Don't trip up

Talk it down

2009-03-13T09:41:00.001Z

Yesterday in the Times, Anatole Kaletsky explained why a coordinated international stimulus package needs negotiating at the upcoming G20 meeting and why the Americans are ill-prepared to deliver such a deal. He argues international cooperation is needed to deal with an international crisis and maximise the impact of state action (unilateral bail outs can leak abroad).

I am sceptical that a deal can be resolved at G20.

First, there exists little international consensus about of just what an international bailout should comprise. There are divisions over regulation, spending cuts, IMF funds and just how large a bail-out ought to be. The British, German and American positions need major reconciliation - reconciliation unlikely to emerge from nowhere in time for the G20 meeting. Without agreement about what a deal would consist of, the G20 countries have little hope of forging a deal, especially within the informal structures of the G20.

Second, the Americans are still understaffed - President Obama has yet to nominate sixteen of eighteen deputy and assistant Treasury secretaries. The new administration is still finding its feet. The real story of Gordon Brown's visit to President Obama was not whether there was a 'snub' but that it reflected the hectic and unprepared condition of the administration. Without the staff available America is unable to decide on its position on a deal, let alone negotiate the details. And without American leadership, little can be accomplished.

Despite the slim chance of a deal, the British government is still talking up meeting up as a chance to strike an international deal in London. Their expectations appear inflated. This is a mistake; they should be talking the meeting down, so any deal is a welcome surprise - a testament to Gordon Brown's skills in bringing together divergent positions and dealing with an understaffed American team. The G20 meeting needs talking down, especially if the Americans are unready to make a deal. Otherwise the subsequent disappointment will only further damage the government.

The state of the Labour Party

2009-03-11T15:49:00.001Z

As Labour's polling continues to tumble towards the core level of around 30 per cent, I am becoming concerned about the future of the party. A while ago, I accepted that victory in 2010 in unlikely (it may not even be desirable), but as the party's anticipated vote share tumbles I worry about the post-defeat debate the will occur.

Currently, most debate over the future of the party is kept under wraps in the name of discipline and the need to avoid navel-gazing. There is little questioning of the objectives, strategy, tactics and leadership of the party, especially amongst senior figures. The closest we get is the clumsy manoeuvring for the title of heir apparent between Ed Balls and Harriet Harman.

However, if 2010 results in defeat and a Conservative government, this will change. Labour will need to realise why it lost. Unfortunately, such introspection tends to split parties between those who believe it lost contact with swing voters and those who believe it failed to mobilise its base. Most of the old splits in the party come down to this question of just how to win power; I predict the same will occur after 2010 with the fault line running somewhere between Progress and Compass (albeit more polarised Progress and Compass than we have now).

Many are unwilling to debate the future of party precisely to avoid such a split. They remember the early 1980s and the damage such splits did to the party. However, without debate, the two sides will talk only to each other and group-think will create the kind of schism that destroys parties. Unity is a good thing until it becomes a denial of dissent - Labour will need to ask itself why it has become so unpopular. It will need to do so without resorting to civil war, a considerable challenge. (Also, it will need to do so without blaming the electorate: Labour lost them because of its own faults, not because of theirs. Voters look out for their interests.)

This sort of degeneration is more likely to occur if the party is eroded to a rump, as might occur after 2010. Already, the party is shedding almost all of its non-core support. Moderates are abandoning the party. If enough go, only committed partisans will remain to fight for the soul of the party. The considerations of actual voters will be ignored.

So, in the spirit of getting things started early and before the party becomes polarised by blame, I have a few starting points. There are many more; these are opening thoughts.

1. Why does Labour want to govern? At the moment, Labour are good at explaining what they are against (i.e., a Conservative government). That is not good enough. Labour needs to explain to voters why it should form a government and what it would do if it did - what ends will it pursue and what means it will use. Twelve years of government makes this very difficult, especially as Labour is now tied to many of the things that need changing.

2. Why is Labour so out-of-touch? Centrist voters win elections, so Labour must appeal to them. It is not. In part, this is because Labour is a victim of its own success: education and healthcare are not major issues because Labour has invested in them, depriving Labour of issues that usually bring them votes. Crime and immigration are issues and ones the benefit the Conservatives. Equally, Labour is victim of economic circumstances that benefited them in the past - such is politics. Nevertheless, Labour need to explain to voters what it will do about fear, crime, immigration and welfare dependency as well as ignorance and ill-health. This needs to go beyond mimicking the right-wing tabloid press - such reactionary moves simply reflect how uncomfortable Labour are on toughness issues. If the government does not have the confidence to own the issues in the face of the media, then why should the electorate trust them? Labour have lost the support of the country, the Conservatives have not gained it; how this has happened is the biggest question facing the party.

3. Why is Labour so defensive? Labour never seems confident enough in its own ideas, rather it is constantly worried that the media might attack them. Thus, they can become a parody of themselves appearing hard on social or criminal issues. They can ignore the legitimate concerns of supportive individuals (dismissed too readily) while bending over backwards for illegitimate concerns of those who merely want to score points against them.

4. What issues do the British people care about now? Too often, Labour resorts to 1997 lines about the Conservatives or about investment in public services. It has not modernised again to engage with the public of the 2010s. People still want investment in public services and jobs, they also want to stop people abusing welfare (essentially nationalised charity) and are worried they might be mugged on the way home. However, people are also concerned about issues that Labour avoids: global warming, Britain's role in Europe and on the world stage, the state of the military, national debt, taxes. These are abandoned, allowing Conservatives to monopolise upon them. Labour should try and own traditionally right-wing issues, rather than sticking to the issues where it has always dominating and trying to appease the right-wing on the others. (This phenomenon, I think, explains why we have both civil partnerships and an absurd amount of CCTV.)

5. Why has Labour become so conservative? There is an ingrained hostility to new ideas and a continual referral to how we used to do things. Labour rejects the radicalism of decentralisation and empowerment in favour of traditional central planning - the way it has always done things. Similarly, the role of trade unions is unquestioned because they are a traditional element of the Labour movement, integral in its founding. Labour was always the champion of labour, the champion of state intervention, the champion of collectivism, the champion of welfare; so it must always be. Some of these ideas need interrogating. Is affiliation with the trade unions in the interests of Labour, the unions and the country? Is the NHS run on the best model? Can markets in public services be used to serve the needs of users? How does a Labour government tackle climate change - an agenda at odds with industrial workers? In some cases, traditional Labour solutions are fine. In others, there are alternatives that will better serve the interests of the British people.

There are many more issues and questions for Labour to answer; these are few early thoughts. They are some of the questions we need to develop and respond if we lose the next election. They are some of the issues facing Labour at the moment. In tackling these issues honestly, Labour might be able to reorient itself to the British people, who are ultimately in charge.

In same ways, Labour is on the brink of abandoning a successful centrist orientation in favour of polarisation. Electoral defeat might exacerbate this problem as the left of the party begins to claim Blairism/New Labour/neo-liberalism has failed and we should resort to the halcyon days of old Labour. Labour should not look back, it should take its values forward and embrace the future. It took a decade for the Conservatives to get over their eighteen years of government; Labour cannot permit itself the same indulgence and must be ready to reconnect with the British voters.

Executive experience

2009-03-09T14:25:00.001Z

As news emerges that the Liberal Democrats are planning their post-election strategy and preparing for a hung parliament, the question emerges: should they support a Conservative government in the event of no party winning a clear majority? (Setting aside the unlikelihood of a hung parliament.)

Given the politics and history of the Liberal Democrats, this is appears unlikely. They are a centre-left party that emerged from the Liberals and Social Democratic Party: opponents of Conservative rule both. However, supporting another Labour government in the event of the Conservatives being the largest party would be immensely damaging to the party's stance outside its centre-left core.

There is another good reason the Liberal Democrats should enter government with the largest party in a hung parliament. It would give them the one asset they have always lacked: credibility. The Liberal Democrats have, as a party, no experience of government. Voters therefore cannot trust them to execute their promises should they, by some miracle of electoral reform, ever win power. So, fewer people vote for them. Labour had a similar problem during its formative years and a spell in government helped them win the trust of the electorate.

