Benedict Rogers On Pakistan

Over the weekend Benedict Rogers, of Christian Solidarity and the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission wrote a strong piece for ConservativeHome’s Platform arguing that more needs to be done to protect Pakistan’s Christian population. They certainly face very severe abuse and as a minority religious population in an increasingly radicalised Muslim country their position is clearly a risky one. However, I disagree with Rogers on his portrayal of the political realities in wider Pakistan.

He paints the Christian community’s problems as being very much a choice made by Musharraf. In particular he approvingly quotes Zahid Hussain saying “Pakistan’s failure to curb extremism owed less to the difficulty of implementing reforms than to the administration’s own unwillingness.” If the abuse of the Christian community were the only challenge facing the military leadership this might be an accurate description. At the moment Pakistan’s leadership faces a significantly more varied and large scale set of problems.

There is a touch of unreality in covering the troubles in the border provinces purely in terms of the abuse of and threat to the Christian community. Moderate Muslims are facing serious threats of death and actual abuse in what Gideon Rachmann, Chief Foreign Correspondent for the Financial Times, termed the “Talibanisation” of Pakistan. The border regions have always been somewhat lawless and that makes cracking down on radicalisation easier said than done. This isn’t Britain, or even China; the state’s writ has a distinctly limited authority.

Equally, there are direct threats to the regime’s stability in the cities. In Karachi there has been rioting connected to the Chief Justice’s challenge to Musharraf and his nationwide tour publicising that opposition. In Islamabad there has been Islamist rioting centred around the university. For a regime that can’t take its own existence for granted this is a very alarming development.

While I would on no account want to diminish the sufferings Rogers discusses they only involve a handful of people so far, albeit with a threat to many more, and things could get far worse. The one policeman Rogers describes being sent to defend a church under threat of attack from radicals may have been an insult, how can one man defend a church?

However, on the other hand it could be that he’s fulfilling a similar role to that played by US troops in South Korea. Should radicals assault the church he might stand up to them, they might have to kill him and they might face retribution for that infringement from the state. Were Pakistan to collapse in violent revolution that credible threat of sanctions to abusing the Christian minority would disappear. Then the scale of the horrors facing that community might become radically worse.

As such, it is very much in the interests of Pakistan’s Christian community that the military leadership use their limited resources to ensure stability. Pakistan could collapse in revolution if the military gets things wrong, if troops refuse to crackdown on fellow Pakistanis in the event of renewed riots. A Pakistani I’ve spoken to reckons this is unlikely to happen as the military can try the Roman trick of sending troops from different ethnic communities to enforce their will upon the others. However, it is enough of a possibility to be worrying and if things look bad another general could panic and split the military’s support for Musharraf.

Pakistan needs stability in order to make a steady transition towards democracy. Reform through a violent change would lead to a fragile democracy or, worse, the rise of a Khomeini like figure and a radical regime. In the transition the Christian minority might face an awful fate.

Rogers is right to highlight the abuse and danger the Christian community in Pakistan is facing. Pressure should be put on the Pakistani authorities to do more if they can. However, we should understand the very real hazards the Pakistani regime faces and the costs that all would pay in the event of a collapse.

Gore or the Unabomber?

Test your ability to differentiate between the rhetoric of environmental messiah, former Vice-President Al Gore and anti-technology terrorist the Unabomber with this easy quiz.

David B Smith on Regional Fiscal Inequalities

My previous post on the politics of regional fiscal imbalances didn't do enough to explain the harms that those imbalances cause. Vino challenged me to explain what was wrong with the North, which is poorer, getting more state money. Fortunately, David B Smith's paper "Does Britain have Regional Justice, or Injustice, in its Government Spending and Taxation" (PDF) for the Economic Research Council's Spring 2007 Britain and Overseas does an excellent job of explaining both the degree of fiscal transfers between regions and the, very real, harms they create. The paper is well worth reading for yourself but I'll give a quick summary.

Even after correcting for living costs the other regions are substantially poorer than the Greater South East. After adjusting for prices London is still 42% richer than the North East.

Using regional spending figures from the Public Expenditure Spending Analyses Smith works out the degree of socialisation of each region, the share of its economy that is made up of state spending. With this analysis it emerges that the South East, if independent, would have the second lowest level of government spending in the OECD, after South Korea, at 31.3%. By contrast, in the North the level is 58%. That is uncomfortably close to the 75% of the Soviet economy that the state was thought to actually control thanks to the black market.

Smith points out the questions this raises about how we need to understand the Northern economy:

"Many academic economists spend a lot of time analysing the consequences of ‘market failure’ in the private sector. However, no more than the remnants of a market economy now survive in many parts of the British Isles. Irrespective of whether one regards this as a good or bad thing, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ‘government failure’ could now be a more important source of the problems facing certain UK regions than any failure in the private market sector."

