|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Wednesday, 28 November 2007 |
|
...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? |
|
Written by Rachel Patterson
|
|
Friday, 09 November 2007 |
Democratic theory rests on the idea that individuals will vote for
their own self-interest. In America, institutions were built upon that
idea; the constitutional framers assumed that men were selfish and
formed a government functioning under that assumption.
However, things seem to have gone awry. At some point, people stopped
voting for themselves and started voting for others in an attempt to
reverse perceived social inequalities. Even as the voting population
remains mainly middle class, employed, and salaried, more and more they
have voted for social justice programmes like minimum wage,
unemployment, and government health care. Governments have instituted
these programmes dutifully and expanded a bureaucratic and inefficient
system based not on what the less fortunate want for themselves, but
for what the middle classes feel bad for having.
This is more dangerous than self-interested voting because it destroys
the idea of a responsive government. In America, those voting for
minimum wage hikes and increased national medicine, with the possible
exception of the labour unions, are not those living on minimum wage or
government health care programmes. If the people receiving the benefits
aren’t the ones voting on the benefits, then nothing is done about
ineffective policies and the supposed beneficiaries have a system
imposed on them that might not help at all.
One obvious solution would be increased participation among the lower
classes. Other than that, a return to self interested thinking on the
part of the electorate might do us much more good than the
well-intentioned middle class voter would think.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Tuesday, 06 November 2007 |
The Queen's speech yesterday was a rather dull affair, mostly because
everything in it had already been leaked to the press. So much for the
Prime Minister who would make announcements to Parliament first!
The government's legislative programme – as usual – was light on the radical public sector reforms the country needs, and heavy on creeping authoritarianism.
Children are going to be forced to stay in education or training until
they are 18, not that it will do them any good. Kids who don't want to
be there will only disrupt classes and make life more difficult for
teachers and other students. And if 11 years of compulsory education
hasn't taught them what they need to know, it's unlikely two more are
going to make much difference.
Then there's anti-terrorism. As expected, the government wants longer
detention without charge – probably 56 days (up from 28, already the
longest period in Europe). They also want to be able to continue
questioning suspects after charge, and allowed to draw adverse
inferences from silence when questioned. No more habeas corpus then,
and no more right to silence.
Freedom of expression is in trouble too – possession of "extreme"
pornography not covered by the Obscene Publications Act will be a
crime. And freedom of speech gets another kicking, with a new crime for
inciting hatred against gays, lesbians, the transgendered, and disabled
people. Not that I'm in favour of hating anyone, of course, but people
should be free to express their opinions, repugnant or not.
And to top it all off, there will definitely be no referendum on the EU
Constitution Reform Treaty. That will mean more national powers to
Brussels now, and no chance of preventing more powers being taken away
in future.
All in all then, it's a thumbs down for the Queen's speech.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Monday, 05 November 2007 |
The government is expected to signal its intention to change the rules on political party funding in today's Queen's speech.
The push for reform started during the loans for honours scandal. Sir
Hayden Phillips, the man tasked with brokering a deal on party funding,
proposed that the political parties accept a £50,000 cap on donations
and loans from individuals in return for increased state funding. Talks
broke down when Labour refused to have the cap applied to money from
trade unions.
Despite the impasse, Gordon Brown is said to be coming under pressure
from Labour MPs to push ahead with changes – mostly thanks to the
efforts of Conservative businessman Lord Ashcroft's 'target-seats
campaign', which channels funding directly to local parties. Yesterday
though, The Times revealed
that the unions donated "twice as much to local parties before the last
election" as Ashcroft. The Conservatives add that incumbent MPs have an
in-built advantage, making use of their 'communications allowance' for
electoral purposes (something Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, was told off for over the weekend).
It's all a bit of a muddle.
State funding, however, will only make matters worse. Because it is
calculated according votes cast for the various parties, it entrenches
the status quo and bolsters incumbents. The more votes you get, the
more taxpayer funding you receive. That, surely, is not good for
democracy. State funding also insulates political parties from the
public. Without having to rely on the grassroots and private donors for
money, political parties are free to ignore them – furthering the
already troubling disconnect between politicians and voters. Thirdly,
state funding would mean taxpayers' money going to unpalatable outfits
like the BNP or Respect.
Here's a much simpler solution to the whole problem. Get rid of state
funding. Abolish the communications allowance (MPs: nobody wants your
newsletter anyway!). Then let political parties raise as much money as
they want, from whomever they want. And let them spend it as they wish.
