The Irish border
1 hour ago
Saturday 28 February 2009
Friday 27 February 2009
BBC bias on Council tax
At a time when excessively high wage bills for Council executives are coming under scrutiny, as are bloated local council bureaucracies in general, the BBC Today programme this morning focuses on the supposedly low council tax increases and cuts in services. No mention of executive wages or inefficiencies - no mention, for that matter, of the business rates, which is separate but linked to council tax.
Also talk of the "deflationary" effects of cuts in services caused by such low rises; what about the deflationary effects of council taxes and inefficiency? And why should councils have a remit to help Government achieve its macro-economic objectives? Yet again, the Today programme provides us with an internal conversation within the Left.
The Taxpayers' alliance see it differently. For a democratic programme of reform, David Hannan says it right with his ten steps.
Also talk of the "deflationary" effects of cuts in services caused by such low rises; what about the deflationary effects of council taxes and inefficiency? And why should councils have a remit to help Government achieve its macro-economic objectives? Yet again, the Today programme provides us with an internal conversation within the Left.
The Taxpayers' alliance see it differently. For a democratic programme of reform, David Hannan says it right with his ten steps.
Tuesday 24 February 2009
Protectionism: the smears continue
Protectionism, we hear, is a policy supported by the BNP; Free Trade by respectable parties. Four Legs good, Two legs bad. It was Abraham Lincoln that said "Give us a protective tariff, and we will have the greatest country on earth". He instituted higher tariffs during his presidency, continuing America's traditional protectionist trade policies. Was Lincoln a proto-BNP politician, a Racist? Oh no, he freed the slaves; so that is one smear that won't stick.
Adam Smith: "To expect ... freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain", said Smith, "is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or a Utopia should ever be established in it". These quotes are from "Day of Reckoning; How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are Tearing America apart" (2007) by Patrick J. Buchanan.
Have you noticed how the BBC is as set against any suggestion of Protectionism as the Financial Times? There was a revealing interview between Gideon Rachmann and Polly Toynbee on the Today programme a few weeks ago. Toynbee criticised globalism from the left-wing perspective as keeping down wages, not benefiting ordinary people, just the rich. (This should be what the Right are saying too.) But both were warned against the dangers of "Nationalism" (shock, horror, save us!). This is how the BBC will deal with the crisis: they will take two people with solidly liberal-left views on social issues, but with divergent opinions on economics. But the Left's distrust of Nationalism has helped legitimise the extremes of Capitalism over the last 15 years, the main arguments against which depend on some form of national solidarity.
Peter Hitchens about the same time defended the moral case for Nationalism: Indeed, it would be immoral not to put your country first; which is different from saying you want to oppress other nations or be xenophobic. Loving your own country doesn't mean you hate others.
Adam Smith: "To expect ... freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain", said Smith, "is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or a Utopia should ever be established in it". These quotes are from "Day of Reckoning; How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are Tearing America apart" (2007) by Patrick J. Buchanan.
Have you noticed how the BBC is as set against any suggestion of Protectionism as the Financial Times? There was a revealing interview between Gideon Rachmann and Polly Toynbee on the Today programme a few weeks ago. Toynbee criticised globalism from the left-wing perspective as keeping down wages, not benefiting ordinary people, just the rich. (This should be what the Right are saying too.) But both were warned against the dangers of "Nationalism" (shock, horror, save us!). This is how the BBC will deal with the crisis: they will take two people with solidly liberal-left views on social issues, but with divergent opinions on economics. But the Left's distrust of Nationalism has helped legitimise the extremes of Capitalism over the last 15 years, the main arguments against which depend on some form of national solidarity.
Peter Hitchens about the same time defended the moral case for Nationalism: Indeed, it would be immoral not to put your country first; which is different from saying you want to oppress other nations or be xenophobic. Loving your own country doesn't mean you hate others.
Failure of liberal economics
How the Economy Was Lost By Paul Craig Roberts talks about the madness of free trade.Roberts worked for the Reagan administration in the early 80's so he is no wild-eye socialist; and he mentions Reagan's imposition of quotas on Japanese goods. This article was linked from the MartinKelly blog, itself linked from An englishman's castle, linked from EU Referendum; which shows how the blogs can support each other.
The right can never have moral legitimacy unless it ditches neo-liberal ideology around free trade, immigration, globalism in general. These policies don't work and the require governments to ignore their own people, who resent the unpeopling, offshoring and outsourcing of their countries. When people talk about detoxifying the Conservatives, this is the way to do it, not by burning incense with the Equality and Diversity priesthood. It should be stressed that left-leaning governments in the 90's and in this decade have been as bad, if not worse, something the BBC won't tell you. The choice is not between Socialism and Capitalism, but Capitalism framed to advance the national interest rather than some global vision. Dare I call it a moral capitalism? I still don't understand the specifics of Cameron's economic programme; they seem to be making it up as they go along.
Well done to George Osborne on yesterday's Today programme for noting that it was the Clinton administration who abolished the Glass-Steagall firewall, between investment and commerical banks; it was also the Clinton administration who encouraged banks to finance sub-prime debt to empower the underclass and increase social mobility. These catastrophic policies were continued by the Bush administration, which cut taxes without cutting spending, a fake stage-conservatism. But one of the key political battles of the next 5-10 years will be to ensure that the other side gets blamed for it.
The right can never have moral legitimacy unless it ditches neo-liberal ideology around free trade, immigration, globalism in general. These policies don't work and the require governments to ignore their own people, who resent the unpeopling, offshoring and outsourcing of their countries. When people talk about detoxifying the Conservatives, this is the way to do it, not by burning incense with the Equality and Diversity priesthood. It should be stressed that left-leaning governments in the 90's and in this decade have been as bad, if not worse, something the BBC won't tell you. The choice is not between Socialism and Capitalism, but Capitalism framed to advance the national interest rather than some global vision. Dare I call it a moral capitalism? I still don't understand the specifics of Cameron's economic programme; they seem to be making it up as they go along.
Well done to George Osborne on yesterday's Today programme for noting that it was the Clinton administration who abolished the Glass-Steagall firewall, between investment and commerical banks; it was also the Clinton administration who encouraged banks to finance sub-prime debt to empower the underclass and increase social mobility. These catastrophic policies were continued by the Bush administration, which cut taxes without cutting spending, a fake stage-conservatism. But one of the key political battles of the next 5-10 years will be to ensure that the other side gets blamed for it.
Monday 23 February 2009
Bailout scandal: Ron Paul on Fox news
See this Fox News interview for Ron Paul's criticisms of the bailout. Congressman got hold of the 1000-page bill after midnight on the day of the vote; apparently there were only 5 hard copies. All this to force the bill through and cut off debate. So much for change and hope: Obama's team is as cynical and disrespectful of the democratic process as the Bush administration.
He also right states that the Republicans got it wrong when in Government. They contributed to the financial mess and now their stock is low. If you cut taxes, cut spending too; foreign policy is probably the main area where the US should start saving money.
He also right states that the Republicans got it wrong when in Government. They contributed to the financial mess and now their stock is low. If you cut taxes, cut spending too; foreign policy is probably the main area where the US should start saving money.
The West loses control of the world's resources
Two articles in the Telegraph today that should make the West shudder: the first by Richard Spencer in Beijing tells us that the Chinese look to buy oil and gas companies overseas. China will use its vast currency reserves (transferred from the West due to trade imbalances) to buy foreign energy companies. This will cause alarm bells in the West, but Western governments are concentrating on bailing out their banks rather than securing future energy reserves; after the bailout, there will be no money to buy energy shares ourselves, even if there was the will.
