Hello everyone. Apologies for not posting for a while, but today, I post a message from the Leader of the Libertarian Party, Chris Mounsey:
My friends
We are broke. Our country — whatever it may once have been — is now laden with debt. And this isn’t “the government’s debt”: it is our debt.
The government has no money but what it takes — what it extorts — from us.
We have gone beyond consensus politics: if a man were to come to your door, with a gun, and demand half of everything that you earned — on pain of severe punishment, on pain of the total ruination of your life — would you not protest?
For a moment, lay aside those dutiful thoughts of those starving millions beyond your gate, and think, instead, of those within your own household — within your own family: would you not rather protect them first?
Of course you would: they are your kith and kin and you would expect — would you not? — that everyone, like you, would defend theirs against you were you the one holding the gun.
The government has now utterly removed from you the means of protecting yourself and your family against the man with the gun: indeed, you dare not defend yourself because you fear that it is you, not the mugger, who would end up in the dock.
For the government is the man with the gun, demanding tithes from you: the government is here, at your door. But not randomly.
No.
The government has gone out and bought itself nice things — plasma TVs, second homes, duckhouses, moats. And jobs, and votes. All of those things that you could not afford — because it has been here before: at your door, with a gun.
Five years ago, it was here — threatening you with prison if you did not pay up — for the sake of all of those children who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.
Four years ago, it was here — threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those unhealthy who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.
Three years ago, it was here — threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those uneducated who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.
Two years ago, it was here — threatening you with prison if you did not pay up — for the sake of all of those feckless bankers who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.
One year ago, it was here — threatening you with prison if you did not pay up — for the sake of all of those MPs who had no duck-houses or second homes or moats. You paid, because you had no option.
And now the government has spent everything that you had to give, and more, on its pet projects — on buying its second homes, on buying its duckhouses, on buying its votes — and none of it benefited you and yours. Not even by one iota.
The government didn’t care that you couldn’t afford to give any more: it didn’t care that you had no money.
The government didn’t care that you had lost your job: the government didn’t care that all of those thousands of pounds it took in National Insurance payments translated into a few hundred when you were in need.
And now, when you are getting back on your feet — back in a job that is not as good as the one the government destroyed, back struggling to look after your family on the pittance you are paid, back paying off your debts — the government, too, is back: it’s back with the gun.
The government is back — demanding half of what you broke your back to earn — because it has more grand schemes, more votes to buy, more trinkets to deliver to its favoured ones.
Will you so willingly hand over the sweat of your brow? Will you so willingly condemn you and yours to penury? Will you capitulate again?
Or will you fight?
Join us — and help us to stop the extortion.
Join us — and understand that providing for you and yours is not a sin.
Join us — and realise that a society that pulls together is a society that stays together.
Join us — and help us fight for a future in which people help each other voluntarily, because it is right and fitting to do so.
Join us — and help to build a future in which men, women and children take back their work, their birthrights, their dignity and their compassion from a government that cares nothing for you.
Join us.
Because — whether the government is Tory, Labour or Lib Dem — soon you will have nothing left to lose.
Chris Mounsey
Leader, Libertarian Party
You might like to read Chris’ own blog, The Devil’s Kitchen. It’s a little sweary so don’t click the link if you are of a sensitive disposition.
If you want the very best, of course you’ll have to go private. We just do what we can do with the resources we have!
That’s pretty much what my local NHS dentist said to me on Friday. Despite paying plenty of tax, every single taxpayer who accesses NHS dentistry can only expect to receive a poor to mediocre service.
Since March I’ve had a problem with one of my back teeth, and during that time I’ve been dealing with both NHS and private dentistry. I had not been to see a dentist for over sixteen years and generally my mouth is in good condition (or at least that’s what the private dentist told me. The NHS dentist gave me no such feedback, even when questioned).
The difference between the private sector and the NHS is startling, and I don’t mean just in terms of the equipment like the little mouth-cam that allows you the patient to see around your mouth, or that takes pictures of your mouth and teeth for future reference; or the x-ray machine that upon your initial visit takes a full mouth x-ray to see if there are any other problems. No, I mean more fundamentally in terms of the overall attitude of the private sector.
