Disobeying the Whip

Apologies...

2010-09-23T14:38:00.002+01:00

Haven't made a post in ages, really should...

I'm moving into university in a week or so - might actually make posts when PPE is on my mind.

No to the graduate tax

2010-07-15T15:21:00.005+01:00

Since (hopefully) I'm off to university in October, I have an interest in this - and the graduate tax is a bad, bad, bad idea. Alex Barker has 4 reasons against it on the FT Westminster blog, and I agree. It's a poorly thought out idea that punishes success.

We need to fund universities properly, yes, so they need more money. We also have to recognise what university is for - to educate people to a higher level, so they can do better in life. We also, in this, have to recognise the huge effect that university educated people have on our economy, especially certain sectors, and society.

I think, though imperfect, the current tuition fees system is the best way of funding universities - students actually understand that education is not 'free', and can rationally plan - "university education will cost £X but will let me earn £XX in the future, so it's worth paying for". A graduate tax removes this - and, I would say, actually makes people work less hard, as success in higher earnings will mean paying more tax in the future - and there is no limit on when you stop paying into the fund, since it is not linked to a particular price; this says to me that graduates are in fact paying for the next students to be educated, not themselves, and this culture is not to be encouraged. It's sort of the opposite of the state pension, and relying on something similar to a Ponzi scheme to fund university education is not sustainable at all.

Which brings me on to my second point - this isn't sustainable since there is always the emigration option - work abroad, earn money there - especially when tax rates are more favourable. I can see this having a particularly bad effect on the financial sector - do we really want to destroy the City, the one area we have a particularly strong comparative advantage in? Not really. Do we really want to lose, more to the point, the high earners, the ones who give a lot of value back to our economy, and provide our economy with so much tax revenue? Could, in fact, this graduate tax make other tax revenue fall, and in fact to a level where there is a net loss? Would this really be good for the country; would it really be 'fair' to make the non-university educated pay more tax because the university educated are working less hard, or have done a runner to Switzerland?

And I've looked at the long term - what about the short term? Universities need more money now, and if introduced, the graduate tax would mean the only revenues they'd get for 3 years would be contributions from alumni.

I think, to really hit the point though, I need to go back to that third paragraph - about pricing education. Education must be seen to have a real, tangible value - and a price. Students should get used to the real world of this, where people must consider that the benefit of something X but the cost Y, and if the benefit greatly exceeds the cost, then the investment is likely to be made. Same with university education. So what if students are left with debt? Welcome to the real world! It's not a bad kind of debt, like buying an Audi and three grand worth of clothes on credit, but an investment debt, rationally considered. It's right that students know how much their education is worth, and since they are the one who primarily benefits from it (higher earnings, etc), they should pay for it.

I realise that the paragraph above isn't perfect - what about those who wish to go into academia, etc? Perhaps universities could offer scholarships of some sort to those suitable, to fund them through undergrad, postgrad and doctorate, so they could produce research for the university - a beneficial investment for the university. We could also look at philanthropists in this, who would support students through university. There's also the issue of defaulting on student debts, and I think the current student loan system of paying back once you earn above £15k is about right there - since only the biggest waster would deliberately earn less as to 'free ride' through education at others' expense.

In any case, the graduate tax is still an ill-thought out and bad idea - and, however unpopular it might sound, raising tuition fees to fill the gap is a much better idea; it doesn't push students into poverty, it's an investment based on rational expectations of the future - and how is it right that the non-university educated have to pay for the university-educated? University education primarily benefits the student, why should they not pay for it?

CRB checks

2010-07-10T15:13:00.003+01:00

Fair enough, I understand the point that you might want to police check your staff, especially if you haven't known them long enough to be able to trust them fully.

But is it really at all reasonable that having been issued a CRB check (an enhanced one too) 3 days ago, that I should now have to send off a new one for something else?

Absolutely crazy. And they wonder why people don't want to do children's/youth work. I'm just hoping the new ISA system is better.

Cancellation of Building Schools for the Future

2010-07-09T19:07:00.003+01:00

I can speak with some experience on this topic, since my school was rebuilt in 2004. And I'm not convinced that the school building has such a major impact on education - it never really had one on me - and Douglas Alexander is certainly making too big a deal of it when he says cancelling the programme represents "a pre-meditated assault on the life chances and opportunities of children in some of the poorest communities in England".

Because however much money they threw at rebuilding schools, Labour's educational policy can be seen as fulfilling the above phrase (maybe not the pre-meditated bit, but the rest definitely). It's methods of education that matter, and in fact things like discipline too. If money is spent on building programmes instead of textbooks, I can't see the benefit. Unless the textbooks are rubbish.

If pupils aren't given the skills to succeed in life and at work, and are instead trained to pass exams (as has happened), they will have less opportunities. If degrees are devalued, as has happened, they will have less opportunities. If time is spent revising and taking exams, there is less time for education, and thus less opportunity. If policy favours trying to push the D grades up to C grades, and not focussing on those below and stretching those above, then opportunity will be limited. The building, 'world-class facilities', blah blah, are irrelevant.

But I also think it's been blown out of proportion for a couple of other reasons. Firstly that Gove apologised was both right but completely in contrast to what Ed Balls would have done - blamed his civil servants; and yes, it was a civil servant's (or quangocrat's) fault, but Gove took responsibility. But the second one is more important - and I think reflects why BSF has been cancelled - is that it was a terribly inefficient way of building schools - John Redwood puts it better than I would - emphasis mine:

In the statement I heard Michael Gove make he was clear in saying he was cancelling the approach of Building Schools for the future because it was an expensive, long winded and inefficient way of building schools. He did not say he was cancelling all new schools building. Indeed, if he is right and he can save substantial sums on the box ticking detailed regulatory approach of the old programme this could leave him with more money to spend on bricks and mortar. This message has got entirely lost in the broadcasts and newspaper stories about cuts, leading most people to think there will now be no new schools.

This is exactly the point - and I am confident that new schools will be built under the free schools and academy legislation anyway - and this will be at the demand of parents, with facilities parents demand. Going back to my new school building built in 2004 - the corridors aren't wide enough, and too much 'traffic' meets in the middle of the middle floor, where a staircase and 3 corridors meet. This means that there have to be teachers controlling the flow, some corridors are one-way, etc. The old school had several blocks, separate doors for different blocks - and it worked much better. And they also inexplicably built it for 1200 pupils when the school had 1500 pupils and was still growing - and there's talk of building new classrooms in the attic to rectify this. This failure I can only assume is partly because of the bureaucracy, because of some rules in place perhaps.

It's also true, as Redwood says, that less money on bureaucracy should lead to more being spent on the actual school - and maybe even more schools being built and more quickly too. It might even free up money to be spent on just improving facilities in current schools, buying new football goals maybe - the sort of investment that will produce better effects than just building a new school.

How I would love it for, in a few years, Labour to realise that their rubbish, overbureaucratic programme saw less schools built than under a Conservative government that apparently wants to destroy life chances. They might come up with a new reason for opposing it then. Maybe that the schools don't have enough bike racks and are then affecting educational opportunity. Or maybe they will have become a serious party by then, I don't know.

New Labour and the universal welfare state

2010-07-09T14:20:00.003+01:00

This is the sort of thing I've been talking about for a fair amount of time - Labour putting people on to the public payroll, welfare state (i.e. getting tax credits when you earn £50k a year etc) - and there's an admission from one of their side (Sunny Hundal), calling it their 'greatest achievement' (emphasis mine):

And so, expanding the size of the welfare state and making it central to people’s lives, despite Thatcher’s best attempts to destroy it, was one of New Labour’s greatest achievements. And by that I mean expenditure on the NHS, on public transport, on public works, on the arts and of course on unemployment benefits.
The welfare state is key to the success of economic redistribution. And in order to maintain popularity for the welfare state it has to fulfil two criteria: it has to be universal; and it has to improve people’s lives to the point they feel they have a stake in it.
The Tories need to shrink the state for ideological reasons because the less people have contact with it, the less they’ll support it.

Ignoring the anti-Thatcher nonsense, I think this hits the nail on the head about the modern difference of Labour vs. Conservative - both support some form of welfare state, but the conservative welfare state is a safety net (as originally intended by Beveridge) while Labour's is more of a hammock, trying to make everyone feel an allegiance to it, even if it is literally taking money out of one pocket, and putting most of it into the other pocket (minus, of course, the stuff dropped on the floor as government waste).

And there was an essay in the Spectator just after the Budget, saying that Osborne wanted to move people off the welfare state to make them more self-reliant, and therefore more likely to vote Conservative.

And this is probably the key difference. It's all quite political, which isn't great, but the conservative way is to move people off the state payroll (be it direct employment or in the form of tax credits, etc) to make them more self-reliant, make them more likely to want things like corporation tax cuts and lower regulation, etc - i.e. vote Conservative. Labour's way is to move people on to that state payroll, encourage state dependency - and in that create 'client states' (see Glasgow) of people who will not vote to remove this, because it seems comfortable, it seems nice and plush, even though they are actually paying (and, since it discourages work, probably paying even more than without tax credits etc) to subsidise themselves. In short, they want people to vote Labour.

And that is a key ideological divide between the Conservatives and Labour. Modern conservatism, especially IDS, seem to see a role of government in helping people to stand on their own two feet, and not be dependent on government - and though my more libertarian strands question whether this approach is best, it is certainly a noble aim - and more noble than the idea of making people dependent on government - it's hardly helping them, and it's hardly providing any freedom.

And that's probably part of the reason that I'm a conservative - getting people off the state payroll, and to coin a phrase that a fellow canvasser said back in April, encouraging social responsibility not state dependency. It's not rabid individualism, it in fact lets people decide if they want to be self-reliant or if they want to help each other out (the social responsibility part of that phrase I just mentioned) - and I think families and communities, families especially, are incredibly important in this. I just don't think that state dependency is at all responsible, at all fair or at all helpful. The state is faceless, impersonal and doesn't generally have a clue.

A return to the Friendly Societies? No, I'm getting too optimistic.

Abu Hamza and human rights

2010-07-08T11:17:00.003+01:00

Read the whole article on the BBC, if you can get through the whole thing without shouting as I ended up doing. So Abu Hamza's extradition to the US has been blocked by the ECJ on human rights grounds.

Abu Hamza and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US.

How bloody pathetic? Complaining about the length of sentence? Sorry that the USA still hands out proper sentences, i.e. life means life, as opposed to our 8 years = life in this country.

The four applicants argued that the length of sentences they faced and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, breached their human rights.

The conditions of the prison might breach your human rights? This is the USA, not bloody Kenya or something. In fact, it's very rich of the ECJ to say this, when some prisons that UK citizens are extradited to within the EU, under the European Arrest Warrant, on dubious charges, are much worse - I'm talking Soviet-era prisons in Latvia for example. According to the Wikipedia page on the ADX Florence prison,

This penal construction and operation theory dictates that inmates remain in solitary confinement for 22–23 hours each day. They do not allow communal dining, exercising, or religious services.

So they're complaining about solitary confinement? The BBC page would confirm that, saying that the men call it 'prolonged psychological torture'. What nonsense. What about the terror they've possibly inflicted on people? And if convicted, they'll be convicted of inflicting terror on people - do I really care about their human rights, or this alleged 'psychological torture'?

