Tory localism: Elizabeth Truss and the Norfolk constituency

There is an issue about private morality vs public service - here is a good article about how US politicians and their private actions should be judged. That is by way of an aside, because it doesn't solve the problem in Norfolk, which is about who makes the judgement.

If it were me, I'd say it is significant that the marital indiscretion happened some years ago. But the point is I am not a member of the South-west Norfolk Conservative association. Elizabeth Truss won't be my candidate for MP. She will be the candidate for South West Norfolk and in the end it is the right of the constituency to select her or deselect her, whatever anyone thinks. Isn't that what Localism is all about?

So what if they are too straight-laced, too moralistic for London tastes? The constituency is in Norfolk, not London. The candidate was sent there from London. Elizabeth Truss works for the Reform think tank, based in London. She comes from the London Think tank world; she hob nobs with Conservative functionaries and shadow ministers, who circulate in London. That's her world, not South-West Norfolk. No doubt she is very brilliant. She may be more talented than any of the local candidates; or maybe not. But even if she is more talented, she doesn't have the connection with the constituency that the local candidate has. She is more likely to be oriented to London, not to her own voters. Imagine 600+ MP's whose views and preoccupations are rooted first and foremost in their consituencies. What diversity of thought that would be!

Moreover, she must have had the right views, according to Conservative Central Office, or they wouldn't be promoting her. Allowing local constituencies to select the MPs means that this kind of ideological selection by a clique in the party becomes much more difficult. A greater diversity of views will surface in the parliamentary party. They keep telling us how they want "diversity".

An MP is meant to represent his or her constituents. One of the big themes of the MP expenses scandal is that MPs don't represent the people. So why isn't there an uproar about this? It isn't just South West Norfolk. This is happening in other constituencies, in other parties. The net effect is that most MPs are representative of a London-based political elite rather than the constituencies they represent. Apparently the local conservatives are pretty annoyed with the leadership, which is threatening to impose another candidate. Someone local would be more representative of South-West Norfolk - even a country squire. The gentry are supposed to be part of the privileged classes, incapable of "representing" ordinary people. But most likely they will have lived in the constituency all their lives. And who represents farmers in parliament? or software engineers? or manufacturing towns? (what's left of them).

It is seen as a scandal that the Conservatives don't have all-woman shortlists or that there aren't enough people from an ethnic minority background; but a preponderance of MPs from a closed circle of party apparatchiks, think tanks, journalists and the like doesn't offend the culture police. Yet it is far more toxic, both for an individual constituency and cumulatively for the independence and good standing of Parliament. No matter how talented they are, or how committed or clever, they read similar books, are influenced by the same intellectual fashions and have more in common with each other than with the people who vote for them.

Labour immigration policies, more like Treason

That the New Labour Government should consciously encourage immigration to make the country more diverse, as well being as a traitorous putsch, is part of the tyranny of the "enlightened" state over its people. It is no longer left to the electorate to decide on the composition of the people; instead enlightened government has the right to remake the people as it sees fit. Except they are not that englightened: they were motivated by political advantage and downright malice towards the traditional culture of Britain. See Melanie Philips' article on the Spectator at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5478436/the-neatherworld-of-britains-busted-political-class.thtml.

New Labour's support for immigration is based not so much on concern for the disenfranchised immigrants as hostilty towards the traditional, white, homogenous, British, Christian culture. By undermining the demographic base of society, they can more easily effect their progressive schemes for a new rational order, based on equality, supranationalism and the rest. They engineer a multi-cultural society, which is so toxic that it has to be managed by a plethora of race equality laws, handouts to "alienated" communities and measures against freedom of speech. The school system has to be monitored for community cohesiveness, the police have to be re-organised so that it is not "institutionally racist". If there were no immigrant masses, the liberal-left would have to invent them, so as to provide a pretext for their attack on western civilisation.

The Modern Conservatives have been very quiet, with Damien Green mouthing a weak, token protest (see end of article). As Melenie Philips said: "If David Cameron won’t raise the roof even over the fact that the British have had their cultural identity deliberately destroyed by stealth, then what on earth is the point of the Conservative party?" [her italics].

It should be stressed that the Conservatives' immigration policy (their website) reserves to the Government the right to choose the composition of the British people. This is tyranny at worst, state managerialism at best. As we discover, the two merge together in practice. See this wikipedia posting on the Managerial state.

Drugs Tsar, that is "scientific expert", sacked

The irony about this Science adviser controversy is that government shouldn't have paid, "independent" advisers in the first place. Why not just ask independent scientists?

