Seeing as Sir Michael White has decided not to write about the Libertarian Party despite the challenge laid down for him, I guess it falls upon myself to undertake an analysis of British politics, and show where the LPUK fits into the mainstream, but most importantly why it was necessary to form the Libertarian Party in the first place.
There is a void in political thought at present, there is also a void in the manifesto coverage from the big parties, one that needed filling, one which the public are determined to find, and the Libertarian Party is the one positioned to soak up the disaffected from these mainstream parties, simply because their voices are and have been falling on deaf ears.
This is the primary reason they will not give LPUK any media exposure. They fear, all the main parties fear, that LPUK will become the voice of reason.
The march towards authoritarian rule has been embraced not just by Labour, but undeniably by the Conservative and LibDem leadership. This article intends to map out what has happened over the past 12 years, and where we are heading.
We have accepted that after 12 years in No.10 Labour are the ones who have undertaken the enactment of over 32,000 new pieces of legislation (more than all the previous parliaments since its inception), forcing through many new and contentious laws which run counter to the rule of law as laid out in our constitutional documents.
I don’t need to compile another list of Liberty lost, I have already done that, which the Convention of Modern Liberty picked up and ran with, despite that event being a false flag attempt by the establishment to retain control of the Liberty agenda.
It only scratches the surface.
As I established earlier this week, the OECD global blueprint is being followed by the majority of western states, so in Britain it currently makes little difference at present who sits in No.10, that blueprint will be followed.
The only difference we will see when Cameron arrives to take up his residency will be a little tweaking, rounding off the hard edges to placate some of the more vocal elements, and a good deal more spin, wrapped up in Nudge style media pressure.
So lets go back to the beginning of Labour’s invasion of our liberties, 1997 (I could go back further and include all the Conservative treaties, Rome and Maastricht being the 2 biggest such treaties under Conservative rule which have ceded British sovereignty to unelected bodies, and the introduction of the West Lothian plan as a direct result of the Equalisation Project in the OECD blueprint), but the real assault began with Blair.
At the national level British politics was at that time what I could call moderate, very clearly defined as Labour left and Conservative right, with a LibDem foot in both camps, with a positive left leaning. All these parties are pro EU and pro OECD. We see a single blip that is UKIP, who whilst being anti EU dampens any perceived support for OECD, although their very existence is dependent upon EU participation and funding.
This is shown in the diagram below.
So what changed after Blair was elected in a landslide victory, on a platform laden with promises of smaller government, dissolution of quangos, EU referendums, squeaky clean government and spending restraint.
Just by reading through the 1997 manifesto, we can see just how comprehensively the British people were conned, absolutely conned, but time dulls the memory so it is worth reminding, as are the pledges given in the 2005 manifesto.
But then conning the British people was always the intention, which was confirmed in a court case in which the Labour government stated unequivocally that “manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation” and therefore cannot be relied upon. As blogger Mr Eugenides said at the time: you know something’s gone wrong with politics when… (1) you tell a court “I’m a liar and my promises cannot be relied on”, and (2) that’s your defence…
Labour had no intention of fulfilling its pledges, whereas it had every intention of working to the EU and OECD master blueprint, as I suspect the Conservative party appears to have every intention of working to.. Surrounded by an army of lawyers, script writers, media spin doctors, academics and ideological mentors from the Fabians, Labour set about the controlled destruction of Britain.
Regionalising Britain is a big part of that plan, and the success of the SNP is Scotland was initially viewed as a major setback, although it now looks as though they too have been quietly pressured into following the ‘guidance’. Plaid Cymru in Wales have not yet had such success to be considered a real threat.
By far the biggest change we have undertaken however are the mental attitudes towards life, the universe and everything. The key to this has been the politics of fear. Otherwise known as The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse it is a term for criminals, or the imagery of criminals, and it refers to types of criminals who use the internet to facilitate crime and consequently jeopardize the rights and well being of citizens. They are usually described as terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organised crime.
