Mediaboss Marketing

By Ron Paul

Sunday was an historic election day for Italy. A conservative alliance with a populist flair absolutely trounced the technocrats who had been running the country into the ground for the past several years.

The previous prime minister, former Goldman Sachs banker Mario Draghi, implemented one of the most restrictive and inhuman Covid shutdowns, which, along with supporting economically suicidal sanctions against Russia, have left Italy an economic basket case.

Replacing the bland banker will likely be Giorgia Meloni from the right-wing Sons of Italy party. Meloni will be a first for Italy: the first female prime minister. But dont expect the Left to celebrate it: her name cannot be mentioned in the mainstream media without reference to Mussolini.

Ironically, the democratic victory of Meloni and the rest of the Italian right likely owes a great deal of gratitude to one of Europes most undemocratic and anti-democratic leaders: European Union Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen.

On the eve of the Italian elections, the unelected von der Leyen warned Italians that if they voted for the wrong parties they would be punished. Asked about the surge of the political opposition in Italy on the eve of the elections, she warned Italian voters, we will see the result of the vote in Italy. If things go in a difficult direction and Ive spoken about Hungary and Poland we have the tools.

In other words, her message to Italian voters was yes you can vote, but if you vote in a way I do not approveof, you will be punished.

Italians rushed to vote in a way she did not approve of. It will be interesting to see what happens.

How does any of this relate to the United States as the US moves closer to the midterm elections? Americans have also been given warnings by the political elites that they dare not vote for the wrong candidates or parties.

On September 1st, President Biden issued a warning similar to that of Europes von der Leyen. In one of the most bizarre speeches in political history, Biden warned that Trump supporters are determined to take this country backwards backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

He spoke on a frightening, red-lit stage with US Marines serving as props on either side of him. This was no Checkers speech with Nixon speaking wistfully about his cocker spaniel. No, it was a declaration of war against half of the country.

A few weeks ago Sweden threw its left-wing government out and Sunday the Italians did the same. While the political differences in Europe seem more cosmetic than substantive for example Italys presumptive new prime minister supports weapons to Ukraine just like her predecessor there is still a strong feeling of popular revolt against political elites in the air.

That doesnt mean things will easily go our way, as there is no automatic libertarian surge. But we must study hard and take advantage of every single opportunity. People are sick of the elites? That means they are likely open to the concepts of non-interventionism and sound money. Lets help educate them!

Originally published by the Ron Paul Institute on 9/26/22

Go here to see the original:
Ron Paul: Will Italys Election Foreshadow US Midterms? - Libertarian Party

Wars cannot be fought successfully by libertarians. They demand collective effort, shared sacrifice, strategies for deploying scarce economic resources and collaboration with allies. All are anathema to a libertarian like the prime minister, Liz Truss.

State initiative inviting collective effort and sacrifice is off-limits as nannying. Demands on the better-off and on companies enjoying extreme windfall profits to share their proper burden are vetoed as coercive and confiscatory. Even working with the foreign other is regarded with suspicion as a constraint on sovereignty. Put not your trust in libertarians especially in war.

It may be indirect, but Britain is in a war against Russia. But we are the country taking the winter threat of Putin-induced energy shortages least seriously. We are alone in not asking for energy savings or efficiencies from business or households in exchange for the generous bounty of an indiscriminate price cap offered to everyone regardless of circumstance. With negligible capacity to store gas ourselves, we depend on the kindness of EU countries to help us if Putin turns the screw on gas supplies this winter. And we are the country whose incredible fiscal policy stupendous tax cuts at the same time as huge spending on an indiscriminate energy cap is cast as if the world were as placid as a millpond, so provoking contagion in the financial markets that risks damage to our allies.

The emphatically non-libertarian Biden administration openly regards Truss as out to lunch but so do former friends in the EU. The design of Trusss energy price guarantee package, up to 150bn, is regarded with incredulity. Her veto of a 15m public information campaign designed to suggest how citizens might save energy because it represented a state intrusion into personal space is an accurate window into Trusss worldview. She truly believes this libertarian nonsense.

