The Freedom Association is a non-partisan, libertarian pressure group dedicated to fighting for individual liberty and freedom of expression.
If your freedom is important to you, why not join us and become a Member?
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Posted by The Freedom Association on Sunday, 17 July 2011 at 01:29 PM | Permalink
|
Comments (1)
Image via Wikipedia
The Freedom Zone is the biggest and best event on the Conservative Party Conference. Here's six reasons why:
See you there!
Simon Richards
Director, The Freedom Association
Read my new Daily Mail Right Minds blog
Follow me on Twitter @simplysimontfa
Posted by The Freedom Association on Saturday, 01 October 2011 at 08:43 AM in Simon Richards, The Freedom Zone | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
Image via Wikipedia
Janice Small has an excellent piece over at Politics.co.uk on the Financial Transactions Tax. She points out that the tax is only being considered now because it provides an opportunity for the European Union to stealthily raise funds at a time when all its member states want to give less. Furthermore, it should be easy enough to pass through the EU since it will primarily affect just one country which makes up a massive proportion of the European financial services industry. You know the one. Britain.
It’s a very politically attractive tax – it hurts ‘the bankers’ who must be the most hated people group in the West at the moment – and most people don’t recognise that ‘the bankers’ will pass on a large proportion of the cost to ordinary borrowers and lenders, through less favourable rates.
But the pain of the FTT goes further than that. As Janice explains:
“The City employs over half a million people and respected economists like Tim Congdon [TFA Honorary Chairman] estimate that around 25% of these jobs will be lost if these proposals go ahead. And remember that most of the high tax-paying bankers with bonuses will go off-shore taking their spending power with them. The City contributes £52 billion pounds in tax, that's 100,000 nurses or ten Olympic stadiums… But if you think it's good riddance to the ill-gotten gains of that tax, think about the back office staff, the IT workers, the secretaries, the sandwich makers, the retailers and the facility management employees – they will all lose their jobs and will not be replaced.”
As TFA intern Thomas Critchley explained yesterday, we must say no to the Terrible Tobin Tax!
Posted by The Freedom Association on Friday, 30 September 2011 at 04:22 PM in Taxation, Tom Waters | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
Image via Wikipedia
A few days ago I wrote about the foolishness of giving aid to Pakistan. Others have pointed out before that we give money to India whilst it has a space programme.
But the newest country on the list of those which just clearly aren’t some sort of charity case is Argentina. Matthew Elliot has written an excellent piece on this matter. He points out that we contribute nearly £7 million in an EU aid fund to Argentina, and are a major shareholder of the World Bank which provides cash for Argentinian programmes, and who Argentina owe $5 billion.
I think that there’s a case to be made for careful, targeted, foreign aid. It seems that, if we are going to be redistributing wealth, it is much better to redistribute it to the poorest around the globe than to the receivers of benefits in our society which, by and large, are far richer than those in the third world.
But Argentina is just nowhere near being poor enough to justify that. The IMF rank it as the 52nd richest country in the world - meaning that there are 131 poorer than it. It has a GDP per capita of Int$15,901. That’s about two thirds of Portugal’s income.
Consider what the £7 million we’re sending to Argentina through the EU could do elsewhere. It could buy 1.4 million chickens for Africa; or 280,000 sheep; or 3,500 entire farmyards benefiting 250 people each. All of these things could have dramatically positive effects on the lives of the people involved; far more beneficial than part-financing Argentina’s $30 million programme to “strengthen public sector management and improve public administration”.
These sorts of foreign aid funds have slowly developed by bureaucrats, no doubt with good intentions, who forget both that they are dealing with someone else’s money, and the concept of opportunity cost – that the real cost of spending money on anything is the good or service you forgo by doing so.
Posted by The Freedom Association on Friday, 30 September 2011 at 01:34 PM in Tom Waters | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
The ever incorrigible Harriet Harman has once again revealed to the world that she is either utterly deluded about democracy, or, in true Machiavellian style, considers it a tool to be used and abused.
The Tories have apparently proposed a system of voting reform that would change the practice of British voting. Harriet Harman thunders away claims that “the Tories have set out are going to push people off the electoral register – deny them their vote, deny them their voice. That is a shameful assault on people’s democratic rights”. This is not the first time that the Deputy Leader of the Labour party has spewed such tripe, but let us humour her and try and work out her motives.
The reforms in the Tories’ White Paper include passing the responsibility of registering to vote, from leader of a household to the individual themselves registration will now be optional, it being currently a legal obligation, and there will also be step up in anti-fraud measures in voting. Incidentally, these reforms were originally proposed by Labour themselves, and Labour have gone on record to back individual voter registration two weeks, and what’s more Ed Miliband even put into the party’s manifesto!
