Day 1 of the LPUK campaign in Norwich North

Well its all go for a small party. We don't have a major machine all geared up waiting for elections to occur, we all muck in and play a part in the administration, organisation and planning for a campaign.

We are dealing with the legals with the Returning Officer and getting the nomination sorted out on the necessary formal footing, getting the signatures together, sorting out the accounting, campaign office and all the necessary logistics.

Brochures are in print awaiting a surprisingly large number of volunteers who are chomping at the bit waiting to go knocking on doors.

There have been endless meetings, telephone conversations and conference calls, hundreds of emails and masses of Twitters and Facebook updates.

Thomas Burridge has now signed up to the inevitable Twitter account and can be followed on @Thomas_Burridge as he embarks on this campaign.

The LPUK campaign telephone number is 01603 850573 for any eager press hacks who want the low down on the nations youngest ever PPC, or just to organise an interview or two, and of course it is there for the public to call in with their questions on Libertarian Party policies. Alternatively you can email us at contact@lpuk.org

The campaign number will operate between 8am and 8pm every day during the campaign, but out of hours or if the line is busy please feel free to leave a message.

There is also a campaign Facebook group which will be updated daily, which can be accessed here http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98602842765 as will the East Anglia Libertarian party blog.

After announcing that Thomas would be standing I have received many questions about his background and in particular why someone so young would want to stand for Parliament.

I have already published Thomas' opening statement in my post of yesterday, but to those who still try to paint him as someone too young I would say this:

One of the things that has been made clear, especially by the younger members of our party is that the so called 'experts', the 'professional politicians' and the older generations have seriously let them down, left them with debts that they will probably never be able to repay and they are mightily hacked off about it.

They now want their say, in the places that matter, in those places where the decisions are made, and Thomas is one such young man, who having now completed his exams in political studies is ready to stand up and be counted.

It comes down to the old adage, If you keep voting the same, you will continue to get the same. So it is time for new, fresh faces with fresh ideas to come forward to keep these older politicians on their toes, to start putting forward policies that put the people first, that honestly take care of our rights, liberties and freedoms that the older generations of politicians have eroded, and are continuing to undermine and erode.

The political map has changed irriversably over the past year, this young man is now fighting for his generation's future, and in that he has my full and unreserved support, as he does from the rest of the party, we are fighting right alongside him.

We are in this contest to win, not just to make a showing, and we will compete with the best based upon our policies. We will not be bad mouthing opponents although we may rubbish their policy, we will simply explain our position direct to the voters. With or without press coverage, we will talk to the voters direct.


To run a successful election campaign we need funds, lots of funds, so yet again I am asking that you contribute generously to help us to get this young man elected, a fresh face with fresh ideas to put the new generation into the decision making process. The old faces have failed, have been disgraced, so lets help Thomas to put an end to the old kind of devious government.

.

Jaw Dropping Bullshit of the Week

(link)

"However, Jean-Pascal Ypersele, vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested at a recent European Commission conference on climate change that the figures being used by policy makers are out of date and even more stringent measures will need to be taken. 'To remain between 2°C and 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels [that is, warmer than the 2°C cut-off being used by policymakers], you basically have to have zero emissions globally before the end of the century, somewhere around 2070,' said van Ypersele. 'The earth is heading towards a climate that no human has ever known.'

These scumbags will stop at nothing.

Norwich North by-election - July 23rd - LPUK candidate

The date for the Norwich North by-election, triggered by the resignation of Labour MP Ian Gibson, is being reported to have been set for 23 July.

The writ for the election will be moved on Tuesday, with the poll set to be held two days after Parliament breaks up for its summer recess on 21 July.

The seat will be a target for the Tories and should be a pointer to how Labour may fare in key constituencies in the south of England at the next general election.

The Libertarian Party will be fielding a candidate, Thomas Burridge, who at 18 will be the youngest candidate ever to stand for Parliament.

Brown and Cameron and Clegg have all given their support to the involvement of younger people in the parliamentary system, now lets see what the voters think.

Thomas agrees and has this to say:

Most sensible people will be saying what the hell does he know about anything. Well this is what I do know, the last twelve years of Labour has left my generation in massive debt, my generation will be paying off the excesses of the last twelve years for the rest of our lives, not only my generation, but our as yet unborn children.

Did we have any say in spending the rest of our lives in debt ? No we did not.

I am from the Debt Generation, and only LPUK has fresh answers from a new Generation.

At 18 Thomas is very mature despite his very youthful looks, so dont be fooled, and dont be put off by the already mounting voices who are saying that he cannot know anything at 18.

Thomas recognises the debts, knows where the faults lie, and has answers and policies that can make a real difference to the way in which we are governed.

He certainly has my support, and I am going to ask you to give him your support.


To run a successful election campaign we need funds, lots of funds, so I am asking that you contribute generously to help us to get this young man elected, a fresh face with fresh ideas to put the new generation into the decision making process. The old faces have failed, have been disgraced, so lets help Thomas to put an end to the old kind of devious government.


.
Press enquiries to media@lpuk.org

Election Fund Appeal

If Norwich North is called tomorrow can you please donate to the following account

40-28-20 a/c 92635313

Put your name and membership number in the reference, or if a non member email your details to donate@lpuk.org

Can we suspend all other postings on the blog unless relevant to the by-election

I love the smell of neighpalm in the morning

The price of intervention

The UK’s utilisation of liquefied natural gas will rise with its energy sources dwindling, said Angela Burns, member of the National Assembly for Wales. (link)

“Our power stations have traditionally relied on coal, whose sources in the UK are very limited. Also, it is expensive to mine coal in the UK than importing it from Eastern Europe. LNG is definitely going to replace coal, whose prospects look bleak in our country. Liquefied natural gas will be used to fire power stations and industries across the UK”

This is the true cost of renewable "investment".

Now I'm scared.

Britain's energy systems are no longer fit for purpose, according to leading members of the UK's best-known scientific academy, the Royal Society.

The group's vice-chairman, Lord Redesdale, said the UK would never reach its climate change targets unless it radically improved policies on existing homes.

He said: "A billion tonnes will have failed to be saved from domestic carbon emissions and this is equivalent to the CO2 pollution from Britain's aviation sector over the next 25 years.

"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."

Their report says current government policy is not enough to pay for green technology...

"We have adapted to an energy price which is unrealistically low if we're going to try and preserve the environment"

I think this could well pay for itself soon.

Speaking of demands for more money...

Gordon Brown wants more of yours.

Cash Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease !

This morning I signed off on our candidate for Norwich North, and yet again I am afraid I am asking for your hard earned money as pay day approaches to make a success of this by election and to get us in the public eye.

The Minority Report: Why I am a Climate Sceptic

Check it out.

Green Inc.

There is, apparently, a funding roadblock ahead for clean energy.

“One of my big fears is that we will fall off a cliff,” the director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google, Dan W. Reicher, said in an interview in New York last week.

If only they would. But the following tells you everything you need to know about wind energy...

