The purpose of democracy is not to conduct a tribal headcount, but to allow the people to chuck the rotters out from time to time. Does anyone think 1979 or 1997 didn't accurately reflect the country's desire for a change?
No electoral system is perfect. List PR gives parties an accurate number of seats to their vote share, but then forces them to govern according to the necessity of coalition-building, not their principles or manifestos. It also insulates those grandees who make it to the top of the list, ensuring no Portillo/Balls moments when a top flight MP feels the wrath of the electorate. It is important to decapitate a senior MP from time to time "pour encouager les autres". Under proportional representation, patronage of party elites to put people in order on the list, distincentivises individual MPs from exercising their conscience in the legislature. We'd have fewer rebellions, and a stronger executive. List PR is what a political obsessive who identifies wholly and completely with his party thinks a "fair" system, but it has negative effects on the behaviour of MPs and concentrates power in a few hands who exist completely away from democratic oversight. I feel about list proportional representation the same way I think about the UK joining the Euro. I'd stop it, any way I can, for the system is wholly toxic. I don't want a PR Lords.
I want PR to go away, and never be spoken of again. Likewise "top-up" regional lists and so forth are fart-arsing about to please political wonks, to little benefit and create two classes of MPs.
On the other hand, First past the post gives a local MP a chance to build a personal following. His or Her standing may be enhanced by selective rebellions against the party whip on certain issues. MPs with a conscience and principles are respected by the electorate. An MP who is caught doing something the electorate don't like, like Neil Hamilton in Tatton, will be out on their ear, safe seat or no. On the other hand, a diligent and thoughtful MP who works hard, like Nick Clegg can buck the trend of a national wipe-out for their party.
Under first past the post we vote for PEOPLE not PARTIES. It's noticeable that the thoughtful, consistent, intellectual, honest and hard-working Douglas Carswell got re-elected relatively comfortably, but the opportunistic Judas, Mark Reckless was out on his ear. The voters of Rochester and Strood spoke. Likewise the voters of South Thanet decided that they'd rather not send Nigel Farage to represent them in parliament. This isn't about UKIP, as Douglas Carswell showed, but about Nigel. I have voted Labour in the past. Yes, me, voting Labour, when I lived in Vauxhall, I was pleased to vote for Kate Hoey in 2001, as she's anti-Euro and pro-Fox hunting (though definitely unsound on Cycling). This is a strength of First Past the Post.
I'll say it again: Voting isn't a tribal headcount, because most people don't think like we political obsessives. They think about the government they want, what's happening in their constituency. You're a socialist, but Labour can't win here? Might as well vote Green to send a message, or Liberal Democrat to keep the Tories out. You're a thick, bigoted Moron? You vote UKIP whether or not they can win, and you're rightfully ignored. You don't think the Labour leader is up to the Job? You vote for the candidate most likely to beat the Labour guy, whoever you notionally support. In an electorate of forty million or so these choices usually deliver a result that delivers an executive with a clear mandate. To imagine everyone would vote the same way under different systems is absurd.
The result is a system that sets the bar very high to secure representation. UKIP, mostly failed to meet the required standard, and suffered at the hands of tactical voting. Where it looked like they'd win, the people coalesced around the candidate most likely to beat them. That is a valid democratic choice - the electorate expressing its will clearly that while there are 4m people who like the Toxic yahoos. There are probably 8m people who'd move heaven and earth to keep UKIP away from power. Lots of people can like you. But you also have to have lots of people to not HATE you too. And where the candidate wasn't obviously a bigoted git who looked like a shaved chimpanzee in a suit who's just ranting Farage's morning brain-fart, Clacton, UKIP won comfortably. There's a lesson there.
Would the country really be better off with 83 grunting ignoramuses from UKIP in coalition, demanding David Cameron send the navy to Machine-gun migrants in the Mediterranean (which they'd in any case already demanded be sent to... um... Nepal) and the RAF to bomb the Strasbourg parliament? What purpose would a dozen hippies from the Green party, demanding the immediate closure of Nuclear power stations, and the shrinking of the UK economy serve apart from to make the business of Government more difficult.