The suspicion is that Governments don't hire science advisers to be independent, but to take cover themselves. That way they can implement policy while pretending to be swayed by expert science, and circumvent due democratic process. The advisor will sometimes disagree with the boss, but they will only be hired because they have a similar world view. It looks like Nutt was hired for his liberalism on drugs, which has become embarrassing to New Labour as we approach an election.

In reality, there is unlikely to be a consensus on scientific issues. In a free society rather than a managed democracy, the media would be the conduit for a range of scientific views. Hiring a chief scientist creates the false impression that there is a supreme expert who knows best. While the BBC referred to him a "scientific adviser", the Guardian referred to him as a drugs adviser, the Daily Mail called him the government chief drugs tsar. The left tend to believe in rule by experts. The Daily Mail has a good record on fighting technocratic dictatorship, as has the non-globalist right generally. Although the exception has been control of the money supply by central bankers, which the right have bought into over the past decades: that is what got us into the current financial mess, especially low interest rates.

It also pretends that drugs policy is purely a scientific issue rather than a moral one. After complaining 'But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes.', Nutt gave the game away, 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. Surely what society accepts or not, and the costs of either choice, is what we should be arguing about. There are civil liberties issues relating to the police checking people for drugs, so as to actually enforce drug laws; there is the danger to society and to individuals of being dependent on drugs, regardless of whether they are "harmed" in a purely physical sense. It is not primarily a scientific issue at all, although evidence has its place.

A government who believed in scientific evidence rather than information control would sack all its paid advisers. Then let politicians inform the electorate of their views and take those views to the election. Let scientists say what they think also, not because they are the chief expert, because they represent one scientifically informed opinion among many. There will be a range of competing studies and conflicting evidence. In the end, let the public decide.

Then social policy would revert to the democratic arena rather than being the preserve of experts. Government would be improved by elected officials taking responsibility for the policies they implement rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of bureaucrats and "experts". Secondly, the Government, by which I mean the taxpayer, would save money, at least if Government (here I mean the people governing) were not determined to find something else to spend it on.

Modern Conservatism, perpetual war

Neil Clark wrote last summer about how the modern Conservative party have been wholly captured by the neo-conservative hawks. I knew about Gove, Hague and Fox, but it turns out that all the key figures in the cabinet have similar views. Neil Clark also touches on how the Cameron campaign was orchestrated by special interests.

So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.

The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.

But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.

It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?

There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe for globalism democracy".

The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.

Libertarian conservatism should attract socialists, liberals and environmentalists too

"All hope for change lies in a rEVOLution fought not with bullets, but with our minds." Jake Towne

On one of the unofficial Ron Paul websites, http://ronpaulrepublican.com/?p=139, is an article by someone running for office in Pennsylvania called Jake Towne. That's where I got the quote above. Yes it's idealistic, but Towne represents many aspects of the properly conservative mindset - constitutionalism, fiscal solidity, defence of liberty and an aversion to unnecessary wars. It won't solve all our problems, but it is a realistic alternative to established politics, which has left us with a democratic deficit, social decay and a bankrupt economy.

Many socialists are initially motivated by distrust of the establishment and opposition to injustice, and have been disillusioned by the Labour party and changemaker Obama bailing out the banks. The Ron Paul revolution offers a government not in hock to special interests like the finance industry. It's a free-market philosophy, but it blocks the too-cosy relationship between government and the banks.

Classical liberals and democrats should reject the Lib Dems' love of unaccountable supranational institutions like the EU. How can a liberal be happy with the EU-wide arrest warrant? Yet Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al support it, because they believe that the supra-state apparatus of the EU is essentially benign. The Liberal Democrats support central planning also. Modern day liberals claim continuity with John Locke and 19th Century liberalism; however, Paul E. Gottfried in "After liberalism: the managerial state in the age of mass democracy" convincingly argues that modern liberalism is defined by a faith in progress through government planning by experts. This dictatorship of the bureaucrats, often in the teeth of popular (small 'c' conservative) opposition is clearly the antithesis of the 19th Century liberal belief in individual freedom. Only the name survives, so creating an illusion of continuity.

Some useful reviews of Gottfried's book are to be found here. Or use an Internet search.

Environmentalists who blame the free-market for local noise and air pollution should read Simon Jenkins' article about how how Labour Government policy has been captured by the airline industry. At least part of the answer is more Nimbys - i.e. local residents and awkward anti-government planning types - not Big Government.

