The Thoughts of Chairman Nick

Tragedy in London

2017-06-18T15:18:00.004+01:00

The tragedy at Grenfell Tower is rapidly turning into a political football, that will inevitably result in the real lessons being missed and it being turned into a Dangerous Dogs Act-like knee jerk reaction that fails the people. Construction of this tower started 45 years ago and the problems have not happened overnight; so those on both sides of the political aisle should look at themselves in the mirror and ask if they could have done something better rather than attempt to just pass the blame on to others.

While we have seen acts of heroism from the emergency services and great generosity and energy from the volunteers working to help the victims, we have seen sniping from the gutter of social media from nasty people on both sides, such as disrespecting the great work of the Red Cross or snide comments about the effects of multiculturalism and politically correct interviews. Shame on you all.

What went wrong? We can't answer the technical reasons now (was it the wrong cladding, would sprinklers have stopped the fire etc.), but two matters stand out for me:

The people living in places like Grenfell Tower are low priority for politicians in all parties, no doubt because they are too busy getting on with life to make much of a fuss. They are the people serving your coffee, delivering your parcels, cleaning your offices and working in your hospitals, among many other roles. Decisions regarding the residents are deemed acceptable that would not be in other contexts. Question 1 - would someone seeking to refurbish an apartment block for private occupation be allowed to operate in the same way?
I work in a 200 year old building with significant planning restrictions, yet we have fire escapes, loud fire alarms and we have been retrofitted for air conditioning and modern systems wiring. Question 2 - why are the places we work covered by so much greater fire regulations than where we live? While some workplaces may have particular fire risks (commercial kitchens, some factories etc.), but an office surely has no greater fire risk than a home?

Nick

A Euro Time-bomb Ticking

2017-01-23T11:16:00.001+00:00

Brexit has been dominant topic of conversation surrounding the EU in recent months, but I read a rather interesting article this morning that hints at a bigger problem, especially in the context of Greece's latest bailout negotiations and the troubled Italian banking system.

Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank commented recently on the liabilities that would become payable on any departure from the Euro, and this was picked up by the POLITICO news site. “If a country were to leave the Eurosystem, its national central bank’s claims on or liabilities to the ECB would need to be settled in full,” Draghi said in a letter to two members of the European Parliament published by the ECB late on Friday. He was referring specifically to claims and liabilities of the so-called target2 system, used to settle cross-border transaction within the eurozone.

For instance, Italy would have to pay the biggest amount if it opted to leave the common currency, ECB data reflecting end-November balances show. It would have to transfer €358.6 billion, or about 22 percent of its GDP. Greece would have to pay €71.8 billion, just over 40 percent of its GDP. Germany could claim €754.1 billion, almost a quarter of its 2015 economic output. So bluntly Italy and Greece are stuck in a long cycle of structural adjustment and austerity, whether their citizens like it or not, as they cannot afford to buy themselves out of the Euro. I doubt this will end well.

Nick

Is Liam Fox Right?

2016-09-10T22:27:00.001+01:00

Earlier this week the new International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, made a rather unguarded comment at a reception for Conservative activists, accusing British businesses of being “too lazy and too fat” to be freewheeling free traders on the world stage.

BBC News Link

Now while I am sure many people will debate the matter on both sides of the argument, there was one historical aspect I felt was worth exploring; the suggestion that British businesses were once much keener on exporting than is now the case. Looking at recent history, we are not doing too badly:

This chart from the World Bank shows that while we are slightly below the peaks in 1977 and 2011, we are well above the average since 1960. Now, I am sure Dr Fox is harking back to a time well before 1960, but unfortunately economic data is rather sketchy for earlier years, so it is hard to either refute or indorse his position based on hard numbers.

However, I recently read an interesting observation in a book called The Rise of Merchant Banking (Stanley Chapman, 1984), which made a remarkably similar point in relation to the manufacturing businesses that were in the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution and the foundation of the British Empire’s economic hegemony. What it also highlighted however was the success of British merchants, entirely independent of the manufacturers, in selling those same industrial goods all around the world (not just within the Empire), based mainly in London and Liverpool with agents around the world.

So perhaps Dr Fox is both right and wrong; it is not that British industry is less focussed on exporting than in the past, but that we have lost that cadre of merchants and agents? That it is not managing directors spending too much time on the golf course but that those hungry young men (and now women) who might have sought their fortunes selling goods around the world as commission agents in the past now find greater opportunities as City traders or tech start-ups?

Perhaps it is an activity that should now be revived; the British have after all always had a talent for being intermediaries?

Nick

Let us have a less divisive European relationship in the future

2016-06-26T07:34:00.000+01:00

Now that the European Union Referendum has been decided, it is important that the UK Parliament take the lead in guiding the future direction of our relationship with our European friends and neighbours. The referendum was simply a question as to whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union ("EU"); we were not voting on the manifestos of the different campaigns. The result was very close, and therefore I believe it is incumbent on our elected representatives to propose a post-EU relationship that meets the needs of the largest proportion of the population and creates the least disruption possible to our economy.

In my opinion, this can best be achieved by the United Kingdom re-joining the European Free Trade Association ("EFTA") and retaining membership of the European Economic Area ("EEA"). This would have the following ten key benefits:

No disruption to the UK's existing trading relationships in both goods and services in Europe;

No reduction in the social and employment protections that we already enjoy;
Regained control over our agricultural and fishing policies;
The ability to make trade agreements outside of the EU/EFTA with whoever we choose, in particular with our friends in the Commonwealth;
Sovereignty over all matters that are of real concern to people, but with the benefits of working to common standards on internal EEA trade and regional issues such as climate change and pollution;
Eliminating most of the issues that may cause problems with the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland;
Largely satisfying the concerns of the people of London and Scotland in terms of their continuing connections with Europe for their vital financial services industries;
No engagement in EU monetary union, common foreign and security policies, and common justice and home affairs policies;
Outside the EU customs union and VAT common area, so the UK can set our own VAT and tariff rates for non EEA goods; and
Continued free movement of workers and students, but the ability to apply "breaks" to numbers if public services are put under pressure.

I believe this addresses the economic concerns of those from the "Remain" side of the recent referendum and the Sovereignty concerns of those of the "Leave" camp. It also ensures that the UK remains an open and outward looking nation and does not alienate our many friends around the world. Norway, the largest current EFTA/EEA member has one of the highest standards of living and quality of life in the world, is a close NATO ally and a leading participator in many international bodies, so I see no reason why the UK's economic and diplomatic position should be inhibited in any way.

No solution is perfect, but of all those available that respect the democratic will of the UK electorate that was expressed on Thursday, I believe that this would find favour with the largest element of the population.

If you agree with me, please copy the above text and send it to your MP; this is now a matter that will be decided by the UK Parliament. I have also started a petition to help spread the message that there is a compromise solution available to us:

Petition on Change.Org

Nick

Are our votes based on the right issues?

2016-06-22T22:53:00.001+01:00

I have listened to many of the reasons that people wish to vote leave. They are heartfelt, genuine and I do not believe driven by racism as some might suggest. I do think however that many are driven by three factors which are unrelated as to whether we should in the EU or not, none of which have been addressed by either of the "official" sides in the debate:

The impacts of globalisation;
Many years of our domestic politicians rather conveniently blaming the EU for unpopular matters when the reality was rather closer to home; and
The impact of multiculturalism on communities.

Globalisation

The world has become difficult and less certain for many people over the last 50 years, especially those in "blue collar" and clerical jobs. The post-WW2 economic consensus that started to unravel with Nixon taking the US dollar off the quasi-gold standard established at Bretton Woods (albeit in itself more a symptom rather than the underlying economic cause) in 1971 (the year of my birth - I am a child of globalisation!), saw the breaking down of traditional industries, not just in the UK, but across the traditional industrial economies of North America and Western Europe. First with the rapid growth of Japan from 1955 to 1990, then the "Tiger" economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, and finally with the re-emergence of China and India as great economic powers (I use the term re-emergence, as they are merely regaining there relative position in the world economy that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution) has seen a massive pivot to Asia in terms of industrial production, especially of goods that many people in Britain would have seen as "there's":

Shipbuilding;
Textiles;
Steel;
Coal;
Chemicals; and
Electrical goods.

Britain's membership of the EU (and its predecessor, the EEC) may have coincided with these changes, but they were not caused by the EU. Look at the current US Presidential Campaign and the popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders; the very same issues are at the fore, while the USA has taken the type of approach to international trade and engagement that the "Leave" campaign is advocating. Those traditional, well-paid, manual jobs will not return whatever route we take, although the production might return; this time it will just be done by robots, thus removing the labour cost advantages of Asian producers.

Globalisation has been accompanied by rising levels of inequality, reversing a trend that had lasted from the First World War to the mid to late-1970s across North America and Western Europe. Increasing rewards have gone to those with higher educational levels and capital, and less to those without. Ironically, the EU has long been seen as fighting a losing war against the tide of globalisation, while in this campaign it is seen as a creature of the same. A non-EU Britain (well at least a non-Single Market Britain - a move to the Norway model EFTA/EEA membership would make little difference) will more likely find itself on an accelerated path of globalisation; the "Leave" campaign's model for trading (http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/publications/) is not without economic merit, but it clearly involves the UK economy being at the cold, hard edge of globalisation. This will not be a comfortable place for those who have found the last 50 years the most difficult.

