The Slow Rise of the Greens and the Fragmentation of Two Party Politics

Photo: Heather Stanley (flickr)

 

Richard Wood discusses the fundamental shifts in the nature of British party politics and the rise of alternative contenders.

One could easily be forgiven if they made the mistake of thinking that UKIP won the 2013 county council elections and took control of every council with overwhelming majorities. The media attention on Nigel Farage and his purple revolutionaries has been tremendously high, resulting in more than needed airtime for the party.

Although UKIP made a ‘breakthrough’, as they finished with a total of 147 councillors from almost zero, they did not end up in control of any councils and did not make significant gains in the north. Due to all the UKIP hype, one political force has suffered in terms of public attention – the Greens.

Natalie Bennett’s party made a modest net gain of five councillors, but has been somewhat marginalised by the media. Compared with Farage’s total of 147 it does not look like much, but the party gained seats in places outside its heartland of Brighton, such as in Bristol, Essex and the West Midlands.

The Green Party (of England and Wales, as Scotland has a separate Green Party which supports Scottish independence) has made progressive gains over the last few years. In the 2009 European parliament elections the party, lead by Caroline Lucas at the time, won almost 10% of the vote share, gaining over a million votes.

A year after this result, which was once again overshadowed by UKIP’s successes as they came second in the elections to the Conservatives, the party made history. 2010 was the year when Gordon Brown’s Labour fell from power, Nigel Farage was in a plane crash and lost when standing against the House speaker John Bercow, and significantly the Greens won their first MP – Caroline Lucas.

In contrast to UKIP, although the far right party is a force to be reckoned with, the Greens are one up on them in Westminster. Unlike UKIP, they have an MP. Nigel Farage has confirmed he will stand in 2015 for a seat, however he has not thought about where. The Greens plan to put forward more candidates than before and win more MPs.

What the 2013 county council elections have shown us is that the British people are not afraid of change. Whether that be disaffected Labour supporters moving towards the Greens, or grumbling traditional Tories moving towards UKIP, the outcome is the same – a change in the political landscape. The old party system is breaking up.

Natalie Bennett has recently stated that “What we’re seeing is a break-up of the traditional two – or three- party system in Britain”. This further reiterates the point that the old power game of ping-pong between the largest parties is drawing to an ultimate close.

Commentators say we are moving towards a four party system with UKIP being the third force in British politics. But there are not just four parties. The left and right are fragmenting into different factions. Change is happening right now. It is clear that the first-past-the-post system for English and Welsh councils, as well as for Westminster, is becoming unsustainable. With the rise of the Greens and UKIP, more people are wanting more change. 
Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde pointed out that 2013 was the first election where the projected national vote share (PNS) for the main three parties was below 30% each. Something is happening in British politics. That is a tremendous change, and it is manifested by not just UKIP, but the Greens and other small parties too. For example, the SNP’s recent success in Scotland.

British political ground is shifting, and it’s not just UKIP making the change.

By Richard Wood.

Obama’s Policy on Drones: Should U.S. Progressives Shake This Man’s Hand?

Photo: Gage Skidmore (flickr)

In a special article, Peter Cruttenden writes on the controversial issues of U.S. drone attacks and President Obama’s targeted killings, with relation to the use of the ‘filibuster’ in the United States Senate.

Peter S. Cruttenden is a U.S. citizen and PhD candidate in the University of Nottingham’s, School of Politics and International Relations. He is also affiliated with the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ) and the Centre for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism (CSCT).

Ever since the re-election of Barak Obama, U.S.-based progressive groups have been sending out e-mails in attempts to initiate on-line grass-roots campaigns to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. To be sure, the use of the filibuster within the U.S. Senate has historically been used as a device to obstruct legislation, including civil rights, meaningful gun control, not to mention, equitable tax treatment affecting the wealthiest U.S. citizens and corporations.

Even the threat of a filibuster has derailed the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the passage of the Dream Act, which has instilled a sense of both marginalisation and empowerment to the undocumented youth movement. So, at first blush, Progressives in the U.S. might be tempted to add their name to such petitions along with a contribution of a few of their hard-earned dollars to break the stranglehold of conservative entrenched Senate Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Tom Coburn, the notorious Dr. No.

On the surface, it seems that nothing would be better than to the eliminate the requirement that 60 U.S. Senators support a piece of legislation and debate within the Senate chamber could be limited without involving cloture. There is little doubt that the chances for a more U.S. progressive domestic agenda could be advanced if the filibuster was eliminated.

However, Progressives need to think again and not jump on anti-filibuster bandwagon too quickly without considering how a filibuster has been extremely important in altering President Obama’s targeted killings policy. Anyone who is knowledgeable about U.S. politics knows that there is absolutely nothing in common between so-called Tea Party candidates such as Rand Paul and anti-war activists such as Code Pink . Yet this strange political marriage of convenience emerged when Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan (aka the “Assassination Czar”) to become Obama’s head of the Central Intelligence Agency. The major reason for Paul’s filibuster was that he sought assurances from the Obama Administration and Brennan that the Terror Tuesday sessions at the Obama White House would not include the use of drones for targeted killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Needless to say, Paul’s 13 hour filibuster did contain some fairly outrageous claims that bordered on paranoia by wondering if the use of weaponised drones could be used for targeting Tea Party members. Of significance is the following quote:

“Yes, I was at a Tea Party meeting and I was critical of the President; but I’m not a revolutionary; please don’t kill me.”

No doubt, such statements made on the U.S. Senate floor made for bizarre political theatre, especially when juxtaposed against the anti-drone statements of Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who effectively, yet wonkishly, spoke of issues of accountability, Congressional oversight and transparency, as he briefly spoke during Paul’s filibuster. However, it was Paul’s filibuster, no matter how self-aggrandising it may have been, which initiated a debate on Obama’s policy of target killings, which has long been sought by many on the political left in the U.S.