You are a customer. You are at the private surgery spending your money. It is in the best interest of the surgery to ensure that you get a good service, for if you don’t you won’t return nor will you recommend the surgery to your friends and family.
As the customer I felt engaged with my treatment. I knew exactly what was going to happen and I knew – having seen it with my own eyes – what a shocking job the NHS dentist had done with my second filling that a) hadn’t even been properly moulded to fit my tooth, nor b) wasn’t actually, as I had been led to believe, a final filling. Indeed, the private dentist was rather disgusted by the job.
Of course, one could argue that this was mere dentist/dentist or public/private sector rivalry – but having seen NHS work myself, followed by the job carried out by the private dentist, you can imagine where my trust ends up going.
The filling I now have is only a temporary one until I get a root filling, but despite this I haven’t been in any pain or discomfort. Unfortunately, I can’t afford to have the root filling carried out in the private sector, and despite paying my National Insurance contribution, I have no choice but to spend it in the NHS.
It is surely a disgrace to in the first instance have money forcibly extracted from you in taxation, and then to add insult to injury, have no choice as to where to spend any of those ‘redistributed’ monies. Our universal healthcare system allows politicians and bureaucrats – many of whom are on healthy salaries that are more than enough to pay for private healthcare – to dictate the standards of healthcare we the mere proles receive.
When I see campaigns such as the #WeLoveTheNHS Twitter campaign, my blood boils. I understand that most people want other people to be able to access healthcare if they can’t afford it – I share that sentiment too. However, I believe the Love NHS campaigners are deluded. Their NHS is in no way the best way to achieve ‘excellent’ service, and it’s not just service users like me who have come to this conclusion. Increasingly, NHS doctors and nurses have reached that conclusion too.
The only way in which healthcare services will improve in the UK is to undo the virtual monopoly that is the NHS. Even if we were to say that taxation will be with us forever and that there will be universal healthcare provision, at least allow service users take their share of their healthcare money wherever they please. Greater competition in healthcare provision will help bring prices down and will improve services, and as a consequence, more people will be able to afford ‘private’ healthcare standards.
As is the norm, I’ve just discovered from the local newspaper, The Sentinel, and not the City Council the latest on the Chris Harman debacle – that he is to receive over £65,000 as a golden goodbye.
All that I’ve received as a councillor is the following statement, hot off the press from the city council’s wonderfully expensive propaganda machine, and as you can see there is no mention of a final settlement figure:
Today is Chris Harman’s last working day with the council. Chris has worked with Stoke-on-Trent City Council since February 2007, most recently as interim chief executive. During that time the council has made significant improvements and been judged as ‘improving strongly’ – the highest rating from the independent government watchdog, the Audit Commission.
In leaving now, Chris has agreed to waive his right to notice in his current role, delivering an immediate financial saving for the Council.
Chris also holds a substantive post of Assistant Chief Executive and the Human Resources Committee has today agreed that, to meet the council’s contractual obligations, Chris will receive a payment equivalent to his notice entitlement for that post.
Chris said: “With a new Chief Executive coming it is time to move on and it is only fair for the new person to choose his own deputy. I have enjoyed my time with Stoke-on-Trent and have made many new friends.”
Councillor Paul Shotton, chair of the HR Committee said: “Chris Harman has worked hard for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. Today’s decision by the HR Committee gives the incoming Chief Executive the opportunity to review senior management arrangements, potentially delivering further savings.”
Tom Macartney, North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership managing director and the council’s Director of Regeneration will deputise for chief executive John van de Laarschot, until he is in post.
Mr Macartney will work together with council leader Ross Irving, the cabinet, councillors and the council’s senior managers during this transitional period.
So, he is generously waiving his ‘right’ (rights – a concept often bastardised) and is leaving early which has led to an immediate financial saving? Of what? How much? This council leadership continues to treat the rest of us councillors like fools and I don’t like it.