In the United States, a tax credit to aid wind energy has threatened to expire about every year or two over the past decade, causing the industry to complain that long-term planning is impossible. Congress has repeatedly extended the credit on a short-term basis, but manufacturers of wind turbines have hesitated to establish plants in the United States for fear that the demand for their product might evaporate. (The three-year extension provided in the stimulus package has given a measure of stability, although it arrived — as per the definition of stimulus — just as private investors had pulled back.)

The private sector knows full well that without government subsidy and a favourable regulatory environment nobody will build wind farms subsidy clusters. Which tells you even more about the UK government. The fact that developers are piling into the industry tells you that they are confident that the green bonanza is here to stay. Regulatory favours are seldom threatened in the absence of real democracy.

Number crunching

Amount "invested" by UK government into offshore wind... £525m

Amount cut from BP's renewable energy budget... £550m

Errr.

A barrage of spin

"Public to have a say on plans for Severn barrage" apparently.

“During this consultation, we plan to hold public meetings on both sides of the Severn estuary. Before the consultation begins, a hand-picked audience, including members of the public, will be invited to a separate “small-scale public meeting”, Mr Kidney said.

“This work is intended to provide a representative view on Severn tidal power at this point, the priority issues for people and how best to communicate information in the consultation,” he said.

Something tells me neither democracy nor common sense will prevail.

Morons

Catastrophic floods and droughts caused by climate change could be prevented simply by putting less water in the kettle, according to new Government advice.

A new pamphlet, to be placed in every public library in the country, warns that the UK faces summer heat-related deaths, sea level rises and food shortages by the end of the century as a result of global warming.

Money well spent.

Dead Men Walking

In September The House of Lords will determine its decision on the ongoing OFT v All the Banks over unfair charging.( Last Chance for the Banks)

Listening to the commentators on the Banks Legal Team, 'They have given up' 'The Banks are dead men walking' 'The best they could come up with was the dire warning of what would happens to the Banks if they are compelled to refund all unfair charges going back to 1997 when the regulations came in.

If Labour are hoping that the economy is going to improve by the time of their conference, think again. The economy will implode as the Banks squeal for more of our money, and we collectively tell them to fcuk off.

Brown is already preparing his exit strategy, I am going to teach ! FFS

Between now and the Autumn , the Banks will be calling in loans, restricting credit,driving businesses to the wall- waiting for the Armageddon to come in September.

Democracy isn't always a good idea.

U.S. President Barack Obama is calling a climate change bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives Friday "historic" and crucially important for job creation.

In his weekly broadcast Saturday, the president says the legislation will finally make clean energy "profitable." The bill puts severe limits on harmful emissions and promotes alternative energy. The president says the bill encourages investments in clean energy that will create thousands of jobs.

Am I allowed to swear on this blog?

Doug Stanhope on Freedom

A bit of comedy for a friday night.

Who'da thunk it?

EU: We want US climate bill to succeed!

BRUSSELS (AP) — The Europe Union wants a U.S. climate change bill to succeed so the United States can move swiftly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Friday.

The EU is in favour of centrist, statist, damaging, high tax regulation? That's a first.

New world what you say?

Scottish Libertarians

I have finally managed to mailmerge document the Scottish Libertarian Membership List, Paul Rozs and myseld are going to get to Scotland shortly, to get the Scottish Libertarians formed properly into a viable entity, like the South Est, the South West and North West- Northern Ireland and Wales next !

Down For Maintenance

THE LPUK SITE AND FORUM WILL BE DOWN FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS THIS EVENING, THERE IS NO NEED FOR FEAR AND DESPONDANCY

UPDATE 00:17: Website and Forum back up and running ok for moment. Got to sort one or two more things tomorrow but everything (touch wood) should be fine now.

Dr Sanity will see you now.

"The prime minister is to pledge UK leadership in the international battle against climate change" sayeth the beeb. "He is due to launch a document showing what the UK will offer to the Copenhagen conference tasked with forging a new global climate agreement."

The climate department DECC says, for instance, that although China's total emissions are immense, the average European is responsible for emitting twice as much greenhouse gases as the average person in China.

Could that be because the vast majority of China is undeveloped and a pushbike would look like alien technology to many living in the back hills? Like for like on averages in the developed regions, what would that figure look like?

The failure to calculate embedded emissions has damaged the reputation of countries like China which are making goods for export to the West but then being blamed for the pollution.

We greedy capitalists must stop consuming hey? If we can just pursuade China and India to join the Western Economic Suicide Club then everything will be just fine.

This will be expensive. But however deranged, stupid and expensive it is, it won't be deranged, stupid or expenisve enough for some. According to the Grauniad, A leading UK climate scientist yesterday warned MPs that the government's ­climate change policies are "dangerously optimistic".

Professor Kevin Anderson, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the government's planned carbon cuts – if followed internationally – would have a "50-50 chance" of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2C. This is the threshold that the EU defines as leading to dangerous climate change.

Anderson also said that the two government departments most directly involved with climate change policy were like "small dogs yapping at the heels" of more powerful departments, such as that run by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson.

Is that right??

He said that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), run by Ed ­Miliband, should be given more power.

That sounds like a great idea.

The EU's Latest Power Grab

From today's Wall Street Journal Europe...

In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result. After Ireland last year rejected the EU's Lisbon Treaty -- itself a rehashed carbon-copy of the EU Constitution that Dutch and French voters rebuffed in 2005 -- the Irish are being asked to reconsider. There will be another referendum in early October, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said Wednesday, and this time the Irish are expected to get it right. In Europe, they don't take "no" for an answer.

WSJ.

Mandatory Suicide

No cute remarks, no analysis. It has all been said and I'm all out of green swastikas. So here is a quick round up...

Some 800,000 jobs across Europe will be wiped out following the adoption of EU climate change legislation last year, warned Poland's Solidarno뜻 trade union.

...

The trade unionist poured cold water on the notion that job cuts would be offset by the creation of new "green jobs" in emerging sectors such as solar or wind power. "Yes, there will be new jobs, but these will mainly be for young people," he said. "According to our estimates, there will be 800,000 job losses for the whole European Union," Grzesik indicated, a figure that will not be compensated by the estimated 200,000 new jobs, he said.

...

Roland Verstappen, vice-president for international affairs at AcrelorMittal, said steel industries were considering relocating their European operations to other parts of the world because of climate legislation.

--EurActiv, 25 June 2009

Recent studies forecasting the potential economic benefits of government green job programs are critically flawed and erroneously promote these jobs as a benefit, according to a report released today by The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University. The economic analysis reviewed the primary claims of three of the most influential green jobs studies and found serious economic flaws in each. "Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow," reported Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report's authors.

--The Beacon Hill Institute, 25 June 2009

The centre-left have substituted social democratic ideals for an environmental programme in which the rhetoric of saving the planet has taken priority over the principle of liberating the underprivileged and disadvantaged from poverty and dereliction. In effect, green policies are gradually pricing the working and lower-middle classes out of their comfort zone. Labour parties may sincerely believe that their utopian low-carbon plans will save the planet. But in the process they are destroying the very foundations of their political support and movement.

