For all the talk of the death of socialism, there is one social unit that remains as socialist as ever: the family. Husbands subsidise wives (and vice versa); siblings lend each other help and money when profit-motivated organisations such as banks refuse; parents try to help out the weakest child in the hopes of achieving equality among their children despite varying ability or effort; the black sheep gets bailed out in circumstances they wouldn't be if their situation was objectively assessed.
The tradition of family socialism goes back millenia, probably to when homo sapiens first appeared, and there was good reason for it - it was a way of ensuring that the old, the sick and the weak were taken care of.
More recently, we've had the phenomenon of perfectly healthy able-bodied people relying on their wealthy parents to subsidise their standard of living - something that was characterised as "Economic Outpatient Care" by American professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko in their book The Millionaire Next Door. It can be simple (and beneficial) starter help such as parents paying for university or helping their children to buy a home with the gift of a deposit, or the more destructive version where adult children live expensively and run up debt in the belief that inheritance from their parents will clear it.
Stanley and Danko observed that too much help from parents weakens the ability of their off-spring to cope when the parents pass away, as by then they are too old to learn how to survive on their own. The annals of the rich are full of stories of the next generation unhappily frittering away their wealth through dissipation and lack of drive. Indeed this was what motivated Bill Gates to decide to give away most of his money - he didn't want to weaken his children by removing their motivation. The best parents are the ones who push their children out of their nest and force them to stand on their own two feet, and the earlier they do this the better, as the parent is still around to watch progress, offer advice and if the child stumbles really badly, pick them up: what usually happens in these circumstances is that the young adult struggles mightily at first, and then gets the hang of it and begins to thrive and prosper.
As the welfare state sprung up, we've also begun to see conflicts between the powerful pure socialism that exists within the family and the much weaker state version. For instance, many elderly people are outraged that they have to sell their houses to pay for their nursing care at the end of their lives. They demand that the state (i.e. other people's children) pay for the nursing care, so that they can provide substantial socialism in the form of inheritance to their own children.
And so we come to the issue of inheritance. Here several threads merge powerfully - the tradition of family socialism, the fact that parents worry about their offspring, and as mortality approaches, seek to protect them from beyond the grave. It's not accidental that the people who worry the most about inheritance taxes are the elderly, even though it arises after their deaths. And not many are as clear-headed and logical as Bill Gates on how inheritance could hurt their children.
Family socialism has the same strengths and weaknesses as the state version. As a support system, nothing beats the family, especially if you are ill or disabled. But families can also be indulgent, enabling and entrenching bad habits and laziness - giving is equated to loving, so you see poor mothers running up debts to buy their children the latest toys instead of simply saying, no, we can't afford it, we're on a budget. And you see adults "counting" on inheritance to bail them out of their problems instead of striving to solve them themselves. If critics of state socialism say that it demotivates and weakens the recipients of it, family socialism does this a hundred-fold.
The only way to resolve this would be to go back to the original purpose of family socialism - to protect the old and the sick. I would be in favour of inheritance going completely tax-free into a family fund if it could only be drawn on for the purposes of paying for nursing care, supporting an ill/disabled family member and to provide an income in old age, and that if the family fund was drawn on in this way, you got an offsetting reduction in benefits from the state. It would solve the problem of an aging population needing nursing care. It would solve the problem of people not thinking about their income needs in old age. It would solve the problem of parents desperately worried about offspring who are ill. It would remove some of the imbalance in society where some people get a capital leg up in enterprise. And if it turned out that you were one of those rare people who enjoyed perfect health in your lifetime and worked to the end, then you simply pass the family fund untouched to the next generation. Over the decades and centuries, someone among your descendents will get old or ill and draw on it.
Obviously people who are living high in the hopes of getting "free" and unearned money from their parents will hate this. For many people though, they just want to know that they are protecting their descendents from the ills life can throw at them, and they will be satisfied. The big question is which group is the biggest? The first group would prefer the current system where you get free money and simply spend it as you like, including blowing it all and having the state look after you at the end, and sadly this group is probably too big for my idea to ever get off the ground.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Boardroom Pay
From time to time we get Guardian commentators lambasting the government about boardroom pay - notably Polly Toynbee. The assessment of the Labour government is always, "you may have helped the poor with the minimum wage and re-distribution, but you've done nothing about the rich, how can you call yourselves Labour".
Actually the government has done something about boardroom pay. In 2002, they legislated to require that boardroom compensation data was published, and to give shareholders an annual advisory vote on executive pay. Britain was the first country to do this (since then Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden have also legislated and the USA is thinking about it, despite fierce resistance from vested interests).
The thinking behind this legislation was two-fold - by insisting on disclosure, the government hoped to bring public pressure to bear on excessive pay. Director's pay comes out of shareholders money - the shareholder vote was to give shareholders a say for the first time - previously directors simply awarded themselves pay and sat on each other's remuneration committees recommending pay-rises for each other.
Sadly, the shareholders have only bothered to defeat boardroom pay once - in 2003, GlaxoSmithKline shareholders voted down their chief executive's pay and forced a substantial reduction.
Government can give shareholders the power to protect their money being siphoned off them by greedy directors, but government can't force the shareholders to use said tools.
My guess is that many of the commentators frothing about boardroom pay and blaming the government are simply unaware of the 2002 legislation (lazy journalism). They should be targetting their wrath at the institutional shareholders who are palpably not bothering to defend the money of the pension and unit-trust holders they represent.
For instance there have been lots of articles about the pay of Northern Rock board members, but not one newspaper has bothered to track down the institutional shareholders who voted in favour of these pay packages earlier this year and ask them why they did so. I suppose they think it is easier to somehow blame the government, even though in a free country government can have little say over private sector pay that is essentially a contract entered into freely between two private individuals, the board executive and the shareholder. Government can't impose pay controls. The only answer is that shareholders start acting like grown-ups and start defending their money (as is their right under the law), instead of vacuously going along with everything and then complaining afterwards.
Actually the government has done something about boardroom pay. In 2002, they legislated to require that boardroom compensation data was published, and to give shareholders an annual advisory vote on executive pay. Britain was the first country to do this (since then Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden have also legislated and the USA is thinking about it, despite fierce resistance from vested interests).
The thinking behind this legislation was two-fold - by insisting on disclosure, the government hoped to bring public pressure to bear on excessive pay. Director's pay comes out of shareholders money - the shareholder vote was to give shareholders a say for the first time - previously directors simply awarded themselves pay and sat on each other's remuneration committees recommending pay-rises for each other.
Sadly, the shareholders have only bothered to defeat boardroom pay once - in 2003, GlaxoSmithKline shareholders voted down their chief executive's pay and forced a substantial reduction.
Government can give shareholders the power to protect their money being siphoned off them by greedy directors, but government can't force the shareholders to use said tools.
My guess is that many of the commentators frothing about boardroom pay and blaming the government are simply unaware of the 2002 legislation (lazy journalism). They should be targetting their wrath at the institutional shareholders who are palpably not bothering to defend the money of the pension and unit-trust holders they represent.
For instance there have been lots of articles about the pay of Northern Rock board members, but not one newspaper has bothered to track down the institutional shareholders who voted in favour of these pay packages earlier this year and ask them why they did so. I suppose they think it is easier to somehow blame the government, even though in a free country government can have little say over private sector pay that is essentially a contract entered into freely between two private individuals, the board executive and the shareholder. Government can't impose pay controls. The only answer is that shareholders start acting like grown-ups and start defending their money (as is their right under the law), instead of vacuously going along with everything and then complaining afterwards.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
People of Newcastle try to Save Their Bank
According to the Guardian,
Newcastle's morning paper, the Journal, has a campaign to replenish Northern Rock's depleted assets by persuading citizens to open accounts. Footballers, the rugby team and local entrepreneurs have all had their photographs taken signing forms. Several people who two days before were queuing to get all their money out returned to put a prudently small amount back in.
The Guardian likens it to Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", where the Jimmy Stewart character experiences the failure of his bank, and is bailed out at the end by the citizens of his town in reward for his kindnesses to them.
It turns out that Northern Rock has been kind to Newcastle. They distribute 5% of pre-tax profits to the Northern Rock Foundation, which finances all sorts of things from homes for battered women to concert halls. The foundation has received £175m from the bank in the last 10 years. Northern Rock has built up goodwill on their home turf.
It's likely that unlike in the movie, the good burghers of Newcastle won't succeed in their quest - they are too few and probably don't have the collective savings to prop up the bank. But it's heartwarming to see them try.
If they did pull it off against the odds, what a tale of community spirit this would be! It might also encourage other firms to do charity work, if the benefits of such goodwill-building are demonstrated clearly.
Newcastle's morning paper, the Journal, has a campaign to replenish Northern Rock's depleted assets by persuading citizens to open accounts. Footballers, the rugby team and local entrepreneurs have all had their photographs taken signing forms. Several people who two days before were queuing to get all their money out returned to put a prudently small amount back in.
The Guardian likens it to Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", where the Jimmy Stewart character experiences the failure of his bank, and is bailed out at the end by the citizens of his town in reward for his kindnesses to them.
It turns out that Northern Rock has been kind to Newcastle. They distribute 5% of pre-tax profits to the Northern Rock Foundation, which finances all sorts of things from homes for battered women to concert halls. The foundation has received £175m from the bank in the last 10 years. Northern Rock has built up goodwill on their home turf.
It's likely that unlike in the movie, the good burghers of Newcastle won't succeed in their quest - they are too few and probably don't have the collective savings to prop up the bank. But it's heartwarming to see them try.
If they did pull it off against the odds, what a tale of community spirit this would be! It might also encourage other firms to do charity work, if the benefits of such goodwill-building are demonstrated clearly.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Labour Trusted on the Economy
A Populus poll done for the Times, showed that 56% trust Labour on the economy compared to just 18% for the Tories.
The significant thing about this poll was that it was carried out Monday afternoon and evening, after the Chancellor's announcement that he would guarantee existing Northern Rock deposits and after the scenes on Friday and Saturday of people queueing to get their money out of Northern Rock Bank.
Tories reacted with shock to the poll. They had fondly hoped that this was Labour's "Black Wednesday" (which happened exactly 15 years ago) and had hoped it would boost their prospects. So why hasn't it?
The defining moment of the Labour government was actually the period 2001-2003. The conjunction of 9/11 and the dot.com crash created a perfect global storm. Stock markets everywhere crashed. The FTSE100 went from 6900 in Jan 2000 to about 3100 in March 2003. The USA, France, Germany, Japan and scores of other developed countries such as Italy and the Netherlands went into recession, with attending rises in unemployment. People in Britain held their breath. In the previous 50 years, everytime the USA sneezed, we caught a cold, and in the last two recessions (1981 and 1992) we suffered worse than everyone else.
Only in 2001-2003, we sailed on undisturbed by world events. The economy continued to grow and unemployment stayed low. It was a non-event as far as the economy was concerned and the public took note. You only know how good a government is by how they perform during the bad times.
The current crisis is a minor thing compared to the dot.com crash. When people ask themselves whether the Labour government can cope with crises, they think back to 2001-2003, when the govt faced a world economic crisis and passed the test. However, when they ask whether a potential Tory government would cope, they think back to the last time the Tories faced such a test, 1992, and shudder. Especially as all those old photos show David Cameron standing close behind Norman Lamont.
If the current crisis is minor compared to 2001-2003, it is even more minor compared to 1992. Britain was in recession that year. 55,000 businesses went to the wall, unemployment was rising and the budget deficit that year was a horrifying 7% of GDP. Black Wednesday came on top of all that and was the final straw.
The world economy faces potentially significant obstacles ahead, but the public believes that the Labour government will strive mightily to protect them. After a hesitant start, the Chancellor Alistair Darling has come out enhanced by the Northern Rock crisis. He showed leadership, decisiveness, pragmatism and sheer guts, when everyone else was losing their heads. It's nice to know we have a heavyweight in the Treasury.
The significant thing about this poll was that it was carried out Monday afternoon and evening, after the Chancellor's announcement that he would guarantee existing Northern Rock deposits and after the scenes on Friday and Saturday of people queueing to get their money out of Northern Rock Bank.
Tories reacted with shock to the poll. They had fondly hoped that this was Labour's "Black Wednesday" (which happened exactly 15 years ago) and had hoped it would boost their prospects. So why hasn't it?
The defining moment of the Labour government was actually the period 2001-2003. The conjunction of 9/11 and the dot.com crash created a perfect global storm. Stock markets everywhere crashed. The FTSE100 went from 6900 in Jan 2000 to about 3100 in March 2003. The USA, France, Germany, Japan and scores of other developed countries such as Italy and the Netherlands went into recession, with attending rises in unemployment. People in Britain held their breath. In the previous 50 years, everytime the USA sneezed, we caught a cold, and in the last two recessions (1981 and 1992) we suffered worse than everyone else.
Only in 2001-2003, we sailed on undisturbed by world events. The economy continued to grow and unemployment stayed low. It was a non-event as far as the economy was concerned and the public took note. You only know how good a government is by how they perform during the bad times.