In her world, there can be no collective endeavour to save energy and no fair sharing of sacrifice. Thus, it is illegitimate to tax the windfall profits of energy companies, let alone curb the speculative activity of energy traders bewildered by the scale of the profits they are making. This would improperly confiscate profit, which is the driver of all human activity: any obligation to society or others is delusional.

Thus the outgoing CEO of Shell, Ben van Beurden, may say publicly, as he did last week, that the market cannot be allowed to operate to hurt the weakest: One way or another, there needs to be government intervention... that somehow results in protecting the poorest. And that probably means governments need to tax people in this room [of energy companies] to pay for it I think we just have to accept [that] as a societal reality.

But Truss lives in the parallel universe of libertarian Ayn Rand novels in which alleged societal realities are the enemy of the moral imperatives of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility. In her view, Van Beurden suffers from false consciousness, as Marxists used to say of workers content to live with capitalism. Shell may have got lucky with the oil price, but its sole responsibility is to distribute its profits, however excessive or lucky, to shareholders who will spend it as they think fit or invest in what it considers likely to yield profit in future. It must and should not worry about those realities. She doesnt. So why should Shell?

Thus the irresponsible approach to energy. Capping the unit cost of energy so that the average bill is 2,500 per household this winter is certainly better than no cap, but for the 10.5 million people on absolute low incomes after housing costs, bills on that scale remain impossible. They should have had more relief, the better-off, less. Further windfall taxes should have been levied on energy companies, as Shells CEO suggested, and a huge campaign launched on energy saving. The government should set an example; following Germany, France and Spain, no public building should be heated above 19C. There could be traffic speed limits and restraints on lighting buildings, adverts and shop fronts. EU states are setting targets for reducing energy usage by 8%-10%. Why not Britain? The whole package could have been targeted and cheaper, and the billions saved could have been spent on a mass programme to scale up the insulation of our hopelessly energy-inefficient housing stock.

No dice. Instead, our government is praying that we will avoid the National Grids extreme scenario of Putin-induced, Europe-wide energy shortages and France, Belgium and Holland being incapable of supplying us electricity in the winter, which would force a succession of three-hour rolling blackouts. But France has signalled that it may not be able to export energy this winter and Putin, after a fall in gas prices over September, is all but certain to reproduce what he has done with Opec and impose gas shortages or even no gas on Europe. The extreme scenario is all too likely.

Worse, as the Bank of England told the government last week, its mini-budget of 45bn of tax cuts on top of this carelessly expensive approach to energy nearly triggered a financial implosion. Yet the markets are now learning that Truss wants to use investment zones to butcher up to another 12bn of corporation tax revenue even as the Bank comes to the end of its emergency gilt-buying programme. Trusss Britain is a hotbed of financial instability.

Yet the country and the Conservative party are chained to this imbecilic policy framework for at least the next two years. It may lead to political annihilation for the Tories at the next general election, but the damage that is being done remains colossal and hard to repair. Even the chancellor, vainly trying to cap the number of investment zones, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, suffering a veto of his proposed energy public information campaign both fully paid up members of the right must be dazed by the ideological obstinacy of their leader. The only silver lining is that Britain, after this, will never again flirt with toxic libertarianism.

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

This article was amended on 9 October 2022. An earlier version referred to the government capping energy bills at 2,500 per household this winter. The energy price cap announced by Liz Truss is a limit on the unit cost of electricity and gas, not on overall bills; the 2,500 a year figure relates to the average amount that a typical household will pay under the new cap. This has been corrected.

See more here:
We are the country taking the energy crisis least seriously. Even Shells boss is baffled - The Guardian

Have you lost friends over politics? If so, theres a show I want to introduce to you.

There are four things you should do, in conversation, to avoid arguments. You can do these things and become even more persuasive at the same time.

Would you like to know what those four things are?

Recently, I came across a podcast episode that I want to share with you. I want to share it because it matches the classical spirit of the Advocates for Self-Government. Our organization was founded by a salesman to help people get better at selling Liberty.