--Benny Peiser, The Politics of Climate Change, London, June 2009

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

--Kimberley A Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, 26 June 2009

America's Dirty Little Secret

In "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme isn't working", UK-based Open Europe says that the current EU Emissions trading scheme isn't working and that international action should focus on setting tough, enforceable national targets for greenhouse gas reduction.

I would certainly agree with the former part of that statement. And Europe having proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Cap and Trade simply does not work, it becomes necessary for America to follow suit with the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy Security North American Economic Suicide Act.

Readers of the Wall Street Journal will notice the tone of opposition becoming ever ore shrill having dubbed it a "Cap on Trade". It will cap productivity and trade jobs. But you don't have to be a right wing "climate denier" to see right through this bill. Even the Greenshirts think it's rubbish. It has been watered down to placate opposition from Democrat politicians representing oil and coal rich states.

And in that finest of European traditions, the bill will probably pass into law with the majority of the lower house having never read it. And in the bill comes numerous appendices which earmark spending for renewable energy and other dubious causes. This is a stealth stimulus bill and the biggest stealth tax in history. China must be laughing up its sleeve.

Skynet

Tinfoil Hat Warning: Extreme paranoia follows...

The Telegraph reports today that Britain is to build new defences against a "cyber cold war" being launched from China and Russia amid fears that hackers could gain the technology to shut down the computer systems that control Britain's power stations, water companies, air traffic, government and financial markets.

This brings to light a new concern about smart grid technology. Any fan of Terminator or Battlestar Galactica will tell you the best defence against hacking is to not have essential systems on a network. To a greater extend a lot of our energy infrastructure is already networked and will become more so. It is inevitable. But as with ID cards, it's not Russia or China I'm worried about. It's our own government, with or without malicous intent.

Green Fascism

Eight projects from around England will share in £6 million in funding through the Government’s Greener Living Fund, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn announced today.

The successful projects went through a two-stage application process and were selected from 112 original applications. Launched at the same time as Defra’s Third Sector Strategy in November 2008, the Greener Living Fund aims to help individuals and communities in England to live more sustainably, reducing their carbon footprint and reducing pressure on natural resources.

The fund has been made available to projects that have a clear understanding of who they are trying to influence and their potential to change behaviour and will give them two year funding. Most of the projects selected look at a range of behaviours that are good for the environment, like home energy, waste and water, but some of the chosen projects are more specialised and will focus on seasonal food and sustainable fishing.

One rule for them

New measures designed to ensure MSPs are given 'proper respect' follow the controversial police raid on Damian Green's Commons office last year.

Police officers who want to search offices of members of the Scottish parliament will be forced through a series of hoops before they are allowed entry, in the wake of the Damian Green affair at Westminster.

New rules released this morning at Holyrood by the parliament's presiding officer, Alex Fergusson show that detectives and prosecutors will need to go through at least six different steps before police can enter the building, and then normally under escort.

Meanwhile you can bet they'll remove any restrictions on entering our homes when they want more money.

Our generosity knows no bounds.

England and Wales could slash greenhouse gas emissions and create at least 70,000 jobs if councils would help insulate homes and businesses and fit green energy to buildings, according to new research from Friends of the Earth.

New jobs could be available as loft laggers, architects, plumbers, builders, electricians, plasterers and insulation specialists — with new admin, transit and warehouse positions also created to support the installation of insulation and renewable energy.

Some local councils are already putting in place schemes like those modelled in the research. For example, Kirklees Council in Yorkshire has created 120 jobs through insulating 21,000 homes.

Who do you suppose is paying for that?

Circling Vultures

“Ethical” bank Triodos has launched a fund to invest in growing cleantech businesses in the UK. Triodos EIS Green Fund will back companies that are eligible for the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), a government initiative offering tax reliefs to those who invest in companies with fewer than 50 staff.

‘Despite the challenging economic climate, sectors such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and waste recycling are resilient in the current recession and are often underpinned by government support mechanisms.’

Nice work if you can get it.

And UK-based Global Green Power PLC Corp. is looking at developing 360 megawatts (MW) of biomass power generators and 200 MW of wind power in various locations around the country.

"We’ve been waiting for the right opportunity and with the passing of the renewable energy law, we feel that now is the right time," Global Green Power President David de Montaigne said yesterday in a phone interview.

Why do you suppose that is?

Hold the front page...

The Faily Telegraph's lead item... Conservative MPs to repay £250,000, says David Cameron.

Errr...

What is the point of the BBC?

This was the lead story on BBC news today. That the FSA has just made one of the most sweeping interventions in its history or that 4000 energy workers are stiking this week isn't a top story is a cause for concern. That the top story for the BBC is the BBC tells you everything you need to know about modern Britain. Parliaments' chief concern is parliament and the medias' cheif concern is the media. Meanwhile, who is running the country?

Something is wrong with this picture...

This is not something I know enough about to confidently call stercus tauri on but every bit of my spidey sense is tingling that todays announcement, that financial advisers are to be banned from receiving commission for selling investment, pension and life assurance products from 2012, under new FSA rules (an EU inspired institution), is a very bad idea.

As a guiding principle, everything the government does is rubbish and so anything which looks good on the surface, as this populist measure does, will most likely make the problems worse or shift them elsewhere to the detriment of the industry and the consumer.

I would even go one further. When government steps in with regulation, more often than not it is to "repair" a problem it caused with prior regulation. What's the bet this is one of those times? This industry is already under extreme pressure from the markets and regulators not least with the recent ban on point of sale advice on Payment Protection Insurance. This could be a the final nail in the coffin of the highstreet independent financial advisor.

The FT has it that...

At present, approximately 80 per cent of the work done by the UK’s 35,000 independent financial advisers (IFAs) is on a commission basis, according to estimates from unbiased.co.uk, the professional advice website. A further 50,000 financial advisers, who work as ‘tied’ or ‘multi-tied’ agents of banks and insurance companies, also operate on commission.

Under the FSA proposals, the distinction between these different forms of advice will also be made explicit. All investment firms will have to describe themselves as offering ‘independent advice’, giving recommendations from the whole of the market “based on comprehensive and fair analysis”, or ‘restricted advice’, giving recommendations on their own range of products.

This will cost jobs. If any of our readers can shed any further light on this we would be glad to hear from you.

Small beer

Quelle surprise. The media squeals about £1.6bn but is strangely silent about the several hundred billion we are throwing away.

Consumer Focus deputy chief executive Philip Cullum said: “Our new research for the first time shows the reality. "The companies are pocketing £1.6bn extra while millions of households struggle to make ends meet.

Spread across the entire sector £1.6bn amounts to very little. Especially when compared with the hundreds of billions the government is adding to our bills. And as ever, the various organisations involved demonstrtate their vast ignorance iof the industry....

