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.
Saturday, 26 September 2015
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.
Saturday, 25 April 2015
National Delusions
Every society and cultural no matter how sophisticated or advanced seems to engage in magical hinking about certain issues. Evidence and reason will not shake that particular belief, which is woven into the body politic as defining myth. Take America, for example, where a majority of its citizens believe that owning guns is somehow part of citizenship. The fact that these guns result in high rates of homicide, suicide and accidental death, whilst preventing no crime at all will make no difference to a believer.
Citing the Second Amendment is a strange defence, because the American Constitution its is original form sanctioned slavery. It was then changed in the 15th Amendment, so there's no reason why a clause from the 18th century that related to breech loading muskets couldn't be altered in a world of semi-automatics with hollow point rounds, that can fire 17 shots in 2.5 seconds.
Australia used to have very liberal gun laws, but following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, it changed the regime making it much harder to own a gun. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. But the American belief in the virtue in gun ownership, which seems so strange to the rest of the world, is not a rational idea that can be defeated by logic or evidence - it's a form of collective delusion.
In Britain, we can mock those crazy gun-toting Yanks, yet we too are in the grip of our own collective delusion which is just as powerful and viewed objectively may be more harmful and destructive to our lives and well-being. When it comes to housing, we Brits dearly cling to certain ideas that are simply mad. I'm not suggesting that we think houses should be built out of soluble aspirin or without doors; but the assumptions bear no relation to the real world - which is the definition of a mental illness.
Judging by the campaign manifestos of all the parties, it seems to be a collective madness which is unlikely to change whoever gets elected. Let's start with the first and most powerful housing myth:
1. High and rising property prices are a net positive
In any other area of life, paying more for the same product is usually seen as a negative. When you go to the pub and the price of beer doubles, you'd be annoyed. Unless you hold shares in a brewery or a beer company, there's nothing good about a £10 pint, when it cost £4.20 three years ago. If petrol surges in price, nobody thinks that transferring more of our income to petrol-chemical companies and oil producing states is cause for celebration.
Yet when the cost of housing has quadrupled in real terms in the South East in the past decades, weirdly many of us think that makes us richer. In this instance, some of us do in a sense own shares in the brewery, continuing the pub analogy, if we owned property at the beginning of the process. So on paper, the net wealth of a certain percentage of the population goes up and via equity release, those lucky individuals can enjoy a better lifestyle than they otherwise would have donee. Taken overall, however, it should be blindingly obvious that society as as whole is no better off.
There's windfall gains for those who bought property in hot spots 20 or 30 years ago, true. Even if you are one of the lucky ones, the rise in the value of your assets is difficult to realise, unless you have high incomes. Sure you can sell your £1 million London house and buy a street in Wales, but then how do you get to work and how do your children, if they live in the capital, afford the rents which are averaging 40 to 50% of their net income or stand any chance of saving the deposit?
Windfalls are also not normally seen a positive and often attract special taxes. The clue is the name, money in effect falling from the sky into your hands, when you have run little or no risk and done nothing special to earn it. Plenty of people buy property in the UK, many have paid into mortgages for 25 years; you only the jackpot if you happen to live in areas of acute housing shortage.
Think of the alternative scenario, where property prices and rents were much lower. In this world, 20s somethings' disposable income would double, businesses would see in surge in demand and be able to expand more cheaply and the economy would grow much faster. Most people, unless they had borrowed against the inflated value of property would be delighted, so why do we persist in this delusion that high prices are positive?
2. The housing market is a working market
The housing market does look like a functioning market: properties are bought and sold. But that's about as far it goes. When you look closer, it is a deeply dysfunctional and any other area of economic activity would be considered broken beyond repair. Normally when there is a shortage of supply, prices rise which encourages more production to meet that supply and then prices either stabilise or fall. If Sainsbury's kept running out of Dairylea Dunkers, it might raise the prices and then Dairylea would build a huge Dunker factory to meet the surge in processed cheese addicts. Other supermarkets and food producers could bring out clone products, Cheesey Dippers, at lower prices to attract those Dairylea consumers. Tesco might try to outbid Sainsburys for an exclusive Dunker license and so on.
