A New Government for a New Era; The Libertarians

There can be no denying that this election has been dominated thus far by two parties; not the convention ‘Labour’ vs ‘Conservative’ debate, but instead a slugging match between the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, and the left-wing Solidarity Party. Both of them promise startlingly different approaches to the future of this country, and role of the Government in it, and this article I will lay out to Telegraph Readers, why I think the Libertarians are the way to go.

Without a doubt the Libertarians have a proud record of delivering a strong tax package to the people of the United Kingdom, not only through their consistent approach to increasing the tax free allowance, but also through their direct tackling of ‘sin taxes’, alongside handing down a £1,000.00 reduction in National Insurance Contributions in the most resent budget. Perhaps harking back to the words of the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, before the move to the present electoral system, David Cameron, who laid out his views on taxation exceptionally clearly, the Libertarians have not deviated from their line that the money people earn, is theirs, not the Governments.

Indeed, this is a persistent line throughout this new manifesto, which opens on a commitment to ‘fiscal discipline’, a robust line to take as the country already holds one of the most competitive tax regimes in Europe. In their agenda for Government, the Libertarians outline a desire to move to a simpler tax system with a reduced number of bands, something that is almost certain to attract the interests of businessmen, and workers, up and down the country.

I believe that if people have worked hard and earned their own money, they should be able to spend it how they like. It’s your money, not the Government’s.

Former PM, David Cameron

Of perhaps greater importance is the Libertarians plan to slice VAT down to 15% – citing a desire to see a boost to economic growth and consumer spending. With cheaper shopping bills under this new policy, the VAT should win many friends across the lower and middle earners of the country, who – from their campaign messaging – appears to be their target voter base. Partner this with an ambitious scaling back of the current rates of alcohol and tobacco duties, which the party brands as ‘regressive’, and they have a tantalizing array of tax reductions on offer.

Reforms to Public Spending

Perhaps in a more radical shift, the Libertarians have also outlined their plans to put a control on public expenditure, harkening back to the Reagan-Thatcher style approach to viewing Government programs with some degree of skepticism. Seeking to lower the debt-to-gdp ratio in each budget, the Libertarians clearly strive for a small, concentrated state, that can intervene where necessary in the lives of its people.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan

Promising to privatize the BBC, in an increasingly more competitive online space for media, Friedmanite19 commits to a scaling back of wasteful Government spending across the board, with a sound economic approach that would bring billions of wasteful spending back under control.

One of the programs facing the axe this time around is the Childcare policy that the Tories bought in. A middle class perk, that effectively drove the cost up on all families in the country, so they could support middle class families who did not ask for the support in the first place, would bring spending down to ‘Cameron Era Levels’, something set to get the heart racing for many.

All in the Libertarians promise a sleek state, with a low tax burden across the board, promising hundreds in tax cuts on the lowest earners, whilst unshackling the British economy in the process.

For businessmen, workers, homeowners and pensioners – the libertarian manifesto is one to get behind.

A Plan for the Environment

But it is not just on economic matters that the Libertarian Party have a strong platform to go on. Seeing nuclear power as the path to a a sustainable energy sector, the party says it will partner with the private sector to attract investment, as we transition into a green economy.

Environment Spokesperson, Womble commented saying “We have always had a bold approach to conserving the natural world, which, when partnered with the plans we have for rewilding (which we are seeing in Wales at the moment) ensure that we leave a greener and more pleasant land for the next generation.”

Whilst the election rages on, the LPUK continue to campaign on their tested lines, presenting a fully costed plan for the future of this country, that we would be wise to back.

The Marquess of Cearnarfon is a Libertarian Peer and Candidate in the General Election. The views here are his and his alone.

The Welsh Unity Government: Let’s take a look at the Cabinet

After a heated series of debates around who will become the next First Minister of Wales, Greejatus, the Marquess of Bexley and member for Aberavon has emerged as the victory. Leading an unlikely coalition, Greejatus recently announced a new Cabinet, and here at the Telegraph we took the opportunity to review the selection.