National Housing Federation chief executive David Orr said: “The findings of the Consumer Focus investigation are a damning indictment of the UK energy market, which is the least regulated in Europe.

“At least five of the big energy companies have repeatedly overcharged customers, especially those on prepay metres, in a potential breach of EU directives. As a consequence, many people may be entitled to compensation.

“The energy regulator Ofgem has long been soft on the fat cat energy companies, and it is now time for it, and the Government, to start intervening effectively to give energy consumers some real protection.”

But the funny thing about gas prices is they go up and down. Sometimes, as in 2006 when a major North Sea connector went down, gas prices shoot up taking out several small gas shippers and nearly bankrupting others. The gas company I worked for had to mortgage its headquarters just to buy a days worth of gas on the spot market in order to stay in business. Such is the volatility of the market.

The energy industry must have cash reserves for such eventualities, more so now because energy companies are being forced to spend a lot of their money on things which will not work and cover a whole raft of regulatory taxes. The last thing we need is yet more government intervention. We could halve our bills if the government would just get out of the way.

Tax protester prepared to go to prison

"A political figure is continuing to refuse to pay his council tax, despite the threat of jail" says the Grimsby Telegraph.

James Stinson, leader of Grimsby's Generalist Party, was made the subject of a liability order at Grimsby Magistrates' Court yesterday.

If he continues to refuse to pay the outstanding balance of more than £1,300, he will be summoned to appear before the court again – and could face prison.

Good luck with that. It's not a good idea. This isn't a free country you know.

When policing has truly lost its way.

I think it is fair to say that most people are aware of the Peelian Principles of policing, but the last 40 years or so have taken their toll as far as the public is concerned and the relationship between police and public have never been at a lower ebb.

It is curious therefore that those who still claim we do not live in a police state, even though it stares and watches us every day, cannot see how far policing in the UK has slipped from those simple basic principles laid out by Sir Robert Peel, who as Home Secretary brought in the first Metropolitan Police Act in 1829.

Now, in 2009 there is to be a Parliamentary hearing on criminal records, and the response from the ACPO is in my view a summary of how they now see themselves, not as policemen, but as 'Public Protectors in all its forms'. An exceptionally dangerous path for us to allow them to tread.

Here is a copy of the Press Release by the ACPO. CC Sir Ken Jones, ACPO President said:

“The police service is determined to do all it can to keep people safe from crime and make sure those who break the law are brought to justice. As the mission of the service continues to expand and widen from patrol and response to embrace public protection in all its forms, the Police National Computer is an increasingly vital tool. Data is held on the PNC not just for policing, but for a number of agencies including CPS, judiciary, social services and others, all of whom have a joint role in ensuring informed judgements are made.

“We would guard against rushing to judgements on the public interest in this area and we therefore welcome the opportunity to review retention principles and proportionality.”

This is not public interest, this is police interest, and in the case of the ACPO it is also a commercial interest, and one that only further enhances their primary role in a police state.

If we do not very quickly return to those Peelian principles, if we do not constrain the ACPO and its ambitions, there will be little or nothing that this organisation will not be able to do in the name of the law, whilst creating and adapting laws to suit its own ends.

Put bluntly, the ACPO view on policing is not the way that the public wish to be policed. It is unaccountable and unacceptable. In several cases its record keeping has been found to be illegal, both in terms of the databases that the ACPO, NPIA and other agencies operate and also the scale and breadth of data collected and held.

Police records ARE just for policing. Nothing else, full stop. The collection and retention of police records is of course not the only problem, but it is one upon which many other police functions are either harnessed properly and remain within the rule of law, or are allowed to run out of control.

It is time, clearly time that the policing functions within the UK are brought back under the control of the very public that they purport to be protecting. Elected senior officers, reporting to the judiciary, responsible to the electorate.

Until we can guarantee again as Peel intended, that the Police are serving the interests of the public rather than furthering their own interests, that relationship with the public will never be repaired.

When policing has truly lost its way.

Its That Time Again

This morning I signed off on our candidate for Norwich North, and yet again I am afraid I am asking for your hard earned money as pay day approaches to make a success of this by election and to get us in the public eye.

Scotland the insane

Straight from the land of "You couldn't make this up" The Scotsman reports that...

A RAFT of new powers to crack down on wasteful homeowners and businesses were passed yesterday, giving the Scottish Government the tough tools it needs to meet the world's most ambitious emissions targets. Measures voted through parliament include the power to fine householders and companies if they do not take action to improve the energy efficiency of their houses and buildings.

Charges could be brought in for plastic bags, and businesses may be forced to reduce packaging under the powers granted to ministers under the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

...

Among the powers passed by parliament to help cut emissions were

measures that will mean Scots who take steps to cut their homes' energy consumption– such as by putting in insulation – being awarded a £50 reduction on their council tax.

The legislation will pave the way for planning permission to be granted automatically for home energy kits, such as micro-turbines.

Powers were also given to the Scottish Government which, if implemented, could see shops and visitor attractions forced to install recycling bins, and require businesses to reduce packaging or potentially face a fine.

The bill requires that, of the cuts in emissions, 80 per cent have to be found in Scotland, with only 20 per cent made up from paying for reductions overseas by purchasing international credits.

I have no words. I have lost the will to live.

A different perspective on Afghanistan...

Fascinating and important...

Newt has it right here. A shame Van Susteren is a moron...

Spot the difference.

I had cause to discuss fascism with Dr Helen Szamuely last week. Particularly with regard to how the left conflate fascism with racism and how the self-proclaimed anti-fascists would more closely fit the description than those they commonly rail against.

Indeed Hitlers anti-semitism is a unique bolt on to the the concept of fascism, itself merely a collectivist, statist economic outlook. This is why I still find cause to laugh at the BNP and their so-called "extreme right wing" credentials. Many cite fascism's opposition to communism as proof it is of the right but fascism is to communism as UKIP is to Conservatism. But I am not a fan of such sophistry except to while away a few hours in the pub.

But this is still of a concern. While fascism was soundly defeated in World War Two, it still thrives today. There are many parties who would not find themselves in disagreement with the Nazis if they anonymously swapped economic policies. Namely this party and this one too.

Do you think we should tell them?

World Drugs Report.

Since today marks the arrival of the 2009 World Drugs Report. I was going to write a ballsaching post on the subject. Luckily, here's one I prepared earlier...

It seems like an annual cycle in which we end up having the same debate about drugs. The evidence that prohibition is a failed policy mounts up year after year but we remain in a constants state of political paralysis.

It's something we all have an opinion on because it's something which affects us all in some way or other. There is much uncertainty but the one thing we can be sure of is that drugs, for better or worse, are here to stay. People take drugs because, for starters, they're great. The experience comes highly recommend via word of mouth, literature, film and media.

The worst of the damage done is by tainted drugs, usually in the wrong doses and the fact that the entire distribution network is run by criminals. That's why it must be legalized and controlled. What we need is better drugs education, on how to take them safely and where to get help if needs be.

