UK political tribalism from one side

People on the right, whoever they are, don't hate the Labour Party or those who stand for the Labour Party quite as much as those on the left hate the Conservatives. I loathe socialism and loathe socialists, but I don't think that they are, by and large, people with bad intentions. With a few exceptions, like Sue Kedgley and Helen Clark, both of whom absolutely drip with desire for power over others, most of those in leftwing parties are "do-gooders" who genuinely care about other people, and genuinely have good intentions. Yes, they pave the road to hell with them, but rational arguments about the means, and the ends arising from the means they support can tend to sway them to an alternative.

The classic example of this happening on the left was in both Australia and NZ in the 1980s. Both Labour (Labor in Australia) Parties governed with reformist agendas that substantially liberalised markets, opened up sectors to competition, privatised major government businesses and transformed their economies. Let's be clear, David Lange and Roger Douglas both believed at the time that they were acting in the best interests of the country, that the reforms would increase prosperity and the ability to afford the social services beloved of most. The difference was that Douglas saw the means being more and more oriented towards the private sector, whereas Lange was cornered by a certain person who convinced him the means were as important as the ends.

Quite simply, significant number of the National Party from 1984-1990 wished THEY had done what Labour was able to do. Rarely does the left say the same about the right.

This is, in part, because the right rarely does what the left wishes it could do. However, even when the left does NOT turn around what was done by the right (e.g. Tony Blair), there is still a visceral hatred for the right. Gary Younge in the Guardian outlines his own, emotive, irrational hatred of the Conservatives.

He says:

"I hate them for a reason. For lots of reasons, actually. For the miners, apartheid, Bobby Sands, Greenham Common, selling council houses, Section 28, lining the pockets of the rich and hammering the poor – to name but a few. I hate them because they hate people I care about."

Well hold on.

The miners were an issue because Labour nationalised the mines and protected them for so long, prolonging men in jobs that were not affordable or sustainable (and had it not happened then, environmentalism would have closed such jobs down eventually). Communist unionists using violence, who opposed secret ballots for strikes, refused to allow reality to be confronted. Why does he not hate those who essentially saw the other side of the Iron Curtain as an economic model to emulate?

Apartheid was an issue that the Conservatives were slow to confront. There was a real need for a genuine liberal confrontation of the fascist racism that ran South Africa, but no one should pretend that those who embraced Mugabe and the pro-communist ANC were angels either. Apartheid ended when the Cold War saw an end to white South African fears of invasion from neighbouring states. The Labour Party meanwhile campaigned to effectively be neutral in the Cold War.

Bobby Sands was a terrorist, as were many of the unionists and the British forces were hardly innocents. However, if Irish republican terrorists murdered one of your closest friends a couple of years earlier, you might not want to be generous to them either.

Greenham Common? Well if you want to unilaterally disarm against the Soviet Empire then fine, but I have noticed Gordon Brown prepared to replace Trident. The Cold War was won because Marxism-Leninism collapsed in the face of its own failings, and a strong determined Western alliance unwilling to capitulate.

Council houses? Yes, nothing so bad as letting people buy their own council house. However, if you think the big brutalist council estates of the 1950s and 1960s have been a social success, then good luck to you.

Section 28? Yes, that was ridiculous. The Conservatives have shed this fortunately, but then it's a crime to speak openly against homosexuality now.

Finally "lining the pockets of the rich and hammering the poor" is that myth that somehow governments give money to the rich and take from the poor. No, it is quite the opposite. Look at where taxes come from.

So sorry Gary, I doubt very much that when you say "I hate them because they hate people I care about." that they actually DO hate the people you care about.

However, it is clear you fall into the "co-parent" model I wrote about before. You support Labour so it can look after those you "care about" instead of you doing it for them, and you hate the Conservatives for reasons that mostly don't stand close scrutiny.

The truth is your big nanny state is and will continue, and you can keep evading reason, so will keep supporting it. If you want to look at one of the consequences of doing so, take a trip to Athens.

How to vote in the UK general election - if you believe in freedom

Even last night it would appear as many as 20-30% of voters are STILL undecided. So here is a guide to vote, for those who don’t believe the government should do more for them, for those who don’t believe in higher taxes and think, by and large, government should focus on protecting the country and protecting citizens from the initiation of force and fraud from each other.

