Three hundred cheers for Angela Merkel, who has stood up against the failed politics of Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, not to mention the whole stinking EU bureaucratic machine. Angela Merkel, you will remember, is the leader of Germany, a country with an export-driven economy, a balance of payments surplus, a banking sector not discombobulated by its own greed, much tigher credit controls than debt-addicted Blighty: in short a successful country not a failed one. Not only has she and her colleague, Peer Steinbruek questioned the new fiscal orthodoxy that we the best way to rescue ourselves from insolvency is to spend more, but they are resisting the economically destructive Poznan Climate Change agreement. Is there any coincidence in the fact that those countries without a creditable industrial policies are the ones who support the Climate Change Targets?
One silver lining is that the Germans are becoming more euro-sceptic. After years of financing the EU, they are beginning to grumble at underwriting habitual failure.
Saturday 13 December 2008
Collapse of the US car industry - don't mention Free Trade policies
A short piece on the possible collapse of the American automotive industry on the Today programme failed to mention America’s suicidal Free Trade policy. It mentioned globalisation, possible bad decision-making from the big three manufacturers on the issue of fuel consumption; but it failed to mention that the tariffs of Asian manufacturers are consistently higher than those of the United States. With a lack of a level playing field, then one by one American – and European – industries will die away leaving the Western World de-industrialised, impoverished and militarily unable to defend ourselves. But hooray! maybe we’ll achieve our climate change targets? Think of the plaudits from all those EU and UN agencies, not to mention global climate change campaigners like George Monbiot.
This is an area where the West must think strategically about its long-term interests. The all-pervasive ideology of global internationalism, the baleful influence of which can be seen in climate change targets, mass immigration, free trade and outsourcing, even the War on Terror, is the great distraction: it prevents us seeing clearly and safeguarding our own interests. This crosses left and right boundaries because the internationalist left has made an alliance with a big business sector, which recognises no loyalty to any country, only its own profits.
Defenders of Free Trade said that only low-tech industries like textiles would go abroad, the West would keep high-tech industries; now we see computers and sophisticated electronics are manufactured in China, the US Car industry is collapsing. Our competitors have high tariffs while ours are low; unless the West raises its tariffs in response, the Asian countries will continue to ignore our protestations about Free Trade and the Global Good, and keep trading with an unfair advantage. Why should they do otherwise, if we don’t take reasonable measures to defend our interests? The reason we keep our tariffs low is due confusion between our interests and the supposed interests of the global community, a misplaced belief that a lack of trade barriers leads to greater security and long-term prosperity. Note how free traders, when pressed about the benefits or lack of benefits to the West, end up saying that it lifts millions of people in the third world out of poverty – i.e. it is good for the world (they say), if not for us. This is at best only partially true. The fact that China keeps targeting its industrial output towards export to the West rather than their own consumers is detrimental to their own people, but good for the country’s long-term quest for hegemony over the United States. Moreover, the dependence of China on our debt-fuelled consumption means that their people are now losing their jobs because of our lack of finance; if they had been less export-dependent, the pain for Chinese workers would be less than it is going to be. Limited trade is good, too much trade will lead to greater volatility.
This is an area where the West must think strategically about its long-term interests. The all-pervasive ideology of global internationalism, the baleful influence of which can be seen in climate change targets, mass immigration, free trade and outsourcing, even the War on Terror, is the great distraction: it prevents us seeing clearly and safeguarding our own interests. This crosses left and right boundaries because the internationalist left has made an alliance with a big business sector, which recognises no loyalty to any country, only its own profits.