In short term, prices rise, long term, supply increases to meet demand and prices should level off. Of course there might be a chronic shortage of cheese, so prices could stay high for a while and some consumers could switch to other snacks, like olives or those Nutella things with breadsticks. Overall, the market via the price mechanism would match supply and demand.
Not so housing. In the ten years before the 2008 crash, when prices in many areas trebled, the total number of housing completion peaked at 220,00, still well below the numbers required. Currently, estimates are that the UK needs at least 300,000 new homes just to keep pace with demand, instead we are building 142,000. There's something very wrong here, yet we still describe this situation as a market.
In reality, housing is a highly regulated, quasi-state monopoly, because the two raw ingredients for homes are tightly rationed: land and planning permission. Thanks to Green Belt legislation and other regulations, there is a very little land available to build. There's plenty of land, it's just reserved for agricultural use, in some cases left fallow to benefit from EU subsidies. Land prices can often account for up to 60% of the cost of a new build, which is odd when you think about it, because a field is ...just a field. Go and stand in one, there's nothing there, maybe some grass, cows, wheat and various insects. There's no way it's worth £500,000. But as soon as you grant planning permission, the value surges by up to 1000%.
Another peculiar feature of the UK housing market is that despite paying enormous sums of money for our flats and houses, when it comes to the new build, the quality is often poor. The average size of the UK home is the smallest in Europe and it's getting smaller, which wouldn't matter as much if your shoebox was built properly in the first place. But with demand so far outstripping supply, developers can sell any old crap, so why incur unnecessary expense. Near where I work in Archway, they have converted an decrepit sixties office block into flats, the whole process took less than 18 months. As far I can tell, they put some plasterboard walls in an open plan office and installed kitchens - starting prices for these gems: £350,000.
All the evidence points to a market that is unable to meet demand and what supply is created is done on the cheap, with little thought to design or long term value. If you went to buy a new car and it was smaller, less reliable, uglier and at the same time, was twice as expensive than before you'd think you were being ripped off and you'd be right. But the TV schedules are still filled with shows celebrating UK housing.
This brings me to the third and most pernicious delusion.
3. Development is pain-free
Britain went through the industrial revolution first and has collective amnesia about what the process involved. These days Victorian factories are listed buildings, tin mines are tourist attractions and the massive social upheaval is largely forgotten. Although we do still engage in major construction projects, such as Crossrail, it triggers a wave of public enquiries and local opposition, where the necessary clearance of certain buildings is equated to cultural vandalism on a par with ISIS in Mosul. To build Crossrail, some places had to, including the Astoria at Tottenham Court Road. Now I remember going there as a teenager and there's a twinge of nostalgia when I cycle past the site and realise that it's gone. Yet there will always be a trade-offs in development and it's unrealistic to suggest otherwise. In this case, the national interest of building Crossrail took precedence over a music venue that had seen better days.
Likewise, when talking about housing and current crisis, there's a collective blindness about what the trade-offs involve. Brownfield sites in London are not sufficient to meet demand, which means the only long term answer to expand housing into the Green Belt. Some people will not be happy about such changes, especially if you liked the view of fields from your back window, which is now earmarked for a major development. There is significant body of opinion, usually those over 50 who already own their own homes, who would rather Britain be kept in a state of permanent stasis, as if the whole country were run by the National Trust. You can see why they prefer it that way, they already have a house, in pleasant surroundings. They are the NIBMYS and they tend to shout loudest.
Politicians feed this myth, that there is a pain-free route to development, as if somehow the railways, roads, offices, power stations and houses that are the fabric of modern society built appeared overnight, without annoying any locals. The current situation favours those on higher incomes, with significant net assets at the expense of the younger generation who cannot afford decent accommodation. Something has to give and if we are all into together, the NIMBYS will have to feel the pain, along with the rest of the community.
