Compulsion doesn’t cure apathy
Australia boasts a 95% turnout rate every election season thanks to their adoption of compulsory voting in the 1920s. In Australia, refusing to show up to the polls – unless you can prove illness or an emergency to the state’s liking – results in a fine, up to $170. If that isn’t paid, a court hearing is the next step. Advocates of compulsory voting point to high turnout numbers and claim the system ‘works’. But getting high voter turnout is not a good thing in and of itself. If high numbers are the result of engaged, politically interested people choosing to vote for on issues they care about, that’s great; that result will have stemmed from politicians taking to the streets and doing their jobs. But getting high percentages through coercion and threats of punishment isn’t something to boast about.
In September 2013, IPPR proposed that the UK make voting mandatory for first-time voters, to ensure they are registered to vote and to set them on a ‘good’ voting path for the future. Not only does the well-meaning proposal reeks of paternalism, but it is also the wrong way to get young people genuinely engaged in politics.
Many young people don’t feel they have a stake in political decisions, while others feel their opinions don’t carry weight within the parties. Couple that with making their first adult interaction with the state be one that’s compulsory, met with fines and courts, and you may just turn a potentially interested voter off for life.
But young people aren’t the only ones who feel abandoned by the political system. The integrity of democracy is breaking across western countries, as the political systems prioritize taking care of promises made to special interest groups, unions and corporations before they address the promises made to voters during the election season. Many feel voting has become a spectacle - just another occasion to glorify the state. And even if there is an option to spoil one’s vote, the state has still made people complicit in upholding a political system they may disagree with.
Those who would advocate for the Australian system and propose a compulsory vote on all adult citizens in the UK have carelessly forgotten that avoiding the ballot box in a check on government power.
Refusing to take part in what is thought to be a civic duty is an act of civil disobedience – and civil disobedience, especially when it is as thoughtful and safe as not showing up to the polls – is a health-meter for the state of the country’s political parties and political system as a whole.
The right to vote is the choice to vote – or not vote. That freedom must be upheld, both to provide a check on over-reaching governments, but also to act as a safeguard for individual liberty.
The People's Republic of South Norwood
South Norwood, the unassuming splodge in the London Borough of Croydon is no more. Long live the People's Republic of South Norwood! You may not have noticed, thanks to a concerted media blackout by The UK Establishment (though the WSJ did get wind), but last Friday was the day of the Great South Norwood Referendum and the dawn of a new Republic. Inspired by the Scottish Independence movement and frustrated by the disdain with which local government treats the area, local heroes The South Norwood Tourist Board held a (definitely absolutely legitimate and totally binding) referendum for the community: Should South Norwood remain with Croydon Council, unite with an Independent Scotland, or declare their independence? The public spoke, and voted to boot out their uncaring and overbearing masters to go it alone with a whopping 53% of the vote.
It's hardly surprising that the downtrodden population of South Norwood had enough of Croydon Council, who have simultaneously ignored pleas to clean up and invigorate the area, whilst clamping down on displays of frivolity and fun. Notoriously, head of the Council's Health and Safety outlawed plans for the community-led 'Lake Naming Ceremony', inspiring a crowd of revellers (and a gang of Morris Dancers) to hold an illegal event in subversive defiance. It will be written in history that the naming of Lake Conan Doyle sewed the seeds of secession.
Now that South Norwood has established its independence it faces a number of tough questions. What does this mean for its governance and security, its relationship with the UK, and its currency? Addressing these will be challenging, but there's every indication that an independent South Norwood could thrive.
At first glance South Norwood is remarkably unremarkable. Long overlooked by pretty much everybody, it is yet to benefit from the gentrification of neighbouring Crystal Palace or the massive regeneration of Croydon town centre. Yet, with its blossoming community spirit (galvanized by the tireless tourist board), more lakes than the lake district, and a country park grown on top of an old sewer farm, its potential is undeniably huge.