The second article in the business pages by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard starts by saying: "US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has pleaded with China to continue buying US Treasury bonds amid mounting struggle to finance bank bailouts and ballooning deficits over the next two years." Clearly the US need for Chinese money will make it more difficult to get tough with China on its mercantilist policies on the world's energy and commodity resources. Not that there is much point in doing so if we continue to lose our manufacturing capability. In fact, Clinton says "Our economies are so intertwined, the Chnese know that to start exporting again to their biggest market ... means we have to incur more debt". Interdependence is mutually beneficial, she says.
Clinton seems happy to be the consumer and debtor in this intertwined economy, but the country with the reserves and wealth is the producer and creditor, who can buy up the limited quanity of the earth's raw materials. The Chinese version of state Capitalism is making a mockery of any flat-earth optimism about a world of equal opportunity and interdependence. This is where economic laissez-faire fails, because the world's resources are fixed; and. China will to an extent corner these resources through financial might, while an indebted West looks on. The worst case scenario is that there will be many things the West cannot manufacture because China has bought up all the raw materials.
Obama is looking to halve the debt in eight years. Good for him. He is also stepping up the war on Afghanistan which will cost money. To pursue foreign wars, you need a sound economy. More importantly, the obsession with Muslim terrorism has allowed the West to be diverted from its own economic weakness and the threat from Asia. Not that China is particularly malevolent here; it is merely advancing its own interests, something which globally-minded liberals in the West think we have progressed beyond. Nor should we aim to stop China's rise; we "merely" need to retain enough economic strength that we can hold our own financially and defend our interests.
America will survive of course, but more worrying is the fate of Europe. We tend to think of Africa as the sick continent; but Africa has strong demographics, lots of land and very significant oil and commodity reserves. Europe is weak demographically and with comparatively few natural resources. Geographically, America is protected by two oceans, whereas Europe is surrounded by regions of instability.
The second article in the business pages by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard starts by saying: "US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has pleaded with China to continue buying US Treasury bonds amid mounting struggle to finance bank bailouts and ballooning deficits over the next two years." Clearly the US need for Chinese money will make it more difficult to get tough with China on its mercantilist policies on the world's energy and commodity resources. Not that there is much point in doing so if we continue to lose our manufacturing capability. In fact, Clinton says "Our economies are so intertwined, the Chnese know that to start exporting again to their biggest market ... means we have to incur more debt". Interdependence is mutually beneficial, she says.
Clinton seems happy to be the consumer and debtor in this intertwined economy, but the country with the reserves and wealth is the producer and creditor, who can buy up the limited quanity of the earth's raw materials. The Chinese version of state Capitalism is making a mockery of any flat-earth optimism about a world of equal opportunity and interdependence. This is where economic laissez-faire fails, because the world's resources are fixed; and. China will to an extent corner these resources through financial might, while an indebted West looks on. The worst case scenario is that there will be many things the West cannot manufacture because China has bought up all the raw materials.
Obama is looking to halve the debt in eight years. Good for him. He is also stepping up the war on Afghanistan which will cost money. To pursue foreign wars, you need a sound economy. More importantly, the obsession with Muslim terrorism has allowed the West to be diverted from its own economic weakness and the threat from Asia. Not that China is particularly malevolent here; it is merely advancing its own interests, something which globally-minded liberals in the West think we have progressed beyond. Nor should we aim to stop China's rise; we "merely" need to retain enough economic strength that we can hold our own financially and defend our interests.
America will survive of course, but more worrying is the fate of Europe. We tend to think of Africa as the sick continent; but Africa has strong demographics, lots of land and very significant oil and commodity reserves. Europe is weak demographically and with comparatively few natural resources. Geographically, America is protected by two oceans, whereas Europe is surrounded by regions of instability.
Sunday 22 February 2009
Tony Benn, the nation's hero
In an article principally about Peter Mandelson, Iain Martin also mentioned with disapproval that Tony Benn is the nation's cuddly old leftie, in spite of such unpalatable views such as praising Chairman Mao (presumably a long time ago). I can see why Tony Benn has achieved this status. Most importantly, his socialist programme has lost credibility, so he is not a danger. But unlike the present generation of politicians, he is an honest speaker, who says what he thinks, unlike the party apparatchniks that dominate New Labour.
Some of what he thinks also resonates with the public today, such as his call for more democracy or attacks on spiralling inequalities. The point is, which many socially liberal, pro-laissez-faire conservatives won't appreciate, that the bedrock natural conservatism of Britain is very resentful of highly-paid elites - financiers, politicians, civil servants, etc. They would like a more equal society but they don't want socialism. When Benn talks about liberty, he is at odds with the police-state mentality of the current Labour Government. His view on diversity quotas are unconventional in comparison with the accepted party line on the left. He doesn't hate Christianity, which incurred the spiteful wrath of A.C.Grayling when they were both on Question Time a couple of years ago.
When Benn talks about democracy, ordinary people or right and left cheer because they are sick of being patronised by career politicians; sick of phoney consultations; sick of being called racist when they protest against immigration; sick of liberal piety and identity politics; sick of "progressive" social policies such as unrestricted abortion or morality-free sex education; sick of highly-paid bankers too and the mantra that everything should be left to the market. To the ears of middle Britain, Tony Benn, divorced from the socialist agenda, is an old-style, honest Briton campaigning for liberty, decency and a reduction in the extremes of inequality found acceptable by Conservatives and New Labour.
The irony of Martin's article is that he quite right criticises Mandelson for his disdain of ordinary people's concerns, being a member of today's globalised elite, but can't understand why people hold affection for this soldier of the old Left. Benn's faults are of a different age.Tony Benn praised Mao but Mandelson and his generation sought to continue the cultural revolution in the West by stealth and manipulation. Mandelson sought to make his crypto-jacobin party acceptable to the British people by pretending that New Labour had a similar set of beliefs to them; Tony Benn tells what he thinks, and though we may disagree with much of it, we admire him for his honesty and integrity. Politics has changed since the 70's and 80's. It is no longer capitalism vs socialism, but liberal morality and the managerialism it entails against small-scale conservatism and a belief in a truly representative democracy. Anyone who sees Benn and Mandelson as part of the same phenomenon misunderstands the mood of today, which is desperate for honest politicians who treat the electorate like adults, not children: Peter Mandelson is with them; Tony Benn is with us.
Some of what he thinks also resonates with the public today, such as his call for more democracy or attacks on spiralling inequalities. The point is, which many socially liberal, pro-laissez-faire conservatives won't appreciate, that the bedrock natural conservatism of Britain is very resentful of highly-paid elites - financiers, politicians, civil servants, etc. They would like a more equal society but they don't want socialism. When Benn talks about liberty, he is at odds with the police-state mentality of the current Labour Government. His view on diversity quotas are unconventional in comparison with the accepted party line on the left. He doesn't hate Christianity, which incurred the spiteful wrath of A.C.Grayling when they were both on Question Time a couple of years ago.
When Benn talks about democracy, ordinary people or right and left cheer because they are sick of being patronised by career politicians; sick of phoney consultations; sick of being called racist when they protest against immigration; sick of liberal piety and identity politics; sick of "progressive" social policies such as unrestricted abortion or morality-free sex education; sick of highly-paid bankers too and the mantra that everything should be left to the market. To the ears of middle Britain, Tony Benn, divorced from the socialist agenda, is an old-style, honest Briton campaigning for liberty, decency and a reduction in the extremes of inequality found acceptable by Conservatives and New Labour.