In the case of Abu Hamza, the court said he had no case against the conditions at the prison because he would spend only a brief spell there because of his disabilities.

So Abu Hamza cannot be extradited because he might spend too long in prison in the USA. How pathetic are we. And what's worse, it's the European Court of Justice telling us who we can and can't extradite - isn't our national security a national matter? It's not like the ECJ is going to somehow try to protect us from terrorism anyway. About time we left the ECJ and human rights nonsense behind us - I don't care whether it's the Act itself or the interpretation that's wrong, it's about time that we got a grip and used the great British legal system that has served us so well for centuries.

How pathetic.

Incompetent teachers

2010-07-04T20:52:00.004+01:00

Only 18 UK teachers have been struck off for incompetence in the past 40 years, the BBC's Panorama has learned.

Shocking. Altogether shocking, especially when you consider 17,000 teachers might be seen as incompetent.

Though it does bring into question what you define as 'incompetent' - there are about 70 teachers in my school, less than 5% means about 3 of them max, and there's more that I'd consider incompetent than that (in a good school too).

In fact I could probably name 18 that are incompetent.

But then, if we applied those standards, we'd probably have a shortage of teachers.

Labelling regulations

2010-06-27T09:42:00.004+01:00

What the?

Under the draft legislation, to come into force as early as next year, the sale of groceries using the simple measurement of numbers will be replaced by an EU-wide system based on weight.

It would mean an end to packaging descriptions such as eggs by the dozen, four-packs of apples, six bread rolls or boxes of 12 fish fingers.

I want to know how many there are in the pack, not how heavy they are - weight is a measure most of us are unaccustomed to when we buy these sorts of products - our knowledge is of, for example, how filling a bread roll is. To sell by weight would confuse the customer - the EU clearly doesn't understand the whole reason they are sold by number is that customers know what they are buying, how many they need, etc when sold by number. It's a stupid restriction on the free sale of goods, and chances are the UK will adopt it without question.

To the EU: this sort of thing is why the average Briton opposes you. Silly and, to be honest, completely unnecessary rules that make our lives harder.

And the weight is on the back of the packet anyway. It's just pedantic and unnecessary.

Rights and entitlements

2010-06-24T15:07:00.003+01:00

Oh dear:

“We must establish the right to a decent period of retirement otherwise we will soon see people working till they drop.”

It's not a right, it's an entitlement. Classic trade unionist forgetting an important question: how is this going to be funded? About time some system of personal accounts for pensions was brought in - the state pension resembles one of Madoff's Ponzi schemes.

Trade unions

2010-06-24T11:36:00.003+01:00

Ministers are asking public sector staff to suggest savings that can be made.

But Mr Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, said: "Cameron and Clegg have a damned cheek in asking public sector workers to co-operate in sacking thousands of them. It is an utter outrage."

He said unions were "perfectly capable of speaking up on their behalf" and would be resisting "savage cuts in public services".

No, unions are not 'perfectly capable of speaking up on their behalf'. The 'unions', or rather union leadership, are generally a bunch of far-left loons who do not represent what their members think. To try to say that the workers themselves are incapable of speaking up for themselves and their own opinions is disgusting in all honesty.

Of course, the government could go one step further, and offer financial rewards for good ideas. Now that really would irritate the unions.

Teenage girls, abortions and underage sex

2010-06-12T23:10:00.003+01:00

89 girls have had 3 or more abortions by the age of 17, according to the Telegraph. This in itself is utterly horrific - for someone who is completely opposed to abortion like myself, and should be for any person, even the pro-choicers.

But this statement got to me:

The head of Britain’s largest abortion provider said many young women were living chaotic lives that meant they could not organise contraception.

What utter rubbish. Ever heard of, urm, not having sex if you don't have contraception? Especially when you're below the age of consent anyway? I suppose in this age, everyone has to have what they want, whenever, regardless. Dr Saunders gets it right (emphasis mine):

Dr Peter Saunders, from the Christian Medical Fellowship, which represents Christian doctors, said that the figures were profoundly depressing. “It is increasingly clear that abortion is simply being used as a form of contraception by a growing percentage of girls and women, and that tired policies of values-free sex education, condoms and morning-after pills are not working,” he said.

I'm 18, I know what the pressures are like, and I know we are seriously lacking values in society. It's a real cause for concern - and my concerns about values are some of the things that put conservatism into the mix of my views, alongside classical liberalism (which is more economic).

Values, especially those of the moral kind, are generally a good thing, and about time that we re-adopted some.

On John McDonnell and the left vs. the right

2010-06-07T17:12:00.004+01:00

Ed West gets it right:

The violence with which Lefties hate the Conservatives, personified in their greatest post-war leader, far outweighs the corresponding dislike Tories have Labour, and yet is no more justified by events. So Thatcher abolished your job? Brown destroyed our pensions and our economy, but we don’t anticipate the death of any Labour politician with glee, or fantasise about murdering opponents.

That’s the difference between the centre-Right and the Left. We view our opponents as misguided, foolish or economically illiterate; socialists view their opponents as evil obstacles to progress – no wonder that in just half a century, socialism managed to kill more people than all the world’s religions combined, a record it will hang onto for some time.

I've always noticed the way that the left want to wipe out, kill, etc the right-wingers they disagree with - but the right tend to be more mature about their opponents. I've also said countless times that these comments, even jokes, about Thatcher's death are (a) a step too far and (b) are generally made by those jealous of her success.

According to Sunny Hundal it's a joke, ok, but then he says this:

Oh dear. Well, it was a better joke than Daniel Hannan, darling of the loony right, calling the NHS a 60 year mistake. Oh wait…that wasn’t a joke?

So joking about someone's death is OK, but saying that the NHS isn't the greatest health system in the world and being realistic isn't? These socialists are a strange bunch, incredibly foolish sometimes. These jokes about Thatcher's death, and that includes Frankie Boyle's (I think) about the state funeral, are getting rather weary and immature now.

What's it got to do with you?

2010-06-04T00:27:00.002+01:00

The European Commission have decided that London has too much air pollution.

The European Commission has threatened to take the UK to the European Court of Justice over air quality breaches.

The UK could end up paying as much as £300m in fines.

The government received a second and "final" warning from the commission after the levels of dangerous airborne particles, or PM10s, in London and Gibraltar exceeded EU limits.

The commission says high levels of PM10 may lead to serious health problems.

Or why not leave those who are elected to govern London, i.e. Boris, accountable to it? And that way, people in London can decide themselves how important an issue it is. As for the fine, what benefit does it give for even more money to leave the UK and be wasted by the EU?

I suppose the commission thinks it knows best though. "EU limits" and all that.

Oh dear

2010-06-03T22:26:00.001+01:00

Voter: “But I didn’t know! I don’t want the Conservatives to get in so I voted for [Conservative candidate]. I should have voted for someone else!”

Me: “Um, why did you vote for the Conservative?”

(The girl turns scarlet and looks utterly miserable.)

Voter: “I thought it was like TV where you vote them off!”

Reminds me of a few people I know...

'More than 1,000 new academies'

2010-06-02T21:13:00.001+01:00

More than 1,000 schools in England have shown interest in becoming an academy, says the education secretary.

Michael Gove told the House of Commons that 1,114 schools have responded to his letter last week inviting applications for independent status.

Among these are 626 schools rated as "outstanding", who will be fast-tracked to have academy status by this autumn.

The level of interest in becoming an academy is "overwhelming" , says Mr Gove.

Fantastic.

On the Cumbria shootings

2010-06-02T21:05:00.002+01:00

I really feel for those who have lost relatives in the shooting. We thought this had gone away following Hungerford and Dunblane, and now is not the time for the knee-jerk reactions in political terms that followed them.

Thankfully such incidents are rare, but whatever the result of this, clearly even more control on guns hasn't worked following the last two massacres and I doubt would work again. Trying to stop loners having guns? Seems to be an appropriate thing to do, but not exactly easy either.

More on Hoover's "laissez-faire" and "spending cuts"

2010-06-01T15:16:00.003+01:00

As I mentioned before, Hoover wasn't laissez-faire nor did he cut spending.

I present you with three graphs from the Mises Institute. The final one shows he didn't use monetary tightening either.

Austrian economics seems more and more reasonable by the day.

The "taking money out of the economy" fallacy

2010-06-01T15:12:00.003+01:00

To Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone, and other assorted lefties: government spending being cut does not "take money out of the economy". There is only £X in the economy, and it will remain that way unless the Bank of England decides to print more.

In fact, spending cuts represent money being returned to the economy. Either they result in tax cuts, in which case it's back in the real economy for obvious reasons, or a cut in borrowing, in which case investors are spending less on bonds and funding more capital investment, mortgages, etc.

The left never have been very good with economics.

How long it takes to pay your taxes

2010-05-28T11:44:00.001+01:00

From the TaxPayers' Alliance.

Quite horrific really.

About time we got a grip on spending, cut it fast and cut taxes fast when we're able to.

Democracy Village

2010-05-25T17:07:00.002+01:00

A bunch of anti-war protestors, led by Brian Haw, seem to be squatting in front of Parliament on the Square.

My first thoughts were that they should stay because of free speech and the rest of it, and that I'd like the laws restricting protest around Parliament repealed. But looking into it more, thinking through it, reading around, came up with a few things - but mainly that there's a difference between a protest and creating a squatter settlement on Parliament Square.

Yes, there's a right to protest, including in front of Parliament. But it's a bit difficult to protest when Parliament Square, as I read earlier, is monopolised by the Socialist Worker-types who oppose your protest and probably wouldn't be happy to see someone else protesting there. There's no space to protest. I think we have to differentiate between a protest and a sit-in settlement. Fair enough if the government has rigged an election, but it hasn't. It looks ugly, they are being disrespectful (pissing on statues and stuff), and someone should come along and (try to?) protest against the fox hunting ban or something, to see what they think.

It's not a protest - it's squatting. Protests yes, actually living in front of Parliament, no.

The power revolution and all that

2010-05-19T17:57:00.004+01:00

So here we have it - the 'power revolution' as Deputy PM Clegg calls it. He wants to "transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state".

Good start.

We have some good things here - repealing "all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit [our] freedom" - his words, not mine. Seeing ID cards out, the DNA database something for criminals and not the innocent, CCTV regulated, ContactPoint gone - it's all very British and, indeed, very liberal. The devolution of power, the localism - "you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use" he says, espousing the very socialist calculation problem that we conservatives have always fought against. Checks on the power of lobbyists that sometimes gives interest groups too much power, that ties up the same big business and minority interest groups up with big government - it's all very small-government.

There are the bad - he wants to make the tax system "fairer" rather than reducing the burden overall - power to people really involves giving them their money back to spend how they want, not for government to spend on their behalf on something that doesn't benefit them, is an utter gimmick, or when the individual could spend the money much more efficiently on something that would benefit them more. The rise in the income tax threshold to £10,000 is very fair and will get more people off welfare than anything else, but funding it by a rise in CGT will, as Lord Forsyth argued in the Telegraph today, actually stop the jobs that these people might go into being created. The idea of Redwood et al, to tax short term investment a higher rate than long term investment, is far more sensible; even more radical would be to scrap CGT altogether and to allow the investment to just take place without the distortions that CGT brings.

