The Impartial Reporter (based in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Ulster) proudly supports & promotes local businesses.

FOR SOME time now, the National Liberal Party has featured a Letters of the Month section. The idea of this section is to host ‘letters published in local or national papers from members or supporters. We encourage you to write something that refers to the party or one of our policies.’ Readers are asked to then send in copies of successfully printed letters to the NLPs e-mail address natliberal@aol.com

We’ve since extended this idea to include articles that have appeared in the media (especially the local media) which are broadly in accordance with our views. We believe that there are lots of professional & amateur writers who are ’national liberal’ in their outlook – but are unaware that the NLP exists as a political movement! However, it does not imply that we fully agree with the writer or media source or that we are connected to us in any way.

Here we reproduce an Editorial published just over two weeks ago – on 18th June – in The Impartial Reporter. Established in 1825, it’s the ‘oldest newspaper in County Fermanagh’ (Ulster) and serves ‘Fermanagh, South Tyrone and the border counties of the Republic of Ireland.’

.

Imperative that we now all support our local businesses

The Impartial Reporter (based in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Ulster) proudly supports & promotes local businesses.

IT WAS HEARTENING to see our economy slowly but surely emerging from the nightmare of the coronavirus this week.

Our traders and entrepreneurs are thankfully back in business and while it will take some time to get back to where we were prior to the end of march, we know that with the support of us all in this community, normality will return.

To this end, it is incumbent upon us all then to support our local businesses, now more than ever.

I do believe that it is something that Fermanagh people are good at.

We are fiercely proud of this area, this community and all that it stands for.  In the darkest days of the Troubles, we stood side by side and we must do it again in altogether different circumstances.

So when we are out shopping, when we are looking for something, think local first.  Think of how we can keep our money in this economy.

As we look to get back to a more prosperous, fully functioning economy, it is important to remember the multiplier effect of shopping local.

Simply put, the money you spend in a local shop will go to help pay the wages of the workers who then spend that money via their wages in the economy.  There is a positive knock on that goes well beyond the initial transaction.

Demand for local products and services increases and it is not long before this virtuous circle of goodness starts to make a real impact in terms of jobs and the overall strength of the economy.

On the other hand, money spent outside this area has no knock on benefit and does not create any extra inward investment.

So really, it is a time when we have to think local and support our own to help all of us accelerate out of these testing times.

This newspaper has consistently said that ‘We are all in this together’ and that is as important now as it was when the coronavirus pandemic first hit our community.

• CHECK OUT the National Liberal Party on Facebook here   https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

/?epa=SEARCH_BOX and here https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

• ALSO CHECK OUT the National Liberal Party on Twitter @NationalLiberal

THE SOCIAL CREDIT ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879 – 1952) are of great interest to the National Liberal Party.  We feel that Social Credit has the potential to put a halt to the insane – and seemingly endless  – economic cycles of boom & bust.  It aims to do this by making the purchasing power (‘money’) available to the public match the goods & services available to them.  This’ll also end the absurd situation of ‘poverty amidst plenty.’  Here, the likes of food is produced (and then thrown away or destroyed) because people don’t have the money to buy it.  This in turn leads to food poverty – starvation.

The NLP is also particularly interested in the Social Credit idea of reducing (and eventually abolishing) taxation as we’ve more than some sympathy with the libertarian belief that Taxation Is Theft!

We’ve reproduced What Is Social Credit? in an attempt to promote a mature debate into the various alternatives to capitalism & socialism.  Readers are more than welcome to post their comments on our National Liberals Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/

Please note that we have used the original North American spelling & currency here.  We’re also aware that a 16 page expanded version of this booklet exists and we hope to reproduce it in due course.

.

What Is Social Credit?

THE NATIONAL Liberal Party is interested in the Social Credit ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879 - 1952). Like him, we oppose the power & influence of the banks - the ‘Money Power’ - and believe that they should serve the people and not the other way around. What Is Social Credit?: A Simple Explanation For The Busy Reader shows how this can be achieved.

“SOCIAL CREDIT” is not just “a scheme of monetary reform,” as some people seem to think.  Social Credit – “the credit of society” – is the motivating power which arises from the belief (credo) inherent in society that its individual members in association can obtain the results they want.

