The unofficial online home of the UK Independence Party
Harry Aldridge
Chris Grayling: Right or Wrong?
Apr 4th
Chris Grayling has apparently said he believes those who run bed & breakfasts in their homes ought to “have the right” to turn away homosexual customers.
Iain Dale has written a post expressing his disgust at Grayling’s views, saying…
This is not about property rights. If you open your house to paying guests, it is no longer just your house. You are running a business, just the same as anyone else, and you should be subject to the same laws as anyone else. If you do not wish gay people, black people, Jews or anyone else in your house, don’t open it to the public. Simple as that. No one would accept a shopowner refusing to serve a particular type of person, would they?
Well, I disagree with Iain and support Chris Grayling. Not because I am in any way homophobic, but because I believe in the morality of liberty. Let me explain…
The free market works, and is moral, because it is based on the principle or voluntary exchange. If two parties wish to enter into a transaction then they both do so voluntarily because they both derive a benefit from doing so.
So the question one must ask is should suppliers be able to withhold supply from a customer at their discretion? The answer is yes. Just as a pub landlord ought to be able to bar individuals who they think my misbehave and cause trouble, or ban children, they should be able because it is absolutely their free choice who to serve.
As Devils Kitchen rightly points out…
No, Iain. And that’s why public opinion is rather more important than the law. These days, a shop that displayed a sign saying “no blacks, no poofs and no Etonians” would be boycotted by anyone who isn’t a colossal bigot. Now, it might be that a large proportion of the British public are bigots, but…
… perhaps you should leave the decision to individuals, rather than slapping blanket laws of people to force them to live by your personal morals.
And this is the point. Of course all discrimination is wrong. I am a libertarian and find discrimination abhorrent. I have only encountered people who are genuinely homophobic and racist on a couple of occasions and it is extremely distasteful.
However are we suggesting if there was no law outlawing discrimination by B&B owners that homosexuals would find themselves unable to find accommodation right across the country? If, for example, a deeply Christian B&B owner would rather do themselves out of the business by turning away a homosexual couple then more fool them.
Attitudes have changed enormously. My generation are supremely comfortable, on the whole, with different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. Not I nor one of my friends would give a second thought about any of these arbitrary characteristics and certainly not hold any prejudices against them.
Just as those people who support the smoking ban do so on the grounds that non-smokers’ liberty is infringed by second hand smoke polluting their air*, so a homophobic B&B owner’s liberty is infringed by forcing them to enter into a transaction with a customer they do not wish to serve.
let’s flip this for a moment, and apply the same principle to another aspect of voluntary exchange. Say an individual was forced to enter into a transaction they would not sign up to voluntarily, for example to supply their labour. Say a bloke down the road wanted a gardener, and Fred was a professional gardener, but the bloke was a racist bigot; ought Fred be allowed to turn down his custom because Fred did not wish to serve a person with opinions and views he found offensive?
I would say Fred would have the perfect right to turn down the custom because how he uses his time and labour is his business, and to force him to use it in a way with which he does not consent is called slavery.
Now say Fred was a bigoted and racist gardener, ought he be able to turn down an Asian customer? To force Fred to serve the customer against his wishes would be just as immoral as the scenario above.
Just because we may not like the prejudice ourselves does not mean we have the right to impose our will on others, especially when the incidence of the discriminated group, e.g. homosexuals, being discriminated against would be incredibly small.
I am prejudiced against people with abhorrent views such as homophobia, but is my prejudice any more valid than their prejudice against homosexuals? The answer is no. And if I ought to be allowed to boycott a B&B or shop because the owner held views with which I disagree then they ought to be able to withhold supply from me for the same reason!
*Worth pointing out that this is the attitude i take despite opposing the ban. I oppose the ban on the grounds non-smokers have a choice to frequent a different establishment and establishments have the choice to be fully smoking, non-smoking, or have smoking evenings and non-smoking family evenings, etc. I.e. the presence of choice on the part of the customer means that no non-smoker is forced to endure second hand smoke.
Maximum Wage? Are You Serious?!