And surely this nonsense about allowing government ministers to vote in the backbench 1922 Committee can't go ahead. A government, saying it wants to encourage localism and democracy, who then tries to practically abolish the backbenchers' forum is purely hypocritical.

Clegg said earlier:

"We don't, unlike Labour, believe that change in our society must be forced from the centre.
Unlike the previous Labour government, we're not insecure about relinquishing control."

This government will be made or broken on whether it gives power back to people. Labour has centralised, put power in the hands of the state. If Cameron can revive classical liberalism, bring that out of the Lib Dems, really works towards making the state smaller, society stronger and individuals more powerful when it comes to their own lives, then this coalition will work. If, however, he sells out to the crazy elements of the Lib Dems (PR, 'fairness', 'liberalism' etc) then the internal coalition will rebel, and the government will fall.

We will wait and see.

Can schools be free and accountable?

2010-05-15T18:37:00.004+01:00

Asks the BBC. The answer is yes.

The question is about accountability - and in their bureaucratic, state-holding-schools-accountable mindset they have forgotten the accountability of the market - parents taking their child (and money) elsewhere - so the good schools will get more children and more money, the bad schools won't survive, and yes, may have to shut down.

Inspections will help the judgement, but might some more market-based solutions come about? I'm talking not only inspection bodies themselves setting up, but even chains of schools, brand names, that incredibly important issue for any firm - and even for schools. And this is where the diversity of the market comes about - teaching techniques could vary from school to school (which would certainly have been to benefit to me these last few years - groupwork and Powerpoints every lesson has never worked) and the old word of innovation could make its comeback in finding best how to educate. Just as I know Snickers has nuts, a certain 'brand' of school could, for example, educate traditionally.

To make this accountability work - not exam league tables, but people actually recognising not just the results that come out of schools, but the skills, the type of person coming out of the school, the real knowledge, how ready they are for the real world....

And on that point, let's hope the policy works.

Economic recovery: the method

2010-05-14T23:27:00.005+01:00

US public spending as proportion of GNP in the inter-war years.

End-of-war recession to 1920, Harding cut hard and fast, cuts in public spending and taxation, recovery and golden years.

Wall Street Crash 1929, Hoover increases spending, doubles the size of government (oh how laissez-faire - there's one myth debunked), causes Great Depression.

So the "taking money out of the economy" brigade are just plain wrong, especially when we're talking 1% of GDP (out of 48% of GDP government spending).

Cut spending and then taxation hard? And please don't raise in Capital Gains Tax, whatever loopholes there are, it's the worst tax to raise when the Laffer curve comes into play (above 15% has bad effects I've heard).

And it makes sense that less money spent on government bonds is instead used by banks to lend to individuals (since they've been told to have more reserves).

Government spending cut from 48% of GDP to 30%? Sounds good.

Could the Lib Dems split?

2010-05-10T17:37:00.004+01:00

Over all these deals? It's already a coalition as it is (a merger of the old Liberal-SDP alliance) - so what if the Orange Bookers, the old Liberals (Laws et al) left and went across to the Conservatives, who share some of their Whiggism if we are to go back that far, while the lefties went across to Labour, who they seem to think are their "natural partners"?

And the UK returns to two-party politics, with no need for electoral reform?

Just a thought.

The best advert against PR...

2010-05-10T17:25:00.003+01:00

...has been the last few days of coalition negotiations.

Behind closed doors, politicians decide on which parties join as a coalition (note to unhappy Lib Dems: you support every election having this result), who takes which Cabinet post, which manifesto pledges are dropped, and since Gordon decided to resign within recent minutes, which second consecutive unelected PM you get. Is this how the "more democratic" system will work?

Gordon Brown wants a Lib-Lab pact, despite his party being comprehensively beaten at the polls. Very democratic. Again, similar to what would happen under PR?

I've kept an open mind throughout this, but I think the whole episode has persuaded me that PR might be more representative, but at least with FPTP you know (normally) what you're voting for, who you're getting, and that you can kick a bad government out. And for those who say this election shows that FPTP doesn't create strong governments, people will remember it and will elect a strong government next time. Once in 35 years doesn't mean it doesn't produce them.

Bailing out Greece

2010-05-09T14:50:00.004+01:00

So here we go again, talk of bailing out Greece etc. The UK's opposed, except

Euro-zone leaders are attempting to get round objections from countries such as Britain by invoking Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty, intended to enable a collective response to natural disasters. This does not need unanimous agreement.

So like it or not, make the right decisions, stay out of the Euro, and you still have to pay up. Because that will stop countries making bad decisions in the future. No, it'll mean that we don't learn from our mistakes - that the Eurozone was never one of these "Optimal Currency Zones" that economists have talked about.

But that isn't what annoys me. The bit that says "intended to enable a collective response to natural disasters". Natural disasters. The Greek debt problem is not natural. Even if it's those evil speculators, as the left-wing press seem to be saying, it's not natural - in fact you could say it's even more artificial. It's of their own making - they borrowed too cheaply for too long in the good years, built up a massive budget deficit, are in a lot of debt, and can't afford to borrow because they won't pay it back. That's not natural, that's their fault, and they should pay for it. It's certainly nothing to do with us.

On FPTP

2010-05-09T14:28:00.003+01:00

Labour MP Tom Harris gets it right. Read the whole post, but these bits stood out to me.

At least under FPTP, whatever its disadvantages, the party that’s elected has to implement the policies in its manifesto. And if it doesn’t, it can be kicked out. Not so with most forms of PR. Have you been listening to some of the arguments in favour of reform, particularly on the Left? Reform would mean a permanent centre-left coalition in this country, they say. But since when has permanent government by the same two parties been remotely democratic? This argument, to me, is the best reason not to go for reform. I’m a democrat. I believe that if we’re beaten by the Tories, they should form the government. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they want a change of government, not poitical parties.
But what’s wrong with coalition government? Nothing at all. In fact, I’m in favour of coalitions. We’ve had coalition government in this country for decades. Labour is probably a broader coalition than what already exists in some proportional European systems. Any party that can accommodate Frank Field (or me, for that matter) and John McDonnell and Dennis Skinner is a very broad church indeed. The same goes for the Tory party. Because FPTP forces parties to broaden their appeal, to be open to a far wider range of opinion than would be the case under PR. And our democracy is the better for it.

While I'm sympathetic to something like 3-member STV (like Ireland), the British way is wide coalitions of people with generally similar principles. Labour a belief in government solutions, Conservatives a belief in people and society making those solutions, Lib Dems......let's not go there, but they are possibly the widest coalition (where else would you have economic liberals and economic statists together?). A factioned political system is not the British way. I don't want to sound too dogmatic here about "the British way", but we don't do internal haggling - we put it to the voters, let them decide the path.

The coalition negotiations, behind closed doors, are a fantastic argument against PR, since it's exactly what would happen. The same politicians, the same minor parties in the coalition, the same ones you just can't get rid of.

I want a strong Parliament, that holds government to account, that has MPs who are actually accountable to constituents, a specific number holding one specific person to account. While something like 3-member STV might be a more proportional way while somewhat keeping to that, I think there are things we can do now that would make FPTP work better: boundary reviews that seem to be out of date and don't take it to account that we maybe have a 3-party system on our hands; open primaries; recall elections - that sort of thing. Then perhaps we can look at the accountability issue a few years down the line, see how it works, see how maturely people react to open primaries (judging by the moustaches on posters, I'm not optimistic) and so on.

So I'm not sure. Keep an open mind, see how things pan out, and don't do anything knee-jerk or silly (Labour supporting voting reform as they are about to lose an election is one such silly reaction).

Cameron should not form a formal coalition

2010-05-07T22:58:00.002+01:00

No, no coalitions. An implicit deal, yes, but not a formal coalition. There are areas of common ground, the sort of legislation we can push through with the votes (or abstentions) of LibDems. Might help push an emergency budget through, since that being blocked could lead to financial meltdown.

Yes, there are disagreements, electoral reform being one of the major ones - why not put it to the House? We have legislators for a reason, they just aren't used properly enough. And in fact the 2010 Conservative manifesto had something of an old Liberal feel about it - might some Lib Dems actually feel comfortable with a good lot of what's in the manifesto?

As for electoral reform, I'll talk about that in a future blogpost. But it's probably worth Cameron going it alone, getting some stuff through, showing he's serious and he's taking the decisions, then calling a second election. But first, he also needs to sell conservatism to a sceptical public, sell the fact that government is not the answer to everything.

(in other news today, a load of youngish (7-11) kids decided to jump on me and make lots of noise because I said I voted Conservative. The poor souls seem to think voting Labour/Lib Dem is better for unemployment, or is somehow 'helping the poor'. They're young, I'll let them off.)

On bank taxes

2010-04-22T18:12:00.004+01:00

Tim Worstall in support of a bank deposit insurance tax:

If this is passed on to consumers, well, who cares? The consumers are getting something of value from it: deposit insurance.

That's the main point I think, and the best reason for someone like myself to support it. As long as the revenue is ringfenced as deposit insurance, that is.

Which then brings up questions of whether this can be optional, whether banks opt-in or consumers opt-in (or opt-out), and it all gets rather complex.

Conservative Party PPB

2010-04-19T20:50:00.002+01:00

It's good. More of this please.

Campaigning in Newport West

2010-04-17T16:33:00.003+01:00

Went out canvassing for the first time this morning, in Malpas. Interesting to see how many conservatives there are out there - and many "anyone but Gordon Brown" voters. Malpas doesn't strike me as a particularly friendly area for us, but it seemed to be - apparently one of the more marginal bits (well, compared to Bettws and Pill, maybe it is).

Another interesting thing is that I didn't personally find a single Lib Dem voter, and of all of us, there weren't many there. So this resurgence is nonsense to me.

It's target seat #117, so needs to be won for a Conservative majority in Parliament. Flynn seems to be treating it as something of his safe seat from what I've seen; let's hope not.

The Conservative manifesto

2010-04-13T16:37:00.004+01:00

First of all, apologies for not posting in months - A levels are soon and they tend to take up my life. Since as of yesterday I'm of voting age, I thought I should probably check the two manifestos out.

The Conservative Party manifesto; plain on the cover, but inside of it something else. For too long, "they are all the same" has controlled the mainstream argument (as has "the Tories haven't changed", blah blah). The manifesto today, for me, disproved it. It shows a distinct difference between the Labour approach and the Conservative approach; Labour favour the big government solution, while the Conservatives look for less government, power to people, the responsibility approach, and yes LibDems, the DIY approach!

That is inherently the conservative way. For too long, and for 13 years under New Labour, government has grown larger and larger, inheriting roles that people and society should have taken up, taking more people on to the payroll, be it the bloated public sector, the expansion of tax credits to the middle classes, and whatever else - and taking away these things seems politically unthinkable. We have a new interest group that, ignoring economics and the basics of opportunity cost, has been paid to support this larger state. And it's time that it changed, we got back to a British model, where government does less and people do more.

And for all the "One Nation" talk of this, it suits the libertarian-conservative Welshman in this corner. Though I have my qualms with some of the training "community organisers", protecting NHS spending and whatnot, there are some inherently conservative things in this manifesto. Take free schools (which should settle a few votes), freeing schools up, taking away the targets and looking for diversity and innovation - what's wrong with the postcode lottery if it leads to us finding a better way? I'm not sure how much there's a link between government and society in this manifesto, and I'm hoping they are made quite separate, but for people to do more and to organise themselves without government is certainly something I can support. A model of individuals controlling their own lives and doing things themselves, without government pretending it's a charity, organiser, planner, or anything else? Fantastic.