This credit in association (social credit) can be realized by the people of a community if they are organized to that end.

The only form of social organization that will enable this to be achieved is one in which the people are the supreme authority – i.e., are “sovereign.”  The modern term applied to this type of society is “democracy.”

Democracy can be defined correctly as “government and management of a people’s affairs to give them the results they want” – i.e., to realize their credit in association (social credit).

The Social Credit proposals for a reform of (a) the political and (b) the financial systems, are designed to enable a smooth transition to be made from the present system of political frustration and financial domination to a properly functioning  political and economic democracy.

1. Political Democracy – involves the absolute supremacy of the people over all political institutions – i.e., parliaments, legislatures, armed forces, etc.  This can be achieved by making their political voting power effective.  For this purpose the people must be organized as the sovereign authority with complete control over their representatives all the time.

2. Economic Democracy – involves the absolute supremacy of the people over their economic institutions – industrial, commercial, etc.  This can be achieved by making their economic voting power (money) effective.  To this end the people must have sovereign control over the operation of the monetary (i.e., economic voting) system.  Instead of organizing a new monetary system, the technical faults in the existing system (which are the main cause of the evils of the present system – poverty amidst plenty, unemployment, debt, low wages, etc.) can be corrected by certain simple but far-reaching adjustments.  These faults are:

(a) The control, restriction and exploitation of the monetary system by a highly centralized private monopoly.

(b) The arbitrary limitation of money supply (by restricting it to gold or security holdings), thereby limiting production and consumption.

(c) The automatic operation of the system in distributing an increasing shortage of purchasing power in relation to the prices of the goods produced – e.g., prices of goods on the market = $2,400 : : purchasing power = $1,000.

(d) The distribution of purchasing power only via wages, salaries and dividends, in the final analysis for work in producing goods and services; whereas industry is progressively discarding manpower in favour of power-driven machine production.  Thus as ability to produce increases, ability to purchase, i.e., to consume the production, decreases, resulting in poverty amidst plenty, etc.  Moreover, the wages system, which forces men to work under conditions obnoxious to them at inadequate incomes as an alternative to destitution, renders the majority subservient to the will of a minority; it is a system of slavery.

The Social Credit proposals for a reform of the monetary system follow naturally from the ongoing:

(1) The control over the financial system would be exercised by a national authority responsible to the people through a Parliament under their control.

(2) Money supply would be limited only by the nation’s ability to produce wanted goods and services.

(3) The shortage of purchasing power would be made good by the issue of new money direct to consumers.  Taking the foregoing illustrative figures: goods = $2,400 : : purchasing power = $1,000; $1,400 new purchasing power would have to be distributed to make good the deficiency.

It should be noted that these figures are merely illustrative, and are used for the purpose of providing a simple explanation of a complex question.

This can be effected in the following manner:

i. All prices to be reduced by, say, 25% to consumers, the difference being made good to retail merchants on condition they observe a fair ratio of profit.  This would absorb $600.

ii. Taxation to be drastically reduced and progressively abolished.  Suppose this absorbs another $300.   (A balance of $500 remains to be distributed.)

(4) As power-driven machinery replaces man-power in the field of production, the increased economic security for all thereby made possible to be distributed as a national or social dividend payable to every citizen in addition to and irrespective of any earned income.  In the first instance this should be sufficient to provide basic economic security.  (The remaining $500 referred to above could be distributed in this manner.)

In this way a constant balance would be maintained between the total prices of goods on the market, and the total purchasing power available to buy those goods – without danger of either inflation or deflation.

Though simple, the foregoing mechanism would have far-reaching effects.  A person with a dividend having complete economic security  has freedom in a real sense.  He can decide for whom he works, under what conditions he will work, at what he will work – and no man can control his life by threatening to render him destitute.

* * *

This transition from the present system to a fully functioning Social Credit order – i.e., democracy – can be smooth and rapid.  No individual will suffer.  There will be more for everyone.  But there will be no wide gulf between “the haves” and “have nots.”

Everybody will be secure and will enjoy increasing personal freedom as social dividends increase in relation to earned incomes.