There is a case for some electoral reform, but it's not strong. Multi-member constituencies (I favour the counties sending 1 to 10 MPs to parliament depending upon population). AV or STV have their adherents, but these systems may serve to exacerbate the swings in a big move, and deliver even more overwhelming majorities to a single party or give overwhelming over-representation to everyone's second choice. I'm not clear this is any better than the system we have now.
The First Past the Post system isn't broken, and certainly no worse than any other. Landslides like 1983 and 1997 are rare. Yet the government changes when the mood of the country changes. The people aren't clamouring for a change to the system, the losing parties are. But the rules are the same for everyone. The losers should just work harder in their target seats and shut up.
Friday, 15 May 2015
The purpose of democracy is not to conduct a tribal headcount, but to allow the people to chuck the rotters out from time to time. Does anyone think 1979 or 1997 didn't accurately reflect the country's desire for a change?
Monday, 11 May 2015
I went drinking with a nest of pinkos at the weekend (the collective noun for lefties is "nest", everyone knows this). What struck me is their constant refrains: "Tories should want Scotland to become independent", and "Tories will implode with over the referendum". The Tories ossified in their minds in the same way one's music taste does somewhere between leaving school and getting a mortgage, in our cases some time around the turn of the millennium. Very few people in the media on the left understand the Conservative party or the Conservative mentality.
The Conservative party is an ancient, many-headed beast. It does contain English nationalists, but these are a small minority. The vast majority of Conservatives would take another 20 years of opposition rather than see the Union break up. As it is, for now, Labour has been slain in Scotland. The Tories have as much Westminster representation north of the Border as Labour or Liberal Democrats. This leaves an opening. 15% of Scots voted for the "hated" Tories, and the party came second in a dozen seats. As a major party of Government, I suspect the "hatred" is more media habit, than real. There is a good chance of a comeback in Scotland - remember the Party was once as dominant in Scotland as the SNP is now. No political hegemony lasts forever, especially it seems in Scotland, and the SNPs will be no different. Expect there to be one remaining ranty Scots Nat holding a Glasgow seat in following the 2040 election as some other party sweeps all before it. Securing the long-term future of the Union, however will be David Cameron's main project as Prime Minister.
Which brings us to what commentators are confidently saying will be the centrepiece of this parliament - the EU referendum. Next to the Union, the EU referendum is now a trifle for the PM. Let's be clear. There is absolutely no way 'out' will win. It's major cheerleaders are too toxic. When the leadership of Labour, Tory, SNP, Plaid etc, as well as almost every major businessman, sports people, celebrities, The Sun, The Times, The Mirror, The Guardian and just about anyone else who matters lines up saying 'in' and UKIP with a handful of the Tory awkward squad and the Daily Express are for 'out', the public will notice. The vote will be 2:1 for 'in'. For this not to be the case, UKIP, and the Tory right needs to lead a remarkable, energetic and subtle campaign nationwide, starting now. Yeah. Right.
So the result is a foregone conclusion. The nest of Pinkos assume the awkward squad will then all chuck their toys out of the pram. The fact is, for most of the Tory party, Europe is no longer a burning issue. We'd all go man the barricades should it look like we join the Euro, but we won that argument pretty comprehensively. We are not Euro enthusiasts, and look at Brussels with scepticism, relishing every opportunity to slap interfering eurocrats down. But we're mostly grumpily in favour of staying in the project because ultimately the Tory party is the party of business.
So here is an opportunity for a Conservative prime minister to go to Brussels from a position of strength, and demand concessions. And we will get them. There is no way the EU felt the need to negotiate while it looked like the last Labour leader, Edmund Mili-something (I've already forgotten), was going to be PM. But now they need to consider a Generous offer - Germany cannot afford Brexit and Merkel will ensure enough is given to ensure the UK remains Germany's bulwark against French economic dirigisme.
