Fried Didn’t Start The Fire: The Guardian Interviews the Leader of LPUK

jgm0228 writes for The Guardian.

LPUK Leader Friedmanite

When reporting on the House of Commons, the Official Opposition isn’t the only group observers notice. If anything, the current unofficial opposition provides just as much report worthy material, if not more. Siting squarely to the right of the Conservative Party, the Libertarian Party UK sits securely in its spot in British politics despite its relatively new status compared to the largest parties. I got to talk to Friedmanite, their leader, and the following is an edited transcript of the exchange. I was invited to his Westminster office after a long day in parliament, had a glass of water, and then we started.

I think we should start with something basic. How do you think the start of the WillShakespeare government has gone so far, and what reflections do you have on the salami ministry.

“It’s been a short period of time for Mr Shakespeare and we’ve already had a cabinet resignation and the Chancellor showing contempt for his opposite numbers and avoiding scrutiny of the governments economic plan if it actually has one. The Shakespeare ministry is clearly just a continuation of the car crash that was the Salami ministry. I don’t even know where to get started on that ministry. You had over 5 ministers resign, he preceded over complete chaos in the cabinet, he tried to bury an investigation rejecting calls for a fair and independent one into the former chancellor who on his watch called people he disagreed with awful things. The Salami ministry was scandal after scandal, and that’s before we mention the disastrous economic programme pushed forward by ministers designed to stifle economic progress and take us back to the 1970’s.”

Let’s talk about this economic program. You have been one of the most outspoken opponents of the government’s economic agenda. What precisely do you think are the main issues with it and what would you seek to do differently

“The government are insistent on returning to the model of tax, borrow , spend and are keen to throw away the hard work of the previous government which achieved a budget surplus, paying down our debts, restoring confidence in the economy and ensuring that our children don’t have an unfair burden when they have to pay of the eywatering debt interest payments. It’s laughable that a so called Classical Liberal Chancellor would pursue a Keynesian dogma in the treasury, the government are clearly unmoved by the lost decade in Japan, the 1970’s and the failed model of state intervention. This government wants to overturn the sensible market reforms the previous government made and wants to allow the trade union barons to once again pull the strings, thankfully the opposition one were able to defeat one of the governments trade union bills but I anticipate from the Queens speech there will be more ideological bills coming from the hard left of the Labour Party. Now the Libertarians have outlined our economic vision very clearly, firstly I would rule out any VAT rises, protecting the poorest and we would not raise income taxes either, instead we would focus on cutting the cost of living by reducing income taxes and regressive taxes such as tobacco and alcohol duties which disproportionately affect the poorest , we would do this within a clear fiscal framework to ensure the government is living within its means. Its free enterprise and free individuals which are going to drive the economy forward, not government bureaucrats who think they know best, under a Libertarian government we would use the market to reduce the cost of living and spur economic growth whilst keeping the unions and the national debt in check.”

I think it’s fairly hard to not have a bill that ideological. I’ve noticed in my Westminster reporting you are keen to use labels describing bills as hard left. What to you makes a policy hard left, what distinguishes it from others, and why do you think that this prevalence is present in the current government.

“They refer to bills that are firmly left wing and tend to be proposed by members from the left of the labour party , the Classical Liberals have sat idly by whilst the Labour Party have pushed through bills attacking free enterprise, fundamentally changing broadcasting and have embarked to take us on an economic program to reverse the good work of the blurple government who firmly stamped out the remaining legacy of the RSP on modern Britain.”

You mention the blurple government. You rightly point out that the Trade Union Choice Bill failed. However on the other end we have seen the defeat of your carbon levy motion and your smoking restriction liberalization legislation. Why do you think your natural governing partners, the Tories, broke from you on this, and do you think it will create any further tensions?

“We would use the market to reduce the cost of living and spur economic growth whilst keeping the unions and the national debt in check.” -Friedmanite discussing his opposing vision to the government

” The parliamentary arithmetic isn’t there for us to pass legislation alone however I still want to present our vision for the country for debate, the smoking restriction bill passed the house of commons on the first occasion. We are a different party from the Conservatives and we don’t agree on everything, I don’t think there’s any tension, as some tories backed the smoking bill and others didn’t. As always government is about compromise and I have a good working relationship with the Conservatives so we can ensure our common goals are realised, we’ve worked together to defeat the trade union bill, the pointless hydration bill and have consistently opposed this shambolic government. Those pieces of legislation won’t affect our relationship in the slightest.”

Interesting. Another thing I’m asking Party leaders about is their take on the Kurds. What is your stance on Syria? How do you think the government handled it?