Most drugs are safe(ish). But there are more subtle, long term effects of prolonged use. Mostly psychological. Depression, anxiety, paranoia, schizophrenia, loss of self-awareness, social confusion, self-esteem problems and a whole host of other disorders such as ADHD, fibro-myalgia, eating and sleeping disorders. All of which may not actually kill you but can lead to a life of disappointment, anguish, financial difficulty and social exclusion. These can have even more adverse effects on family, friends and the wider economy than even death or disease. It is a slow, degrading, downward cycle which tears families apart.

These are the things we should be educating kids about. Instead we fill their heads full of scare stories and the "drugs kill" mantra so when they get out into the wider world and they can see that generally speaking drugs really don't kill, they reject everything they've been taught about them then have to learn the hard way. And while there is still a "rebel factor" they remain attractive. But if you had to obtain recreational narcotics from a chemist and there's a special queue for them with all the other junkies, kids will see that what they're doing is seriously uncool. But even that is needlessly authoritarian.

You still won't stamp it out because it's fun, its educational, and for all the trouble it caused me, I still wouldn't have done anything differently in that respect. I've been to a lot of great and obscure places, partied up mountains and on beaches, in clubs and in factories and abandoned hospitals, met many very peculiar people, I've DJ'd some of the most notorious clubs in the country and without any of that I'd never have learned musicianship, graphic design and audio engineering.

Yes the cost was high but I grew out of it eventually, most people do. In fact the kids who started on it younger had the advantage because they grew out of it much, much sooner and picked up their lives in time to go on to get qualified and live productive lives.

The ones who don't grow out of it are the ones for whom the scene with its community presents the very best of what they will ever get or were ever likely to get. Who are we to take that from them? I don't particularly like that drugs have turned a lot of my former friends into dysfunctional morons but there's nothing to say they weren't headed in that direction anyway. So far as I'm concerned it's only a big deal because of prohibition which has never worked and never will.

I remain convinced that drugs are a scapegoat for deeper social problems and where that is concerned I still point the finger at the welfare state. Drugs tend to be an escape for most people. What we have to ask is "What are they escaping from and why?".

The economics of prohibition make no sense either. Our war on drugs has failed and our attempts at controlling drugs at home have accomplished nothing.

All of that being said, wishing and hoping for an end to prohibition will get us nowhere. The politicians won't listen even when incontrovertible evidence is put in front of them because they won't do anything to disturb the "moral outrage" brigade. It's not realistic to expect politicians will do anything useful or intelligent. Not while we're in this pseudo-democratic paralysis.

Subsidy Clusters

Continuing from my earlier piece and a new piece over on my blog, after which I shall leave this subject be a for a little while, I have one further small but significant point to make.

Subsidies are supposed to help vital industries which can not break into markets alone or stay afloat without state support. The idea being that as they mature they will survive on their own. In this instance the technology (and the industry) was already mature with the oldest of wind farms subsidy clusters being over thirty years old, not least in California and Denmark. But the subsidies are now like heroin to this industry as it is proving impossible to ween them off. If you take away the subsidies, the industry will fall flat on its backside.

It was already imploding last year even with a generous subsidy and investors began pulling out four months before the Wall Street crash. It is only due to the stimulus package spendathon that any are being built at all. The amount we will eventually waste on these things will equal or surpass the bailouts we gave to the banks. Why aren't we more concerned?

Withholding judgement

This is bound to prove controversial with the hard-liners. But I do seem to be rather good at polemicism. So again, this is a discussion piece and my own views only.

I don't wish to elaborate too much on this as I am aware one of my fellow bloggers is looking at the same issue. But looking at Patricks blog I am hard pressed to disagree. That Mousavi is some great liberal savior is as fatuous as the idea that Barack Obama is some great agent of "change".

It does seem that the majority of the media has wholeheartedly bought into the illusion that Iran is in some way a democratic country and that Mousavi is a legitimate opposition figure. Aside from the fact that under the Iranian regime candidates must be pre-approved, Mousavi has blood on his hands and is allied to some very dubious causes. That is all I will say on that since Patrick has eloquently illustrated this phenomenon.

This is more to discuss a libertarian position on the events of recent days and weeks. While libertarianism may hold that armed neutrality is foremost, that does not preclude us from value based judgements. We are in the business of value based judgements. That is what politics is, even for libertarians.

We can unequivocally say that murder, kidnap and torture by the state is wrong. We can also say that suppression of peaceful protest with violence and suppression of free speech is also wrong. But those in glass houses...

But to me that is pushing moral relativism to the limit. I suppose the distinction is that we (mostly) don't do it to our own citizens. That we know of. There are degrees of state oppression and to an extent all government is oppression but I think we can confidently say out loud that the actions of the Iranian state are beyond tolerance to free men and women everywhere.

I appreciate we view this through the prism of Western media and that similar images are beamed around the world of Western protests, such as the G20 protest, but there is one crucial difference. Many of the leftoids at such events, much like Hezbollah, appreciate the value in being seen to be oppressed victims and will engineer any situation that gives them the propaganda they need to be validated in the eyes of their peers. I think we can safely say that Iranian protesters are not queuing up to get themselves shot by the Islamist regime to prove a point. Though it wouldn't be unprecedented.

There is also the fact that we tend to put such instances to official enquiry and hold those responsible to account. We can safely say no Iranian goon squad will be brought before a court of enquiry.

While it is preferable to remain neutral in matters which do not concern us we must also be a voice for the silent majority and must not let ideological dogma prevent us from saying what needs to be said.

It could be said that by the US refusal to outright condemn Iran (so far) the Iranian regime is forced to look elsewhere for an external threat with which to validate its existence, hence why Ahmedinejad has picked on Britian. But Iran will do as it must to provoke a reaction and if we do not speak out when it matters then that provocation will become more severe. If we fail to condemn these actions then they will push us to our limits. At what point do we make a value based judgement?

Syria has a long history of exporting violence to prop up its own regime at home. Iran is no different. As they control the media, they control the narrative. But that era is coming to a close. As we have seen the revolution will be digitized. We are getting more and better information than ever, in some cases from the horses mouth, and it is our responsibility as free nations to lend the weight of our voices to their cause.

The Iranian protests appear not to be pro-Mousavi but anti-regime and pro-liberty and democracy. Iranians are evidently tired of living in what is essentially an Islamist occupied country. But there is a serious caveat to this. By what do we validate these assumptions that the protests represent the majority? Islamism is evidently very popular across the middle east and who is to say that the "silent majority" are the majority and not just the cosmopolitan left of Tehran?

Do we even know if Iranians want a liberal permissive society warts and all as we have in the West? Until we can unequivocally provide answers to these questions... we should withhold our judgement.

Unpeeling a problem.

Not wishing to make myself unpopular (again), I have slight issue with the previous post and to some degree LPUK policy. That is not to say I am not a libertarian or a committed member. Nowhere does it say one cannot disagree with policy and nor should any individualist party ever seek to ensure all of its members agree on everything. I therefore open this up as a discussion piece.

