Shane Frith: Welcome to the "progressive coalition"!

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Three years ago, Mark Littlewood and I established Progressive Vision, a campaigning think tank which brought together a coalition of classical liberals from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We did this because we recognised that true liberal DNA, if somewhat suppressed, existed in both parties.  Indeed, both parties even share a hero in the form of Winston Churchill who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments.

As a Conservative, I would have preferred to see a solid majority for my party, but even three years ago it was clear to see that there was a real risk we might need to work with the Liberal Democrats to undo the damage of the disastrous Labour administration.  Having seen coalition governments at work in New Zealand I knew that it was possible for supporters of different parties to work together for the good of the nation.

While supporters of these two parties disagree on much (notably Europe), there is much common ground.  The Lib Dems I work with are generally described as "Orange Bookers", whose policy recommendations are often more ambitious than those of the Conservative Party. The Orange Book called for ambitious reform of the NHS, which while not as bold as Dan Hannan’s proposals for health savings accounts advocated in "The Plan", shamed the Conservative Party’s official position.  Even in the Lib Dem manifesto, they bravely refused to “ring fence” the NHS from spending cuts.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Three years ago, Mark Littlewood and I established Progressive Vision, a campaigning think tank which brought together a coalition of classical liberals from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We did this because we recognised that true liberal DNA, if somewhat suppressed, existed in both parties.  Indeed, both parties even share a hero in the form of Winston Churchill who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments.

As a Conservative, I would have preferred to see a solid majority for my party, but even three years ago it was clear to see that there was a real risk we might need to work with the Liberal Democrats to undo the damage of the disastrous Labour administration.  Having seen coalition governments at work in New Zealand I knew that it was possible for supporters of different parties to work together for the good of the nation.

While supporters of these two parties disagree on much (notably Europe), there is much common ground.  The Lib Dems I work with are generally described as "Orange Bookers", whose policy recommendations are often more ambitious than those of the Conservative Party. The Orange Book called for ambitious reform of the NHS, which while not as bold as Dan Hannan’s proposals for health savings accounts advocated in "The Plan", shamed the Conservative Party’s official position.  Even in the Lib Dem manifesto, they bravely refused to “ring fence” the NHS from spending cuts.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Three years ago, Mark Littlewood and I established Progressive Vision, a campaigning think tank which brought together a coalition of classical liberals from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We did this because we recognised that true liberal DNA, if somewhat suppressed, existed in both parties.  Indeed, both parties even share a hero in the form of Winston Churchill who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments.

As a Conservative, I would have preferred to see a solid majority for my party, but even three years ago it was clear to see that there was a real risk we might need to work with the Liberal Democrats to undo the damage of the disastrous Labour administration.  Having seen coalition governments at work in New Zealand I knew that it was possible for supporters of different parties to work together for the good of the nation.

While supporters of these two parties disagree on much (notably Europe), there is much common ground.  The Lib Dems I work with are generally described as "Orange Bookers", whose policy recommendations are often more ambitious than those of the Conservative Party. The Orange Book called for ambitious reform of the NHS, which while not as bold as Dan Hannan’s proposals for health savings accounts advocated in "The Plan", shamed the Conservative Party’s official position.  Even in the Lib Dem manifesto, they bravely refused to “ring fence” the NHS from spending cuts.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Three years ago, Mark Littlewood and I established Progressive Vision, a campaigning think tank which brought together a coalition of classical liberals from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We did this because we recognised that true liberal DNA, if somewhat suppressed, existed in both parties.  Indeed, both parties even share a hero in the form of Winston Churchill who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments.

As a Conservative, I would have preferred to see a solid majority for my party, but even three years ago it was clear to see that there was a real risk we might need to work with the Liberal Democrats to undo the damage of the disastrous Labour administration.  Having seen coalition governments at work in New Zealand I knew that it was possible for supporters of different parties to work together for the good of the nation.

While supporters of these two parties disagree on much (notably Europe), there is much common ground.  The Lib Dems I work with are generally described as "Orange Bookers", whose policy recommendations are often more ambitious than those of the Conservative Party. The Orange Book called for ambitious reform of the NHS, which while not as bold as Dan Hannan’s proposals for health savings accounts advocated in "The Plan", shamed the Conservative Party’s official position.  Even in the Lib Dem manifesto, they bravely refused to “ring fence” the NHS from spending cuts.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Three years ago, Mark Littlewood and I established Progressive Vision, a campaigning think tank which brought together a coalition of classical liberals from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. We did this because we recognised that true liberal DNA, if somewhat suppressed, existed in both parties.  Indeed, both parties even share a hero in the form of Winston Churchill who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments.