Blame it on the EU

Domestic politicians of both major parties have, for as long as I can remember, used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for ducking difficult policy decisions, or for bringing in those that may not find favour. The now widely argued about "workers' rights" have frequently been posted in the EU box, so Labour politicians can avoid being seen as anti-business and their Conservative equivalents can avoid blame for introducing "red tape" by the right of their party. This is a situation that has been exacerbated by a number of newspapers, where "blame the EU" stories have become stock in trade alongside philandering footballers and badly behaved celebrities. Considering the quality of coverage and debate, the position of many people is hardly surprising. Let us take some examples:

"The EU makes us pay benefits to anybody" - EU rules just state you cannot discriminate between your own nationals and those of other EU members. There is nothing to stop the UK having a welfare system where you have to contribute before you can take out, and in fact this was how the UK system worked until the mid-70s. For example a system requiring 5 years of National Insurance contributions before tax credits, child benefit or unemployment benefits could be taken out is perfectly legal, and is in fact how most European systems work.
"EU migrants take our houses/school places/hospital beds/etc." - Any increase in population means you need more houses/school places/hospital beds/etc.. In the 1950s and 1960s we had a significant increase in population, and Britain built 300,000 houses a year and many schools and hospitals. The people who are moving to the UK from other EU countries are coming to work, unemployment is low and workforce participation is high. There is no reason why we should not build and we would get many benefits from doing so. With interest rates at very low levels, such construction could be undertaken with low cost of finance.
"The EU is failing to deal with the migrant crisis" - The world is seeing an unparalleled level of displaced people and refugees, estimated at 65m, primarily occurring in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. They are seeking to come to the EU (in particular the wealthier northern countries) as they see a much more pleasant place to live. The EU hasn't caused these crises and nor can it stop them. There are no easy answers, and our vote will not change in the slightest how many people cross the Mediterranean, or how many seek to move to the UK rather than Germany or Sweden.

Multiculturalism

Last but not least, we have the issue of multiculturalism, and the feeling held by many that the country has become "less British", or is "not the country I remember"; this is not a matter of race but a factor of difference. The EU is identified with this process because these changes have occurred while we have been a member and its protections for minorities. However, if we examine this closer, it is rarely to do with people who have come from the EU. The cultures of other EU countries are fundamentally not that different from the UK, compared with say those of South Asia and West Africa, from where other large immigrant populations have arrived. Again, this is not something that will change with an exit vote, but only through assimilation. Those immigrants from within the EU tend to assimilate rather more quickly due to the cultural similarities; those from outside the EU rather longer.

Nick

What are we not voting about?

2016-06-21T20:57:00.001+01:00

I am seeing quite a few comments about stories being kept out of the "mainstream media" which relate to crimes undertaken by immigrants (or descendants of recent immigrants) or of riots by migrants in other EU countries, notably around Calais, on the basis that this will have a negative impact on the "Remain" campaign. As someone who both believes in free speech and will be voting remain, I thought I would help provide some coverage.

Firstly, there is the terrible case of child abuse in Yorkshire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092). A gang of 15 men, all of south Asian heritage, have been sentenced to up to 25 years in jail for horrible crimes, but I am struggling to see the connection with the EU referendum. None of those convicted appear to have any connection with EU migration, nor is there any suggestion that any European court will somehow stop them serving the sentence that the court in Leeds has passed.

The second involves the violence occurring in the migrants camps around Calais (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/british-tourist-captures-dramatic-footage-of-calais-police-clash/). This is a long standing issue and seems like it is getting worse. The French do seem to be struggling to deal with it, but again, I struggle to see what it has to do with the EU Referendum? The people who are rioting are not from Greece or Portugal. The reason they are in the camps in Calais is precisely because they do not have free movement rights; they wish to come to the UK but cannot. People speculate that the French may become less diligent if the UK was to depart, but assuming they abide by their treaty obligations, nothing will change following a "leave" vote; they will remain in the camps and they will still wish to come to the UK.

The population flows from South Asia, the Middle East and Africa pose massive issues. The recent report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (http://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/latest/2016/6/5763b65a4/global-forced-displacement-hits-record-high.html) shows migrants and displaced persons at record levels of 65m, greater than the population of the UK. The last 2 years has seen governments both within the EU and outside struggle to find solutions, probably because there are no solutions that can be delivered easily, quickly or without significant costs. Efforts to date have been a muddled mix of policies as politicians have tried to "do something" when they know they can do little beyond applying a sticking plaster to gaping wound. Building a big wall or blowing boats out of the water will not stop the flows of people; it will just change the direction of travel. Equally, letting unrestrained immigration into Europe will cause instability and tensions of a different kind. Again however I ask the question, what is this to do with the EU and the desirability to stay in; those population flows will still happen. Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU and face the same issues, and like them, a post-leave Britain would have to be involved in what is happening.

There are many arguments in both directions in regard the EU referendum; I happen to think we should remain, others for perfectly rational reasons think we should leave. But I do think it is dangerous to conflate a decision around economics, trade and sovereignty with one about refugees, none of which originate from countries within the EU. Wishing to restrict free movement of labour from EU countries is a valid economic and political objective, but there is no reason to connect that with flows of migration caused by war and famine from countries in the Middle East and Africa. Departing the EU cannot have any impact on such flows. Are there refugees who are criminals? Of course there are. Will the barbarity of what they have gone through make them more inclined to criminality? Quite probably. But there are criminals in every population; being a bad person is not related race, religion or country of origin. Just as the vast majority England football fans are not violent, racist thugs, most refugees are not sex offenders, but in both cases there are some who are.

So if you think for reasons of sovereignty, economics and law making that Britain should leave the EU, then vote "Leave"; I don't agree with you, but that is what this referendum is about. Don't however vote out because you are concerned about the refugee crisis around the Mediterranean; whichever way you vote will not alter that in the slightest.

Nick

Is there a referendum compromise?

2016-06-19T21:54:00.001+01:00

The one thing that everybody involved or interested in the current EU Referendum debate can agree on is that the result is going to be close. Like the referendum over Scottish independence in September 2014, this a is a matter that divides the electorate down the middle, and as with that situation and referenda in general, it provides for none of the compromise or negotiation that it is inherent in the general democratic process.

The reaction to such a close vote in the Scottish referendum was the provision of greater devolution, i.e. a compromise. With a similar situation existing in relation to continued EU membership, perhaps it is time to look for a similar compromise; while theoretical democracy is about getting 50% plus one vote, a democratic society must aim for harmony among as wide an element of its population as possible. Unless either side is able to gain 60% or greater of the votes this Thursday, then I would suggest that a compromise is needed to avoid disharmony, one where neither side can claim either victory or defeat.

So what might a compromise look like as regards EU membership where the numbers of parties involved are greater than those involved in the Scottish referendum? Well luckily the structures already exist, making it considerably easier to implement; it is what has become to be known as the "Norway Option".

First, a short history lesson……

When the original six members (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany) formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, leading in turn in 1957 to the European Economic Community ("EEC"), the forerunner of the current European Union ("EU"), the UK stood back for a variety of reasons. Instead, the UK sought to develop stronger trading links with the other developed European economies that were outside the Soviet Bloc. In 1960 the European Free Trade Association ("EFTA") was formed, with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK as the initial members, joined by Iceland in 1970. EFTA was implemented on a rather loser basis that the EEC, focused on industrial trade, and excluding agriculture and fisheries. Over time, EFTA faded in to the background as its members joined first the EEC, Denmark and the UK in 1973 (and Ireland, which although not a member of EFTA, had its own free trade agreement with the UK), and later the EU, Austria, Finland (which had become an EFTA member in 1986) and Sweden in 1995. The two remaining major members of EFTA, Norway and Switzerland, had also been expected to join the EU in 1995, but their electorates rejected membership in referendums; in Norway's case, this was the second rejection, having previously sort entry to the EEC in 1973 alongside Denmark, Ireland and the UK.

Prior to the 1995 enlargement of the EU, the EU had agreed with EFTA the European Economic Area ("EEA"), which offered access to the then new European Single Market for EFTA members, and was implemented in 1994 after a 5 year period of negotiation. The EEA has been seen as a "waiting room" for EU membership, and indeed was rejected in a referendum by Swiss voters in 1992 for exactly that reason, so Switzerland remained outside both the EEA and the EU. However, with Norway's rejection of EU membership in 1994, but remaining in the EEA and Iceland's withdrawal of its EU application in 2013 but continuing with EEA membership, the EEA has now had 2 non-EU, EFTA members operating within it for over 20 years.

So what exactly would leaving the EU, remaining in the EEA and re-joining EFTA, the "Norway Option", mean? Well looking first at the EEA elements what is involved? The following is taken from the EFTA website regarding the EEA:

"What is included in the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).

What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies: common agriculture and fisheries policies (although the EEA Agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products); customs union; common trade policy; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs (the EEA EFTA States are however part of the Schengen area); direct and indirect taxation; or economic and monetary union."

In terms of the non-EEA aspects of EFTA, it also brings a series of free trade agreements with 24 countries, including major non-EU markets such as Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Turkey.

Winners and Losers?

So from a "Remain" perspective, access to the Single Market, the key element in their economic argument is retained, with the downside that any future changes in Single Market Rules will be made with the UK having only an ability to influence, but not vote on them. It also should negate the primary issues around a second Scottish independence referendum and tensions in Northern Ireland that would likely occur on a full EU and EEA exit.

From a "Leave" perspective it returns sovereignty, bar for those matters around the Single Market, including the ability for the UK to make its own international trade agreements and develop increased links with the Commonwealth. However, this would come at the expense of retaining free movement of labour, albeit with the ability to impose "emergency brakes", similar to those negotiated by David Cameron in February. It also means a continued (but reduced) contribution to the EU budget (involving development funds for poorer members), but would remove any contingent liabilities to the European Central Bank or other EU bodies in the event of default.

Just a Compromise, or Maybe More?

While EFTA/EEA membership is at this time primarily a compromise, longer them it opens up new possibilities. Firstly, the EU is changing, with the Eurozone countries necessarily integrating further around the Franco-German axis. For those countries not in the Euro, this poses questions of a direction that they may not be comfortable with; former EFTA members Denmark and Sweden spring immediately to mind in this context. A revitalised EFTA, with Britain back at its helm, combined with continued access to the Single Market may become attractive for the future.

