For the select few that read this blog, I apologise for the lack of posts. My version of the mid-life crisis is deciding to go back to stand-up comedy after an 18 year absence; what was missing from my life was the chance to perform to half-empty function rooms in pubs, with a dodgy mic and an audience comprised mostly of comics. I'm pleased to say that after six months, I must have performed to at least a 100 people, in total. Last weekend, I did my first 20 minute set to an audience of four punters and about ten comics, which was...an experience. Actually it went well, even the audience member with a large piss stain down his trousers enjoyed it. What that says about my material is another matter.
But the strange thing for me as a wannabe comic is to see comedy taking centre stage in politics. I don't mean politicians are trying to be funny; one of the most painful things you can witness is a scripted joke in a politician's speech. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a belly flop from the top of the high diving platform, made all the more wince-making by the knowledge that much effort went into that gag and the audience have no choice but to laugh, much like wedding guests when the best man cracks an offensive gag. They laugh but feel a little dirty afterwards.
What is most perplexing is the appearance of politicians who by any previous standards ought to be considered a joke, a practical joke at the expense of the electorate. In the US Donald Trump is the most obvious case, who seems to stepped out of an early eighties film, where he was playing the role of the evil boss of a ruthless multinational firm, though I'm probably being unfair to the make-up department as no film actor would be painted orange and given such an unconvincing toupee, or such a bad script. His public pronouncements are so bizarre and outlandish they seem to short circuit the normal process of political debate. Suggesting banning all Muslims entering the US, even if they are US citizens, hogged the headlines as was his intention. One perceptive journalist described it as the "dead cat" move: slap a dead cat on the table. The only thing anyone's noticing is the dead cat. It was a ludicrous statement, a joke in many ways. Attempting to ban US citizens from entering the country on the grounds of religion violates the constitution, a range of laws and in the highly unlikely such legislation could ever pass, would be struck down by the judiciary. But as Trump says "I don't care", the clown triumphant.
But here in the UK, we have joke politicians of our own. On the left, there's Jeremy Corbyn, who nobody, not even his supporters, not even Jeremy Corbyn can imagine being Prime Minister. You could argue that Corbyn is more authentic than Trump. A regular feature of Trump's speeches is that he is a self-made billionaire. If your definition of a self-made billionaire is someone who receives a $200 million as an inheritance in 1982, which if invested in an S & P tracker fund would be worth over $8. 3 billion, then perhaps Trump qualifies... just. His stated net worth is $8.7 billion, but $3 billion of that very questionable valuation is the Trump brand. Let's knock a bit off, call it $6 billion, the net result is that is Trump had done nothing but watch TV and play golf he would be significantly richer than he is now. A joke in other words.
So I am being unfair to bracket Corbyn with the fraudulent bully Trump? In his own way, he is no less ridiculous. This is a man who has not changed his mind or altered his views on any major political issue in the last 40 years. Not one. Nothing. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of the internet, the crash of 2008, the long boom that preceded it, nothing, not one event, no social, political or technological change has made him rethink or reappraise his views formed in the mid 1970s. Some recent speeches according to colleagues include verbatim sections from those given in the early 1980s.
Corbyn remains wedded to unilateral nuclear disarmament, a curious policy concept that seems to be more about virtue signalling that practical outcomes. Combined with his desire to preserve state spending and heavy industry, produced one of the oddest suggestions in modern times, that the UK retain its submarine fleet, but without the nuclear missiles - an extremely expensive job creation scheme in other words. He may be principled, he may be consistent, but someone who doesn't change their mind in close to half a century is ridiculous.
On the right, Farage you could argue is the British Trump, but I'd nominate Boris Johnson as the true clown politician of the UK. This is an Oxford educated Renaissance man, with a stellar career, who plays the role of a slapstick Churchill crossed with Bertie Wooster. It's an act, it's a very successful one but an act nonetheless. This is a man who is a serious contender to lead the Conservative Party and be a future Prime Minister: a character act. Perhaps he believes some of what he says, but it's hard to take someone seriously whose whole public persona is fake, designed to draw attention away from his privileged Eton and Bullingdon Club origins. Whether Boris deep down believes his own act is an interesting question; even those closest to him cannot give a clear answer.
How modern politics has ended up with such a collection of jokes is a mystery, perhaps it's a reaction to the machine politician, the soundbite specialist with perfect hair who is never off message, never answers the questions and is always smiling. But the joke is on us and it's not a very good one.
Sunday 3 April 2016
Wednesday 2 December 2015
Quoting Herman Goering
In the run up to the vote on Syrian airstrikes, a quote from Goering
kept popping up on social media. The post looked something like this:
Now I’ve read far too many books on Nazis. In fact, if the police or MI5
ever looked at my bookshelf, I’d be in trouble: three biographies on Pol Pot,
two of Mao, five of Hitler, assorted war titles, serial killer tomes and books
on psychology, especially psychopaths and criminal minds. Everyone’s got to
have a hobby. But I can at least put my amateur historian knowledge to
some use. This blog is not about the decision to intervene in Syria or the
arguments for and against. It’s more about a suggestion that you shouldn’t post
or share quotes on social media without pausing to think about the source and
the context.
You’d think Goering might be a name to raise a few alarms – leading
Nazi, head of the Luftwaffe, convicted war criminal. This is common knowledge,
yet many people posted the link anyway, to suggest that we were being tricked
into war in Syria. But let’s consider the origin of the quotation. It was
an exchange with Gustave Gilbert, a psychologist at the Nuremberg trials in
1946 who became a sort of confidant of Goering. Here’s the quote in full with
Gilbert’s interjections:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering
shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a
war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the
policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out.
"In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their
elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but,
voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders."
It doesn’t appear in the official transcripts of the trial, it’s an off
the record comment. With any source, you have to establish its credentials: how
reliable is the source, what is the context, why does it exist and so
forth. When I challenged a couple of people who posted on Facebook about the wisdom of sharing this meme support of anti-war arguments, the answer
was: truth is truth it doesn’t matter who said it. Now that in itself is a
misleading statement.
The source does matter; in a criminal trial, as a jury, you must determine the reliability of the witness and their testimony. It
doesn’t seem likely that Gilbert would have made this up, in which case there's
no reason to doubt that Goering said these words. He may even have believed it; I
would suggest not. If we examine the statement, breaking down its claims
one by one, I’d argue that it is in reality a series of falsehoods
which Goering knew to be untrue. Let’s look at the quotation in detail.
The first claim is so unexceptional as to be a truism: ‘People don’t
want war’. Even in Nazi Germany, there was limited enthusiasm
for conflict There were no cheering crowds in 1939. In 1914 there
was a greater appetite for war, but the majority of the people still preferred
peace. This seems to be the case in all human societies unless they have been
directly attacked. From this truism, in
classic Nazi style, Goering performs a sleight of hand.
"...after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship."
Goering suggests that democracies and dictatorships operate in the same
way which is false. In the UK, the prime minister may have ultimate
responsibility for the decision to go to war. But convention dictates that the
PM have the support of the cabinet and parliament. There would be serious
consequences, potentially the fall of the government for any executive that
unilaterally went to war without due process. Moreover the ruling party would
then have to face the electorate in time and could be dismissed. Dictatorships,
by their very nature, have few checks and balances on the leader who can do as
he pleases. Opponents can be imprisoned or killed if necessary. It’s also
interesting to note that no democracy has ever declare war on another
democracy. Gilbert challenges Goering, whose reply is also misleading.
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy
the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives,
and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. (Goering)
Goering asserts firstly that the public can be manipulated in a
relatively open society with a free press in the same manner as a totalitarian
dictatorship, where all media is controlled by the state and follows the party
line. This is patent nonsense. In the US, it was only Japan’s unprovoked attack
that drew them into the war. Had Germany respected the Munich agreement and
left Poland alone, Britain would not have declared war on Germany.
Secondly, Goering implies that the Nazis needed popular support to wage
war, which is also untrue. Hitler was ready for war in 1938, against the will of his
generals and would have attacked Czechoslovakia had Chamberlain not offered the
Sudetenland. Although the SD and the Gestapo monitored public opinion, with
Goebbels pumping out war-like propaganda, Hitler rarely mentioned the subject of public sentiment and did not consider it when deciding to attack Poland. It was not a factor in the decision making process. Goering was part
of Hitler's inner circle at the time; he knows the facts yet presents an alternative, fabricated scenario. The final part of the quote is the most mendacious of all:
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country." (Goering)
Goering is again trying to insinuate that all governments and countries are the same. It is
consistent with his attempts at the Nuremberg trial to present a moral
equivalence between the Nazis' wars of conquest and genocide with the Allie's struggles of self-defence. In effect, Goering via his confidant is saying: All governments
are just as amoral as one another, you can't sit in judgement. I'm not that bad.
Stalin’s Russia was of course a brutal, murderous state whose key role
in defeating Nazi Germany should not obscure its crimes. However, Britain,
America, France and other Allied nations were not remotely similar to Nazi
Germany. For all their faults, they were states subject to the rule of law,
which protected individuals' rights and limited the power of the executive.