Sadly though, these delusions are so strong and so widely held, the chances are Britain will continue to build too few homes, too slowly to make any difference. The price for society as a whole is immense: lower growth, lower job mobility and lower income for those under 30. It is a self-inflicted wound that costs us £10s of billions a year, the final tally may even be in the £100s of billions.
Despite the acute housing crisis in the South East, there have been only two major announcements about housing in the countdown to election night. Labour's proposal for a mansion tax will raise minimal revenue and will not cause a single new house to be built. The Tories want to extend right to buy, which is likely to reduce the availability of low-cost housing and again no new homes will be built as a result. Neither makes the slightest bit of sense, unless you consider the three housing myths which dominate public debate.
And we Brits think the Americans are odd for their views on gun control?
Citing the Second Amendment is a strange defence, because the American Constitution its is original form sanctioned slavery. It was then changed in the 15th Amendment, so there's no reason why a clause from the 18th century that related to breech loading muskets couldn't be altered in a world of semi-automatics with hollow point rounds, that can fire 17 shots in 2.5 seconds.
Australia used to have very liberal gun laws, but following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, it changed the regime making it much harder to own a gun. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. But the American belief in the virtue in gun ownership, which seems so strange to the rest of the world, is not a rational idea that can be defeated by logic or evidence - it's a form of collective delusion.
In Britain, we can mock those crazy gun-toting Yanks, yet we too are in the grip of our own collective delusion which is just as powerful and viewed objectively may be more harmful and destructive to our lives and well-being. When it comes to housing, we Brits dearly cling to certain ideas that are simply mad. I'm not suggesting that we think houses should be built out of soluble aspirin or without doors; but the assumptions bear no relation to the real world - which is the definition of a mental illness.
Judging by the campaign manifestos of all the parties, it seems to be a collective madness which is unlikely to change whoever gets elected. Let's start with the first and most powerful housing myth:
1. High and rising property prices are a net positive
In any other area of life, paying more for the same product is usually seen as a negative. When you go to the pub and the price of beer doubles, you'd be annoyed. Unless you hold shares in a brewery or a beer company, there's nothing good about a £10 pint, when it cost £4.20 three years ago. If petrol surges in price, nobody thinks that transferring more of our income to petrol-chemical companies and oil producing states is cause for celebration.
Yet when the cost of housing has quadrupled in real terms in the South East in the past decades, weirdly many of us think that makes us richer. In this instance, some of us do in a sense own shares in the brewery, continuing the pub analogy, if we owned property at the beginning of the process. So on paper, the net wealth of a certain percentage of the population goes up and via equity release, those lucky individuals can enjoy a better lifestyle than they otherwise would have donee. Taken overall, however, it should be blindingly obvious that society as as whole is no better off.
There's windfall gains for those who bought property in hot spots 20 or 30 years ago, true. Even if you are one of the lucky ones, the rise in the value of your assets is difficult to realise, unless you have high incomes. Sure you can sell your £1 million London house and buy a street in Wales, but then how do you get to work and how do your children, if they live in the capital, afford the rents which are averaging 40 to 50% of their net income or stand any chance of saving the deposit?
Windfalls are also not normally seen a positive and often attract special taxes. The clue is the name, money in effect falling from the sky into your hands, when you have run little or no risk and done nothing special to earn it. Plenty of people buy property in the UK, many have paid into mortgages for 25 years; you only the jackpot if you happen to live in areas of acute housing shortage.
Think of the alternative scenario, where property prices and rents were much lower. In this world, 20s somethings' disposable income would double, businesses would see in surge in demand and be able to expand more cheaply and the economy would grow much faster. Most people, unless they had borrowed against the inflated value of property would be delighted, so why do we persist in this delusion that high prices are positive?
2. The housing market is a working market
The housing market does look like a functioning market: properties are bought and sold. But that's about as far it goes. When you look closer, it is a deeply dysfunctional and any other area of economic activity would be considered broken beyond repair. Normally when there is a shortage of supply, prices rise which encourages more production to meet that supply and then prices either stabilise or fall. If Sainsbury's kept running out of Dairylea Dunkers, it might raise the prices and then Dairylea would build a huge Dunker factory to meet the surge in processed cheese addicts. Other supermarkets and food producers could bring out clone products, Cheesey Dippers, at lower prices to attract those Dairylea consumers. Tesco might try to outbid Sainsburys for an exclusive Dunker license and so on.