Secondly, Britain has long acted as a connecting point between Europe, the Commonwealth and the USA. While the complete exit from both the EU and EEA proposed by "Leave" would put this role at risk, a return to EFTA and retention of EEA membership will change but likely not impair this role. In fact, with some countries it may even enhance the position, e.g . countries such as Australia and New Zealand with significant agricultural exports.

I will be voting "Remain" on Thursday, and I continue to hope that "Remain" wins by a convincing margin, in which case we continue with the modestly renegotiated EU arrangements agreed in February. Similarly, a comprehensive victory for "Leave" and I will accept with a heavy heart that the people of Britain wish to head in a different direction. If however the vote is close (definitely less than 5% victory margin, but I would suggest less than 10%), then EFTA/EEA membership may well provide a middle ground that the large majority of the country can coalesce around.

Nick

Leave or Remain - I vote "In"

2016-06-14T18:32:00.001+01:00

Several people have asked me to lay out why I am positive about the EU and why I think it is a bad idea to exit. I will divide it into 3 sections:

Sovereignty/democracy/identity
Economy
Immigration

I will try to be as neutral in my writing as possible, but like anybody, I am biased by my own opinions, so to make my position clear up front, I will be voting to remain in the EU, primarily as I believe the European Single Market is important to our future and I believe that Europe needs an "outer leader" to act as a counterweight to the "inner leader" roles played by Germany and France. I am what most people would define as a liberal internationalist, and I believe Britain is at its best when it looks out to the wider world.

If you want an answer on how to vote that avoids all the hyperbole, I think it boils down to this:

Vote "in" if you want greater prosperity but accept that this comes with a higher population;
Vote "out" if you are willing to be less prosperous in return for having less growth in population.

Sovereignty/Democracy/Identity

I have grouped these together as they have tended to merge into one continuous argument during the current debate and beyond legal or dictionary definitions, I think most people see them as part of the same issue. It is also the aspect of the debate where the "out" camp have the strongest argument - albeit one that is difficult to articulate to a mass audience beyond simplistic soundbites, so it has got somewhat lost behind the far more emotive issue of immigration - but it is also the aspect that the EU is probably having the most discussions about reforming right now, as this is clearly not a UK specific issue.

We are all used to laws and regulations being made by different institutions at different levels; it would probably be impossible to run a complex, modern and democratic society in any other way.. As a resident of Ilford in East London, I get to vote for five different levels of lawmaking administration:

Redbridge Borough Council;
Greater London Assembly;
Mayor of London;
House of Commons (Ilford South Constituency); and
European Parliament (London Region).

There are also hugely important elements of the legal and administrative system where none of the general public have any say in terms of their appointment:

Members of the House of Lords;
Members of the judiciary;
Members of the Civil Service or local government administration; and
The Governor of the Bank of England.

I say this not because I think they should be voted on, but rather that they work rather well. They are all involve an appointments based system. It is about balance: too few elected politicians and you get dictatorship; too many and you get gridlock (USA anybody?).

I do not disagree that the members of the European Commission, the judges who sit in the European courts and the official of the European Central Bank are unelected, but so are their domestic equivalents. I will grant you that the 28 European Commissioners (as opposed to the broader European Commission, which acts as the EU civil service) have executive powers that domestic civil servants do not have, but they are each appointed by the elected governments of their home states, and the legislation that they propose has be approved by the member governments at the Council of Ministers, much like the Chief Executive of a local council has to have matters approved by the elected councillors.

This is essentially where democracy and sovereignty collide. If the European Commission propose legislation and it is approved under Qualified Majority Voting (a complex type of super majority), the UK by itself cannot block its introduction by itself. For example to block a spending measure beneficial to the poorer east or depressed south of Europe, the UK would need the support of other net contributors, e.g. Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Austria could together block a measure. I think it is hard to say this is not democratic, but it does mean that the UK has pooled certain aspects of its sovereignty.

But what exactly is sovereignty and where do you draw the line of veto? Humans have always grouped together, from family units to the United Nations, and at some point you have to accept that you do not always get your own way if the groupings are to last. In 2005 Tony Blair won a third term in government, but Michael Howard's Conservative Party won the English popular vote; the people of England had to put up with policies they hadn't wanted because English sovereignty is pooled at a UK level. In 2015 the population of London voted overwhelmingly for Labour, but it did not get the government it wants because its sovereignty is also pooled at a UK level. Should London, with its disproportionately high level of both UK GDP and capital turn round to Wales and Northern Ireland and say " we are fed up with our money going to you to spend on things we don't agree with"?

As a higher rate taxpayer living and working in London, I am in EU speak a "net contributor"; while I may grumble about the amount of tax I pay, I accept it is for the greater good. However I ask myself if it is somehow wrong for me to be contributing for say the construction of a bridge in Bulgaria to help develop the economy, why is it right for me to be contributing for a road in the Rhonda for similar reasons? And if the NHS is "overwhelmed" by people from the other EU countries living here, and it is right to exclude them, could not a similar argument be made against British smokers or the obese?

Are matters decided at the right level? Not always, but that is a charge at least as applicable within the UK as it is at a European level. For example, the UK minimum wage goes a lot further in Wales than it does in London, so should it be set at a regional level?

The complaint is made that unelected Brussels bureaucrats spend UK taxpayers money, but that same taxpayers money that is spent domestically is equally spent by unelected bureaucrats; it is just they are in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and various other locations. Politicians may vote on laws, but it is civil servants who implement them.

So the UK has agreed to pool certain elements of sovereignty, just as the people of England and Scotland have pooled sovereignty (as an aside, I think it is rather ironic that among the most passionate to leave the EU are those who are equally as passionate about Scotland and Northern Ireland remaining in union with England and Wales), but what has it actually agreed to pool sovereignty on? Let us start with what they don't involve:

Health system;
Pension system;
Benefits system;
Tax policies;
Foreign policy;
Defence policy;
Education policy;
Immigration from outside the EU; and
Policing.

Now if we were having a general election tomorrow, I would bet money those would make up the vast majority of top ten issues.

So if we have not pooled sovereignty on those matters, what have we done it on? The primary ones are:

Agriculture;
Fisheries;
External trade to the EU; and (most substantially)
The Single Market.

I am slightly surprised that agriculture and fisheries have not been a larger element of the debate, as they are two areas where the EU can hang its head in shame, and why I have some sympathy with the so called "Norway option" of EFTA/EEA membership, which retains access to the Single Market but brings back home competency of the other three. The agricultural policies make large farmers (both in the UK and the wider EU) rich on subsidies, but put tariff and nontariff barriers on agricultural products from developing countries, while the fisheries policies have seen disastrous reductions in fish stock levels in the waters around the UK.

External trade is a classic negotiation situation; both sides compromise in the hope that they gain something overall. The downside of being in the EU on such matters is that it leads to a slow process because you are negotiating a very large block, however they are never quick. For example the agreement between the EU and Canada took 10 years to negotiate, while that between the much smaller EFTA and Canada took 8 years. The upside is that the EU remains the world's largest market, so its negotiating position is on a par with other behemoths such as the USA and China.

So that takes us to the largest element of pooled sovereignty, the Single Market. The question I always ask people who wish to exit the EU "because of all these rules from Brussels", is which laws exactly they object to? If they were those that I mentioned above that relate to agriculture and fisheries, as I said, I would have some sympathy, but invariably there is no answer, or at least none based on facts (the EU does not regulate the curvature of your bananas for example, much as the tabloids might suggest). Is it the Prospectus Directive they object to? How about the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive? (Two I am personally familiar with). Perhaps it is the one that sets drinking water standards or regulates the approval of prescription medicines? The reality is that the Single Market is a vast set of standards to govern commercial activity within the EU. I am not for one minute suggesting that the UK could not implement its own drinking water, prescription medicine or share prospectus standards; I am saying why would we want to? Standards like this are there to make things safe, make things work and make it easier to trade.

If the Single Market had existed in the past, the UK would not have a different style of electrical plug from the continent and we would drive on the same side of the road. Right hand drive is not better or worse than left hand drive, nor are continental European electricity plugs better or worse than those in the UK; they are just different and as a result different standards have to be used for no benefit. My argument is not that EU regulations cannot be improved, like most things in life there is always room for improvement, but that the benefits of common rules and standards far outweigh any benefits that might be gained by changes specifically for the UK. These rules may be agreed by compromise, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Which takes me finally for this section to identity. Does the EU in some way dilute or Britishness? We have better food than we did in the past, but does our consumption of French cheese or Italian salami make us less British? I don't think so. Has membership of the EU eliminated cricket because it is not a European pastime? No. I can't see how we have become less British just because we have also embraced Europe. On the basis that having joined what was then the EEC in 1973, you would have to be over 60 to have been an adult before we joined, I don't see the working-age population of Britain as devoid of a British identity.

Economy

The only thing about economic forecasts that is certain is that they won't be right; if the economy could be accurately predicted then life would be much easier, so I am not going to say that the X economist is better than Y economist. I find it pretty compelling that the vast majority of people whose job it is to look at the economy believe it would be better to remain, but I also accept that there are a significant minority that believe we would be better to be out. So instead I will try to look at some key factors that are put forward as to why we should exit from the economic side of things.

Firstly the people leading the "leave" campaign from an economic perspective are not new and nor are their views; the likes of Patrick Minford, Roger Bootle, Liam Fox and John Redwood have been consistent and coherent on these matters (unlike some of their fellow campaigners) for a long time. However, anybody who is planning to vote "out" because they feel the chill wind of globalisation, and believes that this will lead to a return of heavy industry and secure blue collar jobs, should look closer at their policies. These are ardent free market supporters who are seeking to make the UK hypercompetitive in world markets by reducing regulations and barriers to trade and capital, while restricting free movement of labour as a countervailing force. From an economic perspective this is probably the only logical alternative to the Single Market, and I don't argue that it could work, but it would be far more dog-eats-dog than is currently the position. Turning the UK into an ultra-free market economy - a kind of colder and wetter version of Hong Kong - is on paper a viable option, but the reality is that the British population will not buy into such. There were enough howls of protest over George Osborne's half-hearted attempts at austerity; a move to low tax and privatised welfare provision will not get support. If they don't go this route, the alternative economic options look poor, and that is why the models run by the Bank of England, IMF, OECD etc. look so poor; bluntly, they do not anticipate a UK that is willing to change in the way that Minford and Bootle are proposing.

