Manifesto 2019 Template - libertarianpartyuk.com · 10 | FREE STATES| LIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO ©2019LibertarianParty|LibertarianParty.co.uk 5. REDUCETHE NUMBEROFCIVIL SERVANTSINTHE

FREE STATESLIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO

2 | FREE STATES | LIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO© 2019 Libertarian Party | LibertarianParty.co.uk

The Libertarian Party believesthat we are at a cross roads inBri�sh Poli�cs in which the nextfew years will decide the direc�onof travel for the foreseeablefuture. The par�es who make upthe Westminster cabal haveshown that they believe that thepeople are there to serve them,not the other way round.

We are entering a period in whichthe two main par�es aredescending to their extremeswhich for the Conserva�ve Partyis in-figh�ng, and chaos, and anabandonment of the free market.For Labour it is a push to takeprivate property by force, forexample, to na�onalise healthycompanies in an ideologicalshake-down as well as to add anever increasing burden of taxa�onon middle earners and futuregenera�ons, yet at the same �mestoking class divisions to ensure

there is always someone else toblame.

Luckily we are also seeing a greatdeal of awareness in the generalpublic who are star�ng to seehow rigged the system is and arelooking for an alterna�ve. We arethat alterna�ve. We are the partythat puts the rights of theindividuals ahead of the rights ofunions or donors. We are theparty that will remove barriers totrade allowing the economy tostand on its own feetunencumbered by unnecessaryregula�ons. We are the party thatwants to remove poli�calinterference from your everydaylife, freeing important serviceslike Health Care and Educa�onfrom poli�cal point scoring andpu�ng them in the hands of theservice providers or users: thepeople who knowwhat is mostneeded. We are the party that

wants to ensure that this countryhas a Cons�tu�on that protectsthe individual and treats all partsof the country in an even manner.

In this Manifesto we will set outour policies for a futureconfedera�on of free stateswhere power is devolvedwherever possible and innova�ve,modern solu�ons are used tocreate the good in an efficientway (in place of that which isbeloved by the other par�es: thestatus quo).

The Manifesto of the LibertarianParty has been built on five basicprinciples.

■ That the overall effect of allour policies together shalldecrease the size and powerof the state.

■ That the rights of theindividual are paramount andshould be nurtured.

■ That the individual is be�er

placed to understand what isin their best interest than thestate.

■ That those who have powermust be held accountable fortheir ac�ons.

■ That power should bedevolved so it is as close tothe people who are affectedby it as possible.

Alongside these principles wehave also called on theexperience of other countriesbasing our policies, whereverpossible, on systems that havebeen tried and tested elsewhereand which the evidence showswork well.

This Manifesto provides analterna�ve to more of the same, apathway away from theWestminster rule we know tosomewhere more prosperous, lessauthoritarian and less dangerous,more protec�ve of the ci�zen and

FOREWORD

FREE STATES | LIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO | 3© 2019 Libertarian Party | LibertarianParty.co.uk.

less willing to boss her around forher own good or, as is morecommonly the case, to her harm.

Our respect for each individual isembodied in the procedures ofour party, such as our policycrea�on procedure, declared inthe policies in our Manifestowhich fuels the lamp with whichwe light the way to the placewhere we hope you will find yourpoli�cal home as a member, orsupporter, of the Libertarian PartyUK. We are the party that will setyou personally above thecollec�ve and by doing so freethe country to be be�er than everbefore.

Adam BrownParty Leader

© 2019 Libertarian Party | LibertarianParty.co.uk4 | FREE STATES | LIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO

The Libertarian Party believes:

■ In having a wri�enCons�tu�on that holds theIndividual to be above theState.

■ That a limited governmentwith both horizontal andver�cal separa�on of powers,and vigorous checks andbalances, will best preservethe Liberty of the People.

■ That Great Britain should be aConfedera�on of Free States,and that the Peopledetermine their own poli�es.

■ That it should be confirmed inLaw that the People areSovereign.

■ That the Monarchy should bepermi�ed only as long as ithas the formal approval of thePeople, and should besubordinate to theCons�tu�on.

■ That all public servants shouldswear allegiance to upholdingthe Cons�tu�on, and be liablein Law for misconduct andfraud.

■ That the First Past the Postvo�ng system should bereplaced with a form ofPropor�onal Representa�on.

“That government is bestwhich governs least.”

- attr. Thomas Jefferson

The Libertarian Party’s proposedwri�en cons�tu�on embodiesthe following basic concepts,namely that:

■ The Cons�tu�on be federalin nature, with eachpar�cipa�ng State sovereignand with an equal voice in thecompact.

■ The people of each state arethe ul�mate sovereign bodyof each State.

■ All individuals are possessedof inalienable natural rights tolife, liberty, property, and allother rights that derive fromthem.

■ The poli�cal en�ty thisCons�tu�on creates be calledthe Confedera�on of the FreeStates of Britain.

■ The purpose of theCons�tu�on is to restrain andlimit the general government

as well as to define itsdelegated powers.

■ There is a separa�on ofpowers horizontally betweenthe Execu�ve, Legisla�ve andJudicial branches, andver�cally between thegeneral government and theStates.

■ The Cons�tu�on is a legaldocument with fixedmeaning, not a living orflexible document open tointerpreta�on.

■ All officers shall be bound byan oath to the Cons�tu�on,and that breach of that oathbe considered a seriousma�er.

■ The Confedera�on will aid inpreserva�on from externala�ack and from conflictbetween the States.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMA WRITTEN CONSTITUTION FOR BRITAIN


■ The general government befunded equally by the States.

■ The general government shallconsist of a bicamerallegislature, a Cons�tu�onalCourt, and an Execu�ve.

■ The Monarchy con�nue onlyin a private manner, subject tothe will of the people.

■ The lower house of theLegisla�ve branch consist of achamber elected by thepeople of each State to be aguardian of the rights of thepeople, a reflec�on of thebroad range of values anda�tudes of the people, and tohold the key of the treasury ofthe Confedera�on.

■ The upper house of theLegislature consist of achamber elected by the Statelegislatures to be a guardianof the sovereignty of theStates and the presiding bodyof the Confedera�on,especially tasked to theConfedera�on as a whole andto foreign ma�ers, and ofapproving appointmentsmade by the Execu�ve.

■ The Chief Execu�ve and hisdeputy be elected by an

electoral college so as toallow the people of each Statea say, avoid demagoguery,and keep the States frombeing disenfranchised.

■ The Chief Execu�ve be FirstAmbassador, have a line-itemnon-blocking veto over laws,and be commander-in-chief ofmilitary forces in �me ofdeclared war.

■ Officers be suscep�ble toimpeachment; electedofficials to expulsion;members of the upper houseopen to recall by Statelegislatures.

■ Only the Legisla�ve branchshall have power to declarewar.

■ Military power be thebailiwick of the States and notthe general government.

■ The general government haveno power to borrow money.

■ The general government haveno power to erectcorpora�ons.

■ Bills require passage in bothhouses, can be vetoed by theExecu�ve, must be short andpertain to one subject, and

have a sunset clause of notmore than 10 years.

■ A yearly budget bill listspending and costs for theyear.

■ The State court in any state isthe final court of appeal inthat State, and that no casecan be appealed or brought tothe Cons�tu�onal Courtunless it is strictly a ma�er ofa federal nature.

■ A two-thirds vote of StateLegislatures can veto adecision made by theCons�tu�onal Court; andindividuals and states can suefor injunc�ve relief againstlaws deemeduncons�tu�onal.


The only legi�mate role of theState is defence. From the �me ofthe Saxon Kings the role of thepeople in mutual defence as the‘Fyrd’ was paramount. To servewas a ma�er of honour and duty.A Libertarian Government wouldseek to re-establish theconnec�on between the ordinaryci�zen and the defence of thecountry.

This is not a new concept,‘Trayned Bands’ , Mili�as and

Yeomanry have fought withdis�nc�on whenever the countryhas been threatened. We are notseeking to re establish the days ofNa�onal Service which survivedthe Second World War, but toestablish a personal responsibilityto defend our way of life andhard-won freedoms.

This controversial policy wasoverwhelming endorsed by themembership of the LibertarianParty in a free vote.

Firstly, a Libertarian Governmentwould seek to avoid war, we willmake no na�on our ‘naturalenemy’ and will seek gooddiploma�c rela�ons and tradewith all countries. However, anypoten�al aggressor should be inno doubt of our willingness todefend our way of life andfreedoms. There have been toomany expensive wars and liveslost in foreign adventures onbehalf of, or in alliance with otherpowers. A direct threat to Bri�shterritory should be the gauge withwhich we decide to considerdeploying the armed services.

Currently the three armedservices are compe�ng forresources leading to waste andmisdirected priori�es. We willestablish a unified Bri�sh DefenceForce star�ng immediately withthe most senior officers (who willcease to belong to a singleservice).

Each of the three arms arecurrently ac�ng as independentforces but we will seek tointegrate them. This will be partof our root and branch re-appraisal of defence which we callCardwell 2.0 a�er the last majorreform (1868-1874) following thedebacle of the Crimea War.

A Libertarian Government willpriori�se defence in conjunc�onwith the aim of avoiding foreignentanglement except in so far asrequired by our mutual defencepact with the other members ofNATO, which has proved to bethe guarantor of peace in Europesince 1945. As party policy isfirmly to leave the EuropeanUnion, a Libertarian Governmentwould not require Bri�shServicemen be part of the‘European Army’.

We will make no nationour ‘natural enemy’ andwill seek good diplomaticrelations and trade withall countries.

DEFENCE POLICY“CARDWELL 2.0”


This ambi�on is exemplified byour most important defencepolicy, namely, to establish aYeomanry.

We take as our model the SwissDefence Force.

Switzerland has a standing armyof 60,000. It can mobilise 20,000air force reservists within 48hours, a further 8,000 armyreserves within eight days and anaddi�onal 35,000 within ten. Anaddi�onal 1,040,000 formerreservists (aged 22 to 34) can berecalled, more slowly, to a musterof 1.16 million men. By contrastthe UK, with a popula�on eight�mes larger, can only mobilise anarmy nine tenths smaller(115,000).

To mobilise a larger army wouldtake months of training andshortages of equipment and basicinfrastructure.

A Libertarian government willtherefore make defence costeffec�ve, and reinforce theconnec�on between duty andfreedom, by establishing aYeomanry and a Civil DefenceCorps. Par�cipants, will be free tochoose a non-combat role such asFire Service, Paramedic, Nursing,Engineers and Coast Guard.


1 . YEOMANRYA Libertarian government willestablish a 1,056,000 strongYeomanry and a 430,000 strongAir Yeomanry. The yeomanry willbe required by law to serve onlyon Bri�sh territory.

BENEFITSAYeomanry will give ci�zens theopportunity to becomeresponsible through service. Itwould also free a larger por�on ofthe professional armed forces toserve overseas. Professionals willcon�nue to be volunteers.

NOTESThe Yeomanry will be capable of being mobilised withinseventy-two hours. To achieve this a member ofYeomanry own personal equipment and arms would bestored in a sealed steel lockable box at their home.Following the Swiss model, ammuni�on would be kept insecure local loca�ons, only to be issued in �mes ofimminent threat.

The Yeomanry will be organised into eight corps (EastAnglia, Mercia, London, Northumbria, Wessex, Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland) and composed of athousand and fi�y-six ba�le groups (e.g., 1st Essex etc.)combining into county organised brigades.

The cost of the Yeomanry per capita would be 25% of

that of the Swiss Mili�a. The Yeomanry will receive thirtydays of basic training followed by thirty days of reservetraining over eleven years. This contrasts with the Swissfigure of 245 days over fourteen years. Britain will trainits Yeomanry lightly to limit costs but judge that itseffec�veness and deterrent power would not diminishpro rata.

Each ci�zen in the age group between 18 and 22inclusive would be tested for fitness to join theYeomanry in the year following their sixteenth birthday.

Both Military and Civil Defence Corps individuals will bepaid. There will be a higher rate for service in theYeomanry, recent difficul�es recrui�ng for the TerritorialVolunteer Reserve suggests this policy is right.

2. AN INCREASEIN THE SIZEOF THEPROFESSIONALARMY FROM81,000 TO 94 ,000A Libertarian Government willincrease the professional regulararmy. In addi�on, we will makeabout 7.5% of the army supportforces roles, in par�cular theceremonial and legal element,

largely redundant though thesepersonnel would be offered thechance to move to the combatelement.

BENEFITSBy strengthening the Army,rela�ve to the Navy and Air force,we would tailor our defence tothe message that we are apeaceful na�on though at thesame �me one be�er able torepel enemy invasion of ourshores and to honour our mutualdefence pact with the othermembers of N.A.T.O.

NOTESA Libertarian Government willfund a 100% increase in frontline deployable divisions (fromone to two) plus an addi�onalstrike brigade to be added to theRapid Reac�on Force.


3. ANADDITIONALOFFSHOREPATROL SHIPEVERYTENMONTHS FORTEN YEARSThe Libertarian Party wouldfinance a 400% increase in thenumber of offshore patrol vessels(from three to fi�een).

BENEFITSThis policy would increase thenumber of offshore patrol vesselsfrom seven now (six in the Bri�shIsles one in the Falklands) tonineteen. The Home Fleet willtake priority in Naval expenditure.

NOTESAll the offshore patrol vesselswould be upgraded including byraising the calibre of the main gun(to 76 mm) and adding two ver�caltakeoff drones (with a tenth thefootprint of a helicopter so theycould be fi�ed onto the helipadalongside, say, a Merlin Mark 2) toprovide over-the-horizonreconnaissance.

The use of weaponized droneswould be a priority.

The reconnaissance drones wouldenable a patrol vessel in �me ofconflict to act as a scout,par�cularly for military opera�ons,such as amphibious opera�ons orsmall task forces, who wouldotherwise lack airborne earlywarning cover (and might not haveaccess to satellite early warningcover). The scout drones could also

free the patrol ship’s organichelicopter for an�-submarineopera�ons.

A Libertarian Government willspend £400 million per annum tocommission, over ten years, fortythousand £75,000 man portableminiature drones with combinedcombat and reconnaissance abilityand provide for their maintenance.These drones to be supplied toboth the Yeomanry and theProfessional Army. This is modestcompared with US spending of,including on opera�ons, circa £6billion per annum on drones.

We currently have a deficit ofheavy li� helicopters, the loss ofChinooks on the Atlan�c Conveyorin 1982 severely restrictedopera�ons in the FalklandsConflict, and did so again in theIraq War.


5. REDUCE THENUMBER OF CIVILSERVANTS IN THEMINISTRYOFDEFENCE BYEIGHTY PERCENTOn a per capita basis this wouldprobably leave the Ministry ofDefence leaner than the IsraeliDirectorate of Purchases andProduc�on and Defence MinistryCombined.

BENEFITSMaking 46,000 redundant wouldsave circa £1.5 billion per annum.

NOTESEach remaining civil servant willhave a military rank and besubject to military discipline. Thesupply of cheap thirty and fi�ycalibre ammuni�on from thirdworld sources that con�nuallyjammed is a scandal that shouldnever happen again.

6 . ESTABLISHDEDICATEDMILITARYHOSPITALS ANDDEDICATEDMILITARYPENSIONProvision will also be made forbeds for overnight visi�ng familyor friends. Staff will be employedto focus on providing supportpost discharge for those who fallby the wayside.

BENEFITSBy specialisa�on the staff willbecome as expert as possible indealing with the injuries anddisorders par�cular to militarycasual�es.

NOTESThe Ministry of Defence, thesecond largest landowner in theUK, will be given a duty to drawupon its assets to assist ex-servicemen found to be living inreduced circumstances.

A Libertarian Government wouldintroduce a dedicated MilitaryPension for all those who haveserved for ten years or more.

A Libertarian Government wouldconfer ci�zenship on any foreignna�onal serving in the Bri�shArmed Services a�er a ten yearperiod discharged with goodconduct standing.

4 . FIVEADDITIONALHUNTER KILLERNUCLEARSUBMARINESThis would take the Bri�shnuclear hunter killer submarineinventory to twelve.

A Libertarian Governmentfollowing advice from serving andre�ring naval officers, would notcommit to the construc�on of anyfurther aircra� carriers. Theconcept of aircra� carriers‘projec�ng power’ is a fallacyunless used against a far weakeropponent. Such blue water capitalships add li�le to Home Defence.They are also easy prey to cheapshore based an�-ship missiles. Ithas been argued that the Aircra�Carrier concept had reached theend of it’s useful life by the Ba�leof Midway in the Second WorldWar over seventy years ago.


7. BETTEREQUIPMENT,BOOTS ANDPROTECTIONThe Libertarian governmentwould provide for a moraleboos�ng review of the quality ofuniforms and equipment, so thatwe are never again know as ‘theborrowers’ borrowing kit fromother armies. a) Tac�calCommunica�ons and Protec�veSystems (TCAPS), b) improvedHövding helmets c) protec�veundergarments made of wovenKevlar and improved on thosetried out in 2010 d) the new USarmy boot or equivalent.

BENEFITSTCAPS can shut out unexpectedand painfully loud noises, such asexplosions, while maintainingcommunica�ons fidelity. Hövdinghelmets, detec�ng nearbyexplosions, will inflate toenvelope the wearer’s headprotec�ng, par�cularly, the neckagainst shock waves.

NOTESA 2009 study by the UKMinistry of Defence found thatmore than two-thirds of troopsreturning from Afghanistansuffered severe and permanenthearing damage. Of 1,250 RoyalMarine Commandos surveyed,69% had symptoms rangingfrom �nnitus to almostcomplete deafness. TCAPS ismade to be fi�ed to differentear canal shapes. It is solarpowered.


END NOTESThe Libertarian Party woverecommenda�ons from an ar�cleby Godfrey Bloom into its DefencePolicy. The primary example of thiswas his advocacy of a “properlyequipped Territorial Army”. We haveconverted this concept into a policyalong Swiss lines.

Edited highlights from GodfreyBloom’s ar�cle follow.

WHATDOESBRITAIN NEEDFOR ALL ROUNDDEFENCE?ANEW STRATEGICDOGMAThe most effec�ve way ofprotec�ng the UK from threat fromany quarter is to refrain whereverpossible from provoking a war.Most wars are expensive in bloodand treasure and benefit no one.

Britain has, however, to be readyfor war. So how can we go about it?

THE ARMYIt must be remembered big wars arewon by civilians in uniform.

Army recruitment and reten�on hasbeen shambolic in recent years,abandonment of Crown Exemp�on,harassment of elderly veterans,limited career prospects as theforces shrink and criminalunderfunding of the reserves, in

some cases just paper soldiers. Themost recent disaster £130 millionwasted on trying to recruit online.

PROCUREMENTDoes the army really need a topcivilian spec German truck for£120k? Would not four basicallyequipped helicopters be moreuseful than one highly specced?

There is a strong role for middlemanagement input on procurementand recruitment policy. Very seniorofficers can lose touch or worsebecome poli�cised.

Recruitment based on skin colouror gender is abhorrent, patronisingand counter produc�ve. Currentlythe MoD website promotes thispolicy on its website. Naval andmilitary recruitment and promo�onshould be on merit and merit alone.

CONTRIBUTORGodfrey Bloom was a major in theRoyal Corps of Transport (TerritorialArmy) and is a former M.E.P.


1. END THE BBCLICENCE FEEIn 2018-19 the governmentdepartment of Digital, Culture,Media and Sport spent £6.3billion including capital spendingand including £4.0 billion so-called Resource AME spending(essen�ally on the BBC).

