Who will I vote for?

As H.L. Mencken said, "every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods".  It's election day today here in the UK.  Time for all of us to place our bids in the auction!

The last time we voted was in the EU referendum of June 2016, where the question was straightforward: do we want the UK to remain in the EU or leave the EU?  In other words, do we want to continue to be ruled by Brussels or would we rather be ruled by London?  It was a clear and specific binary choice - and a very simple one for me.  More liberty?  Yes, please!  Thankfully, the British public chose to vote leave and we are on our way out - hopefully.

General elections are messy.  We are not faced with a specific binary question.  We have to pick between whole packages of policies and personalities from several different parties.  Invariably, each person will agree with some of the policies of one party and some of the policies of another party.

Choosing between the parties based on their policies is already complicated and difficult - even for people who, like me, have strong ideas about what we want and what the consequences each parties' policies are likely to be.

In my previous four blog posts, I reviewed the BBC's bullet-point summaries of the manifestos of each of the main parties: Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP.  Below is a summary table of the results in each of ten policy areas.  I gave a positive score to any policy that would increase liberty and a negative score to any policy that would decrease liberty.

For this scorecard to mean anything, I have to assume that 1) the manifestos of the parties actually reflect their policy intentions, without omission, and 2) the BBC bullet-point summaries are an accurate reflection of the manifestos.  I have my doubts about both of these.  For example, Labour's proposed "land value tax" which would replace "council tax" but significantly increase how much tax we all have to pay, does not make it into the BBC's summary.  Nor do the worrying Conservative policies around internet and free speech regulation.

Nevertheless, I will assume the scores above are broadly representative of which parties will increase or decrease liberty.  Clearly, I won't be voting for Labour or the LibDems.  Their policies on Brexit alone make it impossible for me to vote for them.  On top of that, Labour in particular are led by Marxists and would be an economic disaster for the country.

UKIP scored higher than the Conservatives.  UKIP are often described as a libertarian-lite wing of the Conservative Party, so this makes sense.  Should I vote UKIP then?  Not so fast...

Just because a particular party wins does not mean their policies will be implemented.  As well as deciding based on policies, we also have to decide based on trust.  Can we trust the parties and their leaders to stick to their words?  Indeed, for many people, this is the only factor they will consider; I have seen people say they will vote Labour purely on the basis that they think Jeremy Corbyn is more likeable or trustworthy than Theresa May.  Personally, I do not trust any of them at all, so this is not a factor in my decision.

Then there is the question of "tactical voting".  In reality, there is no way either the LibDems or UKIP will win.  The logic of first-past-the-post makes it almost impossible for any party other than the biggest two to have a chance of taking power.  Some candidates of the LibDems (and other parties like the Greens) have told their voters to vote Labour so as not to split the left-wing vote and end up with a Conservative victory.  The Communist Party aren't even running candidates this year; they have officially endorsed Labour.  Some UKIP candidates have done similar, telling their voters to pick the Conservatives to keep Labour out.  Many Brexiteers, even die-hard UKIP supporters, are saying they will vote tactically for the Conservatives to keep Brexit on track.  It is sad that tactical voting happens, but it is inevitable in a first-past-the-post system and you cannot argue with the logic.

Related to the "tactical voting" debate is the issue of "safe seats".  We do not vote as an entire country, but we vote district-by-district for our local MP.  In some districts, the incumbent has such a large majority that there is no chance the seat will change hands.  In these seats, there is no point in voting tactically.

Indeed, the chance that one vote will change the result in any district are practically zero.

So what is a libertarian to do?  In my district, the Conservatives have a majority, but not so large to make it a safe seat.  There is a chance that it may swing to Labour.  No other party has any chance of winning it.  The Libertarian Party has no candidate in my district (otherwise I would vote for them as a show of support, despite the deficiencies in their manifesto).  On this basis, I am inclined to vote for the Conservatives rather than UKIP.

On the other hand, can I bring myself to vote for a party which has so many policies I disagree with?  Maybe the most sensible choice is to stay home, or spoil the ballot paper - perhaps I could scrawl "taxation is theft" across the ballot paper and be done with it!

I have about 6 hours to decide what I am going to do.

Review of UKIP Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the UK Independence Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

To clarify, since I am libertarian I will give a positive score to any policy that increases liberty and a negative score to any policy that decreases liberty.

I have done a similar review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party here, the Labour Party here and the LibDem Party here.  I'll do the same for UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• -1: The NHS doesn't need more funding, the system is flawed and we need a free market in healthcare
• -1: Government shouldn't be funding education or training for anyone, even nurses.  Students should pay for their own training or find someone willing to voluntarily pay for them.  If there were a free market in healthcare, it is likely that private healthcare organisations would pay for nurse training
• +1: Those who have not paid into the NHS should not be able to reap the benefits from it without paying.  Charitable individuals are welcome to pay for the healthcare of foreign nationals if they wish
• +1: The NHS should be moved towards a market-based system, but PFI doesn't do this.  It is simply the NHS outsourcing the building of hospitals to the private sector, and in many cases represents a worse deal than if the new hospitals had been funded directly.  See the IEA report "Universal Healthcare without the NHS" for more details.