Defenders of Free Trade said that only low-tech industries like textiles would go abroad, the West would keep high-tech industries; now we see computers and sophisticated electronics are manufactured in China, the US Car industry is collapsing. Our competitors have high tariffs while ours are low; unless the West raises its tariffs in response, the Asian countries will continue to ignore our protestations about Free Trade and the Global Good, and keep trading with an unfair advantage. Why should they do otherwise, if we don’t take reasonable measures to defend our interests? The reason we keep our tariffs low is due confusion between our interests and the supposed interests of the global community, a misplaced belief that a lack of trade barriers leads to greater security and long-term prosperity. Note how free traders, when pressed about the benefits or lack of benefits to the West, end up saying that it lifts millions of people in the third world out of poverty – i.e. it is good for the world (they say), if not for us. This is at best only partially true. The fact that China keeps targeting its industrial output towards export to the West rather than their own consumers is detrimental to their own people, but good for the country’s long-term quest for hegemony over the United States. Moreover, the dependence of China on our debt-fuelled consumption means that their people are now losing their jobs because of our lack of finance; if they had been less export-dependent, the pain for Chinese workers would be less than it is going to be. Limited trade is good, too much trade will lead to greater volatility.
Tony Benn against postive discrimination: we all should be
That fine old warhorse, Tony Benn, was on the Today programme with his granddaughter, and he came out against positive discrimination. His own solution was a double representation for each seat of one man and one women. This was an interesting idea, and in a political entity untroubled by ethnic politics, it might have worked; but as even John Humphries was able to notice, a call for men-women seats would lead to a call for white-black-asian seats, such is the logic of identity politics as conceived today where everyone who is not a white male heterosexual is assumed to be oppressed. Benn’s common sense article was that black women would also benefit, Asian women would also benefit .. but this got lost in the discussion. However, it is interesting how a radical from a previous generation can cut through the pieties of today.
As for positive discrimination for women in parliamentary seats, it is an attack on local democracy, because it means that a higher proportion of candidates imposed on the constituency by the party leadership on the basis that they are women, black, Asian, gay, etc. Whatever the supposed justification, this means more top-down control and less chance that a local man or woman of whatever race or religion or sexuality will get the nomination. That local person might be more inclined to represent his constituents than the leader whose placeman (placeperson) he is. Of course whether you call him a placeperson or placeman will not make the candidate a more honest politician or alleviate the potential for cronyism that an increase in top-down appointments will cause. That person will have been appointed because they fit well with the ideas of the current leadership rather than the party base, and he or she will vote accordingly. We have seen how pliant the Blair Babes were, and how Parliament as an institution has sunk even further since 1997. More women in parliament has done nothing to prevent that; I would suggest that the increase in the proportion of MPs placed there because of their sex, will have assisted the decline in parliamentary democracy.
True to her generation, Tony Benn’s granddaughter, Emily, seemed to cautiously support positive discrimination for women. There is a flaw here in that supporters of this policy assume that woman’s interests are the same, that the women elected truly represent other women: in Parliament today, we have a lot of women with children, looked after no doubt by nannys and the best childcare; not surprisingly they voted for child care solutions that benefit women who go out to work rather than helping women who stay at home and look after their children, a choice which, it is increasingly recognised, affects the development of the child (children with stay-at-home mothers being advantaged); so these women may represent working women but they fail to represent the traditional role of motherhood, which many women would like to follow if they could afford it. The same argument can go for candidates selected on the basis or race or religion.
What positive discrimination achieves is diversity of sex, creed, race, sexuality etc – i.e., it ticks all the boxes in an identity-obsessed political culture; but it further homogenises political opinion, because the particular woman or black person promoted to office by the centre will be chosen because they are amenable to their political patrons. This is the diversity the BBC likes: lots of black and brown faces all peddling, with occasional exceptions, the same stultifying, narrow left-liberal views. This is especially true of flagship prime-time shows like the Today programme. As Mary Kenny said (on The Moral Maze), the output of opinion from the BBC is very homogenous, in spite of all the tick-boxing pretensions to diversity. But why stop at identity politics: why not discriminate against political apparatchiks in favour of software engineers?; or for scientists against lawyers? That would bring a much more meaningful diversity into the political culture and would be more likely to improve the quality of decision-making.
