From Free Life No. 22, April 1995.

In January, 1992, very shortly after the Reform Party manifesto was published, I was incapacitated by a severe back condition (now diagnosed as arachnoiditis, and incurable). I spent much of the next 18 months in hospital or in enforced bed rest. Since I was the prime mover of the fledgling party, and since none of my associates had the time, resources or inclination to take my place, the whole enterprise fizzled out without so much as a candidate for the village council.

I have thus had ample opportunity - while staring at a succession of depressingly similar ceilings - to reflect on an assertion, put to me by a libertarian critic during 1992, that ventures like the Reform Party were "a total waste of time".

In some ways, with hindsight, I have come to agree. I soon realised that, bad back or no, it had been premature to launch the party without the assured and active support of many more people and without much more substantial resources. A "sprinkling of invited celebrities" would no doubt have helped too. I have often wondered what the effect might have been if Nicholas Ridley, say, rather than Nicholas Dykes, had launched the Reform Party.

Another matter for regret has been that, until six months before publication, my book was advocacy pure and simple: "What Britain needs is..." The penultimate draft of the manuscript began: "The Reform Party does not exist, but it is a party which ought to exist." A decision was then taken to form the party, the book becoming its manifesto. When the project collapsed, I naturally rued the change. A proposal for a new political party had to be better than the manifesto of one which died at birth.

In these circumstances, it has been difficult to limber myself up for a reply to Chris Cooper's undeservedly awful review of my book Fed up with Government? I suppose I must defend my work - as I would defend anybody's against unjust censure - but my heart is not really in the task. Besides, my own thinking has moved on. In the last three years I have had - perforce - a lot of time for reading, particularly of philosophy, and I would not write now as I did back then.

So, that's me dealt with: now for Mr Cooper.

Anyone reading his article will realise immediately that he belongs to the nihilist wing of libertarianism. In company with some of the juvenile pranksters at Private Eye, who snigger indiscriminately at anything and everything, Mr Cooper evidently believes that a critic's task is ridicule, regardless of the nature of the material under review.

I am not talking about criticism; that one expects, even welcomes. But after waiting three years for Free Life to review my book, I was dismayed to find the one journal I had hoped might grant me a fair hearing, reacting instead as if I were a born-again Marxist appealing for a Five Year Plan.

Smugness and sarcasm ooze from Mr Cooper's review like effluent from a blocked drain. But if this poorly-organised and undiscerning piece is typical of his work, it is not at all clear what he has to be smug about. Similarly, the matter of my book is what most libertarians hold dear: restoring our liberties and getting rid of oppressive government. Mr Cooper's sarcasm is thus as jarringly misplaced as effluent scooped up and set down on a dinner table (even more so, perhaps, in light of his self-contradictory conclusion - an endorsement of political action).

Mr Cooper may of course have intended his piece to be satirical, satire and its partner, parody, being as ancient and honourable as criticism. But the successful practice of those genuinely humorous disciplines rests on twin foundations: a) accurate identification of one's target;

b) a thorough understanding of what one's target represents.

Mr Cooper's review, by contrast, is so sloppily inaccurate, and so obtuse, that it almost seems a parody of itself. I genuinely wondered whether its author suffered from some form of dyslexia. Indeed, more than once while reading the piece I was reminded of Roald Dahl's dyslexic Vicar of Nibbleswicke who, when he meant "park", came out with "krap".

Mr Cooper's aim starts to wobble and weave in his first paragraph. Scoffing at "constitution-mongering and political party-forging", he writes of "...praising and blaming... every figure... in recent politics". I wrote, in my Introduction: "no British politician is mentioned by name.... responsibility in British politics is collective.... it would be unfair to single out... individual[s]..." .[p.viii]

In his third paragraph Mr Cooper writes that I was "prompted to begin thinking about" the British constitution "by the failings of the Conservative governments of 1979 onwards". I wrote, in the second sentence of the book, that my thinking about politics had begun 30 years before. In giving reasons for being so fed up with government, I even referred to British policy on Biafra and to Britain's relations with Idi Amin, both of which episodes (Biafra 1967-70, Idi Amin 1971- 79) rather obviously belong at the doors of earlier Labour administrations, though the Heath government did play a part in the latter (1971-74). Is this ignorance, inattentiveness, or really dyslexia?

