of Lords and Judicial functions of the House of Lords worked better than what we have today.  For all its faults and failings the undemocratic house, full of hereditary peers, frankly worked quite well.  Under it we extended the franchise for men and gave women the vote.  Passed multiple Factory Acts improving working conditions, pursued laissez-faire economic policies whilst legalising trade unions, had agricultural and industrial revolutions, and built and started giving up, an empire.  We won two world wars against Germany, and arguably two more against France.  It wasn’t democratic but it was a system that, albeit sometimes rather slowly, worked.

“Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time.  Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility”

The best argument for a monarchy is often said to be President Thatcher and President Blair, one or both of these options will appal most people.  Despite both winning multiple elections, neither can be argued to be unifying figures.  But more than a rebuff to an unpopular president, the monarchy provides several practical benefits.

  • They ensure even the most powerful politician has a boss.  Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time.  Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility.
  • They are the embodiment of the nation as a person.  The nation is a fairly amorphous concept, but one that can come together and be represented under one figure.
  • Being apolitical, and it is critical they remain apolitical, they become a blank canvas for us to all paint our own ideas and views on.  We can all be satisfied we are fairly represented in our establishment by a royal family who’s views we can believe are as similar or not as we like to our own.
  • For a democracy to work we need opposing views, for a nation to work, we need some unity.  Most of the content on Netflix and Disney wants to impose some political views on me, woke corporations abound, and sports are full of political gesturing.  The more places in life we can find without a political slogan the better, royalty gives us that.

But don’t take my word for it.  Take the word of the 54 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, countries that choose to belong to a body headed by the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom.  The soft power the monarchy provides is a huge boost to British interests, economic, cultural, and political.  Is the system perfect?  No.  Is it democratic?  No.  Is it even logical?  Not at all.  Does it work?  A resounding Yes!

Source: PolizeiBerlin, Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)

This article was originally published in Blacklist Press‘ Free Speech.

The Right to Strike

Image Agitated workers face the factory owner in The Strike, painted by Robert Koehler in 1886. Source:Deutsches Historisches Museum: info pic

By Mike Swadling

“after two years of having our freedoms suspended not least our right to assemble, and with further threats to our rights to free speech coming along, it’s more important than ever to support the rights of those striking”

Over the past few weeks, we have seen industrial action or strikes hit the news again for the first time in a few years.  The RMT has been holding a series of strikes on the railways, Arriva and Stagecoach workers have strike action planned.  Despite Mayor Khan’s pledge to end London Underground strikes they are going ahead, and now teaching unions are threatening to ballot.

Strikes are never popular, but it does seem these are even less popular than most.  Perhaps this is hardly surprising as we look forward to our first free summer for a couple of years, and with people worried about rising costs, these strikes could hardly come at a worse time.  The government has come out strongly against them, as have many commentators, and it’s fair to say the zeitgeist generally has been against the strikes.

However, after two years of having our freedoms suspended not least our right to assemble, and with further threats to our rights to free speech coming along, it’s more important than ever to support the rights of those striking, even if you don’t support the reasons for the strikes and find some of the union barons unpleasant.

The craftsmen of the ancient Greeks formed loose associations.  In the Roman Empire Collegia Opificum (unions of workers) included guilds of weavers, doctors, teachers, and painters.  Guilds survived in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire and then flourished across Europe in the later Middle Ages.  The history of guilds working in the interest of their members and to maintain standards for goods is a long one.

As a result of the industrial revolution growing numbers of workers joined unions, fears of the French Revolution spreading to these shores, led to Combination Acts in 1799 and 1800, which outlawed “combining” or organising to gain better working conditions.  In 1824 these were repealed, and Trade Unions became legal, but a new Combinations Act severely restricted their activities in 1825. 

A century and a half of Parliament overreach in restricting the rights of workers to act collectively saw the formation of the Labour Party, the General Strike, and on the other side, years of union overreach with restrictive practice, closed shops, wildcat and nakedly political strikes.  The 1980s saw an end to mass private sector union membership, and whilst the public sector has maintained large unionisation, as the chart below shows industrial disputes are at their lowest numbers in decades.

Data Source: Labour disputes;UK;Sic 07;total working days lost;all inds. & services (000’s) – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

“As someone who campaigned for Brexit in part to allow us to reverse the 20 years of stagnant working-class wages, I don’t want to complain when workers collectively bargain to get a pay increase”

As someone who campaigned for Brexit in part to allow us to reverse the 20 years of stagnant working-class wages, I don’t want to complain when workers collectively bargain to get a pay increase.  We all know inflation is a massive issue right now, and public sector workers getting bumper pay increases will make that situation worse not better, however that doesn’t negate the right of unions to strike for better pay.