Labour's first forays into government also split the party between purists and pragmatists. This is what the Liberal Democrats would need to avoid should they take the sensible approach and enter government with the largest party. A split would be devastating, so the leadership would need to find a way to prevent the party dividing along 'the change we can achieve' versus 'purity of purpose' lines. Some will argue the party should enter government and do what it can for the party and for the country, others that it should remain in noble opposition and not defile its core purpose through coalition. For a party not known for its pragmatism, avoiding such a split prove a challenge.

Defending the national interest

2009-03-05T21:39:00.001Z

Eurosceptics occasionally enjoy defending Britain's national interest against Brussels, claiming the Commission is unaccountable, burdensome and costly - a European Union of Lilliputians constraining the British Gulliver. Moves towards a social Europe, and anything perceived as denying Britons rights to imperial weights and wonky bananas, are especially jarring for Eurosceptics who believe that Margaret Thatcher signed up for a single market not a European 'state'. (Nation-state appropriate language is the great blight of European debate and both sides are equally guilty.)

The defence of the national interest is well and good as far as it goes - European integration is not the zero-sum game Eurosceptics claim. However, a couple of recent blog posts highlight some key questions national interest Eurosceptics will need to grapple with.

First, Charlemagne asks which side Eurosceptics would be on if the Commission battles protectionist national governments in defence of the single market:

IN ANOTHER professional life, I once wrote a piece arguing that British Eurosceptics who believe in the single market face a painful dilemma when the single market comes under attack from protectionist governments. For the only body with the mandate to defend the market is the supranational, unelected European Commission, an organisation viewed with real loathing in British Conservative circles.

Simply, the single market is plainly in Britain's national interest. The Commission, when defending said market, is defending Britain's interest against more protectionist governments (e.g., France). Maybe its 'unaccountability' is no terrible thing now? (Of course, in reality the Council directs the Commission, an important intergovernmental aspect of the EU that would be lost if the Commission were 'accountable' in democratic/nation-state terms.)

Second, Britain's role in Europe strengthens its foreign policy clout by making Britain a 'bridge' between America and Europe:

The problem for the “special relationship” is that an increasingly eurosceptic Britain is much less relevant to the U.S. than a Britain that is firmly entrenched as an important player in the EU. So British debates over what’s more important the relationship with Europe or America offer a false choice, especially since the American president is no longer George Bush. For the UK to maintain its traditional relevance to the U.S., it needs its place in Europe. Without that place in Europe, Britain will no doubt be an important and close ally - just like Canada, Australia, and Japan - but they bring a lot less influence to the table.

With the possibility of David Cameron unseating Brown – ushering in one of the most eurosceptic governments the UK has had since it joined in 1973 – and overall anti-immigrant and anti-Europe sentiment growing in the UK, the Obama administration should make it clear that we want the UK to play a constructive role in Europe. U.S. pressure could at the very least serve as a check on potential British obstructionism on the Lisbon Treaty, as well as on other efforts to de-link the UK from Europe.

Placing Britain at the heart of Europe is as vital to amplifying British power (and its interests) as maintaining the special relationship. Estrangement from, and lack of influence within, the EU weakens Britain both within Europe and across the Atlantic. Britain without power in the EU would become just another middle-ranking power. Germany could easily take Britain's place as the bridge between Europe and America.

Combining a central role in Europe with unrivalled closeness to America has enhanced British power for decades, maintain British interests long after she abandoned her empire. This vital source of power and influence should not be abandoned, especially not if we seek to maximise Britain's ability to pursue her interests on the world stage.

These two examples suggest how engagement with Europe can defend British interests and enhance Britain's power and influence globally. Given that Britain quite rightly enjoys punching above her weight, this enormous boon to British power should not be abandoned.

It is in Britain's interests to trade in a European single market and to be diplomatically at the heart of Europe; in reality, that means working within the EU. Eurosceptics like to claim they defend Britain's national interest, but disengagement from Europe and hostility to further integration would only diminish Britain's power. David Cameron should take note and avoid allowing the dogmatism of a number of his party undermine British interests.

Noble causes

2009-03-05T16:24:00.001Z

Professor Vernon Bogdanor, in the Times, makes the case for left wing unity before the next election - that is to say, alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats before the election rather than coalition-building only occurring in the event of a hung parliament. This, he claims, is the only way to prevent Conservative dominance of the twenty-first century.

For Labour, alliance would prove enormously beneficial. They would no longer be a need to battle Liberal Democrats in marginal seats and a Labour-Liberal Democrat government would be highly likely. Gordon Brown might even hang on as prime minister.

Bogdanor attempts the case for the Liberal Democrats, which is less compelling. It is true they support proportional representation and thus coalition governments (not necessarily electoral coalitions, however - the two are very different), true that they might gain a referendum on electoral reform that the Conservatives would never offer, and true the two parties have worked together in devolved bodies.

However, even Bogdanor's parody of Conservative politics is insufficient to make electoral coalition appealing. The Liberal Democrats could lose up to half their vote to the Conservatives if they aligned with Labour. Votes mean seats. So while Labour retain government, the Liberal Democrats in parliament would be much diminished. Waiting until after the election allows the Liberal Democrats to maximise their vote and then, if there is hung parliament, decide who to sleep with. Even with the promise of a referendum on electoral reform, a coalition with Labour would not be in the interests of Liberal Democrats.

Bogdanor suggests the worst type of coalition - the negative variety, conceived in opposition to an external threat. Such coalitions are weak, prone to splits and factionalism because partners agree on little beyond dislike for their opponents. Forming such a coalition would not only damage Liberal Democrats, it would prevent alternation in government and provide a fractious coalition government until the Conservative vote was boosted sufficiently to launch them into government.

If a merger between Labour and the Liberal Democrats is to be pursued, it ought to sought as a merger and not as an anti-Conservative electoral coalition. It should be negotiated in opposition, with both parties deciding on what they agree on, whether to pursue electoral reform and what power to grant trade unions (serious issues all).

If Labour could tempt social democrats, who split in the 1980s, back into the party, it would certainly be strengthened; uniting the British left by including the wing of former liberals would be an even greater achievement. A united left would better match the British political system and might help Labour move away from its tribal tendencies. (Equally, said tendencies may be a barrier to merger with hated Liberal Democrats.) A merger is an admirable aim, but coalition should not be pursued just to keep out evil Conservatives. It must a project based on shared goals and mutual understanding. Only then could the left have the unity of purpose necessary to enact change.

The snub?

2009-03-04T18:55:00.001Z

While Gordon Brown meets Barack Obama in Washington, pundits have fallen over themselves to explain how Obama is snubbing Brown. As the New York Times has it,

Commentators on both sides of the ocean have catalogued a number of signs that the reception accorded to Mr. Brown in Washington was not quite as warm as the ones British prime ministers enjoyed during the Bush years: No invitation to Camp David, no full-scale news conference, no state dinner — and while there was a meeting between the men’s wives, none was held between the two couples. Mr. Brown, whose own approval ratings in Britain are suffering, had hoped to profit from his visit to the popular American president.

Perhaps Brown is being snubbed and it is not just the cold weather and newness of the regime that denied Brown a Rose Garden press conference and visit to Camp David. However, one cannot help but wonder - surely there are better ways snubbing him than inviting him over before any other European leader and having him address a joint session of Congress?

Perhaps it was just cold outside:

Asked why the Rose Garden format was abandoned, the official said, “It’s….cold out there.”

Indeed, Obama has yet to hold a press event there since he took office.

Reliable employer

2009-02-27T16:20:00.001Z

The furore over Sir Fred Goodwin's pension has provoked a variety of responses, some predictable and others less so. It is certainly unsurprising that ministers are attempting to 'claw back' his entitlement in the face of public outrage and acute embarrassment at Lord Myner's alleged role.

The government should simply swallow this one and accept that Goodwin will get his entitlement. They should not this not only because his contract stipulated it, but also because if they do not, they will jeopardise any future dealings with leading bankers.

If the government pressures Goodwin into giving up some of his pension, they might win a few public relations points. However, when they next have a role in hiring bank executives (which they likely will), few bankers will trust that they will uphold the promises they make. What is another unexpected crash occurs - will a new executive's pension suddenly be made performance related? This uncertainty will only undermine efforts to recruit talent to the banks that the government has a stake in; given the state of those banks, they dearly need capable individuals.