Upon matura�on of the BBC’sRoyal Charter which runs un�l

December 2027 the licence feesthat provide its income will beterminated. To encourage theBBC to stand on its own two feetimmediately its income will bereduced by a pro rata percentageof its present figure in equalannual tranches commencing inyear One.

BENEFITSOver seven years a £3.8 billionreduc�on in average spend of taxpayer’s money.

The BBC’s RoyalCharter will beterminated.

DIGITAL, CULTURE,MEDIA & SPORT

NOTESThe BBC’s Royal Charter willcon�nue to matura�on but thecorpora�on will receive no subsidyfrom 2028 instead being requiredto operate along commercial lines.The state should not dictate to theBBC how to make a profit but theBBC might consider the following:

■ Fee paying access to onlineservices like iPlayer (i.e. theNe�lix model)

■ Adver�sing or othercommercialisa�on of the freeto air channels

■ Subscriber iden�ty modelssuch as those used by Sky foradvert-free content (bysubscrip�on)

■ Advert-free content bysubscrip�on.

The streams of commercialrevenue that the BBC will createneed not equal the current budget

in order to sustain the currentpeople and infrastructure. Of theBBC’s budget the 4th singlebiggest expenditure is thecollec�on of the licence fee (over£111 million in 2012-13). Withcommercialisa�on, and the endingof the criminal law associated withthe licence fee, these costs shouldreduce drama�cally.

S4C is a Welsh languagebroadcaster opera�ng as part ofthe BBC, this should con�nue.

Channel 4 will remain in publicownership for now. However amethod does need to be found toremove the balance sheet risk thisinvolves for the tax payer.

Once it is on its own two feet theBBC will be converted into amutual company owned byappropriate users such as anysubscribers, this to be done fiveyears a�er the switch away fromthe licence fee is complete.


2. CUT STATECONTRIBUTIONSTO LOTTERYFUNDS BY 50%In 2015-2016 the Department ofCulture, Media and Sport (as itthen was) spent £1.524 billion ongrants on “good causes” via thena�onal lo�ery. This is the stategiving money to charity.Although the state should not, inthe long run, be funding chari�esthe public would not forgive agovernment that too abruptlydestroyed many of them either.The funding that the Departmentof Digital, Culture, Media andSport provides to the lo�ery fundshould be reduced by 10% of theoriginal amount every year over a5 year term.

BENEFITSThe spending on lo�ery grantswould then fall to £0.762 billionby the end of the term.

3. REMOVE VATON BICYCLES,BICYCLE REPAIRSANDWALKINGBOOTSOther par�es are offering freesweets for young people in theform of bus passes. We prefer tofocus on policies that will do moreto counter-act climate change.Obesity is caused by lack ofac�vity rather than excessconsump�on. UK calorie intakehas fallen by 20% between 1985-2015 yet obesity increased by200%.

BENEFITSCheaper equipment for cyclingand walking offers benefitsespecially to those on lowerincomes, the young (with whombicycles are more popular) andthose suffering from obesity.

4. ENDBROADBANDDELIVERYUKBroadband delivery UK has spenta massive amount of money onBT to roll out faster broadbandservices. The �me has come tocut funding to this programme asit is essen�ally the state fundingBT.

BENEFITSA £0.8 billion per yearimprovement in public financesand reduc�on in the burden ontax payers.


NUMBERS BILLIONS OF £

SPENDINGCHANGESPER ANNUM

INCREASES IN SPENDING ARE IN RED AND REDUCTIONSIN SPENDING IN BLACK

1.2 Seven year phasing out of £3.3 billion revenue from the licence fee.

0.3Exemp�ng bicycles, bicycle maintenance and walking boots from VATand sales tax.

SUB-TOTAL LESS PRUDENT 1.5

1.4 Seven year phasing out of £4.0 billion spending on the BBC.

0.8 Fi�y percent reduc�on in alloca�ons to the Lo�ery Fund.

0.8 End Broadband Delivery UK.

SUB-TOTALMORE PRUDENT 3.0

TOTAL IMPACT ON PUBLICFINANCES 1.5

NOTES


The UK Treasury’s idea ofeconomic and fiscal policy is theminu�ae of 2p on this rate of taxand 2p of that rate tax with noaccountability for any of thisfiddling.

A Libertarian Party governmentwill devolve the bulk of tax raisingand spending powers to theTreasuries of the Free FederalStates that its cons�tu�on callsfor (states such as Wessex, Merciaand Wales).

The Na�onal Treasury will seek

contribu�ons from the free statesthat make up the FederalGovernment, for any contribu�onabove and beyond that levied tofinance policies retained at theNa�onal level which might meanonly defence.

This approach might lead to localmoney being sought by localgovernment for projects thatwould have to be agreedindividually by local ci�zens withthe finance being providedthrough tax payer bonds that theapplicable tax payers would pay

off over the term agreed betweenthe government and the financier.This is the system in Texas.Alloca�ng funds in this wayprecludes tax feeding thetreasuries wider remit to spendmoney on any old stuff it favours.The fundamental feature of sucha way of raising taxes is that thetaxes are raised by consent.

Notwithstanding the highlydevolved and Federal structurethat we favour there are certainpolicies which our party doesintend to implement in any freestate where it were grantedpower.

1. INHERITANCETAX TO BESCRAPPEDAn individual should be free tobequeath at will without fearingthat what they will actuallybequeath a�er tax is a debt, orwithout fear that forty per cent ofthe product of their life work,before legal fees, is going to bespent on some government whiteelephant.

BENEFITSRepeal of all inheritance tax willincrease upward social mobilityprimarily through marriage butalso, in a world of increasinglysmall families, by bequests tothird par�es. In so far asinheritance tax does result inmore concentrated wealth inprivate hands a world in which amillion wealthy individuals inherit

A Libertarian Partygovernment will devolvethe bulk of tax raisingand spending powers.

ECONOMIC OVERVIEWTHE STATE HAS NO MONEY OF ITS OWN


although not an egalitarianparadigm will be wonderfullydiverse as compared with a worldin which most of it goes to thegovernment. The best thing abouta million wealthy individuals isthat each one of them will have adifferent take on how to use theirinherited resources. That theseresources might be substan�aldoes not under mine the fact thatin such a world a gloriousfirmament of cultural andentrepreneurial endeavour will befinanced instead of being fri�eredaway by a government that reallydoes not care what happens toany given one pound or even anyone million pounds because itsfocus is inherently on biggernumbers which actually it doesnot really care about eitherbecause the money does notbelong to it.

2. TAX POWERTO BE DEVOLVEDBYDEFAULTA Libertarian government will, bydefault, devolve taxa�on powersto lower levels of government.

BENEFITSThis will create compe��onamong regions to deliver ana�rac�ve tax regime to thepeople and investors who mightchoose to live in any given region.It will also deliver the benefit ofallowing more decisions to betaken in a manner reflec�ng thewishes of those who live in aplace.

3. GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTSTO BE CLOSEDBYDEFAULTA Libertarian government will putbefore every department theques�on is this best done by thegovernment and in addi�on whenlegisla�on is created, orregula�ons are, for every Actpassed through parliament or thefree state legislature two previousActs will be scrapped and forevery word of regula�on wri�entwo words of former regula�onswill be deleted.


4. CORPORATIONTAX TO BESCRAPPEDCorpora�ons are composed ofpeople and when they are taxedin themselves the people gettaxed twice once on the profitbefore it is paid out and onceagain when it is paid out andclassified as income. This isunjust.

BENEFITSEnding corpora�on tax willencourage ra�onal businessdecision making in par�cular ininvestment which will no longerbe falsely spurred by any taxavoidance mo�ve. Doubletaxa�on is unwise since it createsa disincen�ve amongcorpora�ons to make profit(because profit means beingdoubly taxed). This is close tobarmy. Abolishing corpora�on taxwill help to shi� the burden oftaxa�on away from wealthcrea�on and toward wealthconsump�on this, ul�mately, willencourage produc�ve investment.

NOTESGovernment taxes profit, labour,sales, and dividends. The currentsystem might be called aquadruple tax system. Ourpolicy will also a�ract foreigninvestment to the UK.

NOTESVAT exemp�on is an ineffec�veway of targe�ng benefit to thepoor. Direct cash transfers wouldwork be�er than low or zero ratesof VAT so this policy is alsodesirable from a progressive taxregime point of view.

Government Revenue from VAT in2018 was £125 billion. In the caseall VAT exemp�ons andconcessions were removed thisrevenue would rise to circa £213.5billion. With 39.6% of poten�alVAT revenue exempted aboli�onof exemp�ons would, on a steadystate for revenue, permit areduc�on in the tax rate from20.0% to 12.9%. Because sales taxis simpler in such a way as to allowit to be folded into HMRC’s

administra�on of corpora�on taxand income instead of beingadministered by specialisedofficers we expect that therewould be a saving of 4,000 officers(50% of the 8,000 we es�mateadminister VAT now) with abalance of 4,000 remaining toadminister the sales tax. Thiswould save circa £0.5 billion perannum. The vast bulk of the savingwould, naturally, be not in reducedgovernment expenditure but inmore produc�ve business nolonger weighed down by theincreasing burden of the ever morecomplex VAT system. VAT systemstax more heavily businesses thatare adding value not those that areon the edge of failure or which arefailing since, all other things beingequal, those businesses will pay

5. VALUE ADDEDTAX TO BEREPLACEDA Libertarian government willreplace VATwith sales tax. Salestaxes are simpler than VAT. Tokeep them that way we wouldend all exemp�ons (as is the casefor VAT in both Japan and NewZealand) from such a tax. The rate

of Sales tax would, however, beset locally.

BENEFITSSe�ng the sales tax rate locallywould introduce tax compe��onbetween regions. It would alsoallow regions whose ci�zensfavoured higher tax to have it andthose that favoured lower tax tohave it too.


less VAT than ones that are moreprofitable. But sales tax, thoughsimpler, is a blunter instrument andso all other things being equal agiven rate will produce morerevenue by falling in some cases inlarger amounts on businesses thatare just breaking even. It is hard toes�mate by how much but for thesake of analysis we will say thatgovernment revenue for any givensales tax rate would be 5% higherthan for any given VAT rate. On

this assump�on a sales tax rate of12.9% with no exemp�ons wouldyield £10.3 billion more taxrevenue than the current systemwould if exemp�ons wereabolished. This figure is captured inthe budget below. Given that thesales tax rate will be set locally thebudgetary impact statement belowtakes as its figure for the purposesof analysis a sales tax rate of12.9%.


The Libertarian educa�on systemwill fulfil the following threesimple objec�ves:

■ Give parents authority overtheir children’s educa�onalchoices.

■ Break-up the de facto stateeduca�on monopoly.

■ Grant increased autonomy toeduca�on providers, whilstimposing only a limitedcollec�on of mandatory ‘core’

subjects (English,Mathema�cs and Science) upto sixteen.

A Libertarian government will givestudents the freedom to pursueother educa�onal avenues suchas appren�ceships at sixteenyears of age and therea�er. Wewill also diminish or abolishcentralised targets for schoolsinstead allowing schools to settheir own goals.

Educa�on spending, at about4.3% of gross domes�c productor £90 billion (2017-18), was thefourth largest element of publicspending behind pensions,welfare and health. Clearlyeduca�on is expensive. Whilst theLibertarian Party advocates lowtaxes our aim is an excellenteduca�on system. Cost-saving isnot a direct aim of our policies,instead it a useful by-product.

EARLYYEARSSpending on the early years areaof educa�on has risen over thelast 30 years, from about £100million in the early 1990s toabout £5.8 billion in 2017–18.Much of this (£3.5 billion in2017–18) finances freeen�tlement to part-�me earlyyears educa�on and childcare.These increases have mainlyreflected more hours of childcarebeing provided most recently, for

the majority of working parents,thirty hours (2017-18). Demandhas grown to meet the increasinglevel of free en�tlement.

The problem with the system isthat it incorrectly presumes thechoices people will make (noteveryone has children ornecessarily wants their childlooked a�er by someone else).Everyone is compelled to fundthis free en�tlement throughtaxa�on.

Many working parents ques�onthe need for fi�een hours of childcare for non-working parents whomay not need childcare at all. Thepolicy is arbitrary and clumsy.

As the Nuffield 2018 AnnualReport on Educa�on Spending inEngland states, “there are twomain related challenges for earlyyears funding over the next fewyears. First, successfulimplementa�on of the new 30

A Libertarian governmentwill leave students thefreedom to pursuealternative educationalavenues.

EDUCATIONFREEDOM TO PURSUE


hours extended en�tlement willrequire providers to be willing tooffer it, given the fundingavailable. To date, many have, butthere is significant geographicalvaria�on in take-up rates.”

There are many reasons why thegovernment is facing “varia�on intake-up”. In any case, even withgovernment funding – the strictregula�on (also imposed by thegovernment) to do with ra�os ofproviders to children and theinspec�on regime discouragesproviders from offering places -especially to younger children.Arguably what the governmentcontributes does not fully coverthe hourly cost of a nursery place

either, so even with all thisspending – it isn’t enough.Parents are therefore forced totop up the cost of placesthemselves or else risk strugglingto find any childcare at all. Theuse of ‘tax-free’ childcareaccounts through HMRC is notwithout technical andadministra�ve problems. Thisnicely demonstrates howgovernment interven�on and‘assistance’ is actually harmful inreducing parental choices andincreasing costs for all.

The Nuffield Report con�nues“Second, it is not clear how andwhether the new Early YearsNa�onal Funding Formula can be

used to promote high-qualityprovision. Whilst the new fundingsystem is welcome in ensuringtransparency and consistency infunding alloca�ons, it is currentlydifficult for the funding formula toincen�vise and support high-quality provision as there is noagreed defini�on of ‘high-quality’provision. A focus on minimisingcosts could have unintendedconsequences by making it moredifficult for childcare se�ngs toprovide high-quality care thatsupports children’s development.”Whilst opinions on ‘high quality’may differ, regula�ons do not –and with strict ra�os of carers tochildren imposed on providers, itis hardly surprising many placesare finding it tough to providecare at all. It is also worth no�ngthat the ubiquitous term ‘high-quality’ is inherently subjec�vewhen dealing with care, versuseduca�on. One parent’s idea ofhigh quality care (s�mula�ngeduca�onal visits, games,constant interac�on) may workwell for one child, but could bepoten�ally disastrous for anotherwho may find the wholeexperience of nurseryoverwhelming.

SCHOOLSFunding is distributed to localauthori�es who decide how toallocate it to schools in their areasaccording to local formulae. Theimplementa�on of a full school-level na�onal funding formula hasbeen put off un�l at least 2021,which is unsurprising as in thepursuit of fairness this willproduce a blunt straight jacket ofover-complexity just as it has forthe ‘early years’.

When school rolls increase,schools a�ract addi�onal perpupil funding. This results in manystate schools being crammed withstudents so as to a�ain funding ina desperate a�empt to balancethe books without thought. Withincreasing class sizes, decreasingteacher numbers and difficulty insa�sfying “Special Educa�onNeeds” pupils – state schools(par�cularly secondary stateschools) arguably a�ract as manyproblems as they solve for asignificant number of studentswho are expelled, distressed ormerely dri� to the back of theclass where they learn li�le.Whilst the state school systemworks for some, it clearly doesn’t

Working parentsquestion the needfor fifteen hoursof child care fornon-working parents.


work for everyone. Educa�onalestablishments in theindependent sector and homeeduca�on – thankfully - bridgesome of the gap between theeduca�on society desires andwhat is a�ained. All the while,state spending on educa�on iss�ll increasing.

There is also the controversial‘pupil premium’ wheregovernment directs funds toschools with pupils with par�cularneeds. Despite these measures,the Educa�on Select Commi�eehas recently launched an inquiryinto the funding of schools andcolleges. Clearly, even with thebest inten�ons, costs con�nuallyrise and the system isn’t workingfor everyone.

Whilst poli�cal par�es andgovernments are making apoli�cal football out of educa�on,significant change at rapid pacehas occurred under drivinggovernments and comes with itsown costs. The numbers ofstudents in secondary school iscurrently rising, yet the number ofteachers is not keeping up. Whilstsalary increases have recentlycome in effect to mi�gate teacher

losses, it has been argued theseare ‘misplaced and over-generous’- according to the Taxpayers’Alliance - in light of the perksafforded to public sector workersover the private sector. With themany conflic�ng headlines,opinions and the naturaldivergence in children’seduca�onal needs, teachers’altering working condi�ons anddisputes over parental preroga�ve– we have ended up with a sectorrun on emo�on not logic. It is notsurprising we now have aneduca�on system with increasingcosts but mixed results.

The Libertarian Party believes themain problem with educa�on isits inflexibility. Prescrip�veelements which purport to fitindividuals into one mould do notwork with a popula�on as diverseas ours.

FURTHER EDUCATIONBy 16, young people can con�nuein full-�me educa�on at a schoolsixth form, sixth-form college orfurther educa�on college. Ofthose con�nuing in full-�meeduca�on, most will take A levels.However, there is a vast range of

other voca�onal qualifica�ons onoffer, par�cularly at furthereduca�on colleges. Young peoplecan combine part-�me work andeduca�on or training, including inan appren�ceship. Historically,many young people have alsoopted to move straight into paidemployment, though this hasbecome less common over �me.Nonetheless, these alterna�vesare ones a Libertariangovernment would keep open.

The further educa�on sector alsoprovides educa�on and trainingfor adults, which has historicallybeen the main focus of the sector.There are a broad range ofeduca�on and training op�onsavailable for adults, includingformal educa�on qualifica�ons inclassroom-based se�ngs (usually

taken part-�me), appren�ceshipsand shorter training courses, aswell as basic courses in Englishand Maths. This we would notmess with.

HIGHER EDUCATIONUnder the current highereduca�on (HE) funding system inEngland, it costs around £17billion to fund the educa�on ofeach cohort of undergraduatestudents. This includes the cost ofteaching for three or more yearsand funding towards the cost ofliving while at university for morethan 350,000 students.

Ini�ally, this cost is fundeden�rely from governmentfinances. In the long run,however, graduates makerepayments on their student loans

We now have aneducation system withincreasing costs butmixed results.


and the cost is split betweentaxpayers and students (althoughin prac�ce most students neverfully repay their loan).

Few students have to pay tui�onfees up front. Most students cantake out government-backedloans to cover the full cost oftui�on fees and contributetowards the cost of living (to doso, they must be UK domiciledand taking their firstundergraduate degree). Theseloans are repaid on an income-con�ngent basis; graduates repaya propor�on of their income overa certain threshold and anyoutstanding loan is wri�en off atthe end of the repayment period.This system ensures that high-earning graduates contributetowards the cost of their degrees

and there is insurance forgraduates who have periods oflow earnings. This has not alwaysbeen the case. In the 1990s,provision was funded throughdirect teaching grants paid touniversi�es by government whilegraduates did not contributetoward the cost of higherdegrees. Sequen�al reforms in1998, 2006 and 2012 introducedand increased tui�on fees. Thesereforms, alongside the relaxa�onof controls on the number ofstudents that universi�es couldaccept, have served to create aquasi-market in which universi�escompete to a�ract new students.

