Adam Smith Institute

If your best mates clubbed together and gave you £103,000 when you needed it, you'd remember it, wouldn't you? Remarkable, then, that UK Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain didn't. He's accused of not registering seventeen donations towards his campaign for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party, totaling this amount. His forgetfulness is all the more astonishing when you consider that his campaign far outspent those of his rivals. So this was a large wodge of cash that public standards watchdogs weren't told about. Even Tony Blair, with his £500,000 salary from J P Morgan, his book deals and the rest couldn't simply miss £103,000.

Until Peter Hain went into Parliament, I always though him honourable. I opposed many of his views - and his abrasive ways of promoting them - but you can disagree with people and still think them principled. Politics of course forces people to compromise on their principles, so I've less respect for party politicians - but that's still no reason to accuse them of being crooked.

No, what's going on here is more subtle, and even more worrying. It's not that Peter Hain is a single rotten apple that can be ejected from the barrel and all will be well. No, they're all at it. Millionaire supporters funnel funds to the Labour Party through third parties who don't even know about it: half of Peter Hain's missing thousands is routed through some supposed think-tank; donors are attracted by the suggestion, however faint, that there might be a peerage in the pipeline.

What's wrong is that people in politics, both politicians and perhaps even more so their staff, think that they are above the rules. That their mission is more important than some tedious bit of book-keeping. That they can shuffle large sums around and nobody will notice. That how they raise and spend their cash is of little concern to the public.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of transparency, where every move that political folk make can come under the media spotlight. It means they have to be completely straight in how they conduct their business. The legislation to clean up party funding has been in place since 2000. It's truly alarming that so many politicians think it shouldn't apply to them.

It's heartening to know that I'm not the only one sickened by the news that Britain's ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair has been snapped up by J P Morgan Chase on a salary of £500,000. For that, he's not even expected to pass his banking exams, merely advise them on the economic impact of globalization (something they'd be better just Googling) and introducing them to potential clients.

When the Blairs bought a £3.4m house, all the press wondered how they would pay the mortgage. Now we know. Even with tax rates of 40 percent, they could pay it all off in half the time it takes most people, and still have enough to live at twice the standards of most people.

I neither grudge nor envy Blair's money, and I'm sure that he's actually worth that to the bank. All he has to do is get some billionaire friend to sign up (and from his years of free holidays in the grand holiday homes of the rich and famous, he knows plenty of them) and he's earned his keep. What revolts me is the hypocrisy of it all. Politicians tell us how above it all they are, and then as soon as they leave office they get jobs with the industries that they were supposed to be regulating in a detached manner just a few months ago. There are rules to stop the most outrageous breaches, but if moving straight from being First Lord of the Treasury to being director of a bank isn't colourable, I don't know what is.

And I need hardly mention that Blair was a Labour prime minister. Aren't they supposed to believe in fairness and equality? Don't they tell us that the fatcats are appalling? Well, yes, they do. Until the cream jug comes round.

One idea which pops up a lot these days is that the government should be motivated by 'quality of life' in its policymaking, and not just economics. Some even say that gross national happiness should be the aim, rather than gross domestic product.

Well, it’s a nice idea, but why do people always think a higher quality of life requires more government? In their recent report for the Conservatives, Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer even suggested that our 'quality of life' would be improved by compulsory parking fees at supermarkets. Hardly.

The thing is, quality of life means very different things to different people. The one common theme, however, must surely be the freedom to pursue your own idea of happiness – and that means less government, not more!

My quality of life would be much higher if only the taxman didn't steal so much of my income, for instance. If I was ill, I would be much happier knowing I could choose which hospital or doctor I went to. If I had children, I would be happier knowing I could choose their school.

As a Londoner, however, the biggest changes to my quality of life would probably come about if the trains were deregulated and the tube privatized, and I could get into work more easily. Of course, if only central London wasn't ringed by hideous tower blocks (built by the government), and if only our land-use planning system wasn't so restrictive, I might just be able to live closer to the office.

Policies aimed at making us freer and wealthier increase our choices, and give us a better opportunity to pursue our own idea of a good life. Whatever government does, that should be the aim.

With Barack Obama's resounding victory in the Iowa Democratic caucus, Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination no longer looks so inevitable. Indeed, if Obama can follow through with a victory in the New Hampshire primary next week, he will replace Clinton as clear favourite for the Democratic nomination. Watching Obama's victory speech, it is hard not to be impressed, even inspired:

He is a remarkable speaker – more reminiscent of the presidents of Hollywood blockbusters than of the incumbent – and his appeals to hope, change and unity are what have brought so many young people, independents, and even disillusioned Republicans to the polls in his favour.

But being a good president requires more than just rhetoric, and now that Obama is no longer an underdog, he will need to firm up his policy positions if he wants to make it all the way to the White House. That said, he would be a very tough candidate for the Republicans to beat. A Hillary nomination would give them a much better chance of hanging on to the White House.

US politics is going to be fascinating to watch in 2008.

My true love sent to me: twelve drummers drumming. It probably means the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed. The number of Gordon Brown's apostles is subsiding daily, after the sound of the election drums back in October proved a false alarm. Had he called an election then, he could have won it, though it might have been close. Now, I agree with Trevor Kavenagh of The Sun - he can never win an election again.

That's a good reason to suppose that the next UK general election will be as late as it possibly can be - in the first half of 2010. But I met Sir Robert Worcester the other day and he's still staking money on June 4, 2009, arguing that what goes down must come up, a year's a long time in politics, etc. Anyway, the prospect of overweening politicians losing their seats is always something to look forward to, whenever it comes.