Clearly, it is for the people of South Norwood to decide what shape their Republic takes. But as an ex-resident and dear friend of the area, I’ve outlined a few of the topics they need to address, and give a few suggestions on how to achieve a radical, yet roaringly successful Republic:
The first issue to tackle is that of governance. How shall people be ruled, and how shall laws be made? Should, for example, The Republic have a head of State? A symbolic one may suffice, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (who apparently lived there for a bit) or Pickles the dog (who discovered the stolen FIFA World Cup in a bush) are good contenders. There's also Ray Burns a.k.a Captain Sensible of The Damned, who already has a community garden installed in his honour.
Perhaps the people of South Norwood will opt for a proportional electoral system: with a population of about 14,000, the area's certainly small enough to adopt a straightforward proportional model, although PR creates the risk that Winston McKenzie, organizer of the infamous UKIP diversity carnival could hold some power. Going further, some form of direct democracy might even be possible. Regardless, electoral architects could do far worse than to read Douglas Carswell's iDemocracy for some inspiration.
However, we know that democracy can be troublesome, and that most voters are often (quite rationally!) spectacularly ignorant on basic political issues. What if democracy's not actually the 'least worst' system? One alternative, particularly for a Republic of such size, would be sortition- the selection of decision-makers by lottery. With its roots in Athenian democracy and still used in Jury service today, those selected could wise up on facts for the duration of their term and make decisions based on what's actually best for the Republic, instead of shoring up votes and a political career. There are other, more elaborate alternatives (such as Moldbug's suggestion that governments should be based on the profit motive, with bureaucrats seeking to increase their profits by boosting the value of the land, thus making it a lovely place to live) - but why not just abolish all government and embrace a form of market anarchism? It probably wouldn't be worse than the system the South Norwooders left.
Another pressing issue The Republic must address is that of their currency: what should an independent South Norwood use? Clearly, South Norwood could unilaterally adopt the pound without the permission of the UK, just as the ASI has argued for Scotland. Should PRSN wish to tie itself to the economic fate of the UK, it could -literally- just keep on using the pound. However, South Norwood could also protect its own economy and shore up against demand-side recessions by allowing private Norwood Banks to hold reserves of GBP and issue their own notes on a fractional reserve basis, adjusting the supply of money in response to demand. (Again, the detail's in the report!)
Admittedly, that does seem a bit excessive. Another option would be for South Norwood to issue their own currency (perhaps the Norwood Crown). Down the road the Brixton Pound is well-established and well-liked; those behind it could certainly lend a hand with an eye-catching design and the logistics of issuance. And with the news that Brixton is also scheduled to hold a referendum on its independence, perhaps a currency union is on the cards.
Yet the people of South Norwood have already shown themselves to be a tech-savvy, forward-thinking bunch, as evidenced by their use of a high-tech, online voting mechanism . So why not make Bitcoin SE25's new currency? If the Assistant Governor of Australia's Central Bank thinks its good enough for Scotland, it's probably good enough for South Norwood. In fact, they could go one further, and join Iceland, Cyprus, the Oglala Laktota Nation and others in creating their own national cryptocurrency. If they act quickly, they could beat Ecuador in creating the first government- ordained digital currency.
South Norwooders could adopt any of these options. But why not do away with legal tender completely and embrace free banking: the great people and businesses of the area accepting whichever competing currencies and payment methods (what about interpretative dance?) they so choose.
Clearly the most exciting part of forming an independent territory is deciding the guiding principles and policies to pursue. Again, such matters should be decided by the citizens, but here are a few pointers:
South Norwood should get in touch with the organziations who’s raison d’etre is to look at how to achieve growth and political and economic innovation within small, autonomous communities. Some groups such as Charter Cities and Startup Cities aim to create refuges of experimentation within amenable host nations. Others, such as the Seasteading Institute work within a paradigm of complete territorial autonomy and independence. Politically neutral, all of them value radical ideas, economic progress and the freedom for individuals to join such communities and innovate.
Tips on running a successful Republic can also be gleaned from examining things like Legatum's Prosperity Index, Heritage's Index of Economic Freedom, the Index of Freedom in the World and the Tax Competitiveness Index. Countries topping these rankings have probably got a few ideas worth borrowing.