This system is expensive fortaxpayers and does li�le toeducate people in prudence. Itteaches people the government

will pay for their choice – even if,a�er paying for it, that personmay not be able to use it tosecure a viable career a�erwards,let alone repay their loan. It alsoignores the u�lity of certaindegrees (Engineering, Medicine)and seems to equate them withdegrees which, whilst thoroughlyinteres�ng and culturally valuable,do not result in a viable career(e.g. some arts subjects, andspurious courses such as ‘GenderStudies’). Some people would sayrecent moves to higher studentinterest rates on loan repaymentsare immoral, for sure many peoplecannot reasonably hope to pay offtheir loans, let alone interest, andnot least thanks to further taxhikes (to pay for more students tostudy).

A Libertarian government willencourage sponsorship, bursaries,scholarships and bonds by allsectors of the economy to freethe Universi�es, Polytechnics andTechnical Colleges from stateinterference.

This system is expensivefor taxpayers and doeslittle to educate people inprudence.


1. ABOLITION OFCOMPULSORYEDUCATIONANDCOMPULSORYINSPECTION FORCHILDRENUNDER SEVENYEARSOFAGEThe Finnish educa�on system,one of the most effec�ve in theworld, produces happy children

who do not begin their formalschooling before this age – andwe believe this is a big reasonwhy.

BENEFITSParents may choose what is bestfor their own children up to thisage – whether that is for parentsto enjoy be�er living through alow cost Libertarian world, andhave a parent stay at home tocare for their children, or employa child-minder, or an alterna�vechildcare provider (who doesn’tmake arbitrary claims of ‘free’hours).

NOTESThe Libertarian government willscale back most regula�on ofchildcare providers, removearbitrary minder-child ra�os andgovernment inspec�ons. Thiswould increase the number ofchildcare providers entering themarket-place and reduce childcarecosts. This would help manyparents, especially when weconsider that childcare costs for atwo child couple are the mostexpensive in the world! It wouldalso incen�vise much needed, yetmaligned child-minders who havecared for many children, o�enalongside their own. This wasbefore the advent of the 2008regula�ons, Ofsted inspec�onsand ensuing increased trainingcosts and procedures which drovemany out of the role. We would

replace the current system with avoucher based one, “A Scholarshipfor every Child”, with top upop�ons available to parents tofacilitate personal preferences.Our system will give all parents(regardless of earnings andcircumstance) the power of choicewith their resources and the bestproviders the freedom to care forchildren without stateinterference. The market willdecide which providers aresuccessful and which are not,giving back the power to parents.Our aim is to enable parents tohold providers to account and, iffound wan�ng, to take theirbusiness elsewhere. We wouldscrap current early years spending.In place of £5.5 billion of spendingwould be the voucher op�on(described in more detail below).


2. ASCHOLARSHIPFOR EVERY CHILDA Libertarian government willprovide vouchers to all parents tocover the cost of their child’s earlyyears and secondary educa�on,and give them the op�on to topup the voucher to pay for superiorproviders. This will lead to a truemarketplace in school educa�on.

BENEFITSWhen the market moved byparental choice holds schools toaccount, and parents can voteover educa�on with their feet,higher quality educa�on willincrease naturally and lowestquality fall by the way.

NOTESThe Libertarian government willnurture a surplus of places tofacilitate the power of parentalchoice. Poorly performing schoolswill either reform and improve, beabsorbed by others, or simply closedue to lack of parental support (ifvouchers are "spent" elsewhere).Coupled with this, we will add acomponent essen�al to anysuccessful voucher system — wewill enable people to found schoolswherever they wish and for exis�ngschools to opt out of direct statecontrol. We do not envisage a masssell-off of state assets, but a switchto independent not-for-profit andprivate en��es compe�ng openly.Independent schools will be free toset up wherever they wish.

A Libertarian government willremove targets for grades andfunding and end centrally imposedtargets. The arbiters of anyeduca�on system should bestudents, parents and employers,so that the onus is on the individualto aspire, parents to pressure, theins�tu�on to facilitate and theemployer to select their preferredcandidates. The state’s role willthen be redundant.

Exam boards will be freed fromgovernment grade gerrymanderingand schools will be free to adoptthe exam boards of their choice.Ofqual could be transferred out ofgovernment and be funded byschools to administer exams. Thiswill place schools and the examboard in a direct rela�onship witheach other to foster exper�se,undistracted by the state.

Selec�on, se�ng and streamingmust be the decision of theindividual schools – a�er all, eachschool and its demographic – isdifferent.

A Libertarian government will insiston the aboli�on of all unnecessaryquangos in educa�on, most notably– Ofsted, which is fit to causedistress and disillusionment toeduca�on professionals and li�leelse. The private sector have theirown inspectorate – ISI – who arenothing like Ofsted. We will seethat inspec�ons are a voluntaryprocess for ins�tu�ons (thoughpublishing the results could bemandatory) who wish to inspireconfidence in parents.

Some parents pay to send theirchildren to private schools andresults are good. These schools areinspected by ISI, so all schools

could be inspected by ISI instead, ifthey wished.

The aboli�on of unnecessaryquangos has saved the taxpayerquite a sum of money already, butwe would go further. We shallremove from Local Educa�onAuthori�es their veto and controlover the establishment, fundingand administra�on of schools. Thiswill render arbitrary and confusinggovernment ‘funding formulae’,which the government itself cannotseem to fathom (as men�onedabove under ‘early years’)redundant.

We shall encourage and promotehome educa�on and onlinelearning pla�orms (a�er all,students are using the la�eralready). As people are individuals,their educa�on should also beunique and tailored according totheir wishes and needs. There shallbe no s�gma to ‘home educa�on’ -children are not invisible if they arebeing taught at home. We advocatethis method of learning as one ofmany educa�onal choices,alongside the burgeoning onlineeduca�on market (of which thereare many innova�ve ways forparents to spend their vouchers oneduca�on).


3. REPEALCOMPULSORYEDUCATIONANDTRAINING FORAGES SEVENTEENAND EIGHTEENWe reject the concept of"educa�onal conscrip�on" thatforces people to remain ineduca�on un�l 18.

BENEFITSStudents may leave school at 16to pursue alterna�ve training,including appren�ceships. Theintroduc�on of T Levels is asensible strategy to introduce apost 16 qualifica�on that relatesto a specific industry (andtherefore has a higher chance ofgaining a viable career at the end).Anyone ‘not in educa�on,employment or training’ will befree to work or train or, if theyprefer and can afford to, supportthemselves.

4. DISTILLATIONOFTHEUNIVERSITIESEn��es that cannot provide thefull University range — Bachelor,Masters, Doctorate and researchfacul�es — shall no longer becalled Universi�es, they are‘Colleges’.

BENEFITSAt root this measure is aboutrestoring focus on excellence ineduca�on. Reversing thedebasement of the termuniversity will also make the termcollege more informa�ve. This isnot the same thing asdenigra�ng it.

NOTESWe shall abolish all quotas ineduca�on and provide technicalcolleges as well as universi�es,promote appren�ceships and theemployment of the useful over theconceptual in educa�on. Arguablyeduca�on is provided for peopleto obtain gainful employment/career progression at least asmuch as it is for enjoyment!

We advocate the dismantling ofany subsidies distor�ng the marketand size of the Universitypopula�on.

We shall abolish the student loanssystem (which is currently risky totaxpayers and merely enables the

rise of a whole host of hedonistdegrees – the u�lity of which hasno place being funded by thestate). In place of the studentloans system we would facilitatethe ISA (Income Share Agreement)which would be the backbone offunding to university and highereduca�on. This will reduce therisks to all par�es involved,especially students. Those avenuesof study not funded by thesemethods could be self-funded bythe student making their ownfinancial arrangements. This wouldin turn reduce the number ofspurious courses currentlyextor�ng vast sums for li�le,prac�cal gain.

5. EX-MILITARYEDUCATIONA Libertarian government willgrant an educa�on voucher forany three year course at ter�aryor higher educa�on level to thosewho have been in Military serviceof five years or more. Serving ourcountry comes with benefits –this is one.


“Intellectual growthshould commence atbirth and cease only atdeath.” - Einstein


SPENDINGCHANGESPER ANNUM INCREASES IN SPENDING ARE IN RED AND REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING IN BLACK

Ex-military further or higher educa�on courseen�tlement 0.5

We provide for £23,000 per annum for three years (£15,000 for fees and £8,000 for living) to circa tenthousand ex-service personnel per annum. This is then discounted by 30% being an es�mate of exis�ngex-military annual educa�on support costs. Unlike our proposal the exis�ng system funds just fees, andthose not always, not living expenses.


Early years 0.2Costs are £5.8 billion. This we would scrap. We assume savings of 8%, a�er 4% costs for administra�onof the voucher system, through aboli�on of the inspec�on and licensing regime.

0.1 Aboli�on of Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Educa�on)..

Schools 1.3Schools costs are £65.5 billion. We assume savings of 1%, a�er costs for administra�on of the vouchersystem, through aboli�on of the exis�ng administra�ve regime and 1% through increased home study

Higher Educa�on 3.4

Higher educa�on costs are £17 billion. We es�mate savings of 20% through movement away fromhedonis�c degrees, through unsound loans withheld not having to be wri�en off and through those notsecuring free market loans (secured in many cases through tax breaks) or scholarships choosing not toenter higher educa�on.


Decreased interest payments 0.1

TOTAL IMPACT ON PUBLIC FINANCES 5.2

NOTES



The 1989 Children's Act gives thebulk of decision making onresidence to any child deemed“Gillick competent”, a�er the testcase on child's consent that wentto the House of Lords. Whilsttrying to make the child thepriority in issues of residencedispute, the Act created as manyproblems as it solved. Such is thediscrimina�on that fathers are noteven called fathers, but “non-resident” parents.

Between 2003 and 2015, 8,515non-resident parents died earlycompared to 3,090 residentparents.

Family breakdown is es�mated tocost the state £49bn per year,more than the current defencebudget.

A child’s best interests is judgedto be the same as ‘mother bestinterests’, se�ng a precedent forsubsequent disputes.

Older “Gillick competent” childrenare able to play one parentagainst the other, op�ng to takeup residence with the one whomost easily accedes to theirwishes. This does not alwaysbenefit the child in the long run. Itis also worth no�ng that childrenas young as eight or nine can be

judged to be such, below the ageof criminal responsibility.

Furthermore, with 50% of FamilyCourt orders being ignored, thenon-resident parent is powerlessas breaching the orders is a civiloffence rather than a criminalone.

Ma�ers of custody and accesswere removed from the Legal Aidumbrella in 2011.

Finally, the non-resident parent iscurrently liable for childmaintenance, the full cost of childtransfers between residences,bedroom tax if they keep a roomfor their offspring and all legalcosts.

Primary considera�ons given hereare:

■ The benefit to children ofhaving a meaningfulrela�onship with bothparents.

■ The protec�on of childrenfrom psychological harm,abuse or violence.

■ Any tangible threat to thechild should override all else.

To this end we would:

■ Make 50:50 responsibility thedefault se�ng.

■ Protect the child.

■ Open the secre�ve FamilyCourts.

■ Criminalise any breach ofcustody orders and transferthe expenses of subsequentcourt cases to the side whobreached the order in the firstplace.

■ Dismantle the ChildMaintenance Service.

A legal presumption ofequal rights andresponsibilities.

FAMILY LAW POLICYWANTING THE BEST FOR OUR CHILDREN


1. AN EQUALRELATIONSHIPWITH BOTHPARENTSThis policy is designed to give allchildren a right in law to have ameaningful rela�onship with bothof their parents. There should bea legal presump�on of equalrights and responsibili�es, similarto Florida state legisla�on, withno presump�on for or against thefather or mother of the child.

There should be a legallyrebu�able presump�on of 50:50shared paren�ng (or equality) asthe star�ng point. In prac�se, afull 50:50 package may not bepossible, with 60:40 and 70:30arrangements found to be moreprevalent and workable. Paren�ngarrangements should be based onthe status quo at the �me of

separa�on and a workableparen�ng plan between thepar�es.

There is nothing mandatory aboutthis right. It would be deemed tobe in the child's best interest forone parent to have sole custody ifthe second is reluctant.

Benefits would be split pro-rataaccording to percentage of careand any level of care over 30%would give a bedroomen�tlement if the parent is insocial housing. The shared carearrangement and split benefitswould then be an incen�ve forboth parents to work andcontribute to the economy. Thecurrent system reduces dads tostatus of cashpoints and spermbanks. Child support must meanemo�onal and financial support.

The cost of transfer can also be aburden, especially in cases when

one parent has moved anydistance from the previous familyhome. The righ�ul solu�on is forthis cost to be shared, with eachparent making their share of thejourneys.

Once established, the shared carearrangement should be appliedun�l the child is 18, or reachesthe end of Year 13, whichever isthe la�er. This gives the childstability and security throughouthis/her school years. Schoolswould be obligated to informboth parents equally of anyprogress, problems or specialevents in the child's academic life.Both parents should be able toaccess medical records. Taking theshared paren�ng to 18 also givesboth parents the security to settheir own rules and discipline,without the threat of the childthreatening to change their placeof residence in protest.

NOTESImagine the scenario:

Father gets a court order for120 nights staying contact.

Mother goes to CSA.

CSA decide maintenance andpayments go on for 12 months.

Mother breaks the Court Order.

Mother then approaches CSAclaiming father only has stayingcontact for 30 nights per year.True number is about 70 nights.

CSA approach father to confirmthe 30-night claim.

In other words, the mothercould break the law and gets apay rise as a punishment.


2. PROTECTIONOFTHE CHILDAny convic�ons for domes�cviolence will also be seen asdetrimental to the child andarrangements for �me-sharingwould need to be agreed toprotect the child or abusedspouse from further harm.

Since the introduc�on ofpresumed equal responsibility inAustralia during 2006, children inshared paren�ng arrangementshave the lowest recordedincidence of child abuse there,lower than that of intact families.Conversely, children in SoleCustody arrangements have the

highest. Over 70% of all familialchild abuse occurs in singlemother households.

Children should be protectedfrom domes�c violence. We willremove the incen�ve for makingfalse allega�ons as the only way aparent can access Legal Aid forfamily court ma�ers. Wherecurrently only a complaint isneeded, domes�c violence claimsshould be subject to the criminalburden of proof before legal aid isawarded for family court ma�ers.

Any parent who is the vic�m ofdomes�c violence may apply forlegal aid to restrict the access ofthe violent parent to the children.

3. OPEN THEFAMILY COURTSFamily Proceedings are normallyheld in private. Since 2010,members of the press have beenallowed to a�end. The right toa�end hearings does not,however, grant the right to reporton proceedings or public detailsof proceedings. We believe thatthe proper scru�ny of a free pressmust be applied to all courtmachina�ons.

4. CRIMINALISEBREACH OFCUSTODYORDERSMedia�on would remain in placein an effort to keep cases fromgoing to court, althoughmedia�on rarely works at presentas one parent has all the powerand there is no incen�ve tonego�ate. Shared paren�ng willchange that.

For those cases that do require acourt order, enforcement needsto be effec�ve, including thetransfer of residence from arecalcitrant parent. Parents whodeny contact and/or breach saidorders should not be able to actwith impunity and a jail term mustbe considered as they are withparents of truan�ng children.


5. DISMANTLETHE CHILDMAINTENANCESERVICEThe opera�ng cost of the ChildMaintenance Service in 2015/16was £114 million. Sadly, theincome obtained by fees andcharges in the same year was just£8.5 million, less than 10% of thetotal running cost. Closing thedepartment would save on publicexpenditure.


Great Britain has some of thestrictest shoo�ng laws in theworld. The logic behind this stateof affairs is that if you makefirearms almost impossible toobtain legally criminals wont getany. The flaw in this reasoning isto presume, given that there is a

regime in place for the provisionof legal firearms, that criminalswill obtain firearms by the samemeans as non-criminals. Criminalswill want nothing to do with anylegally administered process forobtaining firearms. They will wantto obtain firearms anonymously

and do so despite the obstacles toobtaining firearms legally. Indeed,in 2016-17 there were 6,375firearms offences in England andWales. Of the circa 4,200commi�ed with non air poweredfirearms about 1,600 were usedin robberies, 400 were instancesof criminal damage and so about2,200 were crimes againstpersons of which about fi�y eightper cent were with hand guns andtwenty nine per cent withimita�on guns and twelve percent with shot guns. There werethirty two homicides with guns in2017 and twenty nine in 2018.

The �ght gun laws of today weremostly put in place following theDunblane massacre of 1996 inwhich sixteen young children andtheir teacher were shot dead witha legally licenced firearm in theownership of Thomas Hamilton.

In the wake of this incident theFirearms amendment of 1997banned handguns from privateownership. The law was further�ghtened in 2010 a�er DerrickBird shot twelve people dead withboth a licenced rifle and alicenced shot gun. For example, in2012 the maximum punishmentfor the illegal importa�on offirearms into the UK wasincreased to life.

According to the Home Officefirearms crimes increasedbetween 1998 and 2002 by circa100% from 5,000 to 10,000 peryear. This was much faster thanviolent crime in general. Over thesame period licenced firearmownership fell by twenty five percent. But in 2000 The Guardiannewspaper reported that sincethe 1997 ban on handguns thenumber of illegal firearms in the

Individuals shouldbe punished forwrongdoing but licencedshooting should notbe criminalised in ablanket fashion.

FIREARMSNOT THROWING THE BABYOUT WITH THE BATHWATER


UK had increased 50% from twoto three million.

In 1625 in Jacobean Englandmurder was about twelve �mesmore likely than it is today (in1200 it was fi�y �mes morelikely) but by 1775 it had fallen tobeing about twice as likely. Thisrose back up to three �mes morelikely in 1862 but by 1887touched new lows being thensixty per cent more likely. In 1962murder was forty per cent morelikely per head than it is now.

For the last eight hundred yearsour society has been movingaway from being murderous. Thisis not the result of �ghterfirearms laws. They were no morerestric�ve in 1775 than in 1862.This is the result of morefundamental changes in howwelive and are. These deep changeswould provide a horizon for

people’s behaviour even in arather different legalenvironment. Indeed, the steadydecline in homicides in Englandsince 1200 is characteris�c of therest of Western Europe toomaking the point that the changeis so fundamental that it effectsmany diverse socie�essimultaneously. This is reason tosuppose that if firearms were asavailable today as they were in1862 that we nonetheless wouldnot murder ourselves as o�en aswe then did. This history is abackdrop to the Libertarian PartyUK’s belief in evidence basedpolicy. We dislike knee jerkpolicy-making.

The Libertarian Party UK believesindividuals should be punishedfor wrongdoing but licencedshoo�ng should not becriminalised in a blanket fashionand our policies are to that end.

1. REVIEWOFTHE1997 HAND GUNOWNERSHIP BANA Libertarian government willgrant the review a wide remit toanalyse the effect of the lawincluding the costs ofadministra�on and policing asagainst the lives that may besaved more effec�vely in otherways by use of the same money. Ifthe review finds that there hasbeen li�le or no impact on guncrime or that the ban is not themost effec�ve way of saving lives

or crea�ng confidence in thepeacefulness of our societyamong the public then the op�onof licenced ownership of handguns will be given back to gunclub members and people whoshoot compe��vely for sport.

BENEFITSDepending on the evidence of thereview resources to save lives willbe deployed more effec�vely andresponsible ci�zens will be free topursue firearm sports withoutbeing treated as poten�almurderers.

NOTESNorthern Ireland operates a twelve month proba�on system for theownership of hand guns for ve�ed pistol club members and a Libertariangovernment would introduce such a system into England and Wales too.