Half asleep on Sunday night I was listening to a discussion on the radio about 'New Puritanism'. It's the ghastly mix of emerging social attitudes that says that it’s ok to bully people into thinking your way about anything 'bad' in others.

Take the smoking ban. There are, of course, those of us who believe that it is a load of authoritarian tripe, forcing the views of one group of people down the throats of others for no good reason. Then there are those who feel that people in public places shouldn’t be exposed to 'passive smoke' because it may damage their health. This is the old 'nanny state knows best' argument – we disagree,  but at least it's a coherent position. The New Puritans however took it one step further, banning smoking in private clubs for no better reason than they don't like smokers and don't think people should be free to choose whether or not to associate with them.

This attitude is showing up more and more and extends right to the top of government. The smoking ban, fuel taxes, 4x4 road tax, school until 18, bans on pistol-shooting and hunting with dogs, the old rules of John Stewart Mill that 'if something doesn’t hurt others you don't stop people from doing it', have been thrown out and replaced with, 'if something offends a leader writer in the Guardian then ban it'.

So if the country is now ruled by a 'Neo-Cromwellian' dictatorship of the 'liberal' elites, why did I fall asleep feeling so happy?

Well the thought occurs, every time in history that we have been taken over by a puritanical government it has been followed by a backlash of ridiculously hedonistic proportions. Think, Cromwell and the Restoration or Post-War Rationing and the 60s.

Viva, la revolution!

There is an interesting article in The Economist this week, which states "The Conservatives are doing well, but not well enough." That's probably a fair assessment.

The point is that despite the government's recent woes, and the sustained poll lead they have produced for Cameron's opposition, the Tories have not managed to really pull away from Labour. As The Economist notes, in 1995 Labour were scoring 60 percent, more than 30 percent ahead of the Tories. By contrast, Cameron's Conservatives are only averaging a ten-point lead, with 41 percent to Labour's 31. Of course, that is their best lead since 1992 and it represents a truly remarkable turn around from just a few months ago. But thanks to the structural unfairness of the British electoral system (the Conservatives need many more votes than Labour to win the same number of parliamentary seats) it is not yet enough to be sure of victory.

The main question for the Tories is, what can they do to propel themselves further ahead? The Economist points to two issues. The first is personnel - the shadow cabinet as a whole needs to perform better. Too many of them are completely unknown to the wider public, and do not seem to be particularly proactive. This is foolish: the Conservatives cannot simply hope for the government to lose the next election, they will have to work tirelessly to win it.

The second issue is policy. The problem is not, as is often suggested, that there isn't enough of it, or that it isn't detailed or radical enough. In fact, Cameron's policy commissions have provided him with a wealth of promising ideas, particularly on education and welfare reform (which may prove to be the most important challenges facing the next government). But what the Conservatives have not yet developed is an overarching theme or narrative that holds everything together and makes people understand just what a Tory government will be all about.

Ultimately, people vote for a vision, not for a handful of good policies. The challenge that remains for the Conservatives is making their vision the most attractive one on the market.

The party funding scandal that has engulfed the government will undoubtedly be used as an excuse for more regulation and more state funding of political parties. This is a mistake. The Labour Party is in trouble precisely because it has broken existing laws and been found out, not because there was not enough regulation to guide their conduct.

Indeed, what this new scandal should show us is that placing restrictions on party funding doesn't really work. More regulation does not produce better ethics, just as more state funding would not reduce political corruption – it would just make the taxpayer foot the bill.

In any case, British politics is not an industry awash with money, and all parties are under pressure to make ends meet. So why not go for a more straightforward approach and say: “Let them get it where they can”. The role of the law should limited to insisting on transparency.

The usual argument posed against this approach is that it would enable a few rich people to dictate the policy agenda. But political parties are ultimately driven by a desire to win power, and thus it is the will of the people that dictates policy (for better or worse). A rich man’s money is no good if it is conditional on the implementation of a programme no one wants to vote for.

It is also generally unfair to ascribe sinister motives to party donors. Like most people in politics their desire is to make the world a better place (as they see it), rather than to pursue a purely instrumental agenda. And when 'influence' is sought, it usually only takes the form of after dinner speeches or informal 'face time' with politicians.

Ultimately, if we try to regulate the finances of political parties, we are only setting ourselves up for disappointment. Letting the market do its thing is the only sensible way forward.

...Why anyone bothers. Why is there this fascination with politics, with the power of the State to do things? We have people insisting that ID cards will make us safe, that we can ban by legislative fiat racism and hatred, that said State can make the world a perfect place for us. Then we see what actually happens when said powers that be take on a fairly simple, if important task.

Many blog readers will already know about the campaign to force the Government into doing what it should for the locally hired Iraqi assistants and translators for the British troops there. Indeed, what it is already legally bound to do under the UN rules on asylum. And then, as Dan Hardie points out , we come to the reality of what is actually being done. 

You can go to the Army base in Basra to apply for asylum: but the militias kill people who go to that base. You can flee to Syria and pick up the forms at the Embassy there. But the British Embassy in Syria hands out the forms via Syrian security personnel: not known to be people who look kindly upon "collaborationists" in Iraq. And people who worked for us before 1 January 2005 (so, say, those who might have worked with Private Johnson Beharry, VC) get no aid at all.

I am constitutionally a believer in the cock up theory of governance rather than the conspiracy one, so I don't believe this is all deliberate to make sure that the translators are all murdered before the paperwork is processed. But if plucky Denmark can fly all of their workers, with their families, out of Iraq, why can't we?

And why are there so many wanting government to take on tasks well beyond current capabilities, when they can't even manage efficiently the simple ones?