On the right of the political divide, so-called Conservatives have bought into the central planning as much as so-called socialists and liberals. The way the Federal Reserve and Bank of England have kept interest rates artificially low, thereby creating the credit and housing bubbles, is a an example of central planning by supposed experts at its worst. The rule of experts is the defining feature of the managerial state, and people who call themselves free-market Conservatives have up to now bought into that.

Socialists who support bailouts for the rich; free-market conservatives who support utopian wars, big government welfarism, centrally planned interest rates and managed inflation, a form of theft; liberals who give more credence to the benefits of the managerial state than individual initiative. The participants of the late 19th/early 20th century ideological wars have been replaced by replicas; by keeping the old names though, they can create the illusion that the battleground is the same.

BBC doesn't tell you that Guttmacher is a pro-abortion campaign group

On the 8am Radio 4 News today, the BBC presented the latest publication by the pro-abortion organisation, The Guttmacher Institute, as a report by "sexual health experts". A lot of unsubstantiated figures were reeled out to support this so-called expert opinion.

The BBC don't produce transcripts, but here is the text (with my italics).

"Research suggest the number of abortions performed world wide is falling. The study says that there are no reduction in what it calls unsafe abortions carried out in countries where the practice is heavily restricted. Jane Draper reporting. [Jane Draper:] 'Sexual health experts from the Guttmacher institute analysed official figures and data about medical complications which may have arisen from illegal abortions. Researchers found that since the mid 1990s, the number of abortions worldwide has fallen from 45 milliion to 41 million. This they said was due to increased provision in contraception particularly in Eastern Europe and Africa, but they estimate unsafe abortions cause 70,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. In N.Ireland terminations are still restricted but some women travel to Britain or abroad to end unwanted pregrancies. A group called Comment for Reproductive Ethics, which campaigns for respect for the human embryo said abortion wasn't the answer and it didn't liberate women.'"

Firstly, SPUC are categorical that these figures are false.

The figures used are highly dubious: what is the source of the "offical data" and how is it compiled? How does anyone get statistics on "unsafe" abortions, which are presumably illegal? Yet the Guttmacher have a history of providing these statistics. The numbers on which the report is based are "estimates" by the researchers themselves. To be fair, Draper inserts "they say" as a rather faint parenthesis, but the figures are to all intents and purposes treated as statistical fact.

And left unstated is the fact that the Guttmacher institute is itself a campaigning organisation. As ever, pro-abortion propaganda is represented as objective and scientific, pro-life campaigners as mere moralists. The reference to CORE is a nod towards balance but CORE are described as campaigners, the Guttmacher people as experts. What would a person who hasn't looked into the matter be led to conclude?

Odd that Draper uses CORE,who are more interested in artificial conception, rather than another anti-abortion group: by focusing on "respect for embryo", Draper obscures the point that many abortions take place on foetuses who can be of 6 or 7 months+ gestation, a practice objectionable to many people who don't concede that the embryo is alive. CORE's response seemed generic also: was it a reply to the Guttmacher report or taken from another context?: there's nothing on their website.

It looks to me like Draper has framed the issue as a debate between scientific researchers and anti-abortion ideologues. That the BBC health correspondent, is reporting this news item is an example of how the debate on abortion is expunged of any moral dimension and treated pseudo-scientifically as a health issue.

There is an oblique swipe at Northern Ireland's restrictive laws, which continue to be a target of pro-abortion campaigners, juxtaposed with the estimate of women killed as a result of "unsafe" abortions. The reporter seems to have incorporated Northern Ireland into the news item on her own initiative.

As Robin Aitken says in Can we Trust the BBC?,abortion is one of those issues on where the BBC promotes its own opinions, although it is required to maintain a pretence of objectivity.

Geography and demographics: relations with Muslim countries in the future

With all the warmongering talk about Iran as a threat to the West (for a more sceptical view see here), we forget which Muslim states in the decades to come are likely to pose a threat to the independence, if not the very existence, of some western countries, specifically in Southern and South Eastern Europe.

The population of North Africa is increasing fast, while that of Europe ages and declines, so changing the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Mass immigration from the Maghreb into Spain, France and Italy is likely to increase the political influence of Algeria and Morocco in Southern Europe, with more than merely cultural effects. A country like Morocco might be tempted to intervene in Spain if any religious tensions should flare up; or a nuclear-armed (with Pakistani help) Algeria might feel impelled to support Muslim groups in ethno-religious conflicts inside French territory. This conflict could be in the form of rioting or simply non-violent agitation by Muslims for more civil rights, special privileges or concessions to Islamic culture. Ethnic tensions in Europe will as likely to worsen relations between Europe and the Maghreb rather than bring cultures and countries together.