Things Donald Rumsfeld actually said this week – Foreign Policy
Greejatus, First Minister of Wales, according to a poll of the Welsh Government

First Minister (IND)

With the position of first minster, a post decided by the Senedd itself, occupied by Greejatus, the tone has already been set for the political agenda of the next term. During the debates, Greejatus made a point of ensuring that it was clearly communicated that his government would be “one built on teamwork and compromise, offering a nonpartisan approach to the problems faced by the people of Wales”. However, this does not deter from the fact that Greejatus himself as a sporadic political past, dominated by his tenure as Chairman of the right-wing Libertarian Party, during which time he held several Government posts in a Conservative-Libertarian coalition.

A self-described fan of ‘small government’ and of ‘protecting individual freedom and liberty’, he seems an apt choice for a coalition made up of fiscal conservatives and freedom lovers. However; in less public discussions, Greejatus has made clear that he believes firmly in localism, and believes there is an – albeit limited – role for government to play at this level, hence is winning over of the PPUK, who form a key component of the coalition.

Helena Bonham Carter Has Problems With 'The Crown' Fiction
Deputy First Minister, and Environment Minister, Rhys.

Deputy First Minister & Environment Minister (LD)

Holding the second highest ranked position in this Unity Government is a member of the Liberal Democrats, and a long-time stalwart of Welsh politics, Rhys.

Currently serving in Westminster as a Secretary of State, Rhys is no stranger to cross-party work, having stood side-by-side with members of the Libertarian and the Conservative parties in Wales, in the past. Of note in this appointment is the inclusion of the Environmental portfolio as part of the role of Deputy First Minister, something sources close to the new administration confirm ‘will not change’ and ‘shows that environmentalism is the top of the governments agenda’.

Why Did Bob Iger Step Down at Disney? The CEO Explains
Sam Gibs (left) with his chief of staff T-twich N-nostrile (right)

Finance and Public Works (CON)

Serving as the Leader of the Welsh Conservative Party, Sam Gibs steps into a new role which expands on the role of finance minister to give the position general oversight over the sponsorship of ‘public works’ across Wales.

The position, which puts the Conservatives in control of the formation of the Welsh Budget, puts Sam Gibs and the Tories in the third highest ranked position in the Government. It is worth noting that the Conservatives also hold the most cabinet positions, and – early reports indicate – the main drive of the government this term will be focused on tax liberalization, with the intention to reduce the burden of taxation on the lowest earners, and make it easier to do business in Wales.

Sam Gibs has been reported to have been in frequent meetings with the new First Minister, and the PPUK leader in Wales, with insiders informing the Telegraph that many of these discussions have focused around support for small businesses, and local government – alongside a grassroots approach to welfare and poverty alleviation.

Michael Gove becomes eighth Tory MP to officially join leadership race to  succeed Theresa May - CityAM : CityAM
Justice Minister, BrexitGlory

Justice Minister (CON)

Considered by many to be the best looking man in Westminster, there can be little denying why BrexitGlory so quickly snapped up the job as Justice Minister in Wales.

With reports showing that the position was initially intended to go to far-left Plaid member, JGM – who apparently had already started drawing up executive orders – it would have come as a shock to all to see a Unity Coalition placing the leader of the ‘Wales Says No’ campaign in the hot seat for Justice.

This appointment shows the Welsh Government is serious about its plans to heal the political divides in Wales, with the First Ministers office commenting directly saying:

We are very excited to see BrexitGlory, a consummate public servant, taking the position of Justice Minister. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the transition period, we felt it best to bring someone in who new the importance of respecting the democratic outcome of the vote, as well as being able to point out some of the transitional issues we could face.

Furthermore, the First Minister themselves will serve in this department, with daily meetings with the Minister to ensure the transition takes place quickly, and with maximum effect.

Office of the First Minister
Everton 'issue' with Chris Matheson MP forces shareholder event switch -  Liverpool Echo
Model Eddy, pictured above on the phone to the Scottish Tories

Communities and Local Government (PPUK)

Perhaps the biggest shock in the formation of this government was the inclusion of the PPUK, a party that was assumed to vote for the left-wing coalition being formed. Indeed, this was such a shock that members of the Labour and Plaid took to the press for weeks, attacking the PPUK for their decision to ‘break ranks’. However, in the spirit of a Unity Government, sources close to the First Minister can confirm that the PPUK, and the First Minister, have had consistent talks – mostly regarding local government and welfare provision – for several months, long before the formation of the Unity Government was broached.