Obama’s policy of targeted killings, directed in pertinent part, by John Brennan, during his tenure as a member of Obama’s National Security Council, has been shrouded in secrecy. Such secrecy is exacerbated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s anemic oversight of the target-killings policy in which the Committee’s Chairperson, Senator Diane Feinstein becomes almost complicit in not only the illegal killings of U.S. citizens abroad, but contributing to the proliferation of Muslim militant extremism in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, as a result of so called drone signature strikes that continue to kill innocent civilians. The relationship between drone signature strikes, unwarranted “collateral damage” and the perpetuation of terrorism, is a point that critical security and critical terrorism theorists have long been arguing and which has long been ignored, until Paul’s filibuster.

While one can ridicule Paul’s filibuster comment of “Please don’t kill me;” there are perhaps thousands in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere that possibly use similar wording in order to describe the everyday insecurity caused by Obama’s target killings policy. One needs only to peruse the Stanford/NYU report, “Living Under Drones”, to comprehend the correlation between drone signature strikes and potential terrorism.

I, for one, totally agree with U.S. based syndicated journalist E.J. Dionne, when he told MSNBC’s political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell that the Senate Democrats ceded an important opportunity to the likes of the Tea Party, by not taking the initiative in opening up a debate which has long been necessary. Dionne, went so far as to note that there may be a point in time that Democrats will regret that they allowed Paul to control the agenda on civil and human rights; an agenda which Democrats and Progressives purport to champion.

In conclusion, while Paul’s filibuster, unlike the filibuster portrayed in the film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, did not forestall a less than desirable outcome, Brennan’s CIA confirmation, the filibuster did initiate a badly needed public debate on drones. A debate that recently culminated Obama publicly announcing guidelines on drone strikes, that may or may not, ban signature strikes. And more importantly, the operation of drones strikes in “non-combat” theatres such as Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, has been transferred from the CIA to the U.S. Department of Defense; whose officials are required to take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, while the odd and temporary marriage of convenience between the rising star of the Tea Party and progressive anti-war groups like Code Pink, did not necessarily stop John Brennan’s confirmation to the CIA, yet small, but profound changes resulted from his filibuster. Obama has, to a limited extent, thrown back the shroud of secrecy which has characterised his policy of target-killings.

So, Progressives in the U.S. need to bear in mind that the U.S. Presidency can be captured by any of the two major parties at any given presidential election. And that there is no doubt that the filibuster has historically been employed to obstruct progressive politics. Yet, as Paul’s filibuster has somewhat constrained the growing imperial presidency of a Democratic president, in the future, Progressives will most likely be demanding a filibuster to obstruct “imperial presidential” policies of a Republican president.

By Peter S. Cruttenden, PhD Candidate at the University of Nottingham.

We must continue to fight extremist Islamism

Photo: Youssef Shoufan (Flickr)

“When the Islamic world hates us, we have only ourselves to thank.” So goes the dogmatic masochism which has characterised the multiculturalist Left for the last decade. But they are missing the point: Islam has been on the same path since its inception, as we can see from the inflexibility of its scriptures and supplementary texts. The path of Islamic conquest in the centuries after its inception corroborates this point, so too does the clash of the Jeffersonian Navy and the Barbary pirates in the 18^th Century.

Traditional Islamic attitudes towards apostates as well as ‘blasphemers’ (the definition of which is rather porous) is hardly compassionate, and so why aren’t we surprised that so many fundamentalists see it fit to organise terrorist atrocities such as the one which a group of British men from Birmingham men confessed to last month? The horrific carnage to rock the Boston Marathon conforms to type, and is an outrage committed by lone fanatics inspired by bin Ladenist doctrines of hatred and religiously inspired totalitarianism. This is the case; and it only serves to show that we have not yet won the war on terror or the war against theocratic fascism either. While these are in a minority, it is still a worryingly large proportion of the 1.2 billion Muslims we hear of, who are all assumed to be ‘offended’ by all supposed insult to their prophet or faith.

Home-grown terrorists are hardly new for the United Kingdom. The bosom of the nation (and as some Right-wing rags were so happy to point out, the welfare system too), nurtured the vile perpetrators of the rightly infamous 7/7 attacks on London in 2005. It was not a surprise to see bearded would-be-jihadits lining the streets of London on Remembrance Sunday to protest against troop deployments designed to save their co-religionists from torture and abuse by fascist gangs and evil extremists. These echo the very people who happily oppress, for example, women: those whom a book of moral instruction says it is acceptable to rape if they will not sleep with their husbands.

Protests are small in number, but attract disproportionate coverage due to canny media manipulation – such as proscribed group Islam4UK which planned to demonstrate in the symbolic town of Wotton Bassett – before it was banned by the British Home Secretary in 2010. Small they may be, but they are aided in their mission to spread awareness by the very multiculturalist doctrines which originally were intended to safeguard minorities from this sort of wanton thuggary.

The fact that so many Muslims seem to hate the western conceptions of secularism and gender equality cannot be put down, as easy as it may be for some who rely on the Muslim vote (like George Galloway) to do so, to western intervention in Islamic countries. His cry that the policies of Britain and America have created ‘ten-thousand new bin Ladens’ only shows how out of touch he is; not only with factual reality (Galloway watchers gave him up for lost years ago on that one), but also the opinions of some Islamic leaders in these newly liberated nations.

Despite the sentiment expressed above; there are examples of Muslims, indeed the great majority of modern practitioners: who buck the trend of violence and ignorance. The following is an attempt to illustrate this.

The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, is not only a Kurd (which is remarkable in itself), he is also a Muslim. He, and many other political leaders like him, can combine their faith with holding public office, and even co-operating with the Americans. He is joined in the Iraqi Parliament and corridors of power by Sunni and Shia practitioners, all of whom don’t hate the western forces (who aimed to improve their lives by removing a brutal tyrant) simply because of their religion. Give them some credit!

Just because they subscribe to one religion does not make them automatically wish to kill all those who do not. Fundamentalist Islam teaches to kill non-believers, but individuals make their own choices; this is why suicide bombers are largely young men, devoid of all hope and love for anyone who isn’t supernatural. It is possible for rational people to escape the barbaric encirclement of dogma, in order that they might be peaceful and spiritually free.