Mar 14th
My usual Sunday fix of politics did not fail to get me enraged about something. This week my blood pressure went through the roof watching the Big Questions where one of the topics discussed was…should there be a maximum wage?
It was not the topic which made me angry, but rather the pitiful response from people in the audience who mostly seemed to be in support of the idea. Shaking my head in despair and wondering why people are incapable of understanding key principles of liberty and morality I eneded up tearing strips of some dipsticks on the television from the safety of my kitchen.
To watch the episode on iPlayer click here
The proposals was to cap the maximum wage at a multiple of those at the bottom. E.g. a company which pays its lowest paid employee £20k would only be able to earn £200k and if they wanted to earn more would have to pay those at the bottom less.
Well apart from the immorality of stripping freedom of action and freedom of private contract and voluntary exchange for all of us, there are many good reasons this is a crackpot idea, not least stifling incentive and reducing the risk/reward ratio significantly and thus preventing entrepreneurs bothering in the first place.
If the maximum i could earn was £200k then i may well think it better for me to work for somebody else and have the security of employment, pension, etc, and a reasonable working week rather than exert myself or take on personal risk.
I am so infuriated that I cannot summon the patience to write a lengthy argument here. Indeed I just find the whole idea so blisteringly offensive that I am not sure it needs me to write a counter argument for its stupidity is self evident!
So discuss in the comments…
BNP /facepalm
Mar 10th
Just when I think it impossible that the world, and the government, can reach any lower levels of idiocy, I find myself doing a massive facepalm at this…
The BNP’s new membership rules “indirectly” discriminate against black and Asian people, the UK equalities watchdog has told a court hearing.
The BNP has voted to admit non-white members but still requires them to sign up to its principles, the Central London County Court was told.
Er…ya think!!
The court heard that prospective members had to sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British”, and a requirement to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.
Robin Allen, QC, representing the EHRC, said: “That is something which we would submit is indirectly discriminatory.
“They will put persons who do not fall into the indigenous British category at a disadvantage.”
Firstly I am blisteringly angry that the state felt it right and proper (and more so that politicians and the media allowed it to happen with active and passive acquiescence), to force a private organisation to change its membership policy – the clue is in the phrase “private member’s organisation”!
Now I am again blisteringly angry that having forced the BNP to accept any individual who wishes to submit a membership application that they are finding issue with the fact such people have to sign up to the aprty’s aims. Well, yeah! Duh.
This is almost too ridiculous and self explanatory to deserve further explanation. Individuals agreeing with the party’s aims will want to join, and those who don’t won’t. So why is there a need to force the party to change its aims. This is merely an attempt to exterminate unpalatable political views, something which the state should never be able to do and, moreover, something the rest of us should not allow them to.
And on top of this I get another double dose of blistering anger because of the sheer tactical idiocy of this move, because far from surpressing the BNP this will merely pour petrol on the fire and inflame their support.
Is it really too much to ask that the government just leaves us all the **** alone?
Robin Hood Tax?…Ugh!
Feb 10th
Somebody please kick me in the shin to make me feel better!
A transaction tax on banks would raise as much as $400bn a year (£250bn; 291.2bn euros), campaigners have said.
Supporters say money raised could help protect public services and jobs, fight poverty and tackle climate change.
The campaign is backed by almost 50 groups, including the TUC and Oxfam, as well as big names like actor Bill Nighy and film maker Richard Curtis.
No, no, no. But they even have this helpful video to show how the ‘win-win’ (!) idea is simply brilliant…
Now we all know Richard Curtis, Bill Nighy, the TUC and Oxfam are world renound economists, but the film conveniently doesn’t explain a couple of issues…
1) Only people pay taxes. Levying a tax on banks simply means the cost falls on people differently. Lower interest rates for savers, higher rates for borrowers, etc.
2) A transaction tax will significantly impact liquidity, and have consequential impact throughout the whole economy – less fiannce for business, less explansion, less employment, etc.
For these campaigners to suggest it is a win-win idea – that it is some kind of ‘free’ pot of money that will only hit rich nasty bankers – is disingenuous at worst and naive and ignorant at best.