I came across this episode because its host, Jim Babka, is the editor-at-large here at The Advocates. His show is called Gracearchy with Jim Babka.

Gracearchy is a neologism about ending the blame and scapegoating that is typical in politics, and replacing it with genuine understanding. If you listen to a few episodes, youll quickly gather that the host is a voluntaryist libertarian.

Recently, Jim interviewed Duane Lester, Director of Issue Education for the Grassroots Leadership Academy. Together, they explored more gracious political conversation.

And you can learn these four powerful techniques by watching or listening to this episode of Gracearchy with Jim Babka. Once youve got these down, you can rinse and repeat for each conversation you have.

Duane also explained how to apply the three languages of politics without trying to use a language other than your own. This insight will allow you to still be yourself yet state your own views more clearly than ever.

Duanes training sessions draw crowds at conferences around the country. If you would like to have him come train your local group in these techniques, you can also find out how to do that by watching the show.

More Persuasion: Less Fighting

Youll find Duanes advice to be quite practical and instantly useful.

And Jim has been called an outside the box thinker. His new show reaches a niche audience. I encourage you to check it out on YouTube, and even do as I have Click the bell and subscribe to AHO Network, which hosts this show.

Mike SerticPresidentAdvocates for Self-Government

Originally posted here:
How to sell freedom without fighting | The Advocates for Self-Government - The Liberator Online

End the hatred and the violence!

I didnt intend to research Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls father Ron Paul. I initially was reading about the early life of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes (Im assuming we all know he shot himself in the eye), and was surprised to learn that Rhodes had worked for Congressman Ron Paul in his Texas, and Washington D.C. offices and had been a volunteer in Montana during Ron Pauls 2008 presidential campaign.

I didnt think it was explosive information until I read the February 1, 2022 DK diary by David Neiwert in which he interviewed Rhodes ex-wife Tasha Adams. The way Adams explained it, the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008 was the seminal event that caused Rhodes to start the Oath Keepers.

What Adams said was: I think what he [Rhodes] saw was the energy of the Ron Paul movementhe saw the money, he saw the youth, he saw the people willing to donate their hours and their time, andyou know, typical narcissists, thats what they do, they absorb energy from people, right?and so I think he saw all that energy, he saw all that and he wanted to find a way to take it for himself.

It was news to me that when Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, he went after the veterans, military personnel, and police officers he and Adams had met during the campaign, who were drawn to Pauls libertarian views. In fact, Rhodes focused on recruiting and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they considered illegal. Rhodes badly wanted to be their leader, and recruited many of them, who had nowhere to go after Pauls campaign ended in 2012, and before Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2015.

When I looked up Ron Paul, I was flabbergasted. I knew that he had been a Libertarian Congressman who had run for president three times; twice against former President Obama. What I didnt realize was that the former Air Force flight surgeon and OBGYN, was the orchestratorof a well-organized grassroots movement that had attracted some people who would later join the Oath Keepers and others who were just like the MAGAs, without the moniker or the caps. Neither did I know that for decades Paul had published (They were written under his name although he said he neither wrote them nor read them) and profited from political newsletters that were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings. Just like Trumps slurs and lies, Pauls newsletters slurred and lied about revered people, like the Rev. Martin Luther King, and others.

According to author James Kirchick, who exposed the newsletters, and did a broader investigation into Pauls history of associations with all manner of groups and individuals on the extreme right, Ron Paul was truly an Angry White Man, and that was the title of Kirchicks book about him, which was published on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Before writing this diary, I knew nothing about the United States Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. But, if the behavior of the right- wing Libertarians can be used as an example, they are all angry white people. During the Trump years, I had no idea that the MAGAs who participated in the Insurrection;refused to wear masks,get vaccinated, stop attending huge COVID spreading events, stop harassingparents in school board meetings and at schools, stop threatening and harassingelection workers, hospital doctors and nurses,politicians, POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ children and adults possibly considered themselves to be right-wing Libertarians. To me, they just were/are lawless, racist, violent, intellectually challenged, selfish, amoral, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American Republican gun-toting extremists, seditionists, and/or domestic terrorists. And, I still believe thats true. I also didnt know that Libertarianism means that you believe in Originalism regarding the Constitution, which is the position of Clarence Thomas and Ron Paul, such odd bedfellows.

