EC warns Britain of its public debt

Well you'd wonder why the European Commission is saying that the UK's budget deficit will be the highest in Europe, at over 12% of GDP.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"The first thing a new government has got to do is to agree a convincing and detailed programme of debt consolidation," Olli Rehn, the EU's economic and monetary affairs commissioner said.

"It is by far the foremost challenge for a new government. I trust that whatever the colour of the government it will do this."

All of the main parties are continuing to evade this. Gordon Brown apparently believes that spending can't be cut this year, because it will threaten the recovery because it pulls money out of the economy, although with the same breath he is INCREASING taxes (because that pulls money out of the economy, for him to spend).

So figure out for yourself how the government spending less is bad for the economy, but the government taking more out of the economy in taxes is good for it, unless you have the ideological belief that government spending is always better than private spending.

Quite why anyone can give this man any credibility on the British economy is beyond belief.

Add that to the odd claim by Gordon Brown last week that "Labour has built schools, hospitals and roads, so there is no need to continue with more capital spending", when most of those who (incorrectly) argue for pump priming recession filled economies with state spending say it should go on capital items LIKE roads which generate net economic benefits.

So what about the UK libertarians?

I'm going to be generous. The UK Libertarian Party is young, having been founded on 1 January 2008. It has two candidates in this general election, and two endorsed independent candidates (and two local candidates as there are some local elections as well). So it is only a small start.

However, although I criticised it for being very timid a short while ago (ACT is radical by comparison), it is a start on a path towards selling freedom, unambiguously, to the British public. Whether it is the right one is another point.

An alternative to a party is a lobby group/think tank, like the Libertarian Alliance. Sean Gabb has written recently on why the Conservatives are a waste of effort, but that he will be voting for the Conservatives holding his nose at the same time.

However, the outcome of the election is far from certain. Psephologists can be fascinated by the possibilities, but for you just try the BBC election seat calculator. See if you can put Labour in third of the popular vote but with the highest number of seats!

Conservatives only green on the outside?

You'd have thought with the Conservatives believing in anthropomorphic climate change, wanting to strangle aviation, wanting to subsidise windfarms, embracing nuclear power, subsidising railways and keen on recycling, that the statist collectivist environmentalist movement would at least say there is nothing offensive here. It may not be enough for many, but you'd think that it would be a matter of degree.

No. Enemies of the Humans Friends of the Earth apparently approached Conservative candidates, and only FOUR of the 635 contacted would sign up to the pledges of that lobby group. This compares with 95 Labour candidates, 179 Liberal Democrats and unsurprisingly 267 Green candidates.

Maybe the Tories aren't so beholden to the environmentalist agenda after all? Maybe the candidates have simply decided the public are not interested in being told what to do at a time of severe economic recession.

What FOE wants is as follows:

Policy 1: A local carbon budget for every local authority that caps CO2 in the local area in line with the scientific demands for emissions cuts and local circumstances; and enough money and technical support to enable councils to do their bit to tackle climate change.

Quite how this is to be paid for is ignored - blank out.

Policy 2: Sufficient investment in switching to a low carbon economy to achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emission of 42 per cent by 2020; create jobs and boost the recovery; and eliminate fuel poverty.

Again, uncosted, no way to pay for it.

Policy 3: An international deal on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way.

The old chestnut that somehow the developing countries need do nothing, but developed countries must sacrifice. Those developing countries with high GDPs per capita and high emissions are ignored.

Policy 4: A new law which will tackle the major greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock - and which will support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

Trade protectionism in other words. Quite how this fits into EU membership would be beyond FOE.

So only a fool would sign up to these pledges.

Fortunately, FOE publishes a list of the fools. In the Conservatives, millionaire pretty boy who is looking for a meaning to life, Zac Goldsmith (Richmond). Maria Caulfield (Caerphilly), Robert Walter (MP for North Dorset) and Jessica Lee (Erewash). No excuse to vote Conservative in any of THOSE seats now.

I wont believe the end to the Greenwash until the Conservatives backtrack on blindly opposing the expansion of Heathrow. Wrecking the growth of an entire sector of the economy just to win a few votes from NIMBYs in West London is the alternative, but then they are politicians who want power.