Secondly, the "leave" campaigners argue that there remain economic issues within the EU, that if they explode, it will be better to be out. Again I would not argue that such issues remain. While the Eurozone has emerged from the worst of its recession and is now growing faster than the UK, albeit still not that fast, it would be foolish to suggest all problems have been solved. Greece continues to be a basket case (even the ECB now appears to accept the IMF argument that some degree of debt write off will be required in its 2017 refinancing) and youth unemployment remains horrendous across the so called "Club Med" countries (and would be worse without the release valve of UK jobs - just go round any London restaurant, bar or café to see how many young Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese staff there are). However those issues will not cease if Britain leaves the EU - in fact they are likely to be exacerbated - and the impact on the UK will be just as severe in terms of reduced trade. We are not in an economic union with the USA, but the whirlwind created by the subprime mortgage crisis hit just as hard.

Thirdly, we are told that the price of membership is too high. Again, I don't propose to argue over the numbers on the side of the bus, but to put them into perspective in terms of what is a very large economy. The total value of all UK economic output is £1,812bn. Of this £716bn (39.5%) is paid to the UK government and in turn they spend £772bn (42.6%), the difference being the budget deficit and made up by borrowings. The amount paid to the EU (gross contribution less rebate) is £13bn (0.7%) and the net contribution is £9bn (0.5%). For comparison, £116bn (6.4%) is spent on the NHS and the current rate of economic growth is 2.0%, i.e. the UK's net contribution to the EU is equivalent to just one quarter's growth in the economy. Now I don't for a minute think the UK economy would collapse into a Greece-style depression if we exited, but even a modest recession would wipe out any cost of membership. The recession of the early 1990s, the most modest in the last 50 years, involved a 2.5% of GDP peak to trough loss.

Lastly there is the argument that the EU is less competitive in many areas of commerce than other parts of the world, and only by leaving can the UK gain competitive advantage. But what exactly do they mean by "less competitive"? It means that the EU has higher wages, greater employment rights, more holidays, safer, more pleasant working conditions and less pollution. The other areas of competitive advantage such as quality of education, investment in skills and technology, certainty of law and free movement of goods, services, capital and labour are either matters unaffected by EU membership or would be impaired by exit.

Immigration

Lastly we move to immigration, the factor that seems to be driving much of the "leave" vote. Now I do not argue for one minute with the "leave" campaign's claim that exiting both the EU and the Single Market (and by default not joining Norway, Switzerland and Iceland in EFTA) would be a core element of reducing "net migration" from last year's 333,000 people to the 30,000-50,000 per annum that Nigel Farage suggests is a reasonable level. It would however need to be accompanied by a sharp reduction in non-EU immigration, where the net figure for 2015 was 188,000 (higher than net 145,000 from within the EU) including those seeking asylum (41,563 asylum applications received in 2015).

Remaining in the EU (or in the Single Market) does involve free movement of people, but that is two way; there are about 1.5m Brits living in other parts of the EU and 3.0m other EU citizens in the UK. On the basis that most of the 3m EU people in the UK are of working age and most of the 1.5m Brits in the EU are retired, it strikes me as a good deal from our side. Will we continue see such large numbers of immigrants from the EU? It really depends on how their economies progress. Of those coming to the UK from other EU countries last year, roughly half were from "western" countries (mainly young people from France, Spain, Portugal and Italy where youth unemployment is very high) and half from "eastern" countries, your proverbial Polish plumber or Romanian farmworker.

In simple terms, this is very much what the free movement provisions were designed to achieve; they provide labour from countries with high unemployment to those countries where unemployment is low, which in this case predominantly means the UK and Germany. It should not be forgotten that the UK has the lowest rate of unemployment (5.1%) it has had in 40 years (bar a spell in 2003-2005, at which point it did not get any lower than 4.7%) and its highest workforce participation rate since records began in 1971. We are almost at full employment; 3% is accepted as just the natural "between jobs" rate, and much of the rest will be people who due to attitude and behaviour are going to be difficult to employ. So immigrants are not "taking the jobs" that Brits would do, but filling gaps in the labour market. We have relatively high minimum wage levels, so they cannot push wage rates down that far.

Could we fill the demands of employers while reducing net migration to 30,000-50,000? Not in the short term. Closing this source of labour will likely push up prices as employers look for ways to compensate for attracting people from competitors or replace them with machines; there will be winners among some individual workers (especially in skilled trades such as electricians and plumbers), but overall we will be less well off as a country. Longer term we would likely seek to automate more activities (which is the approach that Japan is taking), but this is not a route that is going to benefit those who feel they are in an uncompetitive position compared to migrant workers.

Does migration increase demand for housing and public services? Off course it does. Any increase in population does this, but that suggests that houses, hospitals, schools etc. cannot be built. In the 1960s we had large increases in the population due to the so called "baby boom" and we built significant numbers of all these, far more than we currently achieve. Rather than blame migrants for taking houses, school places and hospital beds, perhaps we should blame government and local authority policy for not building enough?

Nick

Andy Burnham and Manchester

2016-06-06T07:22:00.001+01:00

Andy Burnham’s decision to run as Mayor of Manchester (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/18/andy-burnham-to-stand-for-mayor-of-greater-manchester) is an interesting move. Like Sadiq Khan and his successful election as London Mayor, this would give Burnham a very high profile position in British politics and real executive experience at a time when Labour have been out of power. When any party has been out of power for an extended time it is easy to wave the “no experience” card at them, but if you can say, “well we have been running London and Manchester”, that takes a lot of the sting out of that one.

I think it may also allow the likes of Burnham and Khan to cast a distinctive position away from the constraints of Westminster and 5 minute news cycles. You may be high profile but you are dealing with more tangible matters such as bus fares and policing. The more devolution that happens, the more that local politics becomes a sensible route into politics. Perhaps our future leaders will no longer come from such a narrow base?

Could he use it as a springboard to Labour leadership ahead of 2020 if Corbyn does badly, say in the 2018 council elections (London Boroughs, Metropolitan Boroughs and many second tier cities like Cambridge and Norwich)? Possibly, but he will be 1 year behind Khan and will be able to show little progress in such a short time.

Nick

Little Britain is not the Future

2016-06-05T22:41:00.002+01:00

I understand that a lot of people find the world that we are in to be rather scary, especially, dare I say, older people. Flows of people, goods, data, capital, services and idea are moving faster and in greater volumes than has ever been the case, and it strikes me that feelings against the EU has become a lightning rod for people who are uncomfortable with the direction in which the world has moved, just as Donald Trump has become such in the USA. The world of the past is just that, and seeking a return to some mythical age before the EU when everything was wonderful, the sun never set on the British Empire and the UK was better at everything from shipbuilding to football than Johnny Foreigner is like wishing an escapism to the world of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

My question is what are these rules and laws that everybody seems to find so much of a danger to Britain? I work with EU rules and regulations every day: Market in Financial Instruments Directive; Market Abuse Rules; Prospectus Rules; etc., etc.. Does anybody who reads this and wants out have the slightest idea what they are about? There are a 1001 other such rules and directives across matters from pharmaceuticals to recycling of electrical goods. Do they in some way make us less free? I can’t see why they would. Do they impose costs? Yes, but personally I would rather have old TVs and toasters recycled rather than in landfills. Would the UK have to have its own equivalents? Almost certainly. Would they be better? Quite possibly, but then we would lose the benefits of standardisation, which are massive.

In the first half of the 20th century, various countries developed their own standards of electrical plugs, different voltage systems, different sides that the steering wheel was placed in the car. I don’t think “wow, look how lucky I am to have a British plug”; no, I think “what a giant pain in the butt that I need an adaptor to use my laptop when I travel abroad”. Things are some things that are better with competition and others from standardisation. Cars and mobile phones get better with rampant competition; shipping containers and internet protocols are better with standardisation.

So I ask again, what are these laws and rules that are so terrible? Which ones oppress good ole John Bull and drag him to slavery?

Also ask yourself why younger people are disproportionately lining up to vote to stay in and older people out? Younger people are looking forward, not backwards; they see the opportunities from openness. They see a world where the borders of old are not the barriers they once were; air travel is easier and cheaper than ever; high speed rail networks criss-cross Europe; social networks, satellite TV and instant messaging make it as easy to understand and communicate with someone across the ocean as down the street. They don’t wish to limit themselves to Europe, but they certainly do not wish to distance themselves from it either.

As a 45 year old, I am apparently on the borderline of those disproportionately inclined to vote either yes or no, but on this (if not much else in my life), I am very much with my younger compatriots. Much is made of the Remain campaign being “project fear”, but proclaiming a future that is more prosperous, more open and more cosmopolitan does not sound like fear to me. I say to all those older people who find the modern world an uncomfortable place, do not ruin the futures of your children and grandchildren and vote to leave just because you feel Britain is changing too fast; the whole world is changing fast and it is time to embrace it because you can’t escape it.

Nick

A Solution to the House of Lords

2015-11-07T18:44:00.001+00:00

The recent vote against the proposed Tax Credit changes by the House of Lords, despite having previously been been voted through by the House of Lords, has once again raised a question of the legitimacy of the UK’s second chamber, albeit from the opposite side of the political spectrum than most previous demands for change. While the Lords has changed significantly over the last 20 years, with the vast majority of the hereditary peers now gone, it is now overloaded with appointed peers, totalling 821, (plus another 41 who are currently disqualified or on leave of absence), with no retirement age, and lacks democratic legitimacy. Set against that, the lack of elections results in peers being rather less malleable to party whips and independent of thought than their colleagues in the House of Commons, who are never more than 5 years from having to stand for election.