Abuse of language

2009-02-27T12:47:00.001Z

The Liberal Democrats' "freedom bill" is certainly a laudable attempt to highlight the erosion of civil liberties in Britain. Its opposes ID cards, control orders, overuse of surveillance powers and the DNA database, and pre-charge detention; it supports jury trials, freedom of protest and assembly, freedom of information and the right to silence. Worthy causes all.

Chris Huhne makes the case ably, but also falls into a common trap of stretching the point of a famous novel:

The Liberal Democrats are determined to resist the slow death by a thousand cuts of our hard-won British liberties. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning, not a blueprint. Yet the Big Brother society that he satirised is growing before our eyes. Our forebears who fought so hard for the rights we have had stripped away would be shocked at what we've lost.

The measures the Liberal Democrats oppose are authoritarian threats to civil liberties that have varying degrees of legitimacy. George Orwell's novel was not about creeping authoritarianism, it was about totalitarianism.

The party state of Oceania cared about what its subjects thought. Hence, thought police, doublethink, newspeak, and so forth. The party cared that Winston Smith thought 2 + 2 = 5 because it wanted total control over its citizens; it was not enough to obey the law of the state, you had to believe in the state. The warning of Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning against totalitarianism, a warning that fascism and communism could come to Britain and a totalitarian future was not impossible.

In contrast, the British government cares not what its people think. It cares what they do. It cares that you obey the law and is going to increasingly authoritarian lengths to ensure that the British people do so. You can still think what you please and will stay out of trouble if you obey the law - there is no need to believe in the Labour Party or its mission. This is a critical distinction, as authoritarianism and totalitarianism are very different concepts.

The hyperbole of shrieking we are wondering towards an Orwellian dystopia is seductive, but it serves no one. The case against authoritarianism can be made without claiming the government is attempting to generate a totalitarian state. Claims that it is simply makes one appear over-the-top and slightly odd; moreover, it is lazy to simply state 'we are heading for the society of Nineteen Eighty-Four' and leave it at that (in fairness, Huhne does not do so). If you have concerns about creeping authoritarianism make the case as to why it is bad, rather than erecting a ridiculous straw man.

No style

2009-02-26T10:14:00.001Z

Sunder Katwala takes issue with the Daily Mail's classification of “second or third generation immigrants”:

although the figures from the Government’s Office for National Statistics show an increase in numbers of foreign born people they still fail to record the true impact of immigration because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants.

He rightly points out that this would require Prince Charles and Winston Churchill, amongst others, to be reclassified as second generation immigrants.

However, I believe this to also be a matter of style:

Generation: take care. You can be a second-generation Frenchman, but if you are a second-generation immigrant that means you have left the country your parents came to.

If you are to write for a major British newspaper with a tendency for small-minded nationalism, learn the national language.

Many risks

2009-02-17T12:48:00.001Z

The claim made by Dame Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, that the government is "frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties" is a well known one. While it can be overblown (e.g., hardline counter-terrorist tactics certainly offer no justification for terrorism), there is an important aspect of truth to it.

I doubt that the government is using fear to expand its own powers. More likely is that government actors have exaggerated the risks of terrorist attack and are thus responding disproportionately. Rare and large-scale events, like terrorist attacks, can confuse human estimates of risk and cause such exaggeration. The government is responding to the risk of terrorist attack; the problem is, it believes the risk to be greater than it actually is.

This is equally true of both the domestic constituents and MPs that constrain government action. Most probably exaggerate the risk of terrorism, granting the government license to extend its power. With that license and motivated by motives at once benign and self-interested, government will attempt to do all it can to combat the perceived threat of terrorism.

There is merit, however, in mentioning the type of legislation the government tends to use. Vague laws allow abuse, such as local councils using surveillance powers to police school admissions. Particularistic laws that impact only a minority but benefit the majority can gain widespread support while, salami-slice style, eroding liberties for all. Laws that avoids the rule of law, such as 42 day detention, can win support by denying the principle of detention without trial only to a minority that most assume they will never be in. Specific yet general legislation under the rule of law is thus preferable, as it mobilises the majority to defend principles applicable to all and limit application to legitimate uses.

We are familiar with this, the way that civil liberties can be gradually curtailed to a degree disproportionate to the threat Britain faces from terrorism. However, recently a new threat might have emerged. The credit crunch.

Like counter-terrorism, domestic opinion has granted the government a wide license to tackle the recession. Government can assume wide powers over the domestic economy, including quasi-nationalisation and statutory controls, that infringe upon civil liberties in the economic sphere. Some of these are necessary and even welcome, but there is a danger that government will over-extend its powers, as it has in battling terrorism, and limit liberties more than is needed to prevent harm.

The government is likely to over-extend itself for three reasons. First, domestic constituents expect it to act to remedy recession and it must meet those expectations as much as it can; the private sector is presumed to have failed while the public is presumed to be infallible. Second, government actors want to combat the recession and will do whatever they can to do so; they believe themselves to be in a unique position able to prevent economic calamity. Third, government actors are likely to maximise their power if unfettered by voters or a constitution; the motive for this can be benign (wanting to help) or self-interested (wanting power) but the consequence is the same.

It is thus important to remain aware that infringement of civil liberties can occur in the name of counter-crunch as well as counter-terrorism. Only voters can offer an effective check to government actions and must not permit government to assume monopolistic command of too much economic activity.

Remembering 1997

2009-02-13T15:17:00.001Z

It is true to say that Labour currently face two challenges: David Cameron and the financial crisis. While the economic crisis has, on the whole, provoked a flurry of decisive activity, Labour are still unsure of just how to deal with Cameron and the Conservative Party.

The terrible 'chameleon' and 'Tory toff' campaigns have thankfully come to an end. However, two other misguided tendencies recur. First, portraying Cameron as an unreconstructed Thatcherite wearing a compassionate mask, a man who would 'do nothing' to help the British people and would instead steal their milk. Second, portraying Cameron and his shadow cabinet as inexperienced, unready for government and unprepared for the challenge of leading Britain.

Labour supporters who believe these strategies to work should think back to 1997. The Conservatives attacked Labour by claiming their policies were paper thin, they were inexperienced, and they were masquerading as moderates and would implement socialism once in office (demon eyes as so forth). Voters were reminded of 1979 and the Labour Party of the early 1980s. These attacked failed and the Conservatives appeared out-of-touch and partisan for believing in them. Voters believed that Labour had changed and 1979 had been eclipsed by 1992.

Labour supporters should remember just how ridiculous the Conservatives seemed beyond their base. That is how many now see Labour attacks on the Conservatives. They are not believable because they fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

Given the enormous problems facing Labour (recession, twelve years of gradual recriminations, negative press, sleaze, lack of charisma, etc.), it is important that Labour find a way to attack Cameron without appearing negative or wrong. This is especially true as support for the Conservatives is inflated largely by discontent with Labour (again, the inverse of 1997). Reinforcing negative expectations with misguided attacks will do nothing to improve Labour credibility or trustworthiness.

It is credibility that should be the focus of Labour efforts. If voters are to support Labour, they must reasonably expect that Labour will fulfil its promises and reflect their interests once in power. Without credibility Labour cannot achieve this. Gordon Brown could have an economic plan that inspires the world, but without credibility no one in Britain will believe he will implement it. The Conservatives, without developed policy or experience, have more credibility (rather, they have less negative credibility). At this stage, such credibility will only come from extraordinary competence in government; it is further undermined with every out-of-touch attack on the Conservatives.

Let everyone speak

2009-02-12T22:49:00.001Z

The refusal to allow Geert Wilders into Britain raises the thorny issue of free debate and the limits of permissible speech. Wilders himself has been blocked from entering the country because, due to his outspoken and bigoted views on Islam, he is "a threat to public policy, public security or public health".

Whether the presence of a man whose film can readily be viewed on the Internet is a genuine threat to British interests is highly disputed. His views are certainly abhorrent and sensationalist but his entry into Britain cannot be seen as a genuine risk to Britain. All this ban has achieved is to grant publicity to possibly the most illiberal proponent of free speech in Europe.