What we need to do, and do so forcibly, is to break down the reasons for the latter example: ghettoisation, decline in respect for tolerance, and other peoples’ freedoms, and the isolation and ignorance which comes from traditions of mutual loathing. Multiculturalism keeps communities segregated from each other, only facilitating extremism and cultural illiteracy.

By all means tackle the problem, and the work the UK police is doing in combating potential terrorist activity is largely faultless, but we need to tackle the two root causes of the issue: the wicked use of the Quran peddled by grubby, demagogic, Imams; and the lack of serious links between communities. Sociological bankruptcy is not helping reconciliation.

So yes, it is our fault. But not through any action of anti-Muslim provocation – other than merely existing. Our crime, and why we are to be haunted with the spectre of extremist Islamic anger until this squalid little ideology is stamped out, is not combating the sinister doctrine of exceptionalism which has fostered such a master-servant relationship. Even moderate Muslim voices, compressed by the media need to shape a narrative into one, easy-to-use stereotype, are marginalised by the continued lack of any serious campaign against the pernicious nature of absolutist Islam in the UK.

Our cultural and military deference to Islamic extremism and the culture of inbuilt violence which emanates from a minority reading of a holy book is what has led directly to nastily capricious heights, creating a default setting of outrage. Until we can promote secular values in society, and remove ourselves from the demeaning task of pandering to religious authorities in search of solutions, we will continue to see the sort of evil which was luckily foiled by the law. Too bad Boston was not quite so lucky.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

The free Press keeps democracy ticking. Its failings can be covered by conventional laws.

Not the only one hacked off. Photo: Liberal Democrats (Flickr)

It isn’t often that I wish I wasn’t born in Britain. I am proud (or at least as proud as anyone can be about an accident of birth) of my country: I find its history fascinating, its past leaders inspiring, and the lessons it has provided for the rest of the world powerful reminders of the rule of freedom and the continuation of ‘modern’ values. There’s a reason why Westminster is referred to as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, after all.

One of the key things keeping democracy ticking is the concept of a free Press. British Press has not faced any state regulation since the Bill of Rights in 1689 agreed freedom of speech and the restriction of royal prerogative; this was supplemented by Parliament not renewing the Licensing Act in 1695. It is therefore ironic that a Royal Charter will be used to implement the proposed regulation of Britain’s media, not an Act of our democratically accountable Parliament. The way that this plan has been created; cobbled together in the dead of night, by a group of wonkish SpAds, shows its qualities resemble a shoddy compromise, but this time not over petty policy, but the fundamental liberties of British citizens.

It is here where the ancient traditions of the United Kingdom begin to unravel in the face of modern technology; and the persistent efforts of a few affronted celebrities. One online petition – of which numbers are impossible to verify – seems to suggest that a lot of people want regulation, and so, to appease the fatal opinion polls, it was quickly, and shamefully, called for.

I can’t think of a less trustworthy bunch than Hacked Off. Their primary support base is made up of sleazy semi-notables who wish to get compensation for being found out; people like the disgraced actor Hugh Grant, who has become a professional windbag and wants to find a way to censor the tabloid newspapers whom he so despises. They didn’t force him to pick up a prostitute, they merely reported on it, but who thinks his vigour to regulate such a vital institution came from anything other than spite?

My patriotic admiration is now sorely lacking. Britain’s leaders are homogenous clones, each coming from cosily secure affluent households. They get away with the gulf between them and the majority of the British people by hiding their vast wealth and always appealing to the unidentified ‘middle class’ (an annoying habit it appears they have picked up from across the Atlantic). I’m not knocking net worth or privilege here at all: as some of our greatest leaders were from less than ‘ordinary’ stock: Churchill, for example, was from a powerful ducal line.

It is the concentration of power in a small microcosm, below genuine aristocrats, but above almost everyone else, which irks me. All of our Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson in 1964, to the end of John Major’s premiership in 1997 were state-school educated. Since then; all of our heads of government have attended fee-paying schools. It is this concentration of power which is causing the elitist attempts to hurt tabloid newspapers above all others, as they publish unfavourable stories about Hacked Off’s millionaire donors.

America got it right with the First Amendment; it stands as a lasting testament to the freedom of individuals in the Great Republic. What is particularly galling, then, is that this rallying call on behalf of free speech and a free Press was based on the aforementioned British Bill of Rights, which is now being cannibalised to suit the tastes of a very wealthy and powerful media lobby, keen to protect their ‘clean’, but misattributed images.

I think it is genuinely deplorable for Max Mosley; whose German-themed spanking parties were uncovered by tabloid journalists, to hide his shadowy support of tight regulation behind innocent victims like the parents of Millie Dowler, a murdered teenager who’s mobile phone was hacked by News of the World journalists before that paper’s closure. They do have a case against some sections of the media, but all of the egregious offences committed against them are covered by conventional laws.

What we have now is the isolated political class desperately trying to regulate the Press; based on nothing more than a heartbreaking tale, and a list of wrongs which could all be punished by extant legislation. This is incubated by the back-scratching culture of supposedly ‘wronged’ love-rats, liars, cheats and frauds.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

High Speed 2: the one-way ticket to prosperity

Photo: Renaud Chodkowski (Flickr)

The lack of depth in debates concerning High Speed 2 has been frustrating. Many of the real advantages of developing this new infrastructure have been ignored, let alone fully explored. Generally, the potential wider economic benefit is mentioned and to counterbalance this, a country gent is interviewed who contradicts the economic expert as well as attempting to make the viewer think that he is the victim in all of this, despite the fact that he will be more than compensated for his troubles, and as we know, the more he kicks and screams the more compensation he and his comrades will make.

In reality there is no debate; there is no alternate option but to deliver HS2; which is why there is cross-party agreement on the matter. How often do all three major parties agree on something as major as an international scale infrastructure project? The reason why they agree is simple, the West Coast Mainline (WCML) is our flagship bit of rail kit, it directly connects five of our biggest cities; London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It also can be used indirectly to access Leeds and Liverpool via the Transpennine Express interchange at Manchester, so if you factor those two in, it connects 7 of our economically most important cities.