The biggest disaster of this whole eocnomic crisis is the credibility and support it has given to the loony left-wing who do not understand economics.
An Iron Fist Has Come Down On Europe
Feb 9th
Nigel Farage on usual fine form telling a little fable to the Strasbourg Plenery…
Nudge Off!
Jan 29th
One of the underlying philosophies of Cameroonism is, as we know, paternalism. Cameron’s Conservative party is nwo more akin to centre-right parties ont he European continent in the face of Labour’s centre-left social democratic positioning.
Neither is desirable, and here is just one example of why I have no real desire to see a Cameron government over a Labour government (not that I would prefer Labour, just they are as bad as each other)…
Shadow chancellor George Osborne has co-authored a piece in today’s Guardian with Richard Thaler, the American economist and promoter of ‘Nudge’ theory.
[...]
They go on to give examples of how the theory translates into policy:
“Because the academic literature shows the importance of a way a decision is framed, the Conservative party is working with councils to replace Labour’s bin taxes with schemes that pay the public to recycle. In Windsor and Maidenhead our pilot scheme has already increased recycling rates by 30%. And because the behavioural sciences show that people often make bad decisions when they’re excited by the prospect of immediate gratification, a Conservative government will impose a seven-day cooling off period for store credit cards, so shoppers can’t immediately rack up debts on them when they sign up at the till. That’s a far less intrusive way to tackle problem debt than banning store cards, for example, or introducing a new tax.”
Interesting By-Election Results
Jan 29th
From ConservtiveHome this stuck out…
Taunton Lyngford ward, Taunton Deane
Lib Dem – 390 (44%, -1)
Con – 253 (28%, no change)
Lab – 190 (21%, -6)
UKIP – 59 (7%, +7)
Lib Dem hold
The implication is that UKIP’s entry into the ‘market’ in this ward stole votes from Labour the most, Lib-Dems second, and left the Tories alone! A picture we can perhaps expect in the general election?
Quitters Arcade
Jan 26th
Serious Quitters’ Arcade Sponsored Post
I have just been notified of this new site called "Serious Quitters Arcade" – www.quittersarcade.com – which has taken the classic arcade games from the 1980’s, which all people old enough (older than me, i might add), remember well I’m sure!, and has turned the idea to use in an attempt to help people stop smoking. The Quitters Arcade website currently has three different arcade games to choose from, each designed to help raise awareness about seeking help and support from health professionals about giving up smoking. There is also a social dimension to the site, which aim to integrate with social networking sites to enable you to challenge friends, share your score with other bloggers, etc, and have that rematch to see if your gaming reflexes are still up to their 80’s standard! You can embed games on your blog, as i have done below so you can give it a go. Scores from the top blogs are published and who knows, there amy even be inter-blog wars popping up. There is also a Facebook app, Blast N Quit (http://apps.facebook.com/quittersarcade), so you play with your community without leaving your favourite social network. Install the scoreboard application on your profile and you can track your friends’ scores as well! And we know everybody loves a facebook game! Come on, own up. You can give the game a whirl below, or visit their site to try it for yourself. Whether it helps people quit is another matter, but it is certainly a different approach. Appealing to the generation of 80’s teenagers by tugging their emotional heart strings of sentimental attachment to the retro classics might be sufficient to encourage some to try out the games, but to quit? What do you think?
DON’T Ban The Burka
Jan 16th
More in despair than anger, I see UKIP Leader Lord Pearson has called for the Burka to be banned in Britain.
The UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab — the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face — claiming they affront British values
But why, apart from Lord P’s unhealthy obsession with Islam, would anybody think this is a good idea? The fact Nick Griffin posted a boasting tweet proudly asserting…
I hear Ukip have just said they’d can the burqa. Bnp conference voted for that over 2 year ago.
..must be enough to sound alarm bells that politically, if not morally, this is a repugnant idea!
But it gets worse…
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP, said yesterday: “We are taking expert advice on how we could do it. It makes sense to ban the burka — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”
Firstly how does it “make sense”? And secondly what the flipping flip is a supposedly libertarian party doing thinking it is ok to make moves to ban the burka in PRIVATE property?!! I understand the airport argument, but that is, surely, public property, and there are legitimate security concerns – in which case the rules should apply equally to everybody about face coverings, and so forth.