Then there’s the other inference, that you can whip up hatred against
pacifists with imagined enemies. Goering is lying and this is the clearest case
where he knows he was lying. By the end of 1933, all serious opposition to Nazi
rule was broken, leaders interned in camps or exiled. Though Hitler was wary of
offending religious leaders, pacifists directly challenging his rule were sent
to concentration camps. Goering is well aware of this fact, he ran the Prussian
police and helped create the Gestapo.
In a diabolical twist, the Nazis cast the Jews as the originators of the war they themselves had started. They were the scapegoats for the crimes of the regime. Even if you followed Goering's warped logic, it is contradicted by Nazi propaganda which cast the Jews of Europe as warmongers, a fifth column, i.e. the opposite of pacifists. Thus Goering is lying even within the framework of the Nazi world view.
In a diabolical twist, the Nazis cast the Jews as the originators of the war they themselves had started. They were the scapegoats for the crimes of the regime. Even if you followed Goering's warped logic, it is contradicted by Nazi propaganda which cast the Jews of Europe as warmongers, a fifth column, i.e. the opposite of pacifists. Thus Goering is lying even within the framework of the Nazi world view.
The final point to consider about quoting anything by a man such as
Goering is the nature of his psychology. Gilbert, who interviewed him many
times, concluded he was a psychopath. Goering also displayed a high degree
of narcissism throughout his life. Though he could be charming and was clever, the core of his personality was that of an amoral, narcissist, lacking in empathy. Treating anything he says at face value is extremely
dangerous especially in the context of the quotation where he was on trial for
his life and would go down in history as one of the greatest criminals of all
time. He had every incentive to deceive and dissemble to place himself in the
best possible light and he was a man without a conscience. In short, on the
balance of probabilities alone, ignoring the wealth of evidence that
contradicts Goering's claims, it would be bizarre to take anything he said
at face value.
I suppose the question I still haven’t answered is why anyone would
share this quotation, even if their intentions were good. It is Goering,
after all.
Saturday 31 October 2015
Free Speech
If you haven't read Nick Cohen's excellent book on free speech and censorship, you should. And if you think we live in a golden age of free speech, thanks to social media and the internet, you're mistaken.
Most people claim they are in a favour of free speech in the same way they might be in favour of taking regular exercise, without ever going for a run. It's a nice idea, in theory; in practise there are 101 reasons why you never actually go lace up those trainers. The weather is too hot, too cold, too windy, too muggy, your shorts are in the wash, you don't have any shorts, and you don't have to time to buy some new ones.
The truth is most people's definition of free speech comes with caveats and get-out clauses. Of course there is no such thing as absolute free speech, you don't have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre even if the show is a new musical by Ben Elton and in many ways you are performing a public service. You also don't have the right to accuse people of serious crimes without evidence, unless your name is Tom Watson although he was slandering the dead.
There are limits, but if you genuinely believe in free speech you ought to favour setting those limits at as generously as possible. John Stuart Mill's proposed that we should allow free speech unless someone was clearly inciting a crime; otherwise anything goes. The American constitution's First Amendment embodies that principle, where a freedom of speech is defined as fundamental right of citizens.
Unfortunately in Britain, thanks to our absurd libel laws and the rise of the offence culture, we no longer seem to care about freedom of speech. Germaine Greer has recently been prevented from speaking at the Cardiff Student Union, because her views may offend transgender people. She joins a long list of individuals prevented from speaking or expressing themselves in public forums because they may offend a minority group. In this case it was transgender people, but a month ago an art exhibition in Central London was forced to remove an exhibit by the Met Police because it might antagonise Islamist groups. The Met said they would have to provide additional security and would bill the gallery for the cost. Unable to meet the costs, the gallery withdrew the piece- this was from an exhibition celebrating Middle Eastern artists, many women, many from brutally repressive states such as Iran.
Now why does all of this matter? Shouldn't we avoid causing unnecessary offence? When the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for portraying the Prophet Mohammed it was surprising just how many people blamed the victims. As a friend of mine commented, who knew there could be so many points of view about whether someone deserved to be killed for drawing a cartoon. In Paris, the religious bigots used guns to curtail free expression, in British universities student bigots use the concept of 'no platform', the end result is the same.
There is a clear choice to be made, either you want to live in a free society where people can express themselves or you don't. If you think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in some way provoked their deaths, putting to one side that the vast majority of their cartoons depicted Catholics and the National Front, then you don't believe in free speech. If you think that anyone should be prevented from speaking in a debate because their views are deemed by self-appointed moral guardians as 'offensive', then you also don't believe in free speech. Sometimes it really is that simple, pick a side.
I think there's a lot of confusion these days, born of Western liberal guilt, which makes people who do and should know better wary of standing up for a moral principle. The endless diet of Nazi documentaries on television is partially to blame; those who want to take away our freedoms don't always wear a uniform to tell you they are fascist or call themselves such. But anyone who wants to ban someone from speaking, exhibiting a work of art, publishing a book, performing a play, blogging, or writing a newspaper article is an enemy of freedom. Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to agree; it's freedom, no ifs, buts, safe spaces, police-vetted, community leader endorsed, NUS backed, lobby group supported, politician approved, libel lawyer cleared version of freedom. This is censorship.
Every time we give up freedom in favour of censorship, it emboldens the enemies of freedom and there are many enemies of freedom who would rather not be exposed to public scrutiny. The Hacked Off Campaign might have seemed worthy, after all don't celebrities have a right to privacy? But the phone-hacking journalists broke the law and some of the guilty parties faced justice. Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks were as we all know were completely innocent and the mass deletion of millions of News of the World emails during the period phones were hacked was a complete coincidence. Nonetheless, justice however imperfect was done. Hacked Off wasn't satisfied, they wanted state regulation of the press. Take a moment and ask yourself which countries have direct state regulation of the press and which don't. Where would you rather live?
Without free and open debate, how can be sure of anything, how can we improve as a society without the open exchange of ideas? Freedom of an expression may be messy, it may be ugly, it may hurt people's feelings but its benefits vastly outweigh the alternatives. But you should support free speech not just on a calculation of positives and negatives. Even if censorship was conducted by a benign and wise authority who acted only for the public good it would still be wrong. Even if you could prove that national security, social harmony and prosperity were enhanced in such as system it would be wrong because free speech is what elevates us from the role of dumb animals. Freedom is what makes us truly human.
Most people claim they are in a favour of free speech in the same way they might be in favour of taking regular exercise, without ever going for a run. It's a nice idea, in theory; in practise there are 101 reasons why you never actually go lace up those trainers. The weather is too hot, too cold, too windy, too muggy, your shorts are in the wash, you don't have any shorts, and you don't have to time to buy some new ones.
The truth is most people's definition of free speech comes with caveats and get-out clauses. Of course there is no such thing as absolute free speech, you don't have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre even if the show is a new musical by Ben Elton and in many ways you are performing a public service. You also don't have the right to accuse people of serious crimes without evidence, unless your name is Tom Watson although he was slandering the dead.
There are limits, but if you genuinely believe in free speech you ought to favour setting those limits at as generously as possible. John Stuart Mill's proposed that we should allow free speech unless someone was clearly inciting a crime; otherwise anything goes. The American constitution's First Amendment embodies that principle, where a freedom of speech is defined as fundamental right of citizens.
Unfortunately in Britain, thanks to our absurd libel laws and the rise of the offence culture, we no longer seem to care about freedom of speech. Germaine Greer has recently been prevented from speaking at the Cardiff Student Union, because her views may offend transgender people. She joins a long list of individuals prevented from speaking or expressing themselves in public forums because they may offend a minority group. In this case it was transgender people, but a month ago an art exhibition in Central London was forced to remove an exhibit by the Met Police because it might antagonise Islamist groups. The Met said they would have to provide additional security and would bill the gallery for the cost. Unable to meet the costs, the gallery withdrew the piece- this was from an exhibition celebrating Middle Eastern artists, many women, many from brutally repressive states such as Iran.
Now why does all of this matter? Shouldn't we avoid causing unnecessary offence? When the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered for portraying the Prophet Mohammed it was surprising just how many people blamed the victims. As a friend of mine commented, who knew there could be so many points of view about whether someone deserved to be killed for drawing a cartoon. In Paris, the religious bigots used guns to curtail free expression, in British universities student bigots use the concept of 'no platform', the end result is the same.
There is a clear choice to be made, either you want to live in a free society where people can express themselves or you don't. If you think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in some way provoked their deaths, putting to one side that the vast majority of their cartoons depicted Catholics and the National Front, then you don't believe in free speech. If you think that anyone should be prevented from speaking in a debate because their views are deemed by self-appointed moral guardians as 'offensive', then you also don't believe in free speech. Sometimes it really is that simple, pick a side.