The trouble with it is that, for some time, it has been operating over-capacity; you will know this if you have ever travelled from London Euston to Birmingham New Street during a peak hour. You could well have paid up to £100 to stand up for 90 minutes, maintaining quite an intimate relationship with the twelve folk in your immediate vicinity, in a Tube-like fashion. To alleviate this capacity problem on the WCML, we are gradually phasing in up-sizing the 56 Pendulino sets we run on it from being 9 carriages to 11, by ordering extra units from Alstom and as soon as the upgraded sets come into service the extra capacity is being eaten up. And, because of complications like platform lengths we can’t really upgrade capacity much more than 11 cars. Just in case you are wondering why frequency isn’t increased instead, it can’t be, we can’t fit a piece of tracing paper in that timetable.

The issue is tat we are not only operating a saturated rail passenger network, but also a saturated rail freight network; with companies like Tesco and Asda now transporting an increasing amount of goods by rail, keen to display how ‘green’ their logistics operations are, demand for rail fright is at a high. If we build HS2, we can free up slots on the West Coast Mainline, resulting in larger freight operations, aiding this economy to move faster.

Whilst critics argue that HS2 will be a resource for the wealthy, it will bring true competition to intercity rail travel; with two operators providing rail travel between the same cities it will mean that whoever is operating the WCML franchise will have to ensure their ticket prices are low enough to entice people away from taking the faster, more exiting and more novel high speed route. If too many passengers opt for the classic line, then HS2 will have to drive its own prices down and this will mean, for the first time, we will actually have real competition on the re-privatised railway network resulting in real consumer choice; the West Coast Mainline could become a real budget option.

Also, it is worthwhile throwing into the equation another transport debate that is already well within the public realm; airport capacity. When HS2 is hooked up with HS1, a whole world of new international opportunities will unfold, especially now the bidding for slots is open to transport providers operating outside of the UK. The Deutsche Bahn will be the first to take advantage, when they begin operating direct services from St Pancreas to Frankfurt in 2015. This sets a precedent; Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham will host their own international rail terminuses and this will relieve pressure on airports, meaning additional runways won’t have to be built, securing more green space for Britain. Heathrow will also benefit if attached to the high speed network, making short-haul aviation less popular, reducing our carbon footprint.

Wherever there is high speed rail in the world there is prosperity, no railway in the UK has ever been developed and since regretted. The development of HS2 will bring an impetus to this wilted economy at a time when it needs one most. It will bring with it the biggest multiplier effect we have seen for some time, and may well, save our bacon.

Matthew Stimpson is a graduate of Transport and Town Planning, currently practising in the private sector. Follow on Twitter @matthhew

Defending Anarcho-Capitalism: A response to the comments of ‘Voice of Treason’

Photo: Isaías Campbell (Flickr)

In this piece, I will attempt to answer some of the points raised by ‘Voice of Treason’ in his rebuttal of Olly Neville’s recent article for The Backbencher: ‘The Idiocy of Minarchy’. The arguments expounded are interesting in that they highlight some common misconceptions regarding anarcho-capitalism and those who ascribe to this political philosophy. ‘Voice of Treason’ begins by stating that:

“Certain goods are public goods. Explain how you build an effective road or railway network only through voluntary transactions between individuals? They require large-scale collective action and everyone benefits from the result – so everyone should pay. More to the point, how does one provide comprehensive care for the disabled, the old or orphaned? It’s not enough just to say “leave it to the kind and generous to make provision”, because that rewards selfishness. Mind you, anarcho-capitalists see no problem with selfishness (or am I being unfair?). As far as I can see, that will result in a society in which a feckless and selfish group leeches off the efforts of a generous and industrious group – i.e. exactly the society we have now.”

There has been plenty of literature outlining various possibilities for efficient and cost effective private road/railway networks. A commendable work in this field is ‘Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads’, edited by Gabriel Roth. Empirical examples of private roads/railways include Britain’s very own Private Roads Services, PRAs in Sweden (which operate two thirds of the country’s road network) and a rather wonderful private highway in Tokyo. Meanwhile, provision of comprehensive care for the disabled, old and orphaned may be accomplished voluntarily in a number of different ways. Human ingenuity has found solutions such as mutual aid societies (a detailed history of which can be found here), charities, community co-operation and indeed for-profit firms: all of which utilise both monetary and psychological incentives to succeed in looking after both those who can pay, and those who can’t.

“The[re] are many intellectual flaws underlying anarcho-capitalism but one is a flaw common to some versions of leftist anarchism: that a pure form of freedom is ever achievable. Every action has potential consequences for the liberty of others. The mere act of ownership is a bar on the liberty of others to use the things you claim as yours, for example. Or you may decide to build a railway from your house to (let’s say) Newcastle, but that might piss off the people whose land lies in between. The resolution to such dilemmas cannot be provided purely by free markets; there must be other forms of collective action to resolve problems.”

I’m not in agreement with this apparent conflation of voluntary interaction and selfishness at all. Whilst some may see no problem with ‘selfishness’ in certain cases, advocating a free society does not presuppose a blatant disregard for your fellow man; indeed, most anarcho-capitalists are strong advocates of co-operation and non-profitable means of achieving certain ends. The assertion that removing coercion “rewards selfishness” is a purely subjective judgement, and in my opinion incorrect. Many people gain far more psychologically from unpaid volunteer work than from working the night-shift in Evil Capitalists Inc., but does this make volunteer work more ‘selfish’? Far from rewarding money-centric egoism, reducing the role of the state would incentivise individuals to co-operate all the more (as I have previously argued), fulfilling the roles of the state more efficiently and of course, of their own volition.

The argument referring to leftist anarchism and the impossibility of ‘pure freedom’ is the same confusion that Isaiah Berlin made between freedom (negative liberty) and power (positive liberty). As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty:

“Berlin upheld the concept of “negative liberty” — absence of interference with a person’s sphere of action — as against “positive liberty,” which refers not to liberty at all but to an individual’s effective power or mastery over himself or his environment.”

