FREER is a subsidiary of Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
FREER is a platform for Tory MPs to display their commitment to an ideology that serves a tiny elite at the expense of the vast majority. The MPs pocket contributors’ fees that are not classified as political donations.
FREER and its secret donors use the MPs to promote ideology and tactics that serve the donors’ objectives and to develop close relationships with the MPs to ensure friendly policy decisions are made in parliament.
Cliff-fall no-deal Brexit
IEA is owned by disaster capitalists and opportunist capitalists who are salivating at the prospect of an abrupt no-deal Brexit.
Via no-deal Brexit the Tories intend to accelerate the giveaway of what remains of Britain’s public service infrastructure including the rest of the NHS and to have a bonfire of workers’ rights, health and safety regulations, food quality standards and access to justice. According to FREER’s mission statement
“Britain’s upcoming departure from the EU provides a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to reassess and reform our country across the whole range of policy areas. The ideas that FREER will champion are those that coalesce around an enduring agenda of unleashing the enterprise, imagination, and inspiration of individual men and women. The initiative is energetic and hopeful for a country that is open, dynamic, enterprising, and thriving.”
The above, preached from the economic libertarian pulpit, was a long-winded admission that FREER wants to destroy society and public service infrastructure in Britain.
FREER is the promotional department for disaster capitalists licking their lips in anticipation: “Beyond Brexit, there is an unparalleled opportunity to shape our country.”
Parliamentary Supporters of FREER
FREER claimed that its “Parliamentary Supporters advocate the widest possible debate on freedom as the engine for prosperity and happiness for all” and on the FREER website IEA stated that it is “happy to work with politicians of all parties in an endeavour to promote its mission.”
The party split of the twenty-eight MPs listed as Parliamentary Supporters of FREER is:
TOTAL – 28
Green – 0
Labour – 0
Liberal Democrat – 0
Plaid Cymru – 0
SNP – 0
Tory – 28
The Tory MPs use FREER to regurgitate gormless paeans to the false god of capitalism. Verbose, contradictory, deceptive anti-exposition is their modus crassendi; didactic narrative, exhaustive analysis and logic are eschewed relentlessly.
Their contributions follow a similar aim with similar terminology and similar style. The shared tone is semi-spiritual presentation of the false doctrine of capitalism as an enhancement of human endeavour. There is rigid adherence to a template of confidence trickery with voluminous repetition and wilful visible ignorance of contradiction, omission and breaks in the chain of logic.
For example, in the abstract for ‘A Freer Future’ the authors (Luke Graham and Lee Rowley) proclaimed from the pulpit that “socialism stalks our landscape again – superficially alluring, and as innately dangerous as ever. We are determined to strike at its ossified foundations and highlight its enduring failures.”
Graham and Rowley attempted to raise the church roof as they ejaculated the allure of free-market capitalism.
“We believe in the fundamental principle of individual freedom; the strength and boldness of those who determine their own path; that society and community are made stronger when built, piece by piece, by those who desire to improve it; in the innate power of a sleeker, but enabling, state that empowers individuals and communities to take advantage of their talents and abilities; the collective wisdom of the crowd determined via the market; the innate goodness in voluntary collective endeavour; and the necessity of limiting compulsory collective endeavours to those that we need the most, and that can be done the best. Freedom has unleashed the awesome power of our country before, and, as we plot a new course in the 2020s, beyond Brexit, it can do so again.”
Rowley wrote another paper for FREER that claimed to give advice to the young vanguard of the pro-capitalist army on how to spread the word and con the public. Full analysis here: Next Generation Deception
James Boyd-Wallis claimed to make the moral case for business. “The moral case rests on the idea that it is only with free enterprise that we can match reward to merit.”
His fallacious argument was that risk-taking by people with wealth, to acquire more wealth, is a moral act rather than simply a financial decision where the balance between failure and success has been calculated before the risk is taken.
“The moral case rests on the idea that it is only with free enterprise that we can match reward to merit. Private business allows us to decide how to spend our time and talents to shape our lives. It enables us all to take risks, innovate, and, quite often, make sacrifices to earn our success. We know the stories of the entrepreneurs who remortgage their house to finance their dream. Who forgo months, sometimes years, of no or low pay to get their idea off the ground. They have earned their success,” was followed by the arbitrary statement that “free enterprise lifts people out of poverty.” That was the entirety of his “moral case.”
Boyd-Wallis repeated a theme FREER is keen to promote that bad capitalists are the problem rather than the intrinsic nature of capitalism: “We shouldn’t let a few bad apples demonise business as a whole.”
Elsewhere, Boyd-Wallis asked for support for a petition to the Oxford English Dictionary to expand the definition of ‘accountant’ to “a person whose job is to keep or inspect and advise on financial accounts.” Multi-million pound tax-dodgers rely on advice from accountants. To have the capacity to receive such advice enshrined in the OED could assist tax avoiders from a legal perspective.
In Oderberg on abortion David Oderberg wrote a convoluted trickster article to justify his support for conscientious (religious) objection to abortion by medical staff. He rambled on with a deluge of twists of logic to reach a conclusion that “it is simply mistaken to hold that reasonable people cannot – for surely they have and do – disagree about the place in health care of abortion.”
Nefarious abuse of language: Social liberalism
Throughout the FREER literature a phrase recurred frequently: ‘Social liberalism.’
“FREER will be unique in its advocacy of genuinely free-market ideas and its emphasis on both economic and social liberalism.”
Liberty is not the right to exploit others and it is not the survival of the fittest. Liberty is the right to freedom from precisely what the financial backers of FREER desire. FREER’s misuse of ‘Social liberalism’ is a simple two-sided con-trick: (1) It is fraudulently associating extreme corporate control of the economy with a diametrically opposed philosophy in order to hide the former’s anti-liberty ideology, and (2) it is trying to stifle criticism by claiming that opponents of corporatism are opponents of liberty.
As the table on page 6 of a Transparify report into think-tank donor transparency showed, IEA (and its subsidiary FREER) keeps its financial backers secret. Alongside three other cheerleaders for public services destruction, Adam Smith Institute, Centre for Policy Studies and Policy Exchange, IEA doesn’t want the public, who are the target of its ideology, to know which tax-dodging organised international thieves and fraudsters are employing PR machines like the IEA.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks and lobby groups
- Centre for Policy Studies
- Royal United Services Institute
- Industry and Parliamentary Trust
- Policy Network
- Human Security Centre
- Centre for Social Justice
- Tax-Payers’ Alliance
- Henry Jackson Society
- Freedom Association
- Policy Exchange
- Migration Watch
- Bruges Group
- Institute of Economic Affairs
- Adam Smith Institute
- The Bow Group
- Institute For Free Trade
- Countryside Alliance
- Legatum Institute