The current crisis is a minor thing compared to the dot.com crash. When people ask themselves whether the Labour government can cope with crises, they think back to 2001-2003, when the govt faced a world economic crisis and passed the test. However, when they ask whether a potential Tory government would cope, they think back to the last time the Tories faced such a test, 1992, and shudder. Especially as all those old photos show David Cameron standing close behind Norman Lamont.
If the current crisis is minor compared to 2001-2003, it is even more minor compared to 1992. Britain was in recession that year. 55,000 businesses went to the wall, unemployment was rising and the budget deficit that year was a horrifying 7% of GDP. Black Wednesday came on top of all that and was the final straw.
The world economy faces potentially significant obstacles ahead, but the public believes that the Labour government will strive mightily to protect them. After a hesitant start, the Chancellor Alistair Darling has come out enhanced by the Northern Rock crisis. He showed leadership, decisiveness, pragmatism and sheer guts, when everyone else was losing their heads. It's nice to know we have a heavyweight in the Treasury.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Gordon Brown and Mrs Thatcher
Gordon Brown had tea today at Number 10 with Mrs Thatcher. It follows the comment he made last week when he said he was a "conviction politician" and noted Thatcher was one too.
Mrs Thatcher was so pleased at this, she got her official spokesman to acknowledge the compliment in public:
She was delighted to have such flattery, as she always is from any source,” the spokesman said. “It is nice to have someone say such things about you.”
It suggests that she is still hurting from the way the Tories despatched her 17 years ago, and starving for acknowledgement. Hence her willingness to visit Gordon Brown at Number 10 and be photographed with him on the steps.
She has only visited Downing Street twice since she left office, once at the invitation of Tony Blair, and now at the invitation of Gordon Brown. John Major kept her at a distance.
Some in Labour will raise eyebrows at this, given the hurt she inflicted on the country in the early 80's. But we're comfortably in power now, and vengence isn't part of the Labour character. We can afford to be magnanimous and kind to a very old lady who is clearly still upset at events of the past. Besides, by being a radical (as opposed to a conservative), Thatcher destroyed the Tories by turning them into an ideological party. Labour is in power because of the collapse of the Tories that she set in train. The least we can do is give her tea.
UPDATE: It turns out that this whole thing was initiated by Mrs T, who wrote to Gordon Brown when he became PM, they then corresponded and he then invited her to tea. The FT reports that Downing Street offered to let her enter discreetly through the back door, but Mrs T turned the offer down preferring to enter by the front door and be photographed.
It's clear to me that she is still angry with the Tories for the way they despatched her all those years ago, and is determined to stick it to them whenever she can. And of course the Labour party assists whenever it can.... It recalls the 1995 interview she gave when she practically endorsed Tony Blair and New Labour (which influenced many former Tory voters to abstain or vote Labour).
Downing Street reports that she brought toys for Mr Brown's sons (a cement mixer and remote controlled cars). Very sweet.
Mrs Thatcher was so pleased at this, she got her official spokesman to acknowledge the compliment in public:
She was delighted to have such flattery, as she always is from any source,” the spokesman said. “It is nice to have someone say such things about you.”
It suggests that she is still hurting from the way the Tories despatched her 17 years ago, and starving for acknowledgement. Hence her willingness to visit Gordon Brown at Number 10 and be photographed with him on the steps.
She has only visited Downing Street twice since she left office, once at the invitation of Tony Blair, and now at the invitation of Gordon Brown. John Major kept her at a distance.
Some in Labour will raise eyebrows at this, given the hurt she inflicted on the country in the early 80's. But we're comfortably in power now, and vengence isn't part of the Labour character. We can afford to be magnanimous and kind to a very old lady who is clearly still upset at events of the past. Besides, by being a radical (as opposed to a conservative), Thatcher destroyed the Tories by turning them into an ideological party. Labour is in power because of the collapse of the Tories that she set in train. The least we can do is give her tea.
UPDATE: It turns out that this whole thing was initiated by Mrs T, who wrote to Gordon Brown when he became PM, they then corresponded and he then invited her to tea. The FT reports that Downing Street offered to let her enter discreetly through the back door, but Mrs T turned the offer down preferring to enter by the front door and be photographed.
It's clear to me that she is still angry with the Tories for the way they despatched her all those years ago, and is determined to stick it to them whenever she can. And of course the Labour party assists whenever it can.... It recalls the 1995 interview she gave when she practically endorsed Tony Blair and New Labour (which influenced many former Tory voters to abstain or vote Labour).
Downing Street reports that she brought toys for Mr Brown's sons (a cement mixer and remote controlled cars). Very sweet.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Taxes on Illegal Drugs
The Americans have been experimenting with this for some time. According to this article from CNN,
In Tennessee, when you acquire an illegal drug (even "moonshine"), you have 48 hours to report to the Department of Revenue and pay your tax, in exchange for which you'll receive stamps to affix to your illegal substance. The stamps serve as evidence you paid the tax on the illegal product.
Don't worry that you might get in trouble for admitting you have enough drugs to fuel a rave party for years. You need not provide identification to get the stamps and it's illegal for revenue employees to rat you out.
Still, next door in North Carolina, which has had a similar law for 15 years, only 79 folks have voluntarily come forward since 1990, according to the Department of Revenue. Most were thought to be stamp collectors, or perhaps just high. Another 72,000 were taxed after they were already busted.
North Carolina has collected $78.3 million thus far, almost all from those arrested and found without stamps.
North Carolina's population is only 9 million, so that's not a bad tax haul. 23 American states now have this law. I think we should consider doing the same but add a twist and outsource this as with parking tickets - I'm sure so many people would get busted they would think it better not to do drugs at all, and the drug-busting units would be self-financing and maybe even revenue contributors. And it would be funny watching the Daily Mail trying to argue against this tax.
In Tennessee, when you acquire an illegal drug (even "moonshine"), you have 48 hours to report to the Department of Revenue and pay your tax, in exchange for which you'll receive stamps to affix to your illegal substance. The stamps serve as evidence you paid the tax on the illegal product.
Don't worry that you might get in trouble for admitting you have enough drugs to fuel a rave party for years. You need not provide identification to get the stamps and it's illegal for revenue employees to rat you out.
Still, next door in North Carolina, which has had a similar law for 15 years, only 79 folks have voluntarily come forward since 1990, according to the Department of Revenue. Most were thought to be stamp collectors, or perhaps just high. Another 72,000 were taxed after they were already busted.
North Carolina has collected $78.3 million thus far, almost all from those arrested and found without stamps.
North Carolina's population is only 9 million, so that's not a bad tax haul. 23 American states now have this law. I think we should consider doing the same but add a twist and outsource this as with parking tickets - I'm sure so many people would get busted they would think it better not to do drugs at all, and the drug-busting units would be self-financing and maybe even revenue contributors. And it would be funny watching the Daily Mail trying to argue against this tax.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
School Meals
Luke Akehurst has an excellent piece about the take up of school meals in London.
He highlights some very interesting data - for instance the entitlement to free school meals in England is 16% but in London it is 26%. Even more surprising is the fact that entitlement to school meals in Kensington and Chelsea, that Tory bastion, is a whopping 39%. In a recent study by Barclays, the average income in Kensington and Chelsea was £100,000, the highest in the country. I can only conclude that there are a few people earning several million and cancelling out those on income support, job seekers allowance or earning under £15k (the criteria for being eligible for free school meals).
City of London was second in the Barclays study with an average income of £81,425 - their free school meal entitlement is 24%. Westminster was third in the Barclays study with an average income of £77,500 - their free school meal entitlement was 36%.
What on earth is going on? How can these places top the league for average income, yet have a free school meal entitement of double the national average. Even if you account for the rich sending their children to private school, surely there is a bulwark of earners between £18k and £40k sending their children to state schools? House prices are expensive in Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster (about £1 million each), so it is probable that the ordinary middle classes/aspirant working classes, who are the bedrock of the rest of England, are simply absent from these boroughs and only the very rich and the very poor live there.
Luke's piece contains full stats for each London borough, together with the full criteria for claiming school meals - to read it click here.
He highlights some very interesting data - for instance the entitlement to free school meals in England is 16% but in London it is 26%. Even more surprising is the fact that entitlement to school meals in Kensington and Chelsea, that Tory bastion, is a whopping 39%. In a recent study by Barclays, the average income in Kensington and Chelsea was £100,000, the highest in the country. I can only conclude that there are a few people earning several million and cancelling out those on income support, job seekers allowance or earning under £15k (the criteria for being eligible for free school meals).
City of London was second in the Barclays study with an average income of £81,425 - their free school meal entitlement is 24%. Westminster was third in the Barclays study with an average income of £77,500 - their free school meal entitlement was 36%.
What on earth is going on? How can these places top the league for average income, yet have a free school meal entitement of double the national average. Even if you account for the rich sending their children to private school, surely there is a bulwark of earners between £18k and £40k sending their children to state schools? House prices are expensive in Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster (about £1 million each), so it is probable that the ordinary middle classes/aspirant working classes, who are the bedrock of the rest of England, are simply absent from these boroughs and only the very rich and the very poor live there.
Luke's piece contains full stats for each London borough, together with the full criteria for claiming school meals - to read it click here.
Britain fights back US criticisms on our handling of Southern Iraq
In recent weeks, the Americans, upset that we are intent on pulling out of Iraq, have been rubbishing us, with anonymous US generals talking about "Who lost Basra?" One senior US intelligence man said anonymously that 'The British have basically been defeated in the south' and another that if there are further British withdrawals 'the situation will continue to deteriorate'.
All of which is infuriating to the British. For a start we didn't have much say in the strategy for Iraq war and post-war situation. Bremner disbanded the Iraqi army without consulting us, and when we advised that Abu Ghraib be shut down in April 2003, the Americans ignored our advice, with disastrous consequences.
The American criticism is a classic Bush/Cheney operation - accuse the opposition of failure and/or cowardice to make them back down - in this case they are trying to pressure Britain not to continue withdrawals from Iraq.
It might have worked with Blair, who refused to criticise publicly or allow anyone from his administration to criticise publicly. But the Brown administration is different from the Blair one. Yesterday, David Miliband and Des Browne wrote an article in the Washington Post, refuting the American allegations and saying "It's time to set the record straight".
We have also had General Sir Mike Jackson saying "I don't think that's a fair assessment" to American allegations of "deterioration" in Basra. He also said that the Americans were "intellectually bankrupt" over their Iraqi strategy.
It looks like this public refutation of the allegations is having an effect. Bush has now said that he is "fine" about the handover to Iraqi forces in Basra. I guess he realised that having Brits hit back at him publicly was more damaging to him than having them leave Basra.
The text of the Miliband/Browne article is interesting. It concludes:
We believe we remain on track to complete the return of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people as planned.
.........But while outsiders can support, advise and encourage, only Iraqi leaders can make the political decisions and compromises essential to the future of their country.
.........We urge Iraq's political leaders to take the necessary steps.
To me that sounds like a clear sign that Britain is going to continue to handover and continue to withdraw no matter what the Americans say.
All of which is infuriating to the British. For a start we didn't have much say in the strategy for Iraq war and post-war situation. Bremner disbanded the Iraqi army without consulting us, and when we advised that Abu Ghraib be shut down in April 2003, the Americans ignored our advice, with disastrous consequences.
The American criticism is a classic Bush/Cheney operation - accuse the opposition of failure and/or cowardice to make them back down - in this case they are trying to pressure Britain not to continue withdrawals from Iraq.
It might have worked with Blair, who refused to criticise publicly or allow anyone from his administration to criticise publicly. But the Brown administration is different from the Blair one. Yesterday, David Miliband and Des Browne wrote an article in the Washington Post, refuting the American allegations and saying "It's time to set the record straight".
We have also had General Sir Mike Jackson saying "I don't think that's a fair assessment" to American allegations of "deterioration" in Basra. He also said that the Americans were "intellectually bankrupt" over their Iraqi strategy.
It looks like this public refutation of the allegations is having an effect. Bush has now said that he is "fine" about the handover to Iraqi forces in Basra. I guess he realised that having Brits hit back at him publicly was more damaging to him than having them leave Basra.
The text of the Miliband/Browne article is interesting. It concludes:
We believe we remain on track to complete the return of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people as planned.
.........But while outsiders can support, advise and encourage, only Iraqi leaders can make the political decisions and compromises essential to the future of their country.
.........We urge Iraq's political leaders to take the necessary steps.
To me that sounds like a clear sign that Britain is going to continue to handover and continue to withdraw no matter what the Americans say.
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Diana Effect
In April (which seems an eon ago, it was still the Blair era), 15 Royal Navy men got captured by the Iranians, and then proceeded to make fools of themselves, selling their stories and complaining about being "neck-flicked" by Iranians.
The Americans, who unlike the rest of the world, have held fast to an image of Britain set in the 1930's complete with stiff upper lips and butlers, were especially shocked. Time magazine rushed to explain what had changed:
How did Britain get like this? How did a society whose professed virtues were once those of duty, honor and discretion become a place of in-it-for-myself, let-it-all-hang-out emoting? Step forward those two women whose influence, combined — though one suspects they loathed each other — shaped a nation: Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana.
