The Pin Factory Blog

Yesterday finally heralded my first day at the ASI as the Communications Manager, following a rather extended holiday due to the Icelandic ash cloud. After being cut off from the British news for nearly four weeks, it has been rather a shock to return to all the election hype and Nick Clegg-mania, but I’m very much looking forward to getting stuck into work at the ASI.

Prior to the ASI I worked for a large consumer brand PR agency, working with global brands across the pharmaceutical, financial and FMCG sectors. I also hold a PGCE from Oxford University, but one year working in comprehensive schools with all the paperwork and its dull and limited curriculum was more than enough to cure me of my desire to teach. I studied my undergraduate degree around the corner from where the handsome Adam Smith Monument now stands in Edinburgh, and it was whilst studying English Literature there that I first encountered ‘The Wealth of Nations’ and Adam Smith as part of my reading list!

In my spare time I enjoy going to the theatre, drinking far too much coffee and reading fiction. To counterbalance these more sedentary activities, I play netball and am training for a half marathon. I also love travelling and plan to see two-thirds of the countries in the world before I die. Any suggestions on how I can manage this, do let me know! I’m very much looking forward to meeting everyone and reading your blog comments etc – expect to hear more from me over the coming months!

As a female libertarian, I’m a rare breed. Libertarianism should give women more choice in their healthcare and their child’s education, it’s a key mechanism for alleviating poverty and creating greater personal freedoms, so why do so few women align themselves to this political theory?

Looking online, there are a number of (mostly misogynistic) arguments for the lack of women in our circles. It’s because women are ‘mostly emotional rather than rational’ or it’s the fear that libertarian events are filled with wild-eyed fanatics, that keeps them away. Or perhaps women just aren’t educated or encouraged to engage in political debate – we would rather study fiction and the arts – so discussing government policy and individual liberty isn’t something we feel at home with.

There may be some truth in the argument that women and men are wired differently. A study by Abrams found that with women’s suffrage the decisive voter was more likely to support increases in government social welfare spending. Women are socialised as nurturers, we expect society to care for people who have nothing, and as such are more attracted to a state that provides for the weakest. As Jessica Ashooh, an American libertarian argues, “If one's primary role is a wife and mother, rather than as a member of political society or the workforce, then issues involving individual rights fall to the wayside. Preferences become by definition collective and having a state safety net becomes much more desirable.”

I’m not so sure. Talking to women in my peer group they are completely aware of the dangers of big government, high taxation and a floundering economy. They also know they don’t want their children to grow up in a world of health and safety rules, they want choice in their children’s education, and want access to the right drugs and best healthcare when they are ill. If you ask me, plenty of women have been libertarians for years – they are just not familiar with the term or philosophy. We could blame the state education system or an apparent lack of interest in politics, but ultimately I think some of the blame must fall on us for not making libertarianism accessible. Whoever is to blame, one thing I do know is that if we want libertarianism to enter mainstream politics and influence government, then we need to start getting women on board and making libertarianism a real choice for both genders.

I’m not quite sure when we lost the right to privacy in the UK, but I have recently started to wonder what details on my private life I can protect from the State’s intrusion. The new NHS database is the latest violation of our rights to privacy, taking away our control over our medical records. Call me paranoid, but I find the idea of over a million NHS employees and central government bureaucrats accessing information about my medical history quite frightening.

Much fuss has been made in the media over the new NHS Database, which is costing an estimated £12.4billion to place everyone’s medical records on a central database (expected to be completed by 2015). Suffice to say, there doesn’t seem to be much sound reasoning behind such a colossal and costly project. The NHS claims that the database is necessary to replace the paper files currently held in GPs offices, allowing hospital and out of hours staff to access medical records in emergency situations. This may sound reasonable but the NHS has managed for years without this need for centralised information and there seems little evidence to support the argument that the public’s health is being compromised by having our medical records kept at the GP’s.

They also try to justify this nightmare database by claiming it would cut down on lost records and test results. Again this seems unjustified with a spokesman for the Department of Health admitted this was not a major problem under the current system. The whole thing seems a complete farce – for the sake of modernising the NHS and using the latest technology, our private medical records are being placed (at a huge cost) on a database particularly vulnerable to abuse and errors. There are already rumours that such information is being sold on the black market by private investigators, and I find it disconcerting that the State will have records documenting whenever one has visited psychiatrists, alcohol-dependency clinics or GUM clinics. Surely this information should be shared only between the patient and GP and not automatically uploaded onto a database accessed by over a million NHS employees.

