Sunday, July 15, 2007
BLAIR IN A NUTSHELL, PART 2
Since the first in this series he's actually left Downing Street, seemingly into complete nothingness; no press conferences, no grand standing alternative careers (yet) and no more "Blair - the legacy bla bla bla" stories. So, here's my second look-back. One thing Blair loved was changing names, for various nefarious purposes no doubt and not just because he was superficial and ineffectual. My example is this: under Thatcher there was introduced an experiment in regional policy called Enterprise Zones. Ghastly Thatcherite free-marketeering zealotry I think you'll agree, and of course Blair always warned us he was the only thing that stood between Ye Olde Iron Lady returning (or somesuch). So, out with Enterprise Zones, and hello Enterprise Areas (what a difference!).
Since the first in this series he's actually left Downing Street, seemingly into complete nothingness; no press conferences, no grand standing alternative careers (yet) and no more "Blair - the legacy bla bla bla" stories. So, here's my second look-back. One thing Blair loved was changing names, for various nefarious purposes no doubt and not just because he was superficial and ineffectual. My example is this: under Thatcher there was introduced an experiment in regional policy called Enterprise Zones. Ghastly Thatcherite free-marketeering zealotry I think you'll agree, and of course Blair always warned us he was the only thing that stood between Ye Olde Iron Lady returning (or somesuch). So, out with Enterprise Zones, and hello Enterprise Areas (what a difference!).
Sunday, March 25, 2007
BIBLICAL ELFIN SAFETY
Title inspired by the ASI Team, but I just wanted to show that health and safety mandating has a long, even ancient pedigree. Here’s the Good Book:
Title inspired by the ASI Team, but I just wanted to show that health and safety mandating has a long, even ancient pedigree. Here’s the Good Book:
When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if any one fall from it. (Deut. 22.8)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
SPINELESS TORIES?
Some think the Tories are only doing all this green stuff to get good pr, others fear they're serious. Well, the truth is sort of both. As Conservatives put it privately the just-announced air travel taxes are politics, not policy, and aim at marking their opposition against the government, and with the hope it will increase tension between Brown and Milliband.
But it goes further than that. Whilst there is strong scepticism on the science of global warming, the view appears to be that the public has decided that the debate has been concluded decisively. So, the public wants action. So the politicians should act, despite their own scepticism and possibly better judgement.
Is this spineless? I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand politicians should do what voters want them to do. On the other hand I believe that politicians can and sometimes should provide leadership on important issues. This is one of the things that's been going wrong with the Consevatives under DC I think. On many other issues, Iraq and defence generally, on relations with the US, on public spending and many other issues we are just pandering to received wisdom, and abandoning the positions that are in fact right. If we don't stand for the right policies consistently, won't this make actually governing tremendously difficult as we face an uphill battle with public opinion instead of having built up public support consistently?
I for one, am at least quite doubtful.
Some think the Tories are only doing all this green stuff to get good pr, others fear they're serious. Well, the truth is sort of both. As Conservatives put it privately the just-announced air travel taxes are politics, not policy, and aim at marking their opposition against the government, and with the hope it will increase tension between Brown and Milliband.
But it goes further than that. Whilst there is strong scepticism on the science of global warming, the view appears to be that the public has decided that the debate has been concluded decisively. So, the public wants action. So the politicians should act, despite their own scepticism and possibly better judgement.
Is this spineless? I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand politicians should do what voters want them to do. On the other hand I believe that politicians can and sometimes should provide leadership on important issues. This is one of the things that's been going wrong with the Consevatives under DC I think. On many other issues, Iraq and defence generally, on relations with the US, on public spending and many other issues we are just pandering to received wisdom, and abandoning the positions that are in fact right. If we don't stand for the right policies consistently, won't this make actually governing tremendously difficult as we face an uphill battle with public opinion instead of having built up public support consistently?
I for one, am at least quite doubtful.
Labels: Conservatives, economy, environment, politics, USA
Thursday, February 22, 2007
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Why state intervention is no perfect cure for market failures, by Jane Galt:
Why state intervention is no perfect cure for market failures, by Jane Galt:
1) People are often stupid
2) Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.
You may also like this cartoon version of the Road to Serfdom. Via Andrew Sullivan
Saturday, January 20, 2007
THE FUTURE OF THE BBC
The Beeb has just secured itself some big happy funding increases, and inevitably there’s been some debate about the future of the corporation.
Needless to say the increase is funding is completely unjustified, but it’s worth reiterating why this is so.