Earlier today I emailed Dawn Hewins, the Head of Human Resources, requesting that in the event of a payoff, that a copy of Harman’s contract and information as to who was responsible for drawing up and signing it off, be sent to all councillors. Is anyone holding their breath?
Today is Chris Harman’s last working day with the council. Chris has worked with Stoke-on-Trent City Council since February 2007, most recently as interim chief executive. During that time the council has made significant improvements and been judged as ‘improving strongly’ – the highest rating from the independent government watchdog, the Audit Commission.
In leaving now, Chris has agreed to waive his right to notice in his current role, delivering an immediate financial saving for the Council.
Chris also holds a substantive post of Assistant Chief Executive and the Human Resources Committee has today agreed that, to meet the council’s contractual obligations, Chris will receive a payment equivalent to his notice entitlement for that post.
Chris said: “With a new Chief Executive coming it is time to move on and it is only fair for the new person to choose his own deputy. I have enjoyed my time with Stoke-on-Trent and have made many new friends.”
Councillor Paul Shotton, chair of the HR Committee said: “Chris Harman has worked hard for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. Today’s decision by the HR Committee gives the incoming Chief Executive the opportunity to review senior management arrangements, potentially delivering further savings.”
Tom Macartney, North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership managing director and the council’s Director of Regeneration will deputise for chief executive John van de Laarschot, until he is in post.
Mr Macartney will work together with council leader Ross Irving, the cabinet, councillors and the council’s senior managers during this transitional period.
I have a lot of respect for US Congressman libertarian Republican Ron Paul, who was fundamental in my drift towards accepting I was a libertarian. Watch this video and hear his views on universal healthcare, capitalism and wealth redistribution, and the United States’ involvement in Iraq and Afghanisation,
A week ago I emailed council leader Ross Irving requesting an explanation on what precisely was happening over the absence of city council Interim Chief Executive Chris Harman:
Dear Councillor Irving
I write to request from you a full briefing – copied to all councillors, local media and posted on stoke.gov.uk – on the situation regarding Chris Harman and the post of Chief Executive. It has now been nearly three weeks since the new Chief Executive was appointed and as an elected councillor, I have yet to receive any information relating to Chris Harman and any requests he has made for payment from the City taxpayer.
I hope you’ll agree with me that it is not acceptable to keep councillors in the dark and this matter does nothing to engender trust between non-executive and executive councillors, or indeed between the City Council and the public.
Based on my own intuition and the information I’ve seen in the press, I feel that it would highly unacceptable to make any sort of payment to Chris Harman. The matter seems very straightforward to me – if he wishes to leave the employ of the City Council voluntarily, he deserves no payment. Of course, I may be entirely unfair or unreasonable in this belief, but until I and other councillors – and therefore the public – has a full understanding of the facts, the only reasonable conclusion that one can come to is to say ‘No’ to any payoff.
I am aware that other councillors are considering calling for a special meeting of the council to demand an explanation from you about this issue and I would happily support such a call. However, it is not a necessary course of action if you merely provide elected members and the public with information on what is happening. If you refuse, you are leader of nothing but a secretive cabal that is no better than what went on before.
Councillor Paul Shotton is also included in this email and, as Chair of the Human Resources Committee, maybe he could shed some light on the situation.
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Webb, Councillor
Libertarian for Stoke and Trent Vale
07949 026660
Unfortunately, Councillor Irving hasn’t seen fit to reply.
A few days later, I and twenty-one other councillors signed a motion – moved by Peter Kent-Baguley – calling for an Extraordinary Council Meeting to enable all councillors the opportunity to debate the matter:
This Council deplores the lack of information from the Council Leader regarding the absence of the Interim Chief Executive following the appointment on 29th September 2009 of the new Chief Executive, Mr John van de Laarschot, and the secrecy surrounding the issue and further is totally opposed to a pay-off being awarded to the Interim Chief Executive, Mr Chris Harman.