In the Balkans, a populous, industrialised Turkey is likely to extend its influence over weak and sparsely populated Balkan states. The Turkish government seems moderate, but quite understandably it will pursue Turkish self-interest. The old dictum, powers will be powers, applies. A Bulgarian think-tank predicts how Turkish accession will lead to unrestricted turkish immigration overwhelming ethnic Bulgarians; and the Turks will extend their influence in Europe. The US Government, the British Conservatives (in thrall to US foreign policy objectives) as well most neo-conservatives and liberals believe that Turkey can become a bulwark against the supposed main threats to the East, which are geographically more distant from Europe. Even without EU Accession, it has to be said, Turkish influence can only increase; but polite containment of Turkey rather than integration with it will be more attractive to central and Eastern Europeans.

Iran is a long way from Europe. In the days of the Ottoman Empire, Persia acted as a second front for the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Turks to divert resources away from Europe and perhaps saving central Europe from conquest. This dynamic may reassert itself. Iran is likely to be contained by Sunni countries in the Middle East and won't be in a position to pose an existential threat to Israel. The main threat to the Israeli state is demographic - from the Palestinian Arabs in a greater Israel; or even in a 1948-borders Israel.

Iran also has militarised, Sunni Pakistan as a neighbour and relations between the two countries remain strained, according to the neo-conservative Middle East Quarterly. Asia Times reports that Border tensions continue. As a result, Iran is likely to maintain good relations with India in order to contain the Pakistani threat, which includes the spectre of the Sunni bomb. India's rivalry with China will mean that India will be friendly to the West; Pakistan's rivalry with India will mean that it relies more on China, although a Uighur insurgency might distract Pakistan from its strategic interest. Iran again will have interests in common with Europe and America, suggesting a cold alliance. Shia Islam is not likely to be a destabilising ideology for the West in the way that Saudi Wahabiism is.

Norwich by-election

I haven't heard much on the by-election in the media over the last couple of weeks - one Daily Politics (lunchtime appearance). Question Time was in Norwich last night, but the polls had already closed by then. The two recent national opinion polls, giving the tories 40%+, make it look like the Tories are unstoppable; but 15% of decided voters are other parties while undecideds are not even counted. So these opinion polls overestimate the main parties' vote, including the Conservatives. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially in a first-past-the-post system, with the electorate concluding that the fringe parties are not worth voting for. The polls influence future votes.

If David Cameron's party win well, they can claim to have the momentum to assume government next year; UKIP, the libertarian party and the rest will be cast as also-rans, a wasted vote. The Tories' strategy relies on right-wing voters feeling they have nowhere to go, a captive electorate. This lack of exposure for the other parties will help them close the election down.

The media's tendency to concentrate on the main parties and ignore the fringe parties is good for established politics. Given the disgusting consensus on many issues between the three main parties, which now seems to extend to the pointless war in Afghanistan (all three leaders say the war is worth fighting, some debate on how many helicopters), this impoverishes debate considerably.

I doubt if the tories would be quietly planning to privatise the post office if they had to justify their proposal in opposition to a range of other populist parties. Instead our post office is left to the tender mercies of Peter Mandelson and Ken Clarke, who represent the same discredited consensus that talked unrestrained free markets and gave us the bank bailouts. Repeatedly, three parties agree broadly on the big issues. They are basically saying, "There is no other reasonable or moderation stance on these issues", which is really a cover for a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: "you can disagree but you have no other options."

There has been so much talk about increased choice and competition over the last few decades. But it doesn't apply to politics, which is restricted to a narrow range of approved platforms. If you only allowed three salesman access to the customer, and made it more difficult for the others, this would be seen as a scandal. But that's what happens with the three-party system. If fringe parties were given media space to argue for their platforms, the main parties find it a lot harder to close down the debate.

Afghanistan: how western aid is repeating Russian mistakes

An article on how Russian development policy in 1980's Afghanistan looks a lot like what the West is doing now, written Paul Robinson, an academic working on International affairs at the University of Ottawa.

See the American Conservative website .

It is not just that the West is giving aid money to a corrupt government; but that the top-down aid approach increases corruption, makes the government unaccountable, and the development isn't matched to the economic or social conditions in Afghanistan.