Just insist on absolute transparency every step of the way.
Political parties should be treated like every other industry – survive in the free market, or do something else.
|
|
Written by Dr Madsen Pirie
|
|
Wednesday, 31 October 2007 |
Of the two contenders for Liberal-Democrat leader, Nick Clegg is
presented as the more libertarian. In today's party it would be
remarkable to find many libertarian principles, in that the membership
and the MPs seem committed to the state as problem solver rather than
as problem causer. More than that, most seem actually opposed to
outgrowths of liberalism such as free trade and globalization.
If Mr Clegg wishes to hark back to his party's libertarian roots, he
could usefully issue a manifesto setting out the principles that
motivate and move him. One thing, though. There's a widespread
impression that he'd sell his granny's skin for lampshades if he
thought it would get us closer into a political union with the EU.
Perhaps he should also take the opportunity to repudiate this, saying
he intends to resist the encroachments on our freedoms which originate
in the EU, and to win back some of those lost. He'd win huge support if
he said that UK citizens should have a say before more of their powers
are signed away.
|
|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Thursday, 18 October 2007 |
There has been much erudite talk about the EU Reform (i.e.
Constitution) Treaty, but it is instructive to look at what its
provisions actually mean for ordinary folk, rather than for the
politicians.
First, there won't be much point complaining to Gordon Brown about bus
fares or electricity prices, because transport, energy, science and
sport policy will be decided by a majority of EU Ministers, with
Westminster powerless to resist. And if jobs, trade, health or other
public services, concern you, better get on the Eurostar, since there
are will be new central powers over all these things too.
Still, it could be worse. The new European Prosecutor might just turn
up and arrest you, in which case you can forget even the shaky
protections we have under the British justice system, since UK law will
be 'harmonized' into EU law. No point appealing to the Bill of Rights
either, since the EU version will eclipse it. And with the European
Arrest Warrant, you're quite likely to end up in a Greek jail where
they haven't heard of it anyway. Mind you, before your case comes up,
the new European Foreign Minister might have declared war on Iran, so I
guess things could be worse still.
On the basis of past experience, the 'red line' opt-outs that the UK
has negotiated are going to look rather faded before very long. They
won't save us from this coercive new centralization of government. A
referendum might.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Tuesday, 16 October 2007 |
No one was particularly surprised by the resignation of Lib Dem leader
Sir Ming Campbell – a string of polls suggesting the Lib Dems would be
wiped out in an election made it inevitable – but it's suddenness
caught Westminster unawares. In fact, Sir Ming has not been seen in
public since he stepped down. He didn't even make the announcement
himself, preferring to the 'damn you all, I'm going back to Scotland'
approach.
It's not yet clear who will be fighting to replace him as leader – Nick
Clegg and Chris Huhne are the obvious choices– but could this be the
perfect opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to reassert their
'liberal' background?
The ideas are certainly there. An influential group of Lib Dem
modernizers published 'The Orange Book' a few years ago – a collection
of policy essays which, collectively, urged the party to remarry their
political and social liberalism with the free-market, economic
liberalism on which the old Liberal Party was founded.
They called for the abolition of the DTI and its industrial support
mechanisms, more privatization, a cap on government spending,
repatriation of powers from Brussels, free trade, and a reformed health
service based on competing social insurance companies. They even quoted
approvingly the following statement from former Liberal leader Jo
Grimmond: "Much of what Mrs Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph say and do is
in the mainstream of liberal philosophy."
Trouble is, all that would come as a terrible shock to most Lib Dem
members, not to mention the leftist elements of the parliamentary
party. Something tells me they will continue leaning towards social
democracy and the political wilderness – not liberalism – for some
years to come.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Wednesday, 03 October 2007 |
Most people agree that David Cameron's speech to the Conservative
conference yesterday was probably the most important of his career. In
my opinion, it was one of his best. It did go on a bit and,
predictably, there was little detail on the lower taxes and
deregulation he wants for business. And he just had to mention the
green stuff – even if only in passing. On the other hand, however, what
he said about public service reform was excellent – and refreshingly
radical.
Cameron condemned the "cynical old politics" in which people were made
to put up with whatever they were given, and said the Tories would
embrace the "new politics", in which individuals are empowered through
choice. And this means breaking the state monopolies in health and
education.