So is there a way to combine the benefits of the appointed House of Lords while adding democratic legitimacy? I believe there can be.

Size

First, the size of the Lords has to be limited. I would set this 750, with a retirement age of 70 (the same as judges), and a 15 year term for each peer, with no second term.

Appointed Peers

The Lords certainly benefits from the expertise of non-political appointed peers, and I believe it would be a shame to lose this entirely. I would therefore propose 150 of the 750 be appointed cross-benchers, 50 retiring and being replaced at the end of each 5 year parliament.

Democratic Element

The remaining 600 peers would reflect the results of elections, but rather than change dramatically at each election, there are benefits from a degree of continuity, so I would propose they be based on an average of the popular vote at the last three elections. The representation of parties would be limited to those who averaged 5%+ in the last three elections, with allowance made for the smaller nations by including the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in proportion to their population, while for England the UK General Election results would be used. As with the appointed element, one third would retire at the end of each 5 year parliament and their replacements reflecting the change in those averages in the elections during the term. The peers themselves would be selected by their parties in whatever method they choose. This model would give the following party split:

Conservatives	211
Labour	205
Liberal Democrats	109
UKIP	33
Scottish National Party	18
Plaid Cymru	6
DUP	5
SF	5
SDLP	3
UUP	3
Alliance	1

	600

Nick

A Pivot to China or Just a Pivot?

2015-10-24T15:27:00.001+01:00

Much comment has been made about President Xi's visit, with claims of selling out both the jobs of steelworkers and the human rights of minorities in the PRC, alongside others regarding the commercial benefits. The most interesting comments in my view however, have come from across the Atlantic, with, for example, Foreign Policy magazine saying:

“That has plenty of observers in the United States and the U.K. fretting that Osborne’s courtship of China threatens the decades-old special relationship that has long served as the keystone of the trans-Atlantic alliance. While the White House publicly downplays the significance of the Sino-British embrace — “the United States welcomes strong relations between our allies and China,” press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday — many U.S. diplomats are privately said to be “incandescent” with rage at Britain. And many in Britain, from former officials to current opposition politicians, have excoriated what they see as a British sell-out to Beijing.”

(http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/u-k-china-cement-growing-friendship-with-big-nuclear-deal-hinkley-xi-osborne/?wp_login_redirect=0)

Considering the Obama administrations on well publicised “pivot” to Asia”, it might be argued that Cameron and Osborne are merely following their lead. I would however like to put a different perspective on it.

Since Margaret Thatcher’s election victory in 1979, Britain, under both Conservative and Labour administrations has followed an essentially similar foreign policy: junior partner to the USA in global matters while trying to drag the EU in a more free-market, pro-NATO, neo-liberal direction. While most people will not remember, or at least not remember well, anything different, this was not always the case. While I do not wish to delve into the into the policy of “European Balance of Power” that had dominated Britain’s foreign policy for centuries until World War I, during the intervening 65 years the policy was much more multi-polar. While not always successful (notably the failure to prevent the circumstances that led to World War II), it was nuanced. Clement Attlee tried to sail a middle ground between the USA and USSR, at least to begin with., and in 1950 the UK was the first western government to recognise the People’s Republic of China. The Conservative administrations of the 1950s and early 1960s tried to combine decolonisation with an effort to turn the Commonwealth into an economic relationship and one into which the European efforts at integration (EFTA and EEC) might be combined. Harold Wilson in the 1960s avoided entanglement in Vietnam, while many of the difficulties in the negotiations for joining the EEC by Wilson and Heath and subsequent re-negotiation by Wilson revolved around ongoing trade relationships with Commonwealth members.

So does this week’s visit by President Xi mark a pivot to a more diverse foreign policy? Maybe not by itself but let us look at other events:

The UK was the first western country to apply to join the Chinese sponsored Asian Infrastructure Development Bank in March 2015, at a time when America was rather hostile to what it saw as a rival to the US-led World Bank.
The current government’s policy of re-negotiation of Britain’s EU membership (whether it is successful or not) is aimed at somewhat loosening these ties.
Philip Hammond re-opened the UK embassy in Tehran in August and immediately made efforts to strengthen trade ties with Iran, while Washington remains much more cautious.

Next month sees the visit of India’s Prime Minister Modi to the UK, and possibly a similarly warm welcome as given to President Xi.

Creating a more multi-dimensional foreign policy will not be easy, but if it can be achieved, it may well offer many benefits.

Nick

Europe & Migration

2015-08-31T21:41:00.002+01:00

It appears to be impossible to read/watch/listen to the news without the interrelated topics of migration, immigration and refugees being raised. Whether it is people fleeing the wars of the Middle East, young workers of central Europe seeking greater opportunities or populist politicians calling the end is neigh like Chicken Lickin, the subject is most certainly topical. On one side are humanitarian calls to help those risking life and limb to make treacherous journeys to reach the European Union (“EU”) and then onward to preferred countries, while on the other the concerned calls of those who fear that public services will be overwhelmed, housing shortages exacerbated and wage rates undermined.

Is it possible to have a rational debate and look at matters in a logical manner in such an emotionally charged environment?

My first thought is that if ever there was a matter that is best addressed at an EU level, it is this. The movements of populations are multi-faceted. From outside the EU, there are refugees from war zones, those seeking relief from grinding poverty, while within the EU there are the young workers of the less-developed East and recession-ridden South seeking opportunities in the more economically buoyant countries of the North, while in the other direction many retirees (or semi-retired) from the cold, wet, bustling North seek sun and a slower pace of life in the countries of the Mediterranean. Even within the larger and more successful economies of the UK and Germany, there are significant internal migrations from the areas with fewer opportunities to those with more. Separately, but with long term relevance to the conversation, the EU native-born population is is in decline due to low birth rates concurrently with it ageing due to the post-1945 baby boom and the longevity benefits of first-class health and social services.

So what we see is not a movement of people in a single direction, nor a universal social situation, but something substantially more complex.

My question is why these issues are not looked at in the whole? While cities like London and Munich might be drawing in migrants from both within their own countries and the wider EU, how many a former Yorkshire mining village, industrial town of Thuringia or rural town in Limousin is slowly dying because it is being drained of those with ambition and energy as they head to the cosmopolitan delights of London, Berlin or Amsterdam? Notice must be taken of the flows of migration within the EU and within individual countries, but it is a fallacy that Europe is full and cannot accommodate these refugees. Would these communities not benefit from an injection of new blood, just as over many years London has benefitted from waves of immigration, and more recently, Leicester benefited from the entrepreneurial spirit of the Ugandan Asians who arrived in the early 1970s? However, such communities cannot be just left to their own devices; they will need support, and again, this needs to be delivered on a pan-EU scale if it is to be done properly. The quid pro quo for this is that those coming to Europe as refugees would need to understand that their residence within the EU would be predetermined until they had established their new economic position.

Migration is rarely an economic negative in the longer term; the people who have the determination to make such a journey will have the drive to make a positive life for themselves in their new home. Let us stop being and look at the opportunities instead.

Nick

The Corbyn Breakthrough

2015-08-16T14:28:00.000+01:00

Like most Arsenal supporters, I had long bemoaned the team’s lack of a good defensive midfielder, and then, during the height of last Autumn’s injury crisis, a player who had been on Arsenal’s books since 2008 was recalled from the latest of three loans, this one to Charlton Athletic, Francis Coquelin. Mr Coquelin had been written off by most, and it had been anticipated that he would be sold, but since then he has played almost every game and has blossomed into a first rate player; he had the proverbial “breakthrough year”. But this article is not about football, it is about politics, and Mr Coquelin’s sudden rise from the reserves is an analogy for the emergence of Jeremy Corbyn.

The Corbyn/Coquelin comparison bears comparison on other levels as well. Not only were they both forgotten by their team/party, but Francis’ adherence to some of the traditional tenets of football such as strong tackles, headed clearances and interceptions in amongst a team of football artists, has comparisons with Jeremy’s move to traditional Labour policies such as nationalisation and close union links among a the spin and artistry of New Labour. But enough of my admiration of Le Coq…………

So far the reactions to Mr Corbyn’s rise appears to fall into three camps; I shall call them Left Center and Right. For the Left he is loved, a prophet who has spent the proverbial (and almost literal) 40 years in the wilderness, and believe him to be a genuinely positive influence. The Centre hate him because they see a leader of the opposition that they believe is unelectable, and thus result in a Conservative victory in 2020, even if they have sympathy for his policies. The Right hate his policies with an almost evangelical zeal, but they equally love the idea of him becoming leader for the same reason the Centre hate him.

I would like to suggest another reason why a Corbyn election would be positive, and that is the difference between management and democracy. The last general election saw the three major parties having a fundamental economic policy that was pretty much the same:

Conservative - Move into budget surplus before 2020, funded by spending reductions;
Labour - Move into budget surplus, excluding capital expenditure, by 2020, funded by balance of spending reductions and tax increases; and
LibDems - Move into budget surplus before 2020, funded by spending reductions and tax increases.

That is an example, but fundamentally the same applied to all areas of policy that I can think of. They all basically had similar policies, and all people were being asked is who they believed would manage the process best. I am 44 years old, and have voted in the 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2015 elections, and with the possible exception of 1992 (I’m afraid my memory is rather faded as to Kinnock’s manifesto), all I have ever been asked in the intervening years is who I believe will manage the process better. However, my 49 year old self might be faced with a very different prospect in 2020.

To my mind, democracy is about the presentation of ideas and policies to an informed electorate, from which they can make a clear choice as to which they believe is best; it has to be about more that tweaking at the edges like a budget being approved at a chain of coffee bars, and the decisions coming down to 500 or 525 locations of the ratio of couches to dining chairs. If it is not about something more than modest tweaking, let’s save ourselves some money and just have some sort of rota involving all those who sat PPE at Oxford.