With Eddy taking this position, and Harlus assuming the role of ‘Head of the Anti-Poverty Taskforce’ (which reports directly to the First Minister), the Unity Governments positioning as a cross-party approach to the problems Wales faces, is secure.

Willem (right) going for a walk in Wales, probably.

Education Minister (LD)

Taking up the position of Education Minister, the experience Willem, who (rumors’ say) was asked to fill the position by the First Minister, personally. Promising a ‘closer examination’ of the educational system, Willem appears to be keeping their cards close to their chest – however, this important Ministry is another feather in the Liberals hat. Punching above their weight in this coalition, the Welsh Liberal Democrats have done exceptionally well in the negotiations.

Cuth, contemplating the higher mysteries.

Health and Social Care (LPC)

Having previously served in a Labour – Plaid – LPC Government in Wales, Cuth is a veteran of Welsh politics, and previously worked as leader of the LPC when Greejatus himself was a member.

Remarkably little has been provided as to what the LPC asked for in exchange for their support in this government, however sources within the LPC commented saying;

We have worked with the First Minister before, for several years, and there is little to be gained from hiding that simple fact. It is our belief that this Government is one that is built on strong communication and trust, alongside a shared desire to work across party lines for the betterment of Wales.

Unnamed Source who obviously is real
Tarkin, wearing the traditional headgear of a Welsh Cowboy

Transport Minister (LPC)

Having once been the winner of the ‘Dick Cheney look alike contest’, Tarkin has served in numerous positions in national Government, and now heads up the LPC. Previously a deputy leader of the Libertarian Party nationally, Tarkin and the First Minister, Greejatus, are reported to ‘go way back’ having once been business partners in the cryptocurrency sector, where they co-chaired the business known as ‘Friedcoin’, before sitting on the board of the Sun Newspaper.

Taking the position of Transport Minister, Tarkin is reportedly looking at improvements for the rail sector across Wales, including electrification of the network, and, of course, a space port and Menia Crossing.

Chi, pasteurizing

Culture Minister (CON)

Whilst strenuously denying that he is in fact, a cow, Chi has taken the position of Culture Minister, increasing the Conservative Parties hold on the cabinet by leading such an important ministry. After all, would we even have a culture if the government didn’t have a minster for it?

With a key focus on the Welsh Language, as well as more cultural and arts support for economical deprived areas, Chi has a challenging task ahead of them for the forthcoming term.

He is also, a bovine.

Tory peer Michael Heseltine reveals he strangled his mother's Alsatian
Chev, realizing he volunteered for this

Chief of Staff to the First Minister (IND)

Finally, and whilst not holding a Ministerial Post, Chev – a long time supporter of the First Minister – has assumed the position of Chief of Staff, according to source close to the First Ministers office.

Having piloted large amounts of solid legislation through Westminster, mostly with cross-party support, Chev provides years, possibly even decades of experience to the government team.

Solidarity’s platform shows they want one thing: control over your life.

If the past few days have shown anything, it is that the increasingly extreme left-wing party, Solidarity, have very little interest in anything other than complete control over the UK Economy, over the workers and over your life.

From limiting the sort of work you can do, to ‘gradually transferring’ your pension equity to someone else, Solidarities recent campaign pledges have painted an ugly picture of their plan for the United Kingdom should they enter a government after the next election. In a spat that has dominated the press cycle, Solidarity announced (or reconfirmed according to their members) their commitment to banning Zero Hours Contracts (ZHCs), causing rebuttal arguments from other parties, which Solidarity ignored – despite the overwhelming evidence that their proposed ban could put upward of seven-hundred thousand people out of work.

Speaking at the time of the release, former Justice Secretary /u/vitiating debunked the claims that ZHCs undermine workers rights saying:

“There exists laws that prevent the exploitation of workers by allowing them to request a fixed hours contract with the employer only being allowed to reject this request in limited circumstances.”