Brexit

• +2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, including the ECJ, single market and customs union, so this is merely the implementation of the will of the people expressed in the referendum 
• +2: Fishing rights was an important issue during the campaign, and it is important for the UK fishing industry to take back control of our waters, which the EU has forbidden us from fishing in
• +2: We do not owe the EU anything.  We have been one of the biggest contributors to the EU budget over the years.  If anything, they should be paying us as we are relinquishing control of assets that we have paid for
• +1: 2 years is more than enough time for the negotiations.

Immigration

• +1: Freedom of movement is unsustainable while we have a welfare state, socialised industries and subsidised housing
• -1: High-skilled immigration is needed and benefits the country.  Quality is more important than quantity, and a net figure of zero would mean we are turning away many immigrants that would benefit this country
• +1: If an immigrant is economically self-supporting, they should be welcomed, while those that cannot support themselves should be turned away.  It is likely that unskilled or low-skilled immigrants cannot support themselves and would be a net loss to this country
• +1: Those who have not paid into the NHS should not be able to reap the benefits from it without paying. 

Economy and Taxes

• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  So tax cuts should always be welcomed
• +2: See above
• +2: See above
• -1: See above.  Tax loopholes should be opened to everyone, not closed.

Education and Family

• 0: Grammar schools are better for children than comprehensive schools, so they should be more of them.  However, government shouldn't fund them, and this is presumably what is meant by this pledge
• -1: Students, their parents (or private charities) should pay for their own university education; taxpayers should not
• +1: Government should not be offering or underwriting any loans to anyone
• 0: Government should not be involved in education at all.  However, while it is, it is right to focus more on technical and vocational education rather than frivolous degrees such as gender studies.  

Housing

• -1: Government should not be in the business of building houses; it should get out of the way so that the private sector can build the houses needed to meet demand
• -1: See above
• -1: Compulsory purchase is a euphemism for theft
• 0: Whether this increases or decreases liberty depends on what the review finds.

Welfare and Pensions

• -1: Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise pensioners.  State pensions should be privatised, but until they are they should not increase at a rate above both inflation and wages, because this is effectively a forced transfer to pensioners from younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• -1: Care should be paid for by the individuals receiving the care or by those willing to voluntarily pay for them; taxpayers should not paying for anyone's care
• -1: The welfare system should be privatised, so that everyone can decide for themselves who is deserving of their charity.  Private charity is better targeted and delivered more effectively than welfare payments
• -1: The "bedroom tax" is not a tax; it is a reduction to a subsidy.  

Foreign and Defence

• -1: We already have sufficient armed forces to defend this country.  The focus of the armed forces should be changed to be purely defence of this nation, not fighting wars overseas
• +1: The EU would benefit much more from military cooperation with us than we do from cooperating with them; we should make use of this during the negotiations
• +1: It is good for nations to cooperate together, such as by agreeing free trade deals, as long as they do not give up their sovereignty to international organisations or get involved in entangling military alliances
• +2: Obviously the UK should not get involved in any foreign wars.

Future of the UK

• 0: This would move us towards direct democracy and this is in some ways worse than representative democracy.  On the other hand, it may bring about some important changes in the political system that might not take place otherwise, such as increased decentralisation
• +1: While we have a state, it should reflect the will of the people, and UKIP getting 13% of the popular vote but only winning one MP suggests there is something wrong with the current system
• +1: This would help reduce the costs of government
• 0: This would decentralise the state which is good, but I would rather see further devolution and secession in Scotland, NI and Wales such that the UK parliament becomes the de facto English parliament.

Transport and Environment

• -1: Government should not be making this decision.  Airports should be privately owned and each owner should decide for himself whether to expand or not.  It may be that expanding Heathrow is more efficient than expanding the other airports; government has no way of calculating this.
• +1: Government should not be funding new transport infrastructure.
• -1: There are very few toll roads in this country.  Charging tolls is more efficient (it reduces traffic for those willing to pay more) and it is fairer for the actual users of any given road to be the ones to pay for it.
• +1: The Climate Change Act is economically destructive as well as completely pointless.

Overall

• Health and Care: 0
• Brexit: +7
• Immigration: +2
• Economy and Taxes: +5
• Education and Family: 0
• Housing: -3
• Welfare and Pensions: -4
• Foreign and Defence: +3
• Future of the UK: +2
• Transport and Environment: 0

Final Score: +12

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Don't forget to check out my similar review of the Conservative manifesto here, the Labour manifesto here, and the LibDem manifesto here.

Review of LibDem Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the Liberal Democrat Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

To clarify, since I am libertarian I will give a positive score to any policy that increases liberty and a negative score to any policy that decreases liberty.