So, thanks to The Big Opt Out and all the fuss in the media, I’m opting out of the NHS database. Our privacy in the UK has slowly been eroded by the vast amount of information that is being held on us and I can only hope that Cameron’s promise to return to traditional civil liberties will include a reining back on the database society we live in.

This week the French cabinet approved legislation to ban the wearing of full-face veils, including the burqa, in public and this will go into law in September. Amongst my circle there are plenty who are delighted with this news and only wish the UK government would have the guts to follow suit and ban what they see as oppressive, uncivilised and extremist clothing. However, in passing this law the French are setting a dangerous precedent, sacrificing individual freedom of choice and religious expression for the sake of apparent community cohesion.

The French Republic prides itself on its ethos of equality and liberty, so it seems ironic that, to protect their cultural ideals, they are removing a woman’s right to dress how she pleases. It may not be ‘French’ to make a public show of one’s faith, but these women should have a right to express their faith and dress according to their personal convictions. Personally, I think it is wrong to ask a devout woman to give up the burqa if she sees it as an act of obedience to God and there is just not enough evidence that this clothing is forced upon women by male relatives. On the other hand, in making Muslim women give up their burqas, the State could be forcing them to compromise their beliefs and identity for the sake of cultural homogeneity. Laïcité, the French concept of a secular society was supposed to ensure the absence of government intervention in religious affairs - not just keeping religion out of government. As such this authoritarian stance seems misplaced, and seems to exist more for the sake of calming public concerns over the rapidly growing Muslim population in France than to protect women’s rights.

Whatever the justification, the State in France shouldn’t arbitrarily force their values on their citizens – religious expression and dress simply isn’t a matter that any government should get involved in. It’s a personal matter and the government should step back and let things take their course without positive or negative discrimination. It’s not about the government making a shrine to the ideal of multiculturalism, but rather they should let individuals do what they want aware of the repercussions for them in their community. Businesses should be free from employment rules which may force them to positively discriminate for Muslim or burqa’d women, and women should be free to dress how they please, but be prepared for the fact their burqas may make them socially isolated in Western society.

This to me seems the only solution and may, in time, lead to a decline in the amount of women wearing burqas without the government needing to intervene. Ultimately, a society is healthier where people are free to choose what they wear and do and as such I believe it’s important that politicians do not let their personal prejudices lead to the loss of fundamental civil liberties. 

Civitas released a report this week showing that most politicians are poorly informed about social mobility in the UK and because of this have created a number of policies that are unnecessary and damaging. It argues that Britain still is a meritocratic society and that there is no need for the meddling and positive discrimination in education and employment that the previous government encouraged.

Among other things, Civitas found that ability trumps class in the UK, with ability being over twice as influential as origins in determining a child’s future success. It seems that actually what really matters is talent and hard work to change your chances in life, not government interference.

No doubt Harriet Harman will be outraged by these findings. Civitas is critical of the last government’s attempts at social engineering, which has encouraged discrimination in favour of working class students at university and has attempted to flatten income distribution through higher taxes and redistribution. None of these government strategies have actually encouraged social mobility. In reality it is through individual striving and ambition that people’s material situations are best improved, not through unfair government policies that prioritise one social stratum at the expense of others.

Ultimately nature isn’t fair and government can’t beat the laws of nature. Everyone possesses different abilities, talents, and levels of intelligence. As such we can’t all hope to achieve the same affluence or status in life and it is foolish of governments to think otherwise. It seems to me it’s about time the aspiring middle classes stopped being unfairly stigmatized and taxed and are recognised, as Civitas highlights, as the motivated, intelligent and productive wealth generators of our nation. It’s ironic the past government has sought to punish those who have elevated themselves through hard work, whilst claiming they are seeking to improve social mobility. Ultimately the lesson from this report is that if the new government really wants to create a fair society then they should step away from any attempts at social engineering and let people determine their own futures.

This week teachers will be glad to see Gove has been quango - cutting again. Following the death of Becta and the QCDA, he has announced the scrapping of the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE), a disciplinary watchdog, whose worth has long been questioned by those working in education. It’s great to see the power of so many meddlesome quangos being removed in an attempt to return some respect and autonomy back into the teaching profession.