Leisure will be widely distributed and opportunities for cultural development will automatically expand.

The power of money over human life will disappear and the administrative positions will automatically become filled by men and women commanding the affection and respect of their fellows.  In short, an effective democracy will be established.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

• Martin Luther King Jr.

THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (GLA) ELECTION should have been held 17 days ago – on 7th May. They’re held every four years and 25 seats are up for grabs. The election is unique in that it comprises of three different ‘contests’ – each with its own ballot paper. This means that the London electorate votes for the Mayor of London, 14 Constituency Members & 11 Members that represent the whole of London (London-wide Members) all in one hit.

As this section of the official London Elects web-site notes – https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/what-do-mayor-london-and-london-assembly-do – the London Assembly is responsible for areas such as policing, transport, housing, planning and the environment.

However, due to the Covid-19 crisis, the GLA election has now been postponed until Thursday May 6th 2021. But what has all this got to do with Nations without States?

The main reason is that our friends and comrades of the National Liberal Party -NLP – were intending to stand candidates (under the banner of Self-Determination For All!) in the election. Here, they were hoping to draw attention to the fact that countless people around the world are demanding Self-Determination – whether it be some form of recognition, autonomy or independence.

Self-Determination is the raison d’être of the National Liberal Party. Therefore, they’ll support the right of all people who desire freedom. This includes for example the Catalans, Flemish, Kurds, Sikhs and Tamils. (The irony of the election being held in London – the English capital – won’t be lost on supporters of both NwS & the NLP. For those who don’t know, England doesn’t have its own Parliament. Westminster is a British, and not English, Parliament!)

The NLP have advised us that they are still organising for next May – although, now that there’s no immediate hurry, much of this is now being done behind the scenes.

Nations without States will also keep on highlighting the causes of those people who desire some form of Self-Determination. As our educational outreach posters (above) indicate, to date we’ve looked at the Aborigines, Aché, Ainu & Ahwazi People. Next up will be an article about the Åland Islands.

In the meantime, however, we feel that it’ll be appropriate to reproduce an article which appeared in issue 1 of Nation, the ‘Newsletter of Nations without States’. Identities, Self-Determination and Initiatives provided information about NwS and outlined our strategy. It talks about the need to ‘build a broad-front alliance which consists of self-determinists from the British Isles and the various foreign Diasporas living here.’ Whilst fighting elections wasn’t specifically mentioned at this early stage – although we feel that it’s implicit in the article – issue 2 of Nation reported that NwS wished to build ‘a whole new voting demographic.’

As usual, we welcome any feedback from fellow Self-Determinists once this article appears on Facebook/Nations without States.

Identities, Self-Determination and Initiatives

NATIONS WITHOUT STATES (NwS) is an exciting new activist based pressure group sponsored by the National Liberal Party. The NLP – Britain’s true centre party – is the only party that supports self-determination for all nations. Check out its website: www.nationalliberal.org

Founded in March 2012, the Organising Committee of NwS consists of Jagdeesh Singh, Graham Williamson and Sockalingam Yogalingam. It is currently appointing NwS Representatives, who’ll become official links to their community’s Diaspora. It also hopes to produce a self-determinist manifesto and constitution in the near future.

The main aim of NwS is to highlight the plight of all peoples who aspire to nationhood. These might be based on peoples or tribes within a state or even across borders; folk that may or may not have been independently organised in the past. They might have a linguistic or historical separateness from their neighbours or fellow citizens. All seeking statehood will aspire to recognition, autonomy or independence.

We will support the right of all such peoples to determine their future. These include, for instance, the Kurds, Flemish, Sikhs and Tamils. Nations without States – NwS – supports the right of self-determination where it is based on a sound and just position and is supported by the majority of its ‘national’ community.

As self-determinists we believe that the concept of nationhood is universal – and in an era of globalisation it needs protection and promotion as one solution to our political ills. A proud and recognised nation within its own state and at ease with itself is far more likely to ensure internal and external peace than any ‘supra-national empire’.