Smith presents three key harms that emerge from an economy dominated by the state, even if that state is paid for by someone else:

First, it encourages people to seek an income through political activism or state dependency instead of through earning a living in the marketplace. This is similar to the Bauer analysis of the harms of foreign aid to developing countries. Effort is redirected away from the productive economy.

Smith also describes this in terms reminiscent of Baumol's argument that a free-market economy is successful because it directs entrepreneurs towards productive activity. Smith describes the rise in Northern political entrepreneurship in place of market entrepreneurship since the North's industrial heyday:

There is also the interesting phenomenon that high government spending regions, such as Scotland, Wales and the North-East, seem to produce large numbers of political entrepreneurs, who live off and lobby for a large state, but few of the traditional wealth creating kind these days – compare and contrast the careers of James Watt and Gordon Brown, or George Stephenson and Alan Milburn, for example."

Smith also links this to the finding, in psychology, that welfare dependency can encourage the pursuit of instant gratification. This can explain the huge levels of drug and alcohol abuse of those on benefits. There are serious social harms to depedency on the scale seen in the North.

Second, regional income inequalities mean that other state policies such as the minimum wage do far more damage to employment in the North than the South as they translate into far higher levels of income. Benefits set on a single level throughout the UK are also a far better alternative to work in the North. This kind of affect has been seen in the poor regions of other countries with severe income inequalities such as East Germany or the Italian Mezzorgiorno.

Finally, public sector employment is an attractive alternative to work in the private sector. With the massive piles of cash provided by the Southern subsidy to play with the state can attract the best people away from cash-strapped Northern employers. This is a very direct crowding out effect.

The costs to the South of paying 8% of its GDP to the rest of the country are obvious. That money, if given back to its people, could make the South a remarkably wealthy place. The South East of England, with levels of taxation at the low end of Eastern European levels, would be a fearsomely competitive economy. To pay this opportunity cost and do serious harm to the North is pretty tragic. David B Smith's paper, by breaking down the effects of the state in different parts of the country, makes an invaluable contribution to understanding the harm that the British state does to our country as a whole.

Does Patricia Hewitt actually know anything?

The following quote is from oral evidence to the House of Commons Health Committee. The report is a huge 373 page document so I think people might have missed it. Here is the person theoretically in charge of the National Health Service, Patricia "goldfish brain" Hewitt, without basic knowledge of hospital building in recent decades:

"Q353 Mr Campbell: Just a couple of questions on PFI. You said that the greater levels of local initiatives and autonomy should be brought into the health service. How does that square with the large increase in PFI programmes when you have got the hospitals being built by these private companies who are nearly running everything, of course?

Ms Hewitt: The PFI programme, of course, was our response to the fact that there had not been a new hospital built in England for longer than any of us, I think, can remember—there simply had not been any—and large parts of the NHS were working in pre NHS hospitals, rather too many of them nineteenth century never mind twentieth century, and PFI has enabled us to make an enormous difference in terms both of refurbishing and modernising or commissioning entirely new hospitals, and we are seeing those new hospitals opening around the country—University College Hospital in London being the nearest one—but that, I think, is really helping to improve the quality of care that the NHS can give patients. Of course, those PFI projects are not imposed by the Department on local health communities. They are generally led by local hospitals who are desperate to rebuild their premises and improve their services, sometimes re-organise services maybe across several sites. They are the ones champing at the bit, if you like, for PFI. We have to make sure, as we do in every case, that there is real value for money and that the health community as a whole locally can afford what the hospital itself wants to build.

[...]

No.Q364 Anne Milton: Can I correct you on the number of hospitals that have been built. There have been some built under the previous government. Chelsea & Westminster, Princess Royal, there are about 50; it was not none.

Ms Hewitt: Right. Thank you.”

Technical Difficulties

I'm afraid my home phone line has been down for the last couple of days and will remain down till Friday. It has taken my broadband connection with it. As such, this blog is unlikely to get any posts till then. Apologies.

More Monbiot Madness

Monbiot's latest brain rot avoids any of the interesting questions in the global warming debate: to what extent is the human contribution or natural cycles the dominant cause? This determines the extent to which emission curbs policy can be effective. What will be the scale of global warming and its economic impacts? This is important to the question of the costs we should be prepared to pay to avert global warming.

Instead he continues his campaign to smear those who disagree with him.

You can tell them that almost all climate scientists believe it is taking place. But climate scientists are part of the conspiracy. You can explain that almost all peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject accept it. But how does that help if they believe the Daily Mail is the font of all wisdom? You can point out that the effort to dissuade people that climate change is real has been sponsored by fossil fuel companies. In response - and in marvellous contradiction of their professed suspicion of scientists - they then point to the handful of climatologists who have not been sponsored by the oil industry who say that it isn't happening. You can argue that they are cherry-picking their experts and their data, but unless they have an understanding of the scientific process, they don't see what's wrong with that.