More British deaths in Afghanistan

Eight more soldiers died today, part of an offensive operation with the Americans. The consequence of the increase in casualties is that politicians can't ignore this far-away war any longer. The Media are now covering the story and the parties have to declare their position, beyond these formulaic declarations of sorrow.

Everyone I talk to thinks it a disgrace that soldiers should be sent to war without being properly resourced. The whole country sees it as a scandal, and whether people believe the war is justified or not, they want the troops to be protected. What is also scandalous is how the politicians had contrived not to discuss the issue until last week.

It is especially scandalous that the Conservatives have been quiet because their leadership is very much in favour of intervention. But Cameron stayed quiet. It took the Anti-war Liberal Democrat party to break the silence. If the Conservatives are supposed to competing on the same ground in the next election, then Clegg wins on this. Clegg calls himself a liberal interventionist, which seems to be a break from the previous leadership.

In many ways, Afghanistan is a liberal war: people like Harman are understandably horrified by the way the Taliban coerce women. But, I don't see how we can supplant an entire culture, without coercion; we are meant to be on the side of the people, not against them. Liberals don't like solutions based around ethnic differences, but Afghanistan itself is so fragmented that a weak central state with iranian, pakistani/pashtun, uzbecki spheres of influence, all based on ethnic ties, would probably be the most stable solution. This would be more effective than top-down economic development (which is likely to be misdirected anyway).

This war is not like the cold war, where scepticism was confined to left-wingers. Ordinary, strongly patriotic people will say that the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place. The government say candidly that the soldiers are in Afghanistan to protect us from Terrorism, Gordon Brown today and Harriet Harman in Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday. But beyond the assertion that Afghanistan is the cradle of terrorism, it is never explained how terrorists can bomb British cities from thousands of miles away or how you can stop someone from Britain who hasn't been to Afghanistan from committing a terrorist act. Our presence there is just as likely to provoke a terrorist attack as stope one.

Those thinkers who believe the war is a good thing are talking about a long war. This is in spite of our indebtedness and general economic weakness. This under-resourced, politically naive war is leading to the deaths of British soliders, with no end in sight.

The London Times and Israeli disinformation

According to the former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, The Times story of Saudi Arabia colluding in an Israeli strike is a false story, planted by Mossad.

His comments are here on the American Conservative blog.

Giraldi is well-connected enough to know. In 2005 Giraldi broke the story that Dick Cheney ordered plans to attack Iran in response to a large-scale terrorist attack, irrespective of whether Iran was involved.

Based also on Biden's comments that the US won't stand in Israel's way, he draws the conclusion also that the US administration are ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.

To be fair to the Times, the wider reflection to make here is that a large proportion of "News" stories in the papers are the result of a PR, leaks or other agendas. Most news is propaganda and all of the newspapers are conduits for misinformation.

more on Obama

Another comment on the relative merits of Obama and McCain from the Larison blog on TAC.

Also, a useful article linked from The American Conservative on IBD about the effects on business of the Obama plans.

Obama and Iran

"Bomb Iran Bomb Bomb Bomb", joked Senator John McCain to the tune of the Beach Boy song, in the early days of the presidential campaign. Luckily for the world he is still Senator John McCain and not President McCain. But imagine how "Bomb Iran" from a presidential candidate sounded to the Iranians.

The Republicans were the best reason to hope for an Obama victory; or at least to view Obama as the lesser of two evils if you couldn't quite stomach the vacuity of the "Change" message, the the Blair-like (Cameron-like) contempt for the electorate that campaigning on something as non-specific as "Change" implies.

Much of what Obama has been doing on the home front has been awful: Bailout II, the stimulus, massive health care reforms, climate change; but generally on foreign policy, Obama has been an improvement. He has at least reduced the numbers of irreconciliable enemies of the free world. Reaching out to Cuba, Venezuala, Russia, especially Russia, that is good. On Iran too, he has been restrained, but is close to a lone voice. Congress voted to condemn the Iranians, with only one representative dissenting, the great Ron Paul. So politically it will be difficult.

Obama has been brave to resist calls to get heavy with Iran, but even in the first response, there was some ambiguity. Talk of "universal values" of democracy is close to neo-con/liberal interventionist talk, to the Iranians it would have still sounded like meddling, and the fear is that the realist foreign policy of "world citizen" Obama would collapse if regimes like Iran don't pass the values test. Sure enough, when the pressure gets tough, his rhetoric gets tough too. The neo-cons want the creedal nation to fight a messianic war for western democracy, and they can base their call to arms on the assumptions of the dominant liberal ideology.