Thatcher first. Her political party may have been called Conservative, but she was in truth one of the most radical leaders Britain has ever had. Thatcher could not abide the cozy and mildly corrupt arrangements that — as she saw it — had condemned post-1945 Britain to a managed decline, and was determined to blow them up. As one of her more waspish M.P.s once said, Thatcher could not see an institution without "hitting it with her handbag." But she never understood that once you removed the need to show deference to any institution — the BBC, the labor unions, the professions — you had undermined them all. If deference to the established order was so bad, why show it (for example) to the monarchy? Moreover — really for the first time in British politics — Thatcher placed market values, not abstract ones of duty and honor, at the heart of a social definition of success. In the 1980s, if you didn't make money (loadsamoney ... ), if you didn't cash in on your talents or luck, then you were worse than an idiot — you were somehow letting the side down.
Diana's contribution was just as subversive of the old Britain. In her later life — through the hugs, the tears, the riveting BBC interview of 1995 — and even more in her death, the Princess of Wales turned traditional British values on their head. It was all right to cry! It was bad to suffer in silence, repress your emotions, say, "Steady on, old girl," and generally act in a tight spot like Trevor Howard on the train platform at the end of Brief Encounter. In today's remake, Howard would be bawling like a baby; or — as we now know — like a young squaddie.
Taken together, Thatcherite and Dianist thought has given us the recent horrors: a situation in which not even members of the armed forces — hell, not even the leaders of the armed forces — seem comfortable framing military obligation in terms of duty and honor, and in which the media's badge of heroism is conferred on those who are merely victims (only for it to be ripped off again when the victims behave less like heroes than heels). It is a sad and miserable tale.
Britain chose the Thatcher effect by voting her in. The Diana effect though was imposed. If Britain didn't have a monarchy, Diana wouldn't have been thrust on the nation (she was just an averagely pretty girl who had no qualifications), and the Dianafication of Britain wouldn't have happened. Is it too late? Could we ditch them after the Queen dies and end the whole sorry saga?
The Americans, who unlike the rest of the world, have held fast to an image of Britain set in the 1930's complete with stiff upper lips and butlers, were especially shocked. Time magazine rushed to explain what had changed:
How did Britain get like this? How did a society whose professed virtues were once those of duty, honor and discretion become a place of in-it-for-myself, let-it-all-hang-out emoting? Step forward those two women whose influence, combined — though one suspects they loathed each other — shaped a nation: Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana.
Thatcher first. Her political party may have been called Conservative, but she was in truth one of the most radical leaders Britain has ever had. Thatcher could not abide the cozy and mildly corrupt arrangements that — as she saw it — had condemned post-1945 Britain to a managed decline, and was determined to blow them up. As one of her more waspish M.P.s once said, Thatcher could not see an institution without "hitting it with her handbag." But she never understood that once you removed the need to show deference to any institution — the BBC, the labor unions, the professions — you had undermined them all. If deference to the established order was so bad, why show it (for example) to the monarchy? Moreover — really for the first time in British politics — Thatcher placed market values, not abstract ones of duty and honor, at the heart of a social definition of success. In the 1980s, if you didn't make money (loadsamoney ... ), if you didn't cash in on your talents or luck, then you were worse than an idiot — you were somehow letting the side down.
Diana's contribution was just as subversive of the old Britain. In her later life — through the hugs, the tears, the riveting BBC interview of 1995 — and even more in her death, the Princess of Wales turned traditional British values on their head. It was all right to cry! It was bad to suffer in silence, repress your emotions, say, "Steady on, old girl," and generally act in a tight spot like Trevor Howard on the train platform at the end of Brief Encounter. In today's remake, Howard would be bawling like a baby; or — as we now know — like a young squaddie.
Taken together, Thatcherite and Dianist thought has given us the recent horrors: a situation in which not even members of the armed forces — hell, not even the leaders of the armed forces — seem comfortable framing military obligation in terms of duty and honor, and in which the media's badge of heroism is conferred on those who are merely victims (only for it to be ripped off again when the victims behave less like heroes than heels). It is a sad and miserable tale.
Britain chose the Thatcher effect by voting her in. The Diana effect though was imposed. If Britain didn't have a monarchy, Diana wouldn't have been thrust on the nation (she was just an averagely pretty girl who had no qualifications), and the Dianafication of Britain wouldn't have happened. Is it too late? Could we ditch them after the Queen dies and end the whole sorry saga?
NHS heads for £983 million Surplus
From the Guardian:
The report forecasts that by the new financial year in April the NHS will have a surplus of £983m, up from the £510m reported in April this year, and the £547m deficit in April 2006
.......[David Nicholson, NHS chief executive] said that the £983m surplus - 1.3% of the £90bn annual bill for the NHS - was the right amount to provide for any unexpected expenditure such as new drugs.
This is good for the public finances. A 1.3% surplus is very small of course - but it's a good sign that the NHS is at last beginning to get the hang of sticking to it's budgets (something it hasn't ever managed to do since it's inception). As people in the private sector know, the discipline of sticking to budgets usually leads to higher efficiency and productivity. It's best these skills are learnt now, while we still have a lot of money to spend on the NHS, rather than in 10 years time when the demographic crunch of an increasingly elderly and ill population starts to weigh on the NHS and the taxpayer.
The report forecasts that by the new financial year in April the NHS will have a surplus of £983m, up from the £510m reported in April this year, and the £547m deficit in April 2006
.......[David Nicholson, NHS chief executive] said that the £983m surplus - 1.3% of the £90bn annual bill for the NHS - was the right amount to provide for any unexpected expenditure such as new drugs.
This is good for the public finances. A 1.3% surplus is very small of course - but it's a good sign that the NHS is at last beginning to get the hang of sticking to it's budgets (something it hasn't ever managed to do since it's inception). As people in the private sector know, the discipline of sticking to budgets usually leads to higher efficiency and productivity. It's best these skills are learnt now, while we still have a lot of money to spend on the NHS, rather than in 10 years time when the demographic crunch of an increasingly elderly and ill population starts to weigh on the NHS and the taxpayer.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Carry Trade Unwinds
One big result of the recent turmoil in the financial markets has been the unwinding of the carry trade.
The Carry Trade is where traders borrow in a low interest rate currency and invest the proceeds in a high interest rate currency. It can be extemely dangerous, especially if the currency you have borrowed in strengthens and ends up higher than it was at the point when you borrowed. Abu Nidal of Polly Peck fame, came a cropper in the 1980's when he borrowed in low-interest Deutchmarks and invested in high-interest Lira and got wiped out as the Deutchmark strengthened sharply against the Lira (the Lira was dropping due to inflation in Italy).
In recent years the Carry Trade has involved the Yen. In 2001 the Japanese cut interest rates to zero, which meant that people borrowing in Yen paid no interest (i.e. it was "free" money). In addition, the Bank of Japan, under pressure from the Japanese government and Japanese business, started intervening in the currency markets to hold the yen down everytime it got close to $1:Y100. The notion that you were going to be protected from a strengthening yen by the Japanese authorities made the Yen Carry Trade irresistible - free money and no currency risk. In the last year the Japanese authorities have increased interest rates to a high of 0.5% - still way too low to deter carry traders. It hasn't just been hedge funds attracted to this trade. Japanese citizens have also been borrowing in their own currency and then selling yen to buy whichever currency has high interest rates. Australia and New Zealand have been favourite destinations.
Everytime they sell the yen to invest abroad, the Yen weakens, which makes Japanese business very happy. But it creates problems for the rest of the world, which has had to cope with a wall of Japanese money seeking a home and bidding up everything in sight. Without the Carry Trade, the Yen would be much stronger as Japan runs a huge trade surplus, has non-existent inflation (which means that the currency is holding it's purchasing power), has come out of it's decade-long recession and has low unemployment.
However in the last week, there are signs that the institutional investors are unwinding the carry trade. Australia's currency slumped 8.8% against the yen, as money rushed out. The New Zealand dollar slumped 9.6% against the yen. Indeed the Yen has strengthened against all 16 major currencies in the last week including the dollar, the euro and sterling. Carry trade money has flowed into emerging markets and commodities too - therefore as the trade unwinds all these should fall as investors sell assets in order to go back into the yen and pay off their loans.
Obviously people invested in these falling stock markets will squeal, but the unwinding of the carry trade should be a good thing for the real economy. A major source of current world-wide inflation has been commodity prices rising (the tradtional souce of inflation, wage demands, has been subdued by contrast). The world will be a healthier place if the price of oil, copper, nickel and the rest fell. We are all better off with a more realistic Yen exchange rate too. Japan has enjoyed an unfair advantage exporting into Europe and the USA due to the artificially depressed Yen. Japanese companies will suffer from a rising yen though - and this is why the Nikkei slumped more than any other exchange last week.
Central bankers are starting to make noises about the yen too. According to Bloomberg,
``It's fundamentally a distortion'' to have Japan's interest rates as low as they are, Stevens [Glen Stevens, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia] said. ``The sooner the Japanese interest rates are able to be normal again the better from the point of view of the global-financial system.'' ......South Korea's Finance Minister Kwon Okyu said this week carry trades based on the Japanese currency threaten global markets.
It's believed that Japanese interest rates would have to rise to 2% to kill the carry trade. The big question is will the Japanese allow normalisation? In the mid 1980's they were persuaded by the Reagan administration to allow the yen to strengthen very sharply to help America sort out her trade deficit. It resulted in Japan going into a deflationary recession that lasted a decade. As a result the Japanese don't see any value in co-operating with the rest of the world - they see "co-operation" as an euphemism for getting screwed and they prefer to concentrate on their own needs and let the rest of the world get screwed instead.
The Carry Trade is where traders borrow in a low interest rate currency and invest the proceeds in a high interest rate currency. It can be extemely dangerous, especially if the currency you have borrowed in strengthens and ends up higher than it was at the point when you borrowed. Abu Nidal of Polly Peck fame, came a cropper in the 1980's when he borrowed in low-interest Deutchmarks and invested in high-interest Lira and got wiped out as the Deutchmark strengthened sharply against the Lira (the Lira was dropping due to inflation in Italy).
In recent years the Carry Trade has involved the Yen. In 2001 the Japanese cut interest rates to zero, which meant that people borrowing in Yen paid no interest (i.e. it was "free" money). In addition, the Bank of Japan, under pressure from the Japanese government and Japanese business, started intervening in the currency markets to hold the yen down everytime it got close to $1:Y100. The notion that you were going to be protected from a strengthening yen by the Japanese authorities made the Yen Carry Trade irresistible - free money and no currency risk. In the last year the Japanese authorities have increased interest rates to a high of 0.5% - still way too low to deter carry traders. It hasn't just been hedge funds attracted to this trade. Japanese citizens have also been borrowing in their own currency and then selling yen to buy whichever currency has high interest rates. Australia and New Zealand have been favourite destinations.
Everytime they sell the yen to invest abroad, the Yen weakens, which makes Japanese business very happy. But it creates problems for the rest of the world, which has had to cope with a wall of Japanese money seeking a home and bidding up everything in sight. Without the Carry Trade, the Yen would be much stronger as Japan runs a huge trade surplus, has non-existent inflation (which means that the currency is holding it's purchasing power), has come out of it's decade-long recession and has low unemployment.
However in the last week, there are signs that the institutional investors are unwinding the carry trade. Australia's currency slumped 8.8% against the yen, as money rushed out. The New Zealand dollar slumped 9.6% against the yen. Indeed the Yen has strengthened against all 16 major currencies in the last week including the dollar, the euro and sterling. Carry trade money has flowed into emerging markets and commodities too - therefore as the trade unwinds all these should fall as investors sell assets in order to go back into the yen and pay off their loans.
Obviously people invested in these falling stock markets will squeal, but the unwinding of the carry trade should be a good thing for the real economy. A major source of current world-wide inflation has been commodity prices rising (the tradtional souce of inflation, wage demands, has been subdued by contrast). The world will be a healthier place if the price of oil, copper, nickel and the rest fell. We are all better off with a more realistic Yen exchange rate too. Japan has enjoyed an unfair advantage exporting into Europe and the USA due to the artificially depressed Yen. Japanese companies will suffer from a rising yen though - and this is why the Nikkei slumped more than any other exchange last week.Central bankers are starting to make noises about the yen too. According to Bloomberg,
``It's fundamentally a distortion'' to have Japan's interest rates as low as they are, Stevens [Glen Stevens, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia] said. ``The sooner the Japanese interest rates are able to be normal again the better from the point of view of the global-financial system.'' ......South Korea's Finance Minister Kwon Okyu said this week carry trades based on the Japanese currency threaten global markets.
It's believed that Japanese interest rates would have to rise to 2% to kill the carry trade. The big question is will the Japanese allow normalisation? In the mid 1980's they were persuaded by the Reagan administration to allow the yen to strengthen very sharply to help America sort out her trade deficit. It resulted in Japan going into a deflationary recession that lasted a decade. As a result the Japanese don't see any value in co-operating with the rest of the world - they see "co-operation" as an euphemism for getting screwed and they prefer to concentrate on their own needs and let the rest of the world get screwed instead.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
How Influencial are the Media?