The Beeb has just secured itself some big happy funding increases, and inevitably there’s been some debate about the future of the corporation.
Needless to say the increase is funding is completely unjustified, but it’s worth reiterating why this is so.
I support the BBC existing as a public broadcaster in order to have news reporting and investigation that will be free of commercial pressures. It can also serve as a focus for experimentation which may be too risky for a commercial broadcaster and help to inform a national narrative (not too popular point, I know). So, this is its basic public service remit.
So, how should public services be funded? There are two ways. Either we decide this is a general, indivisible social good and then it should be free at the point of use and paid by general taxation (see defence, policing, the NHS). Alternatively we could decide that a given service is inherently monopolistic and then the state is the most efficient provider, which would then mean that its users simply buy the service directly from the provider/state as in a market place.
So, how should public services be funded? There are two ways. Either we decide this is a general, indivisible social good and then it should be free at the point of use and paid by general taxation (see defence, policing, the NHS). Alternatively we could decide that a given service is inherently monopolistic and then the state is the most efficient provider, which would then mean that its users simply buy the service directly from the provider/state as in a market place.
How on earth does the licence fee fit this? It doesn’t. The licence fee forces buyers of television sets to pay for a service they may never use and not want, so it doesn’t meet the requirement of being a state-provided service. I think the BBC is a general good so it should be paid out of general taxation. If you believe it should be considered a service, then you should favour a BBC subscription system where you have to pay especially to get access like with any other tv service provider. Only these two options are fair. The current licence fee is illegitimate.
The BBC’s public service remit I am advocating would also require changes to the Beeb’s programming. The point of it would be to provide a service that the market won’t provide. That means anything that’s commercially viable, such as soap operas, game shows and the like should not be the BBC’s business. The exception would be news and documentary making which can be commercially viable. But as pointed out above there is a risk of a private channel’s financial interests biasing such work. I can’t remember what it was but Noreena Hertz had a good example for this.
And talking of biases, the BBC will also have to sort its political and cultural biases as documented en masse by Biased BBC.
And talking of biases, the BBC will also have to sort its political and cultural biases as documented en masse by Biased BBC.
These transformations would of course much reduce the current BBC budget which is why the increases are unjustified.
All in all these changes would make the BBC one the great British institutions again.
All in all these changes would make the BBC one the great British institutions again.
Labels: economy, media, public services
Monday, December 11, 2006
One must beware of ministers who can do nothing without money, and those who want to do everything with money.
All too true, something worth bearing in mind in Britain today when we debate tax levels and public services.
Labels: economy, politics, public services, quote
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
DISPIRITING TIMES
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
Labels: Afghanistan, economy, EU, immigration, Israel, Lebanon, media, politics, terrorism, USA
Friday, February 17, 2006
WHAT A DOUR WEEK
I should be blogging properly on all of this, but it’s not so much anger but despair that marks my reaction to what’s been going on in the past days. Where to start?
ID cards. Has anybody anywhere seen anything resembling a convincing argument that we actually need these breathing licenses? Sure their cheerleaders have argued well, if not convincingly, that they won’t turn this country into a police state and that they won’t bankrupt us. And that’s it. And some of the cheek they use in their arguments - just consider our probable future prime minister:
I should be blogging properly on all of this, but it’s not so much anger but despair that marks my reaction to what’s been going on in the past days. Where to start?
ID cards. Has anybody anywhere seen anything resembling a convincing argument that we actually need these breathing licenses? Sure their cheerleaders have argued well, if not convincingly, that they won’t turn this country into a police state and that they won’t bankrupt us. And that’s it. And some of the cheek they use in their arguments - just consider our probable future prime minister:
This week has shown us to be in the last stages of intellectual decadence: ID cards are necessary, said Gordon Brown on Monday, "as a protection of people's individual civil liberties". A more dishonest justification for the extension of state power cannot be imagined.
More shocking abuse in Iraq . . . well not really. We get a journalistically indefensible running of abuse image of Abu Ghraib. Why this qualifies as “news” escapes me, as it’s the same incident, the same day, that we have already worked through and it offers nothing in the way of new evidence. The only thing it does is provide material to the opponents of the Coalition. It’s almost like the responsible media want us to lose this war . . .