I was concerned that we'd lost conservative principles, that Cameron wasn't a conservative, and so on. Seeing this manifesto today, however much I'd like to see some of the main policies highlighted in there (but that's just a presentation issue), I know quite clearly who I should vote for. This manifesto should win the election; it sets out a different vision for the future. Whether people see that, overcome their prejudices, the "all the same" nonsense, fringe parties and so on, will probably decide this election.

Greece must not be bailed out

2010-02-23T21:02:00.002Z

There's more and more talk, especially in the European circles, of the possibility of Greece defaulting on her sovereign debts, and because of that she might have to be bailed out.

Let's get to the causes here before we talk solutions - Greece has spend too much. It has, as a member of the eurozone, borrowed far too cheaply, and they've gone from budget surplus to 12.7% deficits (give or take some dodgy accounting).

Clearly then this is an issue of Greece spending too much - and it should cut back - not be funded in its profligacy. Perhaps the public sector workers will go on strike - it's their problem, their governments' irresponsibility. They've got used to too much spending, and have to return to normalcy at some point. If not, they'll go bust - and that will send an even more powerful message.

What does it say to Ireland, whose government has made the necessary cuts and austerity measures in order to avoid bankruptcy? The responsible bailing out the irresponsible? What does it say when the Eurozone actually breaks its own rules in order to save its own skin, just to stop it breaking up?

Economists talk of 'optimal currency areas'; the Eurozone was never one. Countries like Greece have shown that, enjoying German interest rates which overheated their economies. Now they are paying the price - and I don't think it will cause the eurozone to break up, but it would send a powerful message about currency unions - they don't work, except with very similar economies (take the USA).

Thank heavens the UK didn't join.

On Parliament and the role of MPs

2010-02-23T20:54:00.003Z

Labour MP Natascha Engel:

But we are moving in totally the wrong direction. I don’t know how many times I hear people demanding a more consensual style of politics, asking us to put aside political affiliations and work for the good of the people that elected them. This is only making it worse.

After the expenses scandal, this view has become even more dominant. Yet the vast majority of us were elected only because we stood for a political party. In fact, Parliament is predicated on the very existence of political parties. It’s how we organise ourselves.

But our system breaks down when our political parties are not ideologically distinct. Today, we define our differences by dividing lines. We ask a small group of people — a focus group — what they care about, and then ask them what they want us to do about it. That’s not politics. That’s marketing. It’s turning us into admen and PR agents.

The politics of focus groups makes politicians reactive. We should lead, persuade and inspire. We should argue for what we think is right, even if popular opinion is against us. Leadership is about taking risks, even if that means losing our positions as a result.

Politics and politicians need to encourage big ideas and promote different ways of organising our society. Parliament should be a forum for clashing ideas again. And politicians need to rediscover that being an MP is about more than doing a job. It’s about being in a privileged position to put into practice deeply held beliefs and ideas.

When we debate parliamentary reform this week, we need to talk about getting back to first principles. Papering over the cracks won’t do any more. We need to tear down the flock wallpaper and fix the plasterwork underneath.

Well written, well thought out piece - read it. I think she's right - Parliament should be a place where ideas clash, MPs should be thinkers, legislators - as well as people who hold the executive to account.

The "expenses reforms" miss the point. I've already posted about why the new IPSA quango is wrong - in fact it subverts democracy further. The problem in this country is that the executive and the European Union hold too much power - and MPs aren't really sure what their role is.

They should be scrutinising legislation, coming up with ideas themselves - Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, should be where great minds come together to really get the best solution.

Illiberal and intrusive

2010-02-23T17:56:00.002Z

That's how I sum up the SNP's new plan to tackle obesity. Listen to this: it plans to stop restaurants serving 'large' portions, stop shops selling sweets near the till, only allow two-for-one offers etc on health products, 'advise' women on eating habits before they fall pregnant, and force councils to clean up more dog dirt 'to encourage exercise'.

What a load of illiberal tosh. State intervention to force people to be more healthy? Is this not Britain? The freedom-loving nation of individual responsibility? This is not an issue for governments to take responsibility for! It's a matter for individuals, if anything else wasn't.

Don't get me wrong, I think healthy is good. I keep myself in good shape because, well, I wouldn't mind living past 60, and bulging biceps look good. That's my choice. Other people don't follow it. The thought of me forcing someone else to get into shape if they don't want to twitches every bone in my body. The thought of government, with its monopoly of force, forcing everyone to be healthy nearly knocks me over.

There are other practical problems. What constitutes a 'large' portion? It seems too subjective to be written into legislation. What is 'near the till'? Shops vary in size. What are 'health products'? Couldn't retailers find ways around that one? Councils clearing up more dog dirt? That's an issue for local electorates to decide.

Why are we even in a country where such a proposal does not cause outrage? Why are we in a country which, once renowned for freedom, actually sees these proposals from as high a level as Scottish government ministers? I know socialists control Scotland, but this proposal is truly shocking.

Government advertising

2010-02-18T17:37:00.002Z

Government spending on advertising has risen by 40% in the last year. Yes, I've noticed. This new video from the TPA reminded me of it.

That's just DEFRA.

There are two others I don't like - the one about not leaving stuff visible to thieves (how about stop pretending victims of crime have themselves to blame and put the money into improving the police) and the science and maths one with the climate forecaster - "it's more of the same I'm afraid unless we do something about it" - with a terrible joke at the end - how about putting the money into improving education perhaps? And stop making political points (scientists study what's happening, not what to do, as far as I'm concerned).

And above all, they become incredibly annoying when you just get government adverts thrown at you on radio, TV, Spotify especially is a particularly bad one. Why are government adverts annoying? Because they haven't got to make money from adverts. The adverts are of benefit to no one, they just patronise people and annoy them. The theft one is both patronising and drains confidence in the police's ability to fight crime.

It's not the government's place to advertise and tell us how to behave anyway. Leave where I leave my stuff to me, how much I drink to me, what I do to me - and I can find out the information without government advertising, and take responsibility for my own life. And with the sort of fiscal hole we're in, £253 million on advertising should be one of the first things to go. Propaganda has no place in a free society.

New quango is not the way to go about solving the expenses problem

2010-02-11T18:09:00.004Z

No, we don't want another quango! That misses the point entirely! Trust rushed legislation to absolutely ruin our constitution altogether.

Parliament should be supreme. The IPSA will now be supreme. It's not accountable to anyone. It is not a British solution to the problem; the problem was overclaiming, and the solution is that the public want to know what their MP is claiming.

Not only this, but it's going to cost £6 million. £6 million! To put that into perspective, MPs overclaimed by £1 million. It's a normal governmental waste of money.

When will someone stand up, abolish this quango, and say that all we need is full transparency? Voters will be able to hold their MP accountable for what they claim. If they don't like it, MP is out. Simple. The voter should be the only regulator of the Commons, not IPSA.

Fail of the day

2010-02-05T19:40:00.002Z

Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband on Comment is Free.

The real question facing Britain is not how to nudge people but how to give them power over their own lives. The need for collective action is clear

Make your mind up, power over their lives i.e. less government or collective action i.e. more government (and less power over their own lives).

Labour just don't have a clue.

12, nearly 13 years of more government, it's failed, it's clearly caused problems, and they want to expand government further.

Because that's logical.

Fraser Nelson on Cameron and the Conservative Party

2010-02-04T18:22:00.004Z

Fraser Nelson hits the nail on the head with this article in the Times (as a follow-up to his Keith Joseph Lecture, readable here - I recommend it).

Truly to take power, he said, one had to set the terms of debate. He had a phrase for it: the “verbal snares” that Labour sets for Conservatives. If a Tory party takes power yet uses Labour’s language, judges success by Labour’s yardsticks and confines itself to Labour’s ambitions, that’s not change. It’s more of the same.

He's got it right - Cameron seems to shudder every time a criticism of conservative values comes in (generally in defunct New Labour newspeak) and I'm not totally sure what the Party currently stands for. The Conservative Party needs to embrace conservative ideology and conservative values, not Labour values. The schools reform is a start, but this needs to be our attitude to governing.

One thing I found interesting was his link to Ted Heath, who got booted out but whose manifesto was then delivered by Thatcher. I might just be speculating, but could Cameron be a Heath, who then gets replaced by a 'proper' conservative after a one-term government? Daniel Hannan comes to mind, but I doubt it (he's more of a libertarian anyway). On second thoughts, even David Davis?

Cameron needs to start being a radical conservative (however much that phrase sounds like an oxymoron). Stop using Labour's language, Labour's ideas, Labour's values, and give a real change, a conservative change, a change that supports people and really transfers power to them, not just some words that actually create more state power.

Read Fraser Nelson's speech. He's got it spot on.

World Leader Rap

2010-02-02T22:30:00.002Z

This one's quite good.

Hat-tip: Cardiff Blogger

On the Equality Bill

2010-02-02T21:51:00.003Z

Melanchthon puts it better than I ever could.

But equalities legislation is now extending much further, violating even the old compact with those inclined to tolerate private Christianity. For Christians are now not to be tolerated acting as Christians even in their Christian-to-Christian dealings and in their explicitly Christian institutions. Christian schools are not to be permitted to insist on having Christian pupils, Christians teachers, Christian cleaners and Christian cooks. Even in Christian churches, only those for which specifically religious duties are most of the job have any material exemptions from equalities legislation.

The Equality Bill must be stopped. If I discriminate, I might lose out, lose money, etc. It's my responsibility, and my problem. Equality legislation just shifts the burden on to the state and the courts, so should be opposed.

Not only this, but the religious issue as in the post I've linked to - religious freedom means the freedom for religious institutions to include who they want to within their bounds. No, lack of legislation will not (and does not) make faith schools some detached institutions, or ban non-believers from churches. And it's their loss if they don't open up to non-believers, who may come to believe.

Us Christians are in a difficult position as it is, with social oppression. Legal oppression would take us back to a bygone era. This Equality Bill is illiberal, and should not pass.

Broadband and the Conservative Party

2010-01-31T15:01:00.003Z

According to the BBC, the Conservatives are looking to install 100Mbps broadband in most homes by 2017, and fund this for rural areas where it may not be profitable to supply by the licence fee.

Internet is good, broadband even better. It has revolutionised the way we work. That is the reason it has spread - it has huge benefits that outweigh the costs. In fact, some people pay for high-speed broadband to be wired to their house, at a cost of several thousand, to make their houses worth more (according to the Economist, I think). That's the market at work - and it's done the job well, and is still doing the job well.

The first issue to grasp is why rural areas don't have broadband - not profitable to supply. That's fair enough - if you live in a rural area, that's a choice you make - you tend to be rich enough to choose to, so the government shouldn't be subsidising your broadband. Rural area or broadband, that's the choice.

It's not government's place to be involved in broadband, TV, etc - simply because of all the old arguments about not knowing individuals' needs. Sell it all off, that includes the BBC and Channel 4, abolish the licence fee, etc. No need for the government to own it. And not only that, but if we allow government to pay for the broadband (even if it is with our own money), we hold ourselves open to government saying they should be able to control what goes down those cables.