2. AMENDING THEVIOLENT CRIMEREDUCTIONACT 2006A Libertarian government willincrease punishment for thosewho break the law with air guns,non-firing replicas or blank firingdevices but will removerestric�ons on the ownership ofsuch machines.

BENEFITSThe responsible user of air gunsor the person wishing to ownnon-firing replicas will not berestricted in doing so as if shewere a ne’er-do-well.

3. REVIEWOFTHE FIREARMSLICENSINGSYSTEMA Libertarian government willreview the firearms licensingsystem with a view to opening itup to tender if review determinesthat the system is an excessiveburden on the police.

BENEFITSAn organisa�on focused on thespecialised ques�on of whoshould and who should not hold alicence and mo�vated to maintainthis focus in a cost effec�ve waywill work be�er than a policedepartment manned by officerswho would be be�er deployeddoing less administra�ve work.

4. RE-CLASSIFYNOT LETHALITEMSRemoval of not lethal items, suchas pepper sprays, from the aegisof the firearms law sec�on five.

BENEFITSIt is not helpful to subject itemsof an essen�ally defensive nature,such as pepper sprays, to thesame controls under sec�on five(which covers “firearms” that arenot legal under Sec�ons 1 and 2which, for example, shot gunswith limited shell numbers are) aspoten�ally lethal weapons thatare as useful to aggressors as todefenders. This correc�on willallow people to defendthemselves in a propor�onateway.

CONCLUSIONIn a future Manifesto it is possiblethat we will consider, and adoptposi�ons, on the more wide-ranging ques�on of therela�onship between the humanright of self-defence, includingwith arms, and a government (assay the German government wasin the nineteen thir�es) that wasin breach of its people’s, or someof its people’s, inalienable rights.


Britain is a peaceful trading na�onand a global financial centre.Britain is also a strong militarypower. Under a Libertariangovernment Great Britain willplough its own furrow and not bedictated to even by strongerpowers.

The Libertarian Party applaudsHarold Wilson’s independentminded decision to keep Britainout of the VietnamWar. We decryPresident Reagan’s decision in

1983 to invade the Bri�sh Crowndependency of Grenada withoutconsul�ng with the Bri�shGovernment as to his plans.George Orwell called GreatBritain ‘Airstrip one’ because ofthe number of heavy bombersbased in the country, Britain’srela�onship with the UnitedStates should not be one ofproviding the USAwith a poli�calfig leaf for American policies wedon’t agree with.

1. EXIT FROMTHEEUROPEANCUSTOMS UNIONThe Libertarian Party is opposedto membership of the EuropeanCustoms Union.

BENEFITSExit from the European CustomsUnion will deliver the best of bothworlds allowing imports from theEuropean Union to flowwithoutfric�on or regulatory cost intoBritain while simultaneouslyallowing goods from the rest ofthe world to do so equally.Removal of import tariffs bylowering all costs, as far aspossible, will result in a moreproduc�ve economy, morecompe��ve exports anddispropor�onate gain to thepoorest of the ci�zenry due tomore cheaper and be�er food,foot ware and clothing.

2. EXIT FROMTHEEUROPEANCOMMONMARKETThe Libertarian Party is opposedto membership of the EuropeanCommon Market the terms ofwhich require Britain to financecompliance with regula�ons notin its best interest, as well ascompelling Britain to deny entryof imports into the UK that are ofhigher quality, safer and cheaperthan those from Europe on originand/or other regulatory grounds.

BENEFITSExit from the European CommonMarket will allow imports fromthe EU to flowwithout fric�on orregulatory cost into Britain sinceat present, even within theCommon Market, there aredocumentary burdens on goods

Under a Libertariangovernment GreatBritain will plough itsown furrow and not bedictated to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRSFREE, FEDERAL AND INDEPENDENT


moving to and fro. At the same�me goods from the rest of theworld will be able to flow freelyinto the UK too. The EuropeanCommon market is movingincreasingly to precise conformityin wording for regulatory controlson imports. If another countrydoes not write its laws with theexact same words as the EU itsgoods may be banned. The freerand be�er approach is to definefrom which countries necessarystandards are deemed equivalentand then to withdraw control onthose countries for whom that isso. This could be all countriesrepealing the very idea of statecontrol over goods.

Ending European over-regula�oncombined with the rule thatEuropean goods will be treated asequivalent in all ma�ersregulatory to Bri�sh goods wouldyield a win win situa�on. Noobstacle to imports from Europeand no European obstacles toimports from the wider world.

3. EXIT FROMTHEPOLITICALEUROPEANUNIONThe Libertarian Party is opposedto membership of the EuropeanUnion. Indeed, as a party we havedeclined to stand candidates inthe 2019 European elec�on so asto avoid gran�ng legi�macy to anillegi�mate authority. We are alsoopposed to payment in full of thees�mated £38 billion divorce billthat the EU states is notnego�able.

BENEFITSIndependence will enrich thefreedom and wealth of thecountry. It is the necessary,though not sufficient, condi�on ofthe brightest possible future forour people.

4. FREEMOVEMENTOFPEOPLEBETWEENCANADA,AUSTRALIA, NEWZEALANDANDTHE UK (CANZUK)The Libertarian Party roots thispolicy in the common law historyof the four countries and thematurity of their respec�vedemocracies. The LibertarianParty strongly supports theCANZUK ini�a�ve.

BENEFITSMore freedom and as aconsequence greater economicgrowth and happiness.

5. FULLYINTEGRATE THEBRITISHOVERSEASTERRITORIESINTO THE UKA Libertarian government willcon�nue the diploma�c andmilitary protec�on of theFalklands and Bri�sh OverseasTerritories as long as the peoplethere wish to remain Bri�sh.

A Libertarian Party governmentwill emulate the French approachto overseas departments. Thepeople of Bermuda and theCayman Islands will becomeBri�sh ci�zens. Each will berepresented by a member ofparliament for two in total. Thepeople of Gibraltar, the Turks andCaicos, Montserrat, Anguilla, SaintHelena, Ascension, Tristan DeCunha and the Falklands will begiven ci�zenship as well and havea member of parliament too. Theci�zens of each of these threecons�tuencies will hold FullBri�sh Ci�zenship and be en�tled


to be represented in Parliamentby their three MPs, ending anydoubt over their sovereignty.

BENEFITSThe people of the overseasterritories will no longer besecond class and both they andthe Bri�sh Home Islands peoplewill be enriched by the new,mutual and more democra�crela�onship.

6. “TRADE NOTAID,” MAKE THEDEPARTMENTOFINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENTREDUNDANT0.7 % of the na�onal budget isarbitrarily directed at Foreign Aid.This Aid is corrosive to therecipient country and createsdependency among its recipients.

BENEFITSAn end to the inequity thatdomes�c UK ci�zens live inpoverty while taxpayers financekleptocracies overseas.

7. UNILATERALFREE TRADEIt is a misconcep�on that freetrade deals need to be struck. Onthe contrary, a Libertariangovernment will ensure that wetrade freely unilaterally.

BENEFITSEconomic growth will bemaximised with dispropor�onatebenefit to those most poor.

NOTESThe Bri�sh Overseas Territorieshave a combined popula�on ofcirca 208,000. Theircons�tuencies will therefore befour per cent smaller than thenorm for England but twentyone percent larger than than thenorm for, say, Wales.

NOTES“Aid is the process by whichpoor people in rich countriessubsidise rich people in poorcountries.” Peter Bauer,Development Economist

NOTES




INCREASES IN SPENDING ARE IN RED AND REDUCTIONS INSPENDING IN BLACK

Department of Interna�onalDevelopment made redundant 9.2

Net payments to the EU ended. 9.0





In the UK there is considerablepride in the doctors and nurseswho make up the Na�onal HealthService. Since 1948, when theNa�onal Health Service wasfounded, through a fear of losingthe good in the Health Service wehave become enslaved to the bad.We have in turn accepted the badas “part of the system”. In recentyears this acceptance of the badhas been alive and well in socialmedia campaigns calling onpeople to save “Our NHS” and toshare stories of how the Na�onalHealth Service saved our lives. Acult has arisen around the NHSdestruc�ve not only of health but

also of the ins�tu�on itself in sofar as it fosters the situa�on inwhich no one is allowed tocri�cise the administra�on ofhealth care.

Any organisa�on, including theNHS, that is not listening to andresponding to cri�cism is des�nedto decay and eventually fail.

The Libertarian Party cares deeplyabout the healthcare services ofthis country. We want to create asystem that ensures that thebudget for health is deployedefficiently, that it is healthcareprofessionals and not poli�ciansthat decide how funding should

be used, that health care fundingis clear and visible to everyonewho is paying for it and that theability of poli�cians to play tricksand games with healthcare byreducing one part of thehealthcare budget so that theycan claim they are increasinganother part comes to an end.

Finally, we want to see a modernhealthcare system where peopleare more responsible for theirown health and providing for itand so are freer to decide whatlevel of cover they think most fitfor themselves. For example, if aperson chooses to eat too much(and we understand that there is agene�c and cultural element tothis as well as one of personalchoice), or to engage in micro-light flying or mountaineering,ac�vi�es that they know carryunusually high risks, such personswould have reason to invest inmore than standard cover. By

contrast a person who lived ahealthier or low risk life stylewould have reason to choose lessextra cover all other things beingequal. So this would result in abe�er fit between cover andresources and the management ofhealth risks not inherent orunavoidable. Best of all it wouldcreate an incen�ve for a healthierlifestyle. Because basic healthcare, for example for emergencycare, would be financedcompulsorily this would retaincare in the worst case for all butat the same �me it would lead toa more nuanced care system fornon emergency care which willtend to make the system be�erand more appropriate to eachpa�ent overall.

One element of the presentsystem that we need to ba�le isthe no�on of “Our NHS”. Thisno�on is a way of promo�ng theidea that there is only a choice

A patient focused,politics free,health care service.

HEALTHBETTER HEALTH FOR ALL


between the NHS and nothing. Infact many countries have highlysuccessful hybrid models thatprovide great value for money aswell as more effec�ve preven�onand cure. The Libertarian Partyrejects the no�on that it is theNa�onal Health Service systemthat saves people’s lives when infact it is nurses and doctors thatdo. Indeed, the excessivebureaucracy in the system ises�mated to kill 40,000 peopleper year. People’s lives are savedin the NHS despite the systemnot because of it. In a pa�entfocused, poli�cs free, healthcareservice those same nurses anddoctors would be at liberty tofocus on the treatments andpolicies that offer the greatestpossible benefit to pa�ents. Wesupport nurses and doctors notcivil servants.

1. DEVOLUTIONOF HEALTH CAREThe Libertarian government willestablish regional health councilsto run regional health services.This is in accordance with ourcommitment to localism and ourwish to disperse powerdownwards to smaller ins�tu�onsas well as to make more decisionslocally.

BENEFITSDecisions made locally will bemore appropriate to local needsand more reflec�ve of localwishes.

2. HEALTH CAREINDEPENDENTOFGOVERNMENTCONTROLMembers of the regional healthcouncils will be answerable onlyto the electorate and pa�ents. Assuch they will be free of poli�calcontrol.

BENEFITSRegional health councils will beinsulated from na�onal poli�csand so will no longer be kickedaround as a poli�cal football. Theleadership of these organisa�onswill be health care professionalswhose appointment will be byelec�on (as well as healthqualifica�ons and experience). Toprotect our vision for healthcare

free of poli�cs we will require thatcandidates to the health carecouncils be barred from beingmembers of poli�cal par�es, orstanding for other public officerfor ten years a�er serving on thehealth council. This will ensurethat there is no element ofpoli�cal career path involved forpeople taking up this work andrather and only focus onproviding be�er care.


3. REPLACEMENTOF NATIONALINSURANCEPAYMENTS BYALOCAL HEALTHTAXThe Libertarian government willremove Na�onal Insurancededuc�ons and instead securefunds for health by a combina�onof a hypothecated local health taxand compulsory insurance.

BENEFITSA hypothecated local health tax,whose rate would be set locally,will allow everyone to see whatthey are paying for, rather thanhaving that informa�on lostamong general taxa�on, so thatpeople can make clear decisionson the shape of the provision theywant.

4. UNIVERSALHEALTH CAREFUNDED BYCOMPULSORYINSURANCEThe Libertarian government willcreate a compulsory level ofhealth insurance for emergencyand other selected cover that willbe provided to all peopleregardless of their financial andpre-exis�ng medical or gene�ccircumstances.

BENEFITSThe Libertarian government willallow price compe��on betweenhealth insurers to provide basicinsurance. However, the insurerswill be required to provide thepolicy to beneficiaries at the sameprice as each other and with thesame cover being available. Theseinsurance policies will be requiredto be not-for-profit so as to bemo�vated by the delivery of goodservice.

NOTESThe compulsory contribu�on tohealth insurance will be paid fromthe salary (£29,000 average) of thethirty four million workers in theUK and set at 10%. As such it willbring in circa £99 billion. Thiscontribu�on will be topped up bythe local health tax set at a level tobring in £31 billion. The sum ofthese funding sources (£130billion) will reduce governmentspending by forty nine point ninebillion pounds per year. Althoughthis is a serious reduc�on in totalgovernment spending it would notfall on those unable to finance theirown health care. Rather withemergency and other selectedservices available to all for a fixedamount the effect of the reduc�onwould be to create incen�ve forthe wealthiest quarter of thepopula�on to invest more in theirown health care.

Our figures are supported byexamina�on of jurisdic�ons whichmix compulsory health insurancewith funded care. In suchjurisdic�ons public health spendingas a percentage of GPD is,generalising, about 2.5%. Weconserva�vely assume 6.5% ofGDP (£2,014 billion) to derivespending of £130 billion.

An example of a less monolithicmore hybrid system is the SwissHealth care system. In Switzerlandemergency and other selectedservices are provided to everyoneat a basic price. Health is be�erthan in the UK. If an individual hasa pre-exis�ng medical condi�onthey can’t be charged more thansomeone else for emergency andother core services. This policyproposal is not revolu�onary butproven and well tested in otherjurisdic�ons.


NOTESBy crea�ng a system whereaddi�onal cover can be agreedbetween pa�ent and insurer weplace the pa�ent more in controlof their own des�ny and allowthem to arrange cover notavailable on the NHS. In respect ofthese supplementary servicesinsurance companies will bepermi�ed to make a profitintroducing more preven�on and

cure through compe��on into theparts of the service that are notcompulsorily provided to all whichwill be provided on a non-profitmaking basis. This would deliverthe best of both worlds. It wouldensure universal health care but atthe same �me would s�mulateinnova�on and be�er quality carein the long run.

NOTESIn Holland the way this is done isthat the health tax is s�ll levied.It is, however, ring fenced for thecare of the taxpayer only. If,upon the tax payer’s death, ithas not been used in full theaccrued sum is passed to thetaxpayer’s estate.

5. CAPCOMPULSORYINSURANCE ANDTHE HEALTH TAXTO GRADUALLYALLOW CHOICETO COME TOTHE FOREThe compulsory contribu�on toinsurance will be capped at thepercentage, 10%, that wouldresult in revenue of not more thanninety nine billion before infla�onand the health tax at a rate thatwould result in revenue of notmore than thirty one billion

before infla�on. With a cap of thisnature so long as the economyexpanded faster than infla�on,that is to say in real terms, thecompulsory funding element ofthe health system would reducerela�ve to the freely chosenelement as �me passed.

BENEFITSThe Libertarian health system, bydelivering health buying power topa�ents through insuranceprovided collec�vely at a baselevel, would enable people on themost economical universal levelof care to have, through theirrela�onship with their insurer,care more tailored to their wishesand needs while those whotopped up their insurance policy,

to choose care focused onselected addi�onal or alterna�vetreatments, would drive changeand improvement through thewhole system. One hundred andfi�y thousand people per yearleave the UK for medicaltreatment. In Switzerland, whichhas a system of non-profit makingbasic care along with a system ofprofit-making addi�onal services,exactly as we propose, levels ofcare are much be�er. Forexample, the average number ofnurses per thousand people is17.4 whereas in the UK it is 6 andthe average number of doctorsper thousand people is 2.8whereas in Switzerland it is 4.5.

6. THE OPTION TOOPTOUTALONGDUTCH LINESThe Libertarian Party will allow anopt-out procedure (for those notwishing to be benefit from thehealth care service) designed notto compromise the integrity ofthe universal service.


7. POLICIES INTHIS MANIFESTOTO BETRANSITIONALThe policies in this Manifesto aretransi�onal in principal with theinten�on that every aspect ofhealth provision will, in duecourse, be decided uponregionally by the local health

councils and the pa�ents theyrepresent in order to be�er fit thedesires of local people and thenature of the local situa�on.

We believe that by crea�ng asystem focused on healthcare andpa�ents, instead of poli�cians wecan save forty four and a halfbillion pounds per year from thepublicly funded health budgetwhilst simultaneously increasingquality and providing the public

with more say in the nature oftheir own care. This belief is notthe result of wishful thinking ofLibertarian ideology. Instead thisbelief arises from the evidence ofother na�onal health systemschosen as the basis ofobserva�on exactly because theyare acknowledged to deliverbe�er healthcare than GreatBritain does, namely, Holland,Germany and Switzerland. In

these countries customersa�sfac�on is higher, health isgenerally be�er and yet, at thesame �me, the direct cost to thetaxpayer is lower (as a propor�onof GDP) reducing the pressure onpublic sector finance. In addi�onalindividual choice is greater in thema�er of being able to obtainhealth treatments that the moremonolithic Bri�sh system doesnot offer.


SPENDINGCHANGES PERANNUM INCREASES IN SPENDING ARE IN RED AND REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING IN BLACK

136 End of Na�onal Insurance Payments (value derived from 2018-19)

SUB-TOTAL LESS PRUDENT 136

99 Compulsory deduc�ons for Health Insurance

31 Regional Health Tax

49.9

Reduc�on in annual health spend from the 2018-19 figure of £179.5 billion (comprising £152.2billion on health, £35.5 billion on health related long term care - of which £22 billion is governmentspending with the other £13.5 billion out of pocket expenses from pa�ents - plus £10.9 billion oflong term social care - of which we es�mate £6.5 billion is from government so £152.2+£22+£6.5 =£179.9 billion) to the proposed figure of £130 billion.




NOTES


Speaking of governmentoverreach, Ayn Rand observedthat “there's no way to ruleinnocent men. The only powerany government has is the powerto crack down on criminals… [andso government] declares so manythings to be a crime that itbecomes impossible for men tolive without breaking laws.”

We believe governments thathave taken this approach havedone a disservice to their ci�zensand acted outside their legi�mateauthority. Our Home Affairs

Policies seek to address thefollowing areas in ways thatdefend individual freedoms whilemaintaining individualresponsibility:

■ Punishment, Prisons andCommunity Sentences

■ Law and Courts

■ Immigra�on

■ Drugs (including Alcohol andTobacco)

■ Policing

1. PUNISHMENT,PRISONS ANDCOMMUNITYSENTENCESCurrent punishment andsentencing regimes areinadequate and require reform.They fail to reduce crime, can beexcessive in rela�on to somecrimes, insufficient in rela�on toothers and fail to assist vic�ms.

We believe that crime should bedeterred by appropriatepunishment and whereverpossible restore the losses of anyvic�m. We believe incarcera�onshould be used to protectindividuals from violent criminalsand repeat offenders of lessercrimes.