Step One: Decide what voting means for you. If it is about granting moral authority to someone to be in government, then you might find yourself with limited choices. If it is about choosing the least worst option, then it is easier. If it is about making a statement of values closest to your own, then again the choices are limited. If it is about choosing an individual, then it will be luck as to whether you have a good choice or not.

You see if you want to grant moral authority, then you are saying “I agree with enough of your manifesto, to accept you have my endorsement to implement the lot, and make decisions outside that based on your principles”. If you do that, then you have less reason to complain if the winner is the party you endorsed, and it acts as it said it would. You always can have your opinion and express it, but I will simply be able to say “well you said it was ok for xxx to govern”. Bear in mind that it is mainly party members and enthusiasts who should fit that camp.

If you want to choose the least worst option, then you wont find it difficult. It is how most people vote in my view. You hold your nose, and you decide X because at least it keeps Y out (which is worse). If you believe that way, then prepare to be disappointed. Is X REALLY that much better? Or is it that Y is SO bad, that you can’t imagine X being worse? Bear in mind also that by doing this you are saying it is ok for X to govern you. The least worst option also means choosing a government, which means picking a party likely to win in your seat.

If you just want to make a statement of values, then it is a middle ground. You are not granting moral authority, you are not succumbing to the least worst option, but selecting a party that reflects part of your values at least. That is what I did.

Finally, if there is a candidate who personally represents your values and is in a party where he or she might have a chance to spread that influence, then go ahead, positively endorse that candidate. Good luck finding one though.

Step Two: Check out your constituency. If it is a safe seat then you can at least know you’re either endorsing an encumbent who is likely to win, or you can vote for any other candidate knowing there is next to no chance of that person actually wielding power.

If it is a marginal seat then some will suggest “tactical voting”, but frankly unless you are on the left of the political spectrum it is fairly meaningless. Only in Buckingham, where the Tory Speaker faces no challenge from the main parties, have you got any real alternative (UKIP candidate Nigel Farage, hospitalised overnight from a plane crash) if you don’t believe in socialism. A Labour-LibDem marginal may as well be a safe seat for either of them. A marginal with the Conservatives may make your decision a little more difficult, unless the candidate is a Green in disguise (Zac Goldsmith) or a thief (see the full guide to the expenses claimed by them all).

Step Three: Hold your nose and choose. If you believe in less government, more individual freedom and personal responsibility, then you might consider this list:

1. Where there is a Libertarian Party candidate or one endorsed by the LPUK, or an independent libertarian, give him or her a tick. None are likely to win, but you will be voting against the status quo of big government. If you have no such option then…

2. Where there is a Conservative Party candidate who speaks, writes and talks fluently about free markets, who has not bought into the anti-human agenda of the radical environmentalists and who talks more about less government than about how government can help, then consider voting for that candidate. For the foreseeable future, the Conservative Party is the only major party with a wing of members who DO believe in freedom and less government. Endorsing those who can move it away from the pablum of populism that is currently dished out is a positive step.

3. If there is no inspiring Conservative Party candidate, then if you think you must vote for someone, then consider the UKIP candidate. UKIP believe in flat tax, leaving the EU (but retaining free trade with it) and in cutting state spending to the level it was in 1997. That is enough of a platform to give the Conservatives a message if they do not win a majority, that compromise to the left means losing votes from the core.

4. Finally, if your Conservative candidate is odious, and your UKIP candidate is really a complete wingnut who would be better placed in the BNP (and so should lose his deposit), then write in “John Galt”. It wont count, but one person will look at it and probably ask “Who is John Galt”? and will remember it, briefly. You will then have said, to hell with you all, but you might consider standing for Parliament next time.

5. Oh and if you are in Ulster, then you have a very different choice. You might simply choose to opt out of picking between parties of sectarianism. The Alliance Party is the main party that rejects unionism and nationalism, but it is aligned with the Liberal Democrats. Bear in mind that what happens in Ulster may end up influencing the government, but your choices are not ones to envy.

Whatever happens tonight, it will be a long night. It may well match the 1996 New Zealand election, with Nick Clegg playing Winston Peters, and David Cameron and Gordon Brown playing Jim Bolger and Helen Clark.

I intend to party with some like mindeds from down under, to celebrate every time someone odious loses. What am I hoping for? For Labour to come third in proportion of the vote (or to do worse than in 1983), for the Liberal Democrats to not hold the balance of power, for Nigel Farage to win in Buckingham, for Nick Griffin to come third or worse in Barking, for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists to lose heavily, for the Green Party to win nothing, for Ed Balls to lose the seat he is contesting, Old Holborn to win Cambridge, and for the Conservatives to ever so barely miss out on a majority.