Hayek vs. Keynes "Fear the Boom and Bust"

2010-01-26T19:42:00.002Z

Whoever made this is a genius.

Some thoughts on exams

2010-01-26T18:12:00.004Z

Having heard the uproar about the Biology paper, I thought I'd investigate. Interesting results. The Daily Mail comments interest me (click top rated) - students saying that they don't like the "new age nonsense" - their words not mine. In fact, I thought the whole comment was good enough to copy across.

As the member who made the latter picture (a satirical reproduction of one of the examiner's comments in the official textbook), I wish to clarify for the readers of the Mail what exactly the problem is - this is not a sulk for more marks or easier exams.

It was meant to be a biology exam; and we are, unfortunately, guinea pigs for a new specification in which traditional knowledge-based learning has been dumbed-down by holier-than-thou 'progressive' examiners have attempted to replace this partially with 'How Science Works' questions which are not based on the subject matter.

This last exam was the worst yet; out of 75 marks on the paper, no more than 15 (I estimate) could be gained through any knowledge of Biology. One had to see it to believe it; there was page after page of new-age nonsense, followed by a single question on Biology.

Everything that we had learnt and revised was utterly worthless, since actual biology was all but omitted from the paper. This is our quarrel!

I did an exam earlier. It was A Level, and it was AQA, and it was the "new syllabus", etc. Geography rather than Biology, but it was the same rubbish - basically glorified coursework. "Geography Skills" they call it - it was so blatantly not "skills" that I had to pre-write answers to questions in order to get anything above a D (I tend to get As). The questions weren't Geography - they were asking me how I did my fieldwork, about statistical tests - and yes, I put some theory in, but that won't get me many marks. And that's 30% of my A2 I believe.

Yes, I haven't made a post in nearly a fortnight because I've been learning how to answer exam questions.

Questions like "Assess the usefulness of one method used to collect data for the investigation" in the first section, then "An A Level student has proposed this hypothesis...with reference to the data, is it valid?". It's not Geography. I only got anywhere with it because I had practice at the questions, not because of my knowledge, not even because I "applied knowledge" or whatever this week's buzzword/phrase is.

Back to the Biology paper - I was one of the "guinea pigs" for the new Science GCSE a couple of years back - and I know people that have done science A Levels have struggled, mainly because the new GCSE is so awful. Apparently it's meant to be more relevant; shame it's not proper science that will get anyone anywhere.

I want to read PPE at a good university next year. Will this utter dumbing-down help me? No, it won't. I want exams that require rigour, that will reward extra reading, that reward knowledge and reward understanding that knowledge. Train me to succeed, train my mind to work so it applies what knowledge I have so it gets decisions made and things done by all means, but not with exams that require certain answers. "Applying my knowledge" is nothing to do with these new-fangled exams. They are nonsense.

Proper exams, please. Throw as much money as you want at education, if you control the Curriculum and exams so they don't reward knowledge, students won't learn, and education becomes altogether pointless.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-14T17:50:00.001Z

"So what about the BNP? The trouble is that it is a national socialist party. Take a look at its 2005 election manifesto. You won’t find much about reducing the power of the state and increasing that of the individual. It has a curiously dated air of the 1960s and 1970s, with talk of controlling the commanding heights of the economy and building barriers to trade. To be kind to the BNP, one might call it a corporatist party. To put it more roughly, one might say that it is a fascist party, a Left-wing authoritarian party. One thing is certain. As a socialist party, the BNP can only be part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Norman Tebbit.

His decision to start blogging is one of the best decisions he's made. Great writer and one of those politicians you have to respect.

Faith schools and homophobic bullying

2010-01-13T23:03:00.003Z

Nick Clegg says faith schools must not become "asylums of insular religious identity" and must try to stamp out homophobic bullying, because apparently it exists more in faith schools.

He needs to stop talking nonsense. I go to a good faith school, it has that Christian ethos to it, but is not something "insular" and is not "homophobic". In fact it's more tolerant than the local state school, something indeed taught in Christianity. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's easier to be openly gay in that school than openly Christian. It's easier to be openly atheist than openly Christian. Yes, in a Christian school.

As mentioned elsewhere, for the leader of an apparently liberal party to make such an illiberal statement ("let's force this on schools") is also, I suppose, incredibly intolerant of individual cases, and parents' wishes.

Clegg claims to preach tolerance, but is in fact being intolerant of what faith schools are, and what real Christians believe. Not only this, but he is not being some sort of liberal, but in fact preaching the same centralisation and control he claims to oppose. It's about time he took a look inside a faith school for himself and sorted out his prejudices.

Progressive Conservatives

2010-01-09T13:30:00.002Z

I don't consider myself a 'total' libertarian by any means, more of a classical liberal, so when the new Progressive Conservatives grouping came about I thought it fit my principles quite well.

Led by MP Syed Kamall, I think it gets straight to the point of what progressive conservatism is - shifting power back to the individual, be it social or economic. And I think that sums up my views quite nicely - give the responsibility of as much as possible to the individual, so government can't become too involved, too responsible, or left to do everything.

Take the snow. Why can't people clear their own "bit" of the pavement? Wouldn't that be more efffective than government? Sorry, Health and Safety doesn't allow it.

About time we trusted individuals, voluntary groups, just real people instead of government. The ends to my political philosophy.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-06T16:30:00.001Z

Fraser Nelson:

In fairness, I wouldn't break my lunch to say something nice about Brown either

This is why he makes such a good editor of the Spectator. What a great one-liner.

What?!

2010-01-05T15:35:00.003Z

Barnet Council will not be allowed to use their "easy-Council" model because the High Court has told them that it is foul of regulations.

Since when did judges overrule elected bodies? Since when did local authorities become unaccountable?

Serious changes are needed so that local authorities have much more autonomy, and won't just be overruled by courts - they can always be voted out at the next election.

Gordon gives up the class war

2010-01-03T12:58:00.002Z

According to an interview with Andrew Marr.

He also rejected claims that he was engaging in class warfare against David Cameron, saying that his jibe about Tory policy being dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton was a joke.
He told host Andrew Marr: ''If you think the playing fields of Eton was anything other than a joke then I am afraid you take your politics too seriously.''
Mr Brown said he attacked Mr Cameron for "having the wrong views... he will take us backwards" rather than because of his background.

Yeah, say what you what, you meant that jibe, you're just trying to cover your own skin. We've all used the "I was joking" excuse, this is a U-turn on tactics because you've realised it won't work. Pull the other one.

On the day he allows the use of full body scanners. When did Parliament vote on it?

Happy New Year

2010-01-01T00:00:00.000Z

I'd like to wish all my readers (if they exist) a happy new year.

Here's to 2010!

(and we can finally get rid of this lot at some point in the next 6 months)

On market failure

2009-12-30T01:54:00.003Z

From The Christian Science Monitor - Markets fail. That's why we need markets.

Some new technologies and innovations are genuine improvements and are long-lasting welfare enhancers. But others are the basketball equivalent of pump fakes – they look like the real deal and prompt market actors to leap hastily into action, only to realize later that their bets were wrong.
Given this dynamic, markets are unpredictable, prone to booms and busts, characterized by bouts of exuberance that are rational or irrational only in hindsight.
But markets are also the only reliable mechanism for sorting out this messy process quickly. In spite of the booms and busts, markets drive genuine long-run innovation and wealth creation.

It goes on to mention rent-seeking in government, and so on.

I think I've been guilty of, in the past, seeing markets as perfect, when in fact, since humans aren't perfect (or more of, they don't have perfect information) so markets cannot be perfect, and from time to time something goes wrong.

But as humans learn from experience, the market improves with experience (recessions). That's why it's so important to let the market reallocate in recession (since government will do an even worse job - they don't know the minds of so many economic agents) and not to help create bubbles in the boom.

The article in the CSM is a good read. It sums up my view of it all quite well.

(hat-tip: Anti-Dismal)

Inheritance tax

2009-12-28T22:48:00.003Z

Good to see George Osborne sticking to principle on inheritance tax.

Did we not have such a big budget deficit, I'd suggest scrapping it (a death tax, to me, is unfair anyway) but having just the super-rich pay is certainly keeping it in line with its original aims.

For all that Labour go on about "tax cuts for millionaires", yes perhaps they'll pay less inheritance tax, but a) they already pay a lot more tax at higher rates already, and b) this tax cut means that only millionaires with pay IHT. Not only that, but with real wage inflation, it takes some of the hard working middle classes out of the death tax band altogether.

About time, I say.

This is how it should be done

2009-12-19T19:52:00.002Z

From the New Zealand Parliament.

Dave, Gordon, take note.

Hat-tip: Iain Dale

Being asked for ID

2009-12-19T18:13:00.004Z

I can see the point in IDing people for alcohol and cigarettes. Well, they could harm your health (and depending on your perspective, others' too).

However, when I walk into a shop, and try to buy some car shampoo (the stuff you mix with water to wash your car), I don't expect the woman behind the counter to say "I can't sell you this. Have you got any ID?"

For the first time in a while, I was actually gobsmacked. You see these things in the Daily Mail, but actually getting asked for ID for something as pathetic as car shampoo is just shocking. What on earth am I going to do with it other than wash my car?

I have a full driving licence, it's quite clear I can drive and chances are I'm going to use it to wash my car.

Is this jobsworthiness, or is it actually getting scared that the police might sue you because I drunk a bottle of car shampoo, and you just happened to sell it to me?

Yes, this actually happened to me. I got IDed for car shampoo.

Credit ratings, interest rates and the price signal

2009-12-15T18:03:00.003Z

The BBC's economics correspondent, Stephanie Flanders, has noticed that the bond market is treating UK gilts as if they were AA-rated rather than AAA-rated. Which begs the question, if they were officially AA rather than AAA, how would the markets treat them?

I suppose the whole question is about the effect of credit ratings on the bond market. Quite clearly here, the credit rating is wrong, or the agencies know more than the market (which probably isn't true). And once again, the many individual agents have done a better job than an agency.

Which brings me to interest rates. Just like a credit rating, the interest rate acts as a price signal (though more so in the latter case) - and if it's wrong, naturally, a bubble is created. 2002-2007? Possibly, since it's widely believed that interest rates were too low and therefore money was underpriced - excess demand to delve into economic theory. I digress.

So it's a distortion of the market. At least with credit ratings, bond markets can act pretty much independently; there's no agency with a central price like the Bank of England with its interest rates. But this is quite interesting.

Additionally, there was upward pressure from housing, mainly from mortgage interest payments which rose this year but fell a year ago.

I'm probably jumping to conclusions, but the market sees a rise in the demand for credit, and so is pushing up the cost of lending? So it does have some influence after all?

So I tend to agree with this piece I saw in the Times back in July. Prices should be set by demand and supply, demand and supply are best set by the voluntary actions of individuals, the money market has demand and supply (even if it is a means of exchange, rather than a good/service), so interest rates should also be set by the voluntary actions of individuals - no central agency or committee can ever know the details of every single transaction.

Maybe there's still hope...

2009-12-15T17:27:00.003Z

Just after posting the last one, this story popped up on my RSS feed.

Also using a cricket bat, but no hitting the robber involved.

Hmm.

Defending the home

2009-12-15T16:13:00.003Z

Three masked men break into your home. You return, and they take you hostage with knives. One escapes, and you throw a coffee table at them, then chase them down the street, catch them and hit them with a cricket bat.