In short term, prices rise, long term, supply increases to meet demand and prices should level off. Of course there might be a chronic shortage of cheese, so prices could stay high for a while and some consumers could switch to other snacks, like olives or those Nutella things with breadsticks. Overall, the market via the price mechanism would match supply and demand.
Not so housing. In the ten years before the 2008 crash, when prices in many areas trebled, the total number of housing completion peaked at 220,00, still well below the numbers required. Currently, estimates are that the UK needs at least 300,000 new homes just to keep pace with demand, instead we are building 142,000. There's something very wrong here, yet we still describe this situation as a market.
In reality, housing is a highly regulated, quasi-state monopoly, because the two raw ingredients for homes are tightly rationed: land and planning permission. Thanks to Green Belt legislation and other regulations, there is a very little land available to build. There's plenty of land, it's just reserved for agricultural use, in some cases left fallow to benefit from EU subsidies. Land prices can often account for up to 60% of the cost of a new build, which is odd when you think about it, because a field is ...just a field. Go and stand in one, there's nothing there, maybe some grass, cows, wheat and various insects. There's no way it's worth £500,000. But as soon as you grant planning permission, the value surges by up to 1000%.
Another peculiar feature of the UK housing market is that despite paying enormous sums of money for our flats and houses, when it comes to the new build, the quality is often poor. The average size of the UK home is the smallest in Europe and it's getting smaller, which wouldn't matter as much if your shoebox was built properly in the first place. But with demand so far outstripping supply, developers can sell any old crap, so why incur unnecessary expense. Near where I work in Archway, they have converted an decrepit sixties office block into flats, the whole process took less than 18 months. As far I can tell, they put some plasterboard walls in an open plan office and installed kitchens - starting prices for these gems: £350,000.
All the evidence points to a market that is unable to meet demand and what supply is created is done on the cheap, with little thought to design or long term value. If you went to buy a new car and it was smaller, less reliable, uglier and at the same time, was twice as expensive than before you'd think you were being ripped off and you'd be right. But the TV schedules are still filled with shows celebrating UK housing.
This brings me to the third and most pernicious delusion.
3. Development is pain-free
Britain went through the industrial revolution first and has collective amnesia about what the process involved. These days Victorian factories are listed buildings, tin mines are tourist attractions and the massive social upheaval is largely forgotten. Although we do still engage in major construction projects, such as Crossrail, it triggers a wave of public enquiries and local opposition, where the necessary clearance of certain buildings is equated to cultural vandalism on a par with ISIS in Mosul. To build Crossrail, some places had to, including the Astoria at Tottenham Court Road. Now I remember going there as a teenager and there's a twinge of nostalgia when I cycle past the site and realise that it's gone. Yet there will always be a trade-offs in development and it's unrealistic to suggest otherwise. In this case, the national interest of building Crossrail took precedence over a music venue that had seen better days.
Likewise, when talking about housing and current crisis, there's a collective blindness about what the trade-offs involve. Brownfield sites in London are not sufficient to meet demand, which means the only long term answer to expand housing into the Green Belt. Some people will not be happy about such changes, especially if you liked the view of fields from your back window, which is now earmarked for a major development. There is significant body of opinion, usually those over 50 who already own their own homes, who would rather Britain be kept in a state of permanent stasis, as if the whole country were run by the National Trust. You can see why they prefer it that way, they already have a house, in pleasant surroundings. They are the NIBMYS and they tend to shout loudest.
Politicians feed this myth, that there is a pain-free route to development, as if somehow the railways, roads, offices, power stations and houses that are the fabric of modern society built appeared overnight, without annoying any locals. The current situation favours those on higher incomes, with significant net assets at the expense of the younger generation who cannot afford decent accommodation. Something has to give and if we are all into together, the NIMBYS will have to feel the pain, along with the rest of the community.