As for an improvement in Iran if Moussavi wins, well look how empty the colour revolutions of Ukraine and Georgia ended up being. So don't hold your breath. Embracing western-led reforms led to terrible deprivation and disorder for Russia and Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the American economy is heading for a lot more trouble according to Peter Schiff. It will take economic collapse to tame American, and western, hubris.

Fighting the EUSSR: what will the Conservatives do?

The EU proposals for financial services regulation must put Kenneth Clarke and Peter Mandelson in a very difficult position. They supported more powers to the EU as the way of facilitating a liberalised economic system, financial services being an example. Not easy either for David Cameron's vision for Europe or William Hague, or anyone who hopes that our European partners will be on the side of British interests. The Charlemagne blog discusses Cameron's managerialist approach and the different face he shows to the British people - without committing himself of course.

UKIP show clarity on the issue, as Nigel Farrage says:



See also Peter Oborne on the "Blair/Cameron" pact and Clarke's support for the treaty. Expediency seems to be everything for the leader of the Conservative party.

What a waste. Labour implodes and small-time political organisers have suborned British conservativism.

Unconservative immigration quotas

The official Conservative Party policy statement on immigration reads:

Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.

Talk about immigration controls sounds promising to the vast majority of people worried about mass immigration, but the caveats are very wide. The statement goes on: "The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy" and "The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services" .

Immigration issue is reduced to another area of economic management, with a very vague nod to non-economic "wider effects" and a slightly more specific reference to the policy wonk territory of service provision. They avoid committing to the basic democratic principle that the people of this country have a right to determine who comes into their country. Immigration quotas will be set by policy makers in Whitehall, based on "pragmatic" - i.e., expedient reasons. In better economic times, they could be very high and the number won't include dependents. The "what works" mantra really means that the all-knowing bureaucracy will make the decisions for you based on their perfect knowledge of the situation, no choice being allowed to the people on the direction of policy.

It opens the way to a thorough-going managerialism. The quotas will be a similar type of decision to setting the level of interest rates, taxation or public spending. According to this logic, immigration numbers may as well be be set by the Bank of England. They wouldn't dare give it to the Bank of England of course, but it will be some government appointee, acting in the same way.

The annual limit sounds like it is changeable according to economic circumstances. Do they really think they will be able to know what the optimum number will be, even within a margin of a hundred thousand people? Where will they live? Conservatives are supposed to believe that this kind of management is futile, that's one of the things that differentiates them from socialists.

The justice of the quotas idea also assumes that the motives of Government are pure. Conservatives are supposed to be sceptical about that one too. Realistically, business interests will strongly influence decisions about the right number of immigrant considered of "real benefit" to our economy. They gain from the low wages. Knowing that the government will oblige with more immigrant workers, many companies and organisations will advertise jobs at a wages that British people can not afford to take. This will then justify more immigrants to fill all those jobs "British people don't want to do". Companies that don't follow suit will be disadvantaged. The low-wage, exploitative flexible, immigration-based economy with all the attendant inequalities will continue. Migration Watch say that a 10% increase in the proportion of immigrants leads to a 5% reduction in pay for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Many of these will have a family, or want to start a family.

On the Radio 4 Any Questions programme, which for some reason is unavailable at time of writing (so I can't quote him), Philip Hammond emphasised the economic benefits, as I recall. The implications I am drawing were even more obvious from his phrase. Let's hope the media grill them on this, if only to expose their equivocations. It fits with everything that Peter Hitchens has been saying.

Vote for Liberal democrats is unchristian

The Liberal Democrats support the right to abortion as part of party policy after a conference vote in 1992. In doing so, the party stopped being officially neutral on the issue and leaving it to the individual conscience of MPs. This is why David Lord Alton left in the 1980's, he is now a cross-bench MP. To stand as a Liberal Democrat MP or councillor, to even be a member of their party, is to implicitly support a right to abortion.

The logic is clear, the party's policy is in conflict with Catholic teaching; but the bishops are quiet on this. One suspects this is partly due to the influence of liberal ideas in the hierarchy, but a more respectable reason is that the Catholic Church wants to avoid being too involved in party politics.

All very well, but Catholic commentators at least should take on the implications of the irreconcilable difference between Lib Dem policy and the duty of Catholics not to support abortion. It is the same as the Amnesty International case.