He explained that UKIP wanted to bring to the fore the issue of the increasing influence of Sharia in Britain: “We are not Muslim bashing, but this is incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.”
Nigel Farage, the former UKIP party leader, will announce tomorrow that the party believes the fabric of the country is under threat from Sharia and that forcing women to conceal their identity in public is not consistent with traditional Britishness.UKIP believes that the burka and the niqab have no basis in Islam, are a threat to gender equality, marginalise women and endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity.
If forcing women to wear the burka is abusive, then forcing them not to is equally abusive!
And the hypocrisy oozes from this ridiculous, illogical and indefensible position – how can banning the burka (a confessed non-religious item of clothing) help to uphold “Britain’s values of freedom and democracy”?!
The argument the burka may marginalise women and threaten gender quality is merely a thin and translucent disguise which lacks credibility. It is a poor argument with which to defend this idea. The argument about hiding identity does have some legitimacy, but it has not been deployed in a sober, rational, and though-through manner sufficient to legitimise the policy.
Two years ago Rowan Williams triggered a row over Sharia when he argued that Britain had to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system and that adopting parts of Islamic law would help to maintain social cohesion
Now here is a genuine issue. Everybody in a society should live under the same laws, and receive equal treatment under the law. However there are ways of dealing with specific, defined, issues.
The UK Independence Party’s constitution states…
2.3 The Party will be guided in its activities by the principle of non-discrimination, including non-racism and non-sectarianism, and will be guided by the principle that all people are equal before the law.
I am not sure this proposal counts as sectarianism, and it certainly isn’t racism, but it is inequality under the law. Unless, of course, the proposed ban is a general ban on facial coverings, but even then the law would disproportionately restrict the freedoms of a particular religious group.
It is perhaps worth a challenge to the party’s NEC, to see whether the policy is compatible with the values established in the party constitution.
The Snow Brings Out Our Inner Child
Jan 14th
This story caught my eye this afternoon. I have to say I fully support the sentiments of the common sense member of the public…
Police officers filmed using riot shields to sledge down a snowy hill while on duty have been reprimanded.
Mr Latham said they were only there for a few minutes and praised the officers for having a “sense of humour”.
Supt Andrew Murray said those involved have been spoken to and advised that their actions were a “bad idea”.
But the local policing area commander added that the snow had “a habit of bringing out the child in all of us”.
“I have spoken to the officers concerned and reminded them in no uncertain terms that tobogganing on duty, on police equipment and at taxpayers’ expense is a very bad idea should they wish to progress under my command,” Supt Murray added.
Mr Latham, 50, from Oxford, said he was on the hill when the officers came over.
“I thought they were going to tell us off at first,” Mr Latham told BBC News.
I agree entirely that it is nice to see the police being human beings. Exactly which point did we all have to stop being human beings and uber boring and robotic? Personally i think the loss of humanity, driven by a politically correct/corporate culture is what has destroyed communities.
That this guys first reaction to the police heading his way was that he was in trouble embodies all that has gone wrong. The police, like most government agencies and organisations, has become distant, remote, ridiculously authoritarian and illiberal.
“But they had a look at the hill and two of them went down on their shields.
“They were jovial and it was nice to see officers taking time out to get involved.
“They were only there for a few minutes so I don’t think they should be criticised.
“Since I’ve put the footage up lots have people have commented saying how good it is to see officers having a sense of humour.
“It makes a change of the image you usually read about.”
Quite right.
Just to press home the point, can you imagine the same people who think we need diversity outreach officers or ’street football coordinators’ ever doing something as human and community-spirited as these police officers? No. Because they are the same breed of grey, humourless, politically correct officials who have pushed the tyrannical bureaucratic and process-driven statism we have today, and which has destroyed community.
Women MP Candidate Quotas?
Jan 11th
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? and again Why?
Obligatory quotas for the number of women put forward for selection as a parliamentary candidate by each political party have been proposed.
