Because he may just be the only hope, at this point, that the United Kingdom has against the disjointed, lefty politics of Tony Blair. The Guardian just about had a cow yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition published his ‘I Believe’ document - a move which set out the principals which would inform the policies of his party; something which has not been done by any political party in quite some time. Considering that, on this blog, I have repeatedly moaned and groaned about the lack of pure principal defining politics today; and then to find that Howard’s document not only sets out his principals, but also largely sets out principals WHICH I AGREE WITH, you can appreciate the need for the short bathroom break utilised by this writer at the time of reading.

Of course the paper (circulated by email to Conservative party members) has been criticised - and those criticisms are not without merit - but mostly they are missing the point. The point is that, no matter what flaws there are in his creed, he had the political proficiency, quality of character and confidence in his theory to show his hand and lay the old cards on the table. This is not just rare, but precious in today’s political climate, and should be welcomed by everyone - not only those who agree.

Saying that, I DO agree. He has set out a more libertarian political agenda than ANY prominent politician in the United Kingdom since Margaret Thatcher. It is hard to overstate the importance of what this could mean for British politics, particularly if we now feel the Conservative party have a chance of being elected. Among other things, he says, “I believe people are most likely to be happy when they are masters of their own lives, when they are not nannied or over-governed. I believe that the people should be big. That the state should be small. I believe red tape, bureaucracy, regulations, inspectorates, commissions, quangos, “tsars”, “units” and “targets” came to help and protect us, but now we don’t need protection from them. Armies of interferers don’t contribute to human happiness.” Music to the ears of anyone who loves freedom.

One of the more controversial statements, and of course something which is key to libertarianism ever working in practice, is: “I do not believe that one person’s poverty is caused by another’s wealth.” I agree. The wealth in America (for example) was not stolen from another nation to leave them in poverty. Those who founded the US knew that wealth had to be CREATED. Rather, it was those who ascribed to themselves the power to take money forceably from other people that caused poverty, not those who believed in the liberty that would allow people to keep what they earn themselves.

If only Tessa Jowell could understand that. She wrote a depressing article in yesterday’s Times entitled, “In your own interest, learn to love the nanny state”. (That says it all really, doesn’t it?) See the following article for a critique.

(Please feel free to email me at john-wright@ntlworld.com on this or any other posts.)