As a Conservative, I would have preferred to see a solid majority for my party, but even three years ago it was clear to see that there was a real risk we might need to work with the Liberal Democrats to undo the damage of the disastrous Labour administration.  Having seen coalition governments at work in New Zealand I knew that it was possible for supporters of different parties to work together for the good of the nation.

While supporters of these two parties disagree on much (notably Europe), there is much common ground.  The Lib Dems I work with are generally described as "Orange Bookers", whose policy recommendations are often more ambitious than those of the Conservative Party. The Orange Book called for ambitious reform of the NHS, which while not as bold as Dan Hannan’s proposals for health savings accounts advocated in "The Plan", shamed the Conservative Party’s official position.  Even in the Lib Dem manifesto, they bravely refused to “ring fence” the NHS from spending cuts.

Shane Frith: Lessons from New Zealand on the dangers of hung parliaments, coalitions and PR

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Let me tell you a story… The leader of a minor party gets a rare opportunity to debate alongside the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties.  As the two major party leaders spend most of their time attacking each other, the minor party leader is unscathed and is permitted to make reasonable sounding statements.  The minor party leader is then universally declared the winner of the debate. 

Moreover, when a group of “undecided” voters are asked to rate the performances, the resulting “worm” graphic consistently trends upwards when the minor party leader speaks (he used the words “common sense” a lot).  At the resulting election the minor party has the balance of power and supports the continuation of a Labour led government.  Britain in 2010?  No – New Zealand in 2002, if you allow for the licence in calling New Zealand's National Party the Conservative Party.

Compounding my déjà vu is the possibility of the introduction of proportional representation, which New Zealand adopted in 1996 following a referendum in 1993.  The experience of coalition politics and PR in my native land offers interesting insights into Britain’s possible future.   Most warn of the dangers of PR and the consequences for all parties.  Even the Liberal Democrats (please, never call them “The Liberals”) should take heed of these lessons: the minor party in 2002 was all but wiped out at the next election as a consequence of them having to take real decisions and their lack of preparedness for office. 

Moreover, an earlier minor party which held the balance of power in 1996 split in two after a year in coalition with National, with one side supporting the continued National Party led government – and neither half of this party is represented in Parliament today.  PR has given birth to, but then destroyed, populist parties of the centre. The Lib Dems should be careful what they wish for!

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Shane Frith: It's time to expose the anti-capitalist green groups

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

In most areas of society, reputation management is crucial. An organisation found responsible for a dodgy report that led a global organisation to make erroneous claims would be a laughing stock. Organisations advocating policies responsible for the deaths of millions, and the impoverishment of many more, would be pariahs. At a time when Britain needs to focus on economic growth in order to return the nation to prosperity, anti-capitalist anti-growth organisations should be shunned by conservatives and classical liberals. Yet today, organisations in these categories are courted by politicians and royalty. Others are partnered with corporations seeking to bolster their perceived corporate responsibility and image. Volunteers for these groups openly fund-raise on the streets of Britain and retain charitable status.

For some reason, the environmental movement seems to be immune to the standards to which other organisations are held. WWF’s false claim that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2050 fits well with their alarmism about climate change, but for accuracy it rates with Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier. Yet, Sky News now partners with WWF in an attempt to protect the rainforests. Have they consulted the millions of Asians, Africans and South Americans who have their livelihoods threatened by various campaigns of WWF? Their latest campaign is for a blanket ban on the importation of palm oil, despite the fact that most companies adhere to a policy of sustainable harvesting and employ hundreds of thousands. Let’s not allow discredited organisations influence public policy in this way. How can Sky News be seen to be objective on environmental issues with their WWF association? For that matter, what do their colleagues at Fox News think of such a connection?

Since the 1990s, organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have led hysterical campaigns against genetically-modified food. They have delayed the introduction of flood resistant rice by ten years and of golden rice for more than a decade, resulting in the suffering of millions from malnutrition or Vitamin A deficiencies (causing blindness). Throughout this time, these opponents of genetically-modified food have disputed the claims that the science on GM has been settled and that the consensus that GM is safe for human consumption. It is highly ironic given their current claims about the “settled” science on climate change. Any apologies from these groups for their involvement in the suffering of millions? Not a chance.  Yet, Eurostar partner with Friends of the Earth as part of their marketing campaign. Maybe it’s time to start flying to Paris and Brussels.

