The Economics of getting fat at the cinema

Apparently childhood obesity is rising at something of a shocking rate. I don't honestly think there is much the government can do about this even if it wanted to regulate what is a lifestyle choice. With the amount of heavy people around it is somewhat disingenous to claim that people do not know that obesity is a possible result of eating too much and not exercising. Equally, while the details of the health implications may not be understood the social consequences of being fat are regularly brought home by media and peer pressure; unlike cigarettes, obesity really isn't cool. A fat (fatty food) tax necessarily means taxing the poorest people most and only strength of anti-corporate feeling stops even the left dismissing it on those grounds. My own experience is that I took up sport as soon as I hit sixth form and didn't have the school minimum forced on me so I am suspicious of government programmes to get the nation exercising.

What I am currently struggling to understand though is the change in the size of drinks at cinemas. When I first headed out to the States I was amused that all of the portions were a size or two up from what I expected in the UK. Now it is safe to rely on a small being what used to be a large and when I ask for a small it is almost certain that I will be told a large can be mine for a negligible increase in price. My best understanding of the economics behind this is that the increase in cost to the cinema of increasing the size is insignificant but that an increase makes people less likely trouble over paying extra. Despite this it would seem that the cinemas probably cause some people with appetites less formidable than mine to either not buy a drink or share it between two or three people. This would seem to be quite a risk as this halves the cinemas income from the sale and therefore offsets a lot of marginal rises in price. The effect of all this on me is unambiguous though, I order a small and drink more than I did before when I ordered a medium.

That I am talking about the old days at twenty two worries me. Only trying to relate to myself before the existence of the Internet and e-mail gives me a similar shock of modernity.

On another note popcorn's margins are some of the highest of any product; less profitable than Kalashnikov's but without the risk.

The BNP and the Left

Alice Evans is perplexed by Lord Tebbit's description of the BNP as left wing and cites the letters in the Telegraph today in response to Tebbit's argument.

Objectively and thoroughly assessing this view is clearly difficult because the definitions of right and left wing do not properly capture the subtleties of political belief but I think Tebbit's analysis is an entirely sensible one. There are two plausible definitions of the right wing which have value in making our assessment of the BNP's leanings:

1. A belief in the value of free markets and distrust of the constructive value of state power: This fits with the modern conception of the right wing's views on economics. When Stiglitz describes a "market ideology" as a great evil he is clearly positioning himself on the 'left'.
2. A distrust of radicalism: Right wing parties have always had a belief in the value of tradition as a social glue and a repository of collective experience in making uncertain policy choices.

As Tebbit points out that the BNP is clearly on the socialist side of the economic debate. Opposition to globalisation, belief in nationalising services considered important and a suspicion of the interests of capital are the mark of the left. On one of the key battlegrounds of modern politics the BNP clearly cannot be described as right wing.

Equally, the BNP shows little attachment to incrementalism. A conservative, right wing, response to concerns over immigration, which are widely held, is to take action to reduce new immigrant numbers and encourage integration. A classic right wing response to immigration is the one put forward by Krauthammer recently. Radical responses such as repatriation advocated by the BNP cannot have much attachment to those with an interest in social stability and suspicious of radical panaceas.

The two letters responding to Lord Tebbit's both miss the point. The first sees the sum of the right wing in authoritarianism. Tebbit has already answered this point: As the most authoritarian states of the 20th century were clearly left wing (Maoist China, the GDR with the Stasi, the USSR) this cannot be a preserve of the right. To identify all those who believe in maintaining the state's authority as right wing is clearly mistaken.

The second letter argues that as the Nazis were right wing the BNP must also be. This would work if the other fascists were objectively right wing but they are not. The Nazis also believed in state control of industry, autarkic trade policy and a radical's break with tradition. This is why they were called the National Socialist party and why supporters so regularly moved between the Nazis and the Communists. Mussolini was a notable transfer from Socialism to National Socialism and saw little contradiction.

Tebbit is clearly correct that the BNP as fascists do not fit on the right wing of the ideological spectrum.

Dave the Chameleon made easy

The "Dave the Chameleon" attack ad is funnier with a few modifications by Tim Ireland.

Dalrymple on lawless England

Dalrymple is one of the most powerful moral commentators writing today and his new piece for the City Journal is no exception. He discusses the modern trend towards public policy being focussed upon managing people's thoughts and private behaviour rather than preventing genuine acts of violence and criminality; lenient towards violent crime but hard on smokers. This suggests a move from the night watchman state to the parallel opposite of one that enjoys its nannying reponsibilities but finds maintaining the peace an encumbrance. Such a move is an abandonment of the traditional virtues of the English nation.