The irony of Martin's article is that he quite right criticises Mandelson for his disdain of ordinary people's concerns, being a member of today's globalised elite, but can't understand why people hold affection for this soldier of the old Left. Benn's faults are of a different age.Tony Benn praised Mao but Mandelson and his generation sought to continue the cultural revolution in the West by stealth and manipulation. Mandelson sought to make his crypto-jacobin party acceptable to the British people by pretending that New Labour had a similar set of beliefs to them; Tony Benn tells what he thinks, and though we may disagree with much of it, we admire him for his honesty and integrity. Politics has changed since the 70's and 80's. It is no longer capitalism vs socialism, but liberal morality and the managerialism it entails against small-scale conservatism and a belief in a truly representative democracy. Anyone who sees Benn and Mandelson as part of the same phenomenon misunderstands the mood of today, which is desperate for honest politicians who treat the electorate like adults, not children: Peter Mandelson is with them; Tony Benn is with us.
Bank transparency needed, not "confidence"
Liam Halligan is in the main section of the Sunday Telegraph this week, after arguing very sensibly for weeks in the Business pages that banks need to reveal their debt. Only when the scale of the debt is known will banks start lending again. Some may go to the wall, but the survivors will start doing what banks give much-needed support to businesses and individuals. Yet Governments have been so in thrall to the financiers for so long that they don't dare challenge them.
Halligan appears to be a voice in the wilderness however, because when I read the Financial Times or listen to the Today programme, they only talk of stimulus and “confidence”. Restoring confidence seems to be part of the justification for throwing billions of pounds at the banks: but confidence, while it is a psychological factor, ultimately depends on conditions in the real world. Would you feel more confident walking on solid ground or on thin ice? Would you have as much confidence lending to someone whom you know to be solvent as to someone whose financial status you don't know?
The bailouts achieved a certain political consensus and were rushed through with scant debate, something which the braver conservatives in the US vehemently complained about the first time. So necessary did these measures appear to the Bush and Brown administrations that a proper debate would have been positively dangerous - it might have led to doubt; hence they were rushed through. But the architects of the bailout look increasingly like a plumber who tries to fix a leaking pipe by throwing his toolbox in the general direction rather than locating where the leak is and stopping it. That toolbox represented a lot of money - our money. Still the toxic debt persists and the recession deepens. Confidence has not been restored. Surely the best way to restore confidence is to know just how bad the debts are ... unless, the debts are so bad, that they can't be paid of course.
Instead, we have fiscal stimulus; but as Halligan says in today's business section, the stimulus relies simultaneously on borrowing from Asian economies while allowing the debts to lose value through currency depreciation and inflation. The Asians aren't fools; but our policies seem to assume they are. Also would you rather have banks fail that aren't lending anyway, and are happy to foreclose on business loans and mortgages?; or would you rather avoid tens of thousands of pounds of debt for every person in this country, to be paid for by you and your children?
Like so many issues – climate change, abortion and embryonic research, immigration, globalism – there seems to be an enforced consensus in the media (except from diehard conservatives on websites read only by conservatives) that we must save the old globalised economy no matter what the cost. The media christened republicans who supported the bailout as moderates, anti-bailout conservatives as ideology-driven. You would expect there to be a debate on governments spending this much money but most debates you hear on Radio take place between two people agreeeing that bailout is good. The economic virtues of debt-fuelled consumption, now called neo-Keynesianism, trump fiscal conservativism. The BBC is meant to be the national broadcaster, but its main News channel, Radio 4, consists for the most part of a conversation amongst the Left. The Financial Times is meant to be a prestigious business paper; but again it is dominated by liberal groupthink, its bias noted yesterday by Oborne in the Mail (towards the end, under "Cameron kicks wretched pub boss into touch"). Mainstream "conservatives" share this thinking. Far from being fiscally conservative, the Bush administration was as spendthrift as Blair-Brown, having cut taxes without decreasing spending, and just as indifferent to the decline in its manufacturing capacity; the republicans accommodated themselves to debt; neo-conservatism was merely a logical extension of the liberal humanitarianism of Blair and Clinton. However, it turns out that the Warfare-Welfare state and the Iraqi disaster is being paid for by Chinese credit!
New Labour, mainstream Republicans, the Obamessiah, the BBC and Financial Times: united by belief in inter-governmental "action" and "confidence", if only it can be restored, a new version of the politics of hope over fear. Their faith is in progress through untrammelled free markets and its corollary, world governance, their hope is the stimulus, their charity is mostly for the banks. Ultimately the collapse occurred because the debt caught up with us; the West couldn't support its spending. There was an unsustainable imbalance between consumer and producer nations, too much cheap credit funded via the banks by exporting countries, who were making more money than they could spend. The stimulus programmes are the last desperate throw of the dice for western governments hooked on big-spending and the need to keep the good times rolling - but Hope is audacious indeed if it thinks it can make so much debt disappear. They risk crippling the West financially for a generation with yet more debt, when it would be more prudent to cut their (i.e., our) losses. Even if our Asian creditors tolerate our devaluing of the money they lend us, how can the Western world in future pursue an independent foreign or even domestic policy if the Chinese government is ultimately funding our excesses?
Halligan appears to be a voice in the wilderness however, because when I read the Financial Times or listen to the Today programme, they only talk of stimulus and “confidence”. Restoring confidence seems to be part of the justification for throwing billions of pounds at the banks: but confidence, while it is a psychological factor, ultimately depends on conditions in the real world. Would you feel more confident walking on solid ground or on thin ice? Would you have as much confidence lending to someone whom you know to be solvent as to someone whose financial status you don't know?
The bailouts achieved a certain political consensus and were rushed through with scant debate, something which the braver conservatives in the US vehemently complained about the first time. So necessary did these measures appear to the Bush and Brown administrations that a proper debate would have been positively dangerous - it might have led to doubt; hence they were rushed through. But the architects of the bailout look increasingly like a plumber who tries to fix a leaking pipe by throwing his toolbox in the general direction rather than locating where the leak is and stopping it. That toolbox represented a lot of money - our money. Still the toxic debt persists and the recession deepens. Confidence has not been restored. Surely the best way to restore confidence is to know just how bad the debts are ... unless, the debts are so bad, that they can't be paid of course.
Instead, we have fiscal stimulus; but as Halligan says in today's business section, the stimulus relies simultaneously on borrowing from Asian economies while allowing the debts to lose value through currency depreciation and inflation. The Asians aren't fools; but our policies seem to assume they are. Also would you rather have banks fail that aren't lending anyway, and are happy to foreclose on business loans and mortgages?; or would you rather avoid tens of thousands of pounds of debt for every person in this country, to be paid for by you and your children?
Like so many issues – climate change, abortion and embryonic research, immigration, globalism – there seems to be an enforced consensus in the media (except from diehard conservatives on websites read only by conservatives) that we must save the old globalised economy no matter what the cost. The media christened republicans who supported the bailout as moderates, anti-bailout conservatives as ideology-driven. You would expect there to be a debate on governments spending this much money but most debates you hear on Radio take place between two people agreeeing that bailout is good. The economic virtues of debt-fuelled consumption, now called neo-Keynesianism, trump fiscal conservativism. The BBC is meant to be the national broadcaster, but its main News channel, Radio 4, consists for the most part of a conversation amongst the Left. The Financial Times is meant to be a prestigious business paper; but again it is dominated by liberal groupthink, its bias noted yesterday by Oborne in the Mail (towards the end, under "Cameron kicks wretched pub boss into touch"). Mainstream "conservatives" share this thinking. Far from being fiscally conservative, the Bush administration was as spendthrift as Blair-Brown, having cut taxes without decreasing spending, and just as indifferent to the decline in its manufacturing capacity; the republicans accommodated themselves to debt; neo-conservatism was merely a logical extension of the liberal humanitarianism of Blair and Clinton. However, it turns out that the Warfare-Welfare state and the Iraqi disaster is being paid for by Chinese credit!