I have done a similar review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party here and the Labour Party here.  I'll do the same for UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.
• -1: Government shouldn't be in the health care business at all.  The waiting time standards for physical health care are abysmal relative to other European countries.  Waiting times for both physical and mental health care should be lower, and the only way to do this is move the NHS towards a free market health care system.
• -1: See above.  
• -1: See above.

Brexit

• -2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, even knowing there was a "risk" of not getting a deal with the EU.  This is blatantly an attempt to overturn the referendum result and is an absolutely terrible negotiating strategy.  It creates an incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal!
• +1: Almost no one wants EU citizens living here legally to be deported.  Even if no deal is reached with the EU, they would not be deported.  This makes it pointless to use them as a "bargaining chip" in the negotiations, and creates unnecessary uncertainty.
• -2: We voted to leave the EU and it was made extremely clear that this included leaving the single market and customs union.  This Party clearly has contempt for democracy and the British people.
• -2: Freedom of movement is unsustainable while we have a welfare state, socialised industries and subsidised housing.  Ending freedom of movement was one of the key reasons why many British people voted to leave the EU.

Immigration

• -2: See above.
• +1: High-skilled immigration is needed and benefits the country.
• -1: Why?  This seems like an arbitrary way to manipulate the net migration figures.
• -2: Many of these "refugees" are in fact low-skilled economic migrants, or worse are criminals or terrorists.

Economy and Taxes

• +1: These are sensible goals to have, but they should be achieved by reducing spending, not by increasing taxes.
• -2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.
• -2: Government should not be involved in any of those industries, and certainly shouldn't be borrowing to "invest" in them.
• -2: See above.  The corporate tax rate was cut from 28% to 19% by the Conservatives and this INCREASED corporate tax receipts.  By reversing these cuts, receipts would likely reduce, as well destroying marginal businesses and jobs, and making products more expensive.  Capital gains and inheritance taxes are similar.

Education and Family

• -1: Throwing more money at the education system is not going to improve education; only allowing free markets in education will achieve that.  
• -1: All types of schools should be allowed; let parents decide where they want their children to be schooled, if anywhere.
• -1: Teachers, like everyone else, should be paid according to the value they produce (their marginal productivity), and the only way to ensure this is to have a free market in schooling and let individual schools decide how much they pay each teacher
• -1: Students, their parents (or private charities) should pay for their own schooling; taxpayers should not.

Housing

• -1: Government should not be in the business of building houses; it should get out of the way so that the private sector can build the houses needed to meet demand.
• -1: See above.
• -1: Right to buy should be extended and all state-owned houses should be sold to the private sector.
• -1: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.

Welfare and Pensions

• -1: Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise pensioners.  It should be up to bus companies to decide whether to allow pensioners to travel for free.  State pensions should be privatised, but until they are they should not increase at a rate above both inflation and wages, because this is effectively a forced transfer to pensioners from younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• +1: Government should not be subsidising anyone, let alone wealthy pensioners.
• -1: The welfare system should be privatised, so that everyone can decide for themselves who is deserving of their charity.  Private charity is better targeted and delivered more effectively than welfare payments.  
• -1: See above.

Foreign and Defence

• -1: We are spending about 2% now, and that should be reduced by refocusing the armed forces as above.
• -2: Individuals should be able to decide who receives the money they wish to spend on charitable causes.  Government international aid is typically ill-targeted, inefficient and increases corruption, such as by supporting dictatorships in Africa
• -1: Weapons manufacturers should be able to sell to whoever they please, as long as they are not subsidised by the government.
• -1: The nuclear deterrent is nothing but a waste of money and a favour to weapons manufacturers.  There are no circumstances in which nuclear weapons should be used, so there is no reason to have them.

Future of the UK

• +1: Decentralisation should always be welcomed.
• -1 The Barnett formula is a forced transfer payment from England to the other home nations.  Each nation should support itself.  
• +2: This would help with decentralisation efforts in places like Yorkshire, Cornwall and Rutland.
• -1: Scotland would be better off leaving the UK - as would the rest of the UK.

Transport and Environment

• -1: Government should not subsidising destruction of any kind.
• -1: Government should not be enforcing any kind of emissions targets or zones.
• -2: That would be hugely economically destructive (so-called "clean energy" is far more expensive overall than traditional energy sources), and would be completely pointless since the UK makes up only a tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, and the science regarding the effects of greenhouse gases is far from settled.
• -1: Government should not be involved in the energy industry or deciding between different forms or methods of generating power.

Overall

• Health and Care: -5
• Brexit: -5
• Immigration: -4
• Economy and Taxes: -5
• Education and Family: -4
• Housing: -4
• Welfare and Pensions: -2
• Foreign and Defence: -5
• Future of the UK: +1
• Transport and Environment: -5

Final Score: -38

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Don't forget to check out my similar review of the Conservative manifesto here and the Labour manifesto here.  Over the next few days, I'll do a similar review of the UKIP manifesto.