The ‘railway to Newcastle’ example is also based on a misunderstanding of the anarcho-capitalist position. In order to be able to use the property of the “people whose land lies in between” for any end, one must come to voluntary agreement/contract with them – either by paying them, or convincing them that a railway is a lovely addition to their garden vista. If neither can be achieved, building the railway would be a criminal invasion of property rights and punishable by private courts.

“The same can be said for laws, generally. The very existence of laws implies some collective organisation to enforce them – a de facto state, however small. You might say “to hell with laws” as many leftists do (and I often sympathise), but then how does one enforce the property rights essential to anarcho-capitalism? Or individual rights to life, liberty, safety etc? Pure, unsullied individualism is not even possible, let alone desirable.”

Thankfully, ‘Voice of Treason’ then goes on to discuss legislation. Whilst David Friedman can explain the beauty of private law far more eloquently than I (see this illustrated summary of his “Machinery of Freedom” lecture), it is sufficient for the purposes of this article to remind readers that an organisation enforcing law does not have to be a state. A state is simply an institution that satisfies either (usually both) of these characteristics:

(1) acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”;
(2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defence service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.

I would certainly dispute anyone who holds the “to hell with laws” sentiment if that law they were lampooning happened to be natural rights-based Rothbardian property rights and its derivatives. I worry that ‘Voice of Treason’ is once again equating moral individualism (Ayn Rand’s misanthropic nonsense) with the just application of property rights, which forms the cornerstone of anarcho-capitalist political philosophy.

“But ultimately, what is a ‘state’, anyway, but a collective, which may be coercive, or not to a greater or lesser degree? How is it different to a corporation (highly coercive bordering on fascistic) or a co-operative (less coercive but still restrictive). Anarchism (of any sort) requires the removal of all coercive hierarchies, but NOT necessarily all hierarchies. I’m not sure if I’m a minarchist, but they do at least recognise that hierarchies are unavoidable and take a pragmatic approach to minimising any element of coercion.”

Historically, states arose out of anarchy when warlords appropriated land and started extorting protection money from the population. This was called ‘rent’ and eventually ‘taxation’ but there is really no difference. Rent is a form of private taxation, every bit as coercive as feudalism. That is the basis of capitalism and it rests on the idea that there are no limits to private property ownership, which is the other really big flaw in anarcho-capitalism. (Incidentally, slavery is also a logical consequence of unrestricted property ownership).”

Legal initiation of physical coercion by any firm in an anarcho-capitalist society is oxymoronic. Perhaps ‘Voice of Treason’ is again referring to fallacious “positive liberty” (maximisation of opportunity). Meanwhile, there is no such thing as private taxation; it is another oxymoron. Feudalism arose due to inadequate delineation of property rights and the consequent arising of unlawful land monopolies. Feudal landowners almost invariably did not own their property in the legal anarcho-capitalist sense, which (according to Lockean original appropriation principles) rightfully belonged to those who first mixed their labour with it (namely, the peasants). Slavery is a logical consequence of unrestricted property ownership, but anarcho-capitalism is not unrestricted property ownership. Again, arguing from the natural-rights perspective, the will of any man is, by definition, inalienable. The impossibility/illegitimacy of slavery in this manner is actually explained best by an antithesis of freedom, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (in The Social Contract):

“To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man’s nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts. Finally, it is an empty and contradictory convention that sets up, on the one side, absolute authority, and, on the other, unlimited obedience. Is it not clear that we can be under no obligation to a person from whom we have the right to exact everything? Does not this condition alone, in the absence of equivalence or exchange, in itself involve the nullity of the act? For what right can my slave have against me, when all that he has belongs to me, and, his right being mine, this right of mine against myself is a phrase devoid of meaning?”

‘Voice of Treason’ concludes:

“So, individual freedom without restriction eventually leads to total tyranny with power and land ownership concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite who were selfish enough to take it by force. This is the society we inhabit today. It is not collectivism per se that leads to state oppression then; it is the refusal to place any restrictions on the concentration of power, including ownership. Minarchism seems like a pragmatic and very logical attempt to deal with that problem.”

So, individual freedom (as defined by strict application of Rothbardian property rights) leads to total absence of legitimate aggression, with ownership determined by voluntary transactions between individuals that are incentivised to care for their fellow man. This is not the society we inhabit today. It is indeed not collectivism per se that leads to state oppression then; it is the refusal to apply anarcho-capitalism’s universal ethic and instead allowing one group to parasitically expropriate the production of another. Minarchism never has, and never will be a universal ethic. Pragmatically, it is nothing more than an ideological cop-out for those who abide by false utilitarian arguments.

Daniel Pryor writes on political and economic issues from a libertarian perspective. Follow on Twitter @DanielPryorr

The tyranny of charity wristbands?

Photo: Cory Doctorow (Flickr)

The insidious culture of charity wristbands has moved from being the preserve of a ‘herd of independent minds’ into the centre ground, and now features on a yearly basis for fluffy, state-funded, bean-bathing Comic Relief. It is now very likely that you will, at some point in the next few weeks, (if it has not already happened) be accosted on the high street by some wholesome, brightly coloured space invader, jangling microbe-covered coins in a predatory way; asking if you’d like to join the elite club of band-wearers. This is marketed as one choice which will affect your whole worldview.

While the idea of a state-funded organisation campaigning to tell the very people who unconditionally support its continued existence to part with even more of their money is odd enough, my main problem is the cultish consensus which it all builds; which may not be challenged. Due to the apotheosis of Bob Geldof, it is considered in bad taste to suggest that money raised as part of Live Aid may have gone to slush funds for African dictatorships and may have even financed the forced resettlement which David Rieff suggests may have killed over 100,000 people.

All work of apparent charity is now exempt from criticism, and this is not in keeping with the idea of accountability for powerful organisations; which may have huge sums of money involved, and could have global reaches and a huge effect on the region that they work in.