The fifth Peelian Principle holds that:

"Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law."

I do not agree that the higher offices of the police should be in any way politicized. I therefore offer an alternative that each municipality have a directly elected mayor to whom the chief constable is directly accountable. I realise this is hair splitting but while the will of the public must be served, the police cannot be at the whim of the mob. Democracy is more than just two wolves and a sheep debating what to have for dinner.

The first duty of the police must be to the law, but as the Peelian principles have it; "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions." We need our elected representatives to make sure that is so. I would argue that the police do not need so much reform as a restoration to the founding principles.

The police are so mistrusted and disliked because they are enforcing bad laws from bad governments. Making policemen into politicians does not address that. Bad governments and bad laws produce bad police and that is very much down to the electorate.

Your comments, as ever, are most welcome.

Policing and utter madness

This video from Christian Institute gives some indication of the way that the police operate in Britain today. And no, this is not a unique incident. This one is similar. The point is that there is a pattern emerging, and the Christian Institute is providing a helpful service in highlighting these incidents, and the way that our freedoms are being eroded.

The gent in the video speaks about the action of the police as being a disproportionate response, and a large waste of police time, and that strikes me as a bit of an understatement. The actions of the police were completely silly, and one rather suspects that the officers involved knew perfectly well that they were silly, but that they had no choice but to follow orders.

Where are their orders coming from? The agenda is clearly that of the government, and it appears that the way that the government implement their agenda is through ACPO.

The comment about wasting police time is well made. The police seem to have plenty of resources for certain purposes - including, er, ahem, those which seem to be involved in restricting freedom of speech and freedom to protest peacefully. These things, however, are not what most people see as priorities for policing.

We need police who serve the needs of ordinary people, rather than those of the government. That is why LPUK policy is that chief constables are directly elected, rather than appointed by politicians. We believe that it is right that they are answerable to the electorate, not simply to the government of the day.

Baby P: Another victim of big government

I can't help feeling that this is somewhat justified. As with education, there is a fundamental, systemic flaw in social services, and it boils down to pretty much the same thing again; Statist, centralist "solutions" to problems best solved by the individual and the community. They will go to any lengths to avoid this reality and they don't care who they blame so long as they do not have to examine their own faults.

This is what I wrote at the time. Though since I have drifted into libertarianism I am prepared to go one further and say there should not be social services of any kind. This is one lady to whom we should pay more attention.

It all adds up

Did you know you were paying £2.7m to measure the carbon footprint of Leicester?

"This research is an important step in identifying how and why cities generate carbon emissions, which should help communities, government agencies and others to reduce these in line with UK targets to help combat climate change."

I'm saying nothing.

A question of priorities

With the economy sinking faster than a Humvee in quicksand, one would think the priorities of government, media and some quarters of our pathetic blogosphere, would be somewhat different. But no. Everyone seems more preoccupied with the appointment of tory socialist John Bercow as Speaker of the House. A non-event if there ever was one. Either that or a we have a deluge of witless prattle like American Pro-Wrestling commentators after PMQ's.

Meanwhile this week we are told our energy bills are going up to five grand and the government rather helpfully admits that it is "not close at all" in stopping fuel poverty. Where is the media analysis on this? Something estimated to kill at least 25,000 people a year? That is more than Swine Flu has killed or will for that matter. Why is that not news?

By the governments' own definition we will all be in fuel poverty by 2015. We need an urgent debate on this, injected with some realism and serious questions must be asked about our energy policy, or the lack thereof.

I am sorry to bang on about this but the economy and energy bills are far from disconnected. Why else is the manufacturing sector quitting the UK? (aside from EU employment legislation costs). What will our retail sector survive on if all our income goes on energy? What will the cost be on the NHS? (not that there should be one.)

No doubt with the government having created this problem, later down the line it will it will seek to blame the non-existent free market and profiteering energy companies (much like they did with the banks) and they will be taxed to pay for a social tariff on energy, meaning that the shrinking productive and economically mobile parts of society will be forced to pay yet more tax and yet more for energy.

And in the tradition of government displacement, old grannies will still perish. Though perhaps there is method in their madness? Perhaps they are banking on solving the pensions black hole by having old dears freezing to death in their beds? I think we should be told.

It's your money folks.

"Britain's winding country lanes could be "defaced" by one million road signs under Government plans to cut speed limits" says the Faily Telegraph.

The CPRE claims "new speed limits have to be signalled every 300 yards and so it will mean putting up one million road signs across the country at a cost of more than £300 million."

Assuming they have their facts right and let's face it, it sounds just ludicrous enough to be accurate, this could just about finish off the countryside once they've finished erecting renewable subsidy clusters.

"Ralph Symth, Senior Transport Campaigner at CPRE, feared the "piecemeal" plan will ruin some of England's most picturesque and famous country lanes.

He also said the new signs will confuse motorists as speed limits will constantly be changing as motorists drive through different local authorities.

"The Government has not thought through the national costs and implications,"

Nooo. That never happens, hey?

I need not go into the wisdom of reducing speed limits. Speed limits are stupid. In my world there would be only one driving offence; Dangerous driving. That way the police would have to make a reasoned case and courts and judges would have to do their jobs instead of resorting to the bog standard legal check box absolutism we have drifted into.

More crucially, if people ignored the higher speed limits, what makes them think people will not ignore the lower speed limits? Who is to enforce them? Again I am forced to ask... What are they smoking?

Another Triumph

I'm soooo glad the government takes my money to help people. If only I could give them more. They do such a marvelous job.

Displacement

Thanks to the landfill tax (an EU tax) we are helping "the environment". Though residents of Plymouth may beg to differ. Here we have government intervention making a bad problem worse and more expensive. There's a surprise.

"Could"

"Could" is a word we hear a lot in British media. Not least in the energy sector. Today is no different.

"An extra 25GW of offshore wind energy could be accommodated around the UK’s shores, in addition to the 8GW already built or planned, Energy Minister Lord Hunt announced today."

It's never "will" or "should" or "can".

But let's examine this bizarre claim. Beatrice wind farm subsidy cluster in Scotland (at £35m) consists of two 5MW turbines. To reach the magic 25GW we would need five thousand of those turbines, more so if the standard Siemans 2.3MW turbines are used.

And there's a deadline....

"Offshore wind is fundamental to delivering our target of 15% of renewable energy by 2020"

So we have eleven years or 4015 days in which to build them. So we would have to build 1.2 turbines every single day assuming that the weather is fit, there are no technical problems and supply of turbines does not dry up. This with only four barges in the world actually capable of erecting them.

Being generous about the economies of scale I clock this at £75bn just for an installed capacity of 25MW. Out at sea the actual output is just over the quarter so we're actually looking at spending £75bn for a little over 6GW of energy (you could get that for £10bn with nuclear) which must be backed up with conventional power stations for when the wind fails to blow. Probably costing another hundred billion quid.