As for positive discrimination for women in parliamentary seats, it is an attack on local democracy, because it means that a higher proportion of candidates imposed on the constituency by the party leadership on the basis that they are women, black, Asian, gay, etc. Whatever the supposed justification, this means more top-down control and less chance that a local man or woman of whatever race or religion or sexuality will get the nomination. That local person might be more inclined to represent his constituents than the leader whose placeman (placeperson) he is. Of course whether you call him a placeperson or placeman will not make the candidate a more honest politician or alleviate the potential for cronyism that an increase in top-down appointments will cause. That person will have been appointed because they fit well with the ideas of the current leadership rather than the party base, and he or she will vote accordingly. We have seen how pliant the Blair Babes were, and how Parliament as an institution has sunk even further since 1997. More women in parliament has done nothing to prevent that; I would suggest that the increase in the proportion of MPs placed there because of their sex, will have assisted the decline in parliamentary democracy.
True to her generation, Tony Benn’s granddaughter, Emily, seemed to cautiously support positive discrimination for women. There is a flaw here in that supporters of this policy assume that woman’s interests are the same, that the women elected truly represent other women: in Parliament today, we have a lot of women with children, looked after no doubt by nannys and the best childcare; not surprisingly they voted for child care solutions that benefit women who go out to work rather than helping women who stay at home and look after their children, a choice which, it is increasingly recognised, affects the development of the child (children with stay-at-home mothers being advantaged); so these women may represent working women but they fail to represent the traditional role of motherhood, which many women would like to follow if they could afford it. The same argument can go for candidates selected on the basis or race or religion.
What positive discrimination achieves is diversity of sex, creed, race, sexuality etc – i.e., it ticks all the boxes in an identity-obsessed political culture; but it further homogenises political opinion, because the particular woman or black person promoted to office by the centre will be chosen because they are amenable to their political patrons. This is the diversity the BBC likes: lots of black and brown faces all peddling, with occasional exceptions, the same stultifying, narrow left-liberal views. This is especially true of flagship prime-time shows like the Today programme. As Mary Kenny said (on The Moral Maze), the output of opinion from the BBC is very homogenous, in spite of all the tick-boxing pretensions to diversity. But why stop at identity politics: why not discriminate against political apparatchiks in favour of software engineers?; or for scientists against lawyers? That would bring a much more meaningful diversity into the political culture and would be more likely to improve the quality of decision-making.
Friday 12 December 2008
Global warming trumps legitimate environmentalism
Climate change is the new Socialism. Just as the fight to end inequality and class oppression justified sidelining all other practical and ethical concerns in the 20th Century, so the struggle against global warming takes precedence today. The left love it because it justifies regulations, interference, bloated bureaucracies; it also legitimises ignoring the democratic wishes of electorates, the flip side of which is the supposed need to move towards globalised governance, nations being too small and too concerned with their particular interest to be trusted.
There are many levels of environmentalism: noise and air pollution are legitimate health issues irrespective of the Climate Change hypothesis; even without the hopelessly optimistic threadbareness of the economic arguments, they are enough to justify opposing the 3rd runway at Heathrow. None of that matters much: expansion of air traffic is BAD for Climate Change and it is this front which the government had to defend on the Today Programme (5 December 2008): how does it square with its Climate Change targets and pledges to the EU? Of course it shows how bogus the government's environmentalism is: despite the global warming rhetoric, so beloved of pontificators and summit junkies on the left, they allow the third runway because they can meet their targets in some other way (by outsourcing British industry for example – which of course moves to more intensively polluting factories in China – they fall foul of the targets, not us). There are other issues of more direct concern to people living near Heathrow: the noise levels will increase and the air quality will degrade, bad news for the long-suffering residents of West London and Thames Valley; but they can be classed as nimbies, Not In My Back-yard, small-minded bourgeios, who fail to see the global picture. Nor has there been an intelligent debate about the supposed economic benefits or yet more air traffic in an area that is traditionally overheated economically. Yet everything is seen through the prism of climate change rather than realistic environmental or economic concerns.