POLICY PROPOSALSWe will ensure that sufficientprison places are available tomake capacity not a factor indeten�on, bail or sentencingdecisions.

We will reserve prison sentencesfor violent or repeat offenders, forlesser crimes first offences will besentenced with communitysentences incorpora�ngappropriate educa�on,reforma�on, res�tu�on andcurfew measures.

We will make prison harsher foruncoopera�ve inmates asnecessary, while rewardingcoopera�on.

We will end the prac�ce of usingregular prisons for theincarcera�on of the mentally ill.

We will bring an end to earlyrelease of the violent or abusive.

Considera�on for gender should

Defending individualfreedoms whilemaintaining individualresponsibility.

HOME AFFAIRSFREEDOM & RESPONSIBILITY


not influence sentencing in orderthat all individuals be treatedequally before the law.

We will improve the provision oftraining and educa�onal facili�eswithin prisons.

We will ensure first �me remandprisoners are kept separate fromother inmates.

We are unequivocally opposed tothe death penalty by the State,instead we will legislate for a Lifeprison term to mean theremainder of the convict’s naturallife.

We are unequivocally opposed tothe use of torture in allcircumstances, such will beclassed as misconduct in a publicoffice in addi�on to othercategories of crime as may beperpetrated and be prosecuted assuch.

We will legislate for prosecu�onof false witnesses and forsentencing to be equivalent tothat which would be given for thefalsely accused crime.

We will legislate that persons mayonly be added to the SexOffenders Register following due

process, that reten�on of aperson on the list be notautoma�c but be expungedfollowing �me served, withrenewable �me limitedextensions being granted only onprovision of evidence andsanc�oned by Jury at eachrenewal.

The libertarian party advocatesres�tu�on as the main form ofpunishment for criminal acts.Res�tu�on will be in the form offinancial recompense to vic�ms incase of accidents and paid atlevels that would be puni�ve tothe perpetrator in case ofdeliberate harm. The vic�m as theone who incurred loss would berepaid, not ‘society’. This will beused in the case of non-violentcrimes and some violent crimes inaddi�on to incarcera�on whereappropriate. Imprisonment isundesirable as a drain on thetaxpayer and will be used as a lastresort in the cases of very violentcrimes or repeat offences of alesser nature.

We will legislate for the followingcrimes to be Capital and carry themaximum ‘remainder of thenatural life’ sentence:

■ Unjus�fied Murder in the firstdegree.

■ Aggravated torture, orextreme violence to anotherwithout jus�fiableprovoca�on, which is lifethreatening.

■ Murder in the Second degreethe second convic�on.

■ Rape of a person over 12years of age the secondconvic�on.

■ Rape of a child under 12.

■ Treason which causes thedeath of another person orpersons.

■ Sexual abuse of a non-consen�ng minor the secondconvic�on.

■ War Crimes convic�on of anyleaders (poli�cal and military)of any na�on.

■ Aggravated the� with adeadly weapon the thirdconvic�on.

We believe incarcerationshould be used toprotect individuals fromviolent criminals.


2. LAWANDCOURTSWe believe that law has reachedfar beyond its legi�mateboundaries, becoming a tool torule, rather than defend theindividual or govern interac�ons.

We propose the following policiesto return law making to its properplace, reduce the number of lawsand regula�ons, restore HabeasCorpus principles which havebeen eroded, make the jus�cesystem accountable to the peopleand remove barriers to jus�ce.

A free people are required to takeindividual responsibility for theirac�ons and where the State stepsaway as nanny individuals muststep forward, to accept bothposi�ve and nega�veconsequences of their choices,and to act voluntarily for the goodand to li� themselves up and theirfellows.

POLICY PROPOSALSWe will abolish the CrownProsecu�on Service. In its placeElected Magistrates would be thebasis of a decision to prosecute.

We will review all currentlegisla�on against the terms of

our cons�tu�on to address theirintrusion on individual rights andenact a programme of reform,repeal and replace with new moreappropriate legisla�on to achievethe same appropriate defensiveaims whilst not infringing on yourindividual rights in keeping withour cons�tu�on.

We will strengthen protec�onsfor freedom of speech, freedomof associa�on, and propertyrights, and will repeal inhibi�onsto ‘right to lawful assembly’, inkeeping with our cons�tu�on.

We will uphold the right to self-defence in protec�ng life, libertyand property.

We will repeal Control Orders.

We will decriminalise all sexualac�vity related to consen�ngadults.

All new legisla�on, laws orregula�ons will be validatedagainst the terms of ourcons�tu�on and rejected if theyare in viola�on.

We will abolish the category ofhate crime, trea�ng all ac�vityequally before the law.

We will enact a programme of

reducing legisla�on requiringthree pre-exis�ng laws orregula�ons to be repealed foreach new law or regula�on beingenacted.

We will end the ‘secret Courtsystem’ that is open to muchabuse.

We will revoke parliamentaryprivilege to require the samestandard of law to be applied toall ci�zens regardless of office.

We will return all criminal trials totrial by an independent jury, freeto judge both the law and fact,and to exercise their discre�onand discharge their consciences,for all criminal cases.

We will restrict plea-bargaining sothat it is not available to anyonewho shares principalresponsibility for a crimereserving it only for lesseraccessories.

We will reform the double systemof solicitors and barristers andestablish a framework allowingsolicitors and barristers torepresent clients in all courts andall types of cases giving morechoice to individuals over whowill represent them.

We will restrict the ability of Stateprosecutors and those involved incivil disputes to employ ‘financialsiege’ tac�cs against theiropponents.

We will return allcriminal trials to trial byan independent jury.


3. IMMIGRATIONWe believe immigra�on policyshould be flexible to meetchanging needs, removeunnecessary barriers where it isdesirable, while protec�ngindividuals from those who woulddo harm.

Our policies are strict but aredrawn up with regard to thosewho approach the processlawfully and follow the rules, notthose who try and bend the rulesor bypass the legally definedprocess.

POLICY PROPOSALSWe will make immigra�on skillsand points based - totally freemovement of people into the UKis not prac�cal whilst the welfaresystem provides an incen�ve andother countries are themselvesnot broadly Libertarian in nature.

We will abolish access toautoma�c State support toimmigrants through subsidisedhousing or any benefits of anykind.

Immigrants will not receive aNa�onal Insurance (NI) numberun�l they have at least five years

contribu�ons to an NI approvedscheme.

We will require all persons beinggranted a residency todemonstrate that they haveadequate medical insurance.

We will establish bilateralagreements with countries toenable free flows of people.

Longer term, and in conjunc�onwith welfare reform, we arecommi�ed to pursuing an openborders policy towards those whowould wish to live here, in orderto contribute to our economy andshare our values.

We will reserve the right to ejector refuse entry to foreignna�onals convicted in a Court oflaw as part of the Government’sprime role in protec�ng thepopula�on and maintaining Ruleof Law.

We will ensure the UK shall havefull control over its immigra�onpolicy, with any right of finalappeal remaining within the UKjurisdic�on.

We will require all Asylum Seekersto present at a UK border or atthe Bri�sh Embassy of a

neighbouring country to theirown, otherwise their claim shallnot be accepted.

We will deny entry to personsrefusing to declare origina�ngcountry and any right to seekasylum will be refused outrightwithout appeal.

We will require asylum seekers tobe held ‘air side’ while their case isheard as swi�ly as possible. Wewill ensure a system that hearscases within weeks, not monthsor years.

We believe any concept of a mass‘amnesty’, actual or de factoforgiveness for illegal immigra�onundermines the Rule of Law andas such will not be entertained.

We will establish a process forsponsored immigra�on permi�ngany private individual to becomeresponsible, by contract with the

immigrant, for the conduct,welfare, and whereabouts of thatindividual for a limited periodunder condi�ons and penal�esspecified in law. Theresponsibili�es will remain un�lthe individual qualifies for“resident status” or leaves thecountry. The only excep�on willbe when the State candemonstrate beyond a reasonabledoubt that the individualcons�tutes a threat to publichealth or represent a clear andpresent danger to the rights ofci�zens.

We will end delays to married orcivil partners entering the countryby expedi�ng visas.

We will end delays tomarried or civil partnersentering the country.


4. DRUGS,ALCOHOL &TOBACCOOur drug policy seeks to respectindividual rights while maintainingcommensurate individualresponsibility - the State willneither profit from, nor promote,nor subsidise harmful drugproducts, nor interfere withindividual’s free choices in thatregard, nor protect them froma�endant consequences.

POLICY PROPOSALSAt a na�onal level decriminalisedrugs star�ng with marijuana butexpanding this. Remove exciseduty from Alcohol, Tobacco andother Drugs.

Release all those convicted ONLYof drug offences for possession.Give those released a 'cleanprofile' so they are not subject tothe restric�ons imposed on ex-offenders.

Reform Policing to understandthat drugs are no longer criminalac�vi�es. Con�nue to apply allother laws with respect to drugrelated incidents, such as where

there is evidence of 'coercion',opera�ng machinery or ac�ng in aresponsible posi�on while underthe influence, and others.

In line with individualresponsibility healthcare becomesthe responsibility of the individualthrough an insurance-basedapproach as part of ourdecentralised NHS proposals. Wean�cipate that insurancecompanies would add drug use tothe risk profile se�ng premiumsaccordingly. Providing falserepresenta�on regarding drug usewould cons�tute fraud. Wherethere are nega�ve effects fromdrug, tobacco or alcohol productsa customer or insurer may havegrounds to sue. Producers will notbe immune to charges of criminalnegligence, corporatemanslaughter or other relevantcharges according tocircumstance. There would be noprovision for State fundedcompensa�on.

5. POLICINGOur policing policy seeks to re-establish the Peelian principlethat ‘the police are the peopleand the people are the police’ asthe surest way to block tyrannyand enable effec�ve policing byconsent.

POLICY PROPOSALSPolice will swear allegiance to theCons�tu�on.

We will reaffirm the Nine PeelianPrinciples:

■ The basic mission for whichthe police exist is to preventcrime and disorder in whichwe include as crimesviola�ons of individual rights.

■ The ability of the police toperform their du�es isdependent upon the publicapproval of police ac�ons.

■ Police must secure the willingcoopera�on of the public involuntary observa�on of theLaw.

■ The degree of coopera�on ofthe public that can be secureddiminishes propor�onately tothe necessity of the use ofphysical force.

■ Police seek and preservepublic favour not by cateringto public opinion, but byconstantly demonstra�ngabsolute impar�al service tothe law and defence ofindividual rights.

We will re-establish thePeelian principle that‘the police are thepeople and the peopleare the police.’


■ Police use physical force tothe extent necessary tosecure observance of the lawor to restore order only whenthe exercise of persuasion,advice, and warning is foundto be insufficient.

■ Police, at all �mes, shouldmaintain a rela�onship withthe public that gives reality tothe historic tradi�on that thepolice are the public and thepublic are the police, thepolice being only members ofthe public who are paid togive full �me a�en�on todu�es which are incumbentupon every ci�zen in theinterests of communitywelfare and existence.

■ Police should always directtheir ac�on strictly towardstheir func�ons, and neverappear to usurp the powers ofthe judiciary.

■ The test of police efficiency isthe absence of crime anddisorder, not the visibleevidence of police ac�on indealing with it.

Policing areas will be localised andChief Constables or Sheriffs belocally elected and given a greateramount of autonomy allowing

them to direct resources to meetlocal needs and to deputisevoluntary candidates as needed forthe legitimate exercise of theirrole. The role of Police and CrimeCommissioner will be abolished.

We will re-establish the right toremain silent on habeas corpusprinciples.

We will establish a frameworkthrough which ‘private security’ onprivate property in contract withthe owner maywork cooperativelywith Chief Constable or Sheriffoffices.

We will reform police targets toremove the desire to prosecuteinnocent parties and be moreaccountable to local people.

We will establish defence ofindividual rights and investigationand prosecution of violations andviolators as the main function ofthe police, placing emphasis firston crimes against the person suchas physical assault and robberyand then crimes against propertysuch as burglary and theft.

We will reduce paperwork toenable more beat officers toremain on patrol for as long as

possible.

We will abolish the role of thePolice Community SupportOfficers (PCSO) and seek torecruit those capable into the mainpolice force, and to disband theremainder.

We will abolish all non-essentialnon-front-line roles.

We will retain DNA of thoseconvicted only, and discard afterthe conviction is spent.

We will increase recruitment ofSpecial Constables, volunteers andDeputies to function in their localareas in keeping with Peelianprinciples of policing.

We will re-invigorate theNeighbourhoodWatchprogramme in keeping withPeelian principles of policing.

Complaints against police will bereferred initially to a judge ormagistrate to determine whetherfrivolous, then to a neighbouringforce acting independently to carryout an investigation overseen bylocal citizen representatives. Caseswill be criminally prosecuted witha Jurywhere evidence is sufficientto do so.

Complaints against a judge ormagistrate will be referred to asenior judge, or if a senior judge toa panel of lower judges ormagistrates, acting independentlyto carry out an investigationoverseen by local citizenrepresentatives. Cases will becriminally prosecuted with a Jurywhere evidence is sufficient to doso.

Spot fines will be abolished andreferred instead to the courts.

We will roll back the right ofgovernment agents to enterproperty without a warrant issuedby a judge, thereby ensuringconstitutional protections forindividual rights.

We will implement a maximumperiod for detention withoutcharge of 48 hours.

Wiretap evidence to be permittedas evidence in court cases only ifobtained with a warrant.



SPENDINGCHANGESPER ANNUM INCREASES IN SPENDING ARE IN RED AND REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING IN BLACK

Addi�onal 8,000 prison placesto end overcrowding.

0.17 The prison popula�on in 2018 was 83,618. This contrasts with 46,736 in 1989. The average cost of a prisoner is £37,500. Inthe case of any increase in numbers, or in the case of steady numbers but increased numbers of prisons to reduceovercrowding, there would be an addi�onal cost per new place of £112,000. Since the average custodial sentence runs forcirca two years and we may presume a prison place good for, say, eighty years this suggests an addi�onal, amor�sed, capitalcost of £2,800 per place per annum so circa £40,300 all inclusive. There are circa 8,000 more prisoners than prison places soour commitment is to an increased amor�sed spend of £22.0 million per year. The upfront cost would be £896 million butpossibly this would be one of those rare cases where borrowing the capital would make sense. If not then we would amor�sethe cost over the five year life of a parliament which is the conserva�ve amount (£170 million p.a) costed herein.

Doubling the training andeduca�on effort in prisons

0.13 Since 2016 spending on training and educa�on in prisons has been £130 million per year. This is £1,500 per prisoner. ALibertarian government will increase this to £3,000. The cost of criminal re-offending has been es�mated at circa £11 billionper year. The extra expenditure would be repaid twice over if it stopped one in fi�y prisoners from re-offending.

Transferring all mentally ill fromprisons to psychiatric hospitals

0.77 Circa 16% of prisoners are reported to have psycho�c symptoms. On this basis we will allow for transfer of 8% of the prisonpopula�on to psychiatric hospitals. The cost of psychiatric care is 390% greater than imprisonment at circa £115,300 p.a.more than prison care so the extra cost of moving 6,689 prisoners into hospitals would be £771 million per year.

Release of 4,374 prisonersguilty solely of drug possessionoffences

0.25 There would be knock-on saving in reduced police work and reduced work by the courts though some of this would be offsetif released drug possessors commi�ed dispropor�onate numbers of crimes. However drug users of the sort commi�ng othercrimes would typically already be in prison for those other crimes so we think it conserva�ve to boost the saving by 50%from £170 million per year to reflect savings in police and court work.

The introduc�on of �me limitsfor asylum case resolu�on.

0.4 Assuming an £12,500 per annum asylum seeking case cost including £1,000 of legal costs. With average case �me on theorder of 12 months to hear and circa 40,000 cases per year this policy would save circa £405 million per year. However sucha policy by denying the poten�al refugee due process might fall foul of human rights law and if so this saving would notmaterialise.


Increased interest payments 0.01 The rate assumed is 1.5%.

TOTAL IMPACT ON PUBLICFINANCES

0.43

NOTES


Since 1947 diverse Bri�shgovernments have over-inflatedthe cost of land and buildingsthereby denuding the economy ofproduc�ve capital andaccelera�ng Great Britain’srela�ve decline. Over this periodthese same governments haveeroded human rights. In par�cularthe right you should have todispose of your property as yousee fit.

To undo these ill effects, to bringlife back to the land economy andend the “affordability crisis” inhousing we start withunderstanding of the causes ofthe crisis (see Figure opposite).

The other par�es compete to failto fix a problem they have notwell understood. Building moredwellings will not prevent thecombina�on of tax breaks anddeepening credit that suckscapital into buildings however

We will solve the“affordability crisis”through de-regulationand by removing andsimplifying taxes.

HOUSING, LAND & PLANNINGUNDOING A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE

22%

20%

20%

9%

9%

7%

5%

4%2%

1%

1%

Causes of upward Pressure on House Prices 1993-2018

78% of homes C. Gains Tax Exempt. £15b. forfeit p.a. (2008-18 12% cause).1947 Town and Country Planning Act.Repressed Interest Rates & Easy Credit (1968-2018 10%, 2008-2018 40%).Popula�on Growth (1968-2018 7%, 2008-2018 11%).Falling productivity rela�ve to other industry (1968-2018 15%, 2008-18 6%).Living Alone. (1968-2018 12%). Barely increasing (2008-2018 3%).Direct Taxes (mainly Plan. Law Sec�on106) on new building £8 billion p.a.Indirect Taxes on building £63 billion p.a. (Council Tax £30 b., Rates £28 b.)Government Affordable & Social Homes spending £3.2 b.Farm Subsidies & Farm Favours (agri-environment payments) £4.8 billion p.a.Immigra�on (1968-2018 negligable, 2008-2018 2%).


many there are. In addi�on it willnot stop the planning systemsucking the life out of the landeconomy, it will not stop thecreeping invasion of propertyrights by the state nor will it solvethe problems arising from morepeople living alone.

We will solve the “affordabilitycrisis”, by a wave of de-regula�onand by removing and simplifyingthe taxes that gnaw the life out ofthe land economy.

Last, but not least, the LibertarianParty will enact legal protec�onfor land and buildings that areextra-terrestrial so that they maybe to be owned, under Bri�shjurisdic�on, at all thereby securingfor the UK the lion’s share of thedown-to-earth benefits of anyforeign and domes�c investmentarising.

1. REPEALPLANNING LAWThe single housing policy that willdo least harm and most good isrepeal of the 1947 Town andCountry Planning Act. TheLibertarian Party is the only partypromising this.

BENEFITSRepeal will bring circa 100,000long term (6+ months) emptybuildings into use at zero cost. Itwill mean that compulsoryprovision of secure bicycle shedswith concrete floors, regardless ofcircumstances, to take a randomexample, will be a folly consignedto the past. Repeal will allowchange of buildings use almost atwill and I es�mate will reduce theprice of houses by 15% (£34,000)in real terms over circa twentyfive years.

2. REFORM TORT(DAMAGES) LAWThe reformed Tort Law will for�fya ci�zen’s human right to disposeof her property in the manner shesees fit.

BENEFITSA Tort System will be moreefficient and just.

NOTESThe Tort System will allow ac�onfor damages against developersincluding government. Developerswill have a duty to inform thirdpar�es (applicants) when works arescheduled. During this �meapplicants could file legal ac�on ifthey wished to contest adevelopment. In the event of adecision in favour of the developerthe court judgment might setcompensa�on for the applicantpayable by the developer.