I think there's a lot of confusion these days, born of Western liberal guilt, which makes people who do and should know better wary of standing up for a moral principle. The endless diet of Nazi documentaries on television is partially to blame; those who want to take away our freedoms don't always wear a uniform to tell you they are fascist or call themselves such. But anyone who wants to ban someone from speaking, exhibiting a work of art, publishing a book, performing a play, blogging, or writing a newspaper article is an enemy of freedom. Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to agree; it's freedom, no ifs, buts, safe spaces, police-vetted, community leader endorsed, NUS backed, lobby group supported, politician approved, libel lawyer cleared version of freedom. This is censorship.
Every time we give up freedom in favour of censorship, it emboldens the enemies of freedom and there are many enemies of freedom who would rather not be exposed to public scrutiny. The Hacked Off Campaign might have seemed worthy, after all don't celebrities have a right to privacy? But the phone-hacking journalists broke the law and some of the guilty parties faced justice. Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks were as we all know were completely innocent and the mass deletion of millions of News of the World emails during the period phones were hacked was a complete coincidence. Nonetheless, justice however imperfect was done. Hacked Off wasn't satisfied, they wanted state regulation of the press. Take a moment and ask yourself which countries have direct state regulation of the press and which don't. Where would you rather live?
Without free and open debate, how can be sure of anything, how can we improve as a society without the open exchange of ideas? Freedom of an expression may be messy, it may be ugly, it may hurt people's feelings but its benefits vastly outweigh the alternatives. But you should support free speech not just on a calculation of positives and negatives. Even if censorship was conducted by a benign and wise authority who acted only for the public good it would still be wrong. Even if you could prove that national security, social harmony and prosperity were enhanced in such as system it would be wrong because free speech is what elevates us from the role of dumb animals. Freedom is what makes us truly human.
Saturday 26 September 2015
Health Reform
A friend of mine who is a doctor suggested I do a blog about the health service. Apparently 1,600 doctors have applied for the option to work abroad in the last week. Normally 5,000 apply each year. The BMA says this is response to the government's renegotiation of their contracts. I can't pretend to be an expert on health, but as an over-educated know-it-all I have opinions. Like arsheholes, everyone's got one. In the case of health I have more than one opinion, which does not mean I have multiple anuses as that is a serious medical condition requiring corrective surgery; the kind of surgery that might be under threat if doctors' fears about the NHS prove true.
The doctors I know fear that the current government is planning to privatise the NHS by stealth. Jeremy Hunt might have a name lends itself to insults, but I'm willing to bet that an administration with a majority of 12 is not in the business of taking unnecessary risks. Privatising the NHS or even the suspicion that they were seeking to do so would be politically lethal to the Tories. Even if Cameron were caught committing a sex act with a pig live on camera, suggesting that the alleged university indiscretion was the start of a career in porcine-orientated animal interference; the PR consequences would be less severe than the charge he was selling off the NHS. Yes, he could act out Charlie Brooker's famous Black Mirror episode on The News at Ten and it would have minimal impact on the polls, compared to tampering with the Brit's beloved health service.
True, the Labour party is doing everything it possibly can to render itself unelectable, even from an voter base comprised exclusively of Guardian readers. But the changes to the NHS predate Labour's act of political hair-kiri a.k.a electing Corbyn leader. The Tories may be celebrating; it didn't influence health policy. So what is so uniquely sensitive about health care reform and why are doctors so upset? I think it's worth remembering why anyone trains as a doctor; it's definitely not for the money. Top consultants may be well paid, but when you consider the lifetime of training it takes to reach that position and the comparable salaries in private business, money is not the reason you become a doctor, at least not in the UK. Perhaps in the US, where plenty earn millions, the medical professions might attract more self-interested types, the lion-shooting dentist psychopath ones who are in it just for the Benjamins. In my experience the UK is different, everyone I know or have met working in medicine does so for the belief in public service and the desire to treat and heal the sick. And they don't shoot lions. Possibly the odd pheasant, but there's plenty of them.
So I can understand why if you have made your life's vocation to serve the public good, the idea that health care be reduced to a matter of markets, spreadsheets and cost-benefit analyses is anathema. But the fact remains that the NHS model as it currently stands is unsustainable. This is not a party political or ideological point; a rapidly ageing population with a rising dependency ratio cannot support a health system funded out of general taxation indefinitely. The money will run out, doesn't matter whether you are Cameron or Corbyn, the demand for NHS services will outstrip the ability of its funding model to pay for those services. That's where, with all due humility to doctors, I would say they are wrong, the NHS has to be reformed. Now Jeremy Hunt may be about to wreck the system, in which case he'll become a new addition to Cockney Rhyming slang. The contract changes may add to junior doctors' workload; although the government claims it will reward those who complete their training soonest. I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics, other than to note that changing doctors' contracts is not privatisation.
As it stands, health care in the NHS is free at the point of demand. Unfortunately the demand for health care is to all intents and purposes limitless. The NHS deals with the mismatch with a Soviet style queuing system - we have healthcare, but you'll have to wait for it. You might die in the meantime, in which case the next in line takes your place. From what I've seen, Soviet-era lies and distortions are built into the system. My local GP practise claims that it has a rate of only 5% missed appointments, on the occasions I've been waiting for a doctor I've counted several missed ones -crudely the rate was 20%. On the very few times I've needed a hospital appointment there were also so several no shows, friends and family report a similar experience. This doesn't necessarily prove anything. But I also know from producing live events, when you give out tickets for free, you get a lot of people who don't turn up.
So in the area of GP and hospital appointments, it might be worth considering a French-style approach where you are charged for the booking, refunded if you turn up. Of course you'd exempt those on very low incomes etc, yet the idea of making people aware of the cost of health care is not the same as privatising the NHS. We do after all pay for prescriptions; eye tests and dental work are no longer free. Standards of dental hygeine have improved since the introduction of charging.
Likewise increasing the scope of private provides within the NHS model is not the same as switching the US model, where if you get hit by a car and you are uninsured, you are hit with $50,0000 bill. It's not a binary choice. The options are not just Cuba or America; European nations, South Korea, Japan and a host of other countries operate a variety of healthcare models. Hyperbolic scaremongering does no one any good and pretending that any reforms to the NHS mean it has five years left are OTT.
There's no scope in this blog from a rank amateur to engage in detailed discussion of health reforms. But we can talk about a general principle. Health care isn't free. It's very expensive, we should be grateful for its provision. Creating a system when people understood the costs involved and were incentivised to minimise those costs is not privatisation, it's just good house-keeping. Altering contracts and working hours of staff to improve patient access is not the same as flogging the NHS to private equity. Moving to a European style system of social insurance with greater use of private companies is also not a privatised health service. No one apart from a handful of extremist libertarian headbangers is suggesting abandoning the concept of universal healthcare according to need, provided by the state. A & E departments are not about to install chip and pin machines, whatever the BMA says.
Unfortunately, the NHS has acquired a quasi-religious status in Britain, as if no other developed nation in the world had a universal health system funded by the state. It's worth remembering that no one else has copied our funding model, which suggests it may not deserve such unqualified admiration. There are lessons we could learn from other countries, there are better ways of doing things, it's not treason to say so.
None of this has anything to do with doctor's contracts and for all I know junior medics have be asked to assume the position and received a nasty surprise. Nonetheless more of the same is not the answer. The NHS ran out of money this year, has used its contingency and has an insatiable appetite for funds. With a stubborn deficit and health accounting for a rising share of spending, any government would have to explore other ways of financing healthcare and rationing resources. But that is not a message anyone wants to hear.
The doctors I know fear that the current government is planning to privatise the NHS by stealth. Jeremy Hunt might have a name lends itself to insults, but I'm willing to bet that an administration with a majority of 12 is not in the business of taking unnecessary risks. Privatising the NHS or even the suspicion that they were seeking to do so would be politically lethal to the Tories. Even if Cameron were caught committing a sex act with a pig live on camera, suggesting that the alleged university indiscretion was the start of a career in porcine-orientated animal interference; the PR consequences would be less severe than the charge he was selling off the NHS. Yes, he could act out Charlie Brooker's famous Black Mirror episode on The News at Ten and it would have minimal impact on the polls, compared to tampering with the Brit's beloved health service.
True, the Labour party is doing everything it possibly can to render itself unelectable, even from an voter base comprised exclusively of Guardian readers. But the changes to the NHS predate Labour's act of political hair-kiri a.k.a electing Corbyn leader. The Tories may be celebrating; it didn't influence health policy. So what is so uniquely sensitive about health care reform and why are doctors so upset? I think it's worth remembering why anyone trains as a doctor; it's definitely not for the money. Top consultants may be well paid, but when you consider the lifetime of training it takes to reach that position and the comparable salaries in private business, money is not the reason you become a doctor, at least not in the UK. Perhaps in the US, where plenty earn millions, the medical professions might attract more self-interested types, the lion-shooting dentist psychopath ones who are in it just for the Benjamins. In my experience the UK is different, everyone I know or have met working in medicine does so for the belief in public service and the desire to treat and heal the sick. And they don't shoot lions. Possibly the odd pheasant, but there's plenty of them.