Thus, Nations without States will aim to:

• Showcase the many suppressed nations and those groups that struggle to obtain recognition for their nations and/or some level of autonomy or independence. We will do this via conferences, meetings, demonstrations, days of action, pickets, publications, leaflets and social media. Here we’ll look at the ‘forgotten nations’ of the world explaining their historical background, their present situation and what the future might hold. We are more than happy to allow representatives of such peoples as individuals or groups to present their case.

• Help build a broad-front alliance which consists of self-determinists from the British Isles and the various foreign Diasporas living here. We will co-ordinate the representatives and groups among the various Diasporas in the West so that each cause will benefit from each other’s experience, strength and contacts. Hopefully, by working together – via joint conferences, demonstrations and educational outreach material – each group will be able to push their national cause that little bit further towards their goals.

NwS is unique because it links all of our national struggles. We believe that joint strategies and the pooling of our resources will make us much stronger. This is essential – as we’re up against powerful governments who have a vested interest in denying people self-determination. Some of these governments are openly dictatorial – indeed, they’re not adverse to a spot of genocide. Even some of the ‘democratic’ governments just pay lip service to true democracy and human rights.

They also have lots of money to spend on PR. In many cases they can call upon a compliant media to either smear those fighting for self-determination or simply not bother reporting views which represent an ‘inconvenient truth’.

Those interested in helping NwS overcome these vested interests and obtaining self-determination for all of our nations, should contact nationswstates@aol.co.uk or check out Facebook/Nations without States.

An electronic Conference on Kashmir’s Lockdown running quite separately and earlier than the global one was held last week. Various Kashmiri organisations, politicians, human rights activists and our (national) Self-Determinist pressure group Nations without States, attended.

Some notable attendees included the Conference Moderator Barrister M. Tramboo, Chairman Professor K. Buchner MEP (the Conservative Green ODP), and President in exile Carles Puigdemont (of Catalonia). The Conference discussed the need for the world to acknowledge Kashmir’s Self-Determination and Human Rights.

A Resolution was agreed by the participants calling the UN, EU, individual states and whomever will listen, to lobby for a solution (to follow). It was agreed that such conferences should be held on a regular basis.

Our Parliamentary petition was brought up as one initiative, amongst many, that supporters can get behind: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300570/

THE INTRODUCTION of a Universal Basic Income – UBI – is the subject of the first debate to be sponsored by the Isle of Wight Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party on the Isle of Wight.

However, before we can start this debate, it’ll be useful to know what a Universal Basic Income is. For those who don’t know, it’s an unconditional, periodic cash payment that the government makes to everyone. There’re no strings attached & it isn’t means tested. Essentially, it’s been described as a floor below which no one’s cash income can fall.

The Isle of Wight Voice (IoWV) believes that there’s four main practical reasons why some form of national payment is needed:

• MANY JOBS will be lost due to the rapid advances made in IT and robotics. If workers have no jobs, how will they pay their bills?

• A UNIVERSAL Basic Income acknowledges that people contribute to society in many ways – and not only via paid work. Here we’re thinking of those who carry out voluntary and/or charitable work.

• A GUARANTEED income will allow people to develop cultural & artistic skills. This will allow us to move away from an overly materialistic society, obsessed with GDP and excessive profits.

• THE BENEFITS system is a complete shambles. Some people are waiting weeks & even months for some form of payment. Some form of UBI will ensure that no one is left in absolute poverty.

Practical reasons aside, the introduction of a UBI is a subject that goes beyond the traditional ‘left’ & ‘right’ political divide. This is of great interest to us as we feel that the Establishment has been allowed to rule for far too long via its strategy of ‘divide & conquer’. As such, we’re not concerned too much about labels – we’re far more interested in ideas. Here, the IoWV wishes to nail its colours to the mast by declaring that we’re neither of the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ – neither are we capitalist or socialist. We’re not great fans of ‘Big Government’ so the actual mechanics of distributing a UBI worries us to some extent.