They violated your home, and various rights. They tried to take you hostage. You fought back. Praise and a police commendation, yes?

No.

The government can tell us to stop making scare stories about the justice system all they like, but just like the Tony Martin case, it is very clear that it is positioned in the favour of criminals. That's not the Daily Mail's line, that's an altogether reasoned line.

But had he spared Mr Hussain jail, the judge said, the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said: 'If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.'

At this point I have to avoid going on an all-out swear blog. No, you idiot, the rule of law is collapsing when politically correct prats like you make stupid decisions like this, and let criminals go free to commit their next crime (yes, he committed crimes before). You say this, then don't punish someone for actually committing a crime. Is that justice? Quite clearly not. Mr Reddihough, you are a fool. Just go. Go now. You quite clearly can't uphold the law properly.

This wasn't just a random burglar who had broken in, where the force may have been excessive (though if you shoot a burglar dead in the USA, they'll just come to pick up the body, and good for them), this was a group of yobs who had inflicted psychological suffering on an innocent family. The fact that these yobs haven't been given a prison sentence is beyond a joke.

Hussain then stopped the one criminal with a cricket bat, and beat him up. Seems fair compared to the suffering that the criminals inflicted on the family. In America, shoot the criminal dead, no one would bat an eyelid. It's completely fair, considering (a) what the criminal did and (b) what a joke the British justice system is. If the criminal doesn't want to suffer justice, he shouldn't have committed the crime.

British justice system, once the envy of the world, so much that the USA used common law, has now been reduced to an utter joke. It's about time that it started being a justice system, and not something I'm reduced to swearing at because of its stupidity.

On maternity pay

2009-12-14T19:22:00.005Z

Thought I'd end my hiatus with some economics that went through my head earlier.

Maternity leave can be defined as a payment for extra economic agents in the long term. As age increases, the utility of humans with regard to work decreases, so obviously childbirth is "replacement" of some sort.

So where does that leave us?

The question is 'should maternity leave be paid?', and I'll ignore the usual arguments, but instead ask, what benefit does it give in the long run? Does maternity leave encourage childbirth, of a child that may contribute more back to the economy in the future? Is there a net gain from paying maternity leave, childcare etc in the long run?

All very interesting stuff, but relies on some basic assumptions I suppose. Assuming that maternity pay is paid to mothers who were working, there should be some sort of culture of work in the family (or there is more likely to be), which (and I hate bringing up stereotypes, but) should count out the stereotypical 'council estate benefits sponger', so there's less likelihood of the child draining society (or the government coffers rather).

So, if n is the number of children, I could assume
monetary benefit n = n . average earnings - n . maternity pay
would be positive, and maternity pay would be a good thing, yes?

Then again, does maternity pay really benefit the child? And back to an early point, does it actually persuade mothers to have children?

Is this an argument for paying more benefits for those who work giving children? I'd disagree with anything like that since I don't think the state should behave in such a way, and I'm more convinced by the benefits of work than maternity pay in itself, which means an absence from work (and long term absence caused by it for the mother even?). But then again these crazy economic thoughts go through my head from time to time.

Corporation tax

2009-11-30T18:43:00.002Z

According to Michael Spencer (the Tory treasurer) corporation tax could be cut towards 20%. Go further I say, 10% will make the UK a business haven once more.

It's all welcome (as is the hope that the 50% rate will go) - in the long run these cuts will only increase revenue. I know unfunded tax cuts don't go down well at the moment, but it should aid recovery and help us in the medium to long term.

Next, follow Boris' lead, stand up for the City, oppose the EU hedge funds directive and whatever else they want to damage the City with.

Reflections on Lisbon

2009-11-30T18:22:00.003Z

Lisbon enters into force tomorrow. Will it render the UK to the history books?

We already know quite plainly that the method of this treaty's passing was disgraceful; no referendum, even if it was exactly the same as the constitution they promised a referendum on. And if it's a constitution, since states have constitutions does this not now make the EU a sovereign state?

Brussels Journal has the statehood line

With the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Tuesday 1 December, members of the European Parliament, who up to now have been “representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community” (Art.189 TEC), become “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.14 TEU).

I am a British citizen. I do not recognise myself as a citizen of the "Union". "European citizenship" is an alien concept to me, as I'm sure it is to many other "Europeans". Surely if I and others consider ourselves UK citizens, the country is the UK? The purpose of referendums is often to define nationality. Take Montenegro. They voted to become Montenegrons, rather than Yugoslavians or whatever it was that week. So if I do not consider myself one of the "Union's citizens", am I no longer represented by the European Parliament? Who are "the Union's citizens"? Who do the MEPs represent? Quite clearly they are becoming more and more detached, since they represent people that don't exist! I'm a subject of the British crown, not a citizen of the European Union!

I suppose I have to avoid being too cynical and Daily Mail-esque sometimes. Will this create an EU superstate? I'd say that a state cannot exist without the consent of its citizens, but then again, what about South Ossetia, or the Serbs in Kosovo? I have a distinct identity, a British identity, not some European identity.

But then again, do the political class listen? Versailles, 1919 - for all the talk of self-determination, the politicians set most of the borders (though yes there were plebiscites). Is this really the first time we've been invaded, since 1066, but without any armed force at all?

The Brussels Journal piece I linked to earlier notes the clause "The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty". Does this clause not create a new European Union, a new state?

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, not even a political scientist, but to me this is the foundation of a new state. A state needs citizens, and Lisbon provides for them, even when the citizens don't want to be citizens. Honestly, the transfer of powers is disgusting. But only time will tell.

What policy?

2009-11-19T21:04:00.003Z

From the government of policy conflicts comes yet another one.

I know it's meaningless, but having put a bill in the Queen's Speech forcing the next government to cut the deficit, they have been spending willy-nilly and getting us into more debt.

One rule for them, another for the unfortunate government (probably Conservative) who has to sort it out.

What if we left the EU?

2009-11-17T22:51:00.001Z

Interesting question. Interesting video from the Taxpayers Alliance.

Got my copy of "Ten Years On" yesterday, and will get around to reading it at some point.
As I've always said, a free trade agreement is the British way.

Nationalising the labour market

2009-11-15T12:57:00.002Z

First nurses and degrees, now bankers' contracts are being controlled by the state. In a piece of short-termist populism, Labour have potentially sounded death knells for the City.

London needs the City. Britain needs the City. Without the City, who are we? It all goes back to the comparative advantage we have in finance, a theory that Adam Smith talked about a couple of hundred years back. I complain that the minimum wage is an undue interference on the freedom of contract between employer and employee, so this potential maximum wage is horrendous. What right does the state have to stop a bank using its profits to pay its bankers? Perhaps instead the state should stop supporting irresponsible practices, by bailing out and guaranteeing everything, and by making credit far too easy for far too long. If the shareholders don't like the bonuses, shares will drop. That is deterrence in itself.

Gordon Brown keeps saying he wants to "change the banking sector" and suchlike. The market will reallocate and change the banking sector, not the government, who don't have a clue what's needed. In the meantime, sort out the regulation as to minimise the size of credit bubbles.

Brown - wrong!

2009-11-11T18:43:00.003Z

Gordon Brown often claims that the Conservatives are "wrong on recession".

Wait a minute.

We are still in recession. The government's policies are clearly not working well, stopping the market reallocating resources.

And Brown claims that the Conservative position is 'wrong', that Conservative policies would stop recovery.

Brown's policy isn't working. Conservative policy isn't in place. Therefore, how can Brown say that Conservative policy is wrong? Can he somehow see the future?

Logical fail.

11th November

2009-11-11T18:40:00.001Z

May they rest in peace.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum Bill

2009-11-05T16:48:00.003Z

Guido's found the draft referendum bill.

Obviously I don't have legal expertise, but to me I agree with Guido that there would be nothing wrong with that Bill. That is, as long as Britain is seen as a separate nation state, making its own laws. If the European Union gains statehood (and it better not) there could be a problem from how I see it.

If Lisbon is ratified, de-ratifying it......is it a treaty, or is it a constitutional document?

The Economist and Royal Mail

2009-11-05T13:16:00.004Z

Last week I criticised the Economist's lack of coverage of postal strikes, the Royal Mail, etc. I take that back.

This week they have a leader calling for privatisation as the best way to take it forward. To respond to falling demand, private companies like TNT are better placed. I agree.

Saw this in my Economist which came on Tuesday, rather than Saturday. The Royal Mail - a right mess.

Privatisation is the best way to ensure that the public does not, instead, end up serving the post office.

Bang on.

Mandates

2009-11-05T13:15:00.000Z

Over Europe I've heard two things over the last couple of days, that of general election mandates and referendum mandates.

Which one is stronger? General elections tend to be more general, and if Cameron wants to focus on the economy not Europe, it will be no means be as strong as an explicit mandate to renegotiate via a referendum. The referendum shows that the majority of British people want to change their nation's relationship with the EU - to make it a more British relationship, rather than subscribing to continental ideology.

On Lisbon, referendums and UKIP

2009-11-04T17:58:00.004Z

I think we should have a referendum on the EU - in fact an in/out one. I'd rather see us in a trading agreement, since that's a more suitable way of doing things for Britain; the British political and economic model is not the same as the EU/continental one. Can we hold a referendum on Lisbon? Not really - it's been ratified by all member states. I suppose we could hold one before it comes into practice on the 1st December, but that's not going to happen.

I think the current situation is disappointing, and I'm not completely thrilled with Cameron's speech, but it'll do. Having reflected on it a bit, I think it sets the right tone - power from the EU to Britain. But will that happen? It'll take strength on Cameron's part. The best he can do is argue that Britain will be a 'better' member of the EU if it has an arrangement with it that suits Britain, i.e. the free trade agreement as I said earlier - that's just the way Britain is, a freedom-loving country. The possible second term referendum if negotiation doesn't go the right way will hopefully scare Brussels, but I still think Cameron needs to be stronger on that one. Some bits are meaningless, like the legal guarantee to future referendums (Lisbon is self-amending). But I think it's generally the right direction to be going.

On the referendum - Cameron has not reneged on anything. He made the commitment (cast-iron guarantee) in 2007, on the eve of a potential snap election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives supported a Lisbon referendum when it came to Parliament. Promise kept. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on a manifesto pledge (as opposed to something in the Sun) when it was possible to hold the referendum. Now it isn't possible, this is a new position - Lisbon is in place, and a referendum would be meaningless. I understand the view that it would be a strong mandate on renegotiation, but a Lisbon referendum? No - a referendum on renegotiation specifically - I like what David Davis said about a double-referendum to give the mandate, and approve the plan. As well as this, how hypocritical for Labour to claim that the Conservatives are reneging on their promises? They reneged on the referendum when it was actually possible.

People might tell me to go off and vote UKIP; after all I disagree with party policy on Europe. In fact I disagree with party policy on many things, but I will not join a single-issue party that will not gain power and in fact may stop a party that holds similar principles to it gaining power. They say they want to stop 50 or 60 Conservative MPs winning seats - so they want a Europhilic Labour government instead of a not-quite-as-Eurosceptic-as-them Conservative government? The Conservative Party shares my conservative principles, and since it's the best way to get the principles into government, I'll support the Party. Voting UKIP will do nothing except let a Labour government in that will sell us out to the EU even more. Conservative MPs are generally Eurosceptic, Labour MPs aren't.