Access to jus�ce will be facilitated.There will be measures todiscourage chancers and toprotect, a reduced set of, listedbuildings.

A Tort System will allow small landuse changes to proceed withoutado. Unlike planning officers notmany bloody minded neighbours

would seek prohibitory injunc�onsagainst you for pain�ng, say, ahammer and sickle on your frontdoor if they had to pay up to do so.

Today large numbers of peopleoppose developmentsunconstrained by any cost but alsouncompensated if their ac�on hasmerit but is defeated. Under a Tortsystem opponents, if unsuccessful,would have the possibility ofcompensa�on. This is how thesystem would become popular.

With the cost to others of, say,your kitchen extension nego�atedby the body of case law that wouldarise if these nego�a�ons becameadversarial the deeper benefit ofthis approach would be to forcedevelopers to focus on loca�onswhere the prospects for profitwere greatest or the distresscaused least or both.


3. REPEAL THEEXEMPTIONFROM CAPITALGAINS TAX UPONTHE SALE OFPRIMARYRESIDENCIESThis policy will raise governmentrevenue by circa £15 billion perannum elimina�ng 30% of theannual government deficit.

BENEFITSThe economy will be enriched.

4. FOLD BUSINESSRATES ANDCOUNCIL TAXINTOA SIMPLE“BUILDINGS TAX”There will be no exemp�on orspecial cases. The rate will be setat the same rate as council tax.This will reduce business rates by80%.

BENEFITSThe tax will create wealth byreducing the tax on the mostindustrious use of buildings bycirca £22.7 billion per annumwhile simultaneously closing taxloopholes on less produc�ve use.

5. END £5.5BNPER YEAR OFFARM FAVOURSThe Libertarian government willend circa £5.5 billion per annumof gi�s (agri-environment andagricultural subsidies and taxbreaks) to farmers.

BENEFITSEnd the robbery of moreproduc�ve sectors to pay lessproduc�ve farmers and thewounding of the poorestcountries’ agricultural sectorsthrough the indirect means ofdumping subsidised UK food inthe world market place.

NOTESRepeal will create a more levelplaying field between differentways of securing capital gain.

The change would be bearableto land and buildings ownersbecause of the gradual nature ofits effect. Only circa 11% ofowners intend to sell within theyear and of that 11% manywould have the op�on tochoose not to if the sums nolonger added up.

By making Great Britain’seconomy more efficient, thisRepeal would yield greaterwealth to land and buildingsowners, in the long run, than thecurrent regressive tax breakdoes.

Repeal will lower house pricesby circa 22% (£50,000) in realterms over circa twenty fiveyears. NOTES

This policy will tend torejuvenate struggling towncentres and the countryside. Itwill lower house prices by2.25% (£5,000) in real termsover circa ten years. It willremove the tax avoidancepressure to use buildings fornon-commercial purposes.

NOTESMany assume subsidy wouldtend to lower the price ofdomes�c food. In fact subsidyremoves a farmer’s mo�va�onto lower prices (or be moreproduc�ve). We get the worst ofboth worlds a drain onproduc�vity and high prices.

We es�mates this will lowerhouse (by reducing land) pricesby 2% (£4,500) in real termsover circa fi�een years.


6. EXTENDLAND RIGHTSDOWNWARD TOFIVE KILOMETRESBELOWTHESURFACEThe deepest gold mine in theworld extends circa fourkilometres below the surface. Thispolicy exemplifies our convic�onthat an individual’s privateproperty expresses a rightindispensable to her freedom.

BENEFITSNatascha Engel, Shale GasCommissioner, a former LabourMP, resigned from her post inApril 2019. She said the over-cau�ous approach to tremors had

created a de facto ban onfracking. Our policy will lead tomining proceeding where it makesthe most profit or does the leastharm instead of where ideologyand bureaucracy arbitrarily permitor rather do not.

NOTESAn argument against fracking isthat others bare the cost in, say,climate change. Under ourreformed law of Tort these costswould be ac�onable. Moreover,government would not beempowered to issue licences todevelop gas fields to which localsubsurface land owners mightbe opposed. For example, closeto towns the consent ofthousands might be needed.Nevertheless this policy willcreate interests in, and in thisway, encouragement for,profitable mining.

7. REFORM THETAX TREATMENTOF INCOMEFROM LANDANDBUILDINGSOur policy is to conform tax onland and buildings to the truth,and simplify it, by allowing allbusiness costs to be deductedfrom gross income in calcula�ngtaxable income. In addi�on thispolicy will allow losses fromproperty to be set against profitsfrom other businesses and viceversa.

BENEFITSThis will encourage produc�verisk taking and allow businessesengaged in diverse undertakingsto compete even-handedly withmore specialised firms.

NOTESThis policy will for�fy theprinciple that governmentshould tax business on the valueit adds not for simply exis�ng.Commercial decisions are bestmade on commercial groundsnot for fear of what thegovernment might do next.


8. END THESECTION 109SOCIAL HOUSINGLEVYAND THEINFRASTRUCTURELEVYGovernment should not be taxingsome businesses and not others,crea�ng fear and uncertainty in allas to who will be taxed next,garbling the messages of the freemarket and rendering tax policycap�ve to fana�cs and fac�ons. Atax system, ideally, is simple,transparent and shows nofavours.

BENEFITSThis will encourage new builds aswell as crea�ng opportuni�es forsmall builders for many of thesetaxes are an insurmountablebarrier. Small firms are not alwaysa good thing but they tend todeliver a more diverse builtenvironment which is a goodthing and they generate morejobs per unit of capital than largerfirms do.

9. END SIX TYPESOF GOVERNMENTHOUSINGSUBSIDYThe Libertarian government willend “Help to Buy”, “Payments toHigh Need Regions”, TheAffordable Homes Programme,The Greater London AuthorityAffordable Homes Programme,Housing Associa�on Grants fromCentral Government e.g. theCommunity Housing Fund andLocal Government involvement inproviding housing, for example, bygrants to Housing Associa�ons.

BENEFITSThis policy will help by stoppingsubsidies from driving up theprice of housing and it will reducetax payer’s spending by circa £6.3billion per annum.

NOTESThis policy will lower houseprices by 4% (£9,000) in realterms over five years.

NOTESEnding the confusion of currenthousing policy which, owing toan inadequate grasp of whatcauses buildings prices to behigh in the first place, poursmoney into housing subsidies inorder to make it easier forpeople to afford houses therebydriving prices up!


10. REPEALTHE ENERGYCERTIFICATIONREGIMESWITHA LESS BLUNTINSTRUMENTEnd £1.8 billion per year of box�cking jamboree.

BENEFITSLess housing crisis and higherproduc�vity.

11. REPEAL THEREGULATIONSPERTAINING TOTHE MINIMUMSIZE OF ROOMSPeople are not all babiesincapable of making up their ownminds whether a room is costeffec�ve for them to live in. Thereare some beau�fully designedmicro-homes. The current policyforces useful spaces to gounused.

BENEFITSFreedom will flourish in thisma�er and produc�vity too.

12. REPEAL THEGOVERNMENTREGULATIONSTHAT IMPOSERESTRICTIONSONAIR B&BA Libertarian government will freehosts and guests to do businesswith each other as they see fit.We will not countenance anyobligatory registra�on system.Where Air B&B businesses giverise to breaches of the peace oroff-property damage the exis�nglegal system and police provideremedy.

BENEFITSFreedom will be grow andprosperity too.

NOTESComba�ng climate change isbe�er done by provision fromgeneral taxa�on than taxingsome more than others. A prioriit might also be be�er to targetalterna�ve energy provisionthan insula�on.

To encourage protec�velandlords LPUK will have HMRCissue tax credits to landlordswho take out public liabilityinsurance. In turn insurers willpress landlords to improvesafety. Insurers would beoffered tax credits if theyreduced premiums for any gasor electrical safety cer�fica�onregime that they foundeffec�ve. The carrot wouldlargely replace the s�ck, thesystem would become sensi�veto cost while buildings wouldgradually keep on ge�ng safertoo.


13. REPEALDEPOSITPROTECTIONREGULATIONS,MAKE ALLMATTERS OFEVICTIONSUBORDINATETO CONTRACTThe law increasingly preventspeople from entering intocontracts of their choice, in favourof terms and condi�ons which aredestruc�ve and that turn adultsinto children. Deposit protec�onregula�ons and evic�on processregula�ons have made a mint forlawyers, deposit protec�on

services and fraudsters.Increasingly the law collec�visesprivate property.

BENEFITSRestora�on of the primacy ofcontract will encourageentrepreneurship, increaseconfidence among all privatebusinesses, add to personalresponsibility and diminish thegrowing culture of infinite-en�tlement. Movement in thedirec�on of the power of contractwould result in a less expensiverental market through an increasein supply of proper�es for rent asowners became less afraid. Theprime beneficiaries of a less afraidlandlord would be both the tenantwhose rent had come down andthe owner whose asset was beingput to more produc�ve use.

14. CAP HOUSINGBENEFITA libertarian government will caphousing benefit at 40% of whatwould be earned working full�me on the minimum wage.

BENEFITSThis policy will save tax payers£8.3 billion per year, increase theincen�ve to work, put downwardpressure on rents and byencouraging those not working tomove will lead to a be�er matchof supply and demand.

15. REPEAL THEHOUSES OFMULTIPLEOCCUPATIONREGULATIONSBENEFITSThe ending of a Health and Safetyatrocity.

NOTESThe H.M.O. regime is jus�fied interms of preven�ng avoidabledeaths from fire. We calculatethat the regime is dicta�ngannual expenditure to save a lifeof £9.6 million. This is six �mesmore than the Department ofTransport is allowed to spend toprevent a road death (anexpense that falls on the generalpopula�on rather than, in thecase of large HMOS, on 110,00lucky buildings owners).

Senegal has a popula�on of 16million of whom 64,000 haveAIDS. If Senegal was as bad atcomba�ng AIDS as Sub-SaharanAfrica in general it would havenearly 700,000 people withaids. Senegal has prevented,therefore, the death of 636,000people on an annual health


16. WITHDRAWFROMTHE1967 TREATYGOVERNING THEACTIVITIES OFSTATES IN THEEXPLORATIONAND USE OFOUTER SPACE

A Libertarian government willallow Bri�sh and Foreign Ci�zens,and Corpora�ons, to register, bydue process, land and buildingsclaims on extra terrestrial bodiesthat will be enforceable under UKlaw.

BENEFITSThis will help to secure the lion’sshare of the down-to-earthbenefits arising from extraterrestrial development for theUK in the form of foreign and

domes�c investment. Under the1967 treaty the only privateproperty allowed in outer space isproperty located above extraterritorial bodies. In the case thisstate of affairs were to con�nueinto a future in which outer spacewere inhabited that would beanathema to all freedom lovingpeople.

spend, including privatespending and overseas aid, ofabout £90 per head. I findsomething obscene aboutEngland’s local governmentforcing ci�zens to spend £9.6million to prevent one death inthe UK when the same moneycould prevent, pro rata, morethan a hundred and sixthousand deaths in Senegal orany other country similarlyeffec�ve at figh�ng AIDS.

NOTESThe Grand Duchy of Luxembourghas enacted legisla�on to permitextra-terrestrial mining opera�onsto retain �tle to materialsprocessed, under Luxembourgjurisdic�on, above the surface ofextra-terrestrial bodies. This legalinnova�on was to avoid theInterna�onal Treaty’s prohibi�on onownership of extra terrestrialsurfaces. Planetary Resources Inc.(in which, along with other asteroid

mining companies, the Duchy hadinvested circa $200 million byDecember 17) reacted by movingoffices to Luxembourg.

We will ensure that Britain lead’sthe world in a�rac�ng future-fron�er focused individuals,entrepreneurs, corpora�ons andinvestors to the UK.

Elon Musk has declared hisinten�on to visit Mars by 2028.Under interna�onal law he will notbe able to own any dwelling he

builds there. Let’s give Mr. Musk areason to move SpaceX if nothimself, for tax purposes at least, tothe UK before he goes to Mars. Thisway if he builds a home there andtook our offer of jurisdic�on up itwould put his private propertyunder the protec�on of the UnionJack which, by the way, should alsothen give him (and any of its otherextra terrestrial inhabitants)ci�zenry and the vote.


17. ALLOWMORTGAGES,TO BECOMEINHERITABLEA Libertarian government willallow, though not require,mortgages to be inheritable solong as the estate retainssufficient equity to cover the costof inheritance tax and estate fees.

BENEFITSThis will allow more lenders toresume lending to olderborrowers. It will also affordgreater opportunity for upwardsocial mobility when borrowersbequeath to non-family members.

18. THE RIGHTTOHAVE LODGERSBabergh District Council, forexample, states on its websitethat “you have the right to take inlodgers or sublet part of yourhome” and that “you must receivewri�en permission from us before… you sublet part of your home.”

A Libertarian government willmake it unambiguous thatpoten�al lodgers have anunrestricted right to sublet part ofyour home if you agree to theirdoing so and that you do notneed wri�en permission for this.

19. CUT STAMPDUTY BY 50%A Libertarian government willhalve this arbitrary tax.

BENEFITSThis will reduce the perniciouseffect that this tax acts as anobstacle to a more adaptablework force (i.e. one willing tomove).

CONCLUSIONThe above nineteen measures, bygradually reducing the real cost ofhousing, at a rate of about 2.1%per year (ul�mately by circa 54%)would go far to end poverty (bymaking housing more affordable)and (by using capital moreefficiently) reverse Great Britain’srela�ve economic decline. Inaddi�on the above measuresstrengthen the rights of theindividual over her own propertyand by doing so will enrich thena�on.

NOTESMortgage lenders wouldcon�nue to be free to forcesales on commercial grounds ifthey adjudged heirs could notmaintain an inherited mortgage,but the onus of proof would bemoved to the lender who wouldhave to show a late payment.This policy would give heirs �meto present a commercial case fortaking on the mortgage.

NOTES




Fold business rates and council tax into a simplerbuildings tax. 22.7 The buildings tax to be set at the rate of council tax effec�vely reducing rates by 80%.

Scrap the Sec�on 106 Social Housing Levy andInfrastructure Levy 6.0 Ending 430,000 air yeomanry subject to sixty days training over eleven years.

Halve Stamp Duty 3.5


End selected subsidies and taxes. 9.2

End the Affordable Homes Programme (£0.7 billion p.a. 2016-18), The Greater London AuthorityAffordable Homes Programme (£1.6 billion p.a. 2016-19) and Housing Associa�on Grants fromCentral Government e.g. the Community Housing Fund (£0.2 billion). End the Infrastructure Levy(£0.7 billion). End local government involvement in house building (£0.7 billion). End Sec�on 106.

End selected subsidies and taxes. 3.4 End “High need Region” payments.(£1.4 billion) and end “Help to Buy” (£2.0 billion).

Repeal the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. 1.1 End the planning system.

Cap housing benefit 8.3

Cap the housing benefit element of Universal Credit at 40% of what would be earned working full�me on the minimum wage (£7.83 p.h.), namely, £6,107 p.a., (elimina�ng circa 33% of the £25 billionspend on housing benefit). 5 million people claim housing benefit of £5,000 per annum average sothis would not effect the average claimant.

End special favours for farmers. 5.5

End farm supports (£2.7 billion of agricultural grants, £0.3 billion of inheritance tax exemp�on, £1billion freedom from planning with a�endant capital gain’s tax foregone, £0.4 billion of ratesexemp�on and £0.1. billion of diesel exemp�ons) and an es�mated £1.0 billion of Agri-environmentpayments, in order to reduce unhelpful upward pressure on land prices.

End exemp�ons from Stamp Duty and businessrates 3.5

End exemp�ons from Capital Gains Tax 15.0


Gains from direct foreign investment 0.8

Increased interest payments 0.2



Since the 1940s, the State claimsto have used the money supply toprevent the wastefulness ofbooms and busts. This a�empt tomanage boom and bust – throughquan�ta�ve easing, for example –has accidentally suppressedproduc�vity by enabling zombiebusinesses to survive onborrowed �me. Pu�ng off theinevitable day of reckoning in theshort term is sapping Great

Britain’s prosperity in the longterm.

Infla�ng the money supply intothe hands of insiders hasinsensibly denied capital to thereal economy in favour of feedingthe maw of government debt.

The Libertarian Party believesthat the free market, notgovernment func�onaries shouldallocate credit.

Quan�ta�ve easing may haveallowed re-capitalisa�on of Bri�shbanks, and has thus far yet notresulted in runaway infla�on.However, it has inflated assetprices, benefi�ng the alreadywealthy at the expense of therest. Moreover, there is noguarantee that loose money willnot feed into wild price infla�onin the future. Between 1966-1977, infla�on – which peaked at25% per annum – was poison notonly to the UK’s economy, butalso to its social fabric.

There is also a risk that poli�cianswill see money prin�ng as apainless answer to the ques�on,“where will the money comefrom?” In Britain, there is talk (forthose of us who would likeaddi�onal reasons to lose sleep)of a People’s Quan�ta�ve Easing.By contrast, the Libertarian Partywill end the government’s abilityto use fiat currency to fund the

unaffordable in an a�empt tobribe the electorate for votes.

Individuals have the right to usemoney that is not deliberatelydevalued by the State.Compe��on in a free market isthe best form of regula�on. Wewill encourage monetary andfinancial compe��on whilerecognising that most people willcon�nue to use Sterling. Thisplaces a responsibility ongovernment to maintain a stablecurrency, which we will ensure byre-establishing a gold standard.

Great Britain must work to makeits living and do so in a smarterway than other na�ons do, inorder that we might prosper aswell as we should. To that end,monetary reform would open theUK for business.

Reform of GreatBritain’s economic andpolitical system willflounder without reformof the monetary system.

MONETARY POLICYCREDITWHERE CREDIT’S DUE


1. ENDINGDISCRETIONARYMONETARYPOLICYThe Libertarian Party will end theBank of England’s authority toincrease or reduce the moneysupply at will. Instead, there willbe a rules-based system – a goldstandard with direct conver�bility.

BENEFITSThe value of ci�zens’ assets willbe for�fied. The condi�ons forwealth crea�on will be nurtured.Credit will be supplied on merit.

NOTESIn Britain and the USA, the classic period of a goldstandard was 1815 to 1914. This was a century of solideconomic growth.

Under the gold bullion standard that we propose, so longas the Bank of England maintained its own credibility itwould be given some flexibility to deal with shocks to thesystem or local liquidity crises.

To quote Walter Bagehot, “in �mes of financial crisis,central banks should lend freely to depositoryins�tu�ons, yet only against sound collateral and atinterest rates high enough to dissuade those borrowersthat are not in genuine need.”

Government debases money by min�ng it out of nothing,thereby reducing the value of everyone else’s. Big banks,their officers, investors, depositors and others favouredby government do well out of this. The overall effect,however, is to encourage malinvestment in unproduc�veac�vity. By withholding from government the authority todevalue the assets of the ci�zenry who are not wellconnected our policy will deliver a monetary system thatshows no favour and is more just.

The Bank of England’s role will become one mainly of

supervision. Fraud, misrepresenta�on, false accoun�ng,the� and other laws would be vigorously upheld.Regula�on would not, however, be used by large en��esas a barrier to compe��on.