A cross-party conference chaired by Speaker John Bercow, acknowledged that its suggestion would be controversial.
Controversial? Yeah, and illiberal, anti-democratic, patronising, discriminatory and completely stupid!!!
It wants the parties either to improve the representation of women at the 2010 general election, or face mandatory quotas for the next one
Mandatory quotas? Having parties do it voluntarily is folly enough, let alone for the state to impose it upon them.
Last time i looked political parties were private member organisations, but to hell with freedom of association. That is such an over-rated liberty. Just like the State has taken it upon itself to kick the BNP for its membership policy it now sees it perfectly right an proper to interfere in candidate selection!
Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader and minister for women and equality, said parliament must reflect the country MPs served
Er..why? Parliament should represent people. Something entirely different to reflect. And Parliament should represent views and ideas, not race, religion, gender, or eye colour!
The Great Tory EU Influence
Jan 1st
Yes, you heard me. Not a statement of fact by me, but a response to an article in the guardian by Timothy Kirkhope MEP.
He talks, perfectly legitimately and correctly, as far as it goes that the Tory move out of the EPP into the ECR has not diminished, but has enhanced, their influence. This is all fine and, unusually for me, I do not find myself in disagreement with Kirkhope.
My irritation, which has caused be to get up from lying in front of my fire to come and blog this, is the following bit…
The British government naturally has influence in the EU. It will regardless of who is in control. But what’s important is how you use that influence to deliver your manifesto priorities for the people. Conservative MEPs have put themselves in a strong position to deliver the agenda of change that the British people voted for in June. I have no doubt that David Cameron, if elected prime minister, will engage fully in the EU in order to fight for Britain in the EU, not the EU in Britain.
I am not irritated that Kirkhope thinks his party is standing up for British interests in the EU, despite not actually doing so.
I am irritated at the phrase “fight for Britain”. Why? Because he completely fails to realise that as EU members we should not be trying to fight for our national interest: that is wholly and completely against the whole point of the EU.
Either we are EU members, as the Tories want us, and thus surrender our desire for national interest in favour of the common interest (i.e. we are in political union), or we return to a cooperative structure such as the Council of Europe (i.e. we are independent democracies participating in voluntary cooperative congress).
We cannot be EU members and fight for national interest with whatever small or large degree of influence we happen to have at any given time on any given issue. That is the whole point of UKIP’s argument.
The Council of Europe gave us the European Convention on Human Rights and the first pan-European standards on medicine quality. Sovereign nations came together and negotiated a treaty, each fighting for national interest but ultimately compromising to achieve something in the common good for mutual benefit. This open, cooperative, and democratic model, is the one which fits Kirkhope’s view, not the one he and his party espouses – European Political Union.
And even his comments about the Tories standing up for Britain ring hollow when, as Marta Andreasen MEP says…
It is revealing to examine MEP voting records. British MEPs of whatever colour – Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems – have consistently voted against ALL my amendments; for example they ALL voted to exclude from the 2010 budget the huge costs pertaining to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Instead they have voted to deal with these through separate “amending budgets” which will be incorporated through the back door and “lost”; and they have ALL voted in favour of the the 2010 Budget increases including the one to be applied to their salaries!
Cameron Running Scared Of Farage?
Dec 31st
If the Times is to be believed it would seem Cameron is running scared of a certain Mr Nigel Farage…
Mr Bercow — who, despite being a Conservative, owed his victory to a well-organised campaign by Labour MPs — has repaired relations with Mr Cameron. The Tory leader has made clear to party members in Mr Bercow’s Buckingham constituency that he will eject anyone found helping Nigel Farage, standing for UKIP against the Speaker at the election.
I was under the impression that since the Conservative Party si not standing an official party candidate in the seat, then Conservative Party members were free to support and campaign for Nigel without being disciplined.
If Cameron was confident of victory then a few of his members delivering a few leaflets for Nigel would be of no concern. Certainly not enough for it to be considered a disciplinary issue.
So his strange threat would appear to be a sharp warning to any Conservative members that it is “your party or your membership”, and indicating his current worries.