Tomorrow, the Human Resources Committee will meet to discuss whether or not Harman should receive a payoff. It is speculated by the Sentinel that a compromise agreement may be met to pay Harman £74,000.
As a backbench councillor who has not been party to any of the discussions on this matter, including the Human Resources meeting on 2 October; and who has received no more information other than what I’ve read in the press, I stick by my original view that there should be no payoff for Harman.
If he is ‘compensated’ as per his contract, then there are very serious questions to be answered as to who was responsible for drawing up and agreeing that original contract.
The big question then will be, how many other contracts like Harman’s have been agreed upon by city council officials?
Within the last week, the electoral commission returned its recommendations on the number of city councillors for Stoke-on-Trent. It is their view, and one that I am quite happy with, to reduce the number of councillors from the current sixty, to around forty-five. Indeed, in the proposals I made to the Governance Commission, I suggested the number be reduced from sixty closer to forty.
Unfortunately, there are many councillors who don’t share my enthusiasm about this reduction, but I think they are wrong to be concerned. Instead, they should see this as the start to a) further improve the representation of city residents, and b) return power and authority to local residents and communities.
I have consistenty suggested that local councils – that is, town, parish or community councils – across the city. They are nothing new. Look at neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme or Staffordshire Moorlands. As well as the borough or district council, there are tens of local councils serving local people by delivering many services at a more local level.
According to the National Association of Local Councils there are around 10,000 local councils in England, each delivering services that we currently see the City Council delivering.
Political representation is not the be all and end all to ensuring people’s interests are met or services are delivered. Not surprisingly, I believe there is a need for government to start doing less for people so that they can do more for themselves. It is a fact that government can’t help but interfere in our daily lives and frankly this needs to stop.
The size of government is not acceptable, not justified, nor is it sustainable. The more government there is the more likely individuals are to become dependent on this government scheme or that, and the less in control they are of their own lives.
Ensuring that individuals are able to exercise the maximum sovereignty and responsibility over their own lives will de facto lead to fewer politicians at all levels, and therefore any concern that there might be too few councillors becomes irrelevant.
Today, I have issued an email – copied below – to all councillors on Stoke-on-Trent City Council calling on them to support a request that the entire City Council budget – warts and all – be published for all councillors and taxpayers to view and make recommendations upon.
Dear Fellow Councillors
You may recall that since my election in 2007 and on several occasions at past full council meetings I have publicly called for a complete breakdown of the City Council budget so that councillors and members of the public are able to look through it in order to decide areas to cut, improve and indeed stop providing altogether.
My requests have unfortunately been derided by many Members, and indeed, the information I requested has not been forthcoming from our current Resources portfolio holder Councillor Kieran Clarke (who at the full council meeting on 26 February claimed that such information would be difficult to provide), and by his predecessor, Councillor Mike Tappin. You may recall that at this meeting I voted against the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the Corporate Plan as I believed them both to illustrate how the council was doing too much, and that this was perpetuating the nanny state that restricted citizens doing things for themselves.
It is therefore no secret that I believe councillors should have been cutting back on the size of the council, how much it spends, and how much it does for people. It is no secret that I believe that residents should have less reliance on the ‘authorities’ to provide services for them and that they should be doing more for themselves. Unfortunately, many fellow councillors since 2007 have frankly mocked such views.
It appears now that my mindset is now the prevailing paradigm. Indeed it is interesting to note some of the quotes by senior bureaucrats highlighted at the beginning the recent MTFS presentation to council members where . . “Our public debt is hitting Armaggedon levels” (Steve Bundred, Chief Executive Audit Office); “Bloodbath in public finances” (CIPD June 2009); “Councils have a £4bn deficit” (LGA August 2009); and the quote that particularly struck me as being at least two years too late . . . “We are talking about double digit percentage drops. I think possibly 30 or 40% of current resources . . . we are talking about stopping doing things and maybe a rebalancing of those things we expect a private citizen to do and what we expect the public sector to do” (Roger Lathan, CIPFA President March 2009).
