At last, a truly sensible idea for legislative reform!

4049

at-last-a-truly-sensible-idea-for-legislative-reform

Now this idea is originally aimed at those who have banned incandescent light bulbs but I think it could usefully be deployed further:

Here's my modest proposal to determine whether the legislation actually serves people. Satisfy the proposed power limits in all public buildings, from museums, houses of worship and hospitals to the White House and the homes of all elected officials. Of course, this will include replacing all incandescents with CFLs. At the end of 18 months, we would check to be certain that the former lighting had not been reinstalled, and survey all users to determine satisfaction with the resulting lighting. Based on the data collected, the Energy Independence and Security Act and energy legislation still in Congress would be amended to conform to the results of the test.

Yes, I like it, I like it a lot. Let legislators pay higher taxes for 18 months before the rest of us have our money taken from us. Insist that the SNP does without sealskin sporrans for a year and half before we have to. If fuel duty is to rise then let them pay it before we do: perhaps using some complicated voucher scheme at each and every petrol station so we can identify the scoundrels and thus pelt them.

If children are to be randomly assigned to schools by lottery, then all the children of the educational bureaucracy will be so assigned in the test period: that's every civil servant at the centre, of every councillor enacting it, every child of even a cleaner for a Local Education Authority and most definitely the young Cooper/Balls.

If climate change requires less use of cars and more of public transport then Ministers should be the first: abolish their cars and drivers perk.

Finally, if everything is to be powered by windmills then insist that the entire governmental apparatus do so first for 18 months. What with their chilblains, incipient pneumonia and the sputtering candles they'll have to work by that'll be a year and a half when we are entirely free from their bright ideas and ministrations.

Yes, an excellent idea and I thoroughly recommend it to the House.

Reform the ONS

4043

reform-the-ons

Having spent the last week trying to come up with accurate statistics on the public sector, I can confidently state that the online information available from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is a mess.

Information is hidden in tables that cannot be easily found and when it is finally dug up it is not in a logical format and incomplete without explanation of why this is so. It should not take hours to get access to the number of people employed in the public sector. Upon my inability to find some bssic statistics on public sector pay I sent them an email; despite the prompt reply it was to a page that did not work. I have put in another request and have yet to hear back from them; even if they do get back to me, I don’t expect much help from them.

This failure to provide information in a digestible form is a long way from the model of open government that politicians are so keen to promote. The lack of maneuverability on the website is indicative of all government despite its obsession and waste on new technology. We do not need the policy analysis present in the ONS publications, just the statistics with background information on their collection. Outsiders can do the policy analysis.

Apart from the core functions – measuring the National Accounts, the census, Consumer Prices index (CPI) and the Retail Prices Index (RPI) – most of the statistics are not useful. The ONS needs fundamental reform in order to meet the informational demands of the 21st century. We deserve value for the £1.2 billion we are spending from 2007 to 2012.

The statistics need to be available in easily searchable and comparable formats. The US are doing slightly better with www.usaspending.gov, but it is perversely obsessed with graphics and performance metrics and is remarkably costly. Instead we just need clear and consistent facts.

Perhaps though this is all too much to ask. After all, an understanding of public choice theory suggests that it is not in the government’s interest: “crafty governments use artful marketing to create fiscal illusion--a false picture--to hide from taxpayers how much they pay, where the money goes and what the true long-term costs will be."

Illiberals

4035

illiberals

When is a liberal not a liberal? According to many it is when they reside in America. The 'liberals' in America are correct to label themselves this as they are diametrically opposed to the conservatives. The conservatism we see in America (or did see) was one that stood for the protection of the Constitution and the freedom of the individual that it enshrined. The liberals sought to change this by side-stepping the constitution and expanding the government. They would 'liberate' the masses from the tyranny that is the constitution and cradle them in the warm safe bosom of federal government.

When we look at the history of the word, liberal, it's first usage as a political term was one of abuse. It wasn't until a group of Spaniards established the political group Liberales that it became associated with change. A change that on continental Europe was one that sought to overthrow the entrenched monarchies and free man from his role as a feudal serf. A change that had gradually been taking place in Britain in a more natural way from 1688 onwards in association with the Enlightened thought of the day. Throughout the 19th century the waters of liberty were darkened as new so-called liberal authors developed the idea of utilising government to act to free sections of society. There was little thought given to the unintended consequences of this resulting in many people actually losing their freedom as government expanded. Modern liberalism took on a new political form that had little to do with classically liberal thinking, and limited governmental powers over the individual.

