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!

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.