Chris Huhne's 'Freedom Bill' is merely tinkering

It seems that we are to write yet again on this blog about the enigma that is Chris Huhne. Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, we challenged him last week to change the name of his party to the SDP to better reflect his illiberal views after he publicly backed the Home Secretary in banning from the UK an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, Gert Wilders.

 

Now we see that in a show of publicity, he is back in the news launching what he calls his 'Freedom Bill'.

 

Where do we begin to look at Mr Huhne's efforts, which on the face of it are a step in the right direction, which LPUK applaud, however, and with the LibDem's there is always an however...

 

I read the 'Freedom Bill' that was published on the LibDem site, then I re-read it because I thought that their published version was only a précis, but no, there it was in its entirety. Not once, not a single time does it mention the word Liberty.

 

This is not repeal being presented by Huhne, this is not winding back the injustice, this is just tinkering for political gain.

 

That indeed then prompted me to post the following comment on the presentation site: (which at the time of writing this post was still in moderation).

 

A start yes, however, simply removing 1 or 2 clauses in a number of Acts does nothing to remove the underlying evil behind much of this primary legislation, and can easily be put back in by a subsequent government.

I fear that this is merely window dressing in order to catch media and voter attention rather than a genuine Liberal attempt at restoring the Liberties to the UK population.

It is noted that it does not once use the words Liberty or Liberties, but Freedom. A strange choice of wording or perhaps not, as we know full well that the Acts will never be allowed to be repealed by the EU, of which your party is so fully supportive.

 

One item that I found both annoying and amusing was that it was so clearly obvious that the copy of 1984 that Chris Huhne received from the Libertarian Party had struck home. It had found its target as we had intended, as he used the very phrase that we placed on each book in his press briefing, when he said "George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a blueprint".

 

I suppose we should be flattered at the impact of the 1984 campaign, but the way in which Huhne is exploiting that targeting by delivering such a poorly constructed Bill just reinforces my view of him as a mercenary with statist ambitions.

 

My posting on the LPUK blog last week indicating that the Libertarian Party are leading the debate was spot on, definitely on the money. It is clear that Huhne is only FOLLOWING, but he is playing to the crowd with this gimmick bill, as he knows full well that he will not be able to implement one jot of it without also undertaking to leave the EU.

The EU will block every single item in Huhne's bill. I will reiterate again for the avoidance of doubt, the LibDems, or any other party, will not be allowed to undertake the repeal of liberty stripping laws whilst they support the EU.

 

Nearly every clause that Huhne was to remove through this Bill are included in the original Acts because they are fulfilling EU Directives. The only clauses that I am certain did not eminate from the EU is sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament) which were only added to the Act in a vain attempt to silence Brian Haw.

At this point I am happy to boast that The Libertarian Party is the ONLY party to promise to undertake both the full repeal of such liberty stripping laws, and to extract the UK from the EU.

Moving on, several things have also crossed my mind at the timing by Chris Huhne of this particular proposal. Firstly we know that the Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London, so Mr Huhne obviously wants to present the LibDem's as a party that is 'doing something'. This only serves to hoodwink the voters who are starved by Government and the media of any general knowledge of the EU and how far it now has its tenticles into the UK and its government.

 

Secondly, the recent civil war going on within the party over Liberal Vision has reached a stage where they are losing members, so this is a sop to try to win back those disaffected members with strong Libertarian views, and prevent them from abandoning what is essentially a very social democratic party where their views are neither heard nor acted upon, and he desperately needs to repair the damage he caused to himself over the Gert Wilders affair.

 

Lastly, it is an attempt at one-upmanship. David Davis will be the politician carrying the Keynote speech of note at the Convention on Modern Liberty, therefore Huhne wants to grab the media attention to water down whatever it is that Davis will be delivering.

 

Overall, whilst I would have hoped that the right intentions were there in the presentation of this Bill, I cannot see it. It delivers far too little, it is much too late to be merely tinkering, and provides no more safeguards on the Liberties of the population of this country than the current Government have deprived us of.

 

If this is the best attempt by those perporting to be Liberal at 'Modern Liberty', if this is the very best that is likely to come out of that Convention, then this nation still has much to fear for its future.

 

 

.

 

Can you spot the errors in this picture?

Ok, so this isn't actually a picture, but I'll give you a few moments.

Finished? Let's see how you got on.

Number one;

Michelle Keiller was shocked to receive a £120 fine with a picture of a white van bearing her Toyota estate car's registration number illegally parked in south-east London.