It was not until Hayek, Friedman et al. began fighting back against the rising tide of government intervention that classical liberalism was revived and the idea of man being free was once again mooted. The Conservatives were doing little to stem the tide of the liberals here and in America (a situation we still find ourselves in today). The liberals of today are only liberal with other people's money. They have no regard for the idea of man being liberated, they desire everyone to live towards a 'general will'. The crux is that they hold the correct political party term 'liberals', yet are fundamentally illiberal.

Senator Edward Kennedy

4030

senator-edward-kennedy

The scale of the BBC's praise for the late Senator Edward Kennedy has been so lavish that it's a wonder they have not been calling for a National Day of Mourning. To me, he was a deeply flawed character.

Yes, he did a bit of good in terms of the Northern Ireland peace process. He started out, of course, as very much on the Republican side, and helping Republican fundraisers. But after one too many horrific IRA murders, just as the peace process was underway, he snubbed Jerry Adams on a visit to the US, and so might well have made the Republicans realize that they could not negotiate through the political process and support violence at the same time.

So give him credit for that. But balancing that small plus is the major minus of Chappaquiddick, where Kennedy seemed more intent on saving his own political skin than his unfortunate passenger's life. Perhaps it was in the genes. His brother Jack Kennedy had some of the same character flaws. But perhaps much of Ted Kennedy's prominence was due to his rich and famous relatives too. Apart from the Pitts and 'Bob's your uncle', we have not had many political dynasties in Britain. Perhaps our system is better at weeding out people who rise only because of family or wealth.

Of course, the BBC talks of Kennedy as a great 'liberal' – and liberal he was, in American terms. But it suggests that Kennedy was liberal in the European sense. One BBC News report even spoke of his liberalism in contrast to 'left and right'. But in the US, liberal and left-wing are the same. And boy, was Ted Kennedy a liberal. For decades he attempted to force a UK-style National Health Service on Americans, despite having no understanding or first-hand experience of how it actually works – or doesn't. American healthcare is rotten, sure enough – over-regulated, run by doctors and politicians, and therefore expensive – but America doesn't need to jump out of that frying pan into the fire of nationalized healthcare. Americans know that, and have turned up in their hundreds and indeed thousands to protest against Obama's healthcare plans in the 'town meetings' that politicians have been calling to try to promote the idea. The plans are getting watered down by the day. I like to think of myself as a liberal. And I resent how American politicians have hijacked the terms to mean the opposite. Even more, I resent how our metropolitan state broadcaster are trying to shoehorn the same usage into the British political debate. Time they were privatized and exposed to some real competition.

Not-so-amazing ingratitude

4025

not-so-amazing-ingratitude

Monday's Times reported that Michael Gove, the shadow education secretary, had said Tony Blair was "not as popular as he deserves to be" and had been shown "amazing ingratitude" by his party. 

And I can see why Michael Gove said what he said. His education policies are indeed a souped-up version of the former prime minister's and – needless to say – a little political cross-dressing never goes amiss when there are voters to swing and an election to be won. But I'm also pretty sure that Gove doesn't believe for a second that the British public has much to thank Tony Blair for.

After all, it was on his watch that we got the tripartite financial regulation structure that failed so miserably at the first signs of a crisis. He was in charge when the inflation target was changed from RPIX to CPI, which almost certainly led to interest rates being lower than they would (and should) have been, fuelling our ill-fated credit boom.

It was the Blair government that expanded the remit of regulators to include social and environmental objectives, sparking the growth of a vast bureaucracy and saddling British businesses with a burden that now amounts to more than 10 percent of GDP.

There was the pensions tax grab, which wiped at least £150bn off British pension funds, and wrecked the best private pension scheme in Europe. And there were the endless stealth tax rises, perhaps most notably in National Insurance, where employee and employer contributions rose, the upper earnings limit was lifted above the rate of inflation, and a new band was introduced for higher earners.

Blair's government abolished the internal markets in health and education, before half-heartedly re-introducing them. It wimped out on welfare, asking Frank Field to think the unthinkable and promptly sacking him when he did. And from 2002 onwards, public spending spiralled out of control and debt went through the roof.