However, it is the wider issues that are of more importance. Good policy is made on generalities, as such generalities prevent persecution of a particular group. Moreover, the specific issue of Wilders has been covered widely.

First, the question of whether 'hate speech' should be allowed in the public sphere. Should a man be permitted to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf or demand "that the United States and European nations 'stop appeasing Islam and start fighting together against the rapidly increasing Islamisation of Europe'"? Equally, should extremist preachers be permitted to claim that Hitler was divine punishment of the Jews?

In general, speech should be free. Free speech promotes debate and the exchange of ideas; it is a foundation of an open society where individuals are free to express their beliefs. Views and opinions, within this sphere, are free to examine, and be examined by, others. Truth can shine through and lies exposed to its harsh light. Through rigorous, free debate we approach truth, learn of lies and develop our knowledge. Speech should be unencumbered, lest we encumber the truth.

The temptation to close off hateful speech is strong, as few wish to hear it. However, it is not virtue that needs protection from such vice; it is the opposite. Without open debate, falsehood and bigotry can fester in dark nether-regions, safe from the severe scrutiny of mainstream society. Once subjected to free debate, most of the most odious ideas will wither and die. This would be the case with Wilders's claims just as it would with al-Qaradawi. (Oddly, most only seem to promote freedom for one of the two, seldom both.)

Problems occur when free speech will directly cause harm - the case of falsely shouting fire in a theatre. This problem is perhaps overstated and caution too readily leading us to abandon liberty. There are cases of speech causing another to act on behalf of the speaker and committing great harm. The most deadly example occurs not in the political sphere but in the criminal: the case of mafia dons ordering executions; in response to this, we do not stop suspected criminals talking - rather, we make the order a criminal activity. This logic should also apply to other forms of speech. Man is free to speak as he pleases but if, by his direct and express command, another man is lead to criminal activity, the speaker will too be responsible for those actions. The responsibility of free speech will thus be upheld without preventing that speech.

Under such a provision, Wilders and al-Qaradawi could speak as they please, wherever they pleased. They would not be stopped from speaking in Britain. (Though the Internet questions the government's very capacity to stop someone speaking in Britain.) Equally, others could debunk their baseless and hateful accusations. However, it their words were ever an order to criminal activity then they too would be responsible.

Wilders' position as an MP in a EU member state is thus inconsequential. That position should grant him no rights over and above anyone else. He should be allowed to speak in Britain and have his ideas exposed to public scrutiny. He should not be allowed to become another 'free speech martyr' who can portray their gagging as evidence of the conspiracy they peddle. Permitting Wilders to speak would do more to undermine his claims than any travel ban.

Emergency powers

2009-02-10T16:15:00.001Z

Depending on your degree of optimism and political affiliation, the current economic troubles might be the worst for decades, the worst since the 1930s or even the worst in a century. Things appear rather bad as the financial system has ground to a halt for lack of credit. For three decades (with a few bumps), the private sector's success mirrored the public sector's decline. However, we might now see the return of the state. I would not be surprised if there is soon a rush of claims that we are seeking the ascendency or resurrection of either dirigisme, Keynesian demand management or Rhenish capitalism.

In the short-term, the state is certainly back. Enormous amounts of money have either been promised or spent in the name of stability and stimulus. Across the Western world, the state has leapt in to secure markets and prevent systemic collapse. The quasi-nationalisation of leading banks and enormous fiscal stimuli would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

The role assumed by the state is legitimate. Market liquidity and stability are goods that private actors need but collectively fail to provide (quite rationally, private actors are re-capitalising). So, the state must step in to provide such public goods as spontaneous cooperation will not suffice. Government is the product of enforced cooperation, its aim to ensure collective action occurs for the good of all when private action fails; hence, it is given the power to act in such a manner. Market stability is desired by all but will not be provided through non-enforced cooperation (individuals will free ride but will not make the necessary sacrifices themselves - thus, no one will act), so the state must intervene.

The problem occurs when the state goes beyond resolving collective action problems. Rational state actors will act in their own interests or in the interests of their rent-seeking allies. So, they might start using proposed interventions to protect the jobs of key constituents or interest groups that grant them support (depending on the party in question, these might be trade unions, farmers, large corporations, small businesses, etc.). This will distort supply and demand mechanisms and resources will be distributed inefficiently.

Moreover, state actors are unlikely to relinquish power once they have it. The state has quickly moved in to secure financial markets with shares in banks and a large role in stimulating the economy. In the short-term, this is needed and might even turn a profit once the economy recovers. However, when the eventual recovery does come state actors may well retain the powers they have assumed during a time of crisis. They might claim they are needed to ensure the markets work in the national interest, or to ensure the end of boom and bust, or to ensure compassionate capitalism. Here, the state will go beyond legitimately overcoming collective action problems and begin to abuse its powers.

If these powers are retained, and the government retains a sizeable role in the economy while seeking to appease its constituents, the economy will become a tool of re-election. The state will be in a position to subsidise certain industries or stimulate the economy at certain times - usually before an election. Stimulus after stimulus will produce inflation, requiring ever larger stimuli to ensure that the market does not fail. Eventually inflation will become uncontrollable - as it did in the late 1970s.

Fortunately, we are a long way from such troubles. Inflation remains low and deflation is probably a greater concern. The state does have a legitimate short-term role in ensuring market stability. Once the recession passes, it should certain reassess the regulatory framework that supports financial markets: transparency and accountability need improving. While a private economy is always preferable to a public economy (both in terms of liberty and efficiency), the state does retain an important role in maintaining the conditions for an effective market economy. It can regulate, but should not seek to direct or to stimulate expect when the market absolutely cannot.

However, to ensure that the state does not retain powers for longer than it needs them, state actors will need an incentive to relinquish their powers once their need is exhausted. That incentive can come in the form of re-election, but only if the electorate are wary of the political business cycle an interventionist state can manufacture and hardheaded enough to remember their long-term interests lie in an economy directed by individuals rather than one directed by the state.

That's naughty

2009-02-09T14:27:00.001Z

Both Labour and the Conservatives are falling over themselves to be the more outspoken critics of bank bonuses. Gordon Brown insists there must be “no rewards for failure”, Alistair Darling promises a review in how quasi-nationalised banks are run and George Osborne announced that the "party is over for the banks".

This largely reflects public animosity to bankers profiting while the country weathers recession. The is justifiable chagrin at banks needing government monies but still paying their staff bonuses that dwarf some salaries. Bankers should not profit from failure. Indeed, Barclays - which has not accepted "rescue capital" - has reduced the bonuses it is paying its staff after its profits have fallen.

It is sensible that bonuses are scaled down as many banks have had a less than successful year. However, if banks decide that bonuses remain a good way of rewarding talent, the government should not intervene too strongly. Given the current economic climate, banks will need to do what they can to attract talent that can help banks recover; this is especially true of the banks that needed bailing out. Any moves towards artificially limiting the bonuses provided by quasi-nationalised banks could make things worse, as the banks who have not resorted to public funds will be free to offer better salaries and attract better staff. The banks themselves will be able to make this decision better than the government, which will be tempted to indulge in fits of populist chastisement.

This claim by Gordon Brown is particularly odd: "We should not in any way condone, but should punish, irresponsible and excessive risk-taking." Risk-taking is exactly what the government wants. Currently, banks are not lending to each other because all risks are seen as "excessive" and banks are re-capitalising. There is little liquidity. This is the root of the current recession. If banks indulged in more risk-taking, risk that would certainly be deemed "excessive" and possibly "irresponsible", more credit would be available. By seeking to use government's stake in banks to "punish...risk-taking", the government will only dissuade lending and deepen the liquidity crisis. Lenders are currently too risk-averse - and it seems Mr Brown is too.

The comments by both Mr Brown (“I believe, as a society, we should support hard work, effort, enterprise and responsible risk-taking. We should not in any way condone, but should punish, irresponsible and excessive risk-taking.”) and Mr Osborne ("You can’t go on paying yourselves 20 times what a heart surgeon earns. That whole culture has to come to an end.") articulate a more concerning edge to this debate. Both parties are increasingly seeking to moralise the current crisis, using an extension of government power to reform the corrupt banking sector. This attitude is epitomised in Harriet Harman's efforts to use government power over banks to ensure that they are made more equal and to narrow the gender pay gap. (Gender equality is a noble and worthy aim; however, using attempting to manufacture such equality will not help banks recover, which should be the objective of the government. Laws applicable across the economy are more suitable, if Parliament must be involved.)