A Corbyn-led Labour Party would without doubt have a very different set of policies to a Cameron/Osborne/Johnson led Conservative Party. Is nationalisation of the railways the right policy? Should we scrap the UK nuclear deterrent? Is there an alternative economic policy? Surely in a democracy these are questions that people should have the right to vote on, whether or not you choose that the policy of the current Conservative government are right or not. I believe that Britain’s membership of the European Union is a positive, that we should remain in it, and that changes and reforms will be slow due to the nature of the beast. Equally I believe that the policy of holding a referendum on continued membership is the right decision and that David Cameron certainly gained support at the last election as a result. The unwillingness of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to back such a referendum just fed the views of many that those in power just desired a steady state; that is not democracy and they rightly suffered.

Much is made by the Centre (as I described them earlier) that Mr Corbyn is unelectable because the “mass media” will rise up in unison against him and the electorate of lemmings will scurry unquestionably in to the polling booths. I note similar claims were made them as regards the poor performance of the Labour Party in the general election and that UKIP and Tory Eurosceptics are already anticipating the same come the EU Referendum. Really? Have you slept through the last 20 years? The newspaper industry is dying on its feet because so few people are buying a daily paper. TV viewing is increasingly being dominated by streaming, downloads and scheduled recordings. Instead information is flowing through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blog sites, newsfeeds and an amalgam of other methods that would not even have been imagined when messrs Blair, Brown and Mandelson rolled out the New Labour experiment, and this trend will accelerate. Are enough people engaged in the process? No, but neither do they slavishly do what their daily newspaper tells them to do; both ignorance and information have been democratised.

Will enough people in the right mix of constituencies vote in the 2020 general election for a Corbyn-led Labour Party? Who knows, but if they don’t, it will not be because Rupert Murdoch tells them not to; the Sun will no longer have won it for anybody. They will have lost because people chose the policies of the Conservatives or they will have won it because people wished to have different policies, but either way it will have been a victory for democracy. Who knows, the jolt to the system may even result in the LibDems rediscovering what it is to be a true liberal party and the British electorate may be able to choose between conservative, liberal and socialist choices (plus green and nationalist) for the first time in my adult life; I am looking forward to it.

Nick

The Black Swan of the Labour Leadership Race

2015-06-16T08:47:00.002+01:00

Jeremy Corbyn scraped onto the Labour leadership election slate by the skin of his teeth, but my gut feel is that he will be considerably more successful in the final ballot. While Mr Corbyn is clearly well to the left of most members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, amongst grass roots Labour Party members, that is not so obviously the case. Add in the changes to the voting system, which has replaced the electoral college system with a one "Member", one vote system.

The intriguing aspect however is that it is not just full members of the Labour Party who count as "Members" for voting purposes, but also includes the new category of "Registered Supporters". The idea behind "Registered Supporters" was to encourage members of Trades Unions and other Labour-affiliated organisations who were not full Labour Party members to also vote in the election, although it is not limited to such.

So why do I think My Corbyn might do so well? Well, there are three (and possibly a cheeky fourth) reasons I think so:

1) Within the Labour Party's existing 221k members, I would suggest that the individuals are generally more left leaning than the MPs. Kendall is clearly the candidate of the right, but the Blairite wing appears to have minority support among the grass roots. Cooper and Burnham hold positions very close to Ed Milliband and there appears little to choose policy wise between them, and are likely to split the centre vote. Corbyn as the candidate of the left may well find himself well up there just among the membership alone.

2) Within the Trades Union movement, which has now lost its block votes, I would speculate that the more politically active, and thus the more likely to register as supporters and vote, will be more left leaning than the membership of the unions as a whole.

3) Those people who have left Labour over the years, disenchanted by its move under Tony Blair to the centre, and who voted LibDem in 2005 and 2010 or Green in 2015, as well as those who support far left parties such as Respect and Trades Unionist and Socialist Coalition, might see this as an opportunity to move Labour distinctly to the left.

4) And here is the cheeky one. There appears to be nothing to prevent those who have no sympathy for the Labour Party whatsoever from registering as supporters. Many supporters of the Conservatives, LibDems or UKIP may feel that they have a better chance in the future facing a Corbyn led party than any of the alternatives.

Who Does the Conservative Party Represent?

2015-03-22T09:58:00.001+00:00

I recently wrote a post about who the Labour Party represents and thought it would make sense to follow this up with a similar article about the Conservatives, especially with the Budget fresh in everybody’s mind.

The simplest starting point and to connect with the previous article is probably to say who they do not represent. Two of the groups mentioned in the previous article are clearly not favoured by Conservative policies: those working in the public sector (circa 11.7% of voters, and referred to henceforth as “Public Servants”), who have seen significant job cuts and low pay settlements; and those who may or may not work, but who rely primarily on support through the benefit system, who have seen measures such as the benefits cap, tougher Housing Benefit (notably the so called “bedroom tax”), Jobseeker’s Allowance and Disability Benefit rules (estimated at 15% of voters, based on number of Council Tax benefit claimants plus 1m people, and referred hereafter as “State Beneficiaries”).

Next the relatively simple identification of clear groups that Conservative policies have favoured, at least relative to Labour. Those with high incomes (>£150,000) or significant properties will certainly be better off based on stated tax policies, and anybody earning >£52,000 and contributing to a pension will be better off although the amounts are dependent on the level of income and contributions. Next, those who own significant (>£250,000) assets or businesses, while not having been the subject of specific tax policies, can reasonably surmise that they would be better off under the Tories. So while certainly greater than the so called “1%”, it is probably fair to say that the top 10% (which will include a relatively small number in the public sector, so let us assume this 10% and the 11.7% mentioned in the previous paragraph are separate) in terms of either income or wealth would be better off under the Tories; for simplicity I shall refer to all of the above as the “Well Off”.

So, we have 10% of voters who are definitely represented by the Conservative Party and circa 27% who are certainly not; so that leaves 63% who are up for grabs. These people, who I shall call the “Broad Working Class”, are the equivalent of those who in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 voted in droves for the Conservatives, and in 1997, 2001 and 2005 did the same for Tony Blair’s New Labour. Now, it is unrealistic to think that 63% of voters are ever likely to be attracted to just one party’s policies, but gaining the majority of this Broad Working Class will dictate who wins this election.

As I posted last time, Labour’s problem is with attracting the Broad Working Class while not alienating State Beneficiaries at a time of austerity. The Conservatives face a similar challenge; attracting the Broad Working Class without alienating the Well Off, however the electoral maths are somewhat different. Neither the Well Off nor the State Beneficiaries have historically had anywhere else to go in electoral terms; this time it remains true of the Well Off but not the State Beneficiaries. The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party are all promoting anti-austerity policies that would appeal to State Beneficiaries, plus many may decide just not to vote. For the Conservatives, the challenge on the right comes from UKIP, which as a populist movement is more a challenge for the Broad Working Class than the Well Off, who in turn are more likely to vote than State Beneficiaries.

So does the Conservative Party represent the Broad Working Class, or at least enough of it to win the election? What does this week’s Budget indicate? I think it shows that the current Coalition is representing the Broad Working Class, but it is less clear that the Conservative Party does. Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander may have severely damaged the electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, but they do appear to have focussed the Coalition policies more towards the Broad Working Class than the Well Off; the Conservatives went into the 2010 election with tax cutting focussed on Inheritance Tax, but the Coalition’s primary tax cut has been to raise the tax threshold massively, a tax cut whose benefits reduce for people earning over £100,000 and eliminated if you earn over £150,000. The policies have been harsh, and there are no doubt that many people have and are suffering as a result, notably among the Public Servants and the State Beneficiaries, but equally, those policies are increasingly having a positive impact on many of the Broad Working Class. Record levels of employment, low inflation and interest rates, and finally rising wage levels and now starting to make the feel better off, and perhaps the biggest concern amongst many Broad Working Class Voters would be whether a Conservative only government would be less interested in them.

No party has published its manifesto yet, but the indications are that the Conservatives cannot help but lurch towards issues that appeal to a vocal element of its core membership, but which carry only a minority interest in the wider population. The obsession with Europe and the EU is the most obvious, especially following the UKIP success at the European Parliament elections last year, but other issues such as ending the hunting ban and further Trade Union legislation (notably where it appears one sided, e.g. you have to get a higher number of members voting for a strike, but we will not allow you to make it easier to vote through the use of online voting). Like with the tax issue, the Liberal Democrats appear to have helped keep such niche matters off the legislative table.

If David Cameron wishes to gain a second term as Prime Minister, he needs to ignore the crazier elements of his own party and focus on a manifesto that looks more like the current coalition policies. Secretly, I think he rather hopes he has to have Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander back round the Cabinet table; they make for far more sensible colleagues than many a noisy Tory back bencher. If there was an option to vote “Current Coalition” on the voting papers in May, I would anticipate it would be getting a far better current poll performance than the Tories on their own.

Nick

Who does the Labour Party Represent?

2015-03-19T13:15:00.001+00:00

With UK general election just 7 weeks away and the two major parties neck and neck, I have been consuming a lot of political media. While doing this, a question has come to me:

"Who does the Labour Party Represent?", and the follow on question, "Does the Labour Party know the answer?"

Firstly we had John Cruddas (http://bit.ly/1BZKyI2), Labour’s policy co-ordinator, said the 115-year old party could simply “disintegrate in real time”.

Then there have been three interesting articles in The Guardian in the last couple of days. First from Rachel Reeves, the Shadow work and pensions secretary (http://bit.ly/1BZrQjV), in which she stated “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”. Her position (which should be read beyond that simple quote) by party activist Emma Burnell (http://bit.ly/1Euz5NZ) the following day, the original article having garnered a lot of comment. Finally, this morning, campaigner Jack Monroe wrote (http://bit.ly/1BZt8LN) how she had left the Labour and joined the Green Party due to their more left-leaning policies.