The Economist published a very interesting graph (see left), showing the breakdown of newspaper readership by region. The most eye-catching statistic is how the readership of the broadsheets is concentrated in London and the South-East - nearly 60% of the readers of The Guardian, Independent and Times are in London and the South East, the figure for the Telegraph is about 50%. The 2001 Census shows the population of London to be 7,172,091 and the population of the South-East to be 8,000,645, making a total of some 14 million out of a population of circa 60 million - in other words just 24% of the UK population lives in these regions.
Which means we should rethink our beliefs about how important these papers are. For instance when Matthew Parris does another of his anti-Labour pieces in The Times, he is mainly talking to Tories in Surrey, rather than influencing the national conversation.
In addition, the readership of these papers is not that large. According to the NRS, the average readership of newspapers is currently as follows:
The Sun 7,840,000
Daily Mail 5,253,000
Daily Mirror/Record 4,937,000
Daily Telegraph 2,117,000
Daily Express 1,742,000
The Times 1,730,000
Daily Star 1,620,000
The Guardian 1,239,000
The Independent 767,000
Financial Times 394,000
The conclusion has to be that the most influential papers in terms of spread of readers around the country and numbers sold are The Sun, The Mail and The Mirror. Of these only The Mail is increasing readership (thanks to giving out free CDs). The rest (including the broadsheets) are dwindling. Regional newspapers are also shrinking.
Television isn't doing that well either. While OfCom confirms that 73% of the population gets their news from television, viewing figures are plummeting. In 1995, BBC1 commanded a 32% audience share, it was down to 22.7% in 2005. ITV went from 37% in 1995 to 20% in 2005. Sky News is trying it's best but managed to reach just 0.5% of viewers in 2005. My guess is that people listen to the first couple of items on the 6 O'clock news, and then switch off.
More people are also likely to be getting their news from the web. Before bloggers and their ilk get excited, note that most people who log on arn't interested in news at all. So the news they get from the web in the main depends on what home page the net user sees when they first log on - eg Yahoo, Orange, Google News etc. These pages will list a mix of brief headlines, plus lots of celebrity gossip and lots of tech news about the latest gadget (iPhone, Wii etc). The net user will cast a swift eye over this, and then go on to their main business, whether banking or shopping. Some people will have logged on to actively seek out a news site such as the BBC or the online version of the national newspapers. For political parties, this may mean that they should be trying to get their items onto Yahoo, or Google News.
It may also mean that old fashioned methods of campaigning such as leaflets become important, especially when trying to get local issues across, as these arn't covered anywhere else and pushing something through someone's door may be the only way to get their attention.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Part-time Tories
Interesting article in the FT, exposing how much outside work Tory MPs do:
David Cameron’s front-bench MPs and peers hold more than 115 paid directorships and other outside jobs, in addition to their political roles, research by the FT has revealed.
The sheer scale of outside interests is sparking concern within the party that the Tory “part-timers” lack the discipline needed to defeat Labour.
..........The front bench’s secondary sources of income range from farming and property to consultancies, speeches, journalism and – in the case of Robert Goodwill, shadow transport minister – running a “green” cemetery.
Some activists worry that the number of top Tories doing extra, non-political, jobs means the party is adopting an amateurish approach to attacking Gordon Brown, rather than replicating the focus displayed by Labour in the run-up to its 1997 victory. Almost half the shadow cabinet – 12 of the 27 MPs and peers disclosing their relevant interests – have at least one directorship or other external job
..........Senior Tories admit privately that the opportunity to supplement their £60,675 MP’s salary, plus expenses and allowances, is a factor in accepting outside jobs. “I’m not going to be disingenuous. One of the reasons why people do this is to boost their income,” a shadow cabinet member, who did not want to be named, told the FT. “But you don’t want a political class where all you have is narrow political experience and the only people who can afford to do it are those who are privately wealthy.”
The last remark reveals how far the Tories diverge from the general public. Most voters consider that an MP's salary of £60,675 plus expenses and allowances, to be very generous. Particularly as they get a good pension as well. The idea that it is too low and that you can't "afford" politics on it is extraordinary. As is the belief that the only people who would bother to be an MP on a £60k salary without extra directorships are the "privatly wealthy". Most of the Labour MPs manage on it, and most are not privately wealthy.
If the Tories came to power, the members of the cabinet would have to drop their outside interests, plus they'd have to do a thousand times more work (government is no picnic). Perhaps this is why the parliamentary Tories keep sabotaging themselves. Secretly they want Labour to win, and carry on with the hard work of governing, while they do a bit of token opposition and moonlight.
Tory voters should think hard about this - I'm sure this is not what they intend when they cast their vote. If they want a real opposition, perhaps they should switch to the LibDems?
David Cameron’s front-bench MPs and peers hold more than 115 paid directorships and other outside jobs, in addition to their political roles, research by the FT has revealed.
The sheer scale of outside interests is sparking concern within the party that the Tory “part-timers” lack the discipline needed to defeat Labour.
..........The front bench’s secondary sources of income range from farming and property to consultancies, speeches, journalism and – in the case of Robert Goodwill, shadow transport minister – running a “green” cemetery.
Some activists worry that the number of top Tories doing extra, non-political, jobs means the party is adopting an amateurish approach to attacking Gordon Brown, rather than replicating the focus displayed by Labour in the run-up to its 1997 victory. Almost half the shadow cabinet – 12 of the 27 MPs and peers disclosing their relevant interests – have at least one directorship or other external job
..........Senior Tories admit privately that the opportunity to supplement their £60,675 MP’s salary, plus expenses and allowances, is a factor in accepting outside jobs. “I’m not going to be disingenuous. One of the reasons why people do this is to boost their income,” a shadow cabinet member, who did not want to be named, told the FT. “But you don’t want a political class where all you have is narrow political experience and the only people who can afford to do it are those who are privately wealthy.”
The last remark reveals how far the Tories diverge from the general public. Most voters consider that an MP's salary of £60,675 plus expenses and allowances, to be very generous. Particularly as they get a good pension as well. The idea that it is too low and that you can't "afford" politics on it is extraordinary. As is the belief that the only people who would bother to be an MP on a £60k salary without extra directorships are the "privatly wealthy". Most of the Labour MPs manage on it, and most are not privately wealthy.
If the Tories came to power, the members of the cabinet would have to drop their outside interests, plus they'd have to do a thousand times more work (government is no picnic). Perhaps this is why the parliamentary Tories keep sabotaging themselves. Secretly they want Labour to win, and carry on with the hard work of governing, while they do a bit of token opposition and moonlight.
Tory voters should think hard about this - I'm sure this is not what they intend when they cast their vote. If they want a real opposition, perhaps they should switch to the LibDems?
Friday, August 10, 2007
Credit Crunch
Following yesterday's injection of €95 billion in emergency credit by the ECB into the money markets, other central banks rapidly followed suit: The US Federal Reserve put in $24 billion, the Bank of Japan put in 1 trillion yen ($8.5 billion), the Reserve Bank of Australia put in A$ 4.95 billion and Canada's central bank put in C$1.64 billion ($1.55 billion). Central banks of South Korea, Phillipines and Indonesia all signalled willingness to inject money if necessary, and the ECB has followed up this morning with more money. Central Banks are lenders of last resort, and essentially what they are saying to the market is, if you need to borrow money, we will lend it, at the base rate.
What has caused the crunch? Simply, investors who had borrowed money to finance their securities found their credit lines drying up, so they went to the money markets for cash, and the additional demand caused the inter-bank rates to shoot up way above base rates.
The root cause behind all this is the the sub-prime lending debacle in the USA, but that of course has been simmering for months. The immediate cause of the current crunch was Tuesday's US Federal Reserve statement, where Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signalled unwillingness to cut interest rates to bail out financial investors in distress and put more emphasis on inflation. The markets had been hopeful for a cut, and it caused lenders everywhere to rethink and tighten and in some cases close credit lines.
What does this mean for the real world? The last time something like this happened was 1998, when the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management went bust, casuing fall-out among those in the financial industry who were exposed to their fund, and whose who had lent to it. Alan Greenspan, who was US Federal Rererve Chairman at the time, not only supplied liquidity to the markets, he cut interest rates three times that year, and didn't raise rates again till May 1999. Cutting rates turned out to be a mistake. The real economy had not been affected by the hedge fund bust, and cutting rates simply stimulated a massive boom, with the tech/telecom/dot.com sectors soaring. Then came a massive bust in 2001. It was the cutting of interest rates that had affected the real economy, not the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management.
My guess is that this time Central Banks will play it cool. They will continue to supply as much liquidity as is needed to the market, lending at or slightly above the base rate, but they will not cut the base rate. If turmoil continues to roil the markets though, they may be persuaded to stay their hands in continuing to raise rates till things calm down. They'll cut only if they are persuaded that the real economy was suffering. Given that global growth is at it's strongest for decades, cuts look unlikely.
What has caused the crunch? Simply, investors who had borrowed money to finance their securities found their credit lines drying up, so they went to the money markets for cash, and the additional demand caused the inter-bank rates to shoot up way above base rates.
The root cause behind all this is the the sub-prime lending debacle in the USA, but that of course has been simmering for months. The immediate cause of the current crunch was Tuesday's US Federal Reserve statement, where Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signalled unwillingness to cut interest rates to bail out financial investors in distress and put more emphasis on inflation. The markets had been hopeful for a cut, and it caused lenders everywhere to rethink and tighten and in some cases close credit lines.
What does this mean for the real world? The last time something like this happened was 1998, when the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management went bust, casuing fall-out among those in the financial industry who were exposed to their fund, and whose who had lent to it. Alan Greenspan, who was US Federal Rererve Chairman at the time, not only supplied liquidity to the markets, he cut interest rates three times that year, and didn't raise rates again till May 1999. Cutting rates turned out to be a mistake. The real economy had not been affected by the hedge fund bust, and cutting rates simply stimulated a massive boom, with the tech/telecom/dot.com sectors soaring. Then came a massive bust in 2001. It was the cutting of interest rates that had affected the real economy, not the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management.
My guess is that this time Central Banks will play it cool. They will continue to supply as much liquidity as is needed to the market, lending at or slightly above the base rate, but they will not cut the base rate. If turmoil continues to roil the markets though, they may be persuaded to stay their hands in continuing to raise rates till things calm down. They'll cut only if they are persuaded that the real economy was suffering. Given that global growth is at it's strongest for decades, cuts look unlikely.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Open Primary for Tory Nomination for London Mayor
The Tories are going to have an open primary for the nomination for London Mayor in September, where Boris Johnson is up against a bunch of Tory nonenities and everyone knows Boris is going to win. So why bother with an open primary? According to conservative activist Jesse Norman, "an open primary promises to reach out to new and untapped voters in London, and to start to re-engage them not merely with the Tories, but with politics itself."
Or it could just be a means of raising money. According to Boris Johnson's website, Conservative members are automatically registered to vote, but everyone else must phone a premium rate number that costs £1.00 per minute from a BT Landline. If Tories really wanted to reach out to untapped voters, they wouldn't have used a premium rate phone number.
My advice to non-Tories, is Don't Bother. Boris will win the Tory nomination anyway, so wait till the actual election for London Mayor to vote against him free of charge. And if you have £1 spare, give it to Ken.
(Thanks to my sister for alerting me to the above).
Or it could just be a means of raising money. According to Boris Johnson's website, Conservative members are automatically registered to vote, but everyone else must phone a premium rate number that costs £1.00 per minute from a BT Landline. If Tories really wanted to reach out to untapped voters, they wouldn't have used a premium rate phone number.
My advice to non-Tories, is Don't Bother. Boris will win the Tory nomination anyway, so wait till the actual election for London Mayor to vote against him free of charge. And if you have £1 spare, give it to Ken.
(Thanks to my sister for alerting me to the above).
Income Inequality
We hear a lot about "the gap between rich and poor" but how big is it in reality, and how large is it compared to other major European nations? There are two ways to judge the gap - the gap in income between the top quintile and the bottom quintile, and the gap in capital assets between the top quintile and the bottom quintile.
Eurostat monitor the income inequality gap across Europe, calculating the ratio between the total income of the 20% of the population with the highest income (top quintile) to that received by the 20 % of the population with the lowest income (lowest quintile). Income is defined as disposable income, i.e. after tax income. The last figures they have are for 2005. The higher the ratio, the higher the income gap - eg a ratio of 5 means that the top quintile has 5 times more income than the bottom quartile. The EU 15 countries in the following table comprise the old Western Europe prior to enlargement.
The UK isn't that far off the EU average, and the gap hasn't
really grown much - the ratio was 5.2 in 1994. Sweden's ratio is low - but is a reflection of how hard they tax the rich, as the ratio is based on disposable income. The income gap between rich and poor in the UK isn't as drastic as popular mythology would have it.
Eurostat monitor the income inequality gap across Europe, calculating the ratio between the total income of the 20% of the population with the highest income (top quintile) to that received by the 20 % of the population with the lowest income (lowest quintile). Income is defined as disposable income, i.e. after tax income. The last figures they have are for 2005. The higher the ratio, the higher the income gap - eg a ratio of 5 means that the top quintile has 5 times more income than the bottom quartile. The EU 15 countries in the following table comprise the old Western Europe prior to enlargement.