Sadly though, these delusions are so strong and so widely held, the chances are Britain will continue to build too few homes, too slowly to make any difference. The price for society as a whole is immense: lower growth, lower job mobility and lower income for those under 30. It is a self-inflicted wound that costs us £10s of billions a year, the final tally may even be in the £100s of billions.
Despite the acute housing crisis in the South East, there have been only two major announcements about housing in the countdown to election night. Labour's proposal for a mansion tax will raise minimal revenue and will not cause a single new house to be built. The Tories want to extend right to buy, which is likely to reduce the availability of low-cost housing and again no new homes will be built as a result. Neither makes the slightest bit of sense, unless you consider the three housing myths which dominate public debate.
And we Brits think the Americans are odd for their views on gun control?
Saturday, 28 March 2015
Big Sticks
In the afterglow of Osborne’s
budget we all behaved like beggars at a medieval banquet, bowing and scraping
our gratitude for scraps thrown our way by the benevolent government. Look a
tiny little tax break, I'm £100 richer this year: break out the champagne, wait
let's not go crazy make it cava. Thank you Lord Osborne for your wonderful
gifts, we aren't worthy. And if anyone's voting decision was swayed by the
budget one way or the other, then I think it's safe to say they should not be
allowed to vote. Hey that's democratic politics for you, the least worst system
of government; when the current alternatives are fundamentalist theocracy or
kleptocratic dictatorship it's hardly much of contest.
What's more worrying is
that as election approaches there is little or no debate about the planned cuts
to the British Armed Forces or their current condition. In 2015,
military spending is seen by many as anachronistic. Why spend money on Trident
submarines instead of hospitals is the standard sort of critique. The problem, as many have already noticed, is that hospitals, although very nice things, are
not very good at dealing with foreign policy crises. They are fixed to the
ground, can't sail round the world and no matter how riddled with MRSA don't inspire fear.
That's the peculiar thing
about military spending, buying two aircraft carries and equipping them with
enough planes seems very expensive when the world is a safe place. Much better to
spend that money on pensioners who vote ; better still decommission your old
aircraft carriers and sell the Harriers to the Marine Corps. Even though the
government is still running a 5% deficit, why not commit to spending 0.7% of
GDP on foreign aid; everyone likes foreign aid. What could possibly go wrong?
Unfortunately successive
British politicians decided that Britain, the sixth largest economy in the
world, with a history of naval power stretching back to the 16th century,
didn't really need those expensive ships, soldiers or planes. Like all short
term decisions, it's backfired. Those pensioners who government throws money at
like past its sell-by date, are grumbling anyway, surprise. And you can't send OAPs to
deal with ISIS. Well maybe you try, perhaps they could bore them to death with
stories about how much better everything was when they were young. For the
record, one of the reasons people didn't use to lock their front doors in the
sixties is that was very little worth stealing. iPads and laptops hadn't been
invented and you needed a four-man team and a flatbed truck to make off with a TV.
So the UK finds itself with
just one aircraft carrier, compared to America's twenty and no planes for the
carrier. It will be 2020 until the next ones come into service. You'd think
that just maybe we might have kept the old ones. In the normal world, outside
of politics, the general rule of thumb is that you keep your old car until the
new one arrives, unless you really like walking and carrying heavy bags ten
miles home from the supermarket. We no longer have a big stick, as the US
refers to its Nimitz class carriers, a vessel so vast it won't even fit in
Portsmouth harbour. We have a toothpick.
On the plus side, the one
thing the British Armed Forces do have is plenty of generals, brigadiers,
captains and admirals. The much quoted figure is the Navy now has more Admirals
than ships, the Army has six times more officers than the US Marine Corps,
which is of comparable size. Incredibly, the Ministry of Defence has 60,000
civilian personnel against the 87,000 of the British Army. Even if you add in
the Navy and the Air Force, that's still a surprising ratio. Put it crudely WTF
are all those people in the MoD doing? I suppose being British, we should laugh
at the absurdity of it all and make a sitcom how hopelessly ill-prepared we are
for war and how much we squander in pointless pen-pushers. Dad's Army was produced decades after WW2, I doubt anyone would have
found it entertaining in 1940.