So I can understand why if you have made your life's vocation to serve the public good, the idea that health care be reduced to a matter of markets, spreadsheets and cost-benefit analyses is anathema. But the fact remains that the NHS model as it currently stands is unsustainable. This is not a party political or ideological point; a rapidly ageing population with a rising dependency ratio cannot support a health system funded out of general taxation indefinitely. The money will run out, doesn't matter whether you are Cameron or Corbyn, the demand for NHS services will outstrip the ability of its funding model to pay for those services. That's where, with all due humility to doctors, I would say they are wrong, the NHS has to be reformed. Now Jeremy Hunt may be about to wreck the system, in which case he'll become a new addition to Cockney Rhyming slang. The contract changes may add to junior doctors' workload; although the government claims it will reward those who complete their training soonest. I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics, other than to note that changing doctors' contracts is not privatisation.
As it stands, health care in the NHS is free at the point of demand. Unfortunately the demand for health care is to all intents and purposes limitless. The NHS deals with the mismatch with a Soviet style queuing system - we have healthcare, but you'll have to wait for it. You might die in the meantime, in which case the next in line takes your place. From what I've seen, Soviet-era lies and distortions are built into the system. My local GP practise claims that it has a rate of only 5% missed appointments, on the occasions I've been waiting for a doctor I've counted several missed ones -crudely the rate was 20%. On the very few times I've needed a hospital appointment there were also so several no shows, friends and family report a similar experience. This doesn't necessarily prove anything. But I also know from producing live events, when you give out tickets for free, you get a lot of people who don't turn up.
So in the area of GP and hospital appointments, it might be worth considering a French-style approach where you are charged for the booking, refunded if you turn up. Of course you'd exempt those on very low incomes etc, yet the idea of making people aware of the cost of health care is not the same as privatising the NHS. We do after all pay for prescriptions; eye tests and dental work are no longer free. Standards of dental hygeine have improved since the introduction of charging.
Likewise increasing the scope of private provides within the NHS model is not the same as switching the US model, where if you get hit by a car and you are uninsured, you are hit with $50,0000 bill. It's not a binary choice. The options are not just Cuba or America; European nations, South Korea, Japan and a host of other countries operate a variety of healthcare models. Hyperbolic scaremongering does no one any good and pretending that any reforms to the NHS mean it has five years left are OTT.
There's no scope in this blog from a rank amateur to engage in detailed discussion of health reforms. But we can talk about a general principle. Health care isn't free. It's very expensive, we should be grateful for its provision. Creating a system when people understood the costs involved and were incentivised to minimise those costs is not privatisation, it's just good house-keeping. Altering contracts and working hours of staff to improve patient access is not the same as flogging the NHS to private equity. Moving to a European style system of social insurance with greater use of private companies is also not a privatised health service. No one apart from a handful of extremist libertarian headbangers is suggesting abandoning the concept of universal healthcare according to need, provided by the state. A & E departments are not about to install chip and pin machines, whatever the BMA says.
Unfortunately, the NHS has acquired a quasi-religious status in Britain, as if no other developed nation in the world had a universal health system funded by the state. It's worth remembering that no one else has copied our funding model, which suggests it may not deserve such unqualified admiration. There are lessons we could learn from other countries, there are better ways of doing things, it's not treason to say so.
None of this has anything to do with doctor's contracts and for all I know junior medics have be asked to assume the position and received a nasty surprise. Nonetheless more of the same is not the answer. The NHS ran out of money this year, has used its contingency and has an insatiable appetite for funds. With a stubborn deficit and health accounting for a rising share of spending, any government would have to explore other ways of financing healthcare and rationing resources. But that is not a message anyone wants to hear.
Monday 3 August 2015
Cecil
Last week a rich white male dentist called Walter Palmer killed a much loved lion, called Cecil. The incident touched a nerve worldwide, with Jimmy Kimmel almost crying on live television and a host of celebrities tweeting their outrage. The local guides were arrested, Palmer is in hiding and his dental practise closed, with protestors outside. On social media, he became a focus of a sustained campaign and has still yet to break cover, apart from a statement saying he didn't know it was a protected animal and apologising to his patients for the the disruption to their appointments.
Many articles have pointed out how irrational this public response is and ask why should one dumb animal attract more sympathy than the migrant crisis in Calais. There have also been a number of pieces claiming that big game hunting provides much needed hard currency income for African nations. Others have called the media storm about Palmer extreme, a witch-hunt, where the rage is out of proportion to the offence.
I think much of the commentary misses the point as it so often does with this type of event.
Let's start with the idea that the killing of one lion, who despite his majestic and fearsome appearance, was named Cecil, a moniker more suited to a retired, camp cruise ship entertainer who lives in a village somewhere in the Home Counties and organises amateur dramatics. Odd names aside, why should one lion's killing make headlines, when the bloodshed continues in Syria?
If humans were entirely rational creatures, like Dr Spock from the Planet Vulcan, then our response to events would be a matter of calculation - like a robot processing data. But we are not entirely rational, we are rational enough to go about our daily lives not murdering people who annoy us but not rational enough to know that the point when you order a sambucca at a bar is half an hour after you should have stopped drinking and gone home.
There are times when we should embrace the irrational or emotional side of our natures, this is one of those occasions. It may be just a lion, but it's death is also a symbol. You can't think about lions, or wildlife in genera,l in terms of numbers or abstract concepts such as conservation. Our minds don't work that way and when a wealthy, most likely sociopathic Westerner kills a beautiful animal that was a favourite with park visitors, for no other reason than to feed his dysfunctional ego, then we should feel a sense of grief and anger. Perhaps it's displaced guilt, as we all know that humans have been poor custodians of the planet in the industrial age.
Or is it the simple fact that a creature of beauty that stirred a deep, primal reaction in all those who saw him is now gone - killed in a cowardly and protracted manner by someone who must have known on one level what he was doing was wrong. Killing a male lion, without knowing its role in the pride risks the death of his cubs, if the male was dominant. His successor takes charge and culls the cubs that aren't his bloodline. The guides with Palmer would know this, so must Palmer if he has even the most basic knowledge of lion behaviour. Even in the dark, Cecil's size and age would be apparent. At the moment he fired, Palmer knew he was doing wrong and didn't care.
Palmer apparently did not discuss his hobby with his patients; he was aware most people view the hunting of big game with disgust. He also uses a bow and arrow, which maybe in his own mind makes him seem heroic. If he'd had the balls to kill Cecil with a spear, close up and personal, then at least you could say the man was brave. But he was firing in the dark, from a concealed position, at an animal that was lured out by bait. Despite his professed bow-skills, he couldn't even manage a clean kill. And let's not forget that arrows make little sound. So here's someone who claims he has a legal hunting permit, yet chooses to make the kill on a private farm at night, with a weapon that is far less lethal than a gun, but has the one virtue of silence. What's that I can smell? Oh yes, that's right, bullshit.
Speaking of bullshit, then there is no better example than the alleged link between conservation and big game hunting. There is an industry where animals are bred for the big game hunters, 'canned' game as it were. But that's got nothing to with conservation, neither have grouse moors. The animals are bred to be killed, you are not conserving endangered wild species. You could argue that it provides incomes for locals, though the link is doubtful.
The case made for hunting in the wild, i.e not canned, is that it generates income for locals and makes them value game animals. Except this is Africa we're talking about, so when a big game hunter hands over a large amount of hard currency to a government official, a park owner or a guide, how much of that money actually goes to locals or towards any kind of conservation activity? The government of Tanzania says that big game hunting brings in £71 million. I can believe the money is received by the officials working in the government of Tanzania, that's all I can believe. It's hard to think of an activity more open to bribery, corruption and outright theft than the selling of these permits; one less likely to produce a trickle down effect. Safari parks encourage preservation of big game, provide far more job opportunities and are less prone to abuses. There is no paradox about big game hunting being a part of conservation, because it's bullshit or rather bull rhino shit.
Then there's the social media witch-hunt. Now I used to think witch-hunts were always wrong, it's mob justice and should have no place in civilised society. In the case of Palmer, I've changed my mind. Here's a case where an evil-doer would most likely escape any negative consequences for his action, were it not for the power of social media. He won't go to prison, he won't be harmed but his reputation is ruined and his business will suffer severe losses. It's safe to assume that the kind of man who posts pictures online of himself, bare-chested with a dead leopard in his arms, is an advocate of personal freedom and individual choice. Palmer made his choices; he can live with the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If this witch-hunt serves as a deterrent to other big game hunters, then at least some good will come of it.
One final thought. A few commentators noted how much social attitudes have changed to big game hunting in the last 80 years, as if this were somehow evidence of hypocrisy or mitigation for Palmer's actions. Unless Palmer had time-travelled from 1935, it's a facile observation. We're not judging a 1935 hunter, we're judging a 2015 hunter. Lots of other attitudes have changed in the last 70 years, it's no longer acceptable to use racially abuse people, to hit your spouse, to colonise other countries, to sterilise social undesirables, to beat otters to death for fun, to attempt to cure gay people or to sexually assault women in the workplace to name but a few of the changes to cultural norms. Apart from extremists and sociopaths, we all understand the new moral code and why those changes occurred. In due course, it's likely that factory farming of animals will be banned. Views and attitudes change, very often for the better. And there should be no place in the modern world for the trophy hunting of big game, it debases and degrades all of us by association.