Government should not be in the business of decided what morals individuals, and their businesses, ought to live by. The financial sector did impose costs on the country through over-exposure to uncertain risks and greater transparency and accountability should be the aim of any new regulation. However, that does not mean that government ought to start deciding on the work ethnic of financial service. Such an approach will only place Britain at a disadvantage when competing with financial markets unfettered by the state's concerns about moral denigration. It would also extend the power of government to a worrying degree, if these sentiments translate into powers over risk-taking (what is "excessive"?), salaries (is nineteen times higher than a heart surgeon acceptable?) or gender equality (are there enough qualified women to meet Harman's aims?).

We should be wary of extensions of government power. While its role in stabilising financial markets and providing liquidity is essential, when the government extends its power it tends not to retreat as quickly.

Discriminating tastes

2009-02-07T10:36:00.001Z

The Times reports two grammar schools in Poole "are to give state school pupils priority in admissions over those from the private sector", a move that Poole council claims is "in line" with government guidance:

The schools' admissions plans are supported by Poole council, which said that the decision was “in line” with the Government's code.

It states: “Admission authorities must ensure that such arrangements do not unfairly disadvantage children from more deprived areas near the school and must not include independent schools as named feeder schools.”

Vicky Wales, of Poole council, said that parents with children at private schools “cannot be given priority on the basis that they attend an independent school”....

Under present admissions arrangements at both schools children must pass an entrance test to gain a place. If the school is oversubscribed, priority is given first to children in care and then to children educated at state and independent schools within Poole.

After that, places are allocated to children from outside Poole in rank order of their entrance test scores. The new rules proposed for admission in September 2010 would change the second category to include only children attending state schools in Poole. Those at private schools would join pupils from outside the borough at the bottom of the pecking order.

There seems to be a degree of disagreement as to why this is occurring, whether it stems from government, council or school policy or whether it is simply a misunderstanding of one:

Ian Carter, head teacher of Poole Grammar School, said that he did not want to give priority to state school pupils but was bound to do so by the new admissions code. “I am not at all comfortable with this,” he said. “But I don't want to be in a position of being hauled up in front of the Schools Adjudicator for not applying the code.”

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Families and Schools said: “The use of feeder schools is just one of the admissions criteria available to oversubscribed schools, including grammar schools.”

The actions of two schools in Poole, which are putting private school pupils at the back of their selection queues, reflect the irritating manner in which liberty upsets patterns.

Parents, if they can afford it, have the liberty to send their children to private primary schools. This gives their children a better chance to win a place at a grammar school; if it did not, fewer parents would make the sacrifice for their child's education. As a result, open selection that does not discriminate against private school pupils will mean that grammar schools end up having a disproportionately private school intake. Since that implies educational advantage on the grounds of wealth, some are uncomfortable with this as it upsets the patterns of equality of opportunity.

So someone (government, council or school - by design or by misunderstanding) has decided that in order to ensure this does not occur, they will advantage state school pupils and give private school pupils a similar change to those who live outside school catchment areas. Those parents who, seeing the state options available, decided to give their children a better start now find new barriers in the way. This does not ensure equality of opportunity; it engineers equality of outcome, using children's lives as a means to a properly proportional grammar school.

Policy should instead examine why parents send their children to private school and why that gives them an advantage in admission to grammar school. If there is bias towards private school in admissions that should be addressed. However, I suspect the reason is that private schools are better than the state options; hence, the parents that can remove their children from state education, paying twice. If state schools were improved, there would be no need to engineer admissions to achieve the correct blend of state, private and independent school pupils. If state schools were as good as private schools their pupils would be equipped to compete and there would be no need to disadvantage private schools; state pupils would succeed of their own merits. Attacking parents who are lucky enough to be able to give their children a better education is not the answer to equality of opportunity. Remedying the problems in state schools is.

The children that Poole grammar schools disadvantage are not means to engineered 'equality'. They are ends in themselves, and they deserve the same chance as any other pupil regardless of their background or their primary education.

(An aside: It was Poole Council which abused their surveillance powers to investigate school application fraud, checking whether parents had lied about catchment areas.)

Navigating through the storm

2009-02-04T17:30:00.001Z

The recent, well-documented and rather illegal wildcat strikes protesting against foreign workers winning British jobs have raised a series of questions about what exactly the government ought to be doing to protect workers, questions made more important by the chilly economic climate. These questions are general and refer to Britain in Europe and Britain in recession. They are not a result of strikes, but rather they are reflected in the disgruntled workers on the picket lines.

First, the principle of a free market for labour within the EU is called into question. The striking workers, and the unions who promptly fell in behind them, object to workers from other EU countries finding employment in Britain. They believe they are employed because they undercut British wages and ignore collectively bargained decisions. While EU law requires that workers earn the minimum wage and that their employment conditions meet statutory requirements, workers do not have to abide by collectively bargained wage rates. Thus, they can undercut national unions without breaking EU law; unions, their power and position undermined, understandably wish for reform of the law to reinforce their role as central bargainer.

Second, the question of whether government should act to protect or provide jobs. Gordon Brown's unfortunate choice of words in 2007 are now haunting him and the striking workers want jobs to be guaranteed for themselves (or at least their fellow countrymen). Even if this could be achieved by the government without driving sensible businesses abroad, such labour market protectionism is the type of policy that will make any British recession much worse. Allowing foreign labour into British markets not only gives foreign-born labour a considerably higher wage, it also helps the British economy grow, become more competitive and creates more jobs. Protectionism would also likely result in reciprocal action from other EU states (especially if EU law was changed), making it more difficult for British workers to find foreign jobs.

Third, the little mentioned but notable extent of secondary strikes in solidarity with the workers Lindsey brings back the question of unionised worker rights - should trade unions have the right to strike in solidarity. The concerns of Lindsey workers might justify a strike (if that strike was put to a union ballot, or even simply organised by the union), but their needs do not justify strikes at other sites. National strikes protesting national issues are a different matter; as much as trade union representatives try to dress up secondary picketing as reflecting the general issue, these strikes are still very much about the two hundred jobs that a company dared offer different EU nationals. Rights to secondary strikes are rightly curbed to prevent unions acting beyond their remit: the right to strike is a tool of collective bargaining only and should only be used as such. Currently, such secondary strikes are as illegal as the Lindsey strikes. This situation should not change.

In many ways, the issues raised cut to the core of the debate about what the government should do to help Britain through a recession: Should it close its borders to protect British industry or retain its commitment to free trade? Should the EU remain a free trade area or should it recognise national trade union power? Should workers be allowed to strike in solidarity or do they only have the right to strike to win concessions from their employer?

These questions must be addressed at the European level because free movement of labour is a core EU competency - Britain can do little without Europe cooperation. Britain, and the EU, could opt for the populist route of protectionism and indulgent union rights (it would win Labour votes from its traditional base); or, they could defend a free and open Europe that recognises the benefits of free trade and pluralism and that does not advantage one interest over another. The core dilemma remains stark: a 'social' Europe or a 'liberal' Europe. (In the familiar words of partisans: a socialist Europe or a neo-liberal Europe.)

Pickling liberty

2009-02-01T17:44:00.001Z

Graham Smith responded to my concerns about a written constitution, taking issue with my worries that a codified constitution would undermine the valuable flexibility of the British constitution. Smith makes good points and generally I remain sympathetic to the idea of formally limiting the powers of the state. It does ensure that there must be more than a fleeting majority to alter the rules of governing and thus protects temporary minorities from tyranny.

However, my main reservation is less with whether we have a written constitution but how we would get one. Smith highlights the problem with achieving a codified constitution:

We have three core political tradtions in this country: Labour, Tory and Liberal. None can agree on the nature of politics, what it’s for, where power should come from, how the constitution should be reformed, in whose interests it should be reformed and so on. So no consensus can be reached.

A codified constitution would not be borne of mere goodwill and belief. It would need to be written by one group of people and accepted by the public. Decisions would need to be made about the very issues Smith highlights - "where power should come from, how the constitution should be reformed, in whose interests it should be reformed and so on."