There are many people in
Britain who may be pleased at reduced capability. War is bad isn't it, killing
is wrong. We should have e-petitions and benefit concerts instead, where the
only danger is listening to Bono, the tax avoider, lecture the rest of us about
our responsibilities. Perhaps the combination of failure in Iraq and
Afghanistan, combined with the 100th anniversary of WW1, has cemented this
anti-military feeling. We learned the lesson of history, war is a senseless
waste. Give peace a chance.
It's a lovely idea, but the
likes of ISIS and Putin's Russia don't agree. They are very much pro-war.
Besides the critique of WW1 is deeply flawed. Britain guaranteed the
sovereignty of Belgium, Germany planned to invade. If as Niall Fergusson
suggests, we should have simply stood by whilst Germany overran both Belgium
and France, then the outcome would have been German domination of Europe by
force. The idea that British politicians were warmongers or had any other
option than to intervene is false. Sometimes in foreign affairs there are no
good choices, only less bad ones.
When it comes to the
military, it seems like the British government has continued a long tradition
of opting for the worst possible choices. Impose cuts on the frontline troops,
leave the top brass and bureaucrats in post. Make short term cuts, ignoring
long term strategic needs. Now we face a situation with Russian planes
regularly buzzing British airspace, a low level war in the Ukraine, Libya's
collapse into anarchy, ISIS marching Iraq back to the 7th century, the Yemen's
descent into civil war and to cap in all now there's rumours that the
Argentinians might acquire long range bombers from Russia.
That's the fallacy of the
pacifist position, it depends on everyone else playing by the same rules. Gandhi
is usually cited as an example of peaceful means overcoming military force,
which is sort of true. Except that pretty much any other colonial power in the
1930s would have summarily executed him and Hitler certainly would have done
given the chance. That is not to downplay the moral authority and effectiveness
of non-violent protest, but it can only operate in narrow parameters.
The military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan should teach us lessons. Sure. It’s much easier to invade
a country that it is to run one, especially if we’ve been there before, the
locals have very long memories and didn't like us the first time round. For those who cite these cases as the reason to
avoid military action at all, there are counter examples. When the Americans
bombed the Serbs in Bosnia, it turned out that those fearless Serbian warriors
were less keen on fighting actual troops than murdering helpless civilians. Likewise
a handful of troops helped protect Sierra Leone's capital from drug-crazed maniacs.
Think of an situation closer
to home. In Britain, we like the fact that our regular police don’t carry guns.
I for one feel a lot safer than I do in Italy, where even the traffic police
carry submachine guns. Although when you consider Italian driving practices,
maybe it’s wise. But if there is a
terrorist on the run or a lone gunman, it’s comforting to know that they are
armed police to deal with the situation. There is a big stick, just in case.
Like all democracies, we
should count ourselves lucky that even though our feckless political class has
crippled our military, one nation hasn’t. America, the arsenal of
democracy, accounts for 39% of world
defense spending. When the other big spenders include the Chinese and the
Russians, that’s a bonus. America has many faults, it is at least a democracy under
the rule of law. The rest of Europe likes to protest about American foreign
policy, safe under the wing of their military. It’s hardly a noble position.
We can resign ourselves to
obscurity and irrelevance, at the mercy of events and hold rallies against US foreign policy to make ourselves feel important. Or we could get a big stick,
just for emergencies. That’s the handy thing about big sticks, just having can be deterrent enough. I think most of the British public, regardless of their political persuasion, would rather the UK had the means to protect its national interest. We need a big stick.
Sunday, 11 January 2015
Respect
2015 has not started the way many of us would have hoped and I'm not talking about resolutions to lay off booze that lasted three days into the working week until it was a colleague's leaving do and it would rude not to have had at least one drink or four and a round of shots. The terrible murders in France have shocked us all, but one word being banded around is perhaps something we could do without in 2015: respect. We should respect Muslim beliefs; we should respect freedom of speech. I'd suggest that a collective resolution for the new year should be to lay off the concept of respect altogether.