An example of poor taste in the very well protected charity sector is the inordinately high salaries of executives, managers and high-fliers. That these people treat their jobs as an opportunity to advance their careers is not my main problem; it is the fact that their wages are paid directly by well-wishers who give their, often very generous, sums on the trust that it will be used to do good works: i.e. that which the charity advertises and is named for. For this money to end up in a pay packet is a sad indictment of the docility of the public, and the greed of those who claim to be helping humanity.

I would support Red Nose Day and all of its offshoots a lot more if it was hosted on a commercial network, although those who embody the universal hatred of anything Murdoch-shaped would probably blanch at such a spectacle. What it becomes is a tired, yearly, state-sponsored whip-round, which produces terrible TV, and loves itself even more than the rest of one of the most narcissistic industries around.

This is clearly not about charity, it is more about a desire to show off by wearing something supposedly symbolising your ‘caring’ attitude. It is a status symbol for pretentious pseudo-hippies who clearly see this as some achievement in itself. What it really does is relegate charity, one of the noblest aspects of British culture today, to a grubby financial transaction for a strip of translucent plastic. It is actively debasing the idea of charitable giving by making it yet another way of paying for a good.

But are they even effective? Probably not. They pretend, a lot like redundant internet babble such as KONY 2012, to be ‘raising awareness’, but this is impossible to measure and awareness rarely translates into action. Who among us can truly say that they have been convinced to donate merely because a holier-than-thou cretin has walked past, their arms festooned with polymeric tokens of their undying love for humanity?

It is, after all, just vanity; nothing else. Wearers could have just handed over the money, knowing that it was going to a good and worthy cause. But this is not enough for our image obsessed modern givers. No, only a visible physical manifestation will do.

They are also badly affecting the way we see people, as the example of Lance Armstrong shows. He is able to hide behind his foundation, created more as a marketing gimmick than out of actual conviction, to disguise his disgraceful record on mendacity. He shows that as long as you value style over substance, and pander to the needs of people, some will need that extra bit of yellow to set off their matching Gucci sunglasses and Louis Vuitton handbag. It was (and still is) built on a guilt trip and the clean cut image he has so sullied. Yes, let the bands, for all their worth, remain on sale. But do not allow him to skip the punishment by media he sorely deserves merely because of one lame idea which has less of a place in the history of battling cancer than most cigarette companies.

What we need to do is take back the charity sector, and make it more accountable. That executives can misuse the relative uncompetitiveness of the whole industry to further their own prospects and wage rates is disgusting. If we knew more about these charities; and demanded to know where our money was actually going, then we could have a proper and unbiased debate on the worthiness of the causes we chose to support. As for wristbands, they have become the agent of the happy-clappy neon consensus, where everything is rosy and you can change the world by displaying a single piece of unnecessary accessory on your arm.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

Votes at Sixteen? No thanks.

Photo: Steve Lawson (Flickr)

With the recent questions about the legality of the planned referendum on the future of Scotland, much has been made of the inclusion of 16-year-olds in the decision. However, barely a month ago, MPs in the UK Parliament stealthily voted in favour of lowering the voting age. This is not the end of the debate, but it is certain to be defeated unless there is a dramatic swing in current opinion. The can of worms, however, has been opened again, and it is firmly back in the news.

The biggest new group of political supporters which are being ruthlessly courted are the young. This is seen most recently in the transparently politicised move by Alex Salmond, who has already chosen to give younger voters the opportunity to decide on Scottish Independence, a calculating move more based on potential numbers rather than any real conviction. He knows that younger voters are more naive, and also more likely to identify with Scottish nationalism as a result. They don’t pay taxes too, and so this serves as a boon to socialist parties, as they know that the level of financial self-interest will be lowest among those who the state (or indeed mummy) props up.

But the pathetic drive for politicians to associate with the young is derived from the baseless idea that they are a huge, and yet untapped, electoral resource. This is unsound logic, considering the massive lack of any apparent political interest among the under-25s. The very nature of the current political approach to dealing with the young has been misguided. Politics is not, and will never be ‘cool’. Any spin saying that enfranchising 16-year-olds will make them more involved is obviously rubbish. Even the website of the British Youth Council (which campaigns for a lower voting age) is mothballed and out of date; for example getting the age at which teenagers can leave school wrong.

It is often said that the young today are now more educated about politics, with citizenship lessons in schools. This is wrong, not only as citizenship is a total waste of time, but also because people are overwhelmingly more likely to be influenced by external factors, such as celebrity endorsements and parents’ voting habits. They could vote in a silly way, but are unlikely to come to any mature political decisions on their own.

Initiatives such as Youth Councils and Parliaments have succeeded in not only eroding national dignity by debasing the House of Commons chamber, but also subjecting minors to the irritating busybodies which always inevitably run for the ridiculous jobs. These self-regarding mini-Milibands run for the wrong reasons, but even those are trivial compared to the corruption of the older generation. It is not a salary or a grace-and-favour mansion which motivates them; but a slightly less dismal UCAS record. It has come to something when not even their cynicism is as grown-up as that of the professionals.

Politics has been described as ‘showbusiness for ugly people’, so we should not expect the young to take to the current crop of greying marionettes which dominate the political stage. Already we have seen age and experience in our ruling classes diminish, to be replaced by vacuous younger men who are not as accustomed to holding power as those who took office fifty years ago.

There is a worrying trend towards the superficial in political discourse, aided and abetted by the televised leaders’ debates which lead governmental selection to be little more than an immature popularity contest. With the involvement of younger voters; we could end up with a system more disfigured by physical attributes like attractiveness than before. It is a possibility that we could end up choosing the candidate who is the best looking, like a school council election, but this time investing them with actual power.

In short, our democracy is in difficulty already, with the rise of a statist Labour party, and equally statist Ukip (masquerading as Libertarians); as well as a cultural elite happily cracking down on press freedom. Now is not the time to risk denigrating our already anemic ruling class by mixing in the moronic would-be demagogues of the younger generation. We could do with a more serious political process rather than one conducted like a pin-up contest.