Without consensus, writing a codified constitution would be a tremendous challenge. It would need to accepted as a legitimate source of authority by all the major actors in British politics - without this acceptance, it might follow in the pattern of failed constitutions that blights the experiences of foreign countries.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in my original post, it would be difficult to establish constitutional supremacy of a codified document if it were passed by Parliament. Parliament cannot vote away its powers permanently. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty would need to be dramatically re-conceptualised; a task that few MPs are likely to relish given how jealously they guard their considerable powers.

The size of change a codified constitution represents is the source of my reservations. It is unclear how we could achieve the aim of a codified constitution or what it would include. The mechanism by which Britain could limit its Parliament remains unclear. My concern is less whether we should strive for a written constitution and more how we would achieve it; how would we bind Parliament when the only mechanism for making law is Parliament itself? Hence, I am more interested in alternative mechanisms for preserving liberty that are more easily realised and thus more practical.

National jobs

2009-01-30T16:20:00.001Z

Strikingly quickly, and very unofficially, 2,000 power station workers are striking in support of staff at the Lindsey refinery. The staff are themselves striking to protest against the hiring of Italian and Portuguese staff. The dispute can be summed up with Gordon Brown's ill-advised line: they want British jobs for British workers.

While the striking workers may claim that the nationality of the workers has no bearing on the debate, that this is "not a racist argument", it is difficult to imagine wildcat strikes if the workers were from Ipswich and Portsmouth rather than Italy and Portugal.

Even if it wanted to, the British government could not discriminate against foreign workers without jeopardising its place in the EU. The EU maintains a free market for good reason, as it fosters economic development and raises living standards (and prevents wars, but that is less an issue now). Britain is right to support that free market, a free market that has brought tremendous benefits to the British economy - not least allowing British workers to win non-British jobs.

Even if the government was free to act without consequence, it should not. Workers do not have a 'right' a job in Britain. Jobs are offered by employers, who can employ whoever they decide is best suited to the position they offer. It is a private contract between two individuals. There is no valid reason for the government to interfere in such private dealings, especially not to ensure that British workers are afforded a 'right' to a job. Such a policy would make the British workforce less competitive, violate the rights of employers and would-be employees, and divert resources from more efficient businesses.

If it is true that British workers are not considered (a claim I am skeptical of, especially given the government's rules on advertising vacancies), then workers and unions can pursue their claims through the courts with recourse to European law. That is if they can prove that employers are acting illegally. Derek Simpson makes some big claims, but he offers no proof that firms are excluding British workers:

Derek Simpson, Unite general secretary, said: “We have growing problems in the engineering and construction industry where UK workers are being excluded from important projects. The Government must take urgent action to deal with this situation as tensions are reaching boiling point. The contractors working on large projects like the 2012 Olympics and the construction of new power stations must give UK-based labour a fair chance to work on the projects.”

However, these workers are making a larger point. They resent losing out to competition from abroad. The crux of the debate centres around foreign labour and whether it is employed for its skills or its price:

The use of foreign labour – directly employed by overseas companies rather than migrant workers based in Britain – is fast becoming a critical issue for the unions. Several foreign companies have announced plans recently to bring in their own workforce for large construction projects, as with the Lindsey dispute, or use workers from elsewhere in Europe.

Unions protest that British workers are being undercut by foreign employees who are paid less. But the companies say that it is a question of bringing in the right skills. The GMB says that construction jobs are being advertised in Northern Ireland which specify that Portuguese would be an advantage...

Total, which said that it has always had a good relationship with contractors and staff, is holding talks with the unions, including Unite and the GMB, and the contractors Jacobs and the new sub-contractor, the Italian group Irem...

Total has pledged that the Italian workers for Irem will be paid at UK national rates and will have the same conditions as British counterparts. The oil giant also said that there will be no redundancies in Britain.

Whoever is right here is inconsequential. Neither morally nor economically is protecting 'British' jobs justified. If employers chose one individual over another, it does not matter whether that is because he is cheaper or because he has more appropriate skills. If British workers cannot compete, the government should not force businesses to hire less appropriate labour as though British workers have a birthright to any job in the country. Rather, the onus lies with workers to compete for jobs and not seek to slope the playing field in their favour. They should focus on winning jobs in a free market rather than seeking to make British less free by binding employers to British labour.

While it is easy to see why workers are angry at the perceived loss of job opportunities in Britain, their anger should not translate into government action. Protectionism is in the interests of workers, who would find it easier to get a job and would not need to be as good at it to succeed. However, a competitive workforce is essential to the proper functioning of the British economy and labour protectionism will only foster inefficiency and waste resources. Protectionism will only bring about further ruin, creating reciprocal moves abroad and fattening British industry to the point where its goods are not competitive in a global market. In turn, this will mean fewer jobs are generated as British businesses are less successful.

Unfortunately, this sort of resentment over 'others' getting 'our' jobs is likely to increase as Britain struggles through recession. That does not mean that the government should give in to the pressures of protectionism. Rather it should maintain freedom of movement into Britain (it is certainly better than not having the jobs here at all) and workers should focus on competing with foreign labour rather than complaining when someone else gets a job.

The blame game

2009-01-29T23:29:00.001Z

With the economic outlook bleak, the partisan sniping between the two major parties has increased as each seeks to enforce its own narrative on the economic crisis ('do nothing' vs. 'not doing enough before'). What is interesting is less the substance of these claims but the remarkable transformation in party narratives since the economic slowdown.

Pre-crisis, Gordon Brown liked to boast he was the captain that steered the good ship Britain through a decade of economic stability. Boom and bust was banished in the face of Brown's omnipotent economic skill. He had his golden rule to fall back upon and reams of statistics to drown any potential dissenter. He was king of the economy.

The Conservatives typically retorted that economic prosperity was all due to the solid foundations laid by the previous Conservative government (post-ERM, obviously). The economy was succeeding despite Brown, thanks to the economic foresight of John Major's Delphic government and a calm international economy. In essence, Brown was impotent in the face of economic forces; he was slave to the economy.

Then everything went slightly wrong.

Post-crisis, Brown is now subject of international economic conditions. Despite his efforts, he could not reform the international banking system during the calmer years. The American sub-prime mortgage market meant that Britain is suffering due to foreign mistakes. Brown is innocent in all this, he is impotent in the face of mighty economic forces.

Now, the Conservatives are ready to take the opposite view. Brown was omnipotent, meaning this whole economic mess is his fault. His decisions over the past decade have meant that the British economy is facing recession. Forget international economic conditions or the legacy of the Major government, this is all Brown's fault as he was at the helm, steering the ship.

So we have a situation whereby Labour admits that international economic conditions influence the British economy, meaning Brown cannot take all the credit for the boom years, while the Conservatives admit that Brown had some power over the economy all along, meaning he deserves some credit for the good times. The parties have both made startling U-turns in their assessment of the power of Brown - to Labour, he is no longer omnipotent but to the Conservatives he now is (and therefore responsible).

The truth was always somewhere in between. Brown was a competent Chancellor who benefited from global economic conditions. He was simply fortunate in the legacy he was bequeathed and he did have a role in the prosperity of 1997-2008. He also had a role in the lack of preparations for the current crisis to the same degree as any other world leader. (Few saw such a credit crunch coming.) He was never omnipotent nor was he ever the slave of economic forces beyond his control.

The major parties have switched their narratives simply because it shifts responsibility. Brown wanted the credit for years of growth but now does not want the blame for recession; the Conservatives want the opposite. If that means changing their core arguments about the power and responsibility of the Labour government, then so be it. (Even if it means admitting the other party was right all along.)

A tragic necessity

2009-01-28T13:24:00.001Z

The legitimacy of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip has come under widespread questioning from human rights groups, the United Nations and national governments the world over. Critics claim that Israel’s attacks are disproportionate, create a humanitarian crisis and they call for an immediate ceasefire.

It is unclear what an immediate ceasefire would achieve. The tentative 2008 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas ended when Hamas sought further border openings, a request Israel denied for fear Hamas would use open borders to increase its supply of rockets. In the final month of the 2008 ceasefire Hamas rocket attacks increased to pre-ceasefire levels – in one week, they fired 140 rockets at Israel. There is no reason to assume that Hamas would not either ignore another ceasefire or that they would just use a ceasefire to resupply.