Now she has to prove her innocence or pay up.

Number two

Now she needs to send identification – and her car registration documents – to Lambeth Council, to prove that she does not own the van bearing her registration number.

(duplicate omitted there, obviously)

The DVLA said: "Vehicle cloning is something we've come across in the past, it's not as widespread as you think but is something that does happen.

which is in combination with something earlier in the article;

Michelle Keiller was shocked to receive a £120 fine with a picture of a white van bearing her Toyota estate car's registration number illegally parked in south-east London.

To recap;

• In the good old days (let us say 20 years ago, and for scores of years before that) the state had to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove their innocence.
• As the issue here is regarding the accuracy of a recorded registration mark, i.e.is it a van or a car, why is the state demanding other documentation, such as ID? If XX123XXX is a car not a van, who gives a monkeys who owns what?
• If the state is aware of this cloning, why are they providing the details of a Toyota estate car to a third party when requesting the details of a white van?

Don't worry, folks. ID cards, DNA databases, Phone and Email details databases, Foreign travel databases. You have nothing to fear.

Campaign for expenses transparency

The Libertarian Party has launched a campaign to ask your local MP to follow the lead of Douglas Carswell and undertake to publish full details of their expenses claims, despite the government trying to brush this under the carpet by exempting them from the freedom of information act.

I have contacted my local MP, and await his response. One wonders if it will be as arrogant as Nottingham South MP Alan Simpson, who was quoted as saying;

Nottingham South MP Alan Simpson favoured changes but said: "If we are going to demand that MPs expenses be published in minute detail then so should everyone's, even the private sector's."

Er, Alan, I am not forced to pay the expenses of those in the private sector, as I enter into contracts with them voluntarily. However, if I don't pay my taxes, I am banged up. So I have every right to know how you spend my money you appalling toad.

Libertarians announce candidate

As a political party, the Libertarian Party UK is very young having only been formed a year ago. We have much fewer members than other parties but our membership is growing steadily, day by day. We have a manifesto, office holders and a strong internet presence so now is the time to step up to the plate and announce candidates for elections.

I, Andrew Hunt, therefore declare my candidacy for the Wisbech South ward of Cambridgeshire county council and the North East Cambridgeshire parliamentary constituency.

Lets look at Wisbech South first. The election will take place on the 4th June and coincide with the EU election. I expect the turnout will be low, probably around 35%. The currant occupant is a conservative who got 50% of the vote last time, the area generally is pretty tory leaning. Indeed, at the last district council elections the tories got in unopposed. NE Cambs also has a conservative majority of about 9,000.

But lets not kid ourselves, there is a lot of anger about, people will not be voting for the tories, they will be voting against labour.

Our message is therefore powerful. Yougov polls clearly indicate that about 75% see taxation as far too high and the "state" as far too interfering and meddlesome. We are the only party that gives the electorate what they want. The fact that we can go out there and declare the abolition of Income Tax (whilst still keeping the NHS, pensions, education to 18, dole money, police, armed forces, etc) gives us an immense boost.

I am not saying we will sweep to victory, but I urge other libertarians to step up to the plate and join me in announcing their contesting other seats. Lets go out, canvass and leaflet, and let the voters know they have a real alternative to the authoritarian lab/con/libdim rubbish.

For more on me, see my personal blog:-

http://caligulaspalace.wordpress.com/

For the UK Libertarian Party blog see:-

http://lpuk.blogspot.com/

Nottingham's housing scandal

In a story that would make Soviet Russia proud, there is a scandal brewing here in Nottingham that beggars belief.

Its report says employees of the housing service, as well as relatives, partners and associates were given houses they should not have had.

Tens of thousands of pounds of public money was spent improving wrongly allocated houses – and some were then bought under the right-to-buy scheme and a councillor lied to help two associates obtain a house.

Got that? So these housing officers were giving out council housing to their family and mates, even though they weren’t eligible. They were then spending huge sums on improving some of these houses (I have seen over £40,000 quoted in one case), and the houses were then purchased under the right to buy scheme. Some of them were then sold.

But as if that wasn’t bad enough, it now emerges that they were dishing out jobs to their mates at the same time.

Unbelievable.

No councilors have seen fit to fall on their swords.

This sorry tale is an excellent example of how giving the state power over individuals, in this case, over housing, will always end in tears. 'Social' housing, or housing for those less fortunate in society is to important to be left to a corruptible, inefficient state.