And as for our own boys, am I missing something here? I only read about it and didn’t see the images so I was expecting something disturbing. So I was rather dismayed to see the whole furour was kicked up only about a few troops in rather desperate circumstances kicking and hitting a little too much during an arrest. Admittedly, too much is too much and it is necessary for disciplinary action to be taken. But given the circumstances of an mob assault on the Army base, a mere few kicks and hits are pretty mild to the possible alternative of machine gunning the crowd. Again, this abuse only really shows again how we remain on the moral highground even if we lose the PR battle.
Which moves us on to the smoking ban. What to make of that? Is this fox hunting for pubbers? I don’t really see how this can be popular, or why we need it. In consequence pubs will wither lose customers, or change their licences to being private premises. As for people who don’t go to pubs, and who are probably the majority backing this move, they’re not going to be showing up in Ye Old Rose anytime soon. The only change is that now we have to waste the resources of public order on implementing this idiocy. What a day for limited government.
The final straw I think was the bizarre Dick Cheney shooting incindent. Sure, given that the victim seems in good shape, it’s certainly worth a giggle and some jokes in satire shows, but can anybody give me any reason why this was given whole minutes on prime time British tv news? Or why does it warrant any real attention? It’s all beyond me. It does however, along with the above raise questions about the competence of the journalistic profession.
All in all I just feel that sensible argument is just being lost.
Labels: defence, economy, Iraq, law & order, media, nation, politics, society
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said. "The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
Well, he’s got the wording right, but then he usually does – it’s the implementation that normally leave to be desired . . .
Labels: defence, economy, global affairs, terrorism, USA
Friday, July 29, 2005
SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM STROLLING THROUGH LONDON
I’m not very focused on blogging at the moment, what with my real life making quite some demands, but I am at last trying to give this blog a proper focus and have made my by-line a bit more meaningful. Admittedly it’s still rather more aspirational. . .
But to keep this site alive I though I’d post about some things that caught my attention in London today.
Saw some volunteers of Shelter. The motto on their t-shirt is “bad housing wrecks lives”. Won’t disagree with that, but Shelter’s main task is to fight homelessness, rather than bad housing, and it sends out a rather confusing message. Which is a shame because homelessness is a real problem as a look this city around will confirm. “Bad” housing is a rather subjective term in the end.
Took the no11 down Whitehall. There are Union Jacks flying from all the lampposts. I don’t know how recent an addition this is, as I don’t normally travel through there. Does anybody know whether they’re staying up? I hope so. Beyond giving my patriotic heart warm feelings, the flags also introduce some much-needed colour into Whitehall, which would aesthetically be more aptly described as Greyhall.
Saw the new monument that is up, “To the women of World War Two”. Sorry to say this, but I don’t like it. It is too big, too plump and in the wrong place. Leaving aside whether there should be such a monument to begin with. Who does it commemorate after all? People who had the bad luck to be caught up in a war, but who due to being adult and female somehow warrant special attention. Sorry again to say this, but children and old men suffered and served on the home front just as much as the women did, and they won’t be getting a monument, simply because that would not serve any cause of identity politics. Monuments should either be individual, entirely universal or dedicated to those who purposefully put themselves at risk for the greater good.
Which brings me on to the fairly new memorial to fallen police officers. Now this is an entirely different story. After all the police volunteer to serve, and given the risen importance of policing for national security it is also timely that their sacrifices should have a proper representation. Unlike the WW2 women one, this elegant Lord Foster-designed memorial is neatly tucked away in a quite space between Horse Guards and the Mall. This is a memorial I like, even though I should admit that I wouldn’t have suggested it myself.
It is true that there’s quite a lot of armed police out and about, but personally I think it’s good there’s more police on the street. That said that depends where you encounter them. Out in the exurbs where I grew up and most of my family live, I would find the presence of police anywhere, let alone sub-machine gun wielding ones on public transport, distinctly threatening. And in case you’re scared they might gun you down because of confusing you with a Brazilian electrician, err, suicide bomber, London transport are trying to give you tips how to stay alive . . .
After last week’s rather less pleasing offering, the New Statesman is trying to redeem itself this week, with a cool-designed cover “Why Britain is Great”. Mind you, not yet bhaving read the article I wonder if there are going to find rather other things great about this country, than, say, last week’s Spectator did . . .
I’m not very focused on blogging at the moment, what with my real life making quite some demands, but I am at last trying to give this blog a proper focus and have made my by-line a bit more meaningful. Admittedly it’s still rather more aspirational. . .
But to keep this site alive I though I’d post about some things that caught my attention in London today.