The private and independent sector will be able to set up new schools
which will receive per capita state funding and be free from onerous
regulation. The state-funded education sector would thus be opened up
to choice, diversity and innovation. Over on the Spectator blog, Fraser
Nelson hailed
this as "the policy of the year". It strikes me that Cameron's
proposals are rather similar to the ones we published on Monday in our
latest report, Open Access for UK Schools .
On the NHS, Cameron restated his familiar commitments – no more
targets, less bureaucracy, trusting professionals – but then,
surprisingly, went much further. People will be free to choose their
GP, he said, and those GPs will control health budgets. They will be
able to send their patients to whichever hospital or doctor – state or private – offers the best care. A definite step in the right direction.
He ended the speech with a challenge to the Prime Minister: "Call an
election. We will fight. Britain will win." Of course, the real purpose
of Cameron's speech was to discourage Brown from calling an early poll.
He may just have done enough to deter him.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Saturday, 22 September 2007 |
This week saw the Lib Dems gathering in Brighton for their annual
conference. It seems to have been a dull affair. The media paid it
little attention, aside from speculating over who would replace Sir
Ming Campbell as leader when he finally realised he was too old and
boring for 21st century politics.
It made me wonder: what is the point of the Liberal Democrat party?
Does it really stand for anything more that "none of the above"?
According to a populus poll for The Times early in the week, an
outright majority of people think not. Two thirds of voters regard the
Lib Dems as merely "a party of protest" and think that "their policies
probably don't really add up". Amusingly, two out of five Lib Dem
voters agree.
The trouble stems from the party's history. The old Liberal Party and
the Social Democrat Party formed an alliance in 1983. In 1988 the
parties formally merged, eventually settling on the name "Liberal
Democrats" in 1989. This union was driven more by political reality
than ideological brotherhood – British politics barely had space for
three major parties, let alone four. But tensions between the two sides
linger on.
On the one hand, you've got the free-market 'orange-bookers', who have
argued for privatization, free trade, repatriation of powers from the
EU, a cap on government spending, the abolition of the DTI, and so on.
They even called for the NHS to be replaced with a system of competing
social insurance companies.
On the other hand, you don't have to look far to find a Lib Dem
desperate to turn Britain into a socialist nirvana ruled from Brussels,
complete with endless government regulation, soak-the-rich taxes, and
compulsory eco-lunacy for all. Sir Ming appears to sit on this side of
the fence – his conference speech planted him firmly to the left of
Labour.
If the Lib Dems are ever going to be a genuine political force, they
must decide who they really are and what they really stand for – is it
liberalism or social democracy?
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Tuesday, 04 September 2007 |
|
Writing in The Times yesterday, Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne promised to match the Government's spending plans for the next three years. That means an annual rise in public spending of two percent a year, in real terms, from £615 billion next year to £674 billion in 2010-11. Thus the next election manifesto will not offer upfront, unfunded tax cuts, he said, repeating his pledge that any tax reductions will be matched by tax rises elsewhere.
Needless to say, that's pretty depressing for those of us who are of a free-market persuasion. Yes, I know the Tories plan to "share the proceeds of growth" between lower taxes and higher public spending. Yes, over the course of a parliament that would in theory mean that tax comes to represent a smaller proportion of the UK's GDP. And yes, economically speaking, shifting the tax burden from income, savings and profits to consumption (which is what "green" taxes are ultimately about) makes sense because indirect taxes are less damaging to incentives and distort the economy less.
All that is fine. What bothers me is how whole-heartedly the Conservatives have accepted the consensus that we need ever-higher public spending, as though we should aspire to have a government that pays for everything we want. First of all, higher spending does not mean a better quality of service – 10 years of Labour government should have taught us that much. Secondly, public spending crowds out the private sector, reduces productivity and competitiveness, and is a drain on the economy. If it keeps going up, there may not be much growth left to share the proceeds of.
The Conservatives know all this, and yet it's still bad politics to say it. Why? Perhaps it's because 20 percent of the workforce is employed by the public sector. Or maybe it's because 1 in 5 households (excluding pensioners and students) rely entirely on handouts. Add it all up, and nearly half the country is dependent on the state. In the long run, that's going to be our biggest problem.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Tuesday, 10 July 2007 |
The Conservatives' social justice group reported yesterday, and
its proposals were a mixed bag (hardly surprising given that it made
188 of them).