The Republic could also look at which UK laws most need a radical overhaul, and lead by example. Planning laws are a key example. Far too many houses in the area are left vacant and boarded up, yet could be put to good use. Similarly, perfectly useable patches of land lie tangled up in legal battles and the quest for planning permission, sprouting brambles and dirty mattresses in the meantime. Liberalizing planning laws would allow creative uses of neglected spaces whilst providing the area with an economic boost.
The Republic should also embrace an open borders policy, as research repeatedly shows that reducing barriers to migration benefits both migrants and the culture and finances of the host country. An open Republic which builds on its cosmopolitan roots would be a successful one.
I encourage The Republic to experiment with radical new ideas. It could scrap alcohol duty, revitalizing some of the area's more shabby-looking pubs. Or it could legalise the consumption and production of Marijuana, using taxes levied on it to fund social expenditure. From there the UK's confusing, intrusive and expensive welfare system could be replaced with some form of Minimum Income or Negative Income Tax. Deer could be introduced to every park. Uber could run the public transport. The possibilities are endless.
It really is a brave new world for the people of South Norwood. The Scots may wonder if this is an omen for the success of their own referendum, but it's unlikely: even free-thinking South Norwooders eschewed the offer of being part of an independent Scotland. This is perhaps a shame, given the ASI's prior work on forging a union between Scotland and other countries seeking freedom from illiberal control.
Nevertheless, the prospect that Croydon Council refuses to accept the secession and continues to 'rule' its (ex)citizens with an iron fist is very real.
I wish all the best for The People's Republic of South Norwood. But whatever the outcome of their independence, it's good to note, on the eve of an even bigger, game-changing referendum, the diversity and breadth of untested policies and fresh ideas out there - and how many of these could make countries, communities and individuals happier, richer, more successful and freer.
Whatever answer Scotland gives, the question is flawed
Broadly speaking, I'm indifferent to the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Not because I'm uninterested, but because the debate seems to be motivated by entirely the wrong intentions. Whilst tonnes of ink have been spilled as to whether there would be greater benefits to Scotland to remain in the Union or leave, far less has been said on the subject of whether the far larger remainder of the UK would benefit. As an Englishman, I see few material benefits to the UK of Scotland's presence in the Union. Ridding ourselves of the Barnett formula, some broken banks and Scotland's over-represented, lefty MPs would all be substantial benefits for me.
I'm tempted to argue that, if the Scots do vote 'no', it would be sensible to politely but firmly ask them to leave anyway. On the other hand, Scottish independence might well impose some serious costs and risks in the short to medium term which means that one should be cautious about advocating Scottish independence.
If the Scots do vote 'no', they are virtually guaranteed 'Devo Max', which might offer the benefit of forcing some sense of fiscal responsibility onto Scotland and, if the West Lothian question were adequately dealt with, have some political benefits as well. Sadly, I fear that it may simply mean greater plundering of the few productive parts of the UK economy in order to provide further subsidies to the unproductive parts—thus worsening the situation of all concerned. If this sounds very self-interested, one can hardly accuse the Scots of lacking in that quality.
From a Scottish perspective, the outlook seems entirely ridden with paradox. Many Scots seem to believe that, by voting Yes, they will help secure greater public spending. However, the reverse seems actually to be the case—an independent Scotland would face serious fiscal challenges which would probably mean very significant fiscal consolidation, especially in the absence of a central bank.
Given the welfarist nature of Scotland's public discourse, the likely outcome would seem to be tax rises and economic malaise. Of course, if an independent Scotland did significantly cut public spending, it would likely be beneficial to Scottish performance—but that is not what many in Scotland seem to desire. The same could be said of the deregulation necessary to move Scotland closer to being a 'Nordic' economy.
On the other hand, Scotland has hardly prospered within a Union that has—with the support of the Scottish electorate—imposed high levels of taxation, regulation and welfare spending in both Scotland and the UK.