Last UK papers declare their hands

The Daily Telegraph stuns the nation by calling for a vote for the Conservatives. The editorial for Wednesday rightly says "Tony Blair's "project" was undermined from the start by two fundamental flaws. The first was the conviction that only big-government solutions can bring about lasting change; the second was the belief that to throw money at a problem is to solve it. The consequence was a spending binge of unparalleled profligacy conducted by an ever-expanding state machine – almost a million people have been added to the government payroll since 1997. When Labour came to power, public spending accounted for 40 per cent of GDP. Last year, the figure was 52 per cent."

Yes, of course, and largely right (although exaggerated) to say "Britain has become the most spied upon, regulated, nannied society in the Western world. Virtually our every move is caught on camera, ever more of our personal details are kept by agents of the state (and frequently lost by them, too). The state dictates where we can smoke and tries to tell us what we should eat and drink. This is not so much big government as Big Brother."

Sadly the Telegraph unwinds itself by saying "The Tory vision of the Big Society plays strongly into these new political realities. Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time. There is a coherent body of policies to support this vision, notably on education, welfare, law and order, and immigration. A smaller state means lower taxes"

There is nothing small government about the Big Society, there is little in the Conservative manifesto about a smaller state and precious less about lower taxes. The instincts and philosophy of the Daily Telegraph has a lot to commend it, sadly the Conservatives are letting them down.

The Independent unsurprisingly calls for a vote for the Liberal Democrats, or if that has no chance of success, a vote for any party to keep the Conservatives out. The key agenda is electoral reform, a rather odd priority at a time of record public debt, budget deficit and the risk of the economy slipping back into recession. However, the Independent hasn't been a successful business for years, so it is hardly surprising that it is incapable of understanding economics.

Finally, the most sane editorial yet comes from Allister Heath in City AM. He is supporting the Conservatives, as the least worst option of the main three. At least philosophically that newspaper has a positive grounding in capitalism. It isn't objectivism, but it is light years away from the rest:

City A.M. is proud to be an independent newspaper; yet that does not mean that we are free of values or devoid of a worldview. We support the City, London’s financial and business community, capitalism, economic growth, hard work, low taxes and a real free-market economy with no corporatism, bailouts or handouts. Good firms should be allowed to make (and keep) vast sums of money; bad ones should go bust. Success as well as failure should be privatised. We stand for meritocracy, where anybody, regardless of background, creed or gender, can get on in life; as well as for a truly compassionate society, whereby the better off have a duty to give the poor a helping hand and support those who cannot look after themselves.

A newspaper that supports capitalism, a free market economy without subsidies is a rare thing. Oh and City AM is free, funny how greedy capitalists can give away something for free isn't it? Herein lies one of the grand myths of the statist self-righteous "we know best" left.

He continues:

"We stand for internationalism, free trade, cultural openness and global engagement but shun unaccountable global bureaucracies and despise totalitarian movements. We like competition and open markets and dislike monopolies, cartels and state-granted privileges; we support knowledge, scholarship, sound science and evidence-based policies and reject irrationality, hysteria and obscurantism. In short, we are classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek."

Yes, stone the crows, the UK isn't just about who can compete for the socialist vote, although Heath makes it clear that the choices are not great:

"None of the parties in Britain truly reflect this strand of thought. All have concealed the need to cut spending. All have promoted a simplistic, vote-winning narrative of the crisis which trashes the City indiscriminately, rather than trying to understand the complex and often policy-induced causes of the recession."

So he supports the Conservatives on the basis that most candidates are pro-free market and have the right instincts.

I can only hope he is right.

Meanwhile, as Labour faces accusations of lying about Conservative policies on child tax credits only ONE major national UK newspaper supports a vote for Labour in this election. The Daily Mirror. It's only useful contribution is flooding its working class readers with cries to not support the BNP.

Of the rest, the Guardian and the Independent are supporting the Liberal Democrats, and all of the rest are supporting the Conservatives. As newspapers like to back winners, it is more likely to be wishful thinking than any real influence upon voters. For most papers they back who their readers are likely to back. The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and the Independent would support the Conservatives and LibDems respectively regardless. The Sun and The Times try to back the winner. The Guardian is the most interesting decision, turning its back on Labour.

None of these means very much, but it DOES mean that the UK papers are full of a diversity of perspectives and columns across the mainstream political spectrum, albeit not as wide as I would like. None of the main parties get away without strident criticism and critiques of their policies (although the perspectives of those critiques are not necessarily that diverse).

Contrast that to the near empty void of the NZ press.