The young are flawed, selfish and arrogant; their major concerns are too domestic to truly matter in national debate. Their natural apathy is actually a good thing, as a disinterested youth are less likely to stir the pot for the sake of it. I myself would be enfranchised by any new legislation, but knowing my contemporaries as I do, I know for certain that without the maturity adulthood provides, they would damage democracy with their triviality and lack of life experience.

Giving 16-year-olds the vote is only a tired last throw of the dice from the political runts of the 2010 intake in Parliament. These people are absurdly ambitious and desperately seeking a way out from the crumbling shambles that is our political class. Shattered by expenses scandals and the over-riding sense of isolation from the very people they are paid exorbitant salaries to represent, this is failing attempt to break the toxic mold, and not to be seen as anything but a bid for publicity from some balding semi-notables.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

What do you think? Vote in the poll below.

Party political cocktails: The ingredients to 2015 success

Which will you be ordering in 2015?

It is not unknown that the result of the hard fought Eastleigh by-election, with a voter turnout-out of 53%, was a shock to the polls, prospective candidates, leading parties and the country as a whole. Following the Chris Huhne scandal it would not have been unfair to predict a change from the usual Liberal Democrat control to what looked to be a Conservative gain and ultimately another feather in Cameron’s cap.

With a 32% share of the vote for the LibDems and a mere 25% for the Tories, UKIP emerged from being the ‘non-contender’ to the election vanquisher with a surprising 29% share, subsequently reducing the Tory vote and allowing for a LibDem triumph.

Looking ahead to the 2015 General Election, here I look at the essential ingredients needed for each of the three major parties to create a recipe for their own electoral success.

‘Cosmopolitan-Cameron’

With Cameron on the defensive following the catastrophic election results of the Eastleigh by-election last week, a picture of his political advisors and spin-doctors frantically clambering for a solution comes to mind as they desperately attempt to cling on to a second consecutive term in Government. Perhaps the following ingredients for the party’s next manifesto would serve as a thirst quenching relief.

| Europe |

The Prime Minister’s long awaited speech on the UK’s membership to the European Union (EU) left the country questioning the sincerity behind Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in the next Parliament. This was clearly a tactic in procuring the hearts, and more importantly the votes, of the right wing members of his party – those whose loyalty has recently remained uncertain.

However, the Prime Minister would have undoubtedly been better off had he promised the referendum in 2014, a short time before the 2015 election. If the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Prime Minister would have time to decide on his course of action or carefully scripted his U-turn ready for the next Parliament – a far greater incentive for the electorate to re-elect his party into Government than the cold promise he has made.

| Economy |

Despite the UK loosing its triple ‘A’ status, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, exclaimed that he ‘will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter.’ Unfortunately though, while the deficit decreases, the debt sores and the Government’s current plan will unequivocally be challenged by the electorate who have seen little sign of recovery in the years that the Conservatives would have been in power come 2015. Whether you believe the Chancellor’s strategy is working or not, it certainly won’t win votes should it be repeated in the party’s next manifesto.

| A Liberal Perspective |

Although coming under fire for his proposals and consequent reforms to equal marriage, which has unmistakably won the support of youthful generations, Cameron and his party must provide young and first-time voters an additional incentive to side with the Conservatives. Having taken a tough knock over university tuition fees the Liberal Democrats have freed up votes that the Prime Minister must now make a grab for.

‘Mojito-Miliband’

Ed Miliband’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions could be mistaken as a repeat played on a weekly loop – one of the clearest indicators that Miliband and his party have very little direction with regards to policy, if any. However, with a manifesto flourishing of sound policies and a strong sense of ideology, the Labour party might be in with a fighting chance of snatching election victory, if they acquired such a document.

| New Leader |

Firstly then, the key ingredient to this recipe’s success is a complete new appearance. Its presentation is lacking, and that must fundamentally change.

It’s safe to say that while Miliband is at the helm, the ship will be sailing against the wind, making very little progress. Unfortunately, the public realises that Miliband lacks the competencies of leadership, whilst his party refuses to acknowledge it for the sake of appearing as a united front. If his brother, David Miliband, had won the leadership contest however, then the situation would have been completely different.

Until the party boosts in the confidence required to overhaul their leader, it will not accomplish a taste of power for some time. Perhaps, with some polishing, the rising Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Chuka Umunna, would be a strong contender?

| The Fighting Ground |

As briefly mentioned, the body of votes for the Liberal Democrats that lead to their success in the 2010 election are ‘up-for-grabs’ following the disastrous decisions that they’ve taken during their time in office – namely the rise in university tuition fees – therefore isolating their large voter base, many of which were students. The release of this portion of voters could bestow election supremacy for the party that successfully appeals to their interests.

Whilst the Labour leader enjoys the support of trade unions, of which appointed him into his position, he must begin to appeal to the more liberal of voters. An easier achievement than for Cameron. A policy on child adoption for same-sex couples would be an interesting example.

| International Intervention |

Similar to the legacy of economic recession that has loomed over the Labour party, military intervention in the Middle East branded New Labour distinctly interventionist. A drastic foreign policy that sides with limitations on foreign intervention is likely to bode well with those who have military connections and the public more generally. A policy that promises no UK military intervention in a foreign nation unless the Government secures a UN Resolution to legitimise its actions as just, exemplifies the style of foreign policy needed.

‘Caruso-Clegg’

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats, and for Nick Clegg moreover, the 2015 General Election is going to taste bitter. To conjure up a recipe of sweet success for this party is more likely to produce a sour poison. The declining reputation that the party are affording themselves from abandoning their promises continues to speedily disintegrate their voter base.

| New Leader |

Unlike the Labour party, a change of leader would be ineffective. Nonetheless, it would signal an end to an era that the LibDems would very much wish to forget and would allow for minor progress towards repairing its broken image.

| Housing & National Affairs |

Property construction and social benefits to first-time buyers would be a safe bet. Once again appealing to younger voters is a realistic and reliable option. Policies on the economy or foreign affairs would convey the party as unrealistic and incapable of governing. Therefore, it is essential that the Liberals first heal the wounds of domestic politics. Core domestic policies, such as housing, can allow the party to gain a foothold on the ladders of trust and influence once more. From there, the party can regroup, reorganise and rearrange themselves in preparation for an opportunity for leadership to arise once again.