I do not see a desire for this move in the public; people favour a more forceful approach to maintaining law and order and view intrusions into their ability to make their own decisions with derision at best. However, it is generally true in a democracy that a public gets the leadership it deserves. Pretending that Chirac, Sarkozy et. al. are failing France neglects the reality that had Thatcher been borne French she would probably have wound up a frustrated councillor at best. This tendency means that I cannot dismiss the idea that we are not being led astray by our political class but actually want a state telling us what to do and giving those who leave someone permanently disabled in a vicious assault a token sentence. What I'm having trouble working out right now is why.

A Tory Reshuffle?

ConservativeHome is being briefed by anonymous sources that George Osborne may be replaced by William Hague as Shadow Chancellor. I think that if this happens it could well prove to be an unfortunate mistake. When Osborne spoke to the LSE Conservatives he was reassuringly confident and his grasp of economic policy impressed all those present. Despite him being in a room with many well trained non-Tory economists he left little doubt of his command of the fiscal options available to the Treasury. By comparison Hague's past form is to be incredibly impressive in minor roles and then fail to control a larger brief (the leadership).

Whoever the anonymous contact was didn't help his case by describing how campaigning on immigration and law and order was necessary to do well in the local elections. As David Davis is currently the Shadow Home Secretary it seems unlikely that this is due to not having right wingers in the right places. Cameron has maintained a tough stance on crime and the lack of material on these issues is a result of the long policy formation schedule as much as anything.

The main rationale appears to be that by appointing a right winger as Shadow Chancellor Cameron can assuage the fears of the right wing of the Conservative Party on the central issue of taxation. I am sceptical of the foundations of this fear as it is based on the statement that tax cuts would not be prioritised ahead of economic stability. This is an ultra Conservative statement (Herbert Hoover among others would be proud) if you read it literally as a statement that if the public finances make cutting taxes an imprudent risk you will not countenance them (Keynes criticised Hoover for prioritising a balanced budget over fiscal stimulus). An awful lot of unfounded speculation is required to take it as suggesting that Osborne is a Keynesian.

New Design

The amount of black on my blog was becoming oppressive. The new design makes the site a much easier read I think. I hope you all like it.

The Hidden Costs of Charity Parachuting

Buried away in a tiny Telegraph column this week was a reference to one of the best academic studies to emerge in a long time. Doctors in a Scottish hospital have looked at the hidden costs of charitable parachuting, to the health service in particular, and published the results in the journal Injury (the link is to the abstract unless you or your institution subscribe). They found that the injury rate was 11% and the serious injury rate 7%. Minor injuries cost the National Health Service £3751 on average and serious injuries £5781.

As the average parachutist raised all of £30 (this is just a day out after all) each pound raised for charity cost the NHS £13.75. Every one of the charitable types who feels terribly virtuous raising money for charity in this way is actually preventing the health service treating the sick.

Dave the Chameleon

The new Labour party political broadcast is so bad it actually hurts to watch it. It cites as contradictions in Cameron's political views not beliefs he has actually changed but the statements that he wants to be leader of the Conservatives, is the heir to Blair and is a liberal Conservative. As he is a liberal leader of the Conservatives who could yet succeed Blair as Prime Minister this is only a contradiction in the Labour Party's tiny collective mind.

If Labour really regard Cameron's adoption of policies associated with other parties as dismissable on grounds of inconsistency alone doesn't this suggest that they are approaching policy formation as an exercise in dogmatic rigidity. Accusing someone of being open minded can surely backfire. Charging Cameron with being superficial when your broadcast is of an animated chameleon and his is focussed on the environmental record of various Tory councils has to ring hollow.

Dave Cole is a friend of mine from the LSE and the Labour council candidate running in St James ward in Westminster and, in his newly revived blog, utterly condemns the broadcast which is supposed to be supporting his election. When even the most ardent of Labourites is put off by their election material surely it is time for a rethink at Labour HQ?

Stiglitz demeans the Nobel Prize

Stiglitz has demonstrated without a doubt that it is possible to be a very successful academic with the intelligence of a massively overweight domesticated cat. His article on China for Comment is Free is one of the most poorly argued and substantiated pieces I have ever read.