Israel began Operation Cast Lead as a final resort against an organisation that deliberately targets Israeli civilians. It was a response to escalating rocket attacks and suicide bombings, from which Israel is entitled to defend itself and to security. Disarming Hamas and reducing its capacity to attack Israel is legitimate cause for war.

Proportionality is another concern raised by critics of Israel’s military action, often with crude reference to a ‘score sheet’ of deaths. Israel takes efforts to discriminate between legitimate and civilian targets. It drops leaflets and makes phone calls prior to bombings. In contrast, Hamas hide amongst civilians and use their homes as cover.

In contrast to Israeli efforts, during the conflict Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, announced: “[Israel] have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine...They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.” By “their people”, Zahar does not just mean Israeli children, he means Jewish children - just as the Hamas Charter chillingly announces Hamas’s “struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” He is defending collective punishment of the most heinous variety. This is the threat Israel faces – an anti-Semitic terrorist organisation whose aim is the destruction of Israel and the reconstruction of an Islamist theocracy. Hamas will not renounce violence, recognise Israel has a right to exist or recognise previous agreements made between Israel and the Palestinians.

The international community says little about the continual threat Israel is under. Hence, Israel is suspicious of an international community that stands aside while terrorists attack Israeli civilians but is righteously indignant when Israel acts in self-defence. If any other country were under a similar threat, it too would act to protect its civilians. If, during the 1970s, an IRA putsch had lead to their control of a northern section of the Republic of Ireland and the organisation had begun shelling Belfast, the British government would not have stood aside and allowed British civilians to die.

It is both horrifying and tragic the human cost of war in Gaza – as in any war, it is innocent civilians who are trapped between the two forces. Peace should reign over the Middle East and a two-state solution implemented. However, while Hamas attacks Israeli towns and villages, Israel is entitled to defend itself. Its actions against Hamas are legitimate. It is Hamas, not Israel, that are the cause of suffering in the Gaza Strip – if they stopped rocket fire into Israel, Israel would not need to act in self-defence. They are the aggressor in this war, not Israel. The Palestinians in Gaza deserve better that the violent rule of Hamas.

R-word

2009-01-28T13:23:00.001Z

The spectre had been looming but few dared speak its name until Friday 23 January, when Britain officially entered recession after two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The final quarter of 2008 was the worst since 1980 and the year saw the end of an astonishing 64 consecutive quarters of growth. Britain is now in its first recession since 1991. Over-borrowing, a (largely American) subprime mortgage crisis, a housing bubble and an underestimation of the risk of obscure financial vehicles combined to form the storm currently battering to good ship Britain. The City of London competes only with New York as the premier financial district in the world. Before the crisis, this was an asset to the British economy; now, it means that Britain is among the most exposed.

The response of the British government was as speedy as it was generous. It has offered a total of £550 billion in special liquidity schemes, recapitalisation funds and loan guarantees. In a move that would have been unthinkable last year, the British government now owns shares in major banks that it hopes to sell for a profit once the system recovers. (Which will provide a healthy windfall for the next government, assuming the economy recovers before 2015.) Simultaneously, Bank of England has cut interest rates to the lowest levels in its history, exhausting its typical tool of monetary policy and prompting the examination of quantitative easing (i.e., printing money).

It is right that the government provides market liquidity and supports market confidence. Such public goods the market is failing to provide; the government has a legitimate reason for intervention. It is also right that the government focus on liquidity rather than demand management; the latter typically sets in just as the next boom starts, exacerbating rather than smoothing the business cycle. The policy of allowing recession to run its course and punishing overexposed banks would be morally legitimate, preventing a moral hazard that encourages too risky behaviour, but its cost to the economy would be far higher than any bailout and would punish those who did not take a risk and invest in subprime mortgages.

However, in promising to bailout the economy the government opens itself up to cries for alms from all sectors. Already, the car and steel industries are asking for government help. The car industry was struggling before the economy collapsed and steel was enjoying a bubble propped up by Chinese demand. Neither are victims of a lack of liquidity of a lack of market confidence; they are bad businesses looking for government help rather than sound businesses that are victims of economic conditions. The government should not prop up such inefficient businesses. Steel subsidies in particular reek of the type of tit-for-tat protectionism that destroys global trade. It would be tremendous folly to indulge such populist urges.

Yet it is unlikely the government will not act. The reason is pure self-interest. Every unemployed worker is a lost Labour voter while every job saved might provide a vote, especially if it is a working class job. The economy has destroyed any chance of a Labour victory in 2010 (opinion polls have the Conservatives currently leading by ten to fifteen percentage points, Labour has been behind for a year), but the government will still try to use its resources to win votes. That will mean it will likely use some of the bailout inefficiently and ineffectively; government self-interest will stymie a legitimate intervention in the market and inflate government debt more than economic conditions require.

Preserving liberties

2009-01-23T15:15:00.001Z

Graham Smith at Liberal Conspiracy has written an interesting post about the reason why British civil liberties are so endangered. The core of the problems rests not in the actions of government but in the British constitution, which offers no limits on the power of Parliament:

Our constitution has enjoyed some superficial changes, certainly, particularly over the past eleven years, but it is essentially the same constitution we’ve had since the inglorious Glorious Revolution in the late 1680s. It is based on the sovereignty of Crown and parliament. The powers of the monarch – who for most of her reign is constitutionally pointless - now reside either in the Commons or in Number 10. Number 10 controls the Commons save for the occasional rebellion, and so unlimited power is granted to whomever occupies the office of Prime Minister...

The source of this situation is the monarchy. Parliament gets its ‘absolute and unlimited’ power from the Crown. It is our status as subjects of the Crown (subjects still, despite various ‘citizenship’ Acts) which makes parliament our master, not our servant.

I disagree with some of the points made by Smith. He claims our system is not a democracy because there are no checks on the power of Parliament. As Parliament is elected and we have the rule of law, regular elections, a free press and so forth, we are a democracy. Here I agree with Patrick Nicholls:

In a TV debate recently I suggested that all we have here in the UK is a poor imitation of democracy, in which the people get just the occasional vote and, in between elections, the government has all the power - all of it. Former Tory MP Patrick Nicholls, also on the panel, cried out: “that’s democracy!” No, Patrick, it’s not.

What our system is not is a good example of liberal democracy. There are no formal checks on the power of the elected body of representatives - this is a shortcoming in the liberal credentials of the constitution, not in its democratic credentials.

However, the essential argument is sound. We have a democracy, but one where the people can vote to erode essential liberties. We can vote, but we are not sufficiently protected from "elective dictatorship", to use that rather emotive term.

This problem does stem from our constitution, which has no proper separation of powers, no checks and balances and no protection of liberties above Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty means the majority party can legislate (more or less) as it pleases. It can happily ignore the Human Rights Act, for instance. Even the protection of human rights granted by the European Union is limited, though passage of the Lisbon Treaty would improve matters slightly. British citizens must trust that public opinion and MPs will ensure liberties are not eroded; if the majority want to enslave a minority of Britons, there is little the minority can do and nothing stopping the majority. (This is one reason why laws should be general, as liberty to act in a certain manner will win the support of a majority more easily than a specific act itself.) Thankfully, Britain has a long tradition of preserving liberty that stops the system being overly abused. This tradition, as well as the House of Lords, might be the only thing preserving what liberties remain. It is scandalous that there is such scant protection.

Ideally, the British constitution would separate power more formally and more fully - an executive that did not sit in Parliament would be a great improvement, preventing the accumulation of powers that historically leads to tyranny. Constitutional protection of liberties would also help check the power of Parliament. This ought to be a protection of liberties rather than a bill of rights, as the British concept of liberty as being able to do anything not proscribed by Parliament is preferable to the Roman concept of rights as granted by the state; we have liberties, not rights. Constitutional protection of liberties would mean that Parliament cannot legislate in certain areas, protecting liberty without granting Parliament the power to decide what rights Britons have.