Possibly the most damning activity of these green groups has been their opposition to the use of DDT in combating malaria. Like most readers of this blog, I grew up believing that DDT was a harmful chemical, one that threatens to kill all bird life as described in (the now discredited) Silent Spring. Like most chemicals (including H₂O) if concentrated it can be harmful. However, used in moderation DDT remains an effective insecticide, particularly for controlling malaria carrying mosquitoes. We know, because it was highly successful in the eradication of malaria in southern Europe after World War Two. However, using faulty science, green groups such as Greenpeace have successfully prevented the use of this important tool in Sub-Saharan Africa. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Most of these groups have now, reluctantly, withdrawn their open opposition to DDT, but again we receive no apology.

Today in Britain, these groups are opposing the construction of a biofuel plant (as long as they receive no taxpayer subsidy, biofuel is an effective way to reduce our dependence on vile Middle Eastern regimes) in Bristol, on spurious grounds. Forget the economic ham to the people of Bristol – they can collect government handouts. The poor who harvest these crops in Malaysia and Indonesia will have no such luxury.

These groups are driven by a green ideology that undervalues human life and prosperity. Their positions on climate change, genetically-modified food, DDT and deforestation have resulted in the deaths or impoverishment of millions. It is time that they were held to account for their past misdeeds. Politicians should not be associating themselves with the likes of Greenpeace in an attempt to win votes. It may be morally questionable to be working with these groups, but it is also politically short-sighted. Who doubts that these groups will turn into vociferous opponents of a Conservative government when it is forced to deal with economic reality, not the woolly-headed ideology of the green lobby?

Last year, Progressive Vision launched Green Monitor to highlight the activities of and harm done by the environmental movement.  If we are to combat the harm done by groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF we must work together.  We ask supporters to assist in the following ways:

• Alert Green Monitor to local campaigns these groups in where they are spreading false information
• Join Green Monitor
• Where possible avoid using companies that associate with these groups (although watching the BBC rather than Sky is possibly going too far)
• Challenge their supporters when they fundraise in our streets – most of the volunteers will be oblivious as to the actual consequences of their actions
• Ensure politicians don’t share platforms with these groups

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

In most areas of society, reputation management is crucial. An organisation found responsible for a dodgy report that led a global organisation to make erroneous claims would be a laughing stock. Organisations advocating policies responsible for the deaths of millions, and the impoverishment of many more, would be pariahs. At a time when Britain needs to focus on economic growth in order to return the nation to prosperity, anti-capitalist anti-growth organisations should be shunned by conservatives and classical liberals. Yet today, organisations in these categories are courted by politicians and royalty. Others are partnered with corporations seeking to bolster their perceived corporate responsibility and image. Volunteers for these groups openly fund-raise on the streets of Britain and retain charitable status.

For some reason, the environmental movement seems to be immune to the standards to which other organisations are held. WWF’s false claim that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2050 fits well with their alarmism about climate change, but for accuracy it rates with Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier. Yet, Sky News now partners with WWF in an attempt to protect the rainforests. Have they consulted the millions of Asians, Africans and South Americans who have their livelihoods threatened by various campaigns of WWF? Their latest campaign is for a blanket ban on the importation of palm oil, despite the fact that most companies adhere to a policy of sustainable harvesting and employ hundreds of thousands. Let’s not allow discredited organisations influence public policy in this way. How can Sky News be seen to be objective on environmental issues with their WWF association? For that matter, what do their colleagues at Fox News think of such a connection?

Since the 1990s, organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have led hysterical campaigns against genetically-modified food. They have delayed the introduction of flood resistant rice by ten years and of golden rice for more than a decade, resulting in the suffering of millions from malnutrition or Vitamin A deficiencies (causing blindness). Throughout this time, these opponents of genetically-modified food have disputed the claims that the science on GM has been settled and that the consensus that GM is safe for human consumption. It is highly ironic given their current claims about the “settled” science on climate change. Any apologies from these groups for their involvement in the suffering of millions? Not a chance.  Yet, Eurostar partner with Friends of the Earth as part of their marketing campaign. Maybe it’s time to start flying to Paris and Brussels.