As a Congressman, Ron Paul's nickname Dr. No reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he would "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. This position frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. And, it meant that Justice Clarence Thomas, for most of his SCOTUS career until recently, also voted alone, even when he agreed with other conservatives because he made up his Originalist positions.

When Ron Paul launched his third and final presidential campaign in 2012, according to Mother Jones, his extremist positions were met with jeers from the party establishment. To name a few of Pauls positions: He didnt believe in the IRS or the Federal Reserve. He wanted to abolish half of federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; Eviscerate Entitlements (He said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were unconstitutional), Enable State Extremism (Allow states to set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school); Legalize Prostitution; Legalize Drugs (including cocaine and heroine); Keep Monopolies in Tact (Remove federal anti-trust legislation); Stop Policing the Environment; Get Rid of the Civil Rights Act; and End Birthright Citizenship, among other things. And, his foreign policy was American Isolationism.

And, the people who supported Paul, among others, were survivalists, white supremacists, anti-Zionists, anti-government extremists (who wanted no legal restraints), American Isolationists, Libertarians, conservatives, people in the military and law enforcement (they were some of his largest donors), young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues, anti-war activists, and rich folks (who wanted no governmental restraints to restraintheir greed and hunger for power). I would imagine he also appealed to racists, homophobes, misogynists, and evangelicals. In effect, they were just like current day MAGAs and members of the Republican cult, although there were far fewer of them back then. (They must not believe in birth control or abortionbecause they seem to have experienced exponential growth.)

And, their behavior during Pauls campaign was similar to how Trumps MAGA supporters behave. Pauls boisterous supporters raised hell in caucus states. His cheering throngs were loud and clear at the presidential debates. And, even after Paul withdrew, the feeling was that his followers would continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions.

When Paul was asked what he wanted from a campaign, that he couldnt win, he said he wanted his followers to run for office, win, and continue to do that to expand the movement and its influence in government. At the time, main stream Republicans felt that Ron Paul and his followers would fade out of the picture. Four years later, the coalition of people Paul had gathered together had greatly expanded, and they elected Trump as president.

After reading all that I did, what I dont understand is why former Congressman Ron Paul never has never been publiclyblamedandpilloriedrighteously castigated for the inestimable damage his actions, newsletters, opinions, and followers have doneto our democracy, democratic institutions,and to human decency within our country. He also hasnt been publicly identified in MSM for being Stewart Rhodes role model. Nor has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, his son the obstructionist, been tarnished for his fathers actions,opinions, and behavior, which is consistent with his own, although he has tried to rebrand himself for a larger audience. But, we should never forget how dangerous they both are.

As James Kirchick so eloquently wrote in 2018 when his book Angry White Man, was published: Long before Donald Trump emerged as the most prominent purveyor of a racist conspiracy theory concerning the countrys first black president, played political footsie with white supremacists, condemned globalism, sold himself to the masses as a guru of personal enrichment, attacked American allies as scroungers, and made overtures to authoritarian regimes like Russia, there was Ron Paul. The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul's daddy Ron Paul, the Angry White Man, who spawned a generation of obstructionist haters - Daily Kos

'Growth, growth, and growth'. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a terrible political slogan. Abstract, indistinct, and drawing attention to the glaring economic failure of the past 12 years of Conservative government.

Liz Truss' attempt this week to position her government as the standard bearers of economic growth, bravely standing up to the nefarious forces of the 'anti-growth coalition' is a classic 'enemies of the people' style attempt at populist division, lumping together "Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, the militant unions, the vested interests dressed up as think-tanks, the talking heads, the Brexit deniers, Extinction Rebellion" with anyone else who disagrees with the government so as to brand them all as enemies of prosperity.

But as with so much of the new government's agenda it is guilty of over-reaching. As the FT's Jim Pickard noted, it is "ludicrous to argue that anyone who doesn't support your particular economic plan must somehow be anti-growth - if you don't use *my* cake recipe you must be anti-cake".