New Labour, mainstream Republicans, the Obamessiah, the BBC and Financial Times: united by belief in inter-governmental "action" and "confidence", if only it can be restored, a new version of the politics of hope over fear. Their faith is in progress through untrammelled free markets and its corollary, world governance, their hope is the stimulus, their charity is mostly for the banks. Ultimately the collapse occurred because the debt caught up with us; the West couldn't support its spending. There was an unsustainable imbalance between consumer and producer nations, too much cheap credit funded via the banks by exporting countries, who were making more money than they could spend. The stimulus programmes are the last desperate throw of the dice for western governments hooked on big-spending and the need to keep the good times rolling - but Hope is audacious indeed if it thinks it can make so much debt disappear. They risk crippling the West financially for a generation with yet more debt, when it would be more prudent to cut their (i.e., our) losses. Even if our Asian creditors tolerate our devaluing of the money they lend us, how can the Western world in future pursue an independent foreign or even domestic policy if the Chinese government is ultimately funding our excesses?
Wednesday 18 February 2009
Bristol Council consultation
It is a well-known story that in former days the labour-controlled Bristol council gave city residents the chance to vote on whether there should be an increase in council tax to pay for more services - or not. To the surprise of the concil, 61% opted to pay less council tax, and have less services. This preference never translated into action because the results were seen as inconclusive.
Bristol council recently sent council tax payers a "consultation" document in full colour that said the council tax increase has been kept to "only 3.5%" and then proceeded to ask what services we would like to change or improve. There was no option to say what services we would like to stop paying for.
There were lots of smiling faces, although I'm not sure this would have helped the reader evaluate how well the money was spent. There was a breakdown of financial outlay into the various areas - education, etc; but nothing on how much was spent on salaries or administering the services provided. The form on the back page with three fields again asking how to improve or change the services: nothing about cutting council tax. Thank you Bristol Council: I know that my council tax has been well-spent on this document and I am glad that it will be used for you to say in council chamber how democratic you are. Keep spending the money; and while you're at, keep paying yourselves very high salaries: you're worth it.
Bristol council recently sent council tax payers a "consultation" document in full colour that said the council tax increase has been kept to "only 3.5%" and then proceeded to ask what services we would like to change or improve. There was no option to say what services we would like to stop paying for.
There were lots of smiling faces, although I'm not sure this would have helped the reader evaluate how well the money was spent. There was a breakdown of financial outlay into the various areas - education, etc; but nothing on how much was spent on salaries or administering the services provided. The form on the back page with three fields again asking how to improve or change the services: nothing about cutting council tax. Thank you Bristol Council: I know that my council tax has been well-spent on this document and I am glad that it will be used for you to say in council chamber how democratic you are. Keep spending the money; and while you're at, keep paying yourselves very high salaries: you're worth it.
Monday 16 February 2009
Catholic Church and its persecutors
You may wish to read my comments about the Bishop Williamson case on the nascent Christianity in the West website.
Paul Gottfried's article also details why Angela Merkel is not a real conservative.
Paul Gottfried's article also details why Angela Merkel is not a real conservative.
Politeness, political correctness and David Cameron
Cameron says that he did not intervene in the Carol Thatcher row because part of political correctness is about politeness. Well, this is true in that political correctness is about establishing good behaviour towards ethnic minorities, which is a laudable aim; in using the term, "gollywog", Carol Thatcher was being impolite, and rather boorish.
But given the amount of impoliteness and obscenity being broadcast on the BBC, it is clear that political correctness only enforces politeness sometimes. The truth is that PC rules are about enforcing an ideological vision of the world which assumes that white people oppress other races, christians oppress people of other religions and none, men oppress women, and so on. It is understandable to say in relation to BNP members whose names became public on a website, we know where to send the (I paraphrase) excrement; it is edgy to ask David Cameron if he fantasised about Margaret Thatcher and to make lewd comments to Gweneth Paltrow (both Jonathan Ross).
If political correctness is partly about politeness, it is accidental.
But given the amount of impoliteness and obscenity being broadcast on the BBC, it is clear that political correctness only enforces politeness sometimes. The truth is that PC rules are about enforcing an ideological vision of the world which assumes that white people oppress other races, christians oppress people of other religions and none, men oppress women, and so on. It is understandable to say in relation to BNP members whose names became public on a website, we know where to send the (I paraphrase) excrement; it is edgy to ask David Cameron if he fantasised about Margaret Thatcher and to make lewd comments to Gweneth Paltrow (both Jonathan Ross).
If political correctness is partly about politeness, it is accidental.
Emergency contraception: abortion culture in GP clinics
Labour plans to put abortion services into every GP's clinic. A 1/3 of GP's are against this, according to the Catholic Universe. But the abortion culture has been insidiously present for a while: the last time I was at a GP surgery, I noticed that the morning after pill was being advertised as "emergency contraception". It is of course an abortifactent.
So much for informed choice.
So much for informed choice.
Friday 13 February 2009
Demographics, culture and allegiance, not values
Those of us who think that we have got it disastrously wrong on multi-culturalism and immigration will be tempted to say that Geert Wilders is trying to save western society whereas Muslim extremists aim to destroy it. But being “even-handed” over extremist elements makes sense if you accept that British identity is composed of values rather than allegiance: to the creedal nation, protests against multi-cultural orthodoxy are on a par with extremist imams, Louis Farakhan and other movements dedicated to destroying the decadent and devilish West.
Ironically, for someone seen as far-right, Wilders is similar to mainstream liberals in that he thinks values are crucial: the difference is that they think Islam is compatible with enlightenment values, Wilders disagrees. Wilders' criticism of Islam is in fact ridiculously crude and depends too much on the supposed evil of Islamist ideology, which he compares with Facism. This doesn't matter: Islam does not have to be evil to be a threat to the West. Europeans were a threat to native Americans in the 19th century primarily due to their numbers. The merits or otherwise of Western civilisation were irrelevant. The moral status of Islam do not affect the level of alarm that people feel at the scale of immigration and speed of transformation in European cities. Moreover, immigration from Islamic countries is only part of the phenomenon.
The main threat is partly cultural but mainly demographic – both from mass immigration and from the higher birth rates of some immigrant populations, such as Muslims, vis a vis Europeans. Due to a shared cultural background, the same numbers would matter less if all immigrants were eastern europeans, although there would still be tensions. Maybe we should say the problem is less with high immigrant birth rates and more with extremely low European birth rates, because low birth rates make European culture less demographically robust. The nature of Islam is a special issue, but there are social problems and ethnic tensions with other immigrant groups as well.
These problems are not just about economics but about who we are as a people and to what do we owe allegiance. Secularists, liberals, conservative catholics will for the most part feel allegiance to European civilisation and the heritage of the Roman Empire and Middle Ages; a large proportion (how large?) of Muslims look to an Islamic past, not a European one, and they will also aspire to an Islamic future. Even those who reject violence, being human, will inevitably wish to promulgate their culture and religion, just as native Europeans do. This is something we should accept as part of the human condition; it only becomes a problem due to demographic trends. Of course, to those who believe that cultural ties don't matter, I am speaking dangerous nonsense.
For Wilders, there can be no moderate Islam as opposed to the extremist version because Islam is an evil ideology. To my mind, it is hateful to condemn in absolutist terms a whole civilisation; but he is right in a way that he does not know, because, while Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the West, as his film (I understand) suggests, large-scale immigration can overwhelm its people, culture, traditions and institutions. No evil ideology is needed to bring this about. Demographics will be the Death of West, unless we do something about now. As Wilders says, we are at the 11th hour, but tirades against Islam miss the point. The solution is to stop mass immigration, ensure the repatriation of those here illegally and take measures to increase European birth rates, so that our civilisation can survive the 21st century. Then the demographic impact of Muslims inside Europe will be lessened and, in a world where resources are more scarce than today, European nations will be in a stronger position in relation to their neighbours, Islamic or otherwise.