Reconciling support for a given party and Christian principles is a difficult issue, given that Christ did not mandate a set of rules to govern our lives. Christian leaders from many denominations argue that the BNP is anti-Christian, probably a counter-productive move. True conservatives, like Peter Hitchens, argue that supporting the BNP is incompatible with Christianity. No-one can accuse him of trying to be "relevant in changing times" or of greasing up to our politically correct masters, something that you can't say for the Catholic or Anglican hierarchies.

The Catholic press spouts the usual pieties. In the May 31, 2009 edition of the Catholic Times Christopher Graffius went through the voting options for good Catholics, starting with the obligatory "I would hope that no Catholic would vote for the racist British National party". Yes, but this isn't an argument: just crying "racist" is looking increasingly inadequate, given the damage that immigration is doing.

He goes further than this though: UKIP is a "dud choice" because "The church has always opposed petty nationalism". So, according to Graffius, supporting unaccountable bureaucracies and showing contempt for referendum results is OK? The Greens "advocate a population policy. A prominent advisor of theirs, Jonathan Porritt, recently backed a two-child limit for families", which is anti-life; I agree with him, but this is not quite the same as advocating abortion, although I'm sure the Greens, with their extreme liberal social policies, support abortion rights.

He continues. The Christian parties are overwhelmingly protestant and exclusive because non-Christians can not stand; I remember a Muslim stood for a Christian party in Scotland, but Graffius may well be right about the Christian party and the Christian Peple's Alliance, whom he uses as an example. But not about the Scottish Christian party".

Of the main parties, the Conservatives, as Graffius says, are no longer allied with Christian Democrats in the European parliament: "You could hold your nose when voting Tory on the basis that it would support Christian Democracy overall". The Christian Democratic parties support Christianity's place in Europe, but in the end they go with the tide. An overview of the debate is here.

Graffius bases his prescriptions on arbitrary reasons, inspired by the pious social-action, right-on version of Christianity that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the Catholic press. This philosophy has taken over "The Universe" entirely.

He doesn't mention Labour or the Liberal Democrats. So presumably these parties don't meet with his disapproval. But since Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly to keep the current abortion laws last year and the Liberal Democrats support abortion as a matter of party policy, forestalling individual choice, I find this rather shocking from a supposedly Catholic-minded commentator in a Catholic paper.

He suggests at the end making a pro-life on the ballot paper, so I don't accuse him of not caring about abortion; however, his silence on the pro-life record of the left-of-centre main parties is symptomatic of the way that the new piety of these social action Christians , while full of pursed-lipped disdain for "petty nationalism" of respectable right-wing parties like UKIP, makes them pass over the anti-Christian nature of the leftist political movements to which they want to subordinate ally the Catholic Church.

Cross-posted on Christianity in the West

Where the right is still going wrong

Read on article on The National Interest website against the strategic idiocy of preventative war and the obsession with biffing on the head every bad guy who pops up and says "boo".

The present reliance on warfare to defend the free world is counter-productive, but it is eroding civil liberties and sucking out its economic lifeblood. Not that the US has much of an economy left.

To neo-conservatives jacobins and those swayed by them, torture is OK, many right-of-centre people go along with it. They vote for corporate republicans and fake conservatives.

The Republicans deserve to lose in 2012 if they continue to be dominated by the war-party. If they don't change, what is the point of the Rebublicans? They don't defend conservatism or liberty; the Obama administration is as interventionist as Bush. So Americans may as well vote Democrat if they want to bomb civilians and trash the freedoms they inherited as their birthright.

MPs and democracy: more MPs means more people-power

David Cameron, before the MPs' expenses row, had suggested reducing MP numbers by 10% on the grounds of increasing efficiency. A reduction in numbers wouldn't be noticed, he said, as happened when the number of Scottish MSPs were cut back. However, Christopher Caldwell noted in this weekend's Financial Times that congressmen in the US represent on average 750,000 electors compared to British MPs representing an average of 100,000, so British MPs, he says, are closer to the people.

Less MPs, as proposed by Cameron, means on average more voters per constituency, therefore greater distance between MPs and individual voters. Secondly, larger constituencies leads to more voters trapped in constituencies that their preferred candidate has no hope of winning (this is a problem with first-past-the-post, yet PR serves the party machines by cutting the link between MP and constituency). Third, lobbyists are very efficient at commandeering the votes of the relatively few US politicians.

And is "efficiency" the criterion we should be applying to democratic repesentation?

So I propose more MPs. Specifically we should double the number to 1,300 or so.