He notes that China has seen massive growth in recent years. He then notes that China has often upset the West and Washington in particular. He connects the two to establish that China's success has come from its plucky rejection of the Washington Consensus. Apparently the reason for its success in raising GDP is that it hasn't focussed on GDP but instead on the environment.

Of course this is complete rubbish. The Chinese state is massively concerned with GDP with internal fears that if growth slips below 7% there will be serious social unrest as discussed in this Deloitte report (PDF). By contrast all they have done to justify Stiglitz's optimistic account of their environmental policy is make sure that the "new plan places great emphasis on the environment". Taking statements of benign intent from a Communist state as gospel is surely a mistake the Left should have left behind some years ago after the Soviet growth miracle turned out to be fool's gold. The actual picture, as chronicled by Jasper Becker in The Chinese, is that the Chinese environment is one of the most heavily damaged in the world with collosal pollution problems in the cities and water shortages in vast swathes of the country thanks to Mao's grand schemes gone wrong. It's plans on global warming will not make much of a dent in the amount put out by the hundreds of new coal power plants it is planning.

Equally he is incredibly sanguine about the prospects for the new Chinese plan for education. Again the reality can be seen in this report by Becker for the South China Morning Post: The Kuomintang in 1936, in war time, spent 3.6% of GDP on education. This had fallen by 1992, in peace time, to around 2% of GDP. Becker notes that Tony Benn and J. K. Galbraith were making the same mistakes as Stiglitz back in the seventies and trusting the absurd story put out by the Communist party of superb new education schemes. Of course things are improving with rising incomes but the reality is that Chinese education is paid for by fees at school and university level. Chinese public services generally have far less state support than those in the West and certainly look nothing like Stiglitz's visible hand guiding the market.

That the Chinese state is a great force fighting inequality is palpably absurd. It's officials enrich themselves by taxing the poor to the point of rioting and, as reported recently on Sky News, confiscating their homes without compensation. A massively corrupt state means that property rights cannot protect those who have fallen prey to bureacrats on the take. By contrast government officials in expensive cars with tinted windows roaring around Chinese cities symbolise the wealth of the civil service elite. The grand plans that impress Stiglitz so much should come second to the state ending its role as an active promoter of inequality.

Finally the idea that the state is responsible for rapid growth and maintaining economic stability is absurd. As reported by Allen, Qian and Qian, the growth rate of the formal (mostly state led) sector has been around a quarter of growth in the informal (private) sector despite the huge advantages in financing and legal protection secured by state power. Equally, the potential for instability comes from the massive bad debts contained in the state led financial system and from intervention in its currency encouraging unprofitable industry rather than from unmanaged capitalism.

Fortunately, the Chinese don't take people like Stiglitz seriously. Marginal Revolution reports that the Chinese were the most likely of several countries surveyed to agree with the statement that the best system is the "free-market economy" (more so than the Americans). While the statement is likely to mean different things to the different groups interviewed support for it among the Chinese does suggest they have seen the difference between the socialist and capitalist parts of their nation and know which they prefer. Anyone who has been to Beijing's Silk Market or wandered the streets of any of the bustling cities will see that the Chinese can make superb capitalists if their state gives them the opportunity.

"Big Nuclear"

Greenpeace have rebutted a report from the Chernobyl Forum working for the IAEA, WHO and a number of other organisations and UN agencies. While I do not have the means to establish whether Greenpeace or the Chernobyl Forum are correct in their assessment of the death toll from the nuclear disaster one particular piece of logic infuriated me:

"[the nuclear industry have a] vested interest in playing down Chernobyl because it's an embarrassment to them".

Given the membership described above it hardly makes sense to describe the Forum as part of the nuclear industry but even if it was couldn't a similar statement be made about the Greenpeace rebuttal?

"Greenpeace have a vested interest in playing up Chernobyl because it helps their fundraising and campaigning against the modern nuclear industry".

Wouldn't it be easier if everyone debated the issues rather than their opponent's character?

Cameron's Dog Whistle

Margaret Hodge believes that there is going to be a big rise in the numbers voting for the BNP in her constituency and others like it. Apparently concerns over housing combined with an influx of immigrants have proved fertile ground for an anti-immigration challenge in Labour safe seats.

It should not be too much of a surprise that it is Labour dominated areas which are seeing the rise of the BNP. Immigration is an overwhelming economic good but it has to be accepted that there are winners and losers. Increased competition for low skilled work threatens those who are already poor. These people are generally Labour voters. Conservative voters are concerned about immigration but are mostly better off and, hence, for them immigration is a far more abstract issue. They do not live in the areas immigrants move to and do not work in the sorts of jobs that immigrants generally compete for. Equally, they are not in competition with immigrants for housing and other limited resources. Instead they have the luxury of worrying about more distant issues such as the environment.