When I have given warnings such as these at scrutiny, at full council, and indeed privately with many of you, I’m afraid I haven’t been filled with confidence that fellow council members have the backbone to exercise the cuts needed to bring the public finances back into good order, and in the process, really re-empower residents to have greater control over their own lives and, working with their neighbours, their communities.
Yesterday, I met with Paul Simpson, Director of Central Services to discuss the issue pertaining to the City Council’s budget. It is clear that much needs to be done.
During the meeting I requested, once again, a full breakdown of the City Council’s budget and Paul Simpson has agreed that though it will require a little time to collate it in a format that is clear and understandable, that this is possible. However, he would prefer that if such information was being released that it was available to all members of the council, hence my reason for emailing you.
Would you like a full breakdown of the City Council budget? I don’t mean just headings of specific sections of the council which have been presented to scrutiny in the past by officers, I mean the minutiae right down to how much is being spent on cleaning up dog muck and mowing grass verges – things that perhaps local residents should be more in charge of tackling and owning.
I have also requested in the past, and once again I requested it yesterday at the meeting, that I would also like this information to also be published on the City Council website, stoke.gov.uk, in order that the public is able to see where money is being spent. Of course, this would require there being some differentiation between services paid for using monies raised locally, and those that are paid for using monies obtained by the council from Central Government or some non-elected Quango. There is an opportunity to engage with taxpayers over where their money is to be spent (or not as the case may be). It is after all taxpayers’ money, not the Council’s.
I think we can all agree that it is best if all the facts and figures are presented to us in order that we are all – including the taxpayer – able to make an informed contribution to the debate on where savings must be made. If you agree with having all the facts and figures, please ‘Reply To All’ as Paul Simpson has been copied into this email.
All the best
Gavin
Gavin Webb, Libertarian Party Councillor for Stoke and Trent Vale
Stoke-on-Trent City Council
07949 026660
Now, though it all looks quite bleak on the finance front, I am looking at this with a ‘glass half full’ mindset. I believe there is an exciting opportunity for the City Council to cut back on quite a bit it does in order to give responsibility back to individuals and their communities. To achieve this however, it requires fellow City Councillors of all parties and none to have faith in the ability of the individual to take on those responsibilities.
Of course, there is probably the issue that many individuals lack the skills and confidence needed to assume such responsibilities, which is in large part the result of a huge welfare state that has led to individuals becoming increasingly dependent. This is why I’ve consistently said that if the council is to do anything, it should facilitate individuals to become independent of government support and gradually wean them off the State.
Unfortunately, as with all bureaucracies, and the bureaucrats and politicians within them, their reason to exist appears primarily to be about self-preservation. As such, these bureaucracies are not open to new ideas, especially if they threaten their existence. They throw cold water on any opinion that they are not needed by claiming that their ’services’ are essential, and that any other alternatives are ‘not workable’. In effect, these bureaucracies continue to grow to unsustainable and crippling levels, and it is us normal folk who always feel the pain in terms of increased taxes and greater restrictions on our personal freedom.
Eventually, we end up with the situation that the City Council finds itself in – running around like Corporal Jones in Dad’s Army shouting “Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic!”
Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and the City Independent representatives – all of whom have had a part to play in the running of the council – have refused to be open-minded to other, non-State ways of doing things, proclaiming either that the people aren’t ready to take responsibility for themselves, their families and communities; or by scare-mongering (as is unfortunately so common with politicians) by referring to more voluntarist, free market approaches as being akin to ‘Anarchism’ or right-wing extremism.
Indeed, when I suggested last year that the lower taxes, better government Taxpayers Alliance do some free consultancy for the City Council by going through the books line-by-line, I remember Labour councillor Mike Barnes being almost apopleptic in his opposition to this evil right-wing organisation. As far as I was concerned he could have invited in his socialist chums to have a look at the books too but instead he chose to criticise and dismiss instead of opening his mind to all possibilities.