Many articles have pointed out how irrational this public response is and ask why should one dumb animal attract more sympathy than the migrant crisis in Calais. There have also been a number of pieces claiming that big game hunting provides much needed hard currency income for African nations. Others have called the media storm about Palmer extreme, a witch-hunt, where the rage is out of proportion to the offence.
I think much of the commentary misses the point as it so often does with this type of event.
Let's start with the idea that the killing of one lion, who despite his majestic and fearsome appearance, was named Cecil, a moniker more suited to a retired, camp cruise ship entertainer who lives in a village somewhere in the Home Counties and organises amateur dramatics. Odd names aside, why should one lion's killing make headlines, when the bloodshed continues in Syria?
If humans were entirely rational creatures, like Dr Spock from the Planet Vulcan, then our response to events would be a matter of calculation - like a robot processing data. But we are not entirely rational, we are rational enough to go about our daily lives not murdering people who annoy us but not rational enough to know that the point when you order a sambucca at a bar is half an hour after you should have stopped drinking and gone home.
There are times when we should embrace the irrational or emotional side of our natures, this is one of those occasions. It may be just a lion, but it's death is also a symbol. You can't think about lions, or wildlife in genera,l in terms of numbers or abstract concepts such as conservation. Our minds don't work that way and when a wealthy, most likely sociopathic Westerner kills a beautiful animal that was a favourite with park visitors, for no other reason than to feed his dysfunctional ego, then we should feel a sense of grief and anger. Perhaps it's displaced guilt, as we all know that humans have been poor custodians of the planet in the industrial age.
Or is it the simple fact that a creature of beauty that stirred a deep, primal reaction in all those who saw him is now gone - killed in a cowardly and protracted manner by someone who must have known on one level what he was doing was wrong. Killing a male lion, without knowing its role in the pride risks the death of his cubs, if the male was dominant. His successor takes charge and culls the cubs that aren't his bloodline. The guides with Palmer would know this, so must Palmer if he has even the most basic knowledge of lion behaviour. Even in the dark, Cecil's size and age would be apparent. At the moment he fired, Palmer knew he was doing wrong and didn't care.
Palmer apparently did not discuss his hobby with his patients; he was aware most people view the hunting of big game with disgust. He also uses a bow and arrow, which maybe in his own mind makes him seem heroic. If he'd had the balls to kill Cecil with a spear, close up and personal, then at least you could say the man was brave. But he was firing in the dark, from a concealed position, at an animal that was lured out by bait. Despite his professed bow-skills, he couldn't even manage a clean kill. And let's not forget that arrows make little sound. So here's someone who claims he has a legal hunting permit, yet chooses to make the kill on a private farm at night, with a weapon that is far less lethal than a gun, but has the one virtue of silence. What's that I can smell? Oh yes, that's right, bullshit.
Speaking of bullshit, then there is no better example than the alleged link between conservation and big game hunting. There is an industry where animals are bred for the big game hunters, 'canned' game as it were. But that's got nothing to with conservation, neither have grouse moors. The animals are bred to be killed, you are not conserving endangered wild species. You could argue that it provides incomes for locals, though the link is doubtful.
The case made for hunting in the wild, i.e not canned, is that it generates income for locals and makes them value game animals. Except this is Africa we're talking about, so when a big game hunter hands over a large amount of hard currency to a government official, a park owner or a guide, how much of that money actually goes to locals or towards any kind of conservation activity? The government of Tanzania says that big game hunting brings in £71 million. I can believe the money is received by the officials working in the government of Tanzania, that's all I can believe. It's hard to think of an activity more open to bribery, corruption and outright theft than the selling of these permits; one less likely to produce a trickle down effect. Safari parks encourage preservation of big game, provide far more job opportunities and are less prone to abuses. There is no paradox about big game hunting being a part of conservation, because it's bullshit or rather bull rhino shit.
Then there's the social media witch-hunt. Now I used to think witch-hunts were always wrong, it's mob justice and should have no place in civilised society. In the case of Palmer, I've changed my mind. Here's a case where an evil-doer would most likely escape any negative consequences for his action, were it not for the power of social media. He won't go to prison, he won't be harmed but his reputation is ruined and his business will suffer severe losses. It's safe to assume that the kind of man who posts pictures online of himself, bare-chested with a dead leopard in his arms, is an advocate of personal freedom and individual choice. Palmer made his choices; he can live with the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If this witch-hunt serves as a deterrent to other big game hunters, then at least some good will come of it.
One final thought. A few commentators noted how much social attitudes have changed to big game hunting in the last 80 years, as if this were somehow evidence of hypocrisy or mitigation for Palmer's actions. Unless Palmer had time-travelled from 1935, it's a facile observation. We're not judging a 1935 hunter, we're judging a 2015 hunter. Lots of other attitudes have changed in the last 70 years, it's no longer acceptable to use racially abuse people, to hit your spouse, to colonise other countries, to sterilise social undesirables, to beat otters to death for fun, to attempt to cure gay people or to sexually assault women in the workplace to name but a few of the changes to cultural norms. Apart from extremists and sociopaths, we all understand the new moral code and why those changes occurred. In due course, it's likely that factory farming of animals will be banned. Views and attitudes change, very often for the better. And there should be no place in the modern world for the trophy hunting of big game, it debases and degrades all of us by association.
Sunday 5 July 2015
Leaving Things Alone
Looking at the headlines in the last month from the mayhem in the Middle East to the never-ending Greek tragi-comedy, it's interesting that the proposed solution to every problem is government activism. Without the exception of the Conservatives' bill banning every psychoactive substance apart from alcohol and tobacco, the reaction from left and right is to ask for someone in authority to do more. Yet even lovers of the hyperactive state can see that banning everything that might conceivably give you a buzz is very unlikely to do any good. Judging by the comments section in the Mail Online, the majority suggested it might be a better idea to consider de-criminalising softer drugs like cannabis. It's a strange world where the Mail readers think a Tory government is overdoing it on law and order.
You might think that the miserable experience of drug prohibition with 100,000s of murders in South America, trillions wasted in law enforcement throughout the West, the preventable overdoses and lives blighted by a criminalised addiction, would make a Conservative administration think twice before passing such a law. But no they did it anyway. One definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, apart from drug policy it seems. The law-makers have passed a law, motivated largely by concerns that narcotics make people behave in irrational and self-destructive ways. I would use the metaphor of pot and kettle, but everyone has chrome these days and no one uses the singular of pot. So the updated saying should be, the Dualit toaster calling the Dualit kettle shiny.
Hyperactivity or the appearance of 'doing something' is the order of the day, despite overwhelming evidence banning narcotics does not work and alternative, less interventionist approaches like Portugal's work better. And if you're wondering what do I mean by 'better: lower rates of drug use, theft, violence, overdose and associated disease. Unless you are Peter Hitchens, who wants to lock up the ten percent of the UK population that use controlled substances, this by any reasonable definition is an improvement.
Why then if most of us are sceptical of this kind of government activism on account of its total failure to produce positive results, do we think that pushing for more government intervention elsewhere is a good idea? Governments have pretty full in-trays as it is and have a lousy track record when it comes to delivering results. Nonetheless, whatever the problem, whether it's the Greek debt crisis, healthcare, schools or immigration, everyone pushes for more laws, more regulation, more action! No matter how many billions spent by the state, how many laws passed, initiatives launched, wars either real or metaphorical, the outcomes tend to disappoint. Like Oliver Twist or the binge eater opening the fridge at midnight, we always want more.
Foreign policy is the best or rather worst example of government hyperactivity. If the West had just minded its own business in the Middle East, you could argue this benighted region would be better off. It could hardly be doing worse. Again, there are few voices suggesting caution or humility. In Syria and Iraq more bombing with smarter bombs might work when a full scale invasion failed, apparently. There was a particularly stupid article in the Spectator that suggested ISIL could be defeated by hiring mercenaries, citing the experience in West Africa when a handful of hoodlums were put to flight by paid soldiers. How exactly you would persuade any hired gun to go into combat against a ruthless, disciplined force with an estimated 30,000 troops, heavy weapons, suicide bombers and a reputation for brutality that makes Genghis Khan seem like a lentil-eating Green is not explained. I imagine mercenaries, like the rest of us, plan to make it retirement and don't have a death-wish, which is a problem when your opponents do.
Lacking from the debates about these crises is an alternative view, which used to have many more supporters in the West: classical liberalism. As philosophies go, it is a rather shy and retiring one, which was easily crowded out by those who saw the state as the answer to every problem. You see those kind of liberals, which confusingly have little to do with those who call themselves liberals today, thought of the state as a necessary evil or a more voluntary contract between individuals. They were wary of state power, believing that government had a greater propensity to screw things up than to get it right. Foreign interventions of any kind should be conducted with caution; wars fought only in self defence. Big government and over-active politicians, they believed were dangerous to individual freedoms and long-term prosperity. This didn't mean that classical liberals thought you government should do nothing, they just were wary and cautious; mindful of our capacity to make situations worse, no matter how well-intentioned a policy might be. It was a mindset that counselled leaving things alone, unless you were sure you could improve the situation.