Sod them all, none of them deserve to govern.

What the UK election will tell you about Britain

With at least 60% of the electorate likely to support the two major leftwing parties, Liberal Democrats and Labour, it becomes clear that Margaret Thatcher didn’t fundamentally reform attitudes towards the state during her administration, what she did was reform the economy and wind the clock back, somewhat.

However, the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the British public carry a view of the state that I characterise as being supportive of the nanny state. The relationship those people have with the state is either being a co-parent, or as a dependent child.

Those who see the state from the view of a child are scared they’ll lose “their benefit” “their NHS” “their school”. They can’t envisage looking after their own health care, selecting schools, selecting retirement plans or actually paying for what they use. They are the dependent underclass, and comprise perhaps as much as 15-20% of the population. People who don’t think there is any other way. They are brought up loving the Labour Party, almost in the mould of North Korean propaganda, that they owe their house, their education, their health and their employment to the Labour Party. Without the Labour Party paternalistically supplying all of this (who cares where the money comes from) it is a terrifying brutal world indeed.

The myth built around it is the classic Marxist binary view. Them or Us. Because the Labour Party pays for Us, and supports Us, then the Conservative Party must pay for Them and support Them. Labour gives the underclass money, so surely the Conservatives must make things so the rich get richer. This is the repulsive lie manipulated and used by politicians on the left.

Not for one moment is it argued that the tax paid by the wealthier is what pays for Us, or that businesses create the majority of jobs and the money that pays for Us. More insidiously, it is not argued that the “rich” (a catchall for anyone middle class and above) earned their money, but rather there is a focus on inheritance, and on privilege. That those who are financially successful somehow got there through luck, rather than through effort or intelligence. You see the overwhelming myth is that without Labour, you are nothing, cannot be anything and the rich will get what you are getting now – forgetting that the vast bulk of what the government spends comes from the “rich”. The dominant theme of the campaign in the past few weeks has been to concentrate on getting that base of supporters out to vote, purely out of fear of the alternative. The BNP caters for these same children, who blame the "new kids" for getting more with a sneering disdain for big business and immigration generally. The BNP comprises the local bullies, whereas Labour makes friends with the immigrant underclass and says "you can have some too".

While that is all understandable, what about the rest? What about the 40-50% of voters who also vote to the left. Well they are not children in the state-citizen relationship, but supportive parents. These are people who, on the face of it, would admit they can choose the school for their kids, they could buy health insurance and retirement incomes, and could pretty much make their own decisions for themselves and their families. However, they all would say "what about everyone else?"

That is the point, when the bulk of middle class voters think, the state needs to look after the "children" I mentioned before - the underclass. "You can’t leave them to their own devices." In other words, it nurtures the “what about the people who couldn’t” view, pointing at how so many of the underclass are living grossly unhealthy lifestyles, bearing in mind that they are demonstrably unable to look after themselves.

They treat their fellow adults as children, they buy homes to avoid the underclass, and want to give them opportunities at best, and to lock them away at worst. Meanwhile, they too also want “their share” of nanny state, in tax credits, middle class welfare and the like. They support universalism so they can get some of their taxes back, because you see, they DO pay for themselves indirectly. They advocate the nanny state, but want their cut, increasing the overall cost.

So you see, it is about the dependency of the infantile, and the belief by the self-appointed nannies in the wisdom of the state “sorting out” the poor and the feckless. That essentially comprises the majority of British voters, who are one or the other.

It is both these attitudes that believers in small government and individual freedom need to address. For the “children”, it is about a transition to encourage them to “grow up”, give them opportunities to make more choices, not tax them, and increase the incentives to abandon what should be a shift from the welfare state to self sufficiency and private benevolent initiatives. For the “grownups” who want to help them, it is about taking away their own middle class welfare privileges in exchange for tax cuts, and encouraging those who wish to help others to do so, more directly, and in this perhaps some of the elements of the poorly named “Big Society” of David Cameron may have some merit. If you are concerned about the homeless, then don’t let the government fix the problem, do something yourself.

How are both these attitudes confronted? I don’t know. I don’t think it is about surrendering, as the Conservatives have largely done. However, until both are confronted and the concerns and views answered clearly, there will be next to no chance of ever electing a government that will consciously have a mandate to shrink the size of the state.

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!