Possibly the most damning activity of these green groups has been their opposition to the use of DDT in combating malaria. Like most readers of this blog, I grew up believing that DDT was a harmful chemical, one that threatens to kill all bird life as described in (the now discredited) Silent Spring. Like most chemicals (including H₂O) if concentrated it can be harmful. However, used in moderation DDT remains an effective insecticide, particularly for controlling malaria carrying mosquitoes. We know, because it was highly successful in the eradication of malaria in southern Europe after World War Two. However, using faulty science, green groups such as Greenpeace have successfully prevented the use of this important tool in Sub-Saharan Africa. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Most of these groups have now, reluctantly, withdrawn their open opposition to DDT, but again we receive no apology.

Today in Britain, these groups are opposing the construction of a biofuel plant (as long as they receive no taxpayer subsidy, biofuel is an effective way to reduce our dependence on vile Middle Eastern regimes) in Bristol, on spurious grounds. Forget the economic ham to the people of Bristol – they can collect government handouts. The poor who harvest these crops in Malaysia and Indonesia will have no such luxury.

These groups are driven by a green ideology that undervalues human life and prosperity. Their positions on climate change, genetically-modified food, DDT and deforestation have resulted in the deaths or impoverishment of millions. It is time that they were held to account for their past misdeeds. Politicians should not be associating themselves with the likes of Greenpeace in an attempt to win votes. It may be morally questionable to be working with these groups, but it is also politically short-sighted. Who doubts that these groups will turn into vociferous opponents of a Conservative government when it is forced to deal with economic reality, not the woolly-headed ideology of the green lobby?

Last year, Progressive Vision launched Green Monitor to highlight the activities of and harm done by the environmental movement.  If we are to combat the harm done by groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF we must work together.  We ask supporters to assist in the following ways:

• Alert Green Monitor to local campaigns these groups in where they are spreading false information
• Join Green Monitor
• Where possible avoid using companies that associate with these groups (although watching the BBC rather than Sky is possibly going too far)
• Challenge their supporters when they fundraise in our streets – most of the volunteers will be oblivious as to the actual consequences of their actions
• Ensure politicians don’t share platforms with these groups

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

In most areas of society, reputation management is crucial. An organisation found responsible for a dodgy report that led a global organisation to make erroneous claims would be a laughing stock. Organisations advocating policies responsible for the deaths of millions, and the impoverishment of many more, would be pariahs. At a time when Britain needs to focus on economic growth in order to return the nation to prosperity, anti-capitalist anti-growth organisations should be shunned by conservatives and classical liberals. Yet today, organisations in these categories are courted by politicians and royalty. Others are partnered with corporations seeking to bolster their perceived corporate responsibility and image. Volunteers for these groups openly fund-raise on the streets of Britain and retain charitable status.

For some reason, the environmental movement seems to be immune to the standards to which other organisations are held. WWF’s false claim that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2050 fits well with their alarmism about climate change, but for accuracy it rates with Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier. Yet, Sky News now partners with WWF in an attempt to protect the rainforests. Have they consulted the millions of Asians, Africans and South Americans who have their livelihoods threatened by various campaigns of WWF? Their latest campaign is for a blanket ban on the importation of palm oil, despite the fact that most companies adhere to a policy of sustainable harvesting and employ hundreds of thousands. Let’s not allow discredited organisations influence public policy in this way. How can Sky News be seen to be objective on environmental issues with their WWF association? For that matter, what do their colleagues at Fox News think of such a connection?

Since the 1990s, organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have led hysterical campaigns against genetically-modified food. They have delayed the introduction of flood resistant rice by ten years and of golden rice for more than a decade, resulting in the suffering of millions from malnutrition or Vitamin A deficiencies (causing blindness). Throughout this time, these opponents of genetically-modified food have disputed the claims that the science on GM has been settled and that the consensus that GM is safe for human consumption. It is highly ironic given their current claims about the “settled” science on climate change. Any apologies from these groups for their involvement in the suffering of millions? Not a chance.  Yet, Eurostar partner with Friends of the Earth as part of their marketing campaign. Maybe it’s time to start flying to Paris and Brussels.

Possibly the most damning activity of these green groups has been their opposition to the use of DDT in combating malaria. Like most readers of this blog, I grew up believing that DDT was a harmful chemical, one that threatens to kill all bird life as described in (the now discredited) Silent Spring. Like most chemicals (including H₂O) if concentrated it can be harmful. However, used in moderation DDT remains an effective insecticide, particularly for controlling malaria carrying mosquitoes. We know, because it was highly successful in the eradication of malaria in southern Europe after World War Two. However, using faulty science, green groups such as Greenpeace have successfully prevented the use of this important tool in Sub-Saharan Africa. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Most of these groups have now, reluctantly, withdrawn their open opposition to DDT, but again we receive no apology.