This logic raises some interesting questions about whether David Cameron is really attempting to convert enemies who will never vote for him. Environmental issues and the other elements of being a 'nice' party matter most to the middle classes for whom other issues, like immigration and social breakdown, are less pressing. Talk of the 'metropolitan elite' who the Conservatives cannot recruit from misses the simple point that it is the votes that the Conservative party most needs to win, the swathes of the middle classes who did not return to the fold at the last election, who will base their vote most upon a broad conception of whether a party is one they would invite for dinner. Of course, issues like tax and the management of public services will still form the central battleground by the time of the election but while those policies are still being formed and the election is years away changing the perception of the party such that we cannot be dismissed as nasty is a fine way for Cameron to be spending his time.

Of course, this focus upon becoming acceptable to the middle class who have deserted the party since we last won elections does not mean that our long term fight for the votes of the northern cities needs to be sacrificed. Talking about the environment is a dog whistle which those who spend their time worrying about immigration will not hear. As we are still committed to maintaining a tough stand on issues like law and order we will retain the policies required for the slow struggle to revive our presence in the north.

Cameron using dog whistle politics to pursue Conservative core voters? More plausible than it sounds.

South Park vs. Self-censorship

South Park has attempted to take a stand over the cartoons of Mohammed. It appears that when they put a show based around the cartoons to Comedy Central they were told that the network would not show any episode depicting Mohammed. In defiance the South Park staff put out a show based around censorship of a fictional Family Guy episode which offends Muslims. Over two episodes they make a pretty complete, and utterly correct, case for freedom of expression.

South Park can clearly not be accused of victimising Muslims. Early in the first part Cartman asks Kyle how he would feel if a cartoon made fun of the Jews; South Park has endlessly done so. Equally, it is clear that the same self-censorship is not being applied to the sensitivities of Americans; at the end a fictional Islamist response is shown which has Jesus, the President and the US flag defecating and/or being defecated upon. By contrast the censored image of Mohammed is of him passing an American football helmet with a salmon on top of it to Peter; hardly dynamite stuff.

For a while after the airing of the show there was considerable confusion. Ed Morrissey and many of those posting on the South Park Studios BBS thought that this was all a joke and that the South Park staff had not wanted to show an image of Mohammed at all. However, reliable reports and statements now indicate that the censorship came from the network. There were good reasons to suspect that Comedy Central would not prove a worthy partner to South Park Studios as they had removed an episode concerning Scientology from the rotation just a few weeks earlier but even so it is a shock that they would prevent an unmodified episode seeing the light of the day at all.

If a show as famous as South Park is not able to express itself clearly then there can be little doubt that one of the West's fundamental principles is in danger. Freedom of expression is a right which has important functions in enabling creativity, proper debate and accountability as well as being a value choice. Fear of terrorism cannot be allowed to endanger free speech.

The death penalty and 9/11

I don't support the death penalty. I think that the act of killing someone who is defenceless and a danger to no one (as they must be when strapped down waiting to be electrocuted or injected) makes a coward of the state. However, some people really do make opposing the death penalty difficult.

I think that the documentary on Channel 4 looking at the 9/11 hijackers experience in the months leading up to the hijacking which aired a year or so made something of a mistake. There isn't necessarily a problem with attempting to humanise the attackers if it is done well and the documentary did make sure to highlight the betrayal of families that was involved. However, in choosing to end when they boarded the planes it managed to avoid dealing with the fact that the hijackings, as can be seen in the account of the recordings above, clearly required utter brutality.

While humanising the hijackers the film lost sight of the human consequences of their attacks. Holding a knife to a woman's throat, killing her, stabbing the unarmed passengers fighting for survival, barricading yourselves in the cockpit while bringing the plane down. These are the actions of cowards and monsters and humanising them cannot get around the fact that they possessed free will just like the rest of us and chose a truly evil path. This is a good illustration of the challenge that liberalism poses. Opposing the death of someone responsible for something so utterly horrible is an ugly business.