Then there was the corruption of the political process, with its contempt for parliament, its spin-doctored, sofa government, its dodgy dossiers and its loans-for-peerages. And of course, there was the unprecedented assault on civil liberties, with habeas corpus, trial by jury, double jeopardy, and freedom of speech all coming under attack.

So am I grateful? Well, no, not exactly.

Which god?

4024

which-god

Republican or Democrat? Heavenly omnipotent being, or all-encompassing government? When you read about the political 'right' in America it is almost always prefixed with the term 'religious'. Yet the same tag could (and should) be placed in front of those often described as liberals* for their unbridled passion for government power over all aspects of life. This is the new religion. A pervasive, invasive power that goes against what the Founding Fathers truly believed the correct role of government to be.

A belief in big government is as bad for everyone else's health as federally sanctioned politics founded on religion. Holding one's beliefs in the vaulted halls of government buildings does not make one enlightened or more virtuous than the man who bends his knee before the altar. There was a reason the Founding Father's called for a separation of church and state juxtaposed with the freedom to worship: they feared a religious tyranny, desiring that no man be forced to believe in something he did not. Obama's health care reforms are just another example highlighting that America is a divided nation with many prepared to resist things they feel are unacceptable (Recent polling suggest that the US is still a conservative nation).

The Constitution in America was set out so that man could live free from interference. Protected from both religion and government. This is now a long forgotten ideal in the US as there are two sides who are committed to imposing their beliefs on the other (with the rest caught in the middle). This is detrimental to the freedom of all. If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would undoubtedly be shocked at what they saw. The relationship between the state and the individual has been overrun by big government, and both liberals and conservatives are to blame.

* The etymology of liberal does indeed mean those who favour government. On both sides of the Atlantic. Not to be confused with classic liberal. (More on this tomorrow).

Fascism and communism: Two sides of the same coin

4015

fascism-and-communism-two-sides-of-the-same-coin

In an article in last week’s Guardian, Jonathan Steele objects to the joint condemnation of communism and fascism. The moral he draws is that “History is too complex and sensitive to be left to politicians". Quite right, but it is also too complex to be used to defend a failed political ideology by crudely trying to show that another is worse.

Mr Steele was upset that the “23 August be proclaimed European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, in order to preserve the memory of the victims of mass deportations and exterminations". He felt this Declaration to be an attempt by former Soviet countries to discredit modern communists. Perhaps, but this observation does not mean the politicians are wrong to draw a parallel. It would be impossible to deny that Hitler discredits fascism and similarly the case stands for Stalin and communism. The other countless million murders that have taken place under fascist and communist regimes in other times and places also add to the case for the joint condemnation.

The European Declaration acknowledges the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in which Hitler and Stalin agreed not to attack each other and divide central Europe in anticipation of the ending of hostilities. In 1989, the Baltic Way defied the Soviet Union on the fiftieth anniversary of that pact. Thus, twenty years ago the atrocities of fifty years previous were part of the fabric of the present, as they are still very much in the minds of the people of the region today. Anyone who has visited countries of what made up the Soviet Union is immediately struck by the way in which government and people make every effort to draw attention to, educate and mark the atrocities of communism.

Mr Steele concludes with his fear that, “First they manipulate anniversaries, then they move to textbooks, and the slide gathers speed". Certainly, this is how governments the world over function if they are given control over setting public holidays, education etc. This slide is even more apparent when those in power have little or no limit to their actions; which of course is most evidenced in communist and fascist states, and is also why both these political systems should be comprehensively and unequivocally condemned, either together or separately, but certainly condemned.

Privacy for parliamentarians

4009

privacy-for-parliamentarians

Recently, the pseudo-celebrity MP, Lemit Opik, called for stronger privacy rules protecting MPs. No doubt many would highlight the irony of an MP with a string of celebrity partners calling for greater levels of privacy, but let's leave cheeky girls aside for now. There is a moral issue here regarding the fine line between political transparency and the right of those in public life.
 
Mr Opik said "For a long time I believed the cost of public life was public attention, which at times does not please the subject of the coverage, but which nevertheless goes with the territory." This is a crucial point in the debate. There needs to be a culture within politics that MP and Lords are working for us, that they are employees of the people. As such, those entering politics need to accept that parts of their life will be on public display because it could eventually impact on us.
 
