A young conservatives views http://young-conservative.com A political blog advocating for further liberty and the promotion of conservative values especially amongst the youth. Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:04:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 142535695 New Home office counter terrorism strategy: libertarian win or Authoritarian stealth? http://young-conservative.com/2018/06/11/new-home-office-counter-terrorism-strategy-libertarian-win-or-authoritarian-stealth/ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:04:02 +0000 http://young-conservative.com/?p=37 Read More

]]>
Sajid Javid announced on the 4th June, that a major overhaul of the way the UK handles anti-terrorism is going to be undertaken, in which he declared that he was going to attempt to address the new threat posed by growing terrorism both at home and abroad. His policies are a marked shift from the authoritarian stance taken by the Home office under Theresa Mays and Amber Rudds tenure. From its focus on local communities, partnership with the private sector and increased funding for rehabilitative services, the party finally seems to be taking a more libertarian stance towards anti-terrorism. However this stance is rather fresh faced, and we should not celebrate it without waiting to see if the Home Secretary will continue his seemingly new agenda.

Javid has proposed amongst other things, trailing a set of new, cross agency local groups, allowing for the better sharing of information and hopefully boosting response times to both threats and attacks, with local communities having more authority to act. They can intervene both earlier in investigations to help reduce the influence of terrorist material and respond faster to threats. Coupled with this is the proposed hiring of 1,900 new anti-terrorist officers to help address the growing problem of terrorism in the UK. From a libertarian standpoint this shift towards giving power to local communities is definitely a good thing, it allows better and hopefully more efficient management and targeting of already limited resources and if people dislike the way their local group is handling anti-terrorism it is far easier for them to move out of the area affected by it. In addition to that it simply makes sense to give more power to operators, who actually understand the local environment, to tackle as sensitive a topic as radicalisation. It’s not as simple as detainment and prison time, often these vulnerable young people need help and support which is simply unavailable when attempted to be administered on a national level. Far better to allow local communities to handle these situations.

And the home office seems to agree, as they are also promoting the rehabilitative functions of anti-terrorism. The immediate aim is to double the number of people receiving rehabilitative treatment over the next 12 months. This is an important step to take in reducing the number of ‘home grown’ terrorists in the UK and combating the newly realised ‘extreme right wing’ domestic terror threat. It’s about time we as a country began to understand that people targeted by propaganda are victims also, by no means should that fact excuse any terrorist actions they take, any such action should be tackled with the full might of our country’s legal system, but those merely targeted and victimised need our help, not condemnation.

Not every part of the home office announcement is positive though. Hidden in the print are references to better coordination with the private sector and the monitoring and tackling of online threats. Everyone still remembers the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the ensuing investigation, which highlighted the amount of personal information which the private sector has access too. While we should defiantly celebrate a promotion of partnership with friends in the private sector, we should not allow such a partnership to affect our privacy nor our individual liberty. Nor should we be willing to accept a government regulated or policed internet. While yes something does need to be done to tackle the spread of terrorist material online, the public needs to be wary about how much of our personal lives we allow the government access too. The state should never have direct control over what content appears on the internet, else far too quickly anti-terrorism measures could dissolve into government sanctioned propaganda.

While these new measures are a reassuring sign that the new Hone secretary understands the publics concerns over the increasing powers of the state, they should not be completely celebrated, as without proper diligence from us, our country will slip back into its authoritarian habits.

]]>
37
The Conservative party needs to modernise, here’s why. http://young-conservative.com/2018/05/30/the-conservative-party-needs-to-modernise-heres-why/ Wed, 30 May 2018 17:42:01 +0000 http://young-conservative.com/?p=29 Read More

]]>
Social conservatism is dead. Gone. And the Tories aren’t going to get anywhere near a majority while carrying that dead weight. The abortion referendum in Ireland was the final nail in their coffin, proving once and for all that any appetite for social conservatism is satiated. The party needs to modernise, or its next on the menu.

The fact is that the recession was 11 years ago now, the younger generation have forgotten it and the older generation can’t remember it. Economic debate is gone form politics and social policy has once again taken centre stage.  Brexit, immigration, abortion, free speech, it’s all back on the table, and its one of the Conservative parties’ weakest areas. Their voting record on abortion, racial equality and gay rights is poor, and despite Cameron’s efforts to modernise, May is moving the party back in that dark, historic direction. But without socially liberal policies the party is going to fail, the younger generation is not moved by economic arguments, they are moved by social policy. No one leads rallies or makes historic speeches over a 1% raise in inflation. No one ever said, ‘I have a dream that one day my sons and daughters will pay 10% less VAT then me’. While the party is strong on economics, its social platforms is unfit for purpose. The youth are the future of England and they are not going to experience the typical flip to tory at 37, because opinions on social policies don’t change over time. Once pro-immigration always pro-immigration etc. And their children will be raised in anti tory circles, and so the cycle will continue until finally the party collapses, likely being lead by Boris Johnson.

By no means does this reform necessarily have to mean capitulating to the lefts social agenda. The party should define itself not in opposition to the labour party exclusively, but in opposition to the state. It should re-adopt the policies of classical liberalism it has its origins in, after it broke off form the Whigs, and push for a more radical and more libertarian agenda. The conservative party has always been economically liberal; why not become socially liberal too? We need to accept the new reality of the social climate in Britain, not oppose it. Stand up for the individual, for the rights of the person and oppose the intrusions of the state while welcoming the masses of people who at present will not a vote for a party with such a poor set of social policies.

But May cannot facilitate this change, the party needs new leadership to bring new energy and popularity to it. The person best suited to lead the Tories is Ruth Davidson, a Gay, young woman from Scotland. She would shine light into corners of the party which haven’t seen it in years. And when all is said and done the Conservatives can propel themselves into election success on a platform of individualism, libertarianism and freedom.