In the same paragraph Mr Cooper scores the first of many clean misses. He claims that I idolise Margaret Thatcher, making this "clear... in several places". My recollection, without rereading the whole book, is that I alluded only twice to Lady Thatcher. In my Introduction, I wrote about being shocked when: "the Conservative Party turned on the Prime Minister who had single-handedly put the Party and Britain itself back on the world political map and dumped her: in the most unseemly, undignified and ungenerous fashion". [p.xiii] In my Postscript, I described the "dramatic turnaround" in the 1980s under "a dynamic new leader" with "courage" who eventually failed through lack of support, inconsistency, and so forth. [p.268]

Throughout the rest of the book I was about as critical of Thatcherite Conservativism as it is possible to be without becoming abusive. My Introduction, for example, exposed the complete sham of the Conservatives' claim to favour freedom and free markets. In Chapter 30, I exposed their fraud even more thoroughly in a no-holds-barred attack on the Financial Services Act; a piece of unwarranted and disastrous economic intervention - devised, made law, and heavy-handedly imposed by the Thatcher government - which I clearly identified as fascist. (During the debate, one Conservative MP called the FSA "a splendid Bill". Margaret Thatcher never demurred.)

To ignore whole chapters of sharply-worded criticism in order to seize upon two isolated kindly allusions and to label these "idolising" is more than asinine; it is, I submit, mendacious. It does have its funny side though. Friends who heard me rail for a decade against "that woman" fell about laughing when told my book had been interpreted as idolising her.

For the record, I suppose my opinion of Margaret Thatcher must be close to that of many other libertarians. Obviously, she had courage and, obviously, she did some good. (Surely she was preferable to a Heath or a Kinnock? Would they have slashed income tax and abolished foreign exchange controls?) Otherwise, the then Mrs Thatcher was a major disappointment. For example, she spoke ad nauseam about principles but, in light of what she did, I do not think she would have recognised a principle if it nailed her to the floor. Further, while I respected her debating skill, combative spirit, and resolute facing up to foreign and domestic bullies, I found her patronising public persona distinctly unappealing. More importantly, from a free market point of view, I think she presided over the greatest missed opportunity of the last 150 years. Like Bruno against Tyson, for a moment we thought we had a champion, but alas we didn't.

Overall, in my judgement, Margaret Thatcher did more harm than good, particularly vis-…-vis Europe, and I am afraid that I find it near impossible to believe her protestations of ignorance about such things as the "arms to Iraq" affair. In short, although she promised much, and did do something, Margaret Thatcher revealed herself to be, on the evidence, just another professional politician - not the Iron Lady of modern folklore. And a great pity for all of us it was too.

Turning back to the unappealing matter in hand, in describing my proposals for parliamentary reform Mr Cooper writes: "Mr Dykes does not spell out clearly his reasons for preferring [these]". Oh? Most of Part One of the book ("Political Philosophy", pp.2-45) as well as substantial sections of Part Two ("Constitutional Reform" pp.48-82), elaborated in great detail my reasons for "preferring" the reforms I proposed. It must therefore be asked: how much of the book which he claims to be reviewing did Mr Cooper actually read?

I wrote, for instance: "Since all experience has shown... that power corrupts, it is essential that any power granted to any form of government be limited, defined and controlled". [p.15] A few pages later I wrote: "There are very few checks or limitations on government power in Britain" [p.24]; adding "It would in fact take very little to establish a full dictatorship.... All the necessary `emergency powers', secret police, and dutiful bureaucrats are ready and waiting". [p.27] In a preamble to specific reforms, I wrote: "The central government of Britain has arrogated unto itself far too much power, and that power is far too concentrated in the House of Commons and in the hands of the Prime Minister.... Worst of all, government has created for itself the myth of the Sovereignty of Parliament and believes it may legislate in any manner on any subject. This nightmarish conception carries within it all the seeds of full dictatorship and must be eradicated". [p.48] And there was much more besides.

Mr Cooper follows up his false allegation by calling my proposals "strongly reminiscent of the US presidency" and wondering how I would avoid that institution's "major and obvious failings".

This is ignorance. First, the executive solution I suggested explicitly owed more to the Swiss presidency [eg, p.23]; and was, as I made clear, partly derived from British experience. [p.24 and elsewhere] Second, the constitutional arrangements I recommended would define and limit the executive in a vastly more comprehensive manner than does, or did, the venerable Constitution of the United States. Indeed, had the Americans retained and improved their original Hamilton-Jay-Madison system of checks and balances, rather than continuously undermining it - as they have done - they would not suffer so much from what Mr Cooper correctly calls "runaway pork- barrelling"; which, by-the-by, is also a very British political vice, as my book pointed out, and one which my proposals were specifically designed to eliminate.