Ironically, for someone seen as far-right, Wilders is similar to mainstream liberals in that he thinks values are crucial: the difference is that they think Islam is compatible with enlightenment values, Wilders disagrees. Wilders' criticism of Islam is in fact ridiculously crude and depends too much on the supposed evil of Islamist ideology, which he compares with Facism. This doesn't matter: Islam does not have to be evil to be a threat to the West. Europeans were a threat to native Americans in the 19th century primarily due to their numbers. The merits or otherwise of Western civilisation were irrelevant. The moral status of Islam do not affect the level of alarm that people feel at the scale of immigration and speed of transformation in European cities. Moreover, immigration from Islamic countries is only part of the phenomenon.
The main threat is partly cultural but mainly demographic – both from mass immigration and from the higher birth rates of some immigrant populations, such as Muslims, vis a vis Europeans. Due to a shared cultural background, the same numbers would matter less if all immigrants were eastern europeans, although there would still be tensions. Maybe we should say the problem is less with high immigrant birth rates and more with extremely low European birth rates, because low birth rates make European culture less demographically robust. The nature of Islam is a special issue, but there are social problems and ethnic tensions with other immigrant groups as well.
These problems are not just about economics but about who we are as a people and to what do we owe allegiance. Secularists, liberals, conservative catholics will for the most part feel allegiance to European civilisation and the heritage of the Roman Empire and Middle Ages; a large proportion (how large?) of Muslims look to an Islamic past, not a European one, and they will also aspire to an Islamic future. Even those who reject violence, being human, will inevitably wish to promulgate their culture and religion, just as native Europeans do. This is something we should accept as part of the human condition; it only becomes a problem due to demographic trends. Of course, to those who believe that cultural ties don't matter, I am speaking dangerous nonsense.
For Wilders, there can be no moderate Islam as opposed to the extremist version because Islam is an evil ideology. To my mind, it is hateful to condemn in absolutist terms a whole civilisation; but he is right in a way that he does not know, because, while Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the West, as his film (I understand) suggests, large-scale immigration can overwhelm its people, culture, traditions and institutions. No evil ideology is needed to bring this about. Demographics will be the Death of West, unless we do something about now. As Wilders says, we are at the 11th hour, but tirades against Islam miss the point. The solution is to stop mass immigration, ensure the repatriation of those here illegally and take measures to increase European birth rates, so that our civilisation can survive the 21st century. Then the demographic impact of Muslims inside Europe will be lessened and, in a world where resources are more scarce than today, European nations will be in a stronger position in relation to their neighbours, Islamic or otherwise.
Monday 9 February 2009
The gollywog row
The contrast between Carol Thatcher's treatment and that of Jonathan Ross shows the contrast between conventional morality and BBC morality. Conventional morality says that that one should generally be polite and show consideration to others; that, alright, we shouldn't be racist, but let's not force the issue every time; BBC morality says that racism and sexism is unforgivable, even as a joke made off-air, and must be punished unless accompanied by public recantation; in contrast, as far at our national broadcaster is concerned, seedy, bullying or boorish behaviour is generally acceptable; and it is an occupational hazard that occasionally presenters go too far – all in the name of edgy, youth-oriented broadcasting.
This goes against Trevor Philips' contention (made on a BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of political correctness, masquerading as a balanced portrayal) that political correctness is simply about politeness. But we see that most forms of disgraceful behaviour are outside the remit of politically correct policing. The Jade Goody case in Big Brother illustrates the point. The low-level aggression and rudeness that the Shelpa Shetty received was an accepted part of the reality TV experience; but the minute it becomes “racial bullying” - some comments about curry and what Indians do, then Jade Goody became subject to the full weight of moral opprobrium; Channel 4 itself was criticised for going too far and there was talking of stopping the Big Brother show. Jade Goody felt so under pressure that she was forced into a tearful apology and denial that she was a “racist”: what more terrible crime could there be? Celebrities can get indulge in any kind of boorishness and rudeness, but any suggestion of Racism puts you beyond the pale. This goes against Trevor Phillips' contention that being PC was just another form of being polite and treating others well; the very best construction is that it promotes politeness sometimes.
More to the point, politically correct morality is inadequate: the the BBC has given a lot of airtime to various government-sponsored anti-bullying campaigns, yet many of its best-paid employees take part in activities which would be called bullying if they took place in the playground. Making abusive phonecalls to an elderly gentleman about his granddaughter is excused because Ross apologies – but this is beyond apology. The justification made was that Ross is edgy and has a youth appeal: but is this the kind of behaviour we want to be modelling in our schools? A cursory glance at Cbeebies in the afternoon shows that there is a set of assumptions operating there: the presenters act like overgrown children rather than adults, presumably in order to identify with youth; there are no positive authority figures: there is an evil headmaster in one programme, old people are uniformly ridiculous; these negative portrayals seem always to be of white people – no-one from an ethnic minority is shown in this negative light. This manufactures a world-view, based on the assumptions of the left, which our children, in drip-drip fashion imbibe: that authority is bad, the views of the old don't matter, that white people are objects of ridicule, but other racial groups are not, that children need adults to be older children, rather than to model responsible and mature behaviour. The output of the BBC, generally speaking, could not be better calculated to warp the moral sensibilities of the young, and this has been going on for decades.
That there is inconsistency was noted by Evan Davis on the Today programme this morning and it is worth saying why it exists. It seems to be a historical legacy of the 60's cultural revolution, which was characterised by an “anything goes” conception of freedom: standards of politeness and decency were scorned as antiquated, conventional morality; other facets of this revolution in values was a scornful rejection of the family and childrearing, of the traditional roles of fatherhood and motherhood; a caricaturing of western history as irredemiably racist and imperialist. This world view justifies the politically correct laws of sexism and racism, and the restrictions on free speech they impose; but their prescriptiveness is very far from the promise of “anything goes”. One dared not say that immigration was problematic, that women are harmed by abortion, that black people can also be racist, that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black youths; nor could one point out the civilising achievements of western civilisation or of Christianity. Underlying this censorship is the a world-view where white people oppress other races, men oppress women, the rich oppress the poor; correspondingly the role of enlightened opinion to combat this.
The irony of this is that the new morality is discriminatory, putting some classes of people under suspicion: at the moment Racism is the main crime, so white people are permanently under suspicion, and need to be re-educated or controlled. I remember a famous black anti-racism campaigner of the old school on-air during Question Time a few years ago; he referred to "every jihadist in the corner shops", meaning Muslim shopkeepers; this can clearly be labelled as “racist” in the sense that it characterises all Muslims and is rather crude thinking, given that all Muslims do not support terrorism. There was a perceptible silence, but no-one challenged him, and I have never any controversy arising from it; whether he was quietly removed from the BBC afterwards, I can't say because the BBC has so many channels and outlets. I suspect if he was white, there would have been uproar; but to challenge a black person would undermine the fiction that the crime of Racism is a historically-determined aberration existing only among white people. Carol Thatcher is the ideal sort of person who can be accused of Racism, being white, and, I would add, from a well-to-do, famously conservative background.
Unlike Darby's, Carol Thatcher's misdemeanour was off-air, but the attitudes of the BBC authorities are uncompromising and punitive; an apology is not enough, it must be an unreserved apology. Calling a mixed-race tennis player a gollywog is not particularly funny, but in the context not harmful, being private; but Carol Thatcher apologised for the offence, qualifying the apology by saying it was a joke. This should have been enough, but it was elevated to the level of unacceptable behaviour and an unreserved apology was required. Yes, as some black people have said, gollywog was a term of abuse for black people in the racially charged 1970's; but Carol Thatcher didn't shout Gollywog across the street with the intention of abusing another person. This is equating deliberate bullying containing a threat if violence in the street from a stranger with a casual remark made in a private or semi-private sphere. Carol Thatcher seems to be the perpetrator of a thought crime.