/r/MHOCPress, 12 January 2021, link

This claim was attacked by Solidarity leader /u/motelblinds, who claimed that workers “have to beg” (link) for contracts with more hours, which once again was swiftly debunked by the former Justice Secretary, who pointed out the clear difference between ‘requesting’ and ‘begging’, before reiterating once again that the point of ZHCs is flexibility. Solidarity however stuck to their lines, ignoring the evidence mounting against them – before finally, the dam broke, and it became clear just why they wanted this form of worker freedom outlawed, with Libertarian leader, /u/Friedmanite19 summing it up saying;

“I am sure the many people on their zero-hour contracts can speak from experience and don’t need you to use the force the state to outlaw their current arrangements. Outlawing the contracts means fewer jobs will be given out and there is less flexibility. Not everyone wants fixed or small guaranteed hours. This policy will increase costs, make the labour market more rigid and take away opportunities from people. Trying to force people onto permanent contracts will be bad for employers and employees alike.”

(/r/MHOCPress, 12 December 2021, link)

As ever, the move to outlaw workers freedoms by scrapping the ZHC, has nothing to do with protecting the worker, and everything to do with state overreach, and a widespread movement within the radical left to increase the control the state has over your life.

Never was this made clearer than with the recently announced plan from Solidarity to ‘gradually’ remove private share ownership. As part of their shift toward socialism, Solidarity therefore naturally makes a move against Capitalism – and we are left asking ourselves, which one of these systems is more democratic? Which one of these systems maximises your freedom, and which one of these systems would hand the state more and more control over our lives.

It cannot be denied that Socialism has a long track record of failure, however, according to its supporters, it is more democratic and more moral than its competitors. Looking at the words of socialist film producer, Michael Moore, we can begin to see where this fallacy originated, and how it continues to spread.

“Democratic socialism means everyone has a seat at the table, and everybody gets a slice of the pie.”

(Vanity Fair, 21 May 2020, link)

Generally speaking, if the majority of people working through their representatives declare something to be a ‘public good’ then they have the moral justification to extract resources from others in order to finance this endeavour. On a superficial basis, this probably sounds good – but you need to ask yourself a series of questions.

What control do the people really have over any governmental institution? There are simple examples to answer this question in the United Kingdom alone, what control do you have over the BBC, over the NHS – the answer is none. Genuine public control over the institutions of government is simply a facade for government control, over aspects of your lives.

When it comes to Solidarity the question of ‘majority rule’ becomes more pressing than ever. What if 51 per cent of the UK population vote to remove the personal property from the remaining 49 per cent? Does that make the action right? Under the authoritarian proposals of a socialist government, this could well be the case – except once again, the wealth would work its way back into the hands of the State, not the 51 per cent of people who voted to seize the wealth in the first place. And then the question arises if you hand the state that sort of power – what stops them using it against you?

However, the main issue with the concept of Solidarity’s style of socialism is the false issue they take with the idea that under a different system, the economy is not under the control of the people. 

This is not the case. Everyone within the United Kingdom is both a citizen of the United Kingdom and a consumer within its economy. Both can vote, either in general elections or several times a day with purchases; in the largest single democratic undertaking in history, the free market. It is the absolute pinnacle of democracy, the ability to exercise your choice with every pound that you spend, with every patronage you give to a store, an outlet or a service. 

You do not ‘cede’ your democratic rights to a representative, you enact your democratic rights yourself.

Let’s be exceptionally clear. Under the Solidarity system, you pass your right to chose to the State, and cede your freedoms in the process. Under the alternative system, you keep your freedoms, your rights to choose, yourself.

It cannot be denied at all, that there is a clear and present danger in the United Kingdoms political system – the Solidarity Party, and their crusade to stop the state being subservient to the people, and make the people, subservient to the state.

“The Fox Hunting Ban, and all attempts to strengthen or extend it, is nothing short of a crusade against Liberty.”


It is an issue that rears its head seemingly annually, like some sort of new public holiday. Hours upon hours of Westminster’s time dedicated to debating a sport enjoyed by a very small number of people, and only opposed by the mainstream when the news feeds are devoid of filters to place over ones profile picture on matters that will generate more likes.