” The government completely botched ,they intended to throw troops into a situation with no clear strategy in violation of international law. “

What would your strategy have been.

” We would have imposed sanctions on Turkey and try to bring the sides together to negotiate a new buffer zone. “

Can you elaborate a bit more on the libertarian parties stance on immigration. On one hand it would seem as if less immigration restrictions imposed by the state would be a natural policy. Yet you are an ardent opponent of freedom of movement. How do you reconcile these things?

” It’s always been Libertarian Party policy to introduce an ethical points based system to ensure that people who come to this country contribute and improve our economy. Milton Friedman famously said you can not simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. Unlimited immigration is unsustainable for taxpayers and would have catastrophic effects on our towns and cities, we need to ensure that people who t come to the UK will make a positive contribution, embrace our culture and integrate well. I am proud to say I am an ardent opponent of this governments immigration policy and EU freedom of movement because it is discriminatory, maintaing free movement with the EU whilst having a different immigration policy for other countries is discriminating based on nationality and I daresay bordeline racist. The Libertarians want to treat a Malaysian doctor, a Pakastani doctor and a German doctor the same, we want immigration based on merit and skill and not nationality like this government. “

What about low skilled workers?

“I strongly believe low skilled immigration needs to be curbed. We have listened to the independent migration advisory committee which has said they “are not convinced there needs to be work route for low-skilled workers”, Our stance is clearly set out in CM018, a brilliant white paper put forward by my Right Honourable friend, the member for Surrey when he was Home Secretary. The previous government authored evidence based policy in comparison to this government which is ideologically to open the UK’s borders to anyone and as many people as possible regardless of the economic or social impacts. High skilled immigration is more beneficial than low skilled immigration and thats absolutely what we should be focusing on.”

Wait. You believe that there doesn’t need to be a work route for low skilled workers?

” I accept the findings of the independent migration advisory committees findings that current stock of lower-skilled migrants is unlikely to change significantly in the years succeeding the implementation of a new immigration policy (or the white paper in question). I would refer you to the white paper that’s already widely available and was debated in the house, our stance is there doesn’t need to be a work route for low skilled workers however we would provide a backstop with the Tier 5 (Youth Mobility) scheme.”

So the upcoming budget. What do you expect to see from it?

“I expect to see higher taxes, higher borrowing and higher government spending as the government have outlined on several occasions, as I said earlier its going to be a return to the keynesian dogma and is going to set back progress. I think the key thing to watch is what happens to VAT as it appeared like the government was beginning to move its position on VAT with Anomoline hinting a rise might not be necessary, the government are clearly feeling pressure from the opposition and the Liberals are nervous what betraying their manifesto could lead to.”

“I dont think there needs to be a work route for low skilled workers.” -Friedmanite on Immigration

Do you think LVT was to high in the last budget?

“I don’t believe it was set at unreasonable levels, whilst I recognise there could be a case for reducing it if done responsibly, I firmly believe that land Value taxation is the least damaging form of taxation, it does not deter production, distort markets, or otherwise create deadweight we.fare loss.LVT is an efficient tax to collect because unlike labour and capital, land cannot be hidden or relocated. I would much rather tax be collected via LVT than through regressive means such as VAT or sin taxes.”

What major changes would you like to see in the upcoming budget compared to the last, regardless as to whether or not you think they are likely?

” What the LPUK would want in a budget was outlined in ourelection manifesto, we’d be looking to reduce the burden of indirect regressive taxation by cutting sin taxes and we would be cutting income taxes across the board whilst reducing public spending to ensure a balanced budget.”

What’s the merits of a balanced budget?

” A balanced budget ensures the government lives within its means, paying down the national debt meaning that our children are not left with an unfair burden, a path of fiscal responsibility will ensure eye watering debt interest payments fall in the future, this will improve confidence in the economy and overall push down interest rates on borrowing and fix the roof while the sun is shining.”

This interview has been most revealing. Do you have any final thoughts before we conclude?

“Thanks for your time, I believe I got our key messages out during the interview, the LPUK are delivering principled opposition this government. I’d ask voters to remember that is the Libertarians leading the way forward opposing this government, we raised the issue of VAT and other opposition parties followed, we’ve raised the issue of steel nationalisation and other opposition parties have followed. We’ve been the strongest opposition force in this parliament standing by our manifesto and are a credible alternative to the shambles we’ve seen in the past few months, I believe the next election will present the country a chance for real change.”

Obviously a very fascinating perspective was gained in that interview. However LPUK performs in the next election, whatever future that may exist for them, it certainly is going to be one that constantly runs against the established norms of British political ideology, and one that is proud to do so.