However, the authority of such constitutional measures would be difficult to establish. Smith proposes large-scale constitutional change, moving towards a codified constitution (our constitution is already written, just in lots of places):

This is why written constitutions, based on sound democratic principles and containing strong defences against authoritarianism, are essential in any modern society.

I am always skeptical of a codified constitution, as it will bind future generations to the interests of its writers (i.e., the majority party of the day). If the NHS constitution is any guide, a British constitution would be of the lowest quality. The uncodified system promotes flexibility, essential for the incremental, pragmatic reform and improvement that characterises the British constitution. Furthermore, codified constitutions rely just as much on majority support for minority rights as uncodified constitutions. For example, the changes in the rights of American blacks in the twentieth century were more reliant on popular opinion than on the American constitution.

A better system would be one that takes power from Parliament without requiring a new constitution. Quite how this would occur is challenging, as parliamentary sovereignty means that if Parliament passed a law to protect liberties, the British constitution would allow subsequent parliaments to repeal (or amend) it. Protection of liberty would still require the majority party to support it, just as it does now.

There could be a sort of devolution of certain law-making powers (the death penalty, certain privacies, detention without trial, etc.) to a non-legislating body - perhaps the Crown. Parliament would cede certain powers, preserving liberty in those areas. Parliament could still repeal the law that devolved those powers, but it could not exempt laws as it can with the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, if the devolution was popular enough, repealing the law would be politically destructive (especially if it was named something like the 'Vote Against the Government That Repeals This Act Act'). This would still require popular support for limiting Parliament's power, but support for the general principle of liberty would be easier to maintain that support for the specific liberties of specific groups, as the current system requires.

The British constitution would not need rewriting, just a new convention evolving that Parliament does not legislate in certain areas. Given that devolution appears quite stable, such a move might have the permanence the the older shift of sovereignty from the Crown to Parliament.

Speech

2009-01-21T15:37:00.001Z

President Barack Obama's inauguration speech may not have reached the souring heights of rhetoric some were expecting, but nothing short of the resurrection of Cicero was likely to meet some expectations. It was certainly a good speech with a good message, full of the pragmatic liberalism expected of Obama and with plenty of references to America's history. His message is not that he will bring a new dawn to America, but that America has tough times ahead and it will not be easy.

He embraces a role for government in helping people without ignoring the responsibility individuals have to help themselves - if he can balance the demands of big and small government, he might yet achieve a government that provides help for the needy without providing excuses for the lazy. We will see whether his belief in taking a fattened government and, through diet and exercise, creating a slimmer, leaner government will translate into reality. In these terms, this might be the key paragraph - he envisages a wide role for government, but also a government less encumbered by waste (thus learning some of the lessons taught the New Right theorists while retaining a commitment to post-war social liberalism):

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

On foreign policy (the area most relevant to Britain), Obama might have surprised some with his rhetoric. He was certainly multilateralist and liberal, but also muscular. His talk of poverty, global warming and nuclear proliferation are a welcome change; however, he is not ignoring the threat of terrorism or the tyrannies in the Middle East. Here, it strikes me that it is a shame he was not president when Tony Blair was still prime minister - their muscular liberal internationalism appears quite similar (of course, only reality will prove what Obama actually means):

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you...

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Finally, Gordon Brown would find much to agree with in one of the final passages. Were he more eloquent, he might have said something similar himself:

But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

Making a noise

2009-01-20T15:26:00.001Z

Iain Dale highlights how you can urge your MP to vote against efforts to exempt MP expenses from freedom of information. Its worth taking the time and not allowing this issue get buried amid bigger news:

On Thursday MPs will vote to against the very transparency they impose on the rest of us. If, in the course of my work, I spend money which I then reclaim from my company I am expected to provide a receipt. For some reason, MPs feel they should be above that sort of thing and not be obligated to prove to the taxpayer what they are claiming back from that very same taxpayer. They are, after all, honourable gentlemen and ladies. But let me not fall into the trap that many journalists all too readily fall into. They do provide receipts for some expenditure for many items, but not all. Some MPs, like Ben Wallace and Douglas Carswell, have voluntarily published the entirety of their expenses.

On Thursday MPs will in effect vote to overturn a High Court ruling which said that all receipts had to be published retrospectively. LibDem MP Jo Swinson has tabled a motion urging "ministers to block or repeal the order in the interest of MPs' and peers' accountability to members of the public". It is endorsed by Tory MP Richard Shepard and Labour's David Winnick. And quite right too. This vote is happening because Harriet Harman did a volte face. The vote is scheduled on a Thursday because she thinks MPs won't bother to turn up. The Guardian says that some MPs are changing their diaries in order to be present and vote down Harman's order.

The My Society Website TheyWorkForYou has started an online campaign to put pressure on MPs to turn up and vote against the order. You can join a Facebook Group to protest, or you can email your own MP and give them your opinion. Alternatively visit They Work For You and follow the suggestions.

The Government will try to whip its MPs into line to support this measure. And there will no doubt be some Tories who go along with them. Each MP who votes for this order will be named and shamed. Not only on this blog, but I hope a lot of others too.

The new guy

2009-01-20T11:21:00.001Z

Two and a half months after he was elected as the next President of the United States (a delay that makes me grateful the British system is rather more brutal), today Barack Obama actually assumes office. The enthusiasm that will greet him in Washington today is a testament to American democracy and Obama's copious power of engagement - though such a statement reflects the sad novelty of having a popular elected leader.

He has an unenviable series of challenges facing him: a global economic crisis, an explosive Gaza Strip, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a failing healthcare system, prisoners in Guantánamo Bay that can neither be held nor released, a antagonistic Iran, a bellicose Russia, an uncontrolled Pakistani tribal belt, a tarnished American reputation abroad, and so forth. Worse still, the world is looking to him to solve their problems as well as the problems of his American constituents. At a time of global crises without global leadership, Obama is expected to be a complete Leader of the Free (and less than free) World. Despite all the protestations of the flawed, and too often unilateral, leadership of President George W. Bush, the world is embracing American leadership as the panacea for all its ills.

For this reason, Obama is sensibly downgrading expectations. He will focus on economic stimulus, the "new mission" in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing Guantánamo Bay, the Middle East Peace Process (sending Dennis Ross to the Middle East is a particularly astute decision) and healthcare reform. His comments on timescale are particularly pragmatic, reflecting the enormity of the task he has set himself.

“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Mr Obama said in a interview last week.

He expects it to take much longer:

“It will take more than a month or a year, and it will likely take many,” he told a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. “Along the way there will be setbacks and false starts.”

Nevertheless, the optimism that Obama brings to the presidency is a change for the better in American politics. The reputation of the American government, both at home and abroad, might yet be remade. The very fact of his election heralds a new era in racial politics, bringing America closer to closing the wounds of slavery, civil war and racial discrimination and closer to the cliched 'post-racial' America.

Despite concerns about his attitude to free trade and ethanol and the speed at which he intends to leave Iraq, Obama has the potential to be a good president. His measured, intelligent style contrasts sharply with the studied simplicity of Bush's public persona and equips him to deal with the challenges of the American presidency. His willingness to listen and engage with political opponents is also notable, bringing the potential for a less partisan system of government where Democrats and Republicans both accept that sometimes their opponents have valuable insights. (Here, Obama's acknowledgement of the failures of government in the 1970s are particularly valuable, as too many left-wing politicians continue to deny there was ever a basis for rolling back the state. Labour should take note.) He is suitably internationalist, ready to commit to winning in Afghanistan, defend Israel and deal with the threat Iran represents. It is unlikely that Obama will lead America towards isolationism; the question is whether he can stand up to his own party and resist their isolationist and protectionist urgings.

While he will not solve all the problems facing the world, or even those facing America, he might make a good effort in reviving international cooperation and rebuilding America's safety net. If the economy recovers promptly and barring foreign calamity, he has every chance of achieving the moderate policy goals he has set himself.

As with any new president, Obama brings hope that the wrongs of his predecessor will be righted and America will be made a better place. He is perfectly able of achieving a degree of the lofty change he described during his campaign (I think everyone, Obama included, acknowledges he will not achieve it all). If that change does come, in whatever degree, it will testament to the power and revitalising capacity of American democracy. The people wanted Obama and they got him. Now he just has to try not to disappoint.