As you might expect, this sort of ideology doesn't see people waving placards in the street or getting emotional. No one marches on Whitehall with a banner saying 'Let sleeping dogs lie', 'It's probably not worth it' and 'If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it'. U2 won't organise a charity concert in support of the cause, although that's probably a good thing. It's not sexy and in the battle of minds, politicians like to feel important and must be seen to be 'doing something'.
Sadly there are few supporters of leaving things alone as the wisest course of action. I am reminded of my experience with a head of comedy at the BBC, who practised an enlightened form of benign neglect, a rarity in Auntie's realm of busy bureaucrats. He let producers do their job, he avoided pointless meetings and preferred not to interfere unless something went wrong or you needed his help. During his tenure, the department produced a string of hit shows that not been equalled before or since. Maybe doing nothing isn't laziness, maybe it's wisdom.
Take the example of Greece. Before it joined the Euro, it was doing fine. True, Greeks didn't pay much tax, there was widespread corruption and it was a lot less efficient place than Germany. But it sort of worked. Prior to locking their currency into the EMU, the precursor to the Euro, the Greek government like the Italians and the Spanish, would let the drachma devalue to restore competitiveness. They could have tried awarding government contracts on merit, rather than the size of the bribe or whether it was your uncle making the bid and saved some money. They could have paid more tax. By world standards Greece was not powerhouse, it wasn't a basket case either. It muddled along and it had lovely scenery. Classical liberalism would say Greece is not that broken, no compelling need to fix it (sort of the general motto in most people's approaches to DIY.)
Unfortunately for the Greek people, their politicians and the Eurocrats could not leave well alone. They wanted their name in history books and on memorials. In one sense they have got their wish. Future historians of the period will most likely describe the creation of the Euro as a catastrophe, on a par with a major war for the destruction of wealth especially for nations such as Greece. These do-gooders will be immortalised, just not in the way they hoped. If all you care about is being famous or rather infamous, then their wish was granted. But I doubt they will want their names reviled in the coming decades as arrogant, foolish meddlers. The drachma worked well enough for Greece; the grand scheme to replace it with the Euro has wrecked their economy, blighted a generation of youth to unemployment and saddled the country with hideous levels of debt.
So perhaps there is a general lesson to be learned, a form of small 'c' conservatism which has little do with Cameron's party. The Conservative party ought to be the party of smaller government and less activism, unless of course it involves pensioners. If you are a UK pensioner, David Cameron practises socialism that would make Ed Miliband happy - subsidies for buy to let, benefits that outrun inflation and a host of freebies. You don't need to worry about your children's inheritance, should you go into care. The state will pick nearly all the tab irrespective of your wealth. And what is the outcome of this hyperactivity - chronic deficits, a savage housing crisis and zero earnings growth for those under twenty-five.
The lesson that politicians refused to learn is that the small 'c' conservative or classical liberal concept of doing less, is not doing nothing. In fact by reducing its to do list to essentials, government stands a better chance of actually succeeding in its core aims, which is helping people get on with their lives. You can't help wondering with the state of Europe and the Middle East today, it's a shame more politicians didn't take longer holidays to work on their golf swings or just lounge on the beach. If they won't embrace the philosophy of classical liberalism, then what about distracting them with the modern obsession for self-expression. In the 19th century, Disraeli when serving as PM, had time to write novels. We should encourage our political classes to skip official meetings and try creative writing classes, pottery workshops or learning how to make their own furniture and be fulsome in our praise. The more vampire novels, salt cellars and occasional tables they produce, the less harm they can do in the real world.
You might think that the miserable experience of drug prohibition with 100,000s of murders in South America, trillions wasted in law enforcement throughout the West, the preventable overdoses and lives blighted by a criminalised addiction, would make a Conservative administration think twice before passing such a law. But no they did it anyway. One definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, apart from drug policy it seems. The law-makers have passed a law, motivated largely by concerns that narcotics make people behave in irrational and self-destructive ways. I would use the metaphor of pot and kettle, but everyone has chrome these days and no one uses the singular of pot. So the updated saying should be, the Dualit toaster calling the Dualit kettle shiny.
Hyperactivity or the appearance of 'doing something' is the order of the day, despite overwhelming evidence banning narcotics does not work and alternative, less interventionist approaches like Portugal's work better. And if you're wondering what do I mean by 'better: lower rates of drug use, theft, violence, overdose and associated disease. Unless you are Peter Hitchens, who wants to lock up the ten percent of the UK population that use controlled substances, this by any reasonable definition is an improvement.
Why then if most of us are sceptical of this kind of government activism on account of its total failure to produce positive results, do we think that pushing for more government intervention elsewhere is a good idea? Governments have pretty full in-trays as it is and have a lousy track record when it comes to delivering results. Nonetheless, whatever the problem, whether it's the Greek debt crisis, healthcare, schools or immigration, everyone pushes for more laws, more regulation, more action! No matter how many billions spent by the state, how many laws passed, initiatives launched, wars either real or metaphorical, the outcomes tend to disappoint. Like Oliver Twist or the binge eater opening the fridge at midnight, we always want more.
Foreign policy is the best or rather worst example of government hyperactivity. If the West had just minded its own business in the Middle East, you could argue this benighted region would be better off. It could hardly be doing worse. Again, there are few voices suggesting caution or humility. In Syria and Iraq more bombing with smarter bombs might work when a full scale invasion failed, apparently. There was a particularly stupid article in the Spectator that suggested ISIL could be defeated by hiring mercenaries, citing the experience in West Africa when a handful of hoodlums were put to flight by paid soldiers. How exactly you would persuade any hired gun to go into combat against a ruthless, disciplined force with an estimated 30,000 troops, heavy weapons, suicide bombers and a reputation for brutality that makes Genghis Khan seem like a lentil-eating Green is not explained. I imagine mercenaries, like the rest of us, plan to make it retirement and don't have a death-wish, which is a problem when your opponents do.
Lacking from the debates about these crises is an alternative view, which used to have many more supporters in the West: classical liberalism. As philosophies go, it is a rather shy and retiring one, which was easily crowded out by those who saw the state as the answer to every problem. You see those kind of liberals, which confusingly have little to do with those who call themselves liberals today, thought of the state as a necessary evil or a more voluntary contract between individuals. They were wary of state power, believing that government had a greater propensity to screw things up than to get it right. Foreign interventions of any kind should be conducted with caution; wars fought only in self defence. Big government and over-active politicians, they believed were dangerous to individual freedoms and long-term prosperity. This didn't mean that classical liberals thought you government should do nothing, they just were wary and cautious; mindful of our capacity to make situations worse, no matter how well-intentioned a policy might be. It was a mindset that counselled leaving things alone, unless you were sure you could improve the situation.
As you might expect, this sort of ideology doesn't see people waving placards in the street or getting emotional. No one marches on Whitehall with a banner saying 'Let sleeping dogs lie', 'It's probably not worth it' and 'If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it'. U2 won't organise a charity concert in support of the cause, although that's probably a good thing. It's not sexy and in the battle of minds, politicians like to feel important and must be seen to be 'doing something'.
Sadly there are few supporters of leaving things alone as the wisest course of action. I am reminded of my experience with a head of comedy at the BBC, who practised an enlightened form of benign neglect, a rarity in Auntie's realm of busy bureaucrats. He let producers do their job, he avoided pointless meetings and preferred not to interfere unless something went wrong or you needed his help. During his tenure, the department produced a string of hit shows that not been equalled before or since. Maybe doing nothing isn't laziness, maybe it's wisdom.
Take the example of Greece. Before it joined the Euro, it was doing fine. True, Greeks didn't pay much tax, there was widespread corruption and it was a lot less efficient place than Germany. But it sort of worked. Prior to locking their currency into the EMU, the precursor to the Euro, the Greek government like the Italians and the Spanish, would let the drachma devalue to restore competitiveness. They could have tried awarding government contracts on merit, rather than the size of the bribe or whether it was your uncle making the bid and saved some money. They could have paid more tax. By world standards Greece was not powerhouse, it wasn't a basket case either. It muddled along and it had lovely scenery. Classical liberalism would say Greece is not that broken, no compelling need to fix it (sort of the general motto in most people's approaches to DIY.)
Unfortunately for the Greek people, their politicians and the Eurocrats could not leave well alone. They wanted their name in history books and on memorials. In one sense they have got their wish. Future historians of the period will most likely describe the creation of the Euro as a catastrophe, on a par with a major war for the destruction of wealth especially for nations such as Greece. These do-gooders will be immortalised, just not in the way they hoped. If all you care about is being famous or rather infamous, then their wish was granted. But I doubt they will want their names reviled in the coming decades as arrogant, foolish meddlers. The drachma worked well enough for Greece; the grand scheme to replace it with the Euro has wrecked their economy, blighted a generation of youth to unemployment and saddled the country with hideous levels of debt.