Without knowing the facts of the case, I suspect that Thatcher is the victim of another kind of bullying, the coercive groupthink that can take place in organisations towards anyone who represents a different view of the world, whether political or moral. In this case, it is the groupthink of political correctness where the slightest slip leaves you open to demonisation and ostracisation. Her colleagues, Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles are clearly BBC people and Thatcher seems to have fallen victim to an intolerance to any other standards than that of the group, perhaps to more petty motives such as personal dislike or willingness to ingratiate oneself to the powers that be. It shows how modern-day progressive liberalism exhibits many of the aspects of totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia, except that in our more free and democratic society, they have less power to enforce their views on the population. Nor should one forget the power of the BBC, which dominates broadcasting in this country (87% of the market, according to Robin Aitken); if a journalist or presenter falls foul of BBC moral dictates, their choices in finding another job will be severely limited. The monopoly of the BBC is one of the greatest threats to free speech and democratic politics in Britain.
The importance of maintaining a charitable approach to free speech is vital here. People make mistakes, they cause offence and perhaps need to be challenged. But this heavy treatment is disproportionate; moreover, it is not clear if it really defeats racism or whether it encourages a hypocritical lip-service to the newly enforced morality. Ironically, the fact that it is treated so seriously is tacit admission that the politics of race and ethnicity are very toxic in spite of many years of education about diversity: rather than a happy melting pot, we can use the “gollywog” controversy as evidence that race relations in this country are a tinderbox, where strong prohibitions on free speech are required in order to keep the peace. This is not a good indicator for the prospects for multi-racial Britain in the future. Rather than pretending that we can end racial tension by correcting the errors of the white population and demonising people who make these errors, we should accept that the tensions exist and be more forgiving when people make mistakes. Otherwise we risk creating more resentment than we avoid, and losing our traditions of free speech into the bargain.
This goes against Trevor Philips' contention (made on a BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of political correctness, masquerading as a balanced portrayal) that political correctness is simply about politeness. But we see that most forms of disgraceful behaviour are outside the remit of politically correct policing. The Jade Goody case in Big Brother illustrates the point. The low-level aggression and rudeness that the Shelpa Shetty received was an accepted part of the reality TV experience; but the minute it becomes “racial bullying” - some comments about curry and what Indians do, then Jade Goody became subject to the full weight of moral opprobrium; Channel 4 itself was criticised for going too far and there was talking of stopping the Big Brother show. Jade Goody felt so under pressure that she was forced into a tearful apology and denial that she was a “racist”: what more terrible crime could there be? Celebrities can get indulge in any kind of boorishness and rudeness, but any suggestion of Racism puts you beyond the pale. This goes against Trevor Phillips' contention that being PC was just another form of being polite and treating others well; the very best construction is that it promotes politeness sometimes.
More to the point, politically correct morality is inadequate: the the BBC has given a lot of airtime to various government-sponsored anti-bullying campaigns, yet many of its best-paid employees take part in activities which would be called bullying if they took place in the playground. Making abusive phonecalls to an elderly gentleman about his granddaughter is excused because Ross apologies – but this is beyond apology. The justification made was that Ross is edgy and has a youth appeal: but is this the kind of behaviour we want to be modelling in our schools? A cursory glance at Cbeebies in the afternoon shows that there is a set of assumptions operating there: the presenters act like overgrown children rather than adults, presumably in order to identify with youth; there are no positive authority figures: there is an evil headmaster in one programme, old people are uniformly ridiculous; these negative portrayals seem always to be of white people – no-one from an ethnic minority is shown in this negative light. This manufactures a world-view, based on the assumptions of the left, which our children, in drip-drip fashion imbibe: that authority is bad, the views of the old don't matter, that white people are objects of ridicule, but other racial groups are not, that children need adults to be older children, rather than to model responsible and mature behaviour. The output of the BBC, generally speaking, could not be better calculated to warp the moral sensibilities of the young, and this has been going on for decades.
That there is inconsistency was noted by Evan Davis on the Today programme this morning and it is worth saying why it exists. It seems to be a historical legacy of the 60's cultural revolution, which was characterised by an “anything goes” conception of freedom: standards of politeness and decency were scorned as antiquated, conventional morality; other facets of this revolution in values was a scornful rejection of the family and childrearing, of the traditional roles of fatherhood and motherhood; a caricaturing of western history as irredemiably racist and imperialist. This world view justifies the politically correct laws of sexism and racism, and the restrictions on free speech they impose; but their prescriptiveness is very far from the promise of “anything goes”. One dared not say that immigration was problematic, that women are harmed by abortion, that black people can also be racist, that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black youths; nor could one point out the civilising achievements of western civilisation or of Christianity. Underlying this censorship is the a world-view where white people oppress other races, men oppress women, the rich oppress the poor; correspondingly the role of enlightened opinion to combat this.
The irony of this is that the new morality is discriminatory, putting some classes of people under suspicion: at the moment Racism is the main crime, so white people are permanently under suspicion, and need to be re-educated or controlled. I remember a famous black anti-racism campaigner of the old school on-air during Question Time a few years ago; he referred to "every jihadist in the corner shops", meaning Muslim shopkeepers; this can clearly be labelled as “racist” in the sense that it characterises all Muslims and is rather crude thinking, given that all Muslims do not support terrorism. There was a perceptible silence, but no-one challenged him, and I have never any controversy arising from it; whether he was quietly removed from the BBC afterwards, I can't say because the BBC has so many channels and outlets. I suspect if he was white, there would have been uproar; but to challenge a black person would undermine the fiction that the crime of Racism is a historically-determined aberration existing only among white people. Carol Thatcher is the ideal sort of person who can be accused of Racism, being white, and, I would add, from a well-to-do, famously conservative background.
Unlike Darby's, Carol Thatcher's misdemeanour was off-air, but the attitudes of the BBC authorities are uncompromising and punitive; an apology is not enough, it must be an unreserved apology. Calling a mixed-race tennis player a gollywog is not particularly funny, but in the context not harmful, being private; but Carol Thatcher apologised for the offence, qualifying the apology by saying it was a joke. This should have been enough, but it was elevated to the level of unacceptable behaviour and an unreserved apology was required. Yes, as some black people have said, gollywog was a term of abuse for black people in the racially charged 1970's; but Carol Thatcher didn't shout Gollywog across the street with the intention of abusing another person. This is equating deliberate bullying containing a threat if violence in the street from a stranger with a casual remark made in a private or semi-private sphere. Carol Thatcher seems to be the perpetrator of a thought crime.
Without knowing the facts of the case, I suspect that Thatcher is the victim of another kind of bullying, the coercive groupthink that can take place in organisations towards anyone who represents a different view of the world, whether political or moral. In this case, it is the groupthink of political correctness where the slightest slip leaves you open to demonisation and ostracisation. Her colleagues, Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles are clearly BBC people and Thatcher seems to have fallen victim to an intolerance to any other standards than that of the group, perhaps to more petty motives such as personal dislike or willingness to ingratiate oneself to the powers that be. It shows how modern-day progressive liberalism exhibits many of the aspects of totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia, except that in our more free and democratic society, they have less power to enforce their views on the population. Nor should one forget the power of the BBC, which dominates broadcasting in this country (87% of the market, according to Robin Aitken); if a journalist or presenter falls foul of BBC moral dictates, their choices in finding another job will be severely limited. The monopoly of the BBC is one of the greatest threats to free speech and democratic politics in Britain.