Of all the anti-growth agitators listed by Truss only Extinction Rebellion could reasonably described as being opposed to growth, and even they are often simply in favour of a different, better kind of growth. Moreover, as I've argued many times before, if the economy is not growing is it not more likely to be the fault of those in actual power than the naughty scamps with placards?

As for the rest of the 'anti-growth coalition', Truss' focus on growth allows the opposition to fight on a territory it would happily choose and offers a daily reminder that the most powerful members of the anti-growth coalition are to be found on the government's own benches. The biggest drag on growth currently is to be found in the form of flatlining productivity, crumbling infrastructure, lengthening NHS waiting lists, soaring mortgage repayments, inefficient homes, nimby MPs, a hard Brexit deal that is set to knock four per cent of GDP, and a Prime Minister who genuinely abhors the sight of solar farms on under-productive agricultural land. Responsibility for all these barriers to growth and many more can be reasonably laid at the door of the Conservative government.

However, the biggest problem with Liz Truss' growth plan is to be found not in its ham-fisted political positioning, but in the fundamental inconsistency between the government's ideological impulses and its stated goals. The plan won't work. And it won't work because it completely misunderstands how modern business and modern economies succeed.

Nowhere is this incoherence better illustrated than in the government's confused approach to the green economy.

One of the few industrial success stories of the past decade has been provided by the offshore wind sector where a combination of direct funding, competitive subsidy auctions, and stable regulatory frameworks has served to drive regional investment, create jobs, and slash costs and emissions. Similarly, just before Liz Truss' speech this week, the UK auto industry confirmed it had sold its millionth plug-in vehicle, again underlining how it is electric vehicles that have provided the only bright spot for the sector over the past few years.

Everywhere you look in the green economy it is the same story. Study after study demonstrates how a national energy efficiency upgrade programme and zero carbon home building blitz delivers a better return on investment than any other infrastructure programme. Onshore renewables projects provide the cheapest and quickest form of new power capacity. Hydrogen, CCS, battery, smart grid, and nuclear projects are all in the pipeline or ready to go, providing a route for long term industrial competitiveness, energy security, and job creation. Public transport, mobile, and broadband connectivity boast enormous potential to unlock rural and regional productivity. Regenerative agriculture and negative emissions projects provide a means of bolstering climate resilience and food security.

These projects and thousands more like them would not only drive economic growth, but they would drive the right sort of economic growth. Growth that would be sustainable in every sense of the word, unlocking huge co-benefits through improved health, enhanced energy security, greater energy efficiency (or should we call it energy productivity?), better climate resilience, and increased competitiveness and export potential.

The Truss administration insists it remains supportive of this agenda. But its initial focus on taking office has been on pursuing a fracking revolution that will never happen and ordering yet another review of net zero, environmental rules, and farming subsidies that will burn through at least one per cent of the available time to meet the UK's climate targets and potentially result in the sacrificing of crucial policies on the altar of small state ideological purity. A government that has promised to prioritise growth is deferring and diluting decisions that could help drive rapid growth with near immediate effect.

Meanwhile, at both the practical and the ideological level Truss' growth plan is as likely to hamper growth as it is to stimulate it.

Kwasi Kwarteng's fiscal irresponsibility fuels market instability and pushes up interest rates, driving up the cost of the capital investments that are essential for both driving growth and delivering on the UK's net zero goals. At the same time, the ideological disconnect between what the bleak economic and security situation requires and the Prime Minister's impulses further undermines growth prospects. To take just one example, the only reason the UK is refusing to emulate its neighbours and call on the public to save energy in response to the very real risk of blackouts this winter is found in Truss' insistence that she is "not going to tell you what to do".

It is worth underpacking the ideology behind Number 10's reported decision to block plans for a modestly funded 15m public information campaign to encourage people to save energy this winter. The Prime Minister has decided that households should be completely free to use as much energy as they choose even if it means we all suffer blackouts. It is 'there is no such thing as society' as policy choice. The only thing that will be allowed to encourage people to use less energy will be the price signal, except that price signal has been drastically diluted by a government intervention that will cost the taxpayer up to 150bn. The whole sorry mess is as ideologically incoherent as it is economically and politically nonsensical.