And if anyone thinks the BNP are any different, think again. This bunch of small ‘c’ conservatives who have a thing against people who are not white and ‘British’ are as much a part of the establishment as the rest of the parties. They don’t believe ordinary folk have the ability or intelligence to take care of themselves. They instead look at people not as individuals but as a collective – as ‘Britons’, or ‘Blacks’, or ‘Not White’. Individual rights, that is, true human rights play no part in their politics or their rhetoric.
Personal freedom and individual responsibility. Doesn’t that sound better than large government and high taxes? This is an exciting opportunity to give back to each and every person in Stoke-on-Trent control over his or her life, and it is an opportunity that must not be missed.
Gavin Webb, who was selected as the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Burton in 2008 and elected as a Lib Dem councillor on Stoke-on-Trent City Council in 2007, has today announced that he has resigned from the Liberal Democrats.
He says: “I have made a good many friends in my fourteen years of activism in the Liberal Democrats and I hope that those friendships will continue, but regretfully I have decided to resign from the Liberal Democrats.
“The party, like the Conservative and Labour parties, has become a party of the establishment. It has unfortunately firmly wedded itself to the belief that there are primarily government solutions to the problems facing our country, and in the process, they are adopting policies that undermine our rights and freedoms as individuals.
“As far as I can see, most political parties in the UK appear to trust individuals when it comes to voting for councillors, MPs and MEPs, but once comfortably in power they are reluctant to trust individuals when it comes to them making choices about their own lives.
“There is however one political party – the Libertarian Party – that believes in giving responsibility back to individuals over their own lives and their own finances; and it is this party that I have now decided to join.
“We are on the road of authoritarianism, where government is our ruler rather than us being the ruler of our government. It is time for each and every single one of us to make a stand against government and those who feed off it, and demand the reduction of its size and scope.
“From what I’ve seen from many Lib Dem parliamentarians and councillors I don’t believe the Liberal Democrat Party has the inclination to argue for smaller government in defence of our individual rights.
“Though there are some good classical liberal and libertarian types in the party, with whom I hope to continue to have a good relationship, their voices are crowded out by people who believe it perfectly okay to dictate to people how they should live their lives. I don’t wish any longer to be a part of that.
“As an active member of the Libertarian Party, I will campaign to inform people that there are more voluntary, rather than coercive ways in which to influence positive outcomes for themselves, their families and the wider community. I hope to impress upon people that though there may be a need for government of some sort, it doesn’t have to be government of the size and expense we see today.”
Libertarian Party Leader Ian Parker-Joseph said:
“It has been a pleasure over the past months to speak with Gavin on numerous occasions, and following a meeting with him last month can attest to his personal commitment to the libertarian values on which he was elected, a man of honour, integrity and a passion for doing the right thing for his constituents.
“I am therefore very pleased on behalf of The Libertarian Party to welcome Gavin Webb into the only party that wholly and uniquely stands for libertarian ideals in the UK.
“I know that there is a great sadness from Gavin that the Liberal Democrat leadership were unable to rise to the challenge of veering away from the belief that the State has the answers to all our ills. It is a sadness shared by many.
“In that light I hope that there are many more who now see the time as right to make the same changes that Gavin Webb has undertaken, not just from the Lib Dems but also those in the Conservative Libertarian wing who are unsuccessfully looking for reforms that will never come, and instead to look to a party that believes in libertarianism as a way of life, rather than one which merely gives lip service to it.
“The Libertarian Party is here to stay, and new members such as Gavin Webb can only enhance the message that his constituents so clearly wanted to hear, and that Gavin Webb is living on their behalf.”
Libertarian Party Chairman Andrew Withers said:
“Whilst we have a number of Parish and Town Councillors, Gavin is the first City Councillor that has crossed the floor to a truly Radical Party, one that wants to change the relationship between State and the Individual to the point where the State is subordinate to the will of the people, not the people subordinate to the will of the State.
“Furthermore, the Libertarian Party argues that State should be small and accountable.
“We welcome Gavin, and hope that his decision will galvanise other libertarians in other parties to join with us on the long march back to individual liberty.”
Entries (RSS)