The point is, everyone's already made up their minds how they're going to react. The few headbangers will headbang about it being a "betrayal", whatever Cameron brings back. They will be few in number. Half a dozen at most. There will be a large contingent who'll take up the opportunity to campaign for 'out' but take great care to do so without being disloyal to the PM. The rest will slide in line behind the Prime Minister, hailing a great transfer of powers back to Westminster by an all-conquering leader. (Whether this is the case, is irrelevant). There will be few doing so enthusiastically, and a great continuum of gritted teeth lining up behind the PM. But Cameron has won an election. And that, for now, means his authority over his party is absolute. That is why he wants to accelerate the negotiation - get the major hurdle out of the way early.
The Tory party has made its peace with its Euro differences. The referendum has been delivered. The Euro "bastards" are not going to do to Cameron what they did to Major, however much the Labour party, nests of my pinko drinking buddies and the Media will be trying to replay greatest hits of the '90s.
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Few expected a Tory majority until the Exit poll. I didn't dare hope until about 2am.
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
I think the bottles of port, beers and cases of wine I've bet with twitter correspondents, friends and colleagues are going to bankrupt me if Labour win, and give me alcoholic liver disease if the Tories do. So, hot on the heels of my correctly predicting the outcome of the Scottish Referendum, AND the EU elections; I, the UK's own Nate Silver using little more than reading, wishful thinking and guesswork am going to tell you what's going to happen over the next 36 hours.
David Cameron will still be Prime minister, probably with help from DUP, and the remaining Liberal Democrats. The alternative, Prime Minister Miliband is too grotesque to contemplate. Tories will probably be quite comfortably the largest party; here's why:
- Miliband is obviously a helpless, flailing git. In the privacy of the polling booth, this will matter, leading to
- The usual Tory out-performance of their polling, and labour underperformance of theirs.
- The polls are currently showing a small Tory lead.
- The polls may well be wrong, on a scale not seen since 1992, because the polling methodology hasn't been tested with the rise of UKIP, the collapse of the Lib-Dems and the rise of the SNP.
- Labour will do a bit better than polling suggests in Scotland, as will Tories (but to little avail in seats)
- Liberal Democrats will retain 25 seats
- UKIP will have 3: Clacton, Thurrock and one other. Neither Mark Reckless in Rochester, nor Farage in South Thannet will be MPs on May 8th.
Monday, 20 April 2015
My CV reads a lot like that of Katie Hopkins. We both went to RMA Sandhurst. We both dropped out close to commissioning, and both on medical grounds. We both then became polemicist commentators: her on TV, me on here. She made a living out of it, I didn't though. The Strapline of this Blog is "moderate opinions, immoderately put". For much of what Hopkins says is genuine, realpolitik sense spoken in a way morons can understand it. And she winds all the right people up, sort of like a skinny, female Jeremy Clarkson, without the wit.
So, Katie Hopkins put herself way, way beyond the pale to me yesterday. She will be forever tainted with those callous, dehumanising words. Ultimately, I'm a libertarian, and believe in the fellowship of man, and feel enormous sympathy with those driven by poverty, to seek a better life. I believe borders are an affront to human dignity, but they are often an unfortunate necessity, when there's a precious example of freedom and good government to which adding too many ill-educated migrants brought up in war-zones would risk. Without the example of the West, the experiment in free-market liberal democracy could be snuffed out to everyone's long-term dis-benefit. Europe cannot accept thousands upon thousands of people from Africa and the Middle east, nor should we be expected to, simply because we are rich, though we should, like the enlargement project seek to extend the principle of free movement, slowly, surely and incrementally to countries which share our values.