The proposed alcohol tax hike was widely criticized over the
weekend, and rightly so since (a) alcohol is already taxed very
heavily, and (b) demand for alcoholic drinks is basically inelastic (it
does not respond to price). More drug and alcohol treatment would be
welcome, but surely the money can be found in the existing tax take?
We've had enough stealth taxes from Gordon Brown.
But the report also contains some really excellent proposals, particularly on welfare and education.
The welfare reforms proposed by the report are clearly inspired
by similar 'workfare' schemes in the US, which have proved very
successful in getting people off benefits and into jobs. Essentially,
anyone expecting the state's support is expected to work or actively
look for or prepare for work, and this condition should be strictly
enforced. Meanwhile the delivery of benefits should be carried out by
private or voluntary sector organisations, who would be paid primarily
by results (i.e. according to how successful they are in getting people
back into work).
The education proposals are also very encouraging. At a general
level, schools and head teachers would be given greater autonomy (being
put back in charge of discipline, for instance) and freed from central
control. Head teachers in challenging schools should receive higher
salaries and improvement bonuses of up to 50 percent. Even better,
parents and alternative providers would be able to set up 'pioneer
schools' which would receive state funding on a per pupil basis. These
schools would be free from local authority control and would have
charitable status.
Parents with children in failing schools would have the right to
take their children elsewhere, and the allocated funding would follow
them. Disadvantaged children would also receive an 'education credit'
worth £500, which could be spent on supplementary tuition.
No doubt media attention will be focused on the proposal to bring
back the married-couples tax allowance, but its value is purely
symbolic. Proposals like the ones above could, on the other hand, make
a real difference to many thousands of lives.
|
|
Written by Katharine Hirst
|
|
Friday, 29 June 2007 |
Sir Digby Jones, the former CBI (Confederation of British Industry)
chief, has been named as Britain's minister of trade and investment. He
will travel the world championing British exports and persuading
potential investors of Britain’s merits.
Of course the creation of a ministerial post requires solely a wave of
the Prime Ministerial wand. But Sir Digby can’t have any real power
since trade policy is now in the European Union’s hands, with
investment policy seemingly heading in the same direction.
So Sir Digby will be called a minister but will essentially be a roving
ambassador with a fancier title. Indeed he shall be working out of the
new and simplistically titled Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform – which no longer controls trade policy anyway. Could
his appointment just be an exercise in spin? Surely not!
The appointment will disappoint the Tories (Sir Digby has always seemed
a natural conservative), and it won’t please the Americans either. Last
year he apparently accused Washington of "protectionism and bullying"
in its approach to British business. He is also famously Eurosceptic.
Unfortunately, even as a minister of state he won’t be able to give
these useful attitudes any policy relevance. What a shame.
|
|
Written by Tom Clougherty
|
|
Sunday, 29 April 2007 |
Sir John Major has rejected David Cameron's encouragement to stand as a candidate for London Mayor. His office told The Times
that Sir John believes 'his political future is behind him.' Hardly
surprising but, in my opinion, rather a pity. Sir John's 'soap-box'
style of politics would provide a welcome antidote to Ken Livingstone
and his relentless self-aggrandizement. Anyway, the mayoral elections
are still some way off, but the story got me thinking about what I want
from a London Mayor. There are three main areas where London life could
do with some improvement: transport, crime, and the built environment.
Transport. The congestion charge is a decent idea, but is just too
blunt an instrument. Instead of a single entry charge for the
city-centre, we should consider moving towards a city-wide system of
road pricing, providing better market incentives for efficient road
use. It would also help if the streets weren't always clogged up with
empty, subsidized buses. As for the tube, it's about time they
privatized it. It should compete for customers with other modes of
transport. Giving private companies responsibility for the
infrastructure would encourage investment and might just result in
faster, more reliable trains, better track and a modernized signaling
system.
Crime. The London Mayor should take ultimate responsibility for the
metropolitan police and be given the power to appoint the chief
constable. Introducing this kind of local accountability would spark a
return to community policing, with bobbies on the beat instead of doing
paperwork.
The built environment. London is a very grey city. Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced
his intention to plant 1m trees in New York. A similar scheme could
make London a much nicer place to live. London also has more than its
fair share of sink estates, and the Mayor should lead the fight to
clean them up. In many cases, simple redesign can be very effective –
for instance, closing off internal walkways and dividing common areas
into private gardens can bring about dramatic drops in crime at
comparatively low cost.
Just my initial thoughts...
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