Quite why Harriet Harman believes, or professes to believe, that these reforms are anti-democratic is, at first unfathomable, after which the real reason dawns. She is concerned, not about the democratic rights of Britons as a whole, but of many Labour voters, who she appears to harbour significant disdain for. Her belief that people will become disenfranchised appears to come from the fact that giving people the awfully arduous task of having to register themselves for voting will somehow mean that many people will simply not do so. She also appears to believes that many of those that will refrain from doing so are potential Labour voters. This means that she thinks of Labour supporters (and I suppose much of the British public) as either incompetent to the extent whereby they cannot even fill out a form, or else too apathetic towards politics – in which the party should be at fault for not engaging them. The public should find this quite insulting to be honest, for Harriet Harman is essentially telling the electorate that they are too stupid to be able to register themselves to vote if they are not herded like cattle towards a registration booth.
These electoral reforms have the potential to make the whole system much fairer and more democratic. It is well known that there have been many cases of electoral fraud and abusing the system, such as 27 voters registered to one London flat, as reported in the Times. Why is the Deputy Leader of the Labour party so terrified of a more democratic system? Apparently a more democratic Britain will give the Tories a better chance of winning an election. What does that say about the British electorate and their view of Labour then Mrs Harman?
By Thomas Hugh Critchley
Posted by The Freedom Association on Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 05:07 PM in Civil liberties, Democracy, Elections, Individual freedom, Labour, Thomas Hugh Critchley | Permalink
|
Comments (1)
In addition to the exhibitors at The Freedom Zone, we have an impressive total of 60 speakers, including 13 MPs and 4 MEPs speaking at our events. In order of appearance, here they are . . .
Check out our timetable and come along! Admission's free and open to all - you don't need a conference pass to attend. See you there - from 10.30 a.m. on Sunday 2 October to 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 4 October.
Posted by The Freedom Association on Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 04:37 PM in The Freedom Zone | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, has just come out in support of a Europe wide tax on all financial transactions, also known as the ‘Tobin Tax’. It is part of the European Union’s drive to incorporate all the EU member states into a greater “economic union.”
The Tories are expected to veto this as George Osborne believes, quite rightly, that it would have a devastating effect on the City. For one thing, it has the potential to seriously alienate investors and reduce the financial competitiveness of London, but what is more concerning is that the British people would not be recipients of the revenue of this tax, it would go not to No. 11, but to Brussels.
We at the Freedom Association have been writing for a while now about this ill-conceived idea, so George Osborne’s public opposition to it is a rather satisfying vindication of our objections.
The idea of this tax on financial transactions, also childishly touted as the ‘Robin Hood’ tax, is just as it sounds; of every monetary transaction, a portion of it is taxed and then whisked off to the Eurocrats, for them to play with. It is a phenomenally delusional concept, as it will raise the price of business across the board, and end up driving vast swathes of business opportunities away from Europe, leaving those trapped inside the EU to rot in stagnation.
The Swedes tried it in the 1980s and it was, by all accounts, an “unmitigated disaster”. City AM reported that the 1.5 billion kroner in revenue that the tax was expected to reap was “laughably optimistic” and was actually averaging at just 50 million per year. The price of government borrowing rocketed, stock market activity and share prices plummeted, and equity, bond and derivative markets were crippled by taxation. Sweden lost an astounding amount of business as a result; in 1986, 60 per cent of trades for the 11 most traded Swedish stocks moved to London, rising to more than half of all Swedish equity by 1990. Trading slumped 85 per cent during the initial period following the introduction of the tax on bonds. Furthermore, futures trading collapsed by 98 per cent and options trading stopped altogether. Trading in money market securities, which faced the lowest tax rate, collapsed by a fifth.
Allister Heath concluded his damning analysis in City AM saying, “A Tobin Tax will decimate the financial sectors of any country or groups of countries that impose it” and that “No sane British government should even dream of imposing a Tobin tax”. Fortunately, it would appear as though the Chancellor has taken Mr Heath’s advice.
By Thomas Hugh Critchley
Posted by The Freedom Association on Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 01:09 PM in BETTER OFF OUT, Economics, Free Trade, Liberalism, Taxation, The European Union, Thomas Hugh Critchley | Permalink
|
Comments (1)
“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.” Revelations 6:8
While many of us sat watching Ed Miliband’s insipid speech, cringing at the moronic jokes, trying to work out what on earth he was wittering on about when he started crying about circles, and guffawing at the poetic irony of the media blackout at the start of his speech (see Ivan Lewis’ declaration of war against the free press), it occurred to me that there was something much more sinister at work here.