Given that the Northern European countries who're the ultimate destination of the migrants, cannot and will not accept everyone who wants to make Europe home we must try to stop them coming. But nor can we let people drown at sea. It was noticed during the previous 'Mare Nostrum' rescue operation that the traffickers would simply get into EU territorial waters, send a mayday signal, and scuttle the boat, the rescue ensuring their charges made it safely to land. EU Navies were being used as a leg in the Journey. It was thought denying the Traffickers the use of this leg would stop the flow. It did not.
So what should be done?
Big picture: we need to work with the Governments, however corrupt and vile, where the migrants come from. The less vile the regimes, the less hopeless the economies, the fewer refugees and migrants will be tempted to leave and make their way to Europe. UKIP and their poujadiste allies in Europe are wholly wrong on Foreign Aid to suggest that budgetary and technical support to governments is "wasted". No-one though should expect rapid results.
One of the reasons for the current tide is the instability in Libya. One of the things Gadaffi* did for us was to stop the boats. (I am not sure letting them drown at sea is much worse than the methods he used... but 'out of sight out of mind' is the key principle of international humanitarianism...). Western governments, France and the UK especially are partially culpable for helping topple the regime, but not committing the resources for stability. But the culpability is limited. Qaddafi* was going to be toppled anyway, the current chaos was probably inevitable, and the UK and France probably averted a massacre in Benghazi. Nevertheless, the Libyan authorities need help to secure the country. This will require an appetite for an Iraq sized counter-insurgency for a decade, but Britain and France. Yup... this is unlikely to be popular.
An attempt to stem the 'push' from the homelands will be slow. So we need to make the journey less likely to be successful. We need to police the waters, turning back the migrant ships to their ports of origin on the North African coast. This will require investment in Naval and Aviation capacity from the whole EU and their maintenance on station for decades hence, and being comfortable with the use of force. I'm not holding my breath there either.
The good news is for humanity, the forces needed to police the sea lanes in the Mediterranean will also be capable and on station to rescue migrants whose boats sink. There is no need to turn the guns on the people in the boats, nor is there a need to be callous about their survival in the water. We are better than that. If there are people in need of rescue, however, the rescue at present means the traffickers and the migrant has won. They're in the EU, and there are plenty of people able and willing to play the system to make sure they are never returned from whence they came. So we need somewhere where the rules can be applied a little more quick and dirty.
What the EU needs is somewhere rescued boat people can go to be processed by the Bureaucracy. And unfortunately this means a camp, somewhere outside the EU. This is the Australian approach, they have camps in Nauru and Papua New Guinea where migrants who don't make it to Australia are sent, to be returned home. It's likely, if this is a goer, an enclave will need to be taken from Libya, with or without the host Government's permission. This would require the EU to contemplate the long-term use of Hard Power, and this being legislated for EU-wide and under the fire of the Human Rights lawyers. Nope, I'm not holding my breath there either.
Make no mistake. This is a horrible problem, dehumanising for all concerned. But given the unwillingness of Europe to accept people, the journey must be made as difficult, as humanly possible without making it inhumane. No-one comes out of this looking or feeling good. And those who accept some of the necessary steps above, will baulk at the others: A UKIPper despises the foreign aid and unified EU action, like a Green will abhor the necessity of Extra-territorial camps and capable Naval flotillas pointing guns at people.
This is what will work to stop the flow of migrants without letting them die at sea in their thousands. But this is not what will happen. This is why the African boat people are not being mentioned by politicians on the stump. Any soundbite on this subject, will be an anathema to one or other section of the electorate. There are no votes to be won in sorting this mess out, only votes to be lost.
*I never spell it the same way twice.
Friday, 17 April 2015
Patriotism, wrote Samuel Johnson, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. In the election TV debate UKIP leader Nigel Farage claimed the UK couldn't adequately defend the Falklands. As well as being demonstrably untrue, this demonstrates several mental tics of the UKIPper and it's worth going through them.