You go and support UKIP if you want, but they won't gain MPs, you'll just let Europhile Labour back in.

Artificial sperm and eggs

2009-10-29T22:57:00.001Z

Had to laugh at Mac's interpretation of it.

The minimum wage should not rise

2009-10-29T11:25:00.002Z

The TUC is calling for the minimum wage to rise by 20p, to £6. Quite clearly they don't realise that we are in recession (or are ignorant).

Wage rigidity is a major cause of unemployment and indeed depressions - they hold back job creation and therefore the utility of unused capacity to increase growth.

But that isn't the point - why is government intervening in the labour market? All the minimum wage does is stops people willingly working for lower than the minimum wage getting jobs. Does anyone fill up your car with petrol now? No. In fact, despite what they say about it "not causing any unemployment in the previous 12 years", it actually priced a certain band of people out of the labour market altogether and pushed them on to state benefits - those who can only work for lower wages. They need the experience of a lower paid job first perhaps, then can move upwards and into higher paid work. (Obviously Labour just wants to throw them all straight towards university to read Media Studies).

It's one thing having a minimum wage in the good years, but in a recession it's economic suicide. It shouldn't be increased, it should be scrapped, or at least suspended until employment levels have recovered. Wage fluidity is a must in hard times - distorting markets makes them reallocate resources a lot less quickly.

I also can't understand why David Cameron calls it a "good thing" (why do no MPs stand up against it?) - I think it's a good thing having a job and a bad thing being on benefits because you're priced out of the labour market!

Once again trade unions push for economic suicide - and clearly don't recognise that better living conditions is long run - you may start on a lower wage, but you'll get to a higher wage and better living standards in a matter of years. It's better than not having a job and relying on the state.

So what are they for then?

2009-10-27T11:41:00.002Z

ISA checks for those who don't work with children.

I realise it's not compulsory, just people looking for a competitive advantage in the market, but it's sad that anyone would care about the relevance of the ISA.

The problem is that this mass movement towards people getting ISAs will get everyone swept into it, meaning everyone is submitting themselves to a government database. I suppose the same argument is made against capitalism regularly. But that's private firms and not all-knowing government.

I don't know whether to play devil's advocate or not with this one.

EU President

2009-10-25T23:41:00.003Z

I don't think there should be an EU President, at any point. I don't think Lisbon has democratic legitimacy - British voters had legitimate expectations of a referendum (2005 manifesto - all parties) and didn't get one - and Ireland had to vote twice.

But if we are resigned, the last person it should go to is Blair. He jumped before the electorate got rid of him here (the Commission is the place for failed politicians, so it's a surprise he isn't there yet), and practically sold us out to the EU - rebate gone, opt-outs gone, British interests not defended. Would he defend British interests as EU President? Or more to the point, would he be allowed to defend British interests as EU President? Would his oath forbid it? Would, by having a British EU President (who none of us want in the first place) we be forced into "full" membership - the Euro, Schengen, etc?

And to get rid of a discredited Labour government, only for the new supreme president to be the former leader of this discredited government, would just irritate the voters.

Let him speak to the few who want to hear him - and leave him well away from a post no one wants him in (and no one wants the post!)

BBC: biased and lacking logic

2009-10-24T20:36:00.002+01:00

What?

This may be a surprise, given Germany's history of maintaining a highly regulated "social market economy," and the fact that its export-focused industry is suffering badly because of the market failure that has devastated industrialised economies the world over.

So the market failure mantra appears again, and surprisingly enough trying to say that freer markets as the result of the crash is a surprising response.

But wait a minute. They can't even get their logic right. A "highly regulated social market economy". That's not a free market. Market failure? Clearly the market isn't causing the failure. Perhaps the regulation is causing the failure? Perhaps tax cuts are the right idea, so Germans have more disposable income to spend on goods. Might reduce their export dependency too.

But yet again the BBC doesn't have a clue. The markets failed because they were distorted by governments. Blaming "the market", which is just a means of exchange, misses the point.

What Nick Griffin really thought

2009-10-24T17:08:00.002+01:00

Very funny video, and probably has a sense of truth through all of Griffin's I don't have a clue what they'll accept me saying mentality on Thursday night.

Postal Strikes

2009-10-24T15:39:00.003+01:00

My copy of the Economist hasn't come today. Not that I particularly like reading the Keynesian "consensus" and other rubbish (see climate change), but I suppose as far as economics journals go there's not much better. Shame that something that was founded in opposition to the Corn Laws doesn't seem to support free markets as much as it should.

It makes me wonder - a lot of my post has been sent via TNT (the logos on the envelopes and such) - so why doesn't the Economist do the same? I suppose it might still be praising the fiscal stimulus (that clearly hasn't worked anyway) to think about practical issues, like losing subscribers. In fact, looking online (since it's probably the best way to beat the strike), they haven't even got an article about the postal strikes. Will there be one next week, after the strike has taken hold a little?

What does the Economist really stand for at all?

Six quarters of negative growth

2009-10-23T10:27:00.003+01:00

Labour's recovery policies are really working, aren't they?

This is the longest and worst recession since records began in the 1950s - and the reasons we aren't coming out of it are quite simple.

1. No business confidence. The growing budget deficit is seen as deferred taxation. They also don't like the look of the 50% rate, or the possible EU hedge funds directive. Therefore, businesses don't want to expand supply again.

2. Banks cannot lend. The interest rates are low yes, and the money supply has been expanded through QE, but that extra money is just being stored up in banks' reserves. The problem here is that the regulator is trying to look like it's doing something, and has implemented a measure that should have come at the top of the boom, not in the recession - higher capital ratios. Banks don't actually have enough money to lend (and no one wants to save because of the ultra-low interest rates), so regulation is one reason that we aren't getting out of the slump. Then we have crazy suggestions like the windfall tax on banks' profits, which would surely stop the financial sector's recovery for a bit longer.

Keynesianism has been tried again. Just like in the 1930s, it's failed again. Regulation has been tried again. Just as its hopelessness helped the crash occur, its hopelessness will prevent recovery.

Nick Griffin on Question Time

2009-10-23T00:45:00.002+01:00

He was absolutely hopeless. He seemed to regard the whole thing as some sort of joke from what I could see, grinning at the most inappropriate of times. He was very shifty and couldn't give a straight answer (funny that he criticises the mainstream parties for similar things).

It's quite obvious why he couldn't give a straight answer - he doesn't want to air his openly racist views on national television. He even tried to say that European law prohibited him from being openly racist, denying the Holocaust, etc.

Either way, I think it would have made those considering the BNP realise that they are an odious bunch, not to be taken seriously.

I also wasn't happy how it became all about the BNP - we have a postal strike going on, we are in a recession, and as the old saying goes, a week is a long time in politics. This is Question Time - why not ask the other questions? How about Nick Griffin's view on the postal strike - surely that would expose his left-wing economic policy, something that reads somewhere in between Labour's 1983 manifesto and Hitler's programme for government. In fact, I wasn't happy that Jack Straw said that "groups on the right [stir up racial hatred]". Are the BNP right-wing? Their economic policy certainly isn't, and I don't know what is socially "right-wing" these days. Why not expose the BNP's generally authoritarian views, rather than just concentrate on race?

Missed opportunity in some ways, I feel.

Shortlists

2009-10-22T23:59:00.003+01:00

I'm aware I'm a bit late on this, but Cameron is looking at all-woman shortlists, imposed from the centre. This is not a conservative response to a problem!

Yes, there aren't that many women in Parliament. There are some very good women (Ann Widdecomme comes to mind) who got there by merit. The only female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, got there by merit. That is the conservative way - the best person for the job gets it - an extension of Smith's division of labour surely.

That principle should be applied here. We want the best MPs, not the best female MPs, because they won't necessarily be the best MPs (they might, but it's not as likely). As well as this, isn't it quite insulting to women that they have to be given favours to gain seats over men?

ConservativeHome sums it up very well for me. It also mentions the central imposition of shortlists - it is up for the local association to choose a shortlist, and the candidate should be chosen in an open primary.

Depressionomics

2009-10-18T08:36:00.004+01:00

Ministers are planning a windfall tax raid on banks. What?!

Let's put this in context. Banks are expected to have much higher capital ratios (knee-jerk reaction from the regulator) so are trying to build them up, with low interest rates (so no-one wants to save money to build them up) yet are still expected to lend out money.

So acting in a government-like way, you could say, they also plan a huge tax on profits. This will only have the effect of delaying any recovery. The financial services sector is the bedrock of our economy; if we hold it down, we won't recover. Additionally this tax will hit the banks that made profit and generally weren't bailed out - Lloyds et al made losses and won't suffer. Rewarding failure anyone?

It doesn't inspire anyone with any confidence, in two ways - will banks be able to hold up their capital ratios in the future to be able to lend? How? And as well as this, another policy clash shows no sign of direction from the government. It's just a populist, knee-jerk measure. They are trying to win an election (or minimise their losses), not create growth in the economy.

Not only is this a stupid proposal, but it also extends the idea that bankers are totally to blame for this - ignoring the real problems - too low interest rates and too loose credit suddenly tightened to very high interest rates and tight credit, coupled with the hopeless FSA who didn't enforce capital ratios during the boom and pushed them up far too high in the bust. Government was the primary cause of this crash, not the bankers - they were just doing their job in the conditions available.

And wouldn't a windfall tax on profits make bankers pay themselves higher bonuses, in order to reduce the overall profit level? I'm sure this government could come up with another stealth tax though.

John Redwood called it putting one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake; now the government is planning to pull up the handbrake too.

Indoctrination

2009-10-15T18:31:00.003+01:00

No, no, no. Wrong on all levels.

The EU should not be mandating lessons about itself. It will turn into propaganda (as if the current content of the curriculum isn't).

MEPs complain about the "no" side campaigning about abortion and conscription into a European Army, both of those are legitimate concerns (it's a self-amending treaty after all). It's the hypocrisy that bothers me - they made it a treaty about the economy, about jobs - which were a load of rubbish.

If that's the level they put a referendum campaign on, I doubt their lessons will be much better.

I oppose the National Curriculum - schools should teach what they want to, and parents choose. Compulsory "EU" lessons....well I suppose they have to know who supports this "global warming" nonsense, and the hypocrisy of the Strasbourg-Brussels travel.

Already everything has to have a focus on this "global citizenship and sustainable development" rubbish, at least in Wales (left-lib AGW-hysteria indoctrination in other words) now. Bring the EU into it too? Please, just no.

On the TV debates

2009-10-13T19:03:00.002+01:00

I've seen various comments about them - "they'll only be watched by political anoraks" and the like.

Wrong.

The number of people who I know, who are certainly not political anoraks, many of them not even that interested in politics at all, who have said they will be watching them and that they will be good is huge.

If they are a representative sample of the general population (and my sample is sixth formers who will most likely be 18 by the general election) then they will be popular to all, not just the anoraks.

Asset sales

2009-10-12T20:13:00.003+01:00

Gordon Brown is going to sell off £16bn worth of assets to fund borrowing.