The creation of fears, enemies within and without that must be feared and fought, either real or imagined has been a political weapon in the hands of politicians for 2000 years or more, used very effectively in the last 75 years and now being used again on us.
We have seen the establishment of an entirely new politically motivated industry of police and private security to support the politics and newly created public perception from the fear of paedophiles, the same with climate change which has also spawned new political parties, and the same fears and uncertainties are aimed at cigarettes, alcohol and food products, health scares of varying degrees, of illegal immigrants and feral youth. The use of fake charities* to increase supposedly ‘public concern’ is now so widespread that it undermines legitimate charitable works.
To ‘combat’ these created fears a host of new laws strip us of our right to privacy, to protect our personal data or our right to be left alone by the state. There are databases, dozens of databases, fingerprinting, DNA collection and retention, CRB checks, ID Cards, age rules, random stops for ID, alcohol checks, insurances, searches, entry to our homes and offices, covert surveillance by all and sundry, all backed up by a closely controlled TV and Press media operation and a central government propaganda unit the COI.
All these new laws and regulations have ensured an explosion in the growth of quangos and government funded fake charities to oversee, investigate, mentor, spread propaganda, lobby and to infantile and patronise the British public.
This has gone hand in hand with a step change in the work environment, a Health and Safety regime gone mad and the introduction of process driven procedures that ensure that growth of the state is ensured. Such methodologies** as Prince2, Lean and Six Sigma introduced to the Civil Service allows for the political agenda to flow unabated whilst limiting the big picture view to the most senior politically correct incumbents.
Then there is terrorism. Real or perceived to be real, the fear has been capitalised on, the small number of events have been hyped up, pushed, shoved, and spun for all its worth. By using the Police and Media to best effect, that fear has been projected into the living room and lives of every citizen.
It is a well trodden path, but one that the public is increasingly not buying, as each new high profile scenario unravels and those involved are released without charge, we can all hear the boy crying wolf.
So where are we now today, lets see where the political parties have moved since 1997.
As the diagram shows, most of the parties have moved to the centre ground as the old right left paradigm is left behind, and all have moved further towards the authoritarian regulated form of politics, Communitarianism.
The notable exception is the BNP, who have shrugged off their right wing fascist thug origins and are now firmly placed in the left wing camp in a more moderate position. No small feat on their part to move from right to left whilst campaigning in the main on the same major issues. This explains NuLabour’s absolute fear of them, whilst other parties tend to politely keep them at arms length.
If we return to the OECD, it is clear that the blueprint that they describe and advise governments on the course of actions to be followed in their various projects, Communitarianism is most definitely the end game, not just at a national level, nor even regional, but Global in its application.
It is also clear that Cameron intends to follow through with this OECD plan, his rejection of the Libertarians in his party and the half hearted uttering from Osborne, IDS and Clarke tell us much more in what they fail to say.
There will not be a rolling back of legislation, there may a tinkering around the edges, a smoothing of the rougher edges, but the reclaiming of rights lost is not on the agenda. Even David Davis is very selective of the battles he fights, those he knows will win public support, but not those he knows will have little effect on the leadership.
The Conservatives intended use of Nudge has been widely written about, it is public knowledge, and we expect that it will be used to hoodwink the public into further steps along the road to the OECD global governance objectives, which are themselves now openly spoken of.
There is no room left in the Conservative party for Liberty minded individuals, unless they compromise their beliefs and step into line. Only positive rights from now on, you will be allowed to choose from the following list……
So where does that leave me, and the millions of other voters who are being led somewhere they do not wish to be led, are not asked or consulted about this monumental shift towards a communitarian society.
Looking back at the diagram, The Libertarian Party places itself firmly in the centre ground, it is neither left nor right, despite what our detractors may attempt to tell you. Nor is it in extreme so Laissez faire that it sees no role for Government.
LPUK is a Minarchist party, it does see that Government must in some areas be there for the well-being of the nation, but that does not mean constant interference or continual control of people and events, it means reducing interference or coercion and de-coupling Government from big business.