The importance of maintaining a charitable approach to free speech is vital here. People make mistakes, they cause offence and perhaps need to be challenged. But this heavy treatment is disproportionate; moreover, it is not clear if it really defeats racism or whether it encourages a hypocritical lip-service to the newly enforced morality. Ironically, the fact that it is treated so seriously is tacit admission that the politics of race and ethnicity are very toxic in spite of many years of education about diversity: rather than a happy melting pot, we can use the “gollywog” controversy as evidence that race relations in this country are a tinderbox, where strong prohibitions on free speech are required in order to keep the peace. This is not a good indicator for the prospects for multi-racial Britain in the future. Rather than pretending that we can end racial tension by correcting the errors of the white population and demonising people who make these errors, we should accept that the tensions exist and be more forgiving when people make mistakes. Otherwise we risk creating more resentment than we avoid, and losing our traditions of free speech into the bargain.
Tuesday 3 February 2009
An exploitative version of Capitalism and unaccountable elites
Alan Johnson conceded that ther loopholes in EU law are unfair. These allowed a Finnish shipping company to change flag and hire cheap estonian labour, and a latvian construction company working in Sweden to hire Latvians instead of Swedes. Both cases went to EU judges, who favoured the employers. This is the race to the bottom, where workers in reasonably well-off countries are also subject to wage undercutting because there will always be someone in another country who will be happy to work for less.
Some right-of-centre commentators are arguing against the official line of the Conservative party. Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail criticised Mandelson for promoting an exploitative form of capitalism. He criticised Brown for being populist also, which is true, but it depends on what you meant by populism. Janet Daley writes that people are realising what they have signed up for with the EU: "it is now illegal – illegal – for the government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population first." She then goes on to say that people who legitimately resent the importation of cheap labour en masse are being smeared with accusations of racism; that the free market of labour envisaged by the EU is part of the democratic deficit.
We should note how the accusation of populism is levelled at Gordon Brown for his "British Jobs for British workers" speech. One one level this is right: it is outrageous for a managerialist politician like Brown to promise what he can't deliver under EU law, for the sake of electioneering; but we have a situation where the concerns of probably a majority of the electorate are not being addressed by the political elites: it becomes "populist" to dispute the consensus of the political elites.
You can argue that by not protecting your workers and other countries not protecting their workers, you create this ideal world of optimal prosperity. But this is pretty abstract, at best, even if it were true. It depends on people ignoring the moral ties they have to their own communities in favour of a counter-intuitive internationalism. There are problems with this model, however. What happens instead when the compact between governments and their people are broken is that governments see their responsibility in terms of protecting world (or EU) trade laws and facilitating employment conditions that favour (increasingly) trans-national companies rather than looking to the interests of the people who elected them. This leads to a more cut-throat version of capitalism where employers can drive wages down according to the laws of supply and demand. It leads to a lowering of living standards for home workers. It creates exploitative conditions for immigrants who need to live in very poor conditions in order to live by the wages they are offered. A common practice is for employers of immigrant labour to pay the minimum wage and then to deduct (at a high rate) rents from the workers they ship in. Even when immigrants are not shipped in, the increase in the supply of labour drives down wages while simultaneously raising the prices of fixed resources such as housing.
It also assumes that no-one is cheating, that every government in the world will play by the rules. We see that Asian countries have higher tarriffs for goods whan we do; the chinese are engaging in competitive currency devaluations; china and middle-eastern governments are investing their surplus cash into Sovereign Wealth Funds owned by the state rather than independent, globally-focused enrepeneurs or companies. State-owned businesses are buying up the world's commodity resources under the noses of an increasingly impoverished West, which for the most part has lived by the mantra of Freedom of capital, goods, services and labour.
Throughout the neo-liberal period, which seemed to start in the late 70's/early 80's and reaches its apex in the 90's, there has been a popular undercurrent of disquiet about immigration, the EU, outsourcing, the decline in manufacturing, all based on the idea that we are part of one world and it is ultimately counter-productive for individual countries to distort the free market and protect its own interests. These popular feelings have been marginialised by political elites, who use cross-party consensus, obsequience to big business and politically correct national media organisations like the BBC to swamp political discourse with the internationalist perspective.
The irony is that both left and right have betrayed their intellectual roots, which is another way of saying they have betrayed their own people. After the fall of Communism and the discrediting of Socialist economics, the left saw Free Trade and Mass immigration as the means of downgrading traditional cultural values, promoting international solidarity and world-wide governmental institutions. The Free Market became one of the main instruments in promoting the cultural revolution in the West. The right, since Thatcher and Reagan, saw the doctrine of Free Trade and the unrestricted market as a way of combating socialism and the left, and guaranteeing liberty. The irony is that Thatcher herself was against laissez-faire even if many members of the later Thatcher and Major governments were not; and Reagan forced imports quotas on the Japanese in the 80's, forcing them to locate factory production in the US. These heros of the right were pragmatists, not idealogues.
This alliance between left and right is not accidental. Free Trade and big government go well together. If workers lose their jobs because of outsourcing, the state will pick up the bill in terms of welfare; if state spending goes up, corporations can avoid taxes and the striving classes (i.e., working classes and middle classes) will pay. Corporations will support all manner of green, ethnic diversity and gender equality initiatives, paid for by the Corporate Social Responsibility budgets; cheap at the price if they can avoid taxes and use the flexible labour markets to hire cheap labour. The New Labour government are afraid of driving these companies away in a globalised market, but they still want to spend taxpayers money on big government schemes. So they have accepted the devil's bargain that the productive part of the population pay higher taxes. Socialists don't mind how the wealth is produced; they care only that the money is there so they can dispense state largesse.
Even the Chinese Premier yesterday said that his government would look after China first. If a dictatorship can say this, what has happened to democratic politicians in the West. Moreover, China's production-based model is enriching his country; our capitalism is impoverishing ours.
Some right-of-centre commentators are arguing against the official line of the Conservative party. Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail criticised Mandelson for promoting an exploitative form of capitalism. He criticised Brown for being populist also, which is true, but it depends on what you meant by populism. Janet Daley writes that people are realising what they have signed up for with the EU: "it is now illegal – illegal – for the government of an EU country to put the needs and concerns of its own population first." She then goes on to say that people who legitimately resent the importation of cheap labour en masse are being smeared with accusations of racism; that the free market of labour envisaged by the EU is part of the democratic deficit.
We should note how the accusation of populism is levelled at Gordon Brown for his "British Jobs for British workers" speech. One one level this is right: it is outrageous for a managerialist politician like Brown to promise what he can't deliver under EU law, for the sake of electioneering; but we have a situation where the concerns of probably a majority of the electorate are not being addressed by the political elites: it becomes "populist" to dispute the consensus of the political elites.
You can argue that by not protecting your workers and other countries not protecting their workers, you create this ideal world of optimal prosperity. But this is pretty abstract, at best, even if it were true. It depends on people ignoring the moral ties they have to their own communities in favour of a counter-intuitive internationalism. There are problems with this model, however. What happens instead when the compact between governments and their people are broken is that governments see their responsibility in terms of protecting world (or EU) trade laws and facilitating employment conditions that favour (increasingly) trans-national companies rather than looking to the interests of the people who elected them. This leads to a more cut-throat version of capitalism where employers can drive wages down according to the laws of supply and demand. It leads to a lowering of living standards for home workers. It creates exploitative conditions for immigrants who need to live in very poor conditions in order to live by the wages they are offered. A common practice is for employers of immigrant labour to pay the minimum wage and then to deduct (at a high rate) rents from the workers they ship in. Even when immigrants are not shipped in, the increase in the supply of labour drives down wages while simultaneously raising the prices of fixed resources such as housing.
It also assumes that no-one is cheating, that every government in the world will play by the rules. We see that Asian countries have higher tarriffs for goods whan we do; the chinese are engaging in competitive currency devaluations; china and middle-eastern governments are investing their surplus cash into Sovereign Wealth Funds owned by the state rather than independent, globally-focused enrepeneurs or companies. State-owned businesses are buying up the world's commodity resources under the noses of an increasingly impoverished West, which for the most part has lived by the mantra of Freedom of capital, goods, services and labour.