At the most basic historical level, Ms Reeves is correct; the Labour Party was established by the Trade Union movement to represent the interests or working people in Parliament. So is she correct in her objective?

I personally do not believe it represents the broader working class anymore due to the near elimination of Trade Union membership in the private sector (only 14.4% - 2.6m people), while the strong position of the Trade Unions in the public sector (55.4% - 3.8m people) means Labour has become increasingly a vehicle and voice for those in the public sector. Within those private sector union membership figures, it also needs to be recognised that many of employers where membership numbers are strong are former nationalised businesses such as utilities, mail and railways where a public service ethos remains in place. This is not meant as either a positive or negative analysis, merely that any organisation reflects the the make-up of its membership. It is also clear from the background of many Labour MPs, councilors and activists that it has become the vehicle and voice for many of those engaged in the charitable and campaigning sectors.

From a perspective of attracting significant further voters beyond that core, the comments of Ms Reeves an Ms Burnell on one side and Ms Monroe on the other reflect the two paths available: 1) those workers in the private sector, including the self-employed, who are receiving little or no benefits, but have no other means of support beyond their wage; or, 2) those who may work or not, but who rely primarily on support through the benefit system.

In recent history, certainly during the Blair and Brown administrations, Labour successfully appealed to both these groups, but in 2010, it lost the support of group (1). Its difficulty in appealing to both groups is that the public purse will not stretch to support both. If you have policies that appeal to group (2), you have no option but to increase taxes on group (1); it is economic illiteracy to think that all the money needed to reverse public sector austerity can come from "the rich" (normally defined as anybody earning 20%+ than the person saying the words "the rich") alone; Denis Healy tried that in the 1970s and it doesn't work. Those in group (1) generally feel they are paying enough of a burden already, so do not wish to pay more to reverse austerity on group (2).

At the moment Labour appear to be trying to appeal to both groups by fudging that difficult position, but the closer we get to the election, I think they will have to lean one way of the other. My own view would be that Ms Reeves is right, and Labour needs to get back to being a party of the broad working class (i.e. those who need to work rather than having their own capital) rather than being, as it increasingly is, a pressure group for the public sector and public services. Otherwise Mr Cruddas may be right.

Nick

Well Mr Miliband

2014-11-30T15:58:00.000+00:00

(First published 24 September 2014 on my Wordpress blog)

It is with regret that Chairman Nick has not been writing of late, but all the vitality of the Scottish referendum has woken me from my slumber. We are now some seven months from the next general election, and it seems to me that politics has become interesting; to me it is always interesting, but perhaps it is getting interesting to many others as well, or will become so in coming months. The high turnout in Scotland’s referendum has shown that if the passion can return to politics, then people will become passionate about it too.

…..So back to today’s thoughts……..

This week has seen the annual Labour Party conference, and in between the impassioned pleas for a return to a mythical NHS (that appears to be the Labour equivalent of the Conservatives/UKIPs village England that never really existed) and attacks on such modern bogeymen as hedge fund managers and Russian oligarchs, it has struck me that there is a tension bubbling just below the surface in a way that I cannot remember since my own political awakenings in the 1980s. Now I may be wrong (it does happen occasionally), but just maybe the Labour Party is becoming the Labour Party again?

It is not bursting forth like a tiger pouncing on its prey, just as the Labour party of Michael Foot and Tony Benn didn’t turn overnight in to the warm and cuddly New Labour of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, but more like a pack of Jack Russells, taking bites at its target, gradually getting collectively braver as time advances.

There is still appears to be some lack of self-confidence amongst the leadership as to whether the public will go along with more classically socialist (if that is not an oxymoron) policies, but the signs are there. We have a 50% top income tax rate, a new property tax on houses valued at over £2m and conveniently forgotten paragraphs regarding the need for continued spending austerity to address the budget deficit and a tougher approach to immigration.

Now with the Conservatives taking similar baby steps back towards Thatcherism to neutralise the threat of UKIP, the next election could offer the biggest policy differences between the major parties since 1987.

Nick

The UKIP Conundrum

2014-11-30T15:56:00.003+00:00

(First published 29 September 2014 on my Wordpress blog)

Populism has a long and less than noble political history in many countries, but has never taken hold in Britain. The closest we ever came was Oswald Mosely in the 1930’s with his rather diluted, anglicised version of Mussolini’s Fascists.

But this week Nigel Farage leads UKIP into its annual conference, riding high in the opinion polls and having just announced the defection of a second serving Conservative MP. UKIP has long been viewed as little more than an offshoot of the Tories; a home for those who feel that the modern Conservative Party has abandoned the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. My analysis of UKIP’s policies are that they are less a reincarnation of those propagated by the likes of Cecil Parkinson and Norman Tebbit in the 1980s, and more akin to classic political populism.

By populism I mean that curious mix of elements of small “c” conservatism pulled from both left and right, and brought together in a way that plays on the insecurities of the masses, and whose leaders are always in search of some bucolic paradise that exists only in the collective myth. Populism is often branded with the Fascist tag, a term which itself is rather too liberally (no pun intended) applied to any political views seen as being to the right of mainstream conservative parties. True Fascism was peculiar to Mussolini’s Italy, but following its deemed success in its early years, many of the policies were adopted, adapted and combined additional elements, most famously by Hitler and his National Socialists in Germany, adding “racial purity” to the mix, Franco in Spain, who absorbed the Fascist inspired Falange into a mix of Catholic conservatism and old style military dictatorship, and Salazar’s Estado Novo in Portugal, which shared many similarities with Franco’s Nationalist regime, but rather less military inspired. Although Mussolini’s Fascists started with a populist agenda, it soon headed down the authoritarian path; a model followed by the others mentioned.

Much better examples of populism are Juan Peron, the former president of Argentina, democratically elected three times in 1946, 1951 and 1973, and Hugo Chavez, the former president of Venezuela, also elected three times, in 1998, 2000 and 2006. Both had enjoyed successful military careers, an attribute that is frequently a prerequisite for political success in Latin America. Both drew on the socialist policies of social welfare and unionised labour, combined with what would be viewed as more right wing policies in terms of nationalism and militarism, and an autarkic approach to economic development.

So is Nigel Farage Britain’s Peron or Chazez? Well at first glance the answer would be a clear “no”, as all the media coverage portrays UKIP as simply a repository of dissatisfied, grumpy old Tories who just think the current Conservative leadership who have strayed from the path of righteousness. This is backed up by the disgust with which the leading lights of left wing of British politics treats UKIP; you only have to listen to trade union leader or read to Guardian to see this. However the modern left wing is greatly different from that of years past; the Labour Party is dominated by well educated professionals and the trade union movement by the public sector. This has been a natural evolution, and as evidenced by Tony Blair’s three election victories, not an unsuccessful one.

But this success has meant that the Labour Party often finds itself distanced from the views of blue collar, white working class (especially men) who were once the bedrock of its support. While this group may certainly distrust the Tories and share Labour’s views on public services, there are other policy areas where neither of the major parties (or the Lib Dems) appears in tune with this demographic. In particular, this group sees itself as having been particularly hard hit by the impact of mass immigration and globalisation, the effects of which were felt just as much (if not more) during 13 years of Labour rule as they have been during the current administration; the European Union provides a simplistic target for both these factors.

Can Nigel Farage encourage this group to vote in large numbers for UKIP? Well that is the 650 seat question. Can a manifesto be put together that can appeal to both the blue collar white working class and Tebbit Tories? So far UKIP has failed to put together a coherent policy portfolio of any kind, and has shown itself to be lacking in the kind of detail required of a government, but equally, are their target groupings those that are interested in such detail? Policies that have universal support amongst the major parties (overseas aid levels in line with the Millennium Development Goals, gay marriage and other LGBT equality issues, free trade (such as EU and WTO memberships) and environmental policies) appear to carry little interests for these voter groups.

Populism generally appeals to if not the lowest common denominator, certainly to one that is not far up the scale, but as any TV scheduler or tabloid newspaper will tell you, such an approach can be very successful. British politics (of all mainstream shades) has always worked and succeeded on the basis of “we know best”, and this patrician (in a non-gender sense) approach will be hard to break. Will the British people fall for populism over patrician politics in 2015? It may become the defining question of the forthcoming election.

Nick

Clear Blue Water

2014-11-30T15:55:00.003+00:00

(Published 7 October 2014 on my Wordpress blog)

Last week saw the Conservatives hold their annual conference. Like the Labour and UKIP conferences before them, there was a marked move towards their core supporter base, a move I for one applaud in all three cases (and I hope the Lib Dems follow the trend).

Having first become politically aware in the 1980’s, I look forward to an election like those of my youth, where the choices were clear and the policies made on the basis of conviction not focus groups. The past two year has seen the passing of both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Benn, two of the giants of politics during the past half century. Love them or hate them, neither Benn nor Thatcher could ever be accused of being wishy-washy in their politics.

In these terms, David Cameron scores higher than either Ed Miliband or Nigel Farage. While the latter two made speeches that they were clearly aimed at the faithful, both were rather long on rhetoric and rather short policies, especially those policies that might appeal more to the core than to the middle ground. In comparison, the Tories policies such as increasing the threshold for the 40% tax band and focusing the burden of deficit reduction on working age benefits are certainly lines in the sand.

Now while I don’t doubt for one minute that this approach by Messrs Cameron, Osborne et al was driven by a desire to win back voters who are flirting with UKIP, this is likely to have a number of consequences on election day. UKIP’s past record on producing coherent policies is up there with Saudi Arabia’s record on women’s rights. UKIP, like the Scottish Nationalists in the recent referendum vote, appeal to voters’ emotions, some pretty base emotions, and while these get the blood pumping on the campaign trail, quite frequently cooler heads prevail at the ballot box, something that the Tories are likely to benefit from.