This would mean:

1. MPs are closer to individual electors, therefore more accountable, more representative, better known as individuals to the people who vote for them. Their connection to local interests would be stronger, their sense of obligation to serve their constituents would be greater. An organised party electoral machine would be less of a factor in getting a candidate elected.



2. More MPs in parliament means a lower proportion of elected MPs will serve in the executive; the chances of advancement will be considerably lessened. Many MPs will be less inclined to try to please party leaders, because they will not expect preferment or will have given up hoping.



3. More MPs mean it is more difficult for lobbyists to target them. The effectiveness of lobbyists blights American democracy, no doubt due in part to the low proportion of representatives in relation to the population.



4. We could expect to see more independent MPs in parliament, representing local interests. More ethnic minority or religion-based parties, more save-the-local hospital candidates. That is diversity mandated by electors, not "A" lists.

What I'm saying is against the conventional wisdom. To many wiseheads, reducing MPs has a modernising, cutting-a-swathe-through-old-habits-and-ways-of-doing-it air: less elected representatives means more "efficiency", saving on wages (they're a waste of space anyway, you'll say), more room to sit down in the commons - so the "cream", the really talented guardians of our democracy, who rise to the top by party patronage shining merit and get elected to their privileged seat, can be a bit more comfy.

In part answer to that, we could save money by paying them less, a blow against the professionalisation of what should be public service. But more to the point, how, exactly, is reducing MPs meant to serve democracy?

People will say that more MPs make parliamentary democracy more unwieldy; but what's wrong with that? The problem with government today is that too few people are involved in the decision-making, resulting in poorly thought-out legislation, and narrow ideology triumphing over the concerns of the electorate. This is less effective law-making, probably in direct proportion to the gain in expediency. We need more unwieldiness, slower decision-making, more argument, more scrutiny, more diverse interests chipping in. Heaven forbid, it could mean less laws being passed!

The downside is that more MPs would be anonymous to the media; but apart from party leaders and a handful of "star" MP's, this is true anyway, so this is not much of a downside at all. The House of Commons chamber doesn't have capacity for the existing number, so some have to stand; more MPs makes this more difficult. A good old-fashioned British compromise would be to halve the increase, so we have approximately 975 MPs, although this would weaken the impact.

But I'm sure they could find a way, if the principle was accepted that a greater number of MPs was a more accountable and effective way of representing voters.

MPs' expenses: parliamentary responsibility

So where is the justice in the resignation of the speaker? What has been gained, in terms of reforming parliament?

Even if Michael Martin was not a good speaker, theexpenses scandal preceded his speakership; there was a collective failure of MPs over many years. If he should have gone, he should have gone later; the honourable course of action was for members of the House of Commons collectively to take the blame, and responsibility.

In an ideal world, and it is ideal given where we are, a parliamentary debate would have been the highlight of the crisis. After this we might have seen the speaker, as house leader, apologise to the people. The party leaders would have the status of individual MPs; they would have deliberately stayed in the background as they are supposed to do for votes on matters of conscience. This is because Parliament is sovereign, which people forget. Such constitutional niceties will be seen today as hopelessly unrealistic ...

Would MPs have voted for a reduction in pay starting after the next election? Part of the answer is the de-professionalisation of parliament, as Charles Moore is saying. The left won't vote for that and maybe the conservatives in their present form won't either; but in a general election, those candidates might have an advantage, who argue that being an MP is a public service, not a job. Lowering MPs' wages would help facilitate the demise of the professional political class.

The fact that the resignation followed a meeting of party leaders shows where the power lies. You might say with the people ultimately; but what they see is determined by the media, whose propensity is to reduce political stories to what key individuals say and (say that they) think; the opinions of the leaders are given disproportionate weight. The voters rage about corrupt politics; party establishments calculate electoral advantage and apply their preferred "change agenda" as panacea, or try to.

MPs' expenses 4: solving the issues that beset our great democracy

Mr Clegg was showing decisive moral leadership on Sunday TV with his principled call to remove that horrible Mr Martin. His solutions in the Observer are innovative and inspiring: "We must finally haul our politics from the 19th Century into the 21st."

To think that MPs expenses went back to the 19th Century. This is breaking the mould of the corrupt political system. You see the scandal had nothing to do with Mr Clegg or any of the others, it was all the speaker's fault.

What courage he displayed, in a world of cynical manipulation of the agenda by politicians, and easy fixes, to go on Television, and put the blame where it really lies - with that scapegoat bad man. For the election, I'm going to vote Lib dem, because they are a nice party. Or maybe the greens, I like the environment, they're nice and fluffy too.