First, it reveals a determination to re-fight battles already lost and won. This attitude comes from the same place as hankering after "A Leader Like Thatcher" who "Took on the Trades Unions". This is why the thatcherite ultra wing of UKIP cannot see Cameron's cut spending faster than their blessed St. Margaret Ever did. 45% top rate of tax? Wasn't cut to 40% by Nigel Lawson until 1988, 9 years into the great lady's time in office. UKIPpers are stupid, and lack the imagination or understanding to see what battles need to be fought today. Past glories like the re-taking of the Falklands, or the Miners' strike happened when most 'KIPpers were in their youth, and they're hankering after a better yesterday. The world's a bit different now, and the UKIPper wishes it wasn't.
Second it's revealing of a determination to see weakness in yourself, and strength elsewhere. This is behind the UKIPish "admiration" of Vladimir Putin. This is also behind the belief that all the bluster from the Eurocrats like JC Juncker that the UK cannot alter treaties, is truth; while anything David Cameron might say on the subject is merely self-serving bluster. Of course the Eurocrats aren't going to negotiate before the Election, because with Ed Miliband, they won't have to. But Cameron has a much stronger hand in EU negotiations than any 'KIPper will ever admit.
UKIPpers are paranoid. There is simply no indication the Argentines are even thinking about a military solution to the "Malvinas Question".
Farage might have been musing on the fall in the British Army's manpower. But even this reveals the party's ignorance and superficiality. UKIP is obsessed by symbols and totems, not effectiveness. Cap-badges are more important than effective 3-battalion regiments. It should be remembered that the UK recently ran two significant long-term deployments simultaneously AND had spare ISTAR and lift to get the French to Mali and tell them which doors to kick in. "Front Line First" which keeps combat infantry at the expense of support services ignores the fact that it requires a huge number of logistic, signals, intelligence and engineering "enablers" to keep one infantryman in action. 100,000 men kicking undeployable heels in Germany is better in the UKIP mind than 82,000 men who can be picked up, and put down to do a job anywhere on earth. Would you rather have a platoon of men in battle dress armed with Lee Enfields, or a Section of Modern Infantry with all the logistic tail they need?
UKIP is guilty of hull-counting in the Royal navy too: The Type 45 air defence destroyers can track far, far more targets than the 1960's vintage Type 42s they replace, so fewer are needed. One Type 45 can do the air-defence job of 6 type 42s. Yes, the Navy is smaller, but an Astute class attack sub can hear a ship leaving New York Harbour. From the English Channel.
And lastly but most importantly the idea the Falklands cannot be defended is simply wrong. For a party that claims to be "patriotic" they don't seem to have much faith in the UK or her people. Let's be charitable and say he's talking about an operation to retake the Falklands in the absence of an Aircraft Carrier. Fair enough - but HMS Queen Elizabeth will be operation by 2020 by which time the UK will be able to dominate the south Atlantic against any nation bar the USA.
In the mean time, there is simply not a credible threat to the Falkland islands. where there are at present 1,200 soldiers which, being British contain a large number of hardened veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus a company of Falkland islands defence force who're integrated into the defence plan. This, compared to 57 Royal Marines and no plan in 1982. There is an augmentation force on standby, and a plan to rapidly reinforce the islands from the UK, and an air-bridge to enable it now. There wasn't any of this in 1982. Meanwhile Argentina has no landing ships, no carriers, and and their army has been shrunk to bare-bones, and has no combat experience and little money to undertake serious exercise.
The RAF has 4 Typhoon a 4.5 generation multi-role fighter on the Falklands, which is arguably the finest dogfighter on earth. Whether it's a match for the F22's over the horizon capability is moot, but the RAF isn't up against F22s. The Argentines are flying 6 (if they're lucky) Mirage 3 interceptors, some Mirage 5 multi-role fighters, all purchased in the 1970s, and a handful of assorted multi-role, light fighter-bombers, most of which are probably not airworthy.