My teacher friends can vouch for the fact that, as far as they are aware, the GTCE has done nothing to aid them in their careers or in the quality of their work. Instead over the last few years it has patronised these professionals and busybodied without aiding educational output. In 2009 they created a ‘code of conduct’, instructing teachers how they should behave both inside and outside of the classroom. It was a laughable act, which many teachers found insulting and interfering. Teachers, more than most professionals I believe, have had to face constant interference and change under the past government, which at times has made getting on with the task of providing the best education possible for each child in their care near impossible. A pruning down of the various watchdogs and educational bodies has long been overdue and this move should be a step towards the re-professionalising of the teaching profession.

These quango cuts, combined with Gove’s academies reform, signals a significant change in attitude to the education sector. The government is forging a new relationship of trust in giving schools the freedoms they have needed for so long and in responding to the calls of teachers for the end of these meddlesome quangos. And it’s clearly paying off – in the first week since Gove called on schools to apply to become academies over 1,000 have signed up. This response just goes to show that many in the education sector desperately want greater autonomy. Gove’s moves will all help to de-politicize education and allow the teachers and schools to provide the best quality education without the tight constraints of an overly-prescriptive curriculum, excessive paperwork and the patronising interference from quangos. Finally we might actually have an education system where those who know best, the headteachers and those in the classroom, have more influence than the career bureaucrats.  

This week, the ACS (Association of Convenience Stores) has welcomed the Government’s decision to review the ban on tobacco displays in retail stores and warned that the proposed reforms would cost £1,800 per store to introduce. Although it’s not guaranteed that the ban will be overturned, if the government does decide to do so they will send out a clear message that they are serious about reducing regulatory burdens and allowing greater personal and business freedoms.

Under the guise of tackling youth smoking and the burden that smokers place on the NHS, the past government had set into motion a ban that would prove both anti-competitive and excessively punitive for small businesses. Worse still, the ban has little justification: in Canada, the introduction of a display ban led to the closure of many convenience stores and no change in youth smoking habits. Hiding the brands and presence of tobacco in shops will not cut down on the amount of underage smokers, and instead fuel the growing market of contraband cigarettes. So there is no factual justification that removing the display of tobacco will reduce youth smoking, but from Canada, clear evidence that the aims of the ban will not be met and will damage small businesses.

Without doubt this ban should be overturned. Amongst the Coalition MPs, approximately a third have a background in business. This is good news: we need a government that supports small businesses and that seeks to remove the heavy load of laws and regulations brought in by the past government. But going further than that, we need a pro-freedom government as well as a pro-business one. We need the end of a nanny state, which seeks to bring in ‘fat taxes’ and hide fag packets from the consumer. And an end to governments telling us what to eat and how to treat our bodies, using damaging legislation and wasteful initiatives to enforce their dictates. The issue of tobacco control and public health is an area that has long been overdue for an injection of proportionality and common sense - let’s hope we see plenty of it in this review.

This week the last Catholic adoption agency in the UK has been forced to cease adoptions following the ruling of the Charity Commission. Catholic Care, a Leeds-based social care organization, only offers adoption services to heterosexual married couples. The Commission has ruled that their religious views do not justify its refusal to place children with homosexual couples. Gay rights campaigners may see this result as a victory, but I believe it reflects a growing trend of trampling on religious groups’ liberties and will mean young, vulnerable children will lose out.

Catholic Care has been offering adoption services for over 100 years, successfully placing children with families and offering post-adoption support services. It has a much better record than a lot of adoption agencies run purely by local authorities and receives its funding from the Catholic Church. By removing the agency’s right to offer adoption to heterosexual couples only, the Commission has effectively cut off funding for this service, as the Church will not give money to support a service that acts contrary to their beliefs. As a result, orphans and vulnerable children will lose out as a respected provider of these services is forced to close. It remains to be seen whether other agencies will be able to increase their provision in the area to make up for this.

Secondly, although the agency chooses not to help homosexual couples adopt, it does not actively prohibit it or encourage homophobia of any sort. Catholic Care is not stopping gay people adopting, it is just refusing to be forced into helping them do so. Homosexual couples are free to adopt using other adoption service providers in the area.