The 2015 General Election will unquestionably be messy following a long period of uncertainty. Will a leading party emerge as the forerunner in the remaining years? It’s doubtful. Instead, we can expect to see a scramble for every available vote no matter what its position on the party continuum. We can also be sure to witness a head-to-head collision between the Tories and Labour party, with no indication of the LibDems as a sincere competitor in the race to power.

But, what looks increasingly likely is another hung-parliament. We already thought the political and economic situation was dreadful – it’s likely to get a lot worse.

Conservative Cocktail

Ingredients:
(12.5ml) Grenadine
(12.5ml) Chambord Black Raspberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Strawberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Cherry Sourz

Directions:
In shaker, mix together and strain into cocktail glass.

Labour Cocktail

Ingredients:
(25ml) Southern Comfort Lime Liqueur
(25ml) Smirnoff Vodka
(25ml) Archers Peach Schnapps
(A Dash) Blue Curacao

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and add a generous helping of fresh lemon juice.

Liberal Cocktail:

Ingredients:
(25ml) Ameretto
(25ml) Banana Liqueur
(25ml) Fresh Orange Juice
(30ml) A ‘Liberal’ helping of Brandy

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and top with lemonade

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

Egypt: A Bloody Shame Indeed

Morsi’s supporters celebrate victory. Photo: Lorenz Khazaleh (Flickr)

One of the major victories of the Arab Spring was the new raft of democratically elected leaders who came to power following the fall of dictatorial regimes who terrorised their people and ruled without regard for freedom of speech, of the press and the views of the down-trodden who inhabited the levels in society below those of the privileged elite who controlled so much of their lives.

This process of democratising the region led to the first free and fair Egyptian election in decades; the election of Mohammad Morsi, candidate for a previously banned party (the Muslim Brotherhood), who successfully won the election as President of the newly freed country. This was a fresh political experience for Egypt’s young population, with millions never having had the opportunity to vote before during the term of the last leader, Hosni Mubarak, and his long fiefdom over the whole nation.

This glorious enfranchisement made the whole country feel like it had a real say in events, for the first time in years. This made the elections held after Mubarak’s downfall particularly engaging and exciting for ordinary Egyptians; their pet parties had to win, in order to get in there first and truly shape the country so monopolised by the oligarchs. The political energy, of the sort not seen in the more apathetic ‘reserved’ European and American democracies, was hailed as another success of the Arab Spring, with a strong vibrant culture around voting becoming the centrepiece for all those who (correctly) supported the Egyptians in their valiant struggle for self government.

However, this joyous revelling in a new found ability to determine the leadership of the nation also created many problems. The movements of mass action which had characterised the protests against the regime also had an effect on the way the campaigns were run as well as the level of political discourse in the country. For even after the brave citizen-led fight to stop the tyranny had been done in a spirit of unity, vast chasms of division remained amongst the politically educated. There were huge amounts of polarisation and partisanship in the run up to the election.

The BBC did an excellent piece analysing the potential results and cross-referencing the potential voters. It turns out that women (by a considerable margin) favoured the non-Islamic candidate, Ahmed Shafik, who was considered by some to be a stooge for the former government. This rejection by womanhood is significant in two ways: the first is their disenchantment with the Islamic message preached by Morsi and his supporters (perhaps showing an awakening amongst those the religion oppresses most?). It is also significant in that women were actually allowed to vote, in direct contrast to other ‘Islamic Republics’.

The world may not be ready for a democratically elected Islamic leader of a free country. People in the West who supported the military intervention in Libya were hugely alarmed when the Leader of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Jilil, said that the new constitution of the country would be broadly based on ultra-conservative Sharia Law, ‘obviously’. It does appear worrying that those who so keenly wrote and spoke in favour of Arabs making their own political futures and choosing their own leaders, are then recoiling when they choose something alien to our experience. Let me be clear, if the new countries’ governments stay within a democratic framework, then there are no problems.

However; if, like in Egypt now, the government exceeds its own powers and gives itself new ones (which the Morsi administration is currently doing) then the world at large is legitimised in its’ worries for the people, and the region. The consequences of further international involvement in a region already struggling to rebuild after the last encounter with hellfire missiles and a democratically elected demagogue at the helm are not happy ones.

It is a true travesty, after winning an election, and the respect of the international community in his mediation between Israel and Palestine (which not only prevented an escalation of the region’s problems, but also demonstrated a new resurgence from Egypt as a new power in the area) he had proved himself capable of the office entrusted to him. To see all of that disintegrate in a matter of hours from statesman to mob orator, who has to watch his party headquarters burn as the collective will of the Egyptians is once more released on another leader with dictatorial ambitions.

Morsi is defiant; he cannot govern while others have the ability to challenge his decisions and to amend them, he has decreed that none of his actions can be changed by the legislature; this is controlling, and hardly the actions of a democrat. But the other implications of his new move are profound. He is now able to take any action necessary to safeguard the revolution. This is Leninist in essence, and any mention of emergency powers whilst in the presidency is pure Putin.

He may genuinely think that by his actions he is stream-lining the process of making decisions, and he may think that concentrating more power in his hands is a positive attempt to respond to crises quicker, and he may well take false consolation in the evidence: he has, after all, done very well in the only major problem to come his way so far.

But this is no true indication of the stresses of his job and the future challenges, where his course of action may not be so well defined. The default Arab response is to defend Palestine, and that has served him well so far, but how can we guess he will respond to a more convoluted situation: presumably involving Iran and Israel? He has no obvious route to navigate the storm of angry rhetoric, UN Security Council vetoes and powerful backers. Let us hope the violence and strife makes him change his ways; we don’t want a situation like 1917, where the errors of a revolutionary government were considered as strong as to warrant another, and more disastrous, upheaval.

James Snell