With all the above in mind, we’d ask readers to study this article – originally called ‘Universal Basic Income: Ruling class scam or step toward socialism?’ by Tim Libretti in the US leftist paper, the People’s World – and let us know what you think about UBI. You can do so when you see this article appear on the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

You can read Tim Libretti’s original article here: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/universalbasic-income-ruling-class-scam-or-step-toward-socialism/?fbclid=IwAR2HWl0yRHQYwIoI3Cr8gqdH_ OOfReQPUJgTANsIxD5XR8A47KOePuX8vkU Please note that we have left any North American spellings & phrases as they are. It goes without saying that there are no links between Tim Libretti, the People’s World, the National Liberal Party or the Isle of Wight Voice.

.

Universal Basic Income – Beyond Left & Right

Pictured from top left to bottom right: Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821), Major CH Douglas (1879 – 1952), Huey Long (1893 - 1935), Richard Nixon (1913 – 1994) & Martin Luther King, Jr., (1929 – 1968). All held different political positions & views but endorsed the idea of a minimum guaranteed income.

The more mega-capitalists like Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, and the like support it, the more some on the left grow suspicious. Left-leaning intellectual Chris Hedges (1), for example, characterizes the universal basic income as an oligarchical plot designed to defuse any call or movement for actual and substantial structural change to the capitalist system, the dynamics of which create the inequity and misery people suffer to begin with.

And, of course, we do need to recognize the truth that universal basic income policy is not designed to alter the structure of capitalism but rather provide some basic relief to the misery and poverty capitalism creates. Obviously, we need to keep our eyes on the prize of achieving the end of class society and exploitation and creating a world in which the fruits of our collective labors are shared.

Nonetheless, as Daniel Ravenós and Julie Wark (2) have pointed out, so far the universal basic income “is the only policy being mooted as a way of universally guaranteeing the most basic right of all: the right to material existence.” And, in response to Hedges’ concerns, they point out that a universal basic income can nonetheless abet revolutionary class struggle, arguing that “while not a universal panacea, is one way of strengthening vulnerable members of society in their struggle against the oligarchs.”

And, hey, why not go along with the scam, as long as we don’t fall for it? Take the money and run right down the revolutionary road. Destination: socialism.

What is important is that we cultivate and sustain a political and class consciousness rooted in awareness of the fact that our current economic arrangement—capitalism—is precisely what generates the grotesque inequality we need to eliminate. And by extension that same system is responsible for the grotesquely inequitable distributions of political power that deprives the mass of our population the right of self-determination—denies them freedom.

The universal basic income, I would argue, is already beginning to shift our national consciousness in directions that can direct us on the road to socialism. It is bringing issues of class and inequality more into focus and making them part of the national conversation, though in theoretically insufficient ways.

Chris Hughes (3), for example, the co-founder of Facebook, has argued strenuously for a universal basic income as not necessarily a comprehensive solution but as at least a moderating analgesic for the severity of income inequality and poverty in America, asserting, “We talk about inequality—and the economy in general—in terms that make it seem like these are structural problems that we can’t do anything about. When in reality, we’ve created the rules of the road: the way the economy works now.”

While he might not fully articulate what a different economic structure or system would look like (he doesn’t say the “S” word), he does unsettle the notion that capitalism is a fixed and unchangeable thing. He raises the specter that another economy is possible and makes the important point that people control and build the economy, which means we can, in fact, change it and create it anew.

As a culture and in our political discourse, we tend to talk about “the economy” in ways that dehistoricize it and make it seem permanent, as if capitalism is the only game in town. We don’t hear many people in talking about our economy say “the capitalist economy” to distinguish it, say, from feudal or socialist economies. As a culture, this makes it a lot harder for us to entertain different kinds of economic arrangements.

While Hughes, I’m guessing, does not identify as a Marxist, his intervention in this debate does begin to offer a different language for talking about our economy and the fact that poverty is not simply the fault or just desert of lazy or feckless people, but rather a product of capitalist economy. This  language  opens  and  orients  the  national  consciousness  to  a  potentially  imaginativeconversation about what a socially just and humane economy might look like. It’s an opener, anyway.

Billionaire Mark Zuckerburg (4), similarly provokes thinking about both the effectiveness and fairness of class society—and by extension capitalism—in his advocacy for a universal basic income. In a commencement address he delivered at Harvard, he indicated how growing up with financial security allowed him the freedom to pursue his inventions, explaining, “If I had to support my family instead of having time to code, if I didn’t know I’d be fine if Facebook didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be standing here today.”