If the Scottish independence movement were imbued with the doctrines of Smith, Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment, one might have rather more faith than an independent Scotland might flourish under a less burdensome government. However, we can hardly have much optimism for a Scotland that seeks to leave the centrally-planned mess that is the UK economy in order to pursue a greater level of central-planning, taxation and expenditure.
Indeed, the most unedifying spectacle of the Scottish referendum has been the sight of politicians of all stripes falling over themselves to offer the greatest amounts of cash to sway voters. If either the Yes or No campaigns offered real liberty to the people of Scotland (or the rest of the UK), we might have a more optimistic future.
Similarly, the greater devolution that might be on offer to the rest of the UK is all well and good, but only if it means genuine devolution of powers to the individual and not simply shifting power from bureaucrats in Whitehall to bureaucrats in town halls.
Karl Popper, in The Open Society and its Enemies, enjoined us to consider that what matters is not 'who governs?' but 'what are the proper functions of government?'. Whilst the two are intertwined, it is the latter question, not the former which is key. The Scottish referendum debate has ignored this distinction. It is predicated on the belief that there is a substantive choice between government from London or government from Edinburgh that will determine whether the individuals who live in Scotland flourish or not.
This is a false dilemma. What matters is liberty and the restraint of government to its proper functions. Until Scotland, either as part of the UK or independent, rediscovers this, its future looks bleak indeed.
Learning from history
In the Keystone Cops comedy that is the contending parties in the Scottish Independence referendum campaign, it seems that the Scottish No team have been making all the same mistakes that Canada's No team made on Quebec independence back in 1995. True, the Quebec referendum campaign ended in a narrow No decision – but so narrow that it kept the independence issue alive and grumbling. Next week's Scottish referendum has become too close to call, but most polls are predicting a No majority - though again, one so narrow that it keeps the independence issue alive and grumbling here too.
It seems the No team have learnt nothing from Canada's experience of nearly twenty years ago. Andrew Coyne of the National Post lists the similarities:
- The same early complacency in the No camp.
- The same unbridled panic as the Yes side surged in the polls.
- The same unappealing mix of threats and dubious accounting claims.
- The same blurring of the issues (devo-max, keeping the currency).
- A charismatic Yes leader and a seemingly distant No Prime Minister.
As in Canada, says Coyne, an unwarranted legitimacy was conferred on the separatist project; then came attempts to pacify it with more powers and more money, only to see it grow more ravenous in response. And once again, a Yes vote is probably forever, while a No vote just marks the start of fresh campaigning.
It all looks like one of the slow-motion car crash in those early comedies. Except this particular farce is deciding the UK's future political and economic reality.
Another reason the Home Secretary can go hang
No one actually does manage to serve as Home Secretary without the innate authoritarianism of the department infecting their views. We could have Peter Tatchell there in office and within months he'd be demanding that we lock 'em all up. But despite our knowing this, despite our understanding that the greatest threat to civil liberty is that very department tasked with overseeing law'n'order, there's still times when it's necessary to point to excesses too great even for them. This is one of them:
Failing crime tsars could be sacked by the Home Secretary under radical plans to rescue the Conservatives’ tarnished law and order policy.
No, absolutely not:
Granting the Home Secretary the power to sack PCCs in extreme circumstances, such as in South York-shire where Mr Wright is clinging to his job despite key figures insisting his position is untenable.
No way.
We simply do not have, and should not have, a system in which one part of the governing apparatus gets to fire an elected official.
It's fine to have basic rules about what might happen if someone were convicted of a crime: an MP has to go if they get sentenced to a year and a day in prison for example (think that's right). But we absolutely cannot have a system whereby one group of politicians, or one officer of the state, can decide that an elected official must go simply because they're a bad'un.
The Home Secretary does not have the power to sack an MP: because we elect MPs. The Home Secretary does not have the power to sack the First Minister of Wales: and it is right and proper that she doesn't.
It might be that we should have PCCs and it might be that we shouldn't. It might be that they should be appointed and it might be that they should be elected. But given that we do have them and that they are elected.....well, it's us that hired them by voting for them and it'll be us that fires them by not voting for them and the Home Secretary can go hang.