Ask either side: either we are seeing the vestiges of a class-war being fought in Parliament, or we are seeing a collection of hoary old rural traditionalists baying for blood and wearing strange clothes.

Yet time and time again, Fox hunting and it’s regulation continues to rear its head in Westminster, forcing Members of Parliament to trapce down the corridors after hours of the same arguments being made, as if on loop, acting out some bizzare rendition of groundhog day each and every time the Parliamentary cycle begins to slow, and the more radical backbenchers get a chance to slip in some of their socialist playbook onto the order paper.

On one hand, defenders of the sport will argue that to curtail Fox-Hunting is just another attempt by the ‘old-left’ to reignite a long since resolved class war, in their latest attempt to tear down the establishment, and reclaim the wealth the borgiouse stole from them. They cannot close Eton, they cannot ‘reclaim’ that London Mansion you apparently stole, but by jingo they can take your Hunting!

Stemming from an ever more propograted belief that to have one’s share of the wealth, you just take it from others, rather than create it yourself, it is some small solace that this misconception is being rejected in areas such as Yorkshire, which lean ever more in favor of right-thinking politics, such as that espoused by the LPUK, LL and some elements of the Conservative Party.

On the other hand, we see an increasingly marginalised countryside right wing, long since abandoned by many, demanding their traditions and ways of life are protecting – not arbitrarily banned by those who tend only to head into the Country to visit inlaws.

Yet, as the left in the United Kingdom leans ever more to the Metrosexual politik of its ilk, becoming more of a chuntering mass of Zone 2 snobs, issuing ill thought out decrees on how the ‘simple folk’ ought to live their lives, ensconced as they are in their franchised coffee shops, we see the same arguments rising to the fore.

Hiding behind a facade of ‘animal welfare’, the class war begins again. What little extasy could have been drawn from burning down parts of London in the Riots, seems to have left a hollow void in the souls of the modern left, far less temperate and grounded than their old-guard colleagues, and so they take to kindling a new fire, on whatever issue they can find.

There is a certain irony to the so called ‘Liberal Left’ that we see putting such motions to the house. Their idea of Liberalism and the pursuit of Liberty, appears to extend only to those who share their views, and hell and damnation to all others. Labours old guard, far more grounded that the newcomers, must be dismayed indeed.

Ultimately, the argument for Fox Hunting must take a different direction in light of this increased intolerance from the new-left, where one is met by cries of bigotry and elitism, the right thinking individual must respond with a renewed call for Liberty. From within Camdens Coffee Houses, ask yourselves – does it harm others, and does it harm me?

When it comes to Foxhunting, the simple answer is – No.

Until Fox Hunters begin the chase on Hampstead Heath, it affects you in no way whatsoever.

So, why do you really oppose it?

It is worth remembering, one cannot be selective as to whom liberty is bestowed.

Yet, no matter how one looks at the Fox-Hunting Debate, and the current regulation to strengthen the laws which constrict it, the matter of Liberty cannot be avoided, no matter how hard both sides attempt to steer clear of that word.

When Tony Blair first introduces the ban on Fox Hunting – dedicated some 220 hours to its discussion, in stark contrast to the 18 he allowed for the Iraq War – he was symbolising a reversion of Parliament to the rule of tyranny by majority, in which several hundred thousands people from suburbia, rallied in defence of the apparently helpless Fox, to override the rights of those whom this new law would actually effect.

Liberty is meant to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, something which all sides can agree on when it comes to protecting those minority groups which are currently politically ‘trendy’, yet the same torchbearers fall eerily silent when it comes to extending that Liberty to others. In contrast, it is my belief that the Liberty of the Individual can only be protected if that individual is afforded the freedom of choice, holding the willingness to bear the consequences of those choices, beneath an impartial system of law.

Banning things we do not understand, and then strengthening that regulation, on matters which do not impact or effect us, flies in the face of that idea, and emboldens an ever more top heavy state with the moral fervour to fuel further infringements on our liberty.