Income Inequality
ratio in
2005
EU 25 countries 4.9
EU 15 countries 4.8
Germany 4.1
France 4.0
Ireland 5.0
Italy 5.7
Spain 5.4
Sweden 3.3
UK 5.5
The UK isn't that far off the EU average, and the gap hasn't
really grown much - the ratio was 5.2 in 1994. Sweden's ratio is low - but is a reflection of how hard they tax the rich, as the ratio is based on disposable income. The income gap between rich and poor in the UK isn't as drastic as popular mythology would have it.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Can a new Anglo-German axis supplant the Franco-German axis as the main driver of the EU?
London has always dreamed of breaking up the Franco-German partnership that has dominated the EU from it's inception. Every time the leaders of the three countries change, there are high hopes that the relationships between the three can be re-made. Blair, Chirac and Schroeder all came to power within a few years of each other, and there were expectations that Britain under the charismatic Blair, could muscle in on the relationship especially as Chirac and Schroeder didn't initially like each other. Unfortunately the Iraq war threw France and Germany back into each other's arms again.
But the relationships are again in state of flux. Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany two years ago and France acquired Sarkozy and Britain acquired Gordon Brown within the space of a few months this year.
And the initial signs are that that Sarkozy, just two months into his presidency, is seriously irritating Berlin. De Spiegel ran an article a few weeks ago titled, "Sarkozy Wrestles with Merkel for European Dominance" where they detailed a myriad of disagreements from economic policy (Sarkozy is protectionist and wants to renege on the EU's free movement of capital rules that allow any company to take over any other company within the EU), disagreements over EADS (who operate Airbus) to foreign policy disagreements (eg over relations with Libya) to the ECB (France wants politicians to be able to interfere with interest rate decisions, Merkel's icy response was "I don't think very much of that at all. I won't allow it to happen").
In another De Spigel article that got reprinted in the American magazine BusinessWeek, the Germans spell out the problem in detail:
At the European Union summit in Brussels in June, he convinced the stubborn Poles to support the simplified European Union treaty. German Chancellor and then-EU Council President Angela Merkel and her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, may have done most of the legwork to bring about the agreement but Sarkozy behaved as if bringing Poland's ruling Kaczynski brothers on board was entirely his doing. The way Sarkozy described it, he was the one who had managed to rescue the EU from one of its many, great historical crises.
The small-statured Sarkozy has assumed the role of the great statesman. Slapping shoulders, patting backs and distributing kisses, he leaves the impression of success in his wake. His approach is allowing the French to breathe a collective sigh of relief. After many years of near-paralysis, the country is assuming the leadership of an increasingly lethargic EU.
This, at least, is the impression Sarkozy would like to make. His European partners can only look on in speechless astonishment as Sarkozy rushes ahead. The crowing of the Gallic rooster is replacing the European anthem as Europe acquires a leader who has shown himself willing to flaunt tradition. His will, it appears, is the road to success.
There is only one problem: Sarkozy's victories are stolen victories. He is steadily co-opting successes which, in some cases, others have spent years diligently preparing. His policies are intended to radiate dynamism and energy. But in reality, he jumps from one issue to the next -- with apparently no system or coherence, but with a great deal of fanfare and fireworks.
His European counterparts are witnessing this spectacle with increasing annoyance. Instead of being a team player, Sarkozy likes to take the lead, even when he has contributed little to the team's successes.
All of which opens up opportunities for Britain. France can never be the driver of the EU, this is pure fantasy on Sarkozy's part, their economy is too weak. While Germany is strengthening and German unemployment has fallen sharply, France is stagnating and Sarkozy's hyperactivity doesn't seem to have addressed things yet. Britain is of course serenely knocking out quarter after quarter of growth. Respect in Europe depends on and follows economic performance. By rights it should be an Anglo-German leadership of Europe.
It's telling that Gordon Brown's first visit to a foreign capital after becoming PM was to Berlin - not Washington or Paris. Merkel was said to have been pleased at the honour and pleased too that Brown merely shook her hand rather than ostentatiously hugged her (Sarkozy) or tried to massage her shoulders (Bush at the G-8 summit last year). Merkel is temperamentally much like Brown - both children of vicars, both very intelligent and cerebral, both with a restrained manner. Plus they agree on fundamentals, such as that protectionism is stupid. Of all the photo-calls with foreign leaders in the last month, Brown looked most comfortable with Merkel.
If Brown and Merkel can forge a good relationship, and Sarkozy continues to irritate the Germans, there could be a massive opportunity for Britain, for the first time since we've been in the EU. A very strong Anglo-German partnership could crush the French resistance to reforming CAP for instance. The possibilities are endless.
But the relationships are again in state of flux. Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany two years ago and France acquired Sarkozy and Britain acquired Gordon Brown within the space of a few months this year.
And the initial signs are that that Sarkozy, just two months into his presidency, is seriously irritating Berlin. De Spiegel ran an article a few weeks ago titled, "Sarkozy Wrestles with Merkel for European Dominance" where they detailed a myriad of disagreements from economic policy (Sarkozy is protectionist and wants to renege on the EU's free movement of capital rules that allow any company to take over any other company within the EU), disagreements over EADS (who operate Airbus) to foreign policy disagreements (eg over relations with Libya) to the ECB (France wants politicians to be able to interfere with interest rate decisions, Merkel's icy response was "I don't think very much of that at all. I won't allow it to happen").
In another De Spigel article that got reprinted in the American magazine BusinessWeek, the Germans spell out the problem in detail:
At the European Union summit in Brussels in June, he convinced the stubborn Poles to support the simplified European Union treaty. German Chancellor and then-EU Council President Angela Merkel and her foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, may have done most of the legwork to bring about the agreement but Sarkozy behaved as if bringing Poland's ruling Kaczynski brothers on board was entirely his doing. The way Sarkozy described it, he was the one who had managed to rescue the EU from one of its many, great historical crises.
The small-statured Sarkozy has assumed the role of the great statesman. Slapping shoulders, patting backs and distributing kisses, he leaves the impression of success in his wake. His approach is allowing the French to breathe a collective sigh of relief. After many years of near-paralysis, the country is assuming the leadership of an increasingly lethargic EU.
This, at least, is the impression Sarkozy would like to make. His European partners can only look on in speechless astonishment as Sarkozy rushes ahead. The crowing of the Gallic rooster is replacing the European anthem as Europe acquires a leader who has shown himself willing to flaunt tradition. His will, it appears, is the road to success.
There is only one problem: Sarkozy's victories are stolen victories. He is steadily co-opting successes which, in some cases, others have spent years diligently preparing. His policies are intended to radiate dynamism and energy. But in reality, he jumps from one issue to the next -- with apparently no system or coherence, but with a great deal of fanfare and fireworks.
His European counterparts are witnessing this spectacle with increasing annoyance. Instead of being a team player, Sarkozy likes to take the lead, even when he has contributed little to the team's successes.
All of which opens up opportunities for Britain. France can never be the driver of the EU, this is pure fantasy on Sarkozy's part, their economy is too weak. While Germany is strengthening and German unemployment has fallen sharply, France is stagnating and Sarkozy's hyperactivity doesn't seem to have addressed things yet. Britain is of course serenely knocking out quarter after quarter of growth. Respect in Europe depends on and follows economic performance. By rights it should be an Anglo-German leadership of Europe.
It's telling that Gordon Brown's first visit to a foreign capital after becoming PM was to Berlin - not Washington or Paris. Merkel was said to have been pleased at the honour and pleased too that Brown merely shook her hand rather than ostentatiously hugged her (Sarkozy) or tried to massage her shoulders (Bush at the G-8 summit last year). Merkel is temperamentally much like Brown - both children of vicars, both very intelligent and cerebral, both with a restrained manner. Plus they agree on fundamentals, such as that protectionism is stupid. Of all the photo-calls with foreign leaders in the last month, Brown looked most comfortable with Merkel.
If Brown and Merkel can forge a good relationship, and Sarkozy continues to irritate the Germans, there could be a massive opportunity for Britain, for the first time since we've been in the EU. A very strong Anglo-German partnership could crush the French resistance to reforming CAP for instance. The possibilities are endless.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
The Ali Miraj Business
Labour people will have been watching the Cameron-Miraj row with some astonishment. Ali who? will have been the first reaction of many. Ali Miraj appears to be a Tory councillor who had some hopes of being selected as a parliamentary candidate (unsuccessfuly to date). And he appears to have made some criticisms of the Tory leadership. So far so normal - isn't this normal sport among Tories?
So what on earth was Cameron doing attacking Miraj personally for his criticisms? Surely it was beneath his dignity to even respond. He should have refused to be drawn and left it to the party chairman (or some such enforcer) to have a quiet word. Instead he attacks the man personally, on the BBC no less, and in the process made Miraj and his criticisms important.
It's a sign of weakness. If Cameron can't take a bit of criticism from a mere councillor, he won't last five minutes in government, where you get absolutely pounded by the press and vested interests, and have to be able to withstand things without losing your cool.
Both Blair and Brown have taken tremendous flak in their time from both within the party and from outside. Brown has never responded to any of the personal attacks people made over the last few years. And Blair was a past master at taking flak on the chin. Matthew Parris has a telling anecdote in his autobiography where he runs into Blair at a restaurant after he'd written a particularly vitriolic article about him. And instead of Blair giving him the cold shoulder, he came up to him, said hello without any sign of rancour, and then went on to his guests, leaving Parris feeling guilty.
The only time in his 13 years as leader that Blair responded personally to criticism was last September, when Tom Watson and 6 others resigned from the government. Blair fired off a statement saying "I had been intending to dismiss him anyway". It was a childish expression of weakness, the reaction of a man whose back is to the wall and is hitting out without thinking. A day later, Blair conceded to his critics and gave them what they wanted - he announced he would be stepping down before the next conference.
So what on earth was Cameron doing attacking Miraj personally for his criticisms? Surely it was beneath his dignity to even respond. He should have refused to be drawn and left it to the party chairman (or some such enforcer) to have a quiet word. Instead he attacks the man personally, on the BBC no less, and in the process made Miraj and his criticisms important.
It's a sign of weakness. If Cameron can't take a bit of criticism from a mere councillor, he won't last five minutes in government, where you get absolutely pounded by the press and vested interests, and have to be able to withstand things without losing your cool.
Both Blair and Brown have taken tremendous flak in their time from both within the party and from outside. Brown has never responded to any of the personal attacks people made over the last few years. And Blair was a past master at taking flak on the chin. Matthew Parris has a telling anecdote in his autobiography where he runs into Blair at a restaurant after he'd written a particularly vitriolic article about him. And instead of Blair giving him the cold shoulder, he came up to him, said hello without any sign of rancour, and then went on to his guests, leaving Parris feeling guilty.
The only time in his 13 years as leader that Blair responded personally to criticism was last September, when Tom Watson and 6 others resigned from the government. Blair fired off a statement saying "I had been intending to dismiss him anyway". It was a childish expression of weakness, the reaction of a man whose back is to the wall and is hitting out without thinking. A day later, Blair conceded to his critics and gave them what they wanted - he announced he would be stepping down before the next conference.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How representative of Britain are our parliamentary parties?
Given that the chattering classes like to talk about how voters no longer relate to parliament, I thought it would be useful to look at how representative of Britain the main political parties are. The theory is that the more representative the parties are, the more likely the public will feel affinity with parliament (rather than think of them as "others", who are nothing like them), and the more likely that the opinions of the public are reflected in parliament (in the sense that gender and background always inform and colour the viewpoints of the persons concerned).
First of all gender. Just over 50% of the population is female. Here's the breakdown in parliament:
Labour: 97 women MPs (27% of Labour MPs)
Tories: 17 women MPs (9% of Tory MPs)
LibDems: 9 women MPs (14% of LibDem MPs)
So none of the parties reflects the gender balance of the nation, though Labour is well ahead of the others.
Next up, education. 7% of current students go to public school. 88% of current students go to comprehensives and 5% of current students go to grammar schools. The following data on Parliament comes from the Sutton Trust:
Labour: 18% of MPs went to public school
Tories: 59% of MPs went to public school
LibDems: 39% of MPs went to public school
Labour: 53% of MPs went to state comprehensives
Tories: 20% of MPs went to state comprehensives
LibDems: 41% of MPs went to state comprehensives
Labour: 29% of MPs went to state selective schools
Tories: 21% of Tories went to state selective schools
LibDems: 20% went to state selective schools.
Most of the MPs who went to state selective schools (aka grammar schools) are over 40. As time goes on, they will dwindle as a % of MPs, reflecting the abolition of grammars in most parts of the country in the 1970's.
Regarding university attendance the figures are as follows:
Labour: 67% of MPs went to university
Tories: 83% of MPs went to university
LibDems: 81% of MPs went to university
All the parties have been increasing the number of graduate MPs over time (in 1964 the figures for MPs who had attended university were Labour 42%, Tories 63% and LibDems 78%).
I am most surprised by the LibDem figures for public schools. Most LibDem MPs entered parliament in 2001 and 2005. Their public school MPs are not a legacy of candidate selection policies of 20 or 30 years ago, in the way some of the Tory public school MPs are accounted for.
