Thomas Byrne: Sunday trading laws protect the family and civil society. Libertarians should not do away with them.

Thomas Byrne is a Conservative Party member and politics student at York University. Follow Thomas on Twitter. 

It's a bizarre thing that we have come to rely on a Liberal Democrat for honesty. We were promised by Conservative ministers that the relaxation of restrictions on supermarket trading were not going to be a Trojan horse for permanent change, but perhaps spending too much time with Nick Clegg has given the Prime Minister a taste for dishonesty. To push the changes through wouldn't be a declaration of war upon Christianity, the damage has been done there by the changes in 1994. This would a sticking up of two fingers to wider society and the soft Christian outlook that they hold - and for what? Something that will only tighten the grip of supermarkets over the small business owner, the employee and their families.

Tim Montgomerie was right to say that we can and should be Tesco Tories and celebrate the role that supermarkets have had to play in cutting the cost of necessities for the average man on the street. £5,000 a year on his count, and, being a cash-strapped student ever reliant on budget food, it has probably pushed my bills down even more. While celebrating what benefits they bring, and continue to spread to us all, we can't allow ourselves to capitulate entirely to their needs and demands.

Yes, as Conservatives we value business, but we balance that with the other values we consider important for the common good. We value strengthening families as a bulwark against pure individualism. As David Willetts said in his Bright Blue speech (pdf) "We are not libertarian loners. There is more to life than the pursuit of personal freedom and independence". By preserving Sunday trading laws, we are not infringing on personal liberty as some free market libertarians would claim, but ordering our liberty using the law, in order for us to balance the other needs that pure individualism cannot bring on its own. Capitalism, and the power of capital thereof, while not the only driver of what we do, as some on the left claim, is still a powerful force over us all.

Sunday before 1994 was a day in which families were, for a while, set free from capitalism and were able to join together as a family, or as a community, knowing that they were all equally able to set aside their time for this task. Those claiming that religion should have no say over what they do are attacking a fiction. The law was widely supported because it was a privilege that was universal.

Thomas Byrne: An idea for taxpayer-funded politics that makes sense

Thomas Byrne is a Conservative Party member and politics student at York University.

What's the main thing that unites both the left and right when it comes to the issue of funding political parties? Cold hard cash and the fear that they wouldn't be able to exist without the narrow backing of certain sectors of society, whether it be the last remaining public sector trade unions in the Labour party, or what Paul Goodman calls the somewhat deluded backers for the Conservatives.

Both parties, rather than accept the need for public funding to lessen the spectre of private money dominating public life, look to America where campaigning techniques and donation caps have been used to widen the pool of contributors and lessen the influence of wealthy individuals. Even Paul Staines, one of the most ardent campaigners for transparency, falls into this trap, albeit with the concession that political giving should be tax deductible to make it worthwhile for the average person to be involved in the public process. This isn't enough, only a glance over the Atlantic shows that money is still the main player in their political game through Super Pacs.

 

Thomas Byrne: The idea that David Cameron is right wing is a joke to most Tories. The voters aren't laughing.

Thomas Byrne is a Conservative Party member and Committee member of York Tories. He blogs at Byrne Tofferings. 

Private polling done for the Conservative Party in 2010 found that voters still had four main concerns about us as Tories in the runup to the election: That in a crisis we’d stick up for those who were already wealthy, that we wouldn’t be able to make changes, that some problems were so severe that they couldn’t be fixed by political parties, and that we would weaken the NHS and other public services. The lack of that brand decontamination, combined with fears that all we were interested in doing was making deep spending cuts, were some of the main reasons we lost the last election. Rather than being seen as centrist, we were seen as being too right wing. Especially the party rather than the leadership. It may seem as if the Labour party are playing straight into our hands in their latest plan to attack Cameron, but we can’t afford to be complacent. Shaun Woodward is right in that if they land the blows correctly, that one could be the killer for Cameron’s image.

Thomas Byrne: There is no alternative to Trident

Thomas Byrne uses his first article for ConservativeHome to urge that Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent is properly replaced. He blogs here.

There is no alternative to Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles for the UK. Land based silos or mobile launchers (whether vehicle or rail based) are too easily fixed targets and we don't have sufficient land mass to ensure their security. Air launch is no more viable than it was when we abandoned it in favour of SLBMs. Some cite cruise missiles as a possible cheaper alternative. What they forget is that cruise missiles have a number of weaknesses: they have a shorter range (Trident: 7,000 miles; Tomahawk: 1,500 miles; Stormshadow 150 miles), reducing the deterrence factor unless you increase the number of launch platforms and position closer to possible targets (thus at greater risk of attack). They are also much slower and therefore at significantly more risk of being shot down (systems capable of doing so are widespread whereas Anti Ballistic Missile defences are very much in their infancy and easily overwhelmed). Since we require a guaranteed capability to strike the target, SLBM remain the best option for the UK.

One option suggested is to end continuous deterrence patrols and only sortie a submarine when a situation occurs. Some extreme proposals suggest we can do away with the capability altogether for the moment and re-acquire it when required. There are a number of flaws in this: first, it assumes that we will have sufficient warning; secondly it ignores how long it takes to develop these systems (the submarines for example take about 15 years, which is why the decision to replace the current class must be taken soon); thirdly, it ignores skillfade, not just in the dockyards but also among the submarine crew who have daily launch drills. Lastly, continuous patrols create ambiguity about our intentions - deploying a submarine in a moment of crisis, on the hand, may represent a clear escalation of the situation by the UK.