Blair's failure of leadership

I think that the mainstream press has somewhat missed that neither the Tories nor UKIP can match Labour for putting closet racists in positions of power. As such I think I'll send the following letter to the Prime Minister so that at least he might see the reality of the situation:

--

Dear Mr. Blair,

London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, has recently been in China and has compared the Tian’anmen Square protests, in which thousands were killed opposing a dictatorship, to the London Poll Tax riots, in which no one was killed opposing an unpopular policy of a democratic government. This suggests that he puts an incredibly low value on the lives of Chinese demonstrators. An attitude such as this is entirely inappropriate for the mayor of a cosmopolitan city such as London.

Prior to this Mr. Livingstone has demonstrated anti-Semitism on two occasions: Firstly, by repeatedly comparing a Jewish reporter to a guard at a concentration camp. Secondly, by telling the owners of a company running a regeneration project in Stratford to “go back to Iran and try their luck with the ayatollahs”.

All of these actions hurt race relations in London and demean Mr. Livingstone’s office. The High Court has ruled, quite rightly, that the standards body does not have the right to suspend officials with an electoral mandate. For this reason it would appear that this is a situation in which free speech combined with a desire to avoid gratuitous offence is best served by not suspending Mr. Livingstone from office but, instead, expelling him from the Labour party.

Recently, when a Conservative candidate for councillor stated that an ethnic minority candidate would not be appropriate for their ward Phil Woolas complained that David Cameron had “failed the test of leadership by refusing to take action”. Doesn’t that logic apply here as well?

I would like to ask you, as leader of the Labour party, to take action to sever links with a man who is an embarrassment to the Labour party, London and, by association, yourself.

Yours,
Matthew Sinclair

--

Any chance of a response? Not much but you get the point.

New Conservative Movement Awards Launched

Conservative readers of this blog should go and take a look at the new Conservative Movement awards being launched by ConservativeHome. Seems like a good idea as a networking event for the Conservative movement as much as anything.

At the moment they are discussing the categories. I would suggest that it will be important to include best newcomer in many of the categories. While these are the inaugural awards I think there is still a function to noting those who are less well established. A balance needs to be struck between giving the huge blogs like Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes the awards they deserve but also giving real amateurs something to play for.

Chirac scraps Youth Job Law

It appears that Chirac has surrendered to the protests against the CPE. While the replacement policy he has promised could revive moves towards greater labour market flexibility it seems unlikely he will risk a revival of the protests. Most likely the law will be replaced with a new measure which either introduces no significant change or an active harm such as 'job creation' (as Marginal Revolution notes even the economists still support such ideas in France).

As I have noted in an earlier post this situation appears to be the result of a political mainstream able to put the interests of an employed population interested in stability above those of the unemployed even with staggering numbers out of work. All this requires is a belief that the unfortunate are best helped by the state and a disturbing desire for security at any cost among French youth. The Economist was right to note that, for all their rebelliousness, they display a "chilling lack of ambition" when asked to face the more mundane risks of the job market.

If there was a chance for Sarkozy to demonstrate that he is something more than a political fighter this was it. Instead he has chosen to play this as another political game and humiliate a rival. While this is evidence of some political nous it does not suggest that he can be expected to achieve much if he becomes leader. While he has talked of a need to change the system this change will not come easy and is unlikely to be achieved by a leader who is not steadfast in its support. Perhaps this is not such a surprise, his support for 'industrial champions' over the years suggests that he shares the preoccupation of the French political class with an long out of date mercantilist approach to capitalism.

France has the potential to be an enormous success but if its leadership does not start showing some statesmanship it faces the same fate as Italy; chronic and banal decline. Even if a French Thatcher is not on the cards the competence and steady improvement of a Merkel would make a huge difference.

Oliver Kamm on Political Violence

Oliver Kamm does an excellent job of spelling out the difference between the violence of the democratic state and the violence of terrorists.

Cameron's Gamble

All of the talk we are hearing at the moment about Cameron's lack of policy misses the point. We aren't supposed to have policies yet, that's what the policy groups are studying. That the emperor has no clothes is no particular revelation; the tailors are at work. To take longer to come up with policies does not indicate that someone is in any way policy light, however. If you were policy light you would be happy to come up with policies quickly. Instead, it suggests sustained thought which will, hopefully, produce the right policies.

The problem is that repetition can secure even the most questionable of ideas in our common consciousness. Cameron's gamble is a bet that once the policy drought comes to an end, with the various commissions reporting back, the media's characterisation of him will actually change. This is a substantial risk, these stories do not change quickly and good policies could be written off as lightweight for their association with Cameron thanks to his "media darling" reputation.