As well as the Typhoons, there are air-defence missiles on the islands, and the Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyers are the finest air-defence platforms afloat. Meanwhile an Argentine Naval ship goes to sea about 12 days a year due to lack of funds. One Argentine naval vessel sank in port in 2013 due to disrepair. Oh, and there's usually a Royal Navy Nuclear attack submarine there, or therabouts, to which the Argentines will be completely blind until a torpedo slams into the hull. The Argentines couldn't get there, have no capability to land forces, couldn't supply any forces they did manage to land, which wouldn't be a match for the forces on the island even if they did. If anything the Falklands are grotesquely over-defended.
UKIP aren't patriots, they're the people who'd have caved in and done a deal with Hitler, as it was all too scary as his victory was "inevitable". UKIP have the paranoid certainty of the mediocre mind, always fearing the worst, but lacking imagination to envision the best; as a result, they're wrong about everything, all the time.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Even the awkward squad have been silent. There is no dissent from the back-benches and Cameron's gaffe - that he will not serve a third term - meaning there will be a leadership contest at some point in the next parliament, is being described as "a disaster". And it isn't good news for the Tories: it's certainly and own goal and an unforced error from the Prime Minister. But it has made Cameron, quite a lot more popular than Miliband, the subject of discussion. I am not sure this is a wholly bad thing. Labour are so inept, they considered running with "vote Cameron, get Boris" as if replacing the most popular party leader with the country's most popular politician and current mayor of London would be a disaster for the Conservatives.
Given the Tories discipline, and they wheeled out some pretty solid performances yesterday from even those named as potential successors, dismissing it as "a politician answering a question" is a successful line to take. And this was repeated by journalists on the news; Even Alastair Campbell struggled. The Tories defence gained traction, and so I think this will be less damaging than it could have been.
This incident though also goes to show what's wrong with our "political class", and it's not the politicians. It's not they unrepresentative. Women are selected in roughly the proportion they put themselves forward, ethnic minorities are only slightly under-represented and may be about the same proportion as in the general population after the next election, and not only sitting for "diverse" seats. MPs are middle class, but is it surprising that the working class, who seem to despise education, aren't producing many men and women of ideas to sit in parliament?
You have people stating as fact parliament is too "male, pale and stale". 'Middle-class' is a term of abuse and the lie that politics is unrepresentative is constantly repeated. The people doing this are the media. To the kind of "young people" that turn up on the media, anyone in a suit is "middle-class" who "doesn't understand" what young people experience. It's nonsense of course, but the media feed it.
What do you want? Parliament filled with semi-educated failures who're representative only of utter grockles? Parliamentarians chosen by gender and race, but utterly compliant to the whim of the executive? This is Labour's way. Because it seems ensuring diversity of appearance ensures a monoculture of political ideas. Worse you get risible Children like Red Princes Will Straw and Euan Blair or Princess Emily Benn who said
"I represent the ward I was born in, which is y'know more important than where you come from..."...While the cameras were rolling. She's 25, and is being wheeled out to demonstrate their commitment to youth issues. By which labour mean tuition fees. Which they introduced. I am sure having Great Granddad, Granddad and Father all Labour MPs had absolutely no bearing on her selection.
"Judge me,on my ideas"...I look forward to it. The Tories have always been less ethnically diverse but a broader church of ideas, and so harder to lead.
But they want it bad this time. The hatchet has been buried. The awkward squad are satisfied they will get their deepest desire: the EU referendum, and are working for it. Cameron has unified the ununifiable behind him, for a couple more years at least.
As for the election? The polls are neck and neck to a slight Tory lead. And the campaign proper has not yet begun. Labour are going to be near wiped out in Scotland, and have Ed Miliband "in Charge". When the broad mass of the electorate have a good look at him, they will say "urgh". Labour MPs openly call their leader a "fucking knob". UKIP are slipping, 18% a few months ago, nearer 14% now. Plenty of their supporters won't bother, or will vote Tory to keep Labour out. Thanks to the Scots, the national Labour inbuilt advantage is no more. A ten point move during a campaign is common. And there really is only one way it can go....