Think about when you use the word respect. When you say "with all due respect", what you really mean is you think the other person's opinions are ridiculous. "With respect" is another way of saying stop talking crap. Even the polite phrase "I respect your beliefs" really means I think you are mental but it would be socially unacceptable to tell you so to your face.
George Galloway's party is called Respect. This is man who took money from Saddam Hussein, allegedly for a charity foundation, which has never published accounts. When describing the sociopath who killed 100,00s of Kurds with poison gas, Galloway said he admired the dictator's courage.
Street gangs will assault or stab people over the failure to provide enough respect. Organised crime groups such as the Mafia have a habit of shooting one another for violating their peculiar code of respect. The IRA still doles out punishment beatings or knee-cappings if they feel they have been disrespected. These outfits are great source material for TV dramas and feature films, true. I'm re-watching the Sopranos which expertly plays with the viewer's emotions, making you sympathise with mob boss Tony at times. It's a tough job dealing with teenage children, an ageing mother and murdering informers. I feel his pain; I just don't respect him.
Fundamentalist Muslim groups and indeed more mainstream ones are ready to allege that their faith has been disrespected and demand that the rest of us show the proper "respect" for their beliefs. Why? Nobody has any inherent right to respect, nor does any group. Respect is something individuals earn through over their lifetime through their actions. You don't get an automatic right to respect because you believe something very strongly.
9/11 Truthers are adamant that the US government orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers. As long as no one ever puts one of them in a position of responsibility, that's fine. But those beliefs do not merit respect. Some of the truthers really do wear tin foil hats and live inside Faraday cages. They are to use the technical term batshit crazy.
You could argue I'm being very disrespectful comparing the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Muslims to those of conspiracy theorists. Except you cannot grant everyone or every idea respect, if they are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot both be right, especially as the new Archbishop actually believes in God. If you respect Dawkins's beliefs, you can't respect the Archbishop's and vice versa. The same holds true for any belief system, whether it's atheism or scientology unless you don't believe in anything at all, which is cheating.
When groups or individuals clamour for respect, it's not the same as tolerance or freedom. Doing the right thing in terms of people's beliefs in covered by the ancient philosophy expressed by Socrates, Buddha and Jesus, namely don't be a dick. Or as your grandmother might call it, good manners. Actually my grandmother is a bad example, as she was a borderline Nazi. For everyone else, with normal grandmothers who didn't think Norman Tebbit was dangerous liberal and hadn't visited Hitler's Germany in the 1930s, you get the idea. Be nice to people, don't be a dick (your own grandmother may have used a slightly different phrasing).
Anyone agitating for respect is really demanding that society change to accommodate their beliefs or behaviour. To which the correct response is, with respect, get lost. Equality legislation and laws on racial and religious discrimination have the situation pretty much covered ( though there's plenty of material for another blog). The interesting thing is that the individuals who most deserve respect in our society, those who devote their lives to the service of others are also the least likely to shout about needing respect. Odd that isn't it?
Now the observant of you may have noticed that in the opening paragraph, I used the phrase freedom of speech and implied that even that doesn't deserve respect. I was exaggerating for effect. Although someone excising their right to free speech is not entitled to respect by default. Lars von Trier can make a film where the characters remove their own genitals, I don't have to watch it and as it turns out, I haven't. You can if you want, that's the beauty of the free society.
Freedom of speech requires robust defence, not respect as if it were a local bye-law relating to parking zones or littering. Freedom should be championed, cherished and celebrated. The concept of respect is the refuge of bigots, bullies and bullshitters who want to extract concessions from the rest of us.
But what if you offend people or hurt their feelings by penning satirical cartoons, like Charlie Hebdo's team? Sadly in recent days, too many have rushed to blame the victims, as if freedom speech is a conditional principle, dependent on good behaviour. If a person believes in an Almighty deity with supreme power, then I'd argue that that deity can look after himself (or herself). Those who kill to right an alleged wrong against their faith cannot be appeased nor should they and don't above all deserve respect.