New decentralised technology and so�ware also presentan opportunity for financial and banking services to limitor eliminate the need for trust in a central authority. TheBank of England will be expected to work with industrybodies to ensure that legacy regula�on does not hinderthe development of this technology, including the use of aregulatory sandbox to encourage and facilitate itsdevelopment.

CONCLUSIONIndividuals should have the right to use money that is notdeliberately devalued by the State.

Financial ins�tu�ons like banks, which make profits ingood �mes, should not be allowed to impose the costs offailure on others during difficult �mes.

The Libertarian Party believes in a free and voluntarymarket. This is not the type of market or system we havefor money. What we have now is a form of statecapitalism that strangles wealth crea�on andinadvertently misallocates credit.


2. A FREE MARKETIN BANKING ANDFINANCIALSERVICESWe will introduce unrestrictedcompe��on among depositoryins�tu�ons of all types. Minimumcapital-to-debt ra�os would belaid down by law. All deposittaking ins�tu�ons will be requiredto publish their capital andreserve ra�os in a clear manneron customer statements. Theowners of depository ins�tu�onsand the directors of those

ins�tu�ons would carry personalliability for losses.

BENEFITSThe system will be both rela�velystable – thanks to adequatecapital ra�os – and no longercrowded out by governmentborrowing. Lending to individualsand private enterprise shouldincrease where it is merited, andreturns on investment willnaturally therefore rise. Thecombina�on of this deepening ofcredit provision andencouragement of prudence willenhance the wealth of theeconomy.

NOTESThe UK has a narrow butinnova�ve Fintech cluster. Thewider financial sector in the UK isvital and deep, being roughly 6.5%of the UK economy (33% ofLondon’s), but twice as produc�veas the average equally importantsector. The Libertarian Party willnurture the compe��veadvantage our financial sectorbrings to the UK by allowing it tostand on its own two feet – andby not ge�ng in its way. Newtechnology such as banking apps,

online banking andcryptocurrencies will in futurebring hundreds of millions of theunbanked and under-bankedthroughout the world into thefinancial sector. With a wiselyregulated financial sector, the UKcould be at the forefront of thisdevelopment.

Compe��on between currencyissuing ins�tu�ons should result inmore effec�ve investment bythose ins�tu�ons, leading in turnto be�er returns to depositors andinvestors.

3. MONETARYCOMPETITIONLegal tender laws will end.Individuals and businessesengaged in voluntary exchangeshould be free to choose whichmoney they use. Precious metals,cryptocurrencies and other free-market money will be taxed onthe same basis as Sterling. Inaddi�on to Sterling, taxes will bepayable in any recognised money,including gold and Bitcoin.

BENEFITSMoney compe��on to Sterlingand other fiat currencies will limitthe government’s power todebase money and give morepower and choice to individuals.

4. AN END TOGOVERNMENTGUARANTEEDDEPOSITINSURANCETo give the private sector �me todevelop suitable insurancepolicies, this would be phased inover three years.

BENEFITSDepository ins�tu�ons will bediscouraged from taking recklessrisks as they will no longer beable to pass the cost of any errorof judgement onto the taxpayer.Depositors at banks should notbe favoured over other investors,let alone at the taxpayer’sexpense. The commercialinsurance companies that offerdeposit insurance cover will havean incen�ve to ensure that thedeposit taking ins�tu�ons aresolvent.


NOTESThe government provides depositinsurance (via the FinancialServices Compensa�on Scheme,FSCS) to most bank accounts, upto a limit of £85’000. In theory,the FSCS is funded by levies onbanks whose customers arecovered by the guarantee. Inprac�ce, however, those mainlyon the hook for the cost of thisscheme have been taxpayers. Forexample, during the 2008-9 crash,just £171 million (less than 1%) of

the £19.86 billion advanced tobanks was funded through levies;the rest was provided by thetaxpayer. The FSCS reportscurrent liabili�es of £4.5 billion,which represents an average perhousehold of circa £159, thoughthis figure is certainly anunderes�mate, as stronglysuggested by the £19.86 billionpayout. We es�mate thetaxpayer’s true liability to beanywhere between £10 billionand £150 billion.


The basic state pension and 85per cent of public sector pensionsare unfunded. Most pensioncontribu�ons are not invested.Instead these contribu�ons gointo the general pool of taxa�onwhere they are spent and do notaccrue. Most independentes�mates put the outstandingunfunded public sector pensionliabili�es at over £1,300 billion.

The current state pension systemin unjust in that it passes thepension burden onto futuretaxpayers. It could also prove

financially trauma�c for thoselikely to find unrealis�c pensionpromises cut back in the futureshould the state pension beacknowledged to be unaffordable.

There is no pain free way offinancing future pensionpayments.

Means tes�ng has beensuggested but withdrawingpension rights would be deeplyunpopular with those who feelthey have earned those rights.Means tes�ng pensions suffersfrom the fact that it can

discourage individuals frommaking provision for themselves.

The Libertarian Party’s Policybalances its wish to honourcurrent pension commitmentswith the need to encourageindividuals to make their ownprovision for the future.

Individual liberty consists to alarge extent in having control ofone’s own property and wealth.This applies to pensions. Libertycannot flourish when so many arewards of the state in pensionterms.

Balancing currentpension commitmentswith individual’s ownprovision for the future.

PENSIONSBEYOND UNFUNDED PENSIONS


1. REFORM OFTHE BASICPENSIONThe Libertarian Party willEstablish Personal Pension Pots(P.P.P.s) along the lines of theAustralian Superannua�on Fund.For all individuals in the UK under45 this would replace the basicstate pension. Those between the

ages of 45 and 55 will have theop�on to join the P.P.P. or remainin the basic state pension. Thoseover 55 will con�nue to remain inthe basic state pension.

BENEFITSThis policy will ensure that mostindividuals will be able to buildtheir own personal pension potthat will be fully funded, and thatcan be le� to their heirs whilst

not being a burden on futuretaxpayers. Movement from thebasic state pension to a personalpension pot in the manner wefavour will, we es�mate, save taxpayers £2.7 billion by 2040 and£11.8 billion by 2050.

2. PHASE OUTTHEWINTERFUELALLOWANCEUnderstandably this would be anunpopular policy, but balancingthe interests of differentgenera�ons will require currentre�rees to take some of the pain.The winter fuel allowance hasbeen claimed to be a poorlytargeted benefit with calls for it tobe scrapped for those who don’tneed it. The £2 billion saving willbe used to encourage youngpeople to save for their ownfuture pension provision byfunding par�al income taxexemp�ons on those paying intoa P.P.P.

BENEFITSTwo billion pounds per annum toencourage the youngergenera�on to save for their ownre�rement.

NOTESCold weather payments will beretained.

NOTESThere has been some reform of thestate pension. The coali�ongovernment’s raising of there�rement age and hastening theequality of re�rement age betweenmen and women has marginallyreduced the burden on futuregenera�ons. But this is notenough. The Libertarian Party’spolicy balances the interests ofdifferent genera�ons byencouraging those under forty fiveyears of age to move to a fundedpersonal pot whilst expec�ngthose over forty five who remain inthe basic state pension to foregothe winter fuel allowance.

PPP rules will be flexible as to whatassets would be eligible to be heldin the pot.

The PPP will be funded and theproperty of the individual and theindividual's heirs.

Payment into the PPP would becapped at £250,000 (infla�onlinked) but contribu�ons up to thislevel would encouraged with somedegree of tax incen�ve.

Immigrants to the UK (or theiremployer) will be required tocontribute £2,500 to their (PPP)Personal Pension Pot for everyyear they are over 25 when theyarrive in the UK.

The PPP will be un-lockable at thesame age as the current eligibilityfor the state pension. Thisre�rement age will rise withincreased life expectancy. It will bereviewed five yearly.


4. CONVERTPUBLIC SECTORDEFINEDBENEFITSSCHEMES TOFUNDED DEFINEDCONTRIBUTIONSSCHEMESCurrent beneficiaries benefitswould be preserved so thischange would apply only to thefuture.

BENEFITSOur policy will end the prac�ce offavouring current tax payers atthe expense of future tax payers.A funded scheme is a lot morereliable for the public sectorworker than the current systemwhich relies on the generosity offuture tax payers.

NOTESThere has been some reform ofpublic sector pensions but this isgenerally in the form of highercontribu�ons today for the shakypromise of even higher benefits inthe future.

The average employee benefitfrom a pension in the followingsectors of employment is:

■ 41% of salary for the four mainpublic sector schemes (NHS,Civil Service, Teachers, LocalGPs)

■ 71% of salary for theuniformed services schemes(Police, Firefighters, ArmedForces)

■ 19% on average in the privatesector.

Bringing public sector workers intoline with private sector workers, asoutlined in this policy, wouldreduce the burden on future taxpayer of funding public sectorpensions by circa 33%. This willensure the long term sustainabilityof public sector pensions.

If salaries need to rise within thepublic sector to maintainrecruitment due to lower pensionpromises. Costs, if any, would haveto be managed by departments asthey have been in the privatesector.

The reform of public sectorpensions towards full funding willneed to be phased in as eventhough it would eventually meanlarge savings for future taxpayers itwould result in a large reduc�on inincome to the treasury in the shortterm.

3. REFORM OFTHE PENSIONLIFETIMEALLOWANCEWe will bring the tax rules ondefined benefit schemes into linewith those on definedcontribu�ons pensions.

BENEFITSThe current pension life�meallowance unduly rewards thosein defined benefit schemes ascompared to those in definedcontribu�on pension schemes.This reform would make the taxrules the same for both types ofscheme. The main beneficiaries ofdefined benefit pensions in futureyears will be those who haveworked in the public sector. Anyincome to the treasury from thistax change would be used tomake public sector pensions,which are currently unfunded,more sustainable.


5. REFORMEMPLOYMENTPROTECTIONLEGISLATION FOROLDERWORKERSEmployment legisla�ondispropor�onately reducesdemand for the unskilled andthose at the tail of the workerprofile i.e., older workers. Thosemost likely to need to top up theirpension provision. A Libertariangovernment will free workers overfi�y five years of age fromsubjec�on to some of theemployment legisla�on thatdiscourage employers from hiringthem.

BENEFITSEmployment regula�on hurts theelderly overall especially thosecurrently unemployed. Removingregula�on would incen�viseemployers to take on olderworkers and also enable greaterlabour mobility and flexibleworking pa�erns.

NOTESA libertarian government willexempt workers over fi�y fiveyears of age from eleven, andpar�ally exempt them from two, ofthe twenty main Acts ofemployment legisla�on passedsince 1963. For example, five fromwhich we would exempt olderworkers are:

■ 1970 Equal pay Act. Repeal ofthis Act is a necessarycondi�on of implemen�ng ourpolicy to remove theregulatory barriers to hiringthose aged over fi�y five.

■ 1997 European SocialChapter: An�-discrimina�oncomponent, Working Time

Direc�ve (48 hours max), partTime workers en�tled toequalised treatment.

■ 2013 (circa) Se�ng execu�vepay regula�ons, widening an�-discrimina�on regula�ons,raising effec�ve school leavingage

■ 2015 Living Wage

■ 1996 Asylum and Immigra�onAct offence of employing aperson who is forbidden towork.

Our prime mo�ve for cu�ng thethicket of government regula�on isthat it diminishes people’s freedomto live and work as they agree onwith each other and individuallysee fit to do.

CONCLUSIONAny reform of pensions has tobalance taxa�on on the currentgenera�on with the tax burdenpassed onto future genera�ons.Governments (including thecurrent administra�on) havetaken the easy way out andpassed an increasing tax burdenonto future taxpayers.

This system is unsustainable, thedependency ra�o – the number ofpeople working compared to thenumber of people re�red isexpected to shi� from 3:1 todayto 1:1 in 2050.

The Libertarian Party’s pensionpolicy aims to be tax neutral fortoday’s taxpayer and will reducethe tax burden on futuretaxpayers.



SPENDINGCHANGESPERANNUM


MORE PRUDENT

Reform toward defined contribu�onpensions 1.0

Conversion to Defined Contribu�on Schemes. For every pound taxedfrom public sector salaries, nominally to fund pensions, one pound thirtypence is paid out. Ending this equates to a decrease in public spendingon pensions of £16.2 billion per annum once all public sector workershad made the transi�on (a�er circa fi�y years). In year one the savingwould be £0.3 billion rising to £2.1 billion in year five an average of £1.0billion.

Repeal of approximately sixty percent of employment regula�on as itapplies to those over fi�y five yearsof age. 0.9

On the basis of £35 billion of employment regulatory cost per annum wees�mate the savings, having in mind that we propose to leave half ofemployment regula�ons, by impact, in place at £5.3 billion of which wees�mate 18% will reduce government spending by saving departmentshuman resources and general management �me.


Decreased interet payments 0.0


NOTES


The Libertarian Party iscommi�ed, whether it concernsparking charges for urbanresidents, the cost of fuel for roadhauliers or the service levels forrail passengers, to implemen�ngpolicy that provides flexible travelat the lowest cost for all.

In formula�ng this Manifesto, theLibertarian Party UK gives priorityand careful considera�on to thefollowing:

■ Increasing compe��on torealise innova�on, to drive upservice levels and drive downcosts.

■ Ra�onalising taxa�on andreduce mul�ple layers oftaxa�on

■ Elimina�ng or reducing thestrain on the tax payer causedby direct subsidies

■ Priori�sing changes whichhave a posi�ve impact on theeconomy

RAILRail transport has a long and richhistory in the UK, In the late 19thcentury Rail overtook canals asthe preeminent method ofmoving large quan��es of goodsand passengers and by the early20th Century there were 1.5 Bn.journeys taken by train every year.

The early rail networks greworganically and privately driven bya variety of companies andinterest groups. Although

parliament intervened tenthousand �mes in the mid to late1840s to impose compulsorypurchase on land owners and toset up railway companies thegovernment took a laissez faireapproach in other respects. Theindustry began to consolidate intoa small number (four) of regionaloperators during the early 20thCentury prior to na�onalisa�on.

Contrary to popular opinion,

The Libertarian Party iscommitted toimplementing policy thatprovides the lowesttravel cost for all.

TRANSPORTENDING GRIDLOCK

Figure 1. Rail passenger numbers

20001923-1947

Passengers(Millions)

The Big Four1948-1995Na�onalisa�on (Bri�sh Rail)

1995-datePriva�sa�on

1750

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 20200

na�onalisa�on was not generallysuccessful. Passenger numbersdeclined steadily and financiallosses mounted, leading to ara�onalisa�on of the industryunder the Beeching Act, whichsaw the closure of a large numberof branch lines and rural sta�ons.

The railways were priva�sed atthe end of the 20th Century. Thischange saw a significant increasein the uptake of rail withpassenger journey numbers whichare now back to levels last seen inthe heyday of the early 20thCentury.

A�er twenty years it is, however,clear that priva�sa�on has notdelivered all the an�cipatedbenefits, largely becausecompe��on is almost completely

absent. The system operates as afranchised monopoly with li�le orno incen�ves for operators toreduce costs or improve servicelevels. Indeed, the UK has theunenviable record, at least beforeadjus�ng for subsidies, of thehighest journey cost per mile inEurope, and prices con�nue torise.

Government subsidies for rail arenow in excess of £5 billion p.a.(including HS2 but excludingfuture liabili�es on Crossrail)while Network Rail debt that isunderwri�en by the government,has risen from £9.7 billion in2003 to £46 billion in 2018.

ROADMuch of road infrastructure wasdeveloped in the middle of the20th Century, o�en using railwaylines closed under the BeechingAct to create bypasses and trunkroads, and most governmentsfrom the la�er part of the 20thCentury have ac�vely pursued aroad building policy.

The road network is maintainedeither by a central governmentauthority (devolved in the case ofWales and Scotland) in the case ofstrategic road network (ca.4,300miles), or local authori�es. In theearly part of the 20th Century,funding for roads was directlythrough road vehicle excise duty,however from 1937 they havebeen funded from generaltaxa�on. There remains a smallnumber of toll roads (e.g., theMidlands Expressway and the


Direct rail support Crossrail HS2 PTE grants Central government grants Other

06-07 07-08 12-1308-09 13-1409-10 14-1510-11 15-1611-12 16-17

Subsidy£8bn

£7bn

£2bn

£6bn

£1bn

£5bn

£0

£4bn

-£1bn

£3bn

-£2bn

£5.3bn£4.3bn

£4.6bn £4.0bn

£0.6bn

£3.8bn£4.1bn

£0.6bn

£4.0bn

£1.3bn

-£0.4bn

£3.6bn

£1.2bn

£3.9bn

£1.1bn

-£0.8bn

£4.0bn

£0.8bn£0.5bn

-£0.8bn

£4.1bn

£0.8bn

-£0.8bn

£1.7bn £1.3bn

Figure 2. Compara�ve rail journey costs

Figure 3. Rail subsidies

Figure 4. Government loans to RailtrackLoans to Network Rail£8bn

£7bn

£6bn

£5bn£4bn

£3bn

£2bn

£1bn

14-15

£6.5bn

15-16

£7.4bn

16-17

£5.7bn

£0

COUNTRY FROM TO MILES

MONTHLYSEASONTICKET COST

MONTHLYEARNINGS

%MONTHLYEARNINGS

UK LUTON

LONDONST.PANCRAS 35 £387 £2,759 14%

UKLIVERPOOL LIMESTREET

MANCHESTERPICCADILY 32 £292 £2,759 11%

GERMANY DUSSELDORFCOLOGNE 28 £85 £2,624 3%

France MANTES-LA-JOLIE PARIS 34 £61 £2,545 2%

ITALY ANZIO ROME 31 £61 £2,015 3%

SPAIN ARANJUEZ MADRID 31 £75 £1,917 4%


Dar�ord Crossing), howeverthese are declining.

Funding of the roads is currently£8.6Bn, of which 40% is fromcentral government and 60% fromlocal authori�es.

The price of fuel has risensteadily, about 8% ahead ofinfla�on over the last forty seven

years, from 34p per gallon in1971 to more than £5 in 2018,with the tax propor�onfluctua�ng from 65% to 80%within the same period. Taxa�onfrom fuel duty and VAT on fuelcurrently nets the Exchequer£28Bn per annum.

Vehicle Excise Duty applies to theregistra�on and annual taxa�onof virtually all motor vehicles,

which generates just under £6Bnper annum for the Exchequer. In2016-17 Vehicle Excise Dutyreceived was £5.8 billion and fuelduty received was £27.9 billion.

Despite the rising costs, many ofthe UK’s arterial roads arechronically overcrowded, a factorwhich is almost certainly drivingthe use of alterna�ve methods oftravel. In 2012, the average speedon London's roads was 19.33miles per hour, dropping to 8.98

in the streets of Central London.In 2018, according to Transportfor London, London cars aredriving at an average of just 16.5miles per hour, falling to 7.4 milesper hour in the city core. Theaverage speed on the M25 is just25mph, making it officially the

UK’s slowest motorway.

AIRNa�onalised in 1946, the industrywas re-priva�sed in the 1980’sand since then air travel has beengrowing fast, with 235 millionpassenger journeys in 2018forecast to double by 2030, withLondon Heathrow Airport is oneof the busiest airports in theworld and regional airports arealso seeing a surge in passengers

driven by a bloom of low-costairlines. As countries, only theUSA and China carry morepassengers.