Saw some volunteers of Shelter. The motto on their t-shirt is “bad housing wrecks lives”. Won’t disagree with that, but Shelter’s main task is to fight homelessness, rather than bad housing, and it sends out a rather confusing message. Which is a shame because homelessness is a real problem as a look this city around will confirm. “Bad” housing is a rather subjective term in the end.
Took the no11 down Whitehall. There are Union Jacks flying from all the lampposts. I don’t know how recent an addition this is, as I don’t normally travel through there. Does anybody know whether they’re staying up? I hope so. Beyond giving my patriotic heart warm feelings, the flags also introduce some much-needed colour into Whitehall, which would aesthetically be more aptly described as Greyhall.
Saw the new monument that is up, “To the women of World War Two”. Sorry to say this, but I don’t like it. It is too big, too plump and in the wrong place. Leaving aside whether there should be such a monument to begin with. Who does it commemorate after all? People who had the bad luck to be caught up in a war, but who due to being adult and female somehow warrant special attention. Sorry again to say this, but children and old men suffered and served on the home front just as much as the women did, and they won’t be getting a monument, simply because that would not serve any cause of identity politics. Monuments should either be individual, entirely universal or dedicated to those who purposefully put themselves at risk for the greater good.
Which brings me on to the fairly new memorial to fallen police officers. Now this is an entirely different story. After all the police volunteer to serve, and given the risen importance of policing for national security it is also timely that their sacrifices should have a proper representation. Unlike the WW2 women one, this elegant Lord Foster-designed memorial is neatly tucked away in a quite space between Horse Guards and the Mall. This is a memorial I like, even though I should admit that I wouldn’t have suggested it myself.
It is true that there’s quite a lot of armed police out and about, but personally I think it’s good there’s more police on the street. That said that depends where you encounter them. Out in the exurbs where I grew up and most of my family live, I would find the presence of police anywhere, let alone sub-machine gun wielding ones on public transport, distinctly threatening. And in case you’re scared they might gun you down because of confusing you with a Brazilian electrician, err, suicide bomber, London transport are trying to give you tips how to stay alive . . .
After last week’s rather less pleasing offering, the New Statesman is trying to redeem itself this week, with a cool-designed cover “Why Britain is Great”. Mind you, not yet bhaving read the article I wonder if there are going to find rather other things great about this country, than, say, last week’s Spectator did . . .
Labels: economy, nation, politics, society, terrorism
Friday, March 11, 2005
I’M NOT A LIBERTARIAN, EVIDENCE: ENERGY POLICY
I suppose I share a lot of common ground with libertarians onmany grounds, but at the end of the day I am not one of them. For reasons of clarity I always call myself conservative, which is not really all that clear when you think about it, but it’s better than mumbling something about-sort-of-centrist-but-I-don’t-want-to-be-tagged answer.
Anyways, what brought this to my attention was this daily comment from the Cato Institute on energy policy.
I agree with virtually everything they dislike about Bush’s new energy bill, even though I’m still very sceptical about the ability of market driven technology changes to deal with environmental problems alone, as Ronald Baily argued recently. But that’s not really my point here.
The authors quote Bush as saying that
I suppose I share a lot of common ground with libertarians onmany grounds, but at the end of the day I am not one of them. For reasons of clarity I always call myself conservative, which is not really all that clear when you think about it, but it’s better than mumbling something about-sort-of-centrist-but-I-don’t-want-to-be-tagged answer.
Anyways, what brought this to my attention was this daily comment from the Cato Institute on energy policy.
I agree with virtually everything they dislike about Bush’s new energy bill, even though I’m still very sceptical about the ability of market driven technology changes to deal with environmental problems alone, as Ronald Baily argued recently. But that’s not really my point here.
The authors quote Bush as saying that
we need an energy bill, one that encourages reliability for electricity, and one that encourages conservation and helps us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy
Read this commentary from this point onwards and notice what’s missing: independence from foreign sources of energy. That is of course one thing the market left to itself cannot deliver. Now if you’re a Cato-style libertarian you’re probably more inclined to ignore this issue because it can only be solved by state intervention. As a conservative I find the idea of the state intervening in the economy for the national interest entirely acceptable, and government action to lower the dependence on Middle Eastern oil is an idea I already endorse.