So perhaps there is a general lesson to be learned, a form of small 'c' conservatism which has little do with Cameron's party. The Conservative party ought to be the party of smaller government and less activism, unless of course it involves pensioners. If you are a UK pensioner, David Cameron practises socialism that would make Ed Miliband happy - subsidies for buy to let, benefits that outrun inflation and a host of freebies. You don't need to worry about your children's inheritance, should you go into care. The state will pick nearly all the tab irrespective of your wealth. And what is the outcome of this hyperactivity - chronic deficits, a savage housing crisis and zero earnings growth for those under twenty-five.
The lesson that politicians refused to learn is that the small 'c' conservative or classical liberal concept of doing less, is not doing nothing. In fact by reducing its to do list to essentials, government stands a better chance of actually succeeding in its core aims, which is helping people get on with their lives. You can't help wondering with the state of Europe and the Middle East today, it's a shame more politicians didn't take longer holidays to work on their golf swings or just lounge on the beach. If they won't embrace the philosophy of classical liberalism, then what about distracting them with the modern obsession for self-expression. In the 19th century, Disraeli when serving as PM, had time to write novels. We should encourage our political classes to skip official meetings and try creative writing classes, pottery workshops or learning how to make their own furniture and be fulsome in our praise. The more vampire novels, salt cellars and occasional tables they produce, the less harm they can do in the real world.
Friday 8 May 2015
Left Stranded
The election results surprised everyone it seems from pollsters, politicians and pundits. Apart from the SNP's clean sweep in Scotland it was night of confounded predictions. No one, including David Cameron, expected an outright Conservative majority. It turns out the only poll that could be trusted was the exit poll, which means a fair percentage of the English electorate either lied or changed their minds at the last minute. There must be secret Tory voters, who are ashamed to tell people they vote Conservative, is already the refrain from the Labour camp. Voting Conservative is something embarrassing, the left-leaning commentariat claim so it proves we have the moral authority. Murdoch and the Tory press frightened voters at the last minute, they didn't really know what they were doing. The electorate let us down complain Labour's many celebrity friends, the electorate must be selfish and confused.
As someone who grew up in a Left wing activist household in the 1980s this all feels very familiar. My father stood as a Labour candidate in Faversham in 1983, a Tory safe seat, trying to win votes on the Tony Benn inspired manifesto, which Healey dubbed 'the longest suicide note in history.' I remember being out on the campaign trail and aged eight, I could see that Labour's platform was hopeless. I didn't understand the details at the time, but I do remember doors being slammed and general hostility - that's a pretty clear hint. My brother and I were probably there to moderate the voters' reaction. Respect to my dad, it was ballsy to knock on doors with Union Jack flags flying and propose nationalising the FTSE 100 companies to self-employed tradesmen and their wives. I don't think the proposal to set up socialist puppy farms, which was also in the manifesto, ever came up on the canvassing trail, but that idea might have stood a better chance than suggesting we scrap our nuclear deterrent at the height of the Cold War and the wake of the Falklands.
The 1983 was a catastrophe for Labour, 2015 is not quite as bad but the omens are not good for Labour's future. As someone who believes that we all benefit from a vibrant democracy where the governing party faces proper opposition it seems as if Labour is repeating the mistakes of the eighties, with a 21st century spin. The parallels are striking, so I'll take trip down memory lane:
The blame game
Instead of asking tough questions about why more people didn't vote for Labour, blame the electorate for being selfish, stupid, scared or just plain lazy. They should know better and they let us down. This never plays well with the general public. A restauranteur that insults his potential customers finds himself with rows of empty tables; don't expect anyone to vote for you if you call them names. If you want a voter to change allegiance, then calling them an ignorant fascist might make you feel better, it won't put that crucial tick next to the red rose.
Blame the media. In the eighties, there was perhaps more truth to this assertion where the press was more influential and skewed to the right. But even then, it's odd to claim that print journalism makes people vote Conservative yet the BBC, who have strong left wing biase and dominate broadcasting would have no power. Why should an editorial in The Sun have some special pull and documentaries and drama produced by the BBC about the impact of Thatcher's policies make no difference? It's really another way of blaming the electorate, by saying they are so weak and easily led that policies don't matter, it's pun-based headlines in the red tops that carry the day.
Blame events. In 1983, the Falklands War won Thatcher the election, apparently. Though you could ask the question why a left-wing party was opposed to military action against a murderous right-wing junta who launched an unprovoked attack on British sovereign territory. The Argentinian army liked to torture trade unionists and liberal journalists, then dumped their mangled and mutilated corpses at sea. They were the bad guys in that scenario. Without the invasion, no sinking of the Belgrano, so returning over and over, as many on the Left did to that supposed crime made them seem disconnected from the real world.
In 2015, there's no direct equivalent, though the continued stagnation in Europe has some parallels. Much of Southern Europe is mired in a deflationary rut, with shocking levels of unemployment caused by a faulty currency union imposed by a political elite with the support of big business. You'd think that might be fertile ground for a progressive opposition, who would stand up for the young who can't get jobs and have no prospects. Except Labour is committed to an unreformed EU and opposed to a democratic referendum. It's those pesky voters; they just can't be trusted. They might be racists or Little Englanders.
Famous Friends
In the eighties, Labour had the backing of the overwhelming majority of famous actors, musicians, and comedians who all hated Maggie, because that's what you did. The Conservatives could manage Kenny Everett and I think Ken Dodd. These days, Russell Brand, Stephen Fry, Steve Coogan, Eddie Izzard to name but a few have all come out in support of Labour. It's an impressive roster and would make one hell of a benefit gig. The danger is confusing celebrities with the electorate. Just because all the famous people Ed Milliband knew in the Islington set were on his side, tells you nothing about your average Joe or Jane. Moreover, there is something very patronising about people who are very successful at acting or live comedy, believing that gives them a mandate to talk with authority about politics. The general public will go to their gigs, even laugh at a stream of anti-Tory jokes, it doesn't mean they are Labour supporters. Jokes are just jokes and generally the Tories are better source material.
Think of it another way, you'll take advice from a plumber on central heating boilers, less likely to follow his guidance on pension plans. Celebrities like Brand with their 10 million Twitter followers are so used to adulation and agreement from those around them, whether its agents, fans, producers and assorted minions, they forget that it's all contextual to their role as entertainer. Lots of people may find Stephen Fry's Twitter feed interesting and enjoy watching him host QI, it's not the same as trusting him when it comes to marco-economics and public policy. Why should you, it's not his area of expertise? Witty observations and clever innuendo do not help you meet the funding challenges of an ageing population and a structural deficit. Comedians should stick to comedy, politicians should stick to politics.
In 2015, this syndrome is more acute, as Labour's leadership and celebrity followers are focused almost exclusively in central London. Inner London may be a dynamic, vibrant, multi-cultural hub, it's nothing like the rest of Britain and you can't take offence when the rest of Britain thinks and acts differently to the clientele of Shoreditch House.
The Wrong Leader
Michael Foot was the wrong man to lead the Labour party in 1983; Ed Miliband was the wrong choice in 2015. Listing the reasons why misses the point. Even die-hard supporters must have known in their heart of hearts that Michael Foot stood no chance against Margaret Thatcher, yet he was nominated all the same.
David Cameron is far less impressive opponent that the Iron Lady. An Old Etonian whose Bullingdon Club picture still haunts him is a poor poster boy for a party preaching the gospel of free enterprise and meritocracy. Yeah right, thought many voters, enough still voted for him, perhaps with regret.
Faced by David Milliband, for example, the campaign might have gone differently. But no amount of debate coaching, focus groups and media training changes the fact that Ed Miliband was not a born leader. You know it when you see it, he wasn't it. If you elect an unpopular candidate with little charisma or charm, the voters will reject him. And they did.
Dead Left
The biggest mistake that Labour made and it probably cost them the election was to turn into the dead end of hard left policies. Miliband's talk of rent controls, fixing energy prices and punitive taxation was not as extreme as the Bennite lunacies of the eighties, but it was enough to spook the swing vote. Combine that with the prospect of SNP, extracting £140 billion of spending pledges as a price of coalition, then the English electorate looked at the options and chose the Conservatives.
You cannot win elections in the UK when you move from away from moderate or centre left policies, when you consider the electoral maths which hasn't changed in decades. Scotland is a special case, it doesn't carry enough seats to win, so though the SNP surge harmed Labour, it wasn't the sole reason for their failure.
A majority of the English electorate are naturally conservative; when you combine the UKIP and Conservative vote it's well over 50%. To win, Labour has to take seats outside of the Northern heartlands and the London bubble. When you step outside the echo chamber of the Guardian website, there is minimal support for hard left policies and no amount of wishful thinking, marches, petitions, ranting and emotional tirades will alter that political calculation.
The genius of Blair and the New Labour project was to gain a mandate for increased public spending from a naturally conservative electorate. He did so by appealing to people's aspirations and concerns rather than firing up the base. There's any number of policies Labour could have proposed that would have resonated well with middle England and presented a serious threat to the Tories. Here's just a few that spring to mind:
- a major house building programme from both private and public developers.