There will be a Tory majority.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Back in 2007, I wrote
there is a very simple solution to the problem, which prevents middle Britain being hit by a tax that is designed to punish the very rich: first homes should not qualify for IHT (subject to caveats such as time occupied and value to prevent abuse - you couldn't have everyone buying mansions to die in to avoid tax)...which is more or less what George Osborne appears to be proposing. However I didn't consider it a priority then, and I don't think it a priority now.
There will be lots of guff about how "insane" cutting this tax is. It's not insane. Inheritance tax is deeply unfair, unpleasant and resented. It's falls hardest on those who've not prepared for death. And it has come after big cuts to income taxes, so I'm reasonably content.
It is essentially a voluntary tax and is often described as a tax on the unlucky and the unwise. Businesses are exempt as are farms. Potentially exempt transfers can usually see to the rest, and the threshold at £285,000 [now £325,000 - transferrable] is generous. The problem is that it hits unexpected deaths harder than quiet passings in old age. Consider this: A family loses both parents in a car crash and the tax-man - as a direct result - also takes the family home. That's not on.I'd want to see stamp duty go, or see more income tax cuts before I cut inheritance tax. After all, Inhertiance tax is, for most people, entirely voluntary, so long as they trust their children, and don't die unexpectedly. I see why the chancellor is doing this - UKIP have pledged to abolish inheritance tax completely and inheritance tax is wildly unpopular, even amongst people who are unlikely to pay it. This is a policy aimed squarely at the Daily Mail reader and there's an election very shortly.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
So, Nigel Farage wants to scrap discrimination laws.
And I sort of see where he's probably coming from. The left and right have very different views of what's in the driving seat of society. The left, with echos of Marxist-Leninist 'vanguard of the proletariat' thinks the habits of the people can and should be changed by law, and law can and should be driven by the elite, leading the way for the people. Most classical Liberals on the other hand think laws against behaviours tend to happen when a majority broadly support them, and not before. It's the argument in society leading up to the change in the law which changes behaviour, not the law itself. I doubt greatly whether anti-discrimination laws have affected the level of discrimination much, if at all. I suspect they probably reflect a point where there was a change in society's opinion, which started long before 1965 race relations act, and continued through the 1980s.
Pre 1965 it was common, apparently, (I was born in '77) to see "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" signs. Nowadays, anyone displaying that sign, wouldn't get my business either. I am inclined to let people discriminate, but only if they do so openly, and see what it does for their businesses. Society's distaste is more powerful at curbing behaviour than the law. But I am really not fussed about race discrimination laws, and certainly wouldn't make repealing them a priority, partly because I don't want to be misunderstood and thought to be racist, and partly because I might be wrong about society, and I cannot see what harm having these laws on the statute books does. If it ain't broken, and I don't think the architecture of Britain's race relations are broken, don't fix it.
But 'KIPpers will not see this, because st. Nigel (PBUH) has spoken and their thick, ignorant activists will go around claiming now that race discrimination legislation allows for discrimination against whites and British, which of course they do not. If there is little racism in society as Farage claims, then race discrimination laws have little effect. And if there IS racism in society, then there is an argument that race discrimination laws are still necessary which is powerful.
This demonstrates UKIP's amateurishness. If you're a right-populist party, running on an anti-immigration ticket, constantly beset by accusations of racism, and with several high-profile activists being caught saying really ignorant, stupid things about race, then I cannot see why these laws should be a priority, unless you are openly gunning for the racist, ex-BNP vote in Labour's northern fiefdoms.
Are you touting for racists' votes, or are you, Nigel, a thicko with a tin-ear, who's out of his depth?