Of course, there are those who shall read this article as they chomp into some flatbread and mull their triple shot soy lattes, in barely concealed indignation. Why did this article not come with a trigger warning? Why is this person not as progressive as I? Yet, that is the beauty of the term progressive, as described by Peter Hitchins, in his book ‘The Abolition of Britain’:

“This is the joy of being a progressive . Whenever your views are rejected by experience, common sense and tradition, it is because you are ahead of the rest of the population, never because you are eccentric or wrong or just plain arrogant, or because they are not convinced by your arguments. They will catch up, and if not, so much the worse for them.”

To conclude, just because you live in a city and have ready and steady access to the good libraries and public transport, does not make you any more moral nor superior than those country folk we increasingly see reviled. Just because a tradition is not understood, does not mean it is wrong, and just because a practice offends but doesn’t affect you, does not mean it should be subjected to a ban.

Hiding behind the word ‘Progressive’ does not morals make.

The Fox Hunting Ban, and all attempts to strengthen or extend it, is nothing short of a crusade against Liberty, an attack on Freedom, and a cynical attempt by the modern left, to weaponise the court of public opinion, to erode the freedoms this nation and its people rightfully enjoy.

Lord Henry John Temple, the Baron Carrickfergus is a Democratic Unionist Party peer and a conservative commentator. Views expressed here are his own.

This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.

“Unless Tear Gas is made illegal for use in the UK, I support tomorrows protests wholeheartedly”


Tomorrow morning, protestors will take to the street in defiance over the Government’s ongoing plans to reform policing powers. Seen by some as a much-needed boost to our already strained law enforcement, and others as an assault on Democracy – Lord Henry John Temple, Baron Carrickfergus, explores the thin line between the rule of law, and authoritarianism.

Across the Country, the Opposition has been hard at work – in what may well be one of an ever increasingly rare example of them working together – to bring people into the streets in a day of protest against the Government’s planned policing reform. Opposition Leaders have made it clear that they stand against what they are branding ‘a Tear Gas Coalition’, keeping to their rhetoric that the right wing is somehow, always in the wrong. By contrast, the Government is peeling back the letter of the law, and examining the minutiae beneath, by way of offering justification for the reforms,  seemingly unaware that much of the general public has neither the time, nor the inclination, to set about lawyering the laws of the land.

Like it or not, ‘Tear Gas Coalition’ has captured the emotions of the British Public, and tomorrow will be the teller that shows to what extent this has been achieved.

Yet, just how accurate is the statement, and ought conservatives on all sides of the house – who purport to respect Law & Order – reconsider how they plan to vote on the final reading of this bill, in light of the concerns?

It cannot be denied that there are legitimate causes to desire the changes of outdated Acts, however – as has been pointed out by /u/ContrabannedMC (and others) on more than one occasion – not only is tear banned in the practise of war, but also, across the spectrum of police command, widely considered to not be of effective use. Yet, the Government continues onward, like a Bull in a China shop, revelling in their majority (which is only advanced by a poor turnout and lack of unity on the opposition benches) to press ahead, no compromise, and no compassion, being the name of the game.

It is no secret that, when I was in the lower House, I supported the bill, also submitting an amendment to remove the revocation of the tear gas restriction, and I maintain that it takes the correct steps to shore up the powers of the Police in dangerous times. However, one cannot pick and choose when one respects the rule of law.

The international community is clear, using tear gas on protestors is a blurs a very thin line in international law, and this element of the bill must be removed if it is to be passed in good conscience by the Conservatives and Libertarians who consider themselves to be respectful of the rule of law, in and of its entirety.

As such, in what feels uncharacteristic for me to say, until such as a time as the Government removes the revocation of the Tear Gas element of the Bill, and confirms – with legislation to support it – that Tear Gas will be illegal for use on the streets of the United Kingdom, I support tomorrows protests wholeheartedly.

Lord Henry John Temple is a member of the House of Lords, in which he sits as a Loyalist League Peer. He campaigns in Northern Ireland as part of the Democratic Unionist Party, having been a member of the LPUK (in which he was MP for Sussex) and NUP. A conservative commentator, views expressed here are his own.

This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.