Are You Part of the 46.4%?

Looking at the wiki page for Leeds West, the constituency in which I live, I come across a profound miscalculation - it states that John Battle (Labour) was returned with 55.5% of the vote.

This is profoundly wrong and misleading - this is only based on the number of people positively voting for labour out of the total turnout, as if those who decided not to vote somehow do not matter. If you weigh in the total number of available votes the figure looks considerably less impressive: 29.73%.

Less than a third of my fellow constituents returned the Labour party to power of their own volition at the last election.

Less than one in three people brought Labour back to power in Leeds West; less than a quarter brought them back country-wide at the last election - one in 4 people have empowered the Labour party to bring this country to its knees intentionally!

And all because 46.4% of you wouldn't, or couldn't, vote for those in power in my constituency.

There are 2 fatal flaws with democracy - the first comes when people stop voting consciously, allowing bad decisions to be made by flawed people; they cry "voting changes nothing" and make it true because nobody they deem to protect our laws is changed - that is how this present autocracy can rule with a mandate of 1 in 4 people.  The second comes when those self-same flawed MP's foolishly forget that their primary job is not to create laws (bad or good) but to uphold just ones instead; I believe that if LPUK is ever to achieve any real positive change in this country it must not forget this; that we champion the individualist, and by association, laws that let him thrive, above all else.

It is my hope that at the next election - whether that be in 2 or 18 months time, depending on who you believe - I will stand for Leeds West as LPUK's PPC; I have just forwarded my details on to the coordinators to start the ball rolling. In the interim I ask the following:

• If you dont vote, do: if you yourself, or anyone you know, doesn't vote, please do - I am not suggesting you vote for a party you hold only contempt for - in that case vote for all of them; I will be doing so in the upcoming Euro-elections; would the winning party be able to hold any kind of valid mandate if the number of spoiled votes was greater than what brought them into power? Look at it another way - you vote by proxy for the winning party when you do not vote at all.

• If you do not vote because you believe that voting changes nothing, it is because you have voted away too many of your freedoms? I recommend you watch the following videos to understand this; your rights and freedoms aren't given by government - they are yours, and the government exists to serve them and you - anything more, and as we are fast seeing, we become slaves to it. LPUK came into existence to ensure this fact isn't forgotten and government is put into its rightful place, championing liberty, not granting it.

Running a campaign for election is expensive; there are several candidates for LPUK so if you are interested in helping please donate here:

Better yet, join up to make a positive change for Britain:

And if you think you know someone who doesn't vote - tell them about LPUK, show them the website if you have any of the business cards hand them out:

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don't say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times.

LPUK: a party that speaks for the silent majority.

The difference between MP's and us.

Hat tip to Trixy for this one.

The Hair Cut.

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.'
The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door..

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.'
The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.'
The professor is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' and 'Becoming More Successful.'

Then, a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut , and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.'
The Member of Parliament is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the Members of Parliament.

Publish the MPs Expenses in Full

A petition to publish the full receipts behind MPs claims, can be signed here. We've only seen some of the expenses we should be able to see. There have been many terrible claims, but there have been those who have claimed nothing (or next to nothing) on their second home allowance.

So, the more people that sign it, the better chance we all have of seeing what our MPs are claiming on. Rightly or wrongly, it's our money being used.

Taking the Shirt off your Back Campaign

Its started off on Old Holborn's site Don't just sit there and accept this crap budget designed to bail out this corrupt Government and its Banker friends.

Dig out that old shirt and send it to 10 Downing Street with a note of what you really think of this budget- let us know that you have done it on 1984@lpuk.org

Gordon Brown
10, Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA.

Designing out Crime

Browsing the Bradford Council Public Access Portal, I was interested to read a lengthly response from the West Yorkshire Police as a consultee to a planning application for an office block. (I won't link to it as technically I have a pecunary interest). In the course of six pages (although much is of course boilerplate) they effectively objected to the scheme unless the developer "designed in" crime prevention to the structure.

What does that actually mean? Well there is a helpful website, www.securedbydesign.com. Interestingly, this is an offshoot of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers which isn't actually an association at all, it is a business and not subject to public scrutiny.

There are a core set of principles around the scheme which I will distill into a few pertinent areas, the intention of which is to deter criminal behaviour aided and abetted by the built environment. For the site in question, the Police think that the design is over-complicated, i.e. far too crinkly, giving opportunities for crime in recesses and covered areas. Some bits round the back are not covered by natural surveillance, i.e. inadequately overlooked. They are not prepared to support undercroft parking on a large development. They suggest anti-ram bollards all the way round the site (something I'd imagine the Fire Brigade might be less keen on). The CCTV has to be ubiquitous and high quality, even supervising the bins. An approved lighting scheme has to be submitted. An access control strategy needs to be submitted and approved.

The Police don't actually say that they can stop the scheme, just that the submission doesn't comply with numerous regulations about giving these things due consideration, certainly enough to make a Planning Officer keen to cover their bottom.

Planning in the UK has gradually distorted itself from a position of assumed consent unless there are valid reasons to oppose the scheme to the present position of assumed rejection unless numerous hoops are jumped through to keep the Council happy. The most iniquitous of all these is Section 106, a Robin Hood type scheme for only allowing permitted developments provided that there are other (sometimes tenuous) community benefits. Councils call it Planning Gain, I call it legalised bribery.

If you spend any length of time looking at planning submissions, you begin to realise that it is all a big game and the various specialists the developers use are able to cover off all these nebulous topics with flowery words to get stuff through, but at great expense on both sides.

I have a much more pragmatic view of the Town & Country Planning Act- most of it should be swept away. The best sort of town planning happened in the Lassez faire days before Town Planning existed. I'd much rather live in Cheltenham than Milton Keynes.

If I wanted to build something with my own money, I'd make it as crinkly as I like. I'd happily take advice from others but at the end of the day it is my choice, not the State.

A Libertarian Government would make the planning process faster, fairer on the property owner and back to a position of implied consent.

(This post also appears on Shades of Grey and Libertarian Party Blogs)

First Publicity Video.

Thanks to Max Andronichuk for this, via Meetup.com.



EDIT: Source URL changed and updated.

Calling all Yorkshire Libertarians...

There are now several member blogs around the Country. LPUK members are encouraged to contribute on the regional blogs as well as lpuk.blogspot.com.

A North East and a West Riding blog have been created and tucked away, awaiting more local members.

Anyone wishing to have posting rights- please email me at ian-at-iangrey-dot-org