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
The role of the young army officer, like politicians, is to make expensive decisions, under pressure with inadequate information. Imagine you are walking down the road and you come under effective enemy fire. It doesn't matter which ditch you jump into, but it's generally better if you're all on the same side of the road and know where the bullets are coming from. And that, in a nutshell is what command and control is. You do not stand in the road, getting shot at, arguing about which ditch is best, because the status quo, being shot at, is completely unacceptable, and almost anything is better.
There are many 'ditch decisions' in politics.
We need more runways in the south-east of England. Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and Heathrow ring London, and have their champions, and to whom any decision that isn't their chosen solution is "crazy". Someone is going to have to make a decision, and any decision will piss most people off. Boris Island isn't crazy. An extra runway at Heathrow isn't crazy, nor is one at Gatwick, Luton or Stansted. Capacity needs to be built somewhere. Does anyone imagine in 50 years, that we would regret building Boris Island, having done so? No, there would be breathless documentaries about how "controversial" it was at the time, but praising the visionary architects and engineers that made it possible.
We have long needed new baseline power generation. Gas, Coal, Biomass and Nuclear all have their adherents, for whom any decision which isn't invested in their chosen solution, is "crazy". If no decision is made, then the lights go out. One of Labour's criminal acts was to play chicken with the prospect of widespread power cuts, unwilling for reasons of electoral triangulation to make a decision about where and what to build.
We need more rail capacity in the UK. High Speed 2 may not be everyone's favoured solution. I've long thought the money could be spent upgrading existing stock and lengthening platforms. But then I get told there's a firm limit to train length set in stone and brick by some curved Victorian tunnels on the network, so lengthening platforms can only deliver so much extra capacity. I am no expert on Rail. The person who told me this was, and I was convinced, though I cannot remember the details. There is no real alternative to new lines. Again. A decision needs to be made, and whichever is chosen, a majority of people will be annoyed. UKIP, especially, have no need of tiresome "facts" and "information". They just decided there's votes in opposing HS2, and they would mouth the anger.
Mundane questions of waste disposal, recycling, power generation, landfill, road-building and maintenance all concentrated harms and distributed benefits and situating the infrastructure is never popular.
What matters is that a decision is made in a timely manner, having considered all the information, as much as possible. Somebody, somewhere is going to get kicked in the bollocks, as a rail line or motorway cuts through the view he paid a fortune for (another argument for a land-value-tax, but that's a post for another day). One of the things poisoning politics, is an expectation that in a democracy, the Government, can please you in all things, all the time. It can't because it's weighing the need of Businessmen to get to New York against the rights of residents of West London - people whose interests in the matter of a new runway at Heathrow are fundamentally opposed. The tendency of people to see 'each-way' decisions as binary morality is a result, and a reinforcement of an unwillingness to give the decision-makers the benefit of the doubt, allied to a fundamental mistrust of their motives. The needs of the Businessman to get to New York might mean a concentrated benefit, and the costs distributed across the many. But the benefits of a stronger economy, and greater logistic and transport links are likewise distributed. If you can get to New York (or anywhere else you might like to go) cheaper, you're richer. But anger is stoked by grievance mongers like the SNP and UKIP, who're mostly not called upon to make these decisions.
People are ignorant as to how decisions are made. We fear that which we don't understand. Worse than ignorance is motivated reasoning, which sees the government blamed for all the bad things, yet receiving no credit for positive outcomes and the general well being of the country. There is a robust decision-making process in the UK, one that is mostly uncorrupted, and seeks to weigh competing interests fairly. We are well-governed. We have a diverse and resilient economy. I think we're governed bit too hyper-actively, but that is arguable, and we libertarians must accept most people do not yet agree with our vision of what the state is for. Politicians could do with speaking human, and accepting that zero-sum decisions need to be made, and someone is going to be worse off. The electorate for their part must have the maturity to realise there are no solutions, only trade-offs, and not vote for half-arsed nutcases like UKIP and the Greens, in a fit of ranty angst. The Government deserves the benefit of the doubt, most of the time, when they do finally decide which ditch to jump into.