Apparently convinced that, with the turbulent economy, the public has now given up on the idea of capitalism, Ed announced what is effectively the death knell of free trade, free markets, and the freedom of business in the UK. Just like Ivan Lewis’ alarming intention of creating a system that dictates who can and cannot be a journalist, Red Ed has decided that it must also be up to the state to decide who can and cannot do business in Britain. He intends to convince the electorate that cases such as that of Southern Cross would not happen under this system. This is simply puerile wishful thinking. No one could have foreseen that happening. A society in which the government has such totalitarian control of the business sector and growth would be truly terrifying. Labour claims to be on the side of small business, I wonder how potential creators of small businesses will feel about having to convince, not just investors, but also the government of the integrity of their businesses plans. Benedict Brogan, in the Telegraph, describes it as a “model for crushing enterprise in favour of expanding the state.” It is hardly the recipe for growth that the country’s economy is in such dire need of.
Ed also launched a quite extraordinary tirade against the City and the financial serves, labelling them as ‘predators’, the real ‘producers’ of wealth being those that worked with their hands. Now this really is quite a bizarre thing to suggest. I suspect that even the most ardent trade unionist would privately acknowledge that an enormous percentage of Britain’s wealth comes from the City. Our biggest export is British law, used around the world in countless countries. Our law firms, insurance firms and financial services are second to none, and a credit to British business. Ed Miliband may be correct in thinking that the public sentiment towards the sector is not currently at its highest, but I am quite sure that the vast majority of the population understand the benefit of London being the financial centre of the world.
This speech exposed the shallow nature of Ed Miliband’s political persona, as this was a Hail Mary to the left. The speech has already earned stinging condemnation from the City, with the veteran private equity boss Jon Moulton saying in the Telegraph, "This distinction between 'predators' and 'producers' is stereotyping to the point of stupidity."
In quoting Revelations at the beginning of this blog, I understand that I am perhaps guilty of unadulterated hyperbole, but I think it is apt all the same. This Ed Miliband is the pale horse that threatens to destroy all those elements that proponents of economic freedom hold dear, and would usher in a society of economic hell.
By Thomas Hugh Critchley
Posted by The Freedom Association on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 at 11:50 AM in Civil liberties, Economics, Employment Regulation, Free Trade, Freedom of the Press, Individual freedom, Jobs, Liberalism, Privatisation, The surveillance state, Thomas Hugh Critchley, Trades unions | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
Reports from the recent IMF meeting in Washington suggest the Eurozone ‘rescue plan’ is likely to include a massive increase in the size of the European Financial Stability Facility (Europe’s main bailout fund). Also reported was a 50 per cent write-down of Greece’s government debt, agreed to with private investors desperate to recover at least some of their money. These plans are hoped to be put into operation within six weeks, but the growing disquiet in northern Europe over the ever bigger bailout plans may prove that forecast optimistic. As with so much current financial news, reactions to these reports have ranged from cautious optimism to abject despair. The tone of many articles has given further evidence that whatever other effects it may be having, the current financial crisis – or should that be crises – has proved to be a boom time for hyperbole. One theme that has attracted a certain kind of opinion journalist (the kind that is otherwise occupied with Malthusian theories of population growth or the latest theories in environmental catastrophe) is the question of whether we are experiencing the ‘failure of western capitalism’, to which, in Europe, the only response can be incredulity: ‘capitalism, what capitalism?’
In the EU, around half of all economic activity is in the Public Sector. Needless to say this percentage is far higher than it is in the rest of the ‘capitalist world’. This State money is money drained by taxes from the domain of consumers and competition envisioned by free market economics, money taken from the ‘invisible hand’ of the market and placed in the ‘dead hand of the State’. Naturally this leads to inefficiency as bureaucratic central planning can never do as good a job as the primal, Darwinian drive of the profit motive – Humanity did not evolve through legislative directives. Ruthless though it sometimes can be (and even on this point, far less ruthless than the State in its worst excesses) it must be admitted that the free market is the most dynamic and efficient sector of the economy. Of course some public spending is needed, that is to say we should accept the inefficiency of State spending in areas like law and order, where the private sector cannot or should not be given free reign. But in every area where we increase State control the private sector shrinks and the overall economy becomes less efficient. This may be a valid way to run an economy; if financial equality, rather than prosperity is our goal then we should certainly increase the size of the state beyond the bare minimum called for by libertarians. But we should not call this system ‘capitalism’ nor call its crises and collapses failures of the free market.