These capitalists point not just to the unfairness, even inhumanity, of capitalism, but they even hint at what Marx stressed in his analysis of the history of class society: Capitalism, while it unleashed the creativity feudalism had constrained, it also fetters human creativity and the forces of production overall, leading to an economy at once inhumane and inefficient.

Secondly, and more importantly, the universal basic income, in asserting everyone’s right to a material existence, accomplishes some important work in our cultural consciousness, in Marxist directions, in terms of dissociating or de-coupling the work people do from their ability to have their material needs met and, more to the point, to share in the fruits of our collective labor.

In other words, the implementation of a universal basic income can begin to erode the powerful meritocratic ideology that, as I have argued elsewhere (5) in the pages of People’s World, is a centrally insidious ideology sustaining capitalism. As a culture, we are for the most part perfectly happy valuing people’s work unequally, regardless of how essential it is to our lives. Our capitalist culture makes it seem normal and just that the doctor doing the important work of keeping us healthy deserves a lot more money—and hence access to more resources—than the farmworker who does the important and essential work of feeding us. As a culture, we lack a recognition that this very way of valuing work is a product of a capitalist economy, that the way we determine the “merit” of work grows out a capitalist mentality.

Definitive of Marxism for me is the principle made famous in The Communist Manifesto which Marx reiterates in his Critique of the Gotha Program, namely the idea: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” This notion challenges, indeed explodes, the idea that the work people do should bear any relation to their ability to meet their needs or have access to the fruits of our collective labor.

The American dominant culture, however, forcefully insists upon not only differentially valuing work but also linking the work one does to one’s ability to consume or access resources (purchasing power) to live. A vital piece of Marxist thought is precisely this powerful gesture of de-linking the work people do (or not) from their right to a material existence.

The universal basic income, as a policy, does this important cultural work of de-linking people’s merit—people deserving nourishment, housing, healthcare, education, safety, and other basic human rights—from the type of work they do, how much they work, and even from whether they work or not.

Moving to a socialist culture and imagination means we must recognize and eradicate the capitalist values infecting us. Meritocracy is a deeply rooted capitalist value many in America do not even recognize as capitalist.

Mayor Michael Tubbs (6) of Stockton, California, however, has been able to implement a universal basic income in his city, with a plan to be piloted on a small scale beginning in 2019. What motivated him was precisely the socialist imagination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which he has invoked explicitly, recalling reading King’s Where Do We Go From here: Chaos or Community, in which King calls for a guaranteed annual income.

While certainly no remedy for or alternative to capitalism, the universal basic income can address poverty and improve lives while at the same time altering our entrenched thought patterns and inspiring an imagination to ease us on down the road to socialism.

1.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 2.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 3.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-04/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-wants-universalbasic-income 4.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-universal-basic-income-in-2017.html 5.https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/meritocratic-thinking-devalues-all-work-job-talk-series-part-3/ 6.https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww. washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fpost-nation%2fwp%2f2018%2f06%2f04%2fa-city-ponders-whether-500-amonth-no-strings-attached–would-help-reduce-poverty%2f%3fnoredirect%3don%26utm_term% 3d.860279bf2be3&noredirect=on&utm_term=.860279bf2be3

Coronavirus. Where did it come from and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time? Is it just another form of flu – if not, how does it differ? And why are governments talking about introducing drastic measures to counter it?

WHAT SHOULD we make of the Coronavirus? Where did it spring from – and by what means – and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time?

These are just some of the questions that people are asking since the outbreak began in China and then spread rapidly into Europe, North America and the Middle East.

It’s generally accepted that the Cronoavirus (Covid-19) originated in late September in the Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market in city of Wuhan. Wuham is the capital of Hubei province in Central China. Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market is also sometimes described as a ‘wet market’ – and it’s where live animals such as bats, snakes, rabbit and birds are said to be illegally sold

To give an idea of scale, the population of Wuhan’s metropolitan area is 19 million whilst the population of Hubei province – in 2015 – was 58,500,000. Wuhan serves as a major transport hub and the political, cultural, and economic hub of Central China – which could explain why the virus travelled so fast within China – and Hubei is known as the ‘Land of Fish and Rice’.