Imagine if someone suggested that at some future date a Labour Party Minister should have the ability to sack the duly elected Member of Parliament for Maidenhead? Theresa May would be first upon the barricades protesting this vile intrusion into the democratic process. Which is a useful point for all to remember. When in power never try to claim powers that you really wouldn't want your opponents to have next time around.
Boris's BOGOF
Boris Johnson’s putative return to the Commons overwhelmed any publicity for his, or rather Gerard Lyons’s, strategic analysis of the UK’s in/out EU options: The Europe Report: A Win-Win Situation, released 6th August. Four possible outcomes are envisaged: staying in either a largely unreformed EU or one reformed to the UK’s liking. The two departure options are seen as (a) good EU relations and pro-growth UK reforms and (b) poor EU relations and an inward-looking UK. Lyons makes the good point that “the UK can only achieve serious reform if it is serious about leaving, and it can only be serious about leaving if it believed that is better than an unreformed EU.” The title would have you believe both staying in a reformed EU and leaving are “Win Situations” that we can either choose one or use it to achieve the other, i.e. Buy One and Get One Free.
Lyons has produced an important review of the issues facing each sector but, at the end of the day, his conclusions are based on simple assumptions of the economic outcomes from each option. We do not need 108 pages of report, and 130 pages of appendices, to be told that the two high growth scenarios are more attractive than the two low growth ones. Furthermore, the conclusion that the two high growth scenarios are economically equivalent is similarly based on heroic assumptions. Lyons’s Panglossian vision of the UK outside the EU and reforming itself begs a great number of questions. The world is not ordered according to the way we order ourselves: trading with the EU will still be governed by EU regulations, likewise the US.
The paper has a number of failings: in particular it is not specific about the EU and UK reforms that would be needed, still less how they could be achieved and how likely that would be. For example, the only hope of securing the EU reform the UK seeks is for the UK to show benefit for EU as a whole, not just the UK. UK proposals to improve the EU market for financial services looks, to the rest of the EU, like UK self interest. We know that the rest of the EU does not accept the UK arguments because it is outvoted every time.
How would, as Lyons suggests, the UK leave the EU whilst at the same time improving the UK’s EU relationships? The chilling legal issue is EU Article 50 under which the remaining members decide the terms of the separation with no involvement of the departing member. Obviously there would be negotiation so that may not be as ugly as it seems. Trade would continue and we import more from the rest of the EU than we sell them but that is beside the point: could the UK protect its EU exports better than it could reduce its EU imports? De Gaulle reckoned that the UK needed continental Europe more than vice versa and the 1960s proved him right.
We should welcome this report for its discussion of many of the issues but we cannot rely on its findings. The City really does need to come up with a plan to protect its future but this is not it.
Roger also trusts the state more than I do
There's another subject that Roger and I disagree about profoundly. He trusts the state more than I do. Whenever he sees anything not going the way he'd like it to go, he calls for state action to "put it right." This applies to big things, such as instances of what he calls "market failure," and it applies to little things such as people consuming foods or drinks he disapproves of. In both cases he wants the state to stop it. There are undoubtedly cases of market failure. Left to themselves, business people would probably, like many of us, go for the easy way out, protecting their market share by monopolies or cartels, rather than by trying to keep their quality up and their prices keen. Certainly we need laws to stop them doing this. Where I part company with Roger is that he seems to think of politicians and civil servants as dispassionate guardians of the public good. I see them as being rather like other people in pursuing their own advantage where they can. Politicians want to be re-elected, and bureaucrats want to be promoted. Both will, at times, act in their own interests, just as others do, even in some cases where this is against the public good.
When Roger talks of "society," he doesn't use it to refer to communities working together for common purposes, he uses it to mean the state, the political body that has monopoly control of the laws and of the powers to enforce them. The problem is that when those powers are concentrated, people try to use them to impose their agenda on others. Because some people drink unwisely, Roger supports minimum alcohol pricing. Because some people become obese, Roger wants 'fat taxes' on sugars and fats. In these cases he claims to be acting in people's best interests, but when he votes to ban fox-hunting, it's simply that he doesn't want them doing it.