Te he he! Roll on polling day is all I can say!
You Cannot Be Serious!
Dec 26th
Apparently some bright spark in our federal government (that’s the EU, by the way) has come up with this blinding idea…
Europe is making moves to give British MEPs the ‘right’ to sit in the House of Commons at certain times in the year.
I told you it was a blinder. But, er, why, you ask?
The Europeans’ idea is, on the face of it, not unreasonable. They reckon that MEPs probably know more than most of us about European legislation (fair comment) and think they should therefore help the Commons scrutinise laws emerging from Brussels.This could be done by them helping the Commons select committee on European scrutiny.
Surely the scrutiny committee could simply call on the relevant MEPs to be questioned? Or is this a policy drawn up as a one-size-fits-all for all EU national Parliaments in ignorance of national set-ups? Ah, I’ve answered my own question, haven’t I?!
Here one hits an awkward principle. Should Commons parliamentary scrutiny not be the preserve of elected parliamentarians? Once you start to unpick that, the whole notion of parliamentary sovereignty could disintegrate.
Come now Quentin. Parliamentary Sovereignty has been undermined in technicality and in practice for some time.
But yes, the principle that only those who have been elected to a body should have the privilege to sit within it an exercise the rights they are awarded is fairly fundamental. One does not, for example, have Senators turning up in State legislatures in the USA, or MPs appearing in the Scottish Parliament.
If those who have not been elected to a body are allowed to sit within it then it makes the body redundant. As a thought exercise I see two preferable alternatives to the proposed idea which would achieve the same ends but more democratically (as far as being in the EU is democratic anyway!)…
1) Give MPs a dual mandate and scrap MEPs, such that MPs now sit in the European Parliament. This means when we elect our national legislators and invest in them the authority to law-make, they are involved directly in all laws, whether national or EU/federal.
2) Make Westminster a tri-cameral Parliament with three chambers – Commons, Lords and (overLords?) – such that MEPs form part of the national legislative process and as such are able to scrutinise EU legislation on a national basis
Of course the whole premise is flawed anyway, since what can ’scrutiny’ actually achieve? If our national Parliament – whether bi-cameral or tri-cameral – cannot block or amend EU legislation, then what benefit is there in improved scrutiny?
Just take a look at this question by UKIP Peer and Leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to see how many times the government has over-ridden the Commons and Lords EU Scrutiny Committees’ “scrutiny reserve”. Shocking!
This cunning plan, as Baldrick might put it, was on the agenda at a Swedish gathering of speakers of Europe’s various national assemblies.
It went further than what I have just outlined. It proposed, furthermore, that MEPs should have ‘the right to be invited once a year to speak in plenary sittings of national parliaments’.
In plain English, this means giving MEPs the right to sit on the green leather benches of the Commons Chamber.
Maybe this will finally be enough to get our MPs riled? After all, they went spare at the prospect of the Youth Parliament having access to the Commons chamber!
Fortunately for us we have a honest, decent, democrat as Speaker. Oh, wait a f****** minute…
Speaker Bercow did not attend the meeting because it ‘clashed with parliamentary business’ (actually, the Commons did not sit on either of those days). Instead, he sent along the Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan Haselhurst.
Sir Alan confirms that the proposal was on the agenda. He says he did his best to play a dead bat. But the matter is unlikely to rest there. It will be discussed next in Madrid at a conference in early May, quite possibly clashing with our general election.
Ukip, whose Mr Farage hopes to beat Mr Bercow in Buckingham at that election, employs heavy irony in praising ‘the robust defence of our parliamentary sovereignty by the Speaker’s office’.
Mr Farage adds: ‘It had ruddy better not fly, this proposal. Ukip will shoot it down if it does. Those whose job it is to guard our rights in Westminster seem to be sleepwalking into oblivion.’
Well said Nigel. If anybody from Buckingham is reading this then please elect Nigel Farage at the general election and oust that cretin Bercow.
Merry Christmas
Dec 25th
Wishing all Independence Home readers a very merry Christmas, wherever you are, and a prosperous new year!