In his next paragraph, Mr Cooper writes: "Mr Dykes does not hesitate to tilt the balance in favour of regional government against central." This is the exact opposite of what I proposed. My suggestions were for a restoration of balance: a threefold distribution of certain defined and minimal powers "between local, provincial and national levels of government", with a constitution specifying that "no level of government may interfere with any other" or is "more important than any other" rather, "it merely carries out a different set of duties". [p.22] My ideas, which would drastically curtail the scope and authority of local councils, were spelled out in Chapter 16, "Local Government Reform". [pp.77-82]

In his next paragraph, Mr Cooper writes that under the Reform Party "health, education, housing [and] welfare will be the responsibility of central government." This statement is so wildly off target and, in context, so stupid, that it makes Dahl's muddled Vicar seem quite normal and articulate. For the record, again, I wrote: "health care is not the business of the State" and that Reform policy was to make it "completely independent of government". [p.223] About education, I wrote that it is "far too important a process to entrust to government". [pp.226] As for housing, I proposed that the State should have "no further involvement". [p.225] More emphatically, I wrote that the Welfare State is "morally wrong" [p.214] and spent the whole of Part Six of the book, ["Welfare, Health, and Education" pp.214-229] not only elaborating this thesis but offering carefully-worked out plans for winding up the Welfare State in its entirety.

So far I have shown a significant number of Mr Cooper's assertions and criticisms to be either inaccurate, false, ignorant, or daft. Yet the misreporting pointed out so far has hardly taken us a third of the way through Mr Cooper's "review". His Nibbleswickean monologue rambles on, hopping from Northern Ireland to Hong Kong, from VAT to prison reform, from the countryside to computer innovation: ridiculing freedom-oriented positions; quoting me out of context; twisting my reasoning or ignoring it entirely; jeering at a clear commitment to free trade; totally misrepresenting my discussion of taxation, and insulting me with charges of "statism" and "nannyism".

Along the way, while casting doubts on my libertarian credentials, Mr Cooper reveals himself to be an appeaser when it comes to dealing with dictatorships; indifferent to the plight of those dictated to; inhumane in his attitude towards prison reform; archly conservative over innovation; and close to barking mad with his idea that Britain might threaten nuclear war on communist China.

I have no desire to prolong this distasteful business, but I must address one last ridiculous misjudgment. This is Mr Cooper's conclusion that: "the government's grip on the economy would scarcely be loosened by the Reform Party".

I wrote, at the beginning of my chapter "Capitalism" [p.35]: "The members of the Reform Party are unabashed and unashamed proponents of a free market, free enterprise economy, of laissez-faire capitalism. It is the only social system that accords with man's rights and the only economic system that delivers the goods." The chapter concluded [p.39]: "Free, untrammelled, laissez-faire capitalism, with complete private ownership of the means of production, sound money, and government activity confined to protecting rights, is the only proper form of social organisation and the only avenue of hope for the human race."

I spent the rest of the book outlining a plan for getting from here to there. In chapter after chapter I attacked statism in all its aspects, both in principle and in British and European practice. I lambasted government ownership, bureaucratic management, every type of regulation, in fact State economic involvement or interference of any sort, particularly in money and banking. Further, in Part Three, "Taxation Reform" [pp.84-115], I decried all forms of taxation; announced the Reform Party's long-range intention of getting rid of taxes entirely, and presented detailed proposals for making taxes as light, and as fair, as possible during the intermediate process of phasing them out.

Once again, Mr Cooper's judgement proves to be so absurdly wrong that one begins to suspect some malicious intent. In the face of such persistent and perverse misreading, describing him as dyslexic is the epitome of understatement.

My political position when I wrote Fed up with Government? was somewhere between limited government and anarchy. I have never accepted the idea of government as a "monopoly on the use of force" and set out to devise a system which a) eliminated all forms of monopoly; b) separated economy and State; and c) left government with such minimal powers that honest people could ignore it.

Because I was addressing the British general public - who believe in government - I used traditional political language and forms throughout the book. This obliged me to cover a lot of ground I would much rather have avoided and led to some compromise proposals and positions which I was uneasy about at time of writing and now wish I had left out entirely. There is thus plenty in my book for the libertarian purist to seize upon, and no doubt some idiosyncrasies to laugh at as well. (I am sure I could write a much more critical and humorous review of the book myself.)

That being said, I do not believe there is anything in Fed up with Government? to justify Mr Cooper's dismissive sarcasm, incessant misrepresentation, false allegations, and gratuitous offensiveness. I cannot imagine what libertarian purpose is meant to be served by this kind of detraction nor, frankly, do I see what cause is advanced by publishing it.

It also leaves me with a real puzzle. Four leading British intellectuals, each a well-known advocate of freedom with a national or international reputation, were kind enough to compliment me on my book. Not only that, all four freely gave me permission to use their compliments in advertising. Recently, Mr Cooper extended me the same courtesy (allowing me to quote his brief, last paragraph praise; for which, my thanks). But if my book is as dreadful as Mr Cooper makes out, why all this kindness?