The big question for senior Tories however, is whether the gains on this front will outweigh any negative impact such an approach has on floating voters and those who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010. Like Labour, the Tories conference speeches suggest that they will have their core vote well motivated, including in the case of the Tories, many who might have voted UKIP at this year’s European Parliamentary election. But in 2010, the Lib Dems received 23% of the votes cast, a figure that increases to almost 30% if the non-nationalist minor parties are included. How many of these votes that find their way (or not) to the two major parties will determine who wins, who loses and whether another coalition will be on the agenda.

It is clear that many voters with centre-left inclinations who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 have long since moved their support to Labour, as evidenced by the polling figures over the last couple of years. What is less clear is how those votes are spread with reference to our first past the post voting system. Labour gaining former Lib Dem votes in its northern urban heartland means very little in electoral term, just as the Conservatives winning back UKIP waverers in the Home Countries has minimal effect.

With the UK now showing a strong economic rebound, the Conservatives should reap electoral benefits, but the rather uneven distribution of the fruits of recovery may limit this, especially as the beneficiaries are quite likely to already be Tory voters.

So what does all this mean? I think the only thing that is certain is that it is going to be close, and quite possibly the closest since the titanic struggle between Harold Wilson and Edward Heath in February 1974.

Nick

Ferguson

2014-11-30T15:53:00.002+00:00

The last week has seen much comment on the events in Ferguson, and I don’t propose to comment on the case itself; there has been enough comment already and passions on both sides are already inflamed enough.

Instead, I would like to comment on the broader issues; I think the issue of Police brutality is a symptom not the cause of the problem, and just treating the symptom never cures the disease.

The American culture has always been based on a zero sum game of winners and losers; it is the ugly dark side of all the things that in many ways make America such a great country: entrepreneurial spirit, creativity, self sufficiency and sense of adventure. Those ugly aspects have included: taking land by force from the natives; enslaving Africans, then oppressing their descendants; exploiting cheap labour from China/Latin America (both in country and immigrants); and fighting wars (some overtly and some covertly) to control resources and strategic locations.

Just look at the history of labour disputes and trade unions in the US; they have been far more violent than in the UK, France or Germany, despite American workers being paid more. It was common for the National Guard to be called in and strikers to be shot right up until World War 2.

To stop young black men being shot will require a change of culture: the people need to stop obsessing about money and material possession, guns have to removed from everyday society and education rather than celebrity should be the aspiration of the society.

People need to start thinking beyond themselves and their immediate family. One would hope those who have been blessed with success would be the most generous in helping. This is not a matter a race or social class, applying equally to the Silicon Valley CEO buying another yacht as it does to a rapper buying yet another Ferrari. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have shown a how this can be done, so lets hope others will follow.

The legal and political system needs to become more consensual, and quite frankly, more grown up. Much of the debate this week has been about whether the grand jury made the right decision regarding the Michael Brown case. I would ask a different question; could they have come up with any different decision based on the law as it stands. The American legal system appears to accept the right to resort to deadly violence (whether it is the police, other government agencies or individuals) in so many situations , and guns are so prevalent, that is it surprising that so many deaths occur? America has roughly 5 times the homicide rate of France, Germany or the UK; is a constitutional right to bear arms really worth that?

And my final point is one of a culture of violence; again not an issue of race or class. It equally applies to the white “good ole’ boys” with their love of guns and intolerance, to the “gangstas” with their profanities and glorification of drug dealing and objectification of women, or the large corporation putting the bottom line before the health of its workers or the local community.

Nick

Lines in the sand

2013-04-03T11:03:00.001+01:00

A debate took place on the on the Facebook page of one of my friends last night regarding Amina Tyler, the young Tunisian woman who is pictured topless online with script across her chest in protest against the treatment of women (http://bit.ly/10wF4PA). This is something I wrote about a couple of weeks ago already (http://on.fb.me/10wFwgM), but the debate raised the broader issue of what limits society and culture should place on the freedom of the individual.

Several comments were made about how I was viewing this through western eyes and that I needed to be more understanding of Tunisian culture. As a 40 something white British male working in the City, I guess I am the epitome of the classic image of Western imperialism, but equally, I am a creature of the modern world of globalisation; I live in London, probably the world's most cosmopolitan city, my friends, my clients and my interests are spread around the world, I am married to someone from another continent and I try to absorb as much information and understanding of the wider world as I can.

Britain has faced its own issues with dealing with the different cultures of people moving to this country; forced marriage, female genital mutilation and honour crimes are just three such recent issues, and the same issues are raised. I don't believe that these are issues that can be pussyfooted around; they are just wrong, and it has nothing to do with where anybody comes from.

I don't know Amina, but I do know that it is wrong for anybody to be treated as a second class citizen because of their gender. It doesn't matter what was written in a book, whether that book is 2,000 years old, 1,300 years old or published last week on Kindle; this is something that is wrong and as the human race has developed we have realised is wrong, just like slavery and human sacrifice. I don't want to care who you pray to, what you read, what you eat or how you live your life; that is up to you. As long as you do not impose your views on others or expect others to involuntarily support you in your life, then go ahead live your life as you chose.

So to all people everywhere I say that if you that if you wanted to be treated with respect, that if you want the benefits that the modern world can bring, then start treating everybody as equal, whatever their gender, race or sexuality. If you try and crush the potential of half your population, you will forever stay poor and stupid. respecting the individual does not kill a culture, it enhances it.

Reds Under the Unmade Bed

2013-03-21T12:19:00.001+00:00

Those of you with long enough memories will remember the Cold War fear that there were Soviet sympathisers everywhere, just waiting for their opportunity to overthrow capitalism; "reds under the bed" was the common turn of phrase. But then came Gorbachev, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the discrediting of the Soviet economic model. At the same time, Western leaders such as Thatcher and Reagan provided new impetus for market based economic reforms. This trend continued into the 1990s, converging around centrist policies promoted by Blair, Clinton and the EU.

The next turn came in 2008 with the crash of the financial system, and holes began to rapidly appear in the consensus as the debt fuelled expansion in the private, public and banking sectors all came to a grinding halt and the full difficulties in paying back those debts became apparent.

In Britain, one of the main focuses of the coalition government has been to reduce the ever growing welfare bill, and this has created one of the biggest fault lines in British society, and one that is likely to grow wider. On the right, the argument is that a system of welfare dependency has been created, leading to large numbers of people for whom living off benefits is preferable to low paid and/or unfulfilling jobs. The evidence for this is that Britain has more people in employment than ever before, but with increasing numbers of those low paid and/or unfulfilling jobs taken by immigrants, as benefit drawing Brits either refuse to take them, or are so unemployable that no sensible employer would hire them. On the left, the argument is that the the poorest members of society are being blamed for the chaos caused by the reckless behaviour of financial institutions (they never blame over borrowing individuals or governments, who must also surely share the blame?) in the pre-crash period, and that a return to economic growth will solve the ballooning welfare costs.

I want to reflect on a slight tangent - is this British underclass starting to to resemble aspects of Soviet era society? I know it sounds crazy, but here is my thinking. In the Soviet bloc unemployment was practically non-existent, but productivity was almost practically non-existent; if they had not, their economies would not have collapsed in the way that they did. The Soviet bloc economies could not meet the requirements of their population due to the ever increasing productivity gap with the west; just compare east and west German industry - Trabant -v- Volkswagen. Capitalism works because it makes people hungry, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically in terms of what they wish to achieve or acquire. The benefit system creates a kind of mini-Soviet bloc society within a broader capitalist society, with people paid low amounts but with no expectation of productivity or profit. Like Soviet society, its members live with petty, often vindictive rules, and a standard of living that does not compare to the mainstream capitalist economy, but it is also undemanding on its citizens. They receive free healthcare, sufficient income for a basic standard of living and none of the issues associated with life in the tooth and claw of capitalism. Somebody recounted the experience of a job centre advisor (albeit in Canada) about people returning to work not being psychologically prepared; I would argue that it is not work but capitalism that they are unprepared for, and when they then try to enter or re-enter the mainstream workforce, they find similar cultural difficulties to those experienced by Soviet bloc citizens post the collapse of communism and their attempts to join the capitalist economic system.

The question is, will this sub-economy collapse in the same way that the Soviet economy did?

Nick

I can see clearly now

2013-03-20T23:16:00.001+00:00

It struck me today that the latest Budget is tangible evidence of the path down which the Coalition Government wants to take the country, and the radical nature of this path. I think Cameron is portrayed as a smoother but more limited version of Thatcher, but the policies are possibly more radical, albeit in a different direction.

20% Corporation Tax was never even remotely achieved in the 1980s. The reform of the benefit system creates a much greater incentive for people to move to work than anything attempted under Thatcher. But most significantly, inflation, the totemic enemy (along with the Soviet Union and the left in general) of the 1980's now appears to be the unspoken ally instead. Inflation will erode the horrific debt levels (both in the state and private sectors) and the accompanying depreciation of the Pound will increase the competitiveness of exports (at least in the short term), but it will result in a continuing erosion of living standards. The big gamble is will this lowering of real living standards, reduced corporate taxes and tougher benefit rules turn Britain into a lean, cost competitive but also high value added economy, or will it just lead to constant decline? It is one hell of a bet.

Nick

Credibility in the Vatican

2013-03-20T10:22:00.001+00:00

I can't say I know that much about the new Pope, but the election of a non-European Pope appeared to indicate a modest move in terms of realising the world in which the Catholic Church now exists. However the sight of a despot like Robert Mugabe being treated with such reverence at the inauguration suggests that they have learned little, and that the Catholic Church remains one of the more reactionary institutions on this earth. To denounce contraception, abortion and homosexuality while laying out the red carpet to a murdering thug who has destroyed the second strongest economy in Africa seems perverse in the extreme. I can't somehow see Jesus giving the thumbs up to that one.

Nick