Considering ethnic minorities, 7.7% of the UK population is non-white and 92.3% is white. There are only a total of 15 ethnic minority MPs in parliament out of the 646 MPs (2.3%). 13 are Labour and 2 are Tories. None are LibDems. The two Tory ethnic minority MPs entered parliament in 2005.
Obviously Labour is the most representative of Britain as it actually is (though they could increase the number of women and ethnic minorities).
The Tory position looks awful - but some of that is down to legacy. They got decimated in 1997, hardly improved in 2001 and gained only a modest number of MPs in 2005. Lots of their fuddy-duddy male public school MPs were elected in the Thatcher years or before. Until this "old guard" retires it is unlikely that they will get to govern Britain as the assertive modern voter no longer tolerates the idea of "elites" who are nothing like them, ruling over them. If they had any sense they would be trying to deselect as many of the old guard as possible and replacing them with more normal people. But Cameron and Osborne and co are handicapped by the fact that they too are part of the elite public school brigade. To give Michael Howard credit though, he did put through two ethnic minority MPs and more women in 2005.
But the big surprise is the LibDems. They prattle the most about "representative democracy" (aka proportional representation), but they don't exactly practice it in-house. Unlike the Tories, they don't have the excuse of "legacy" MPs. Most LibDem MPs entered parliament in the last decade. You would have thought that like Labour they would seek to have more comprehensive school educated people, more women, more ethnic minorities - but this is not the case.
You get a glimpse of this looking at who attends the party conferences. Labour has the broadest range of people from all backgrounds, creeds and colours. And while the toffs are heavily represented in the Tories, they do have a minority of self-made working class Tories that Thatcher attracted to their party - and these working class Tories are the most hostile to the elitist Cameron - in a peculiar Tory way, the grammar school row was covert class-war row, as Nick Robinson observed.
The LibDems though tend to be awfully nice white middle class people, the narrowest group of all. This is why they are the third party and failed to break through and become "the real opposition". Charlie Kennedy masked this narrowness temporarily when he was leader because of his egalitarian Scottish tone. Since he's gone, they've fallen back, as people look at them and think, they don't really represent me. If the LibDems really want to break through, they need to broaden their tent. But this means dealing with people from very different backgrounds whose views might not be as "pure" as their own. Do they really want to do this? My impression is that the LibDems find this too distateful to bother with.
P.S. Regarding ethnic minorities, someone pointed out to me that the SNP have an ethnic member in the Scottish Parliament and Plaid Cymru have an ethnic member in the Welsh Assembly. This means that of the five major parties (Conservatives, labour, LibDems, SNP and Plaid) the LibDems are the only party to have no ethnic representative at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. And they don't appear to be disposed to readdress this either.
First of all gender. Just over 50% of the population is female. Here's the breakdown in parliament:
Labour: 97 women MPs (27% of Labour MPs)
Tories: 17 women MPs (9% of Tory MPs)
LibDems: 9 women MPs (14% of LibDem MPs)
So none of the parties reflects the gender balance of the nation, though Labour is well ahead of the others.
Next up, education. 7% of current students go to public school. 88% of current students go to comprehensives and 5% of current students go to grammar schools. The following data on Parliament comes from the Sutton Trust:
Labour: 18% of MPs went to public school
Tories: 59% of MPs went to public school
LibDems: 39% of MPs went to public school
Labour: 53% of MPs went to state comprehensives
Tories: 20% of MPs went to state comprehensives
LibDems: 41% of MPs went to state comprehensives
Labour: 29% of MPs went to state selective schools
Tories: 21% of Tories went to state selective schools
LibDems: 20% went to state selective schools.
Most of the MPs who went to state selective schools (aka grammar schools) are over 40. As time goes on, they will dwindle as a % of MPs, reflecting the abolition of grammars in most parts of the country in the 1970's.
Regarding university attendance the figures are as follows:
Labour: 67% of MPs went to university
Tories: 83% of MPs went to university
LibDems: 81% of MPs went to university
All the parties have been increasing the number of graduate MPs over time (in 1964 the figures for MPs who had attended university were Labour 42%, Tories 63% and LibDems 78%).
I am most surprised by the LibDem figures for public schools. Most LibDem MPs entered parliament in 2001 and 2005. Their public school MPs are not a legacy of candidate selection policies of 20 or 30 years ago, in the way some of the Tory public school MPs are accounted for.
Considering ethnic minorities, 7.7% of the UK population is non-white and 92.3% is white. There are only a total of 15 ethnic minority MPs in parliament out of the 646 MPs (2.3%). 13 are Labour and 2 are Tories. None are LibDems. The two Tory ethnic minority MPs entered parliament in 2005.
Obviously Labour is the most representative of Britain as it actually is (though they could increase the number of women and ethnic minorities).
The Tory position looks awful - but some of that is down to legacy. They got decimated in 1997, hardly improved in 2001 and gained only a modest number of MPs in 2005. Lots of their fuddy-duddy male public school MPs were elected in the Thatcher years or before. Until this "old guard" retires it is unlikely that they will get to govern Britain as the assertive modern voter no longer tolerates the idea of "elites" who are nothing like them, ruling over them. If they had any sense they would be trying to deselect as many of the old guard as possible and replacing them with more normal people. But Cameron and Osborne and co are handicapped by the fact that they too are part of the elite public school brigade. To give Michael Howard credit though, he did put through two ethnic minority MPs and more women in 2005.
But the big surprise is the LibDems. They prattle the most about "representative democracy" (aka proportional representation), but they don't exactly practice it in-house. Unlike the Tories, they don't have the excuse of "legacy" MPs. Most LibDem MPs entered parliament in the last decade. You would have thought that like Labour they would seek to have more comprehensive school educated people, more women, more ethnic minorities - but this is not the case.
You get a glimpse of this looking at who attends the party conferences. Labour has the broadest range of people from all backgrounds, creeds and colours. And while the toffs are heavily represented in the Tories, they do have a minority of self-made working class Tories that Thatcher attracted to their party - and these working class Tories are the most hostile to the elitist Cameron - in a peculiar Tory way, the grammar school row was covert class-war row, as Nick Robinson observed.
The LibDems though tend to be awfully nice white middle class people, the narrowest group of all. This is why they are the third party and failed to break through and become "the real opposition". Charlie Kennedy masked this narrowness temporarily when he was leader because of his egalitarian Scottish tone. Since he's gone, they've fallen back, as people look at them and think, they don't really represent me. If the LibDems really want to break through, they need to broaden their tent. But this means dealing with people from very different backgrounds whose views might not be as "pure" as their own. Do they really want to do this? My impression is that the LibDems find this too distateful to bother with.
P.S. Regarding ethnic minorities, someone pointed out to me that the SNP have an ethnic member in the Scottish Parliament and Plaid Cymru have an ethnic member in the Welsh Assembly. This means that of the five major parties (Conservatives, labour, LibDems, SNP and Plaid) the LibDems are the only party to have no ethnic representative at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. And they don't appear to be disposed to readdress this either.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
David Cameron and Rwanda
The Daily Mail and other papers have been laying into David Cameron for disappearing to Rwanda while his Oxfordshire constituency of Witney has been flooded.
Tories defend this saying that "Dave" isn't in power, so there is little he can do here. Of course as he isn't in power it's equally pointless him addressing the Rwandan parliament as he has zero authority to offer aid, trade or anything else. The Mail reports that:
David Cameron's much-criticised trip to Rwanda has descended into farce as only 16 of the 80 Rwandan MPs scheduled to hear him speak turned up and his speech was hit by a power cut.
Looks like the Rwandan parliamentarians thought it was a waste of time listening to someone who is not in government.
Should he have gone? Surely the correct thing to do was to have stayed at home himself, but let the other 41 Conservatives on the Rwandan trip go ahead with their plans, and sent someone like William Hague along to be head honcho on the trip. That way he would have got kudos for putting his constituents first, but the Tories would still have got points for caring about Rwanda. Of course doing this would have meant that someone other than Dave would have been in the limelight, which he might not have enjoyed (Dave is quite egotistical - even to the point of putting "David Cameron's Conservatives on ballot papers; Blair for all his ego never once dared put "Tony Blair's Labour" on the ballot paper at any point during his 13 years as leader).
The thing about events like floods, is that residents want their MP on hand for moral support (and if they can do other things such as stack sandbags and distribute water bottles etc, so much the better). Nothing irritates voters more than the thought that while they are struggling, their MP has swanned off somewhere else. If they are miserable and uncomfortable, they want their MP to be miserable and uncomfortable along with them.
The other pertinent point is that most of these floods are happening in Tory areas. They may carp at the Labour government, but not only are they unable to vote the government out (as they are already Tory constituencies) but Dave's behaviour indicates that a Tory government would care much less than a Labour one.
In the rare instances where there is a Labour MP in the flood areas, the MPs are in their constituencies. For example Parmjit Dhanda, Labour MP for Gloucester has been on the ground, organising water bottle donations, talking to residents, doing all he can to help. The residents of Longlevens in Gloucestershire (which is part of his constituency) reported that they all received letters from him after they got flooded, which began:
Dear resident,
I am writing to you in connection with the severe weather and flooding that has occurred in your neighborhood.
Although a few residents have contacted me on this issue I want to ensure you have my full contact details so I can assist you on a one-to-one basis should you need further support.
He goes on to talk about crisis loans and community care grants for those in serious need and urges them to contact him directly on this.
This is exactly what people want from their MP - someone who voluntarily gets in touch with you and says here I am if you want one-to-one help in this crisis.
Tories defend this saying that "Dave" isn't in power, so there is little he can do here. Of course as he isn't in power it's equally pointless him addressing the Rwandan parliament as he has zero authority to offer aid, trade or anything else. The Mail reports that:
David Cameron's much-criticised trip to Rwanda has descended into farce as only 16 of the 80 Rwandan MPs scheduled to hear him speak turned up and his speech was hit by a power cut.
Looks like the Rwandan parliamentarians thought it was a waste of time listening to someone who is not in government.
Should he have gone? Surely the correct thing to do was to have stayed at home himself, but let the other 41 Conservatives on the Rwandan trip go ahead with their plans, and sent someone like William Hague along to be head honcho on the trip. That way he would have got kudos for putting his constituents first, but the Tories would still have got points for caring about Rwanda. Of course doing this would have meant that someone other than Dave would have been in the limelight, which he might not have enjoyed (Dave is quite egotistical - even to the point of putting "David Cameron's Conservatives on ballot papers; Blair for all his ego never once dared put "Tony Blair's Labour" on the ballot paper at any point during his 13 years as leader).
The thing about events like floods, is that residents want their MP on hand for moral support (and if they can do other things such as stack sandbags and distribute water bottles etc, so much the better). Nothing irritates voters more than the thought that while they are struggling, their MP has swanned off somewhere else. If they are miserable and uncomfortable, they want their MP to be miserable and uncomfortable along with them.
The other pertinent point is that most of these floods are happening in Tory areas. They may carp at the Labour government, but not only are they unable to vote the government out (as they are already Tory constituencies) but Dave's behaviour indicates that a Tory government would care much less than a Labour one.
In the rare instances where there is a Labour MP in the flood areas, the MPs are in their constituencies. For example Parmjit Dhanda, Labour MP for Gloucester has been on the ground, organising water bottle donations, talking to residents, doing all he can to help. The residents of Longlevens in Gloucestershire (which is part of his constituency) reported that they all received letters from him after they got flooded, which began:
Dear resident,
I am writing to you in connection with the severe weather and flooding that has occurred in your neighborhood.
Although a few residents have contacted me on this issue I want to ensure you have my full contact details so I can assist you on a one-to-one basis should you need further support.
He goes on to talk about crisis loans and community care grants for those in serious need and urges them to contact him directly on this.
This is exactly what people want from their MP - someone who voluntarily gets in touch with you and says here I am if you want one-to-one help in this crisis.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Southall
Interesting take on what happened in Southall from Nirpal Dhaliwal who grew up there, writing in the Sunday Times:
But while Southall’s Asian population is entrepreneurial and family-oriented, it is at heart a blue-collar neighbourhood that remembers the debt it owes to a welfare state that nursed and educated its children, and to the trade unions that protected its jobs and helped in the fight against racism. The riot that broke out when the National Front tried to march through the high street in 1979 is a basic part of Southall folklore. If the Tories were going to win it over they needed to offer a lot more than a brown-skinned Cameron clone.
One common criticism of Lit among the people I spoke to last week was that “He’s too young. What does he know?”. While the Tories hailed his youth and energy, they overlooked the fact that Asians generally revere age and experience. While Lit promoted himself as young and modern, the seat was won at a canter with a low-profile campaign by the 60-year-old Virendra Sharma, who has served as a Labour councillor for more than 25 years.
The Labour party even hired an old Indian Tata bus, decked out in gold and silver decorations, from which to blare out its campaign messages. It was a touch of sentimental genius, a comforting nod to the people’s love of their motherland and their roots.
..........Southall is a traditional, close-knit but also parochial and gossipy neighbourhood. Growing up there in the 1980s I couldn’t even smoke a cigarette on a street corner without some busybody relaying the information to my mum before I’d even got back home.