There is little to be done about this now beyond toughing it out until the policy comes. If we get bad results at the council elections the strong mandate from Cameron's overwhelming victory in the leadership contest should see him through. This problem does suggest, though, that it might have been better to have the policy groups making interim reports rather than leaving the party with so little to talk about for so long.

Amartya Sen on the West and Democracy

Reformist Muslim, on Picked Politics, links to an article by Amartya Sen written for the Wall Street Journal in which the economist attacks the notion that democracy is "owned" by the West and innapropriate for those from other cultures. He does this in two ways: First, by questioning the legitimacy of Europe and the modern West as a successor to the Greek democratic pioneers. Second, by noting that concepts such as religious and academic freedom have been followed in other cultures including those now seen, in some quarters, as inimical to democracy. He concludes that cultures are not and should not be overly restrictive of the futures of their constitutents.

His second line of argument is most welcome. All those engaged in the struggle for or against the advance of liberalism in the Islamic world should be aware that they are not entirely trying to create something new. The contribution to mathematics and literature of the old Muslim nations was the creation of cultures open to new ideas and people. Those who attack the advance of liberalism should know that they are attacking the basis of some of the proudest moments of their own culture's history as well. Those in favour of reform should be heartened that their task cannot be impossible.

Equally, his conclusions are intellectually important. As an economic historian I study in a discipline which has seen culture used to explain far too many phenomena and it is, unfortunately, often the mark of a poor understanding of the conditions that individuals are facing. When Africans are faced with a lack of property rights which leaves them unable to trade beyond immediate communities or be sure that the fruits of their labour will not be arbritrarily confiscated there is no need to explain a lack of entrepreneurial activity through resort to their "culture". Explaining the behaviour of nations or people through culture is toxic to any programme of improvement and usually fails Occam's razor.

However, I do have to take issue with his first line of argument. His argument that the West of the Greeks has no special connection to the modern West requires a twisting of history. While the Greeks may have had little to do with the Goths a line can be traced, with major overlapping institutions, from the Greeks to the Romans through the Church to the present day West. This is a civilisation which, while it has seen good and bad times, has always conceived of itself as distinct from the rest of the world; the ancient Greek concept of the barbaroi (foreigner) never quite left. While many of its values are also held by others and are not entirely constant it is a feat of pedantry not to see a common tradition. The modern West rightly takes pride in being the heir to this tradition.

Sen could make his point more effectively by arguing instead that some values are important and worthwhile regardless of their origin (values like government by discussion) and for all people. The arrogance with which Western universalism has often been expressed has hurt its case but clearly there are many values which are currently found most well developed and widely spread in the West which are simply correct answers to questions about how people should best form societies. Sen has made the important point that many of these answers, such as allowing free thought, are not new to Muslim and other civilisations and that government by discussion is neither alien nor unattainable to any people.

Hamas confronts reality

Hamas is turning its back on suicide bombing and suggesting that it might accept a two state solution. This marks solid progress from that organisation that introduced suicide bombing to the Palestinian conflict (it originated with the Tamil Tigers) and until recently maintained an "into the sea" policy on Israel. While there are all sorts of messages coming out of the PA and declarations should not be accepted at face value this does appear to be movement in the right direction.

It has to have something to do with the suspension of funding that has been implemented by the US, Israel and Europe. This cost and the difficulties it created with sustaining the Palestinian Authority forced Hamas to confront reality. The Europeans, as the largest donor, are particularly significant here with Angela Merkel in particular, proving again to be a superb international operator, having played a large part in introducing a stick to policy towards the Palestinian Authority. A few of the arguments against a suspension of funding were always somewhat questionable:

1) They will get funding from other sources: Firstly, this contradicts all of the other reasons given not to reduce funding. Secondly, if this doesn't involve substantial costs why aren't they doing it now? Being funded by the crusader West surely has to involve substantial political costs for the PA.

2) This will shut down services essential for the running of the Palestinian state: It will involve costs to the people but that is the nature of any kind of sanction against another state, however, most of the budget goes towards a paramilitary police force and paramilitaries are political bodies who, at least in the short term, will turn up regardless. That they are a paramilitary can be seen in a group of the police officers storming the parliament in protest after Hamas were elected.

3) This is undemocratic: No, believing in democracy means that we defend the sovereignty of democratic states, it does not mean that there cannot be costs to political choices. If a state votes in Communists it will become a lot poorer as the result of a legitimate democratic choice but this does not mean we need to step and provide financial aid in if we believe in allowing "free" democratic choice. We have to tolerate democratic choices but we don't have to give them our money.