Labels: economy, global affairs
Monday, February 14, 2005
LEGALISED PROSTITUTION AND THE CASE FOR A CATCH-ALL WELFARE PAYMENT
I was a little clueless in
a recent posting
about how to solve the dilemma of having legalised prostitution and still have a welfare to work programme. Over at No Blood for Sauerkraut there has been a little debate about this problem with some interesting ponts raised. Paul13 reminded me of this idea, about having a single-type payment paid out to all citizens, irrespective of circumstances. I had vaguely, in my new year predictions for 2004 hinted at my interest in:
I was a little clueless in
a recent posting
about how to solve the dilemma of having legalised prostitution and still have a welfare to work programme. Over at No Blood for Sauerkraut there has been a little debate about this problem with some interesting ponts raised. Paul13 reminded me of this idea, about having a single-type payment paid out to all citizens, irrespective of circumstances. I had vaguely, in my new year predictions for 2004 hinted at my interest in:
a welfare reform that would replace the over-complicated and useless current system with a single type benefit
. I’m not entirely sure about the costing, but such a system would have two great advantages. Firstly, it would make it possible to cut out the wasteful and ineffective bureaucracy that currently hobbles the administration of welfare pay-outs. Secondly, and this somewhat closer to my heart, it would make it possible to roll back the state and get government a little bit more out of our everyday lives.
Update: Just remembered this idea was endorsed by Alan Duncan in Saturn’s Children. I’ll go and check that out again and post on this as soon as I get round to it.
Another Update: I had already developed an interest in this idea when I was politically wired slightly differently, and I remember it was advocated by Erich Fromm, I think in the Sane Society, but memory is rather hazy right now.
Labels: economy, nation, society
Friday, February 04, 2005
LEGALISED PROSTITUTION QUANDARY
Now, this story about an unemployed German waitress who will have her benefits cuts because she refused taking up a job in “ “ in one of Germany’s legalised brothels, at first made me laugh. I mean, there is something supremely ridiculous about it; or perhaps I’m just being old-fashioned.
On second thoughts though I see quite a problem here. This is in fact one issue that puts me in a particular quandary.
Let’s look what people of other political persuasions would make of this. If you were more of a social conservative type you would presumably argue that that’s another reason supporting your position that the whole thing should be illegal. Straightforward enough.
Let’s say you’re more of the libertarian persuasion this is an easy one again: the welfare state shouldn’t exist in the first place, so the welfare state couldn’t try to force people into prostitution.
If though you like it a little more leftish-liberalish your views can be easily reconciled with this state of affairs, since you probably oppose the whole enforced welfare-to-work policy.
So, what am I going to say? Ideally I would like to see prostitution reduced or better still, vanish completely. I support legalising prostitution as I see that as the only way of breaking up the nexus between prostitution and the whole organised crime problem coming with pimps and drug dealing, not to mention forced prostitution, primarily of the illegally immigrated. My basic point is one of damage reduction.
On the other hand I support welfare-state measures that expect people to take up work rather than live at the taxpayers’ expense, even if that work isn’t necessarily their dream job. And to cover every aspect, I support the existence of the welfare state and don’t believe it to be an illegitimate function of government as dedicated libertarians argue.
On the face of it this puts me in a position, where I can’t have my cake and eat it. And, naturally, that annoys me. The solution would have to be a restriction on the jobs that unemployed people can be forced to accept or else forfeit their benefits. There are other jobs where such restrictions could apply, the armed forces being an example, because that isn’t a normal job. I’m just not sure what kind of restrictions would be necessary.
Anyways, I think it’s worth giving some thought to it.
Now, this story about an unemployed German waitress who will have her benefits cuts because she refused taking up a job in “ “ in one of Germany’s legalised brothels, at first made me laugh. I mean, there is something supremely ridiculous about it; or perhaps I’m just being old-fashioned.
On second thoughts though I see quite a problem here. This is in fact one issue that puts me in a particular quandary.
Let’s look what people of other political persuasions would make of this. If you were more of a social conservative type you would presumably argue that that’s another reason supporting your position that the whole thing should be illegal. Straightforward enough.
Let’s say you’re more of the libertarian persuasion this is an easy one again: the welfare state shouldn’t exist in the first place, so the welfare state couldn’t try to force people into prostitution.
If though you like it a little more leftish-liberalish your views can be easily reconciled with this state of affairs, since you probably oppose the whole enforced welfare-to-work policy.
So, what am I going to say? Ideally I would like to see prostitution reduced or better still, vanish completely. I support legalising prostitution as I see that as the only way of breaking up the nexus between prostitution and the whole organised crime problem coming with pimps and drug dealing, not to mention forced prostitution, primarily of the illegally immigrated. My basic point is one of damage reduction.