By Andrew George Neish
Posted by The Freedom Association on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 at 10:46 AM in Andrew Neish, Economics | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
Jack Doyle reports that the Coalition is giving more civilians the power to fine people and demand personal details.
The fact that the number of people licensed under the ‘Community Safety Accreditation Scheme’ has increased since 2010 is an indication of the Liberal Democrats’ lack of commitment to the field, which perhaps once set them apart from Labour and the Tories. As Simon Richards, TFA Director, writes in his Right Minds blog:
“The LibDems are set on preventing their coalition partners from tackling crime, the EU and excessive tax, yet, in the one area they purport to care about - defence of civil liberties - they have failed to prevent an extension of the busybody, bully state set up by Labour.”
Under the CSAS, “councils and private sector firms pay a few hundred pounds for accreditation by the local police force. They then pay as little as £32 for each employee they want to be accredited”. This is a profoundly worrying state of affairs for freedom. Essentially, almost anybody who coughs up a small sum can wield the coercive power of the government.
At a time when our civil liberties have been curbed and chipped away at for decades, giving more people the ability to tell us what to do, with the threat of a fine, is not the right way to go; and they aren’t being hired simply to be cheap police to stop real crimes – no, these people buying their way to the level of state enforcer are fining people for such heinous acts as littering and truancy.
The overbearing state, acting beyond its basic duties, is the single greatest threat to our freedom. Offering people its power for a token fee is a dangerous road on which to travel.
By Tom Waters
Posted by The Freedom Association on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 04:35 PM in Civil liberties, Policing, The Liberal Democrat Party, Tom Waters | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
At the Labour Party Conference this morning, Ivan Lewis MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, delivered a speech outlining Labour’s plans to deal with a misbehaving media.
Mr Lewis’ idea involves creating a register for journalists, a register run by a “new system of independent regulation” which journalists can be struck off from for “gross malpractice.” It is essentially a plan to set up a system of journalism licenses.
It is quite extraordinary that the Labour party can so openly advocate restricting the freedom of the press. This announcement has even managed to attract the ire of the New Statesman, in which Helen Lewis Hastely responds with “bafflement, mixed with queasy foreboding”, writing, quite rightly, that “If we look at the countries around the world where the government keeps such a register, I bet they're not the ones you'd regard as shining beacons of democracy and enlightenment.” There is also the question as to who would decide whether or not a journalist is good or bad. Mr Lewis stresses the importance of a free press in Britain, and thus proclaims that the regulators (his argument is already looking a bit paradoxical) would be independent. But what exactly does this mean? Will it be a single person or a board? Will they be elected or chosen by the government? If they are to be appointed by the government, there is a serious issue of impartiality at stake. Are they to be accountable, and if so how? Will there be an appeals process, and just how on earth is this to be enforced? The National Union of Journalists (NUJ is currently toying with the idea of classifying blogging as journalism, are bloggers to be included on this list? Helen Lewis Hastely is absolutely righ:, it is foreboding, it is very, very worrisome.
Ivan Lewis also cried that “never again can one commercial organisation have so much power and control over our media.” Note the word commercial. By specifying commercial organisations, is he inferring that it is only commercial organisations that are not allowed to take control of our media? If so then it appears as though he has no opposition to the idea of our media being monopolised by a non-commercial organisation i.e. the BBC.
In truth, this can be of no surprise, given that the cosy relationship with the left that the BBC has, and the visceral hatred that the left have of those that dare interfere with the empire of the BBC i.e Sky. Indeed, in this very speech, Lewis confirms (if there was ever need to) the frustration that Labour feel at there being balance in the press, to Rupert Murdoch he says “Your newspapers and Sky TV are popular with millions of British people. Some people in our Movement might find that uncomfortable but it’s true.” There it is: Labour are ‘uncomfortable’ with there being a view not propagated by the BBC available to the British public. No doubt if the Labour party were to get into government and enact this in legislation, Mr Murdoch and his journalists would be the first to go.
For the government to regulate the press is a step away from controlling the press. If this comes into force, it will not be long before we have ‘Suddenly, with Chavez!’
By Thomas Hugh Critchley
Posted by The Freedom Association on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 02:39 PM in BBC, Civil liberties, Free the Airwaves, Freedom in the News, Freedom of the Press, Human rights, Liberalism, Media, Thomas Hugh Critchley | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
Recent Comments