..........The Tories might have thought Lit’s fame was an asset, but it provided negative fuel for the gossips. Shopkeepers spoke to me of a “Lit mafia” taking over the area. Lit’s father Avtar had transformed a pirate station that operated out of borrowed attics in the 1980s into a legitimate business that is now worth millions. Avtar is a notorious Southall figure, not least for outraging the locals by divorcing his first wife – Tony’s mother – and marrying again, an act regarded as scandalous by Asians of his generation.
In the 2001 general election Avtar ran as an independent, only to lose and have Sunrise fined £10,000 for broadcasting a political interview with him in breach of the Broadcasting Act. Avtar Lit is the subject of much local tittle-tattle regarding his business and personal dealings; choosing his son wasn’t the smartest move the Conservatives could make.
Though Tony’s campaign was fought within the rules, he made the most of his radio connections as his campaign cars drove around blaring recordings by Sunrise’s most famous presenters. Many people regarded Lit’s desire to win the seat as an attempt to turn their town into a father and son family business.
So there you go. It was local knowledge what won it, and local politics. Sedgefield was also won by a local man. Perhaps this is a new trend, with local candidates and local campaigns trumping orders from central office - certainly it contributes to political stability when the MP knows his constituency like the back of his hand - and his constituents know him familiarly too.
But while Southall’s Asian population is entrepreneurial and family-oriented, it is at heart a blue-collar neighbourhood that remembers the debt it owes to a welfare state that nursed and educated its children, and to the trade unions that protected its jobs and helped in the fight against racism. The riot that broke out when the National Front tried to march through the high street in 1979 is a basic part of Southall folklore. If the Tories were going to win it over they needed to offer a lot more than a brown-skinned Cameron clone.
One common criticism of Lit among the people I spoke to last week was that “He’s too young. What does he know?”. While the Tories hailed his youth and energy, they overlooked the fact that Asians generally revere age and experience. While Lit promoted himself as young and modern, the seat was won at a canter with a low-profile campaign by the 60-year-old Virendra Sharma, who has served as a Labour councillor for more than 25 years.
The Labour party even hired an old Indian Tata bus, decked out in gold and silver decorations, from which to blare out its campaign messages. It was a touch of sentimental genius, a comforting nod to the people’s love of their motherland and their roots.
..........Southall is a traditional, close-knit but also parochial and gossipy neighbourhood. Growing up there in the 1980s I couldn’t even smoke a cigarette on a street corner without some busybody relaying the information to my mum before I’d even got back home.
..........The Tories might have thought Lit’s fame was an asset, but it provided negative fuel for the gossips. Shopkeepers spoke to me of a “Lit mafia” taking over the area. Lit’s father Avtar had transformed a pirate station that operated out of borrowed attics in the 1980s into a legitimate business that is now worth millions. Avtar is a notorious Southall figure, not least for outraging the locals by divorcing his first wife – Tony’s mother – and marrying again, an act regarded as scandalous by Asians of his generation.
In the 2001 general election Avtar ran as an independent, only to lose and have Sunrise fined £10,000 for broadcasting a political interview with him in breach of the Broadcasting Act. Avtar Lit is the subject of much local tittle-tattle regarding his business and personal dealings; choosing his son wasn’t the smartest move the Conservatives could make.
Though Tony’s campaign was fought within the rules, he made the most of his radio connections as his campaign cars drove around blaring recordings by Sunrise’s most famous presenters. Many people regarded Lit’s desire to win the seat as an attempt to turn their town into a father and son family business.
So there you go. It was local knowledge what won it, and local politics. Sedgefield was also won by a local man. Perhaps this is a new trend, with local candidates and local campaigns trumping orders from central office - certainly it contributes to political stability when the MP knows his constituency like the back of his hand - and his constituents know him familiarly too.
Friday, July 20, 2007
UK Economic Growth Unexpectedly Acclerates
According to ONS stats released today, UK Growth in the second quarter was 0.8%, up from 0.7% in the first quarter, faster than expected.The rise is mainly down to manufacturing, mining, quarrying and energy increasing from the previous quarter. Services were slightly down, but as ever, business services and finance showed increased growth over the quarter. Government and other services grew a mere 0.1% compared to 0.5% in the first quarter. But who needs government services when business, finance and manufacturing are doing so well? More important may be the steadiness of growth. Since the last quarter of 2005, growth has been either 0.7% or 0.8% each quarter, remarkably even and steady.
Also encouraging was the trade figures released last week. As the graph shows, the trade deficit is narrowing. It was £3.5 billion in May, compared to £4.2billion in April and about £6.5 billion in May 2006. Simply, we are exporting more, (the improvement in the manufacturing figures above is related to this).
Not surprisingly, sterling rose against the dollar to $2.05 - the highest since mid 1981, 26 years ago. However the pound remained relatively stable against the euro (the euro-zone is our main export area, and the relative steadiness of the sterling-euro rate is the reason for our exports increasing). The markets are all abuzz about the prospects of another interest rate rise. I'm not quite so sure. Inflation is moderating and the good growth figures are mainly down to manufacturing and an improved trade deficit, while services moderated, indicating that the consumer is pulling in their horns - this rebalancing is exactly what the BoE wants.
Nervous eyes as always are cast across the Atlantic. The Americans are still struggling with their sub-prime mortgage scandal. And they are still a huge economy with the capacity to destabalise the rest of the world. Thankfully though, the euro-zone has come out of it's extended trough, and as we are Europeans and EU members, we are more dependant on Europe than America. As long as Germany continues to motor we might escape contagion from the American crisis, fingers crossed. All-in-all it's not a bad place to be in the 11th year of a Labour government.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Perils of Political Blogging
Dizzy of Dizzy Thinks has a very interesting piece entitled "Is the Tory Internet about to turn on itself?". In it he discusses a new Tory site called Platform 10:
"The word is the site is to be an antidote to ConservativeHome which some have said is far to critical of the leadership and is causing them headaches".
He concludes:
"Frankly, I can hear the word "split" echoing around the TV studios of talking heads already. There is indeed it seems a battlefield forming. The problem is it looks to be a battlefield where the same side is preparing to look in on each other".
Much has been made about how Tories "dominate" the blogosphere, and how "lamentable" Labour's efforts are. But I guess "success" depends on whether you are intending to get talked about a lot in the press and on the net, or whether the aim of the blogging is to actually win you elections.
The press understandably love ConservativeHome. Journalists in search of stories of dissent and division among the Tories need only trawl through the articles and comments on that site for their story. Add into the mix the site owner who fancies himself as a bit of a "guru" and alternative power source, and who is willing to be interviewed on television to tout his "surveys" of the Tory membership (which are usually critical of the leadership), and of course Cameron and co feel a little queasy about it. Other Tory bloggers like Iain Dale and Guido Hawkes also seem to exhibit the same publicity-seeking vanity to the point where if it was a crunch between burnishing their own profiles and the needs of their party, they'd put themselves first.
The LibDems have a similar problem with the site Political Betting. This is actually a very good site (though most of the people who post comments on it tend to be Tories), with many insightful articles, and it is especially good at covering elections. But when Mike Smithson the site owner talks about Lib Dem issues, he packs a particular punch as he is a LibDem member and indeed has stood for election under their banner. When he writes about Tories or Labour it is generally understood that this is his opinion of them as a LibDem. When he writes about LibDem matters, the assumption is that his is an Insider view. This can cause unforseen problems. For instance last year when Ming Campbell had a few bad PMQs, Smithson kept up the pressure with several articles exploring whether Ming could survive this, and with a killer article in May 2006 asking "What about a woman to follow Ming". This merely months after Ming was elected. Of course the press followed up, and poor Ming has been struggling with "who will follow Ming" questions ever since.
Why did he do it? Unlike Tim Montgomerie I don't think Smithson suffers from the same vanity and desire to seek publicity. I think he just thought he was being "impartial" from a journalistic and betting point of view. But if journalists or political betting pundits are to be truly impartial, they can't be members of political parties. If they are party members, anything they say about those parties will be amplified and used against those parties.
Labour bloggers are a different animal - much more low-key, none pretend to be "impartial journalists" and none aspire to be Press personalities on television. LabourHome is a web 2.0 operation - unlike Conservative Home, the articles and editorial are not written by a few people based on a particular "faction view" of the party. Rather, the members of the site write the content, posting articles on whatever they want. Site members include some Tories and LibDems as well as the whole Labour spectrum, so you never know what will get posted as it depends on which member has the time that day and what the particular bee in their bonnet is. As a result, the site has the feel of the general low-level chatter that you get at branch meetings. Most of it is friendly and most support the line the leadership takes (Labour has a very strong sense of the collective). This has been a great disappointment to the press who were hoping to find powerful people posting juicy factional anti-leadership stuff in the manner of ConservativeHome.
The other Labour website Bloggers4Labour aggregates the feeds of some 300 Labour bloggers. Unlike LabourHome, there are no Tory or LibDem voices here. But here's the thing - it turns out that Labour bloggers spend more time blogging about football, Dr Who, science fiction, pop music, cookery, abstract graphics of snowflakes, photos of flowers, butterflies, cats and architecture, and stories about obscure goings on in Argentina and Kazakhstan (and apologies if I've missed off some obsessions from the list), than they do about UK politics. To hear Tory bloggers, you'd think this was a bad thing - but in truth it contributes to building an online persona for the party that is every bit as warm and fuzzy as that the Labour party enjoys at street level. And one of the reasons people have always liked the Labour party more than the Labour leadership, and certainly way more than they like the Conservative Party, is because of this warm and human aspect. If a member of the public stumbled across a Labour blog, they'd conclude that here are a bunch of likeable people. If they stumbled across a Tory blog like Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale or ConHome, they'd recoil in horror, especially at the demented venom you find from Tories in the comments. And no one ever puts scary demented types into government.
Those of us Labour bloggers who do write about politics do so in order to play our small part supporting the party and the Labour government. Our aim is mainly to correct the Tory distortions and fibs and to make Labour's case. If we want to be movers and shakers, blogging isn't the way to do it - the locus of power in Labour lies at Westminster especially as we're in government. If you want to carry influence, you have to go through the trouble of putting yourself up for election to parliament, or work as an aide to government ministers.
When they come to assess which web effort aided their party's fortunes best in the next election - the unlikely answer might be that it was Labour's that did the business, because so low key, supportive of the Labour government and because crucially we don't foul our own nest.
"The word is the site is to be an antidote to ConservativeHome which some have said is far to critical of the leadership and is causing them headaches".
He concludes:
"Frankly, I can hear the word "split" echoing around the TV studios of talking heads already. There is indeed it seems a battlefield forming. The problem is it looks to be a battlefield where the same side is preparing to look in on each other".
Much has been made about how Tories "dominate" the blogosphere, and how "lamentable" Labour's efforts are. But I guess "success" depends on whether you are intending to get talked about a lot in the press and on the net, or whether the aim of the blogging is to actually win you elections.
The press understandably love ConservativeHome. Journalists in search of stories of dissent and division among the Tories need only trawl through the articles and comments on that site for their story. Add into the mix the site owner who fancies himself as a bit of a "guru" and alternative power source, and who is willing to be interviewed on television to tout his "surveys" of the Tory membership (which are usually critical of the leadership), and of course Cameron and co feel a little queasy about it. Other Tory bloggers like Iain Dale and Guido Hawkes also seem to exhibit the same publicity-seeking vanity to the point where if it was a crunch between burnishing their own profiles and the needs of their party, they'd put themselves first.
The LibDems have a similar problem with the site Political Betting. This is actually a very good site (though most of the people who post comments on it tend to be Tories), with many insightful articles, and it is especially good at covering elections. But when Mike Smithson the site owner talks about Lib Dem issues, he packs a particular punch as he is a LibDem member and indeed has stood for election under their banner. When he writes about Tories or Labour it is generally understood that this is his opinion of them as a LibDem. When he writes about LibDem matters, the assumption is that his is an Insider view. This can cause unforseen problems. For instance last year when Ming Campbell had a few bad PMQs, Smithson kept up the pressure with several articles exploring whether Ming could survive this, and with a killer article in May 2006 asking "What about a woman to follow Ming". This merely months after Ming was elected. Of course the press followed up, and poor Ming has been struggling with "who will follow Ming" questions ever since.
Why did he do it? Unlike Tim Montgomerie I don't think Smithson suffers from the same vanity and desire to seek publicity. I think he just thought he was being "impartial" from a journalistic and betting point of view. But if journalists or political betting pundits are to be truly impartial, they can't be members of political parties. If they are party members, anything they say about those parties will be amplified and used against those parties.
Labour bloggers are a different animal - much more low-key, none pretend to be "impartial journalists" and none aspire to be Press personalities on television. LabourHome is a web 2.0 operation - unlike Conservative Home, the articles and editorial are not written by a few people based on a particular "faction view" of the party. Rather, the members of the site write the content, posting articles on whatever they want. Site members include some Tories and LibDems as well as the whole Labour spectrum, so you never know what will get posted as it depends on which member has the time that day and what the particular bee in their bonnet is. As a result, the site has the feel of the general low-level chatter that you get at branch meetings. Most of it is friendly and most support the line the leadership takes (Labour has a very strong sense of the collective). This has been a great disappointment to the press who were hoping to find powerful people posting juicy factional anti-leadership stuff in the manner of ConservativeHome.