]]>
29
In defence of Privatisation http://young-conservative.com/2018/02/11/in-defence-of-privatisation/ Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:25:32 +0000 http://young-conservative.com/?p=15 In the wake of the collapse of Carillon and the constant calls from labours frontbench for rationalisation, it is easy to see why many are being swayed. To the ill-informed it seems that, yet again, private industry has failed to complete its contract and now over 1,000 people are out of a job. They can add construction to the likes of the railways and palliative care, all industry in which the public views private sector involvement as a failure. But this view is flawed; under privatisation companies are better managed, safer and more competitive. But things have not gone far enough, it’s time for us Brits to end our sentimental view of nationalisation and begin to promote further efficient private sector involvement and truly exploit the benefits that lower public spending obligations can bring.

The railway is one of the most well-known examples of privatisation and many publicly lampoon it without really grasping the statistics behind it. There have been many clear benefits to privatisation. Firstly according to statistics compiled by Imperial college London, 150 people are alive today that would not be alive had nationalisation fatality rates continued, furthermore England’s railways have the lowest fatality rates in all of Europe, ours is 0.74 per 1 billion people, France’s is 1.52 and Spain’s is 11.52, despite them both having nationalised services. Fares are also less expensive than they would be under public ownership; it has been estimated (by the Association of train operating companies) that train fares are somewhere between 10%-20% cheaper under the privatised system. Efficiency has also increased pre 1994 the government covered 25% of all rail costs whereas now the government covers only 1%.

Clearly privatisation has been a success in the railway industry, it has improved safety, efficiency and kept costs down, and yet it still is not perfect. In order for the free market to operate to its fullest extent government intervention has to be at a minimum including subsidies. The government should not pick up the slack if a company is unable to be profitable no matter the public interest. perhaps to some that is morally wrong but they must remember that where there is demand there will always be supply (the free market provides), so should one industry giant collapse, others will move in to take its place and goods will likely be cheaper under this new firm. Carillion is a perfect example of this, yes it is regrettable that 1,000 jobs have been lost (though it is worth mentioning that 2,300 jobs have been retained by some divisions being brought out by other firms) but Carillion was not profitable and it is right that the government let it fail. If the government does not allow companies who cannot compete effectively to fail then they have removed the incentive to be more efficient and more profitable as well as undermining the principles of a just price. The market determines the price of goods, if a price is too high the goods won’t sell and the business will be forced to lower it, if the price is too low the business will be unsustainable and will be forced to raise it until a comfortable balance is found, however when the government sticks its cumbersome nose into the market it disrupts these processes and prevents correct prices from materializing, undermining many of the true benefits of privatisation.

However this does not mean that the economy should be completely unregulated, if we have learnt nothing else from 2007, let us remember that some regulations are not only healthy, they are necessary. Regulations which prevent certain financial institutions from becoming ‘to big to fail’ for instance or essential antitrust agreements which ensure that fair competition can still exist between Tesco and Petes local grocer. These interventions are a necessary evil to promote the values and benefits of the free market and allow, as Adam Smith so rightly said, the invisible hand to guide us.

Private industry is not the evil many to believe it to be, for too long only one side of this debate has been given any light, any place in the public forum. Well I say enough is enough, it is time that the case for privatisation was made, and it is for this reason that I am proud to stand in defence of private industry.

]]>
15
Is youthful conservatism dead? http://young-conservative.com/2018/02/10/is-youthful-conservatism-dead/ Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:06:23 +0000 http://young-conservative.com/?p=9 Read More

]]>
Momentum’s membership surged over the 35,000 line this January, and little stands in its way. Nothing can stop the seemingly unending tide of wannabe socialists printing their idealistic agenda onto the face of this nation. There is no right-wing alternative nor opposition, only concessions. The government, the media and the public seem to have accepted that my age group is destined for left-wing politics and have thus abandoned us to the rabid political wilderness, left to fend for ourselves without a champion or saviour. I cannot be the only person frustrated by this attitude, by this inaction.  Something needs to be done, because there is a moral case for conservatism but it requires what the current conservative government is lacking. Enthusiasm.

In the general election (2017) there was a distinct lake of charisma from the right, a distinct lack of engagement, especially towards my demographic. Jeremy Corbyn was painted as honest and upfront (nevermind his Hamas sympathies nor his IRA connections). A man who the youth, previously disenfranchised by the lies and spin of mainstream politics, could support whole heartedly and unabashedly. And the rights response? Dementia tax and a freeze on tuition fees increase? A FREEZE on tuition fees. Jeremy promises to abolish them, to impose high taxes on landlords and corporate overlords who supposedly force young people into the unemployment queue and our response is mostly silence. No wonder youthful conservatism is rotting away like the beams of an ancient home that you paint over rather than replace. Well I think it’s time to tear back the paint and address the real issues here.

Conservatism can be popular, moreover it can be popular with the youth. Nobody likes taxes and nobody likes red tape. Cutting back on these used to the hallmark of modern right-wingers. Less regulation and less taxes to promote greater freedom for both the individual and businesses. Why don’t we use these moral principles to tackle the issues of young people. Most young people are worried about buying a home? Well then lets cut down on the green belt, open up more land for development, use conservatism to make a difference to the lives of young people and you might even win a few votes along the way, shocking I know.

There is a significant lack of exuberance for both conservatism and change amongst the current Conservative party, and without that youthful conservatism will remain dead. The only thing that can truly spur on its revival is the birth of a new figure, a new leader who can bring conservatism to the youth and fight back the socialist onslaught. Who is that leader?

Well I think every young Tory knows the answer to that.

 

 

]]>
9