I agree with privatisation - but only when done properly. In the 1980s Thatcher's government sold off state companies so workers could own parts; a real expansion of property rights. Now, Brown would be likely to sell them off to big business. Thatcher sold them off for ideological reasons. Brown is selling them off to fund his spending spree (no sign of it slowing down).

As well as that, would we get £32bn if we sold them off in, say, 5 years? We are at the bottom of the market (remember the gold?) and they wouldn't go for much. This also isn't a cut to plug the deficit, just to fund more spending.

I don't oppose the privatisations in principle. We don't need a state bookmaker, the state doesn't need to administer student loans, and it doesn't need to own the Channel Tunnel rail link. It also doesn't need to own the Dartford Crossing, and while they are at it, why don't they sell off the motorway network to several operators (not just the one, keep it competitive)? Will traffic use local roads? Maybe, but if they can't cope, motorways will happily take the extra traffic, and drivers will demand them if the alternatives are clogged up. Might get government to invest in roads a bit too.

Just sell them off in a few years when we're in better times, and sell them off properly, the way Thatcher did it.

Klaus' new delaying tactic

2009-10-08T19:48:00.002+01:00

This gives me more confidence of a referendum.

Adding a footnote. Would that not change the treaty, therefore require re-ratification across all states? After renegotiation?

Cameron's speech to the conference

2009-10-08T17:55:00.004+01:00

It was by no means his best speech, but was definitely a good one.

His attack on big government was welcome; he has shown that he believes in conservative (small-c) values of trusting people to help themselves, rather than government doing it for them. He seems to have some sort of vision, some sort of way forward. He recognises the tough choices he's going to make.

Obviously we don't have plans at this stage, because we don't know what state we'll be in next May, but they would be a welcome addition when the election comes around. Cameron will need to show that he recognises that the fundamental issue is the relationship between the individual and the state, and indeed the size of the state; it must be tackled straight away. The state plays too big a part in everyday life, and Labour have made it the solution to everything, even when it really shouldn't be.

The economy will grow on enterpreneurs' and the private sector's backs, not off the government. Government just recycles money taken from productive sectors, wasting bits of it in the process.

Ready to govern

2009-10-07T16:01:00.003+01:00

Michael Gove's speech today showed the real talent of the Conservative Party. It was a forward-looking speech, that showed the Conservatives as ready to govern. It was a real blessing to read.

Education failure is very true in Britain, however much the government tries to inflate grades. The curriculum is dumbed down, I experience it now, I notice how past paper questions get easier the more recent they are. I noticed how much of a joke the new Science GCSE was. Will it help me at all in later life? Probably not. Across the curriculum, there's too much emphasis on the environment, and "global citizenship", whatever that's meant to mean. I notice how none of these subjects, even Economics at A Level, try to get you to develop your own opinions.

I've heard teachers say that even if we fail, they still get paid. Is that right? Clearly not. Either way, to pass, all you have to do is memorise how to answer questions, and whatever rubbish is on the syllabus (sorry, specification) this week.

I think Michael Gove hit the right notes in his speech. He has a real agenda, a real way forward; he sees the problem and is setting out how to change it. He wants to set schools free from bureaucrats - which is the right way to go about radical education reform. Teachers, and the teaching profession, know what's right, they know what works - they've been there before. Bureaucrats haven't, and neither have most government ministers.

I think there's one more thing that Gove needs to do to complete this - and that's allow new "Swedish-style" schools to make profits. That way they have a capital base to expand, to build more schools, to make them demand-responsive - that's the way it works in Sweden. If he doesn't, I don't see the take-up being as great, which will turn public opinion against it wrongly. Thatcher started the revolution in the attitude to wealth, reversing the post-war collectivist consensus; now we need to continue this - there's nothing wrong with allowing the education and health sectors to make profits, since it will allow innovation and indeed demand response - if they try to make profit rather than educate properly, parents will take their children elsewhere, simple.

But generally it's a real shining light. Gove or Balls as Education Secretary? It's not hard to decide.

Hague on 12 years of Labour

2009-10-05T16:30:00.003+01:00

Lest we forget.

Cameron and the EU, part 2

2009-10-04T13:42:00.004+01:00

At some point, he'll have to say what he's going to do.

Avoiding the question on the basis of "the Poles and the Czechs haven't ratified yet" is missing the point, since they are going to ratify it soon, let's be totally honest. Eventually the public will get tired of hearing it, and want some principle.

However, if he doesn't want Lisbon, something to do now, as I suggested several days back, is to say he will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership if Lisbon is ratified.

Not only will that get the Eurocrats worrying (and possibly trying to stop ratification, who knows?), but it would probably be the only referendum he could hold post-Lisbon - Lisbon is self-amending so no more referendums on transfer of powers, it's not like the EU will allow a referendum on new opt-outs/transfers of power back to Westminister (or would self-amend them away anyway), and would probably give him an awful lot more support.

Free trade with Europe is the British way, political union is not. We've been independent since 1066 for a good reason - we like to be ruled by ourselves.

The SNP are deluded

2009-10-04T13:25:00.003+01:00

The SNP might take legal action if Alex Salmond isn't allowed in the leaders' debate.

Quite clearly they do not recognise that this is a debate before a general election, between potential prime ministers (ok, perhaps Clegg won't be, but there's a technical possibility). The SNP will not be returned to power; they aren't standing in enough seats. Therefore, why would they take part in a debate? Alex Salmond won't be our next Prime Minister, he actually can't be.

Threatening to block the screening of it in Scotland if they can't take part is big government blackmail, plain and simple. We know exactly where they stand.

Lisbon Treaty and slavery?

2009-10-03T20:05:00.004+01:00

Pathetic piece by Lib Dem Voice today, asking if those calling for a third "decider" referendum (generally as a joke) would have ever allowed slavery to be abolished, and asks if it should take 4 election wins for Cameron to gain power.

It's generally illogical - Farage (who the article attacks) was against a second referendum. Surely those of us who opposed a second referendum are the ones who would have abolished slavery, as this article goes? What was the Lib Dem's position on the second referendum?

This sort of rubbish brings the blogosphere down.

Blue Newport West?

2009-10-03T10:48:00.002+01:00

According to PoliticsHome, it's certainly a possibility.

Having gained the city council in 2008, an MP in 2010 would be a vindication.

That said, although I disagree with Flynn on many issues, he's a good constituency MP.

On the Irish referendum

2009-10-02T16:48:00.002+01:00

Hat-tip: Plato Says

To the people of Ireland

2009-10-01T22:05:00.001+01:00

For the sake of democracy, and for the sake of all people of Europe, please vote no tomorrow, and tell the Eurocrats no means no.

Summing up 12 years of Labour

2009-10-01T16:00:00.002+01:00

Illiberal.

The plan is to bar suspected wife-beaters from their homes for 2 weeks while the wife decides the next step. Note suspected. There is no proof of this, no evidence to be presented, there just has to be an accusation, and property rights are overridden.

The move is intended to close a loophole in the current law under which police can only offer immediate protection to a victim if a suspect is charged.

Also know as the presumption of innocence. That's no loophole, that's the entire basis of our judicial system.

Blackmail

2009-09-29T16:59:00.003+01:00

The Czech Republic will lose its commissioner if it does not ratify the treaty, Barroso has said. The Commission must be smaller than the number of member states, so apparently the Parliament will reject the Czech commissioner - no basis on merit at all.

This act is sickening. It is trying to force a nation into signing an undemocratic treaty by threatening it with loss of power - so ensuring they will be punished for not losing power through Lisbon.

The Commission wants this Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, call it what you want, so much that they will stop at nothing. This deliberate act of aggression should be challenged. The Czechs know better I hope than to give in to this - it worked in 1938 and is potentially the reason to hold up the treaty.

The European Union democratic? Let's be realistic here.

What does it have to do with the state?

2009-09-27T16:00:00.002+01:00

Ofsted has ruled that looking after your friend's children for a "reward" is illegal.

I realise that there is a big media scare, all of the time, about paedophiles and the like, but is it really any business of the government to tell parents whether they can pay for their friends to babysit their children?

It's all built on trust - as is the market - that one person's friend will not harm their child, and that both sides will fulfill their sides of the deal (A babysits B's child, so B babysits A's child later in the week) otherwise they'd lose the benefit of a friend babysitting their child (or even lose a friend). It's about what's best for both sides - and indeed what's best for the child.

Mothers could work part-time without this Ofsted judgement to cater for their child better, their child could socialise (in a way) with the friend's child, and not to mention the increased income tax (and VAT) returns for the government.

Not to mention, what problem is this solution a response to? Has someone's friend abused another child? Not that I've heard of. And also a decision made by an unelected quango, not Parliament or even the courts.

The BBC is factually wrong

2009-09-26T20:21:00.003+01:00

This in a report about the English Democrats:

The party wants to end subsidies from Westminster to Scotland and Wales and abolish the regional assemblies supported by the three main parties.

No, the Conservatives don't support regional assemblies, in fact Cameron has said he'll scrap them if he wins the election.

The BBC should sort out its sources, and stop presenting the Balkanisation of Britain as some sort of "common direction".

Giving it away?

2009-09-25T07:53:00.003+01:00

He was told that the MP for Newport West after May 7th next year was almost certainly at the meeting.

Is Paul Flynn giving the next general election date away? Since the 7th is a Friday, May 6th general election?

Read also James Delingpole in the Telegraph a couple of days ago.

Disobeying the Whip

Apologies...

Blogroll updates

No to the graduate tax

CRB checks

Cancellation of Building Schools for the Future

New Labour and the universal welfare state

Abu Hamza and human rights

Incompetent teachers

Labelling regulations

Rights and entitlements

Trade unions

Teenage girls, abortions and underage sex

On John McDonnell and the left vs. the right

What's it got to do with you?

Oh dear

'More than 1,000 new academies'

On the Cumbria shootings

More on Hoover's "laissez-faire" and "spending cuts"

The "taking money out of the economy" fallacy

How long it takes to pay your taxes

Democracy Village

The power revolution and all that

Can schools be free and accountable?

Economic recovery: the method

Could the Lib Dems split?

The best advert against PR...

Bailing out Greece

On FPTP

Cameron should not form a formal coalition

On bank taxes

Conservative Party PPB

Campaigning in Newport West

The Conservative manifesto

Greece must not be bailed out

On Parliament and the role of MPs

Illiberal and intrusive

Government advertising

New quango is not the way to go about solving the expenses problem

Fail of the day

Fraser Nelson on Cameron and the Conservative Party

World Leader Rap

On the Equality Bill

Broadband and the Conservative Party

Hayek vs. Keynes "Fear the Boom and Bust"

Some thoughts on exams

Quote of the Day

Faith schools and homophobic bullying

Progressive Conservatives

Quote of the Day

What?!

Gordon gives up the class war

Happy New Year

On market failure

Inheritance tax

This is how it should be done

Being asked for ID

Credit ratings, interest rates and the price signal

Maybe there's still hope...

Defending the home

On maternity pay

Corporation tax

Reflections on Lisbon

What policy?

What if we left the EU?

Nationalising the labour market

Brown - wrong!

11th November

Lisbon Treaty Referendum Bill

The Economist and Royal Mail

Mandates

On Lisbon, referendums and UKIP

Artificial sperm and eggs

The minimum wage should not rise

So what are they for then?

EU President

BBC: biased and lacking logic

What Nick Griffin really thought

Postal Strikes

Six quarters of negative growth