Around ½ of flights are within theEuropean Union, and around1/5th are purely domes�c. This is

Figure 6 Fuel duty chart

Figure 5 Public expenditure on roads in Great Britain, 2008/9–2012/13, source DfT

Figure 7 Airport Passenger Duty revenues

Expenditure Ou�urn prices

Level ofgovernment

Type ofspending Type of road

Financial year

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Central

Capital Na�onal £1,535m £2,537m £2,139m £1,731m £1,613

Local £102m £220m £134m £104m £131m

Current Na�onal £1,912m £1,567m £1,395m £1,337m £1,222m

All All £3,549m £4,324m £3,668m £3,172m £2,966m

Local

Capital Local £3,153m £3,084m £3,270m £2,979m £2,824m

Current Local £2,077m £2,297m £1,966m £1,746m £1,727m

All All £5,230m £5,381m £5,236m £4,725m £4,551m

PublicCorpora�ons Capital Na�onal £18m £10m £14m £8m £0m

All All All £8,797m £9,715m £8,919m £7,905m £7,518m

160p

140p

120p

100p

80p2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

RAC Founda�on (Source: BEIS)Petrol Diesel

4000

3000

2000

1000

AirpassengerdutyreceiptsinmillionGBP


considered a low usage ofdomes�c flights in comparison toother similarly developedcountries, with rail s�ll thepreferred op�on for key routessuch as Manchester to Londonand London to Glasgow.

Airport capacity is considered akey inhibitor to growth and thereis growing support for addi�onalrunways par�cularly to serveLondon.

Air Passenger Duty is posi�onedas a “green tax” and currentlygenerates £3.5Bn per annum forthe Exchequer. It is notable thatmany other countries, includingIreland have scrapped it. Oncegiven the power throughdevolu�on, Scotland plans tohalve it.


1. REPLACE THERAILWAYSA Libertarian government willreplace the majority of railwayswith dedicated coach ways,harnessing the latest driverlessand electric vehicle chargingtechnology.

BENEFITSAn economical, green and morereliable transport network.Around £50 Bn. of the na�onaldebt is held by Railtrack. The saleof Railtrack assets, specificallynon-arterial rail lines, willgenerate significant cash to offsetthis debt.

NOTESDespite growing subsidies andincreasing costs, the quality of railservice is declining, with passengerso�en spending en�re journeysstanding and many operatorsstruggle to make their franchiseswork profitably, with slim marginsand heavy regula�on. Re-na�onalisa�on, regarded by manyas the answer to these problemswould only increase the burden ofdebt on an already heavily indebtedgovernment, it would certainly notimprove efficiency and anyimprovement in service would beexpensive and short-lived. A radicalsolu�on is needed, based on acompletely new vision of atransport infrastructure fit for the21st Century.

Rail has tradi�onally beenconsidered a higher capacity op�onthan road, however if the u�lisa�onof the infrastructure is increasedthen the opposite is true. Thecapacity of a highly u�lised road isfar greater than that of a poorly

u�lised railway line, meaning thenetwork can transport a greaternumber of passengers, and do so ingreater comfort.

The main advantage of rail is speedover long distances, therefore theLibertarian Party proposes to retaina core set of arterial rail linesconnec�ng with the other maintransport hubs (airports and ports),which will be upgraded andmaintained to provide a higherspeed service than is currentlypossible.

Network Rail will be disbanded andthe exis�ng rail infrastructure tosupport the restructured networkwill be incorporated into a holdingcompany, of which all companiesopera�ng a service over thenetwork would be a shareholder.The network itself will be dividedinto service slots which areoperated by service providers, andthe cost of maintaining the networkfalls on the providers using theslots. Service providers can thencompete on the same network

opera�ng different slots, orinternally compete for specificslots.

The remainder of the network willbe sold to private operators to beconverted into dedicated, highspeed, coachways. These willincorporate the latest driverlesstechnology to reduce costs andelectric vehicle charging to reduceemissions. In addi�on to the coreservice, operators can sell sparecapacity to suitable vehicles (e.g.,private cars) or freight carriers oroffer premium services. The sale ofthis infrastructure will be used torepay the outstanding debt forNetwork Rail.

In this way, the Libertarian Partywill free the country from theburden of subsidising the railwayswhile providing a high capacity,adaptable transport system with in-built flexibility to increase capacitythrough the introduc�on of smarttechnology.


2. REDUCEHAULIER FUELDUTYWe will immediately raise the rateof VAT on diesel to 25% butreduce the fuel duty on diesel by6.45p to 51.5p. This is currentlyprohibited under EU regula�ons,however once the UK has exitedthe EU then we are at liberty toset our own rules on VAT.

BENEFITSIn this way, road haulagecompanies who are VATregistered can benefit from lowerdiesel fuel costs. This will providea significant boost to theeconomy, adding at least £1Bn toGDP, crea�ng jobs and reducinginfla�on. The reduc�on in fuelduty revenue will be only £45M.The reduc�on in fuel duty ondiesel for hauliers will have aposi�ve effect on the economy,boos�ng jobs and increasing GDP.

NOTESRoad transport has become acash cow, with motorists thetarget of mul�ple layers oftaxa�on across vehicle exciseduty, fuel duty and VAT to thetune of £35Bn per annum. This isat a �me when people rely ontheir cars to get to work or runtheir business, and o�en do nothave prac�cal alterna�ves.

The Libertarian Party’s policy isto align taxa�on with need, andso far as is possible hypothecatemotoring taxes such that thecost of building and maintainingroads and motoringinfrastructure is met by motoringtaxes, however with all thecompe�ng pressure for taxrevenue to fund socialprogrammes and the growingna�onal debt it would beimprudent to rush towards thatposi�on.

Road Hauliers are the lifebloodof the consumer economy. In2016 UK HGVs in the UK used 7billion litres of diesel, which is ¼of all diesel used and paid onaverage 45% more tax than theirEuropean counterparts. This putsUK Hauliers at a significantcompe��ve disadvantage givenfuel is one of the highest costsfor a Haulage company and isunavoidable.

3. IMPLEMENTTHE “WE’REJAMMIN” REPORTA Libertarian government willfully implement therecommenda�ons of the “We’reJammin” cross partyparliamentary report.

BENEFITSIn their report on signage androad safety the cross-partyinfrastructure group of MPsiden�fy excessive signage anddispropor�onate increase intraffic control measures as cos�ngthe average motor vehicle ownermore than five hundred pounds ayear as a result of beingunnecessarily stuck in traffic jams.Fully implemen�ng therecommenda�ons of the reportwill save the average motoristcirca fi�y hours a year currentlywasted snarled up behind themodern equivalent of an 1865pedestrian walking in front ofyour car with a red flag.

4. ABOLISH AIRPASSENGER DUTYThe high cost of air travel is oneof the reasons why the UK haslow usage of domes�c flights.Many countries around the world,including some of our nearneighbours have abolished thetax or significantly reduced it.Increased domes�c flights wouldalleviate pressure on other formsof transport such as rail and road.

BENEFITSThis will lower the cost of flightsin the UK, and encouragestourism, trade and investment.

NOTESThe Libertarian Party UKproposes to progressivelyreduce Air Passenger Duty to0% over 4 years to improve thecompe��veness of UK flightoperators and increase theu�lisa�on of domes�c routes.

The Libertarian Party UKsupports the building of furthercapacity in the form of newrunways. We will con�nue toconsider the most appropriateplaces to locate increasedcapacity.


CONCLUSIONIn 1865 motor vehicle speedlimits in built up areas were set to2 m.p.h and each vehicle wasrequired to follow behind apedestrian carrying a red flag.This was the law according to theLocomo�ve Acts. With health and

safety zeal reducing car speedlimits to 20 m.p.h., or perhapssoon less, conges�on in centralLondon reducing it to 7 m.p.h.,speed limiters to be introduced toprevent you driving at more than70 m.ph., parking at airports asort of expedi�on into the heart

of darkness and overcrowding ontrains the remorseless pressureon everyone to stay s�ll ismoun�ng. The Libertarian partydoes not mistake mo�on forac�on, but we are commi�ed toge�ng things moving in a costeffec�ve way.




Reduced revenue from Road 0.045 £45 million reduc�on in diesel fuel duty.

Reduced revenue from Air 11.8 Aboli�on of Air Passenger Duty


Rail 10.0 50% reduc�on in Rail subsidies.



ESTIMATED IMPACT ONBALANCE SHEET from sale of circa350 square kilometres of landincluding buildings 130.0

£19.6 billion was lent to the Railways by the government 2014-2017.Reducing the property por�olio of the railways, as we propose, by circa70% would reduce the borrowing need by circa £3,5 billion per annum.Moreover, Network Rail owns circa 128,000 acres, or £512 squarekilometres of land and buildings worth, say, £210 billion (a�er adjus�ng25% down for being in somewhat less built up areas on non-arterialroutes). Replacement of non-arterial routes with electric or hydrogencoach ways would enable sale of, say, 70% realising, perhaps, £110 to£150 billion of cash onto the government balance sheet.

NOTES


Sixty four per cent of Householdsreceive some sort of state benefit.This (excluding those dealt with inother policies) costs £94 billionper annum in welfare payments.

The Libertarian Party iscommi�ed to li�ing the weightsthat prevent wealth crea�onincluding the burden ofunproduc�ve welfare spendingwhile commi�ng to welfare forthose unable to fend for

themselves. Our combina�on ofresponsibility and compassion isstructured to bring about asubstan�al improvement ingovernment finances by reducingwelfare (excluding those dealtwith in other policies) by thirty sixper cent. Our focus is to do so inways that encourage wealthcrea�on and discourage familybreakup (which is, usually,deleterious to children).

State benefits are never free so inso far as our policies would shrinkthe welfare state, which theysubstan�ally will do, for everypound taken from one person apound would be given back to atax paying other. Except it isbe�er than neutral because noneof the pound given back wouldhave been wasted onadministering the benefit, as partof it is at present. Moreover, thepound given back would neverremove people’s incen�ve tostand on their own two feet as awelfare benefit can do, and inprac�ce does as you can seebelow in the case of severalpolicies that benefit those who donot need a benefit remotely asmuch as others more helpless do.

1. ENDINGWORKING TAXCREDITSWorking tax credits are a subsidyto zombie businesses toounproduc�ve to pay theirworker’s compe��vely. Whyanyone would think that the taxpayer should be financing theworker in one business but notanother is painful to imagine, butsubsidising businesses that are sounproduc�ve that they have topay their crew less than otherbusinesses is posi�vely perverse.It is reinforcing of failure. Workingtax credits, along with theequivalent (circa ten per cent) partof universal credit, will be ended.

A combination ofresponsibility andcompassion.

WELFARETO THE HELPLESS, NOT THE REST


BENEFITSAboli�on will go some way torestoring fact-based decisionmaking to the economy as well asremoving from each taxpayer athree hundred and forty threepounds per annum burden.

2. WITHDRAWALOF SELECTEDWELFAREBENEFITS FROMTHE VERYWEALTHYFor the most prosperous one infive by gross income (those with amedian gross income of £58,000per annum) disability livingallowance, personalindependence payments,incapacity benefits & carer’sallowance will be withdrawn.

BENEFITSThe change will help to arrest theballooning of this benefit, whosecost has increased far in excess ofinfla�on, but in a way that will fallon those more able to bare it.

NOTESTax credits were created by theLabour government of 1999 totop up the pay of low earners.First, the trouble is gone to oftaking tax from a worker. Then,the trouble is gone to of giving itback to a different worker. Themore efficient thing to do wouldbe just to not take it from theoriginal worker in the first place.The counter-argument is thatthe second worker is poorer.However, if we pay workersaccording to how poor they arerela�ve to each other, instead ofbecause we value what they aredoing for us, the result will beimpoverishment since there willbe no incen�ve to makeanything work. Working taxcredits are a perfectly dumb ideabecause they corrupt priceinforma�on, encourage wasteand embrace, instead, theimprac�cal collec�vist self-harming idea that we should bepaid for being useless by thosewho are doing something moreconstruc�ve.

NOTESOur calcula�ons assume thatamong the most prosperous onein five 35% would not claimthese benefits under the currentsystem. A�er adjus�ng forpopula�on growth, and theincreased frailty of an olderpopula�on, sickness anddisability payments have s�llrisen fi�y per cent faster thaninfla�on in the period since2000. In 2000 they were £19billion and in 2020 it is predictedthey will be £50 billion.Although we propose a 12%reduc�on in Sickness andDisability payments all this willdo is take us back to where wewere in 2015. However, unlikein 2015 all the money paid outwill be focused on the leastprosperous 80% so none of itwill go to assist those rela�velywell able to finance their owncare.


3. ABOLITION OFCHILD TAXCREDITThe Libertarian Party UK is notcomfortable with taxpayerssubsidising businesses moreheavily if their workers have morechildren, and is not comfortablewith those who do not havechildren being taxed to supportthose who do. We are willing tocountenance this if it discouragesfamily breakup but that is a wider

ma�er essen�ally of child welfare.Child tax credits, like working taxcredits, are a subsidy to arbitrarilyselected businesses. We will scrapthe credit.

BENEFITSAboli�on will result in be�erpublic finance ul�matelycontribu�ng to economic growth.Economic growth is the reliablelong term way of delivering thewealth that would enable thosewho want children to afford them.

4. WITHDRAWALOF CHILDBENEFIT FROMTHOSE EARNINGMORE THANAVERAGEFor the most prosperous one intwo by gross income child benefitwill be withdrawn.

BENEFITSThis will halve the taxing of thosewho have no children to supportthose who do, and increase theextent to which the decision tohave children will become anindividual one in which eachperson will be financiallyaccountable for the decision theymake rather than significantly notbeing thanks to the generosity oftax payers.

NOTESIt might be said that poten�alparents have already sufferedthe injury of childlessnesswithout the insult of a taxburden to fund other’s be�erfortune being added. For manyof those who consider it noinjury to have missed out onchildren there will be even lessreason for government tofinance the sort of choices theyhave themselves rejected.

NOTESHalving this benefit will grant asaving of £5.3 billion per year tothe tax payer.


5. REPLACESTATUTORYMATERNITYANDPATERNITY PAYWITH JOINTPARENTTAXRETURNSStatutory paternity and maternitypay will be scrapped. Insteadcouples will be allowed to submitunified self-assessment taxreturns if they wish for so long asthey have children underseventeen years of age. This will,over �me and speakingfinancially, more than offset, formany if not most, the effect ofscrapping maternity and paternitypay, but in a way that willincen�vise bringing children intothe world in a family context asopposed to as a single parent.

BENEFITSAn arbitrary burden will beremoved from business. Familieswill have an incen�ve to staytogether (which is usually in thebest interest of children) and oneindividual, among the couple,who wishes to priori�se childrearing will be more economicallyfree to do so. The way this willwork is that the wealthiermember of the family will be ableto use, say, a dependent partner,or very low earning partner’s, taxfree allowances to set againsttheir own tax liability. Thethreshold for applying the lowestlevel of income tax could also bebroadened to combine the twoindividual’s en�tlements. Thiswould mean the couples that didnot gain from the tax benefitwould tend to be those whocould best afford not to.

NOTESMaternity and paternity leave paysout, to the average worker, circa£5,500 per parent over weeks oneto thirty nine. The parents have theaddi�onal reward of having theirold job guaranteed which is worth,say, £3,300 to the employee. Bothcosts are carried by the businessnot the taxpayer (although thetaxpayer does bare £2.5 billion ofcost too).

Assuming a family with one familymember providing child care andassuming median Bri�sh earningsof circa £26,000 per year the taxon this income would be £4,782 in2018-19. With the tax freeearnings allowance of the couple,

under our policy, at £25,000 thenet benefit would be circa £4,600in tax no longer due. This contrastswith an es�mated value of £8,800for average paid maternity orpaternity leave over thirty nineweeks combined with job security.However, in the long, say, sixteenyear term the benefit to the coupleon average wages would be£73,600. A very substan�aldiscouragement to familybreakdown for those couples towhom it would apply.

Our policy will make the poten�alparent more responsible for thedecision to give birth, and thegovernment’s influence on thatdecision less, which is as itshould be.





Unified Self-Assessment TaxReturns for couples who so wish. 12.0

£4,600 net tax forgone from averagely or more than averagely wealthycouples (where one member is rela�vely poor). With circa 16.5 millioncouples living together in the UK and circa 9.9 million couples (60%)earning enough to benefit in full from a unified for couples self-assessment tax system, allowing for 25% not organising themselves tosubmit tax in the beneficial way and for 65% of those who do beingindividually both too wealthy, or too poor, to benefit as couples in such away, we es�mate that the tax foregone from the es�mated 2.6 millioncouples affected would be £12.0 billion per annum.


From Sickness and Disability. 6.0

Disability living, Personal independence and Incapacity benefits & Carer’sAllowance & Other (£46.5 billion). Withdrawal (at 50% of the set) fromthe 10% with the largest gross income ( > £64,000) for £2.3 billion andwithdrawal (at 80% of the set) from the 10% with the next largest grossincome (£43,000 - £64,000) at £3.7 billion.

2.1

Universal Credit (£8 billion 2018-19). Abolish the working tax creditcomponent es�mated at 10%. Abolish the child tax credit componentes�mated at 16%.

10.0Abolish working (also known as a personal) tax Credit (£10 billion 2018-19).

16.0 Abolish Child (also known as a personal) Tax Credit (£16 billion 2018-19).

5.3

Child Benefit (£11.5 billion 2018-19). Withdraw child benefit from the50% with the largest gross income (the top 10% already forfeit it),namely, those with gross income of > £26,000.

2.5 Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay (£2.5 billion). Scrap this.

1.4 Na�onal Insurance Social Security in the welfare cap (pro rata reduc�on)




NOTES




1.8Transport Policy (though there is a big gain for the government balance sheet in our transportpolicy).

21.4 Defence Policy

0.5 Home Affairs Policy


1.3 Digital, Media and Sport

12.1 Economic Policy

5.2 Educa�on Policy

18.4 Foreign Policy

14.1 Housing Policy

44.5 Health Policy

1.9 Pensions Policy

32.8 Welfare Policy




This improvement in public finances would eliminate the £27 billion per year governmentdeficit (2018) and enable repayment of the £1,840 billion government na�onal debt overtwenty three years before compound interest so in prac�ce perhaps seven years sooner. Itshould be noted that the true debt of government is greater in that the £1,840 does notinclude £500 billion of bank deposit protec�on liability, £4,000 billion of unfunded statepensions and £917 billion of unfunded public sector defined benefit workplace pensions atotal of £5,417 billion. Even this vast debt, minus the deposit protec�on which aLibertarian government would withdraw, so £4,917 billion could be fully funded a�erabout forty years of con�nuous Libertarian government at the level of prudencecommi�ed to in this our Manifesto.

SUMMARYTABLE - CHANGE IN UK GOVERNMENT BUDGET FROM LIBERTARIAN PARTY POLICIES


Print Edi�on: Promoted by AndrewWithers (Chairman) on behalf of the Libertarian Party,both at Gemini House, 136-140 Old Shoreham Road, Brighton BN3 7BD.Published online at libertarianparty.co.uk and libertarianpartyuk.com.

Printed by: Solopress, 9 Stock Rd, Southend-on-Sea SS2 5QF

Editorial Lead: Aidan Powlesland

First Edi�on (October 2019)

Documents

Manifesto 2019 Template - libertarianpartyuk.com · 10 | FREE STATES| LIBERTARIAN PARTY UK MANIFESTO ©2019LibertarianParty|LibertarianParty.co.uk 5. REDUCETHE NUMBEROFCIVIL SERVANTSINTHE