It also seems to be clear that Northern Italy was the first area in Europe to be hit. And it was hit hard. Many people – including ourselves at Harrow Voice – are mystified as to why this should be. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

The rapidly moving situation (relating to Covid-19) makes it next to impossible to accurately predict how many people locally, nationally and internationally will contract it, or, sadly, die from it.

The main thing to remember at the moment is that – unfortunately – the UK figure is liable to rise as the government believes that coronavirus will spike in around two weeks time. Hopefully, the figures will go down after that, but there’s still no indication of when things will go back to relative normality.

Despite this – and along with many other people – Harrow Voice (HV) has an odd feeling about what’s going on. We fully admit that we can’t quite put our finger on it, but we’re wondering why various governments are going to such extraordinary (and unprecedented) lengths to tackle this virus.

This Live Science site https://www.livescience.com/56598-deadliest-viruses-on-earth.html

provides some context and we certainly recall the SARS and Avian flu scares from yesteryear. We’re also aware that ‘ordinary’ flu kills thousands of people each year. However, a health scare has never been used to effectively crack down on the civil and religious liberties of our people – so much so that it’s been suggested that we’re sleepwalking into authoritarianism.

So what makes Covid-19 so different and does the government know something that we don’t? And what’ll happen once this is all over?

To be fair, no one outside of a select few could probably answer the first question. However, HV would like to give some pointers in an attempt to answer the second. And we hope to expand on these ideas in future debates.

First of all, we think that the slogan Small Is Beautiful! makes even more sense now than it ever did. No matter how coronavirus originated we get the feeling that one vital aspect of globalism – the entirely free movement of people – has helped to spread it. Therefore, more should be done to protect our territorial integrity. We feel that it’s entirely reasonable and sensible to know who’s in our country at any one time – especially if they are harbouring highly contagious viruses.

(On saying the above, and we want to make this perfectly clear, it does not excuse any personal attacks on Chinese nationals here or anywhere else. Such attacks are completely out of order – not to mention counterproductive – and it’s important to remember that the vast majority of people, Chinese or otherwise, are in no way responsible for the actions of their respective governments.)

We also feel that it would be preferable to be more autonomous and as self-sufficient as possible. This should apply across the board and includes individuals, local areas – such as our borough of Harrow – and all nations. And when we talk about self-sufficiency we’re talking in terms of food, energy, water, recycling and so on.

In particular, we need to start investing in Research and Development here and encourage a wide industrial base by making things ourselves rather than importing. That means investing in education and training and not relying on importing skilled or unskilled workers.

On a similar theme, we’re more convinced than ever that capitalism (as well as socialism) has to go. We need to go back to our economic roots in terms of small businesses, local independent businesses, sole traders, family farms, Co-Operatives and so on. These should form the backbone of the economy. Indeed, we really need to wean ourselves off of our over reliance on massive supermarkets and fast food chains. In short, we need to move away from centralisation and promote a more decentralised, organic – or rooted – way of living that’s in tune with nature.

Autonomy, decentralisation & self-sufficiency also ties in with our belief in ‘small government’ – meaning that we should be less reliant on central government.

Whilst we’re on the subject of autonomy, we believe that there’s something to the argument that London (along with many other cities – and the South East of England as a whole) is now far too large & over crowded to be sustainable.

For instance, Greater London, of which Harrow forms a part of, covers 1,572 1,572 km2 (607 square miles) and the population, as at the 2011 census was 8,174,000. Therefore, Harrow Voice has some sympathy with the belief that the capital city should be scaled back to its original inner boroughs. This would mean that outer London boroughs will return to their original historic counties. Thus Harrow will become part of Middlesex again.

As with our first debate (see the link below), we’d appreciate you comments – especially if you have any specialist knowledge relating to Covid-19 – on any of the points we’ve raised here. Just look out for this debate when it appears on our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ – or the National Liberal Party Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

• ALSO check out

Harrow Voice Debate (1) – What Do You Think Of Universal Basic Services? http://nationalliberal.org/