Lastly it’s wrong that, for the sake of the government’s crusade against discrimination, this quango is ending the good work Catholic Care do in the community. Their decision will bring no benefit to the local community and only continues to stoke concern over the growing limitations the government is placing on religious groups who seek to serve the community in accordance with their convictions. Our religious liberties are important civil liberties that must not be treated as an inconvenience or inferior to the apparent greater God of anti-discrimination laws. Therefore the Charity Commission’s decision represents a saddening defeat. As Pope Benedict XVI argues, it imposes unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs and ultimately results in a less free society.

In the UK it has become a moral duty of the state to provide financial support to the unemployed, despite the fact that its current model is unsustainable, with almost four million UK households having no adults in work. We have become reliant on government doing things for us, but this doesn’t have to be the case. Historically a number of charitable groups, churches and mutuals used to provide support for the unemployed when necessary and I believe this is a model we should increasingly seek to replicate.

Fortunately this ties in with one of the key aims of the Conservative’s Big Society agenda: to support and encourage co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises. As Tom has rightly pointed out, there is always a danger of ending up with a government-planned society. What we don’t need is government-run initiatives and social enterprises, but for government to simply step back and see civic groups take over the task and fill any new gaps in welfare provision.

To some, this may not sound very caring, but I would argue the current system is much crueler. Unemployment welfare is impersonal, it doesn’t provide enough help to get people back into work, and under the last government it created perverse incentives, trapping people in poverty. In contrast to this, there are a number of charities who play an important role in reintegrating people into the workforce and making them self-sufficient. The role these groups play should not be undermined – they offer a tailored service, mentoring systems and accountable relationships to address the diverse reasons for the individual’s unemployment. But they can do more than just act as a compliment to the state funded benefits. I believe they can take over the role of financial support too (depending on whether the government is prepared to create more incentives for philanthropic endeavours).

My own Church is a case in point. Every church member has the opportunity to give to an alms fund to help members of the congregation or local community in need of financial support. Many choose to give regularly, knowing that the pastoral team in the church will not only ensure the money goes to the right people, but that they will also take the time to mentor the individuals in question, help reintegrate them into the workforce, and support them during a difficult time. And where possible they try to provide some employment to these individuals, whether through building works at the church, administration or in childcare. As a result of this, the church is for many their first source of support rather than the government.

If government welfare was scaled back, churches and other organizations in the local community can be injected with a new vitality to serve the most needy in their area and to offer a quality of advice, support and job opportunities that are so badly needed. And most importantly this provision will provide a tailored, local and personal service that could never be achieved through state welfare systems.

Ian Cowie wrote in the Telegraph last week about the increase in tax-driven emigration between the 2008 and 2009 tax years. Under Labour, the tax system became more complex and the stance of the HMRC more hostile towards wealthy individuals. And as a result, many non-resident Brits have severed their financial ties to the UK rather than negotiate complex and punitive taxation rates delivered by HM Revenue & Customs.

The good news is that the Coalition government has shown a willingness to address this by setting the Office of Tax Simplification. But any ex-pats reading shouldn’t get too excited – we are still a long way off a fair and simple tax system. The Coalition’s stance is ambivalent at best: Vince Cable is making noise about the need to take a hard line with the wealthy, Capital Gains Tax has been hiked to 28%, and the 50% tax rate for top earners has been continued. It’s a tempting idea to whack up the tax rate to fill of the black holes in the government’s finances, but why on earth would highly mobile investors and wealth creators choose to stay in the UK under this regime? The private sector will be the one to lift the country out of recession, and yet our tax system makes us far less appealing for private investment or residency than tax havens like Monaco or the Isle of Man.

As the Laffer curve shows, higher taxes do not necessarily mean that people pay more. The tax exodus experienced in the UK illustrates the fact that, if the rate becomes too high, some individuals will simply choose to avoid it. And it’s not only the tax rate that is driving people away, but also the cumbersome nature of UK taxes. Uncertainty and complexity make the tax system incredibly hard for individuals (and even their accountants) to understand. I think the best solution (as Eamonn has blogged) is for the UK to adopt a simple, flat tax rate. If a rate of around 20% were adopted, the tax system would be easy to understand, low enough to undermine avoidance, and would be likely to foster dramatic economic growth.