And what of the cost of connecting these things with reinforced underwater cables and the European super grid? But that's a European project where member states will co-operate. For European co-operation read "Britain pays for production, research and development and Europe buys it up at fire sale prices" (see Eurofighter, Airbus, Concorde etc)

And again we get the "creating jobs" delusion.

“We’re already the world’s number one offshore wind power. With the right support, we can grow the industry even further, supporting tens of thousands of high value, green manufacturing jobs. This presents a huge opportunity for the UK Industry.”

Do they ever calculate how many jobs will be lost as a result of £5000 energy bills?

It doesn't take genius to work out the economics of wind are bunk. The energy companies know it, investors know it, we know it and so does the government. But in our target driven government, rationality has left the building.

Postscript: The picture should have been a wind turbine but a giant stinking heap of garbage seemed more appropriate.

Hamburger Hill

One of my favourite Vietnam films is Hamburger hill. It's a fairly typical example of what happens where you're at war with no coherent strategy and incompetent leadership.

Without going into too much of the plot, the film concentrates on the military effort to take a fortified hill, Hill 937, in the A Shau Valley. The basic gist is that US forces spend ten days battling up a hill, taking heavy casualties, only to be airlifted out once the hill was taken allowing the NVA to move back in almost immediately afterward. Stupid, wasteful and pointless.

Fast forward to this week and we are doing exactly the same in Afghanistan. A big set piece battle where our forces prepare the ground to secure some place you never heard of, make a lot of noise, kill a lot of people and then move out leaving it to the Taliban. Way to win hearts and minds. And why exactly?

This is the product of a command structure that does not know what it is doing or why. But as much as it is a military failure it is also a political failure. There are several winning strategies as outlined on Defence of the Realm and elsewhere, but the problems in turning policy into action are vast. Not least because of money favouring in defence procurement, a very broken parliament and the fact that we have lost all credibility with the Americans due to our complete and total failure to secure Basra. If anything demonstrates how fundamentally broken British politics and Parliament is, it is Afghanistan.

And this is why we cannot pursue interventionism anymore. Yet again we are making a pigs ear of it and yet again we will slip out quietly and leave our mess for the Americans to sort out. While I am a believer in liberal interventionism I do think we should leave it to those who know what they're doing. That isn't us and it won't be unless we address the democratic failings closer to home.

Well quite...

“Of course I’m mad with power! Have you ever tried going mad without power? It’s boring! No one listens to you.”

The Simpsons.

Education

Swiftly moving on.... Or is that moving on swiftly? Pedants please leave a comment....

I remarked earlier in an email that foreign policy is largely a secondary consideration. We can look at fixing the world when we have our own house in order. And that is going to take some considerable effort and more than our lifetimes.

The biggest challenge we face is the reversal of sixty years of authoritarian socialism in all levels of government. Presently our government can do pretty much anything it likes because we have a largely permissive and indifferent electorate. That is because of the mindset our citizens have as a result of spending their formative years living in a system entirely controlled by government.

This is why I believe that the most important campaign issue is education. Without an educated population you cannot hope to compete as a modern economy and you cannot hope to have a functioning democracy either. And so the case needs to be made that increased government spending per head does not necessarily lead to better results and in most cases demonstrably has counter productive effects.

Across the board every single party, including the minnows, all argue for more of the same. They want to throw more money at it without addressing the fundamental reason as to why British education sucks. Nobody dare say let's abolish the national curriculum, deregulate the teaching profession so anyone can teach and do away with all the silly background checks that prevent real people with colourful backgrounds from teaching. After all, Ian Huntly was cleared to work with kids. Another victory for the corporate state.

We have probably the worst adult literacy in Western Europe and we are not producing scientists, engineers or mathematicians. We have gone for soft subjects because schools are not teaching the basics well enough for young people to take it further.

Subsequently when the government talks about "creating jobs" in the energy sector, they won't be "British jobs for British workers". The energy companies throwing hundreds of billions at plastering the countryside with whirlygigs will not be hiring armies of sociologists or 3D animators. Airbus might perhaps. I am not saying jobs should be reserved for the British but we should at least give Brits a shot at getting them.

If we continue on our present trajectory we will have little or no hope of producing anything other than brainwashed clients of the welfare state who see everything short of wiping their own backsides as a function of government.

As in all areas of government, education is reduced to a box ticking exercise where the people who can and should teach have long since lost the will to live. Subsequently, broadly speaking, the only people still in teaching are the products of that broken system. Parents are excluded from the process, they are not given choices and subsequently we must all suffer the same level of mediocrity.

Now this is something I can drone on about for hours but here Thomas Sowell says it far better than I ever could along with a short documentary film called "Stupid in America". This is really something where we need to think outside the box if you'll excuse the expression. Statism has failed and all the others are offering are yet more pointless tweaks to a system which is fundamentally flawed.

Liberty for all?

First off I must re-stress this is a members blog and my views do not necessarily represent those of the party.

My piece on Iraq last night certainly polarised opinion as one could expect. This issue will provoke debate for years to come. On this one policy area many believe one cannot be a libertarian unless one subscribes to a particular policy view.

I am not one for dogmatic interpretations of any political stance in that regard. This is why parties end up spending more time fighting among themselves than each other (see UKIP). Of course there are limits but foreign policy is a different kettle of fish and there is room for diversity of opinion.

The Libertarian Party holds that...

"libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government - on all issues at all times. We don't say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do want we want."

In the case of Iraq we are certainly not forcing the people to do what we want and we're not engaged in aggression. We are not rounding up and slaughtering ethnic groups or religious minorities or telling them how to live or what to think.

It is not cultural imperialism either. We did not invade to convert them to Christianity and put a McDonalds on every highway. We merely gave people the opportunity to convert to Christianity (or Jedi-ism for that matter), if they so choose. And I'm quite sure Iraqis can now choose if they want McDonalds too (though why they would want to is beyond me). Mcdonalds are now free to open branches but Iraqis are free to vote with their money.

The idea that we are "imposing capitalism" is trash. Capitalism isn't a system. It is the anti-system. It emerges from liberty, choice and freedom of contract.

So this then comes down to whether we have the right to impose liberty. Assuming liberty is an imposition. Do people prefer not to be free? The thousands lining up on the Streets of Tehran seem not to think so. One could say it is up to them to choose to do something about it. But a largely disarmed population against a well armed and brutal regime tends to ensure that such uprisings fail or result in bloody civil wars.

But even if bloody civil wars are the result of intervention is it still a bad thing? How many were killed as a result of allied intervention in Europe? At what point does the death toll become unacceptable for us to fight for liberty? Cultural and moral relativists who ask who are we to judge? But either you believe government oppression is wrong or you don't.

But then we get into interpretations as to what constitutes liberty. Isaiah Berlins' much abused concepts of positive and negative liberty are often quoted at me. Some argue that western capitalist liberty is no liberty at all. But then we do not live in a truly capitalist society. It hasn't been tried in living memory. We have corporate fascism and crony capitalism entrenched by national and international regulation.