That isn't how it works

There is, perhaps, little more dangerous than a Labour politician who doesn't understand economics being in charge of economic policy. Presumably buoyed up by the congestion charge defeat in the Manchester election, campaigners have made a demand for a local referendum in Nottingham over the workplace parking levy. Ignoring for a moment that one should always be suspicious of a tax that dare not speak it's name, the fight appears to be over who will pay the charge. The campaigners say the employees, the council say the business community. In fact, so convinced by the 'rightness' of the tax, Coun Urquhart makes some pretty astonishing claims;

"During the current economic climate, it is more important than ever to help stimulate economic growth. The WPL package will play a key role in attracting new businesses to Nottingham and securing a bright and sustainable future for the city."

So, let us look at the economics of the tax.

1) The employer pays the tax.

Assuming that the employer isn't a monopoly , the employer in question will have to compete with other companies who may well not pay such a tax. Thus, he cannot pass the cost on to his customers, as they will simply go elsewhere. As he has a duty to his shareholders to maximise profits, less they invest in his competitors, he will therefore have to cut costs. Thus, he is likely to either relocate or lay off staff

2) The employer passes the tax onto the employee

In this scenario, those who travel into the city, who have highly skilled, transferable careers will be tempted to cut their tax bill by several hundred pounds by simply working in any one of the other employment centres in the East Midlands. Those who are not in such demand, and who cannot either relocate or demand higher wages (which causes the same problems as the scenario above) will simply aim to transfer to jobs where they can use public transport. Those outside of the 'improved' public transport areas will be tempted into their cars, but not to travel into the city, but to it's outskirts. Thus, employers have another incentive to move from the city ~ to attract staff at lower wages, or to avoid paying the public transport rent premium.

As you can imagine, it doesn't take a huge amount of imagination to realise that this could be self defeating from a revenue point of view as fas as the local economy is concerned, as business and people regard Nottingham City as a less attractive place to live and do business. One thing is sure however ~ if the city does become an economic ghost town, traffic levels will reduce, so the tax will have it's intended effect in that regard.

To counter this, the tax advocates may well argue that any effect will be minimal, as the charge will be so small. But then it won't tempt people out of their cars, so it really does just become a revenue raising scheme for a council with a fondness for spending your money for you.

Secret LibLab coalition government being discussed

Have the LibDems taken leave of their senses? Is their leadership stark raving mad?

Peter Oborne reports today that secret talks have already begun between Labour and Liberal Democrat figures about a possible coalition. He reports that as a sweetener to any possible deal the Labour Whips office is already drumming up support for Ming Campbell as the next Speaker.

Are certain senior LibDem members so bent on attaining power that they can seriously be considering a pact with the most authoritarian government this country has ever seen?.

Oborne points to an article by Vince Cable suggesting that a national government might not be a bad idea and says:

"Throughout all my years of reporting politics I have rarely encountered such a blatant hint by a senior politician from an opposition party that he wants a job in government  -  and all the signs are that Gordon Brown is warming to the idea of Vince Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government of national unity.

However, the position of Nick Clegg (Cable's boss) is much less clear. I understand that Vince Cable's public musings about a coalition government were emphatically not sanctioned in advance by his leader. Furthermore, insiders speak of a growing split inside the Liberal Democrats over the issue."

It is apparently Cable and Ming Campbell, who are pushing for this deal. If Clegg were to go along with it, I suspect he would split his party.

Can the Libertarian wing of the LibDems honestly feel that they could back such a move by the power hungry Cable. I can see the logic in promoting Campbell to the role of speaker, but Cable as Chancellor?

However, there is a younger generation of LibDems who are very hostile to this idea of a coalition with Labour. As a result, Nick Clegg faces a very difficult few months.

As Oborne points out those in favour of an "arrangement" within the Lib Dems are "on the whole, the older and more Left-leaning members of the party."

The Libertarian Party (LPUK) is ready to open its doors to those Libertarian minded LibDem members who finally realise that there is no room for them and reform of the LibDems is impossible.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, who is being closely advised on this matter by Peter Mandelson, is not only contemplating a grand coalition in the event of a hung parliament after the next election, but Brown is also ready to consider heading a national government in the coming months in the event of the economic situation getting worse.

Indeed, as the financial crisis deteriorates, this momentous decision may come sooner than he expects, but a Churchill he is not. (we understand what all the Churchillian propaganda was for!)


Beware the Ides of March. There is much political intrigue afoot.




Hattip Coffee House

.