UPDATE: London's Evening Standard is backing the Conservatives, because it fears a hung Parliament and believes change is needed.

My (extremely reluctant) choice in the UK election

I don’t feel clean or enthusiastic about it. I voted for UKIP.

Why UKIP?

The point was really about what does a vote mean. A vote has next to no effect, but to me it is an expression of my moral values and what I endorse for government. It is not, as many describe it, as a choice between poisons and picking the one that hurts the least. I wont grant moral sanction to govern me on terms I disagree with.

Because of that, I could not endorse a Conservative Party that has embraced the agenda of environmentalism, that has agreed to increase taxes (national insurance) even if it is less than the others, and which has chosen to posit a new form of big government (Big Society and national service), rather than tackle the budget deficit and repeal the big government that Labour introduced. A Conservative Party that has failed miserably to confront the economic mismanagement of Gordon Brown, but more importantly the infantilism of the public. It could have said it would not reverse the NHS increases, but instead it seeks to increasing spending on it ABOVE inflation. It could have said it would abolish welfare for middle classes, but it promised to largely preserve it. The Conservative Party has thrown off its bigoted xenophobic past, to embrace the bigoted anti-individualism of the left. It is devoid of remotely consistent philosophy, on the one hand saying people know best how to run their lives, and on the other calling for a “big society” imploring people to sacrifice their lives for others.

Yes, the Conservative Party is, marginally, better than the two parties of unabashed statism, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, it is only because Gordon Brown has been such an unabashed liar about his own record, which has been one of gross fiscal mismanagement, that the Conservatives look good. The only substantial shining light in the Conservative manifesto is the commitment to reform education, by allowing free schools to be set up, away from state control, with funding following the student. Even that is a half hearted copy of the successful Swedish model.

To give the Conservative Party my moral endorsement to govern, and more specifically to govern me means I have to accept an increase in national insurance (a form of income tax) for me. I have to accept the embracing of the climate change interventionist agenda, the totem of which is a multi billion pound taxpayer funded high speed railway, whilst openly explicitly stifling the expansion of the British airline and aviation sector by stopping a private company from paying to expand the world’s busiest airport in terms of international passengers. If that isn’t little Britain thinking surrendering to the luddite like idiocy of the environmentalist movement I don’t know what is.

Five years is a long Parliamentary term. The Conservatives might surprise me and be Thatcherites in sheep's clothing, but I doubt it. On top of that I considered whether the Conservative candidate himself was worthy of my endorsement, but he wasn't. His own blog has been entirely uninspiring, he would fit in well with Cameron's Conservatives. I wouldn't condemn the man, but there isn't enough in his own statements to offset the negatives about the Conservative platform overall.

So I voted UKIP. It wasn’t an easy choice. UKIP is anti-immigration, and I am an immigrant (albeit one with the entitlement to citizenship by birth). UKIP thinks the budget deficit can be largely solved by withdrawing from the EU, but it’s wrong. UKIP is a ragtag mob of disgruntled conservatives, unified by hatred of the EU, but with ideas and philosophies ranging from the libertarian to the xenophobic. My vote for UKIP was simply to say that the EU is now a fundamental problem for the UK and those who believe in less government. It was also an endorsement of UKIP having a few other worthwhile policies, such as supporting a flat rate of income tax, allowing people to contract out of the NHS and cutting state spending to 1997 levels. It’s not enough by any means, and it isn’t libertarian, but it does comprise of some policies the Conservatives should embrace.

So if the Conservatives do not win my constituency by a margin of the UKIP votes, it may make them think. The message should be that a belief in less government is NOT inconsistent with social liberalism, and social liberalism does not mean initiating force against those who disagree with you.

To take an alternative view is to effectively say, if the Conservative Party wins and follows its manifesto, I have no reason to complain as I will have endorsed it. Quite simply, there is not enough in the Conservative manifesto that is good for freedom and for the UK to offset the banal embracing of the Cameron vision of big government for me to endorse it. Voting for UKIP was a protest vote, knowing the git who was standing wont win, but also knowing that it makes a small statement about believing in less government. Next time I am hoping to do something about creating a better choice.

Oh and before anyone says it, if Gordon Brown or Nick Clegg are Prime Minister after the election, do NOT blame me. My refusal to vote for Cameron is not an endorsement of the other two. Besides, the differences between the lot are, in most cases, marginal, and where it really matters (defence) the Liberal Democrats are outvoted by the other two parties.