On the other hand I support welfare-state measures that expect people to take up work rather than live at the taxpayers’ expense, even if that work isn’t necessarily their dream job. And to cover every aspect, I support the existence of the welfare state and don’t believe it to be an illegitimate function of government as dedicated libertarians argue.
On the face of it this puts me in a position, where I can’t have my cake and eat it. And, naturally, that annoys me. The solution would have to be a restriction on the jobs that unemployed people can be forced to accept or else forfeit their benefits. There are other jobs where such restrictions could apply, the armed forces being an example, because that isn’t a normal job. I’m just not sure what kind of restrictions would be necessary.
Anyways, I think it’s worth giving some thought to it.
Labels: economy, Germany, nation, society
Monday, January 31, 2005
NEOCONS GOING GREEN
The story has been popping up here and there already, but I think I’d just point to this article to underline the trend of US foreign policy hawks endorsing fuel efficiency. They
The story has been popping up here and there already, but I think I’d just point to this article to underline the trend of US foreign policy hawks endorsing fuel efficiency. They
are going green for geopolitical reasons, not environmental ones. They seek to reduce the flow of American dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies, Saudi Arabia in particular. Petrodollars have made Saudi Arabia too rich a source of terrorist funding and Islamic radicals. Last month, Gaffney told a conference in Washington that America has become dependent on oil that is imported from countries that, "by and large, are hostile to us." This fact, he said, makes reducing oil imports "a national security imperative."
Indeed. On this theme see also this posting from last year.
Update: See also Thomas Friedmann and Irwin Stelzer.
Labels: economy, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, USA
Thursday, August 12, 2004
TODAY'S ROUND-UP
- Following up from all the doom and gloom about Iran on this site, Nick Kristof warns that An American Hiroshima is all too likely. As ever with these issue it makes for alarming reading, but I think at one point some of his speculation will be met with mixed emotions:
- Following up from all the doom and gloom about Iran on this site, Nick Kristof warns that An American Hiroshima is all too likely. As ever with these issue it makes for alarming reading, but I think at one point some of his speculation will be met with mixed emotions:
The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations.
To be clear I'm not advocating a nuclear strike against the UN HQ, but you have to wonder if the world would really be worse off . . .
- Philip Johnston explains why it's only the middle classes are crippled by inheritance tax. He's too right too. The Adam Smithies concur. I'm not sure I'd support a complete abolition, but a massive and far reaching change of inheritance laws is overdue.
-Here's an excellent essay dealing with the decision to invade Iraq. It's a nice, concise read.
-Also, where that came from, there is this great posting on how the ethnic cleansers and genocidal maniacs of the world can avoid getting themselves in trouble.
-Over at EU Referendum there are two sharp pieces dispelling the notion of the EU's democratic nature. They're both a good reminder and a good introduction if you've never heard the argument spelled out: Part 1, Council of Ministers, Part 2 EU parliament.
-To end, Shmuley Boteach skilfully argues that round-figured women are wrongly maligned, with dire consequences all around:
- Philip Johnston explains why it's only the middle classes are crippled by inheritance tax. He's too right too. The Adam Smithies concur. I'm not sure I'd support a complete abolition, but a massive and far reaching change of inheritance laws is overdue.
-Here's an excellent essay dealing with the decision to invade Iraq. It's a nice, concise read.
-Also, where that came from, there is this great posting on how the ethnic cleansers and genocidal maniacs of the world can avoid getting themselves in trouble.
-Over at EU Referendum there are two sharp pieces dispelling the notion of the EU's democratic nature. They're both a good reminder and a good introduction if you've never heard the argument spelled out: Part 1, Council of Ministers, Part 2 EU parliament.
-To end, Shmuley Boteach skilfully argues that round-figured women are wrongly maligned, with dire consequences all around:
Thinness may have become synonymous with beauty in America, but it is decimating the erotic life of marriage. In multiple sexual surveys, one of the biggest complaints that husbands voice about their wives is that they rarely initiate sex and are far too reserved in the bedroom. But can we really expect the American wife to be sexually adventurous when she is permanently self-conscious about her weight? It makes sense that women who feel unattractive will choose to hide under the covers.
He's rigth, but you try telling any woman who doesn't have the figure of a stick insect that her body is perfect . . . They'll never believe you, even, or maybe especially, if it's true. Read it all.
Labels: economy, global affairs, Iraq, nation, nuclear weapons, USA