We are not so naïve to imagine that the separation of these powers will be easy, nor turning around decades of legislation that puts the agendas of political parties, and the wants of business and corporate bodies before the needs of the individual.
The condemnation of the abuse of the supporting terror legislation used for trivial matters by Conservative or LDP is laudable, but it is not enough, nor is tweaking the primary legislation, only the Libertarian Party have promised to repeal it completely as laws in place before 1997 were ably sufficient to deal with terrorists and their threats without impinging on the rights of citizens.
We are looking to return Britain to a moderate Britain, where personal freedom is important, where our rights and Liberty are guaranteed at birth, not granted at the whim of a government, a Britain where our laws are consensual, based upon the rights earned by our forefathers, laws written and agreed in Britain, by members of a Parliament that represent the people who elected them rather than those who pay them from abroad.
We are looking to return to a Britain where you are free to do as you wish providing that you do not impinge upon the rights of others, but more importantly a Britain where you also take responsibility for your own actions, at all levels, by all of us.
A Britain that works in the best interests of inventiveness, innovation, tolerance of others, and self-worth. A Britain that will reward hard work by not having a government take the lions share of your earnings, and where you may go about your lawful business without interference by the state.
A Britain of values, your values, not mine or imposed communal values. Each of us have different priorities in our lives, different ambitions for ourselves and our families and each must be free to fulfil their dreams, without hindrance by the state. In short a Britain where you can be yourself, knowing that the government is there to protect you and your rights, not the other way round.
To those who currently support the Conservative and LibDem parties, who are Liberal in their souls, we know you can see where your leadership is taking us, we know because you are still attempting to reform from within, but try as you may you will not detract them from this Communitarian course.
Nor will you ever get them to change direction on our economic woes, to reduce significantly the size of government, quangos and the plethora of projects that just keep eating our taxes. You will not get them to live within our means, to turn away from the credit/debt economy which fuels yet more debt just to survive.
Cameron has been totally clear in his condemnation of Libertarian ideals, and Clegg has allowed the marginalisation of Libertarians to the point where we consider that the LDP is now just the Social Democrats.
There is a home, a natural home for all Libertarians, it is with LPUK, and there is a natural home for a Libertarian Party, as the British have for centuries shown themselves to be naturally Libertarian in nature.. Liberty is the future, real liberty, but not the manufactured illusion of liberty being offered by those presently represented in Westminster and beyond, for that will never be attainable.
*: Fake charities are those who gain significant funding from Central government or other charities so funded and not from individual donations, with the sole intention of working a government set agenda or for the purposes of lobbying government to enact a desired government set agenda by assuming or creating a false sense of public outcry or demand which is then echoed in a controlled media campaign, i.e. ASH or Alcohol Concern.
**: Prince2, Lean and Six Sigma are designed to take roles that are normally conducted by 1 or maybe 2 people in their process from end to end, and slice it up into small managed chunks. These chunks are then allocated to staff who are trained to only do the work in that very confined work package.
By taking an entire department, slicing up their existing processes, re-allocating the chunks to an ever growing workforce one can create the impression of modernisation.
What in effect happens however is that the chunks are cleverly allocated in such a way that there are never enough people to handle all the chunks. New managers are therefore needed to manage this under allocation, and there is a constant demand for new staff to fill the un-allocated elements. Therefore constant staff growth is guaranteed and new management levels are created to deal with this constant shortfall.
It also means that no single worker can ever see the big picture, they only being allowed access to their own work-package, and no single person can ever be responsible for the failures that follow as it is always blamed on the process.
Whilst originally designed by big consultancy groups to ensure billing leverage, Lean and Six Sigma have been adopted by government departments to use as political tools, with Prince2 being developed in house by the Treasury buying department (OGC) in conjunction with big consultancy.
It allows suppliers to government to be absolutely vague about the services and goods they are offering whilst creating the appearance of professionalism, but allowing for the blame of client processes and departmental barriers which should rightly be attributed to their own failures, but guaranteeing billing flow and maximising their profits.