You could argue that by forcing Iraqi markets open that we have mere installed our corporate fascism in Iraq as Western oil and defence contractors plunder Iraqs resources. I might well be persuaded by this but then one could argue that this is a business exchange between the Iraqi people and us. The war wasn't cheap and freedom isn't free. Yes that was a forced agreement but the difference being that the Iraqi parliament can end that agreement any time it chooses. Ideology rarely survives contact with reality. It must be our guide and not our law.

Traditionally it has always been the liberals who argued for intervention, long before it was the domain of "evil neo-cons". After all, the same liberals who opposed Iraq would not for a moment protest military intervention in Darfur or indeed any of the other countries where Western forces are presently operating. Is that aggression?

Non interventionism must not be confused with isolationism and in many respects security threats to our allies are also threats to us. Either we stand together as free nations or we don't. Either we care about the oppressed people of the world or we don't. I cannot turn a blind eye and say "I'm alright Jack". Liberty comes with responsibility, individually and nationally.

The only thing which should give us pause for thought is that in order to liberate others we must employ government. Which is why, more often than not, it's for the best that we mind our own business.

But I still believe in small government, low taxes, social liberalism and freedom of contract and I will always argue for smaller government however small it gets. If that isn't libertarian enough... what is? But in the end I think we can all agree that it is a good thing Saddam has gone, Al Quaeda and the militias were defeated and now Iraq has a shot at freedom.

Libertarians and the War

Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no." Here is a fascinating comment piece from the WSJ.

I was one of the very few people who was in favour of the Iraq war. I never believed for a moment there were WMD's. I didn't care. There were other reasons. The WSJ explains...

First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.

Iraqis and indeed Afghanis have not had this for a long time if ever. Not least because of foreign intervention. Why then can I justify further intervention? Well, as a libertarian I believe in individual responsibility but I also believe in national responsibility. You clean up the messes you make and if you can help someone, you must. Maybe that's just me.

Though at the time I lacked the necessary skepticism to guide my judgement. I was a young man with a head full of idealistic nonsense. I always knew that government did not do anything particularly well but the history we teach tells of a British Army that does. I had yet to be "mugged by reality". I have been now...

When it comes to foreign policy, libertarians' severe skepticism of government planning in the domestic arena carries over to the government's ability to accomplish anything positive through foreign aid, whether economic or military.

Quite. I still bought the tosh about our armies being "the best in the world". While they may well be, the bureaucracies behind them are the very worst and the politicians leading them... well... you get the point. Subsequently the British Army made a pigs ear of it (apologies for the shameless book plug), leading to the deaths of countless Iraqis.

But it is said that liberty is a tree that must be watered with blood once in a while. All liberty is bought with blood. And by removing Saddam we watered that tree. We didn't impose democracy. We opened the door. I dont't think we have imposed our culture or our systems on them. We asked them via a referendum if they supported the constitution for Iraq and they said yes. So we gave them it.

Considering how few deaths, and how short a time it has taken to pave the way for a self-governing republic of autonomous regions under a functioning constitution (compared with other wars of a similar magnitude), we have done well and have a lot to be proud of. History will be the judge and if Iraq is a thriving democracy, then it may judge us more kindly.

But we got lucky to some extent. We are now repeating the same mistakes and we may not be so lucky in Afghanistan. Karzai is no Maliki. I may come back to this. All things considered I don't think I will ever quite be able to reconcile mainstream libertarian foreign policy with my own thinking even though domestically I couldn't be more libertarian. That being said, I do think we should avoid starting any new wars because A) we suck at it, B) we can't afford it and C) the UK preaching about democracy is starting to look rather silly now.

Oh dear lord...

"The BNP is facing the threat of an injunction from the official body on race discrimination, in what is believed to be the first such action against a political party."

Do these people ever learn? The moment you use mechanisms of the state to silence your opponents is the moment you have lost. You martyr them and give them the oxygen of publicity while validating their sense of victimisation. Why can't we just debate these people and be done with it? A nine year old can discredit BNP policies.

Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t - Gun Control

Language warning. But you're a grown up...

The Electric Deception

The much vaunted Tesla electric car goes 300 miles on one charge. On paper yes. In reality it is dogged by problems and that range clocks down the older it gets due to the natural degradation of batteries. It's a backward step.

The electric Mini has no back seats because of the size of the battery. For them to be worthwhile they'd have to have twice the range at half the size with a quarter of the charging times at a third of the cost. In that respect it isn't a mature technology for the wider consumer market. Innovations are supposed to be improvements on a concept. I don't see how more expensive, less capable vehicles are an improvement.

But here I'm probably showing my inner Luddite. Obviously with more use in the wider market the technology will improve, batteries will get smaller, last longer and charge faster. We know this from having watched the mobile phone develop from house bricks lasting twenty minutes, taking 12 hours to charge.

They were rubbish but people still bought them. But correct me if I'm wrong but I don't ever recall any tax breaks or government incentives to do so and yet inside ten years they proliferated through society to saturation point. So why is the government pushing PHEV's?

I would argue that this has nothing to do with pushing green transport. Were that a concern they'd be investing more in our railways. Assuming of course that is a function of government. This has more to do with protecting the car industry. An industry which should be allowed to fail. But they're not just pushing electric cars. They're also punting V2G as part of an integrated solution to our energy needs along with smart metering. They claim this is essential to making wind energy viable.

This essentially involves inviting energy companies (and subsequently government) to control when you drive, how far you can go and once smart metering extends to your household appliances, they may dictate what you use, when you use them and for how long. Now I know this is getting into tin foil hat territory but is it just me who sees this as a tad Orwellian?

The motor vehicle has always been the symbol of individual liberty. Over the last two decades we have seen ever more abuse of the motorist to the point where drivers are more enslaved to government and taxation than any other political demographic. This will give them final control. This is of course assuming they can afford to implement any of this. It is mind numbingly expensive, inefficient and draconian. But these are never obstacles to government.

But aside from the threats to liberty the broader economics don't pan out either. The other day I went up to the Yorkshire Dales and down through Grassington because I felt like it. What better reason? I couldn't have done that in a Tesla. That is why the electric car is a major step backwards. Any economy depends on free movement. Random day trips keep the rural economy going and they're essential to tourism. But they don't like the plebs to travel. We must all make sacrifices for the planet hey?

The idea they are clean doesn't stand up either. Pushing the electric car is a strategic and environmental error. The focus has to be on electricity demand reduction or stabilisation at the moment. Even with a £300bn investment we're still not going to meet present peak energy demand and peak demand is set to pass 100gw by 2015 even without electric cars. Nuclear won't come on line until 2020 at least and we'll be building gas turbines well into 2030 so you're still powering them with fossil fuels.

As ever, government intervention never solves a problem. It just shifts the problem elsewhere, where the consequences are more damaging and more expensive. In this case it comes down to whichever you think is worse. Reliance on Saudi oil or Russian gas? Flip a coin.