Throughout the neo-liberal period, which seemed to start in the late 70's/early 80's and reaches its apex in the 90's, there has been a popular undercurrent of disquiet about immigration, the EU, outsourcing, the decline in manufacturing, all based on the idea that we are part of one world and it is ultimately counter-productive for individual countries to distort the free market and protect its own interests. These popular feelings have been marginialised by political elites, who use cross-party consensus, obsequience to big business and politically correct national media organisations like the BBC to swamp political discourse with the internationalist perspective.
The irony is that both left and right have betrayed their intellectual roots, which is another way of saying they have betrayed their own people. After the fall of Communism and the discrediting of Socialist economics, the left saw Free Trade and Mass immigration as the means of downgrading traditional cultural values, promoting international solidarity and world-wide governmental institutions. The Free Market became one of the main instruments in promoting the cultural revolution in the West. The right, since Thatcher and Reagan, saw the doctrine of Free Trade and the unrestricted market as a way of combating socialism and the left, and guaranteeing liberty. The irony is that Thatcher herself was against laissez-faire even if many members of the later Thatcher and Major governments were not; and Reagan forced imports quotas on the Japanese in the 80's, forcing them to locate factory production in the US. These heros of the right were pragmatists, not idealogues.
This alliance between left and right is not accidental. Free Trade and big government go well together. If workers lose their jobs because of outsourcing, the state will pick up the bill in terms of welfare; if state spending goes up, corporations can avoid taxes and the striving classes (i.e., working classes and middle classes) will pay. Corporations will support all manner of green, ethnic diversity and gender equality initiatives, paid for by the Corporate Social Responsibility budgets; cheap at the price if they can avoid taxes and use the flexible labour markets to hire cheap labour. The New Labour government are afraid of driving these companies away in a globalised market, but they still want to spend taxpayers money on big government schemes. So they have accepted the devil's bargain that the productive part of the population pay higher taxes. Socialists don't mind how the wealth is produced; they care only that the money is there so they can dispense state largesse.
Even the Chinese Premier yesterday said that his government would look after China first. If a dictatorship can say this, what has happened to democratic politicians in the West. Moreover, China's production-based model is enriching his country; our capitalism is impoverishing ours.
Monday 2 February 2009
workers revolt: some in the Left are listening but not the Conservative party
In my previous entry, I predicted that the left would try to smother the strike story, due to their love affair with internationalism. Although the usual pious diatribes against xenophobia can be found in the pages of the Guardian, my prediction has proved happily incorrect, at least in part, with much disquiet and vocal comments from people such as Frank Field and John Cruddas, talking of a race to the bottom. Both are critical of Brown's economic philosophy. Now that their membership have led the way, the unions are also saying that they have been telling the Government about this problem for years. If only they had told us.
It is the Right however, or at least its most important representative, Davos Cameron's Conservative party, which stands up for the “free movement of labour” principle. Cameron himself set the tone with his criticism of the prime minister for pandering to the BNP with his British Jobs for British Workers speech. While this is true as far as it goes, anyone with experience of political discourse in this country will know that raising the spectre of the BNP is really a signal that the speaker does not want to discuss the issues. At Davos, Cameron waxed lyrical on the need for a new moral capitalism. Cynics might doubt this and wonder if the standard bearer for a new “progressive conservatism” has missed a vocation as PR frontman for a Corporate Social Responsibility department in a major corporation – perhaps Total. Moral capitalism and his criticism of the last 15 years sounds promising, but it needs application to specific issues like this one to see what it means.
A more honest comment on the Andrew Marr show, the de-facto deputy leader, William Hague said that free movement of Labour was one of the aspects of the EU that we strongly favour. Marr, author of the much plugged (by the BBC), centre-left history of post-war Britain, allowed Hague to move quickly away from this topic. Ken Clarke on the Today programme today said that the free movement of labour was ultimately good for us all, that it was only because of the recession that people were protesting, the solution was to work for economic recovery. He also castigated the prime ministers infamous soundbite as “populism”. How long can they maintain a distinction between democratic politics and populism remains to be seen. Interesting that the Independent reported Peter Mandelson saying that British workers could go to Europe to find jobs, which shows how the debate cuts across party lines, with the establishment in both Labour and Conservatives favouring the globalisation/free market agenda. It also vindicates Peter Hitchens' comments that there is no point Clarke and Mandelson arguing across the dispatch box, because they agree on everything.
In the Telegraph, the Saturday Leader and the Sunday Leader contained homilies against the evils of protectionism, reflecting the establishment position and its Torygraph nickname. Also anti-protectionist articles by George Walden. The Daily Mail had two seemingly contradictory leaders, one criticising mass immigration, the other defending free markets against protectionism, which shows the ambivalence on the right between neo-liberal market ideology and the instinct to defend one's country. The last word is left to Christopher Booker, who comments (under "Unions learn the cost of Union membership") that since Delor's speech in 1988, the TUC have been highly supportive of the EU project, something they might regret now. All Booker can do is point out the inconsistencies, which brings us to the nub of the matter, that domestic politicians can do nothing in the face of EU Law. Asking whether EU Law is just or not leads to the question of whether EU membership is worth the disadvantages. Cameron's “moral captitalism” speech immediately is put to the test.
Links to follow later
It is the Right however, or at least its most important representative, Davos Cameron's Conservative party, which stands up for the “free movement of labour” principle. Cameron himself set the tone with his criticism of the prime minister for pandering to the BNP with his British Jobs for British Workers speech. While this is true as far as it goes, anyone with experience of political discourse in this country will know that raising the spectre of the BNP is really a signal that the speaker does not want to discuss the issues. At Davos, Cameron waxed lyrical on the need for a new moral capitalism. Cynics might doubt this and wonder if the standard bearer for a new “progressive conservatism” has missed a vocation as PR frontman for a Corporate Social Responsibility department in a major corporation – perhaps Total. Moral capitalism and his criticism of the last 15 years sounds promising, but it needs application to specific issues like this one to see what it means.
A more honest comment on the Andrew Marr show, the de-facto deputy leader, William Hague said that free movement of Labour was one of the aspects of the EU that we strongly favour. Marr, author of the much plugged (by the BBC), centre-left history of post-war Britain, allowed Hague to move quickly away from this topic. Ken Clarke on the Today programme today said that the free movement of labour was ultimately good for us all, that it was only because of the recession that people were protesting, the solution was to work for economic recovery. He also castigated the prime ministers infamous soundbite as “populism”. How long can they maintain a distinction between democratic politics and populism remains to be seen. Interesting that the Independent reported Peter Mandelson saying that British workers could go to Europe to find jobs, which shows how the debate cuts across party lines, with the establishment in both Labour and Conservatives favouring the globalisation/free market agenda. It also vindicates Peter Hitchens' comments that there is no point Clarke and Mandelson arguing across the dispatch box, because they agree on everything.
In the Telegraph, the Saturday Leader and the Sunday Leader contained homilies against the evils of protectionism, reflecting the establishment position and its Torygraph nickname. Also anti-protectionist articles by George Walden. The Daily Mail had two seemingly contradictory leaders, one criticising mass immigration, the other defending free markets against protectionism, which shows the ambivalence on the right between neo-liberal market ideology and the instinct to defend one's country. The last word is left to Christopher Booker, who comments (under "Unions learn the cost of Union membership") that since Delor's speech in 1988, the TUC have been highly supportive of the EU project, something they might regret now. All Booker can do is point out the inconsistencies, which brings us to the nub of the matter, that domestic politicians can do nothing in the face of EU Law. Asking whether EU Law is just or not leads to the question of whether EU membership is worth the disadvantages. Cameron's “moral captitalism” speech immediately is put to the test.
Links to follow later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