Roger is happy to give the state more power, confident it will be used appropriately, whereas I rather suspect that whenever the state gains extra powers, it will use them for whatever purpose it wants. Surveillance powers granted to thwart terrorists will probably end up being used to prosecute people for not sorting their garbage into the right bins. In short, Roger sees the state as a means of making people live as he thinks they should, whereas I see it as a source of power waiting to be abused by anyone who can grab control of its levers.
Clement Attlee's Lesson
Biteback Publishing have published a new biography of Clement Atlee. Authored by Michael Jago, it explores what motivated Atlee and drove him to become one of the most influential of Labour Party leaders. Atlee had a remarkable record in putting through his programme. In 6 years he achieved major structural reform of Britain's economy and society. He is thus to be admired dispassionately as an effective Prime Minister. What he also did was to teach us all an important lesson: Socialism doesn't work. While other European nations were renewing themselves after the destruction and exhaustion of a world war, Britain wallowed in nationalization and allowed its industries to stagnate and decay under state ownership and control. He left a country impoverished, heading down a slope that left it diminished, impoverished and ineffective. Only in 1979 did Britain begin to shake off his influence, change direction, and once again climb back to prosperity and significance. Atlee left a legacy that lasted, it is true, but it was a legacy that left his country ruined for decades.
It was an important lesson, though, and one we learned again just 25 years ago when the Communist empire collapsed and left exposed not just the terror that had sustained it, but the squalor it had concealed for so long. Socialism doesn't work and never has done because it goes against the grain of human nature and the desire of peoples to make free decisions that can improve their lives and better the lives of others in the process.
We can only hope that people will not only read the new book about Atlee, but that they will also remember the lesson and the years of suffering that it took to learn it.
Did you know that the public health campaigners are complete loons?
Well, if you didn't know that the public health campaigners are complete loons then perhaps this will help to persuade you. The European Union is taking the next step in reforming the entirely absurd sugar regime, making it marginally less awful. The public health wallahs are shouting that this might make sugar cheaper, to the point where everyone will explode from eating too much of it. No, really:
Controversial agricultural reforms by the European Union could cause sugar levels in food and drink to rise, experts have warned.
Campaigners said it was “perverse” that the EU was planning to lift sugar production quotas at a time when health authorities are advising people to reduce their consumption of the ingredient.
Under the current system production of sugar within the EU is restricted to 13.3 million tonnes a year. However the quota is due to be scrapped in 2017 as part of a series of reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy.
The move is expected to make sugar cheaper for food and drink manufacturers, prompting fears it will encourage them to use rising levels of the ingredient. Dr Aseem Malhotra, science director of Action on Sugar, a campaign group, said it would be “disastrous” for public health.
Oh dear.
They've really not understood what's going on here at all.
In the nightmare world of EU agricultural policies the abolition of quota does not mean that prices are going to fall. For what actually happens is that if you grow sugar beet then there's two prices which you can sell that deformed mangelwurzel to the processor at. One, a guaranteed one, much higher than a free market price, is only available if you have quota to go with your sugar beet. The other price is very much lower than a free market price and almost no one ever tries to grow beet without quota as a result.
The important point about the abolition of quota is not that it abolishes quota. It is that if there is no quota then beet with or without quota cannot gain that guaranteed price. Thus the price on offer to Europe's sugar beet growers is going to fall: all other things being equal we'll thus have less beet being grown. And thus less sugar being taken into storage and then subsidised by the EU when it is later dumped on the food manufacturers.
The abolition of quota will lead to less sugar being produced. And the public health campaigners are arguing against the abolition of quota to stop less sugar being produced.
Go figure.
Where next for capitalism?
Writing for the BBC today, Madsen outlines his ideas about what capitalism should do to renew itself:
What capitalism should now do is to free itself from these rent-seeking perversions and spread its benefits as widely as possible.
It should act against anti-competitive practices to give people instead the power of free choices between competing goods and services. It should spread ownership of capital and investment as widely as possible through such things as personal pensions and individual savings accounts.