It is also important to stress how all of the UK's allies and competitors, as well as the vast majority of the business community, now understand that government has a central role to play in driving sustainable economic growth. The EU and US response to the global energy crunch has been to visibly double down on the net zero transition and rapidly adopt policies and public spending that will mobilise multi-billion dollar investments in low carbon infrastructure. China continues to quietly accelerate its renewables and EV revolution. Even Singapore is not the libertarian fever dream it is painted out to be.

Meanwhile, everyone from the CBI to the IMF to the boss of Shell implores the government to fast track the net zero policies, effective regulations, and windfall taxes that can simultaneously drive growth, enhance energy security, and slash emissions.

Earlier this week one of the Institute of Economic Affairs' apparatchiks, Kristian Niemietz published a revelatory twitter thread in which he argued that the "downfall of Trussism and Kwartengism" was the result of the leftward drift of elite opinion. "In the past, you might have expected those people to be quite sympathetic to a Truss-Kwarteng agenda," he argued. "Truss and Kwarteng are broadly economically liberal, but there's nothing Ukippy-Gammony about them. They might describe themselves in terms that FT/Economist/Times readers like. The trouble is that those people only have skin-deep convictions. They're obsessed with 'respectability'. They'll always adopt the opinions that are considered 'sensible' and 'nuanced'. There was a time when economic liberalism could have ticked those boxes. That time is over Economic liberalism has lost all Upper Normie support."

Leaving aside for a second that economic liberalism's apparent casting out by the elite has been so successful that its leading acolytes are currently Prime Minister and Chancellor and its party of choice has been in government for 12 years, there is an alternative explanation for the political and economic elites' apparent disengagement from economic liberalism which Niemietz and his Tufton Street allies refuse to consider: it doesn't work anymore, if it ever did.

Elite opinion is shifting, not because it is shallow and obsessed with the zeitgeist, but because reality has shifted. The climate crisis is real, as is the remarkable competitiveness of clean technologies, and the threat to democracy from populism and authoritarianism. Market forces can help, but they can only do so much in response to these challenges. The combination of polluting externalities and the risk of free riders in the industrial transition means governments are required to catalyse investment in public goods, set effective market rules, and police them. True economic liberals used to understand this, until libertarianism made too many of them forget it. The problem with libertarianism is you eventually run out of biosphere to despoil.

This does not mean only left-wing governments can now deliver economic growth and effective climate action. Far from it. There are plenty of centre-right, market-led policies that can help drive green growth and accelerate the net zero transition. But raw libertarianism of the kind favoured by many of Truss' allies and advisors is incompatible with modern sustainable economic growth. You can't fund tax cuts on the never-never, you can't deregulate regulations that have already been removed, you can't cut state apparatus that is already on its knees, you can't decarbonise while digging up ever more oil and gas. It is a recipe for instability and suffering. It will fail on its own terms.

The IMF, the International Energy Agency, the UN, the world's top financial institutions, pretty much every leading corporate on the planet, these organisations are not advocating for a green growth path enabled by a proactive government because they have become a 'woke' arm of Greenpeace, but because it is what proven economic and physical reality dictates as the most sensible course of action. Elite opinion used to support colonialism, workhouses, and a whole lot more besides. Times change. The fast-dawning reality is that libertarianism and its shrink the state impulses are fundamentally ill suited to the needs of the 21st century, whatever social media edge lords and demagogic Republicans say to the contrary. Truss' preferred approach to any and all challenges is just not compatible with an era of climatic instability, rapid industrial transformation, and great power geopolitics

The government is right to go for growth, growth, and growth. The problem is that like the rest of its political operation, its preferred growth model looks doomed to failure.

A version of this article first appeared as part of BusinessGreen's Overnight Briefing email, which is available to all BusinessGreen Members.

See the rest here:
Liz Truss, libertarianism, and the real anti-growth coalition - http://www.businessgreen.com