Today in Britain, these groups are opposing the construction of a biofuel plant (as long as they receive no taxpayer subsidy, biofuel is an effective way to reduce our dependence on vile Middle Eastern regimes) in Bristol, on spurious grounds. Forget the economic ham to the people of Bristol – they can collect government handouts. The poor who harvest these crops in Malaysia and Indonesia will have no such luxury.

These groups are driven by a green ideology that undervalues human life and prosperity. Their positions on climate change, genetically-modified food, DDT and deforestation have resulted in the deaths or impoverishment of millions. It is time that they were held to account for their past misdeeds. Politicians should not be associating themselves with the likes of Greenpeace in an attempt to win votes. It may be morally questionable to be working with these groups, but it is also politically short-sighted. Who doubts that these groups will turn into vociferous opponents of a Conservative government when it is forced to deal with economic reality, not the woolly-headed ideology of the green lobby?

Last year, Progressive Vision launched Green Monitor to highlight the activities of and harm done by the environmental movement.  If we are to combat the harm done by groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF we must work together.  We ask supporters to assist in the following ways:

• Alert Green Monitor to local campaigns these groups in where they are spreading false information
• Join Green Monitor
• Where possible avoid using companies that associate with these groups (although watching the BBC rather than Sky is possibly going too far)
• Challenge their supporters when they fundraise in our streets – most of the volunteers will be oblivious as to the actual consequences of their actions
• Ensure politicians don’t share platforms with these groups

Shane Frith: Conservatives should not be attacking supermarkets, but seeking to further deregulate that sector

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

This is the first in an occasional series of articles exploring the need for a pro-economic growth policy agenda.

Last year, the chairman of the BMA accused government health “reforms” of attempting to make hospitals operate like supermarkets.  I responded at the time that we wished the NHS operated more like supermarkets on the grounds that supermarket customers can buy a wide and diverse range of products, at very reasonable prices and can expect minimal queues or waiting times to get what they want.

Yet, despite the success of Britain’s supermarkets in delivering good service and great products at a fair price, it remains common practice to attack supermarkets – including from prominent members of the Conservative Party.  Primarily the call is for government regulation to limit the ability of supermarkets to open new shops and, perversely, to force supermarkets to weaken their negotiating position with certain suppliers.

The farming lobby, not content with living off taxpayer subsidies, has been very effective at complaining that supermarkets negotiate too hard.  Well, diddums!  If Tesco negotiates hard with a Chinese manufacturer of widgets, we wouldn’t criticise them.  If Waitrose drives a hard bargain with a New Zealand wine supplier, we don’t hear them crying into their Chardonnay.   The free market is competitive and this is the world supermarkets inhabit. 

Tesco may be at the top of the tree today with a 31 per cent market share, up from 21 per cent in 1998, however the next decade could see them following Morrison’s fall of over 14 per cent since 1998. There would be no bailouts (I hope!) and little chance of an EU subsidy.  If a supermarket fails to respond to technological change or a new competitor, they can close.  As a supermarket customer, I hope they negotiate hard with farmers and pass on some of the savings to me – and if they don’t I’ll go to a competitor.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

This is the first in an occasional series of articles exploring the need for a pro-economic growth policy agenda.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

This is the first in an occasional series of articles exploring the need for a pro-economic growth policy agenda.

Shane Frith: It is time to expose the real harm done in the developing world by the Western environmental lobby

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

On Tuesday, Progressive Vision launched a new campaign called Green Monitor. Whilst groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are no doubt well intentioned, they too often advocate policies without reasonable scientific basis that can result in the death, injury and poverty of vulnerable groups in Africa and Asia. We intend to highlight the real harm done by these groups in the developing world.

Those of us who live in the developed world often look with bemusement, frustration or even anger at the activities of the Western environmental lobby.  Sadly, the effects of the environmental movement on the millions in the developing world can be far more serious.  Policies advocated by environmental groups have led to the deaths of millions, the blinding of countless others and the impoverishment of tens of millions.

Like many my first memories of DDT is from stories in the 1970s and 1980s about how bad this chemical was claimed to be.  As a result of these claims and the resulting hysteria, DDT was banned, first of all in the developed and then increasingly in the developing world.  An apparent triumph for the environmental movement and planet Earth!