The expenses scandal has revealed and emphasised the need for greater transparency with financial matters. Essentially, the MPs proved that they could not be trusted with our money – this intrusion into our representatives lives by the media only had positive outcomes. It gave the MPs a warning that they couldn’t continue living unchecked at our expense, whilst it gave the electorate the wake-up call that we need to play a role in seeing where our money goes.
 
But there is a valid case that the intrusion of the media into the lives of MPs has gone too far and is inflicting upon the rights of MPs. Granted, if MPs were left with so little privacy that it severely impacted on their lives, we would put off the best candidates from entering politics, resulting in a sub-standard system.
 
There needs to be a fine balance struck regarding privacy in public life. In my opinion, there can never be too much transparency when it comes to financial matters, we must know where our money is being spent. But, everybody should be entitled to a degree of privacy – I don’t need to know where an MP goes on holiday.

Alcohol, localism and the post-bureaucratic age

3994

alcohol-localism-and-the-post-bureaucratic-age

Cameron is planning once more to get tough on cheap booze. The Conservative’s have yet to give any clear policies on this matter, but a minimum price for alcohol might well be on the agenda.

Drinking alcohol and getting drunk are of course not problems in and of themselves. However, the antisocial side of its effects are best dealt with through the devolution of political powers to local levels. Sadly localism comes with its own problems, but short of the privatization of all land and the natural creation of contract-based communities, at present there might be no politically realistic alternative. With more representation and varying policies at the local level, people will have a greater say over where and how they live. Alcohol can flow to where it is most readily appreciated. This transfer of power should be done contemporaneously with an end to the national taxation of alcohol and a hefty reduction in centrally dictated regulations.

As for the more serious cases of alcoholism, once again the centralised state and politics does not have the answers. Regulations and prohibitions will not solve the underlying causes of people’s decent into alcoholism. Salvation ultimately comes from the strength of the individual and the support of institutions predating the modern state: family, friends and charity. And despite the Ian Duncan Smith’s constant calls through CSJ for the state to support these institutions, much better would be to leave them alone to flourish as they did prior to the massive extension of the state.

A minimum price for alcohol is hardly in the spirit of the post-bureaucratic age Cameron is so keen to promote. And this is ultimately the problem with this vision; he has has not signed up to the reduction of the central state that is essential if localism is to be anything more than another control upon our lives. A skeleton central government as the defender of our freedoms and local governments as the many and varied expressions of the will of the community could and should be the practical reality of Cameron’s post-bureaucratic age.

This would be no small revolution, and a serious blow to collectivism. Of course there are solid arguments that this does not go far enough, but in reality, it would be more than we can currently expect.

The progressive train to nowhere

3970

the-progressive-train-to-nowhere

The smoke and mirrors of politics were on show on Tuesday at Demos, where David Cameron's right hand man, the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne MP gave a speech claiming that the Conservatives were now the torch holders of progressives politics. The ideal being that the Conservatives would reform public services, rather than cutting them (the reforms being sufficient enough to reduce costs). This, in itself, is to be the measure of progress. Progressivism is now being embraced by the conservatives: either this is the politics of triangulation or the air being cut off to conservative brains.

Progress is to realise the folly of government intervention of the past 70 years. It is to realise that for the UK to turn itself from being a debt riddled, inefficient, morally bankrupt, ill-bred and unhealthy nation public services need to be radically reduced in size, not tinkered with at the edges. After the elecion of the Conservative administrations we'll have progressed exactly nowhere. Government will still be in excess of 40% of GDP, debt will still be a weight towering over us and politicians will still be grappling with whether we are responsible enough to do x,y and z. What the conservatives should be proposing is a dramatic reduction in business taxes/regulations to increase growth, reducing the tax burden on the poorest and ensuring that the state is withdrawn from much of public life. That is how we progress rather than wallow and regress as this current crop of politicians want us to.

From 1945: "In the interests of the nation and of the world, we earnestly urge all progressives to see to it - as they certainly can - that the next Government is not a Conservative Government but a Labour Government..." Where has the alternative to big government gone? There is no one offering us a way out of this era of indebtedness and wasteful spending and as such our progress will be continually held in check by the political class.