- splitting too-big-to-fail banks into retail, utility units and investment operations.
- promotion of technical training and apprenticeships.
- reversing the cuts in frontline troops and whilst making big cuts to MoD bureaucrats.
- a referendum on EU membership.
- replacement of pensions and NI with a compulsory saving scheme with individual state-backed pension accounts.
- putting doctors in charge of the NHS
Labour did none of these and instead too refuge in token hard left policies like the mansion tax and raising the top rate of tax that generate no revenue and gained little traction. They paid the price on election night and if they retreat into the fantasy world of Poly Toynbee and Owen Jones, blaming the establishment and a right-wing conspiracy for their defeat, Labour may be out of power for good.
To win elections, you must win over voters. They forgot this most basic rule of politics and seem reluctant to accept reality. That's shame, even for me, who believes in a smaller state and lower taxation. The country needs a dynamic, credible opposition to call those wielding power to account. Hanging out with lightweights like Russell Brand may be great for selfies, it doesn't win you votes.
As someone who grew up in a Left wing activist household in the 1980s this all feels very familiar. My father stood as a Labour candidate in Faversham in 1983, a Tory safe seat, trying to win votes on the Tony Benn inspired manifesto, which Healey dubbed 'the longest suicide note in history.' I remember being out on the campaign trail and aged eight, I could see that Labour's platform was hopeless. I didn't understand the details at the time, but I do remember doors being slammed and general hostility - that's a pretty clear hint. My brother and I were probably there to moderate the voters' reaction. Respect to my dad, it was ballsy to knock on doors with Union Jack flags flying and propose nationalising the FTSE 100 companies to self-employed tradesmen and their wives. I don't think the proposal to set up socialist puppy farms, which was also in the manifesto, ever came up on the canvassing trail, but that idea might have stood a better chance than suggesting we scrap our nuclear deterrent at the height of the Cold War and the wake of the Falklands.
The 1983 was a catastrophe for Labour, 2015 is not quite as bad but the omens are not good for Labour's future. As someone who believes that we all benefit from a vibrant democracy where the governing party faces proper opposition it seems as if Labour is repeating the mistakes of the eighties, with a 21st century spin. The parallels are striking, so I'll take trip down memory lane:
The blame game
Instead of asking tough questions about why more people didn't vote for Labour, blame the electorate for being selfish, stupid, scared or just plain lazy. They should know better and they let us down. This never plays well with the general public. A restauranteur that insults his potential customers finds himself with rows of empty tables; don't expect anyone to vote for you if you call them names. If you want a voter to change allegiance, then calling them an ignorant fascist might make you feel better, it won't put that crucial tick next to the red rose.
Blame the media. In the eighties, there was perhaps more truth to this assertion where the press was more influential and skewed to the right. But even then, it's odd to claim that print journalism makes people vote Conservative yet the BBC, who have strong left wing biase and dominate broadcasting would have no power. Why should an editorial in The Sun have some special pull and documentaries and drama produced by the BBC about the impact of Thatcher's policies make no difference? It's really another way of blaming the electorate, by saying they are so weak and easily led that policies don't matter, it's pun-based headlines in the red tops that carry the day.
Blame events. In 1983, the Falklands War won Thatcher the election, apparently. Though you could ask the question why a left-wing party was opposed to military action against a murderous right-wing junta who launched an unprovoked attack on British sovereign territory. The Argentinian army liked to torture trade unionists and liberal journalists, then dumped their mangled and mutilated corpses at sea. They were the bad guys in that scenario. Without the invasion, no sinking of the Belgrano, so returning over and over, as many on the Left did to that supposed crime made them seem disconnected from the real world.
In 2015, there's no direct equivalent, though the continued stagnation in Europe has some parallels. Much of Southern Europe is mired in a deflationary rut, with shocking levels of unemployment caused by a faulty currency union imposed by a political elite with the support of big business. You'd think that might be fertile ground for a progressive opposition, who would stand up for the young who can't get jobs and have no prospects. Except Labour is committed to an unreformed EU and opposed to a democratic referendum. It's those pesky voters; they just can't be trusted. They might be racists or Little Englanders.
Famous Friends
In the eighties, Labour had the backing of the overwhelming majority of famous actors, musicians, and comedians who all hated Maggie, because that's what you did. The Conservatives could manage Kenny Everett and I think Ken Dodd. These days, Russell Brand, Stephen Fry, Steve Coogan, Eddie Izzard to name but a few have all come out in support of Labour. It's an impressive roster and would make one hell of a benefit gig. The danger is confusing celebrities with the electorate. Just because all the famous people Ed Milliband knew in the Islington set were on his side, tells you nothing about your average Joe or Jane. Moreover, there is something very patronising about people who are very successful at acting or live comedy, believing that gives them a mandate to talk with authority about politics. The general public will go to their gigs, even laugh at a stream of anti-Tory jokes, it doesn't mean they are Labour supporters. Jokes are just jokes and generally the Tories are better source material.
Think of it another way, you'll take advice from a plumber on central heating boilers, less likely to follow his guidance on pension plans. Celebrities like Brand with their 10 million Twitter followers are so used to adulation and agreement from those around them, whether its agents, fans, producers and assorted minions, they forget that it's all contextual to their role as entertainer. Lots of people may find Stephen Fry's Twitter feed interesting and enjoy watching him host QI, it's not the same as trusting him when it comes to marco-economics and public policy. Why should you, it's not his area of expertise? Witty observations and clever innuendo do not help you meet the funding challenges of an ageing population and a structural deficit. Comedians should stick to comedy, politicians should stick to politics.
In 2015, this syndrome is more acute, as Labour's leadership and celebrity followers are focused almost exclusively in central London. Inner London may be a dynamic, vibrant, multi-cultural hub, it's nothing like the rest of Britain and you can't take offence when the rest of Britain thinks and acts differently to the clientele of Shoreditch House.
The Wrong Leader
Michael Foot was the wrong man to lead the Labour party in 1983; Ed Miliband was the wrong choice in 2015. Listing the reasons why misses the point. Even die-hard supporters must have known in their heart of hearts that Michael Foot stood no chance against Margaret Thatcher, yet he was nominated all the same.
David Cameron is far less impressive opponent that the Iron Lady. An Old Etonian whose Bullingdon Club picture still haunts him is a poor poster boy for a party preaching the gospel of free enterprise and meritocracy. Yeah right, thought many voters, enough still voted for him, perhaps with regret.
Faced by David Milliband, for example, the campaign might have gone differently. But no amount of debate coaching, focus groups and media training changes the fact that Ed Miliband was not a born leader. You know it when you see it, he wasn't it. If you elect an unpopular candidate with little charisma or charm, the voters will reject him. And they did.
Dead Left
The biggest mistake that Labour made and it probably cost them the election was to turn into the dead end of hard left policies. Miliband's talk of rent controls, fixing energy prices and punitive taxation was not as extreme as the Bennite lunacies of the eighties, but it was enough to spook the swing vote. Combine that with the prospect of SNP, extracting £140 billion of spending pledges as a price of coalition, then the English electorate looked at the options and chose the Conservatives.
You cannot win elections in the UK when you move from away from moderate or centre left policies, when you consider the electoral maths which hasn't changed in decades. Scotland is a special case, it doesn't carry enough seats to win, so though the SNP surge harmed Labour, it wasn't the sole reason for their failure.
A majority of the English electorate are naturally conservative; when you combine the UKIP and Conservative vote it's well over 50%. To win, Labour has to take seats outside of the Northern heartlands and the London bubble. When you step outside the echo chamber of the Guardian website, there is minimal support for hard left policies and no amount of wishful thinking, marches, petitions, ranting and emotional tirades will alter that political calculation.
The genius of Blair and the New Labour project was to gain a mandate for increased public spending from a naturally conservative electorate. He did so by appealing to people's aspirations and concerns rather than firing up the base. There's any number of policies Labour could have proposed that would have resonated well with middle England and presented a serious threat to the Tories. Here's just a few that spring to mind:
- a major house building programme from both private and public developers.
- splitting too-big-to-fail banks into retail, utility units and investment operations.
- promotion of technical training and apprenticeships.
- reversing the cuts in frontline troops and whilst making big cuts to MoD bureaucrats.
- a referendum on EU membership.
- replacement of pensions and NI with a compulsory saving scheme with individual state-backed pension accounts.
- putting doctors in charge of the NHS
Labour did none of these and instead too refuge in token hard left policies like the mansion tax and raising the top rate of tax that generate no revenue and gained little traction. They paid the price on election night and if they retreat into the fantasy world of Poly Toynbee and Owen Jones, blaming the establishment and a right-wing conspiracy for their defeat, Labour may be out of power for good.
To win elections, you must win over voters. They forgot this most basic rule of politics and seem reluctant to accept reality. That's shame, even for me, who believes in a smaller state and lower taxation. The country needs a dynamic, credible opposition to call those wielding power to account. Hanging out with lightweights like Russell Brand may be great for selfies, it doesn't win you votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)