Sadly, that is not how things have turned out. The initial research that condemned DDT as a dangerous chemical was deeply flawed.  It turns out that DDT, used responsibly, is not as harmful to insects and bird life as the original reports suggested.  In addition, the weight of scientific opinion finds that there are no detrimental affects to human health.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Shane Frith: Can we get over this myth that the NHS is the envy of the world?

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Dan Hannan - and now Charles Tannock - have done Britain a great service by sparking the first serious debate I have seen about the NHS.  While Dan is in a minority, the issues he raises deserve serious discussion, not least because more that 17,000 Britons die in the NHS every year that would not have if they were treated in  the US, France, Germany or Singapore.

This 17,000 isn’t the number of people die in hospitals, that number is vastly larger as it is anywhere in the world - by their nature hospitals contain the dying.  The 17,000 figure is arrived at by comparing five year survival rates between countries.  On these measures the NHS rates extremely poorly in international comparisons. Britain has one of the worst five-year cancer survival rates in the OECD and certainly well behind the best, the United States. England has a female cancer survival rate of only 52.7%, compared with 62.9% for the United States or 61.8% for Iceland.

I have yet to find a better metric for comparison of health systems as opposed to health of a nation.  Life expectancy is a poor measure as it doesn’t take into account people who die from violent crime and road accidents. If you take these factors into account, the US has a higher life expectancy than Britain.  However, even this fails to account for rates of smoking, alcohol abuse or obesity.  Likewise, infant mortality is flawed when comparing the US as they measure “life” differently.  A newborn baby that dies seconds after birth is often recoded as stillborn in Europe, but not in the US – resulting in higher infant mortality statistics.

Shane Frith: Why you should support the campaign to amend the smoking ban

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

As a non-smoker, I have joined a campaign calling for an amendment to the smoking ban to allow smoking areas in pubs and clubs. I joined Save Our Pubs & Clubs: AmendTheSmokingBan.com because approximately 50 pubs in Britain close every week, many harmed by the loss in trade caused by people drinking and smoking at home.

When a local pub closes, we all suffer – smoker and non-smoker alike.  Amending the smoking ban to allow smoking areas in pubs, or even allowing small single room pubs to choose between smoking and non smoking policies, will help many pubs to survive.

As a member of the Conservative Party, I support private property rights and surely publicans and patrons should be the ones who decide what legal activities are carried out in a local pub?  I was delighted that Greg Knight MP attended the launch as part of a cross party campaign – we had elected representatives from all three major parties in attendance.

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

Shane Frith: Reclaiming the "Progressive" mantle for the Right

Shane Frith is director of the classical-liberal think-tank Progressive Vision. He has worked for Conservative MPs in the UK and National Party MPs in his native New Zealand.  He is a former chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, linking young people involved in centre-right political parties worldwide, including the Conservative Party.

The left-wing think tank Demos has recently launched a project entitled “Progressive Conservatism”.  Two of the most misused words in the English language are liberal and progressive, often used by left-wing politicians or organisations to cover a socialist agenda.  In the United States, the term liberal has been so maligned by the actions of those calling themselves liberal, that they now call themselves “progressives”.  In the United Kingdom the term liberal is closely associated with the (il)Liberal Democrats, so many new Labour types describe themselves as “progressive”.  When did anyone call their opponent a “progressive”?

While liberalism is a coherent philosophy - confused by association with illiberal politicians wearing this banner - progressive is merely a description.  While we call our think tank Progressive Vision, as we are a forward-looking think-tank seeking progress, we openly describe our philosophy as liberal.  We combine individuals from both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats who believe in the genuinely liberal traditions of both.  The last Conservative Government was deeply liberal (and progressive), by freeing individuals from the slavery of the state and trade unions and standing up to the totalitarian (and socialist) Soviet Union.  Yes, more could have been wished for in terms of social liberalism, especially on gay rights, but Margaret Thatcher did much to reduce the size of the state and promote greater individual freedom.

As for “progressivism”, the label is now used by socialists, rightly embarrassed by association with a philosophy responsible for the impoverishment and death of millions in the 20th Century.  Progress isn’t increased regulation – witness the meltdown in the highly regulated finance industry; increased taxes – witness economic growth rates in countries with high taxation; more union powers – witness Britain in 1979; or a state run healthcare system with some of the worst results in the developed world.