There is a good argument for saving energy: it is called national security. Minimise reliance on energy from unfriendly powers. If governments emphasized this, people might be more willing to look at how they as individuals increase demand; global concerns don’t provide the same motivation.
Moreover global concerns, as defined by our liberal overlords in the labour-libdem caucus and the media, can conflict with our legitimate interests, even our safety. The popular discontent with the new orthodoxy can be sampled in a rake of letters in the Daily Telegraph about the new energy saving light bulbs. These show a common-sense scepticism related to their practical defects and the hazards associated with their use, namely the headache-inducing quality of the light, their slowness to turn on when speed is required, their mercury content. Christopher Howse summarised this at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/christopher_howse/blog/2008/12/02/bits_of_light_bulb_in_your_tuna_sandwich in the Telegraph.
This shows how the battle against climate change trumps not only practical and cost concerns but also health and environmental issues. That the government should encourage the use of mercury in light bulbs in spite of its extreme toxicity shows how the interests of people and extreme envionmental hazards are subsumed to the greater global struggle. If it breaks we are supposed to leave the room. What about if you have children? Mine like to play ball in the living room and hall; they have even been known to throw things at the lights. Their health is secondary of course to the global problem. You can see how every problem will be subordinated to the Climate Change agenda.
There are many levels of environmentalism: noise and air pollution are legitimate health issues irrespective of the Climate Change hypothesis; even without the hopelessly optimistic threadbareness of the economic arguments, they are enough to justify opposing the 3rd runway at Heathrow. None of that matters much: expansion of air traffic is BAD for Climate Change and it is this front which the government had to defend on the Today Programme (5 December 2008): how does it square with its Climate Change targets and pledges to the EU? Of course it shows how bogus the government's environmentalism is: despite the global warming rhetoric, so beloved of pontificators and summit junkies on the left, they allow the third runway because they can meet their targets in some other way (by outsourcing British industry for example – which of course moves to more intensively polluting factories in China – they fall foul of the targets, not us). There are other issues of more direct concern to people living near Heathrow: the noise levels will increase and the air quality will degrade, bad news for the long-suffering residents of West London and Thames Valley; but they can be classed as nimbies, Not In My Back-yard, small-minded bourgeios, who fail to see the global picture. Nor has there been an intelligent debate about the supposed economic benefits or yet more air traffic in an area that is traditionally overheated economically. Yet everything is seen through the prism of climate change rather than realistic environmental or economic concerns.
There is a good argument for saving energy: it is called national security. Minimise reliance on energy from unfriendly powers. If governments emphasized this, people might be more willing to look at how they as individuals increase demand; global concerns don’t provide the same motivation.
Moreover global concerns, as defined by our liberal overlords in the labour-libdem caucus and the media, can conflict with our legitimate interests, even our safety. The popular discontent with the new orthodoxy can be sampled in a rake of letters in the Daily Telegraph about the new energy saving light bulbs. These show a common-sense scepticism related to their practical defects and the hazards associated with their use, namely the headache-inducing quality of the light, their slowness to turn on when speed is required, their mercury content. Christopher Howse summarised this at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/christopher_howse/blog/2008/12/02/bits_of_light_bulb_in_your_tuna_sandwich in the Telegraph.
This shows how the battle against climate change trumps not only practical and cost concerns but also health and environmental issues. That the government should encourage the use of mercury in light bulbs in spite of its extreme toxicity shows how the interests of people and extreme envionmental hazards are subsumed to the greater global struggle. If it breaks we are supposed to leave the room. What about if you have children? Mine like to play ball in the living room and hall; they have even been known to throw things at the lights. Their health is secondary of course to the global problem. You can see how every problem will be subordinated to the Climate Change agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