The other Labour website Bloggers4Labour aggregates the feeds of some 300 Labour bloggers. Unlike LabourHome, there are no Tory or LibDem voices here. But here's the thing - it turns out that Labour bloggers spend more time blogging about football, Dr Who, science fiction, pop music, cookery, abstract graphics of snowflakes, photos of flowers, butterflies, cats and architecture, and stories about obscure goings on in Argentina and Kazakhstan (and apologies if I've missed off some obsessions from the list), than they do about UK politics. To hear Tory bloggers, you'd think this was a bad thing - but in truth it contributes to building an online persona for the party that is every bit as warm and fuzzy as that the Labour party enjoys at street level. And one of the reasons people have always liked the Labour party more than the Labour leadership, and certainly way more than they like the Conservative Party, is because of this warm and human aspect. If a member of the public stumbled across a Labour blog, they'd conclude that here are a bunch of likeable people. If they stumbled across a Tory blog like Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale or ConHome, they'd recoil in horror, especially at the demented venom you find from Tories in the comments. And no one ever puts scary demented types into government.
Those of us Labour bloggers who do write about politics do so in order to play our small part supporting the party and the Labour government. Our aim is mainly to correct the Tory distortions and fibs and to make Labour's case. If we want to be movers and shakers, blogging isn't the way to do it - the locus of power in Labour lies at Westminster especially as we're in government. If you want to carry influence, you have to go through the trouble of putting yourself up for election to parliament, or work as an aide to government ministers.
When they come to assess which web effort aided their party's fortunes best in the next election - the unlikely answer might be that it was Labour's that did the business, because so low key, supportive of the Labour government and because crucially we don't foul our own nest.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
More on Speeding
More on speeding.... On the left is a graph that shows how fuel efficiency decreases after 60mph. It's an American gragh, so the mpg are miles per American gallon rather than Imperial, but the trend will of course be the same - you use up more petrol if you drive too fast.
Essentially doing 75mph (120kmph) instead of 55mph (90kmph) increases the fuel you consume by about 20%. Given how expensive petrol is at the moment, you'd think it was a no-brainer that people cut their speed. Yet drivers rarely do this - and these same drivers then complain about fuel prices and speeding tickets.
Why do they behave this way? I think it is to do with problems with deferred gratification. The same way some people are unable to wait till the sales to buy an item, or to save for it for six months instead of putting it now on the credit card, some people can't wait an extra half hour to get to their destination (or can't be bothered to get up half an hour early to give themselves enough time to drive there at 60mph). If we could just get people to try it out, they'd not only save themselves a lot of money, the volume of petrol consumed would fall, as would the CO2 emmissions. Plus they'd stay within the law and avoid speeding tickets.
I'd say to people, just try it once - perhaps on a weekend trip to see the inlaws. You probably know already how much fuel the journey takes, and you can therefore easily compare how you do with a journey at a steady 60mph. Obviously it will hurt the self-image of some to be driving at that speed in the slow lane with the lorries. But the financial gain is substantial - I'd say, just try it out once. Then decide whether a macho self-image is worth the extra cost (hint: it doesn't matter what other drivers think of you as they don't know you from adam).
More on speeding.... On the left is a graph that shows how fuel efficiency decreases after 60mph. It's an American gragh, so the mpg are miles per American gallon rather than Imperial, but the trend will of course be the same - you use up more petrol if you drive too fast.Essentially doing 75mph (120kmph) instead of 55mph (90kmph) increases the fuel you consume by about 20%. Given how expensive petrol is at the moment, you'd think it was a no-brainer that people cut their speed. Yet drivers rarely do this - and these same drivers then complain about fuel prices and speeding tickets.
Why do they behave this way? I think it is to do with problems with deferred gratification. The same way some people are unable to wait till the sales to buy an item, or to save for it for six months instead of putting it now on the credit card, some people can't wait an extra half hour to get to their destination (or can't be bothered to get up half an hour early to give themselves enough time to drive there at 60mph). If we could just get people to try it out, they'd not only save themselves a lot of money, the volume of petrol consumed would fall, as would the CO2 emmissions. Plus they'd stay within the law and avoid speeding tickets.
I'd say to people, just try it once - perhaps on a weekend trip to see the inlaws. You probably know already how much fuel the journey takes, and you can therefore easily compare how you do with a journey at a steady 60mph. Obviously it will hurt the self-image of some to be driving at that speed in the slow lane with the lorries. But the financial gain is substantial - I'd say, just try it out once. Then decide whether a macho self-image is worth the extra cost (hint: it doesn't matter what other drivers think of you as they don't know you from adam).
Friday, July 06, 2007
Speed Cameras
I thought I'd do a post on speed cameras because one way to tell if someone is Labour or Tory is to ask them their views on speed cameras. Labour people instinctively feel they are a Good Thing: they save lives and it is no hardship to slow down, so they feel that if you get caught and fined for breaking the law it serves you right. Tories by contrast don't give a fig about the law, don't believe that speed cameras save lives, and feel it is their right to break the law with impunity and that speed fines are a "tax".
To inform the debate I thought I'd look up the guidelines as to where you can put speed cameras.
For fixed site cameras, the guidelines are as follows:
1. There must be at least 4 fatal or serious collisions per km in the last 3 calender years
2. at least 8 personal injury collisions per Km in the last three years
3. Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be included.
4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit in this spot.
5. Collisions are clustered close together around a single stretch of road or junction
6. There has been a site survey carried out by a road safety engineer that has concluded that there are no other obvious practical measures to improve road safety on this strtch of road.
7. The cameras must be well signed and highly visible.
If it is a digital enforecement site, there must be at least 5 fatal or serious collisions per km in the spot in the last three years and at least 10 personal injury collisions.
It is clear that the cameras are put where there has been a serious problem and where the local authority is trying to prevent further accidents. You could say that the cameras are shrines to the dead, as if there were no accidents on that stretch of road, there would be no camera there.
So why do Tories object? I think it's down to their lack of community spirit. They feel that their pleasure in speeding is more important than other people's lives. Labour people feel the opposite: the community good is more important than minor unimportant pleasures like speeding. Tories also seem to have a more cavaliar attitude to obeying the law than Labour people. At the end of the day we can only conclude that Labour people are just nicer and more humane. You have to have a hard-hearted and possibly cruel attitude to your fellow man to become a Tory.
To inform the debate I thought I'd look up the guidelines as to where you can put speed cameras.
For fixed site cameras, the guidelines are as follows:
1. There must be at least 4 fatal or serious collisions per km in the last 3 calender years
2. at least 8 personal injury collisions per Km in the last three years
3. Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be included.
4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit in this spot.
5. Collisions are clustered close together around a single stretch of road or junction
6. There has been a site survey carried out by a road safety engineer that has concluded that there are no other obvious practical measures to improve road safety on this strtch of road.
7. The cameras must be well signed and highly visible.
If it is a digital enforecement site, there must be at least 5 fatal or serious collisions per km in the spot in the last three years and at least 10 personal injury collisions.
It is clear that the cameras are put where there has been a serious problem and where the local authority is trying to prevent further accidents. You could say that the cameras are shrines to the dead, as if there were no accidents on that stretch of road, there would be no camera there.
So why do Tories object? I think it's down to their lack of community spirit. They feel that their pleasure in speeding is more important than other people's lives. Labour people feel the opposite: the community good is more important than minor unimportant pleasures like speeding. Tories also seem to have a more cavaliar attitude to obeying the law than Labour people. At the end of the day we can only conclude that Labour people are just nicer and more humane. You have to have a hard-hearted and possibly cruel attitude to your fellow man to become a Tory.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
On Defections
Steve Richards, writing in the Independent made an interesting observation:
Defections are a wholly reliable guide to the parties' prospects, much more so than opinion polls. In the late 1970s and 1980s all the defections were away from Labour to the Conservatives and the SDP. Even though Labour was often well ahead in opinion polls it lost elections. The defectors knew instinctively which way the tide was flowing.
Since the mid- 1990s all the defections have been away from the Conservatives. That is why the move of Quentin Davies to Labour is significant. His switch suggests that the tide flows towards Labour still. The Conservatives have failed to attract defections in spite of some unsubtle attempts in recent months. They must reverse the tide first.
There is truth in this. Someone like Digby Jones would only accept the Labour whip if they felt in their bones that was the only way to run a department, because the Conservatives and LibDems have no chance at all of getting into government.
The Tories of course are desperate for people to defect to them, and have also been courting some of the independents who have come to Labour. John Rentoul has this bit of gossip about Mark Malloc Brown (the UN chap who criticised the USA):
Sir Mark's recruitment is notable, too, for proving that Gordon Brown is superior at the mysteries of defector management to the amateurs on the Tory side. The Tories thought Sir Mark, who addressed their conference last year, was already in their transfer lounge, waiting for a flight to the land of Cameroon. At 4pm on Wednesday, when his name began to be mentioned around Westminster as a possible minister in the new Government, a member of the shadow Cabinet said confidently: "No chance."
No chance huh? Mark Malloc Brown has not only taken the Labour whip, he's joined the Labour party.
Of course these defections have put Tory and LibDem noses out of joint. When Quentin Davies defected to Labour, some of them suggested that they would "respect" Labour more if we'd have said No to him.
What they don't understand is that unlike the other parties, Labour is not an exclusive club. Anyone who is a citizen of the UK can join. All we ask is that if you are a member of our party, you must not be a member of any other party. We don't do blackballing - that's for the likes of the Bullingdon Club. I shudder at the very idea of rejecting someone because their face doesn't fit. It's a slippery slope to something horrible. Thankfully Labour is open to all comers, and as a result we have the broadest membership base of any of the parties. Members who are cleaners and members who are lords. Members whose names are Quentin and members whose names are Wayne. People of all creeds, colours and classes. This broad church is what makes us representative of the UK, and gives us a sense of what the public wants. This is the reason why we are in government.
Quentin Davies already agrees with us on the EU, and he has admitted that his previous opinions on how we run the economy were wrong and has changed his mind. As for his other views - he is free to argue them within the Labour party and will no doubt find Labour members vigorously arguing back. It is only within the Labour party that he will hear these opposing arguments anyway - and hearing dissenting arguments is a necessary pre-condition to someone changing their mind.
If anyone else wants to join the Labour Party, click here. All are welcome no matter who you are or what your background is. We don't discriminate in Labour.
Defections are a wholly reliable guide to the parties' prospects, much more so than opinion polls. In the late 1970s and 1980s all the defections were away from Labour to the Conservatives and the SDP. Even though Labour was often well ahead in opinion polls it lost elections. The defectors knew instinctively which way the tide was flowing.
Since the mid- 1990s all the defections have been away from the Conservatives. That is why the move of Quentin Davies to Labour is significant. His switch suggests that the tide flows towards Labour still. The Conservatives have failed to attract defections in spite of some unsubtle attempts in recent months. They must reverse the tide first.
There is truth in this. Someone like Digby Jones would only accept the Labour whip if they felt in their bones that was the only way to run a department, because the Conservatives and LibDems have no chance at all of getting into government.
The Tories of course are desperate for people to defect to them, and have also been courting some of the independents who have come to Labour. John Rentoul has this bit of gossip about Mark Malloc Brown (the UN chap who criticised the USA):
Sir Mark's recruitment is notable, too, for proving that Gordon Brown is superior at the mysteries of defector management to the amateurs on the Tory side. The Tories thought Sir Mark, who addressed their conference last year, was already in their transfer lounge, waiting for a flight to the land of Cameroon. At 4pm on Wednesday, when his name began to be mentioned around Westminster as a possible minister in the new Government, a member of the shadow Cabinet said confidently: "No chance."
No chance huh? Mark Malloc Brown has not only taken the Labour whip, he's joined the Labour party.
Of course these defections have put Tory and LibDem noses out of joint. When Quentin Davies defected to Labour, some of them suggested that they would "respect" Labour more if we'd have said No to him.
What they don't understand is that unlike the other parties, Labour is not an exclusive club. Anyone who is a citizen of the UK can join. All we ask is that if you are a member of our party, you must not be a member of any other party. We don't do blackballing - that's for the likes of the Bullingdon Club. I shudder at the very idea of rejecting someone because their face doesn't fit. It's a slippery slope to something horrible. Thankfully Labour is open to all comers, and as a result we have the broadest membership base of any of the parties. Members who are cleaners and members who are lords. Members whose names are Quentin and members whose names are Wayne. People of all creeds, colours and classes. This broad church is what makes us representative of the UK, and gives us a sense of what the public wants. This is the reason why we are in government.
Quentin Davies already agrees with us on the EU, and he has admitted that his previous opinions on how we run the economy were wrong and has changed his mind. As for his other views - he is free to argue them within the Labour party and will no doubt find Labour members vigorously arguing back. It is only within the Labour party that he will hear these opposing arguments anyway - and hearing dissenting arguments is a necessary pre-condition to someone changing their mind.
If anyone else wants to join the Labour Party, click here. All are welcome no matter who you are or what your background is. We don't discriminate in Labour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