Mis and contradictory information abounds on the train strike, with train drivers paid an average of £59,000 but the strikers average being reportedly a more modest £33,000.  The strike is also about redundancies.  It seems to me reasonable that with passenger numbers not recovering from lockdown, staff numbers are reduced, but it’s also reasonable for unions to fight for their members.

“2 years of intermittent lockdown and school closures, often egged on by teaching unions, may find the public unsympathetic to demands for pay rises many if not most in the private sector are not getting themselves”

Teachers and health care workers are now threatening strike ballots over pay.  These strikes could possibly illicit even less public sympathy than those on the railway.  As many who have tried to book appointments with their GP will know, we now have an NHS that seems reluctant to actually see patients.  2 years of intermittent lockdown and school closures, often egged on by teaching unions, may find the public unsympathetic to demands for pay rises many if not most in the private sector are not getting themselves.  As is often the case, in the long term these strikes may hurt rather than help members.

Strikes provide one other important balance, with low unemployment and high worker mobility, strikes provide a release mechanism.  They point to a failure in relations and allow people to act without leaving their role or industry.

Libertarianism.org describes libertarian views on Labor Unions (in the US context) as “The libertarian principle on which the legitimacy of labor unions depends is freedom of association”.  It goes on to say due to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “forbids workers individually to choose whether a union represents them in bargaining with employers about terms and conditions of employment. Instead, a union is granted monopoly bargaining privileges”, as such it considers much union activity in the US largely illegitimate. 

Closed shops are illegal in the UK, although arguably de facto closed shops (97% of teachers, and 96% of train drivers are in a union) do exist.  People do have a choice, it is much more common for people to change careers, and many sectors have large casual or agency working which often pays a premium in exchange for reduced benefits and security. 

After a few years of repressed democracy and freedom, as someone who believes in an individual’s liberty, I can’t think of a more important time to stand up for the rights of people, who I disagree with, who’s politics I may dislike, to combine and peacefully associate, as they see fit.

This article also appeared in Blacklist Press’ Free Speech for 1st August 2022.

Fight For Freedom

by Mike Swadling

In February, I attended The Freedom Association (TFA) Jillian Becker Lecture held in London. Nigel Farage gave this year’s lecture, with an introduction from TFA’s Chairman and former MEP David Campbell Bannerman and a great summary by Chief Executive Andrew Allison.

Farage, as you can expect, gave a great speech covering many topics not least of all the need to fight against Net Zero environmental policies. He stayed for a fantastic question-and-answer, and never looks better than thinking on his feet with a live audience. For me, possibly the best thing about the event was that it was great to meet up with people you know, people you’ve heard of, and new people involved in all sorts of searches for freedom, or as Nigel put it; ‘it felt like old times’.

“The Freedom Association itself has a proud history of supporting freedom in our country. It’s ten principles of a free society cover individual freedom, responsibility, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, national parliamentary democracy”

The Freedom Association itself has a proud history of supporting freedom in our country. It’s ten principles of a free society cover individual freedom, responsibility, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, national parliamentary democracy, and – something in desperate need of bringing to the fore – freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.

It is a great organisation, and I would encourage anyone to join not least for events like this but also because it’s a great way to support the fight for freedom in Britain. The event was also a great opportunity to meet people from difference parties; the Conservatives, the Reform Party, UKIP, the Heritage Party, journalists from the left and right, people from academia, and a range of activists all believing that we have a right to be free.

Events like these are also a great opportunity to make new contacts. I was busy picking up business cards from people in a variety of thinktanks who I certainly hope to persuade to be on our podcast if not at a live event. One of the greatest feelings I got from the experience was the overwhelming sense of community and comfort in not being alone in one’s beliefs.

“going to see ‘Kevin Bloody Wilson’, the Australian singing comic, at a local theatre. All the political correctness we see in life, all the push back against ‘insensitive’ jokes, suddenly disappears when you’re in a theatre full of people singing songs with names to rude for me to mention”

Social media is no substitute for real life meet-ups in the flesh, especially with a large crowd. I had a similar experience recently going to see ‘Kevin Bloody Wilson’, the Australian singing comic, at a local theatre. All the political correctness we see in life, all the push back against ‘insensitive’ jokes, suddenly disappears when you’re in a theatre full of people singing songs with names to rude for me to mention.

But things are improving on this front. We hold a regular Libertarian Drinks here in Croydon as part of Dick Dellingpole’s Third Wednesday group. They are gaining popularity across the country, and you can find your local meet-up on the website. One is due to be set up in Christopher Wilkinson’s home city of Lichfield sometime soon. What’s been excellent for us is seeing the group expand from what started as a pro-Brexit group to include some people too young to vote at the time of the referendum! As we hopefully put lockdown well and truly behind us, in real life is clearly the way forward. In the meantime, the whole Jillian Becker Lecture is now available to watch on YouTube.

This article was originally published in the Blacklist Press, February 14 Free Speech Newsletter.