Think about when you use the word respect. When you say "with all due respect", what you really mean is you think the other person's opinions are ridiculous. "With respect" is another way of saying stop talking crap. Even the polite phrase "I respect your beliefs" really means I think you are mental but it would be socially unacceptable to tell you so to your face.
George Galloway's party is called Respect. This is man who took money from Saddam Hussein, allegedly for a charity foundation, which has never published accounts. When describing the sociopath who killed 100,00s of Kurds with poison gas, Galloway said he admired the dictator's courage.
Street gangs will assault or stab people over the failure to provide enough respect. Organised crime groups such as the Mafia have a habit of shooting one another for violating their peculiar code of respect. The IRA still doles out punishment beatings or knee-cappings if they feel they have been disrespected. These outfits are great source material for TV dramas and feature films, true. I'm re-watching the Sopranos which expertly plays with the viewer's emotions, making you sympathise with mob boss Tony at times. It's a tough job dealing with teenage children, an ageing mother and murdering informers. I feel his pain; I just don't respect him.
Fundamentalist Muslim groups and indeed more mainstream ones are ready to allege that their faith has been disrespected and demand that the rest of us show the proper "respect" for their beliefs. Why? Nobody has any inherent right to respect, nor does any group. Respect is something individuals earn through over their lifetime through their actions. You don't get an automatic right to respect because you believe something very strongly.
9/11 Truthers are adamant that the US government orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers. As long as no one ever puts one of them in a position of responsibility, that's fine. But those beliefs do not merit respect. Some of the truthers really do wear tin foil hats and live inside Faraday cages. They are to use the technical term batshit crazy.
You could argue I'm being very disrespectful comparing the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Muslims to those of conspiracy theorists. Except you cannot grant everyone or every idea respect, if they are mutually exclusive. Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot both be right, especially as the new Archbishop actually believes in God. If you respect Dawkins's beliefs, you can't respect the Archbishop's and vice versa. The same holds true for any belief system, whether it's atheism or scientology unless you don't believe in anything at all, which is cheating.
When groups or individuals clamour for respect, it's not the same as tolerance or freedom. Doing the right thing in terms of people's beliefs in covered by the ancient philosophy expressed by Socrates, Buddha and Jesus, namely don't be a dick. Or as your grandmother might call it, good manners. Actually my grandmother is a bad example, as she was a borderline Nazi. For everyone else, with normal grandmothers who didn't think Norman Tebbit was dangerous liberal and hadn't visited Hitler's Germany in the 1930s, you get the idea. Be nice to people, don't be a dick (your own grandmother may have used a slightly different phrasing).
Anyone agitating for respect is really demanding that society change to accommodate their beliefs or behaviour. To which the correct response is, with respect, get lost. Equality legislation and laws on racial and religious discrimination have the situation pretty much covered ( though there's plenty of material for another blog). The interesting thing is that the individuals who most deserve respect in our society, those who devote their lives to the service of others are also the least likely to shout about needing respect. Odd that isn't it?
Now the observant of you may have noticed that in the opening paragraph, I used the phrase freedom of speech and implied that even that doesn't deserve respect. I was exaggerating for effect. Although someone excising their right to free speech is not entitled to respect by default. Lars von Trier can make a film where the characters remove their own genitals, I don't have to watch it and as it turns out, I haven't. You can if you want, that's the beauty of the free society.
Freedom of speech requires robust defence, not respect as if it were a local bye-law relating to parking zones or littering. Freedom should be championed, cherished and celebrated. The concept of respect is the refuge of bigots, bullies and bullshitters who want to extract concessions from the rest of us.
But what if you offend people or hurt their feelings by penning satirical cartoons, like Charlie Hebdo's team? Sadly in recent days, too many have rushed to blame the victims, as if freedom speech is a conditional principle, dependent on good behaviour. If a person believes in an Almighty deity with supreme power, then I'd argue that that deity can look after himself (or herself). Those who kill to right an alleged wrong against their faith cannot be appeased nor should they and don't above all deserve respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)