You know what he hasn't done there? Made a single non-spurious argument.

He's argued from authority and majority. I.e. we've got more professors than you. That's a recipe for writing off all minority opinions and killing science.

He's made a clumsy ad hominem. Being funded by oil companies doesn't make a person wrong. It is just as easy to attack the motives of people of Monbiot-like opinions whose careers are dependent upon the fear of global warming to justify research grants and newspaper columns.

Only one actual argument gets cited in the entire piece:

"At my talk last night, a man in the audience informed me that a belief in climate change is a religion, and that I am its Billy Graham. He pointed out that temperatures on Mars have risen: could that be because of all the people driving their SUVs there? Well full marks for originality: I haven't heard that one more than 100 times since the Martian data was published. But instead of trying to argue with him, this time I asked a question: what would it take to convince you that manmade climate change is taking place?

"Nothing", he said. "The climate has always changed. This is just another natural cycle."

"So even if every scientist of every kind and every persuasion agreed that manmade climate change is happening, you would still place your own opinion above theirs?"

"Yes."

This, I suspect, must now be the position of most of those who still deny that man-made climate change is happening: that there is nothing - no evidence, however compelling, no scientific consensus, however robust - that could persuade them of the opposite case. Could there be a better definition of religion?"

Monbiot doesn't offer any evidence as to why it isn't another natural cycle or the Martian data isn't important. He asks his questioner whether "if every scientist of every kind and every persuasion agreed that manmade climate change is happening" that would change his mind but doesn't mention whether there has been any change in the quality of the evidence for global warming. Again instead of deploying evidence Monbiot returns to telling his global warning denier he is in a minority and posing the counterfactual of his being in a smaller minority.

Monbiot doesn't seem to understand the term religion, at best he's talking about faith. However, his argumentative style, relying upon majority support and personal authority instead of evidence is reminiscent of religion at its least rational.

Frum on Mao

Frum reviews and defends Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's book on Mao. He is right to celebrate what is a massively important study. Without Chang and Halliday's painstaking research, and with so much evidence lost and those with first hand experience of Mao's crimes getting older day by day, the legends he created around his life might have been allowed to stand as history.

We might have forgotten the extent of Mao's crimes. A hideously effective, although now being slowly reversed, attack on the decency, history and people of the world's most populous nation. Many Western intellectuals, such as Nicholas Kristoff who Frum brilliantly skewers as practicing the "well Hitler did build the autobahn" approach to history, have given Mao far too easy a ride.

Praguetory on the DTI

The blogger Ghost Cabinet is a thoroughly good idea. Encouraging more policy debate in the blogosphere is a fine thing. In that spirit, here's a, hopefully constructive, response to Praguetory's piece on the DTI:

"The DTI manages government assets of £10 billion and performs sundry other tasks with 10,000 staff on a budget of £6 billion per annum. It is a department in crisis. In a classic sign of an uncertain organization the DTI recently conjured up the following statement of purpose."

That spending figure is actually a little out of date. It's the number that was bandied around a little while ago but this year the DTI spent £6,899,000,000 according to the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses.

"“Working to create the conditions for business success and help the UK respond to the challenge of globalisation”.

Are they succeeding? Firstly, let’s measure business success by considering movements in the value of companies. Between May 1992 and 1997 the FTSE 100 index rose by 92% to 4500 when Labour took over. If Labour had managed to maintain that rate of growth the FTSE would stand at 16,532 today. It is 60% lower at around 6,600. So that’s a big black mark."

That's a little unfair. The DTI is only one government department with a very limited capacity to create a framework for business success. It has little control over regulation and none over corporate taxation. Also, FTSE performance is a pretty imprecise measure of corporate success.

"To measure how the UK is responding to the challenge of globalization we should examine the UK’s relative competitiveness. The World Competitiveness Yearbook shows that the UK has slipped from ninth place in 1997 to 21st in 2006. The World Economic Forum also compiles a global competitiveness league table. In 1997 we were 4th since which time we have dropped to 10th."

This is a better measure of the DTI's failure.

"In their latest report, an inadequately educated workforce was cited as the most problematic factor of doing business in the UK. Another major weakness is the inefficiency of the UK’s tax system. We were ranked 67th. Britain came 51st for its burden of government regulation down from 13th in 1997 and we dropped from 11th to 26th on bureaucracy. In sum, UK plc is not responding well to the “challenge of globalisation” either."

The DTI has very little power to affect most of these issues. The Department for Education and Skills is responsible for education. The Treasury controls the tax system. Regulation and bureaucracy is created by all government departments (a lot of regulation comes from the EU of course). This should highlight that the problem is less that the DTI is making poor decisions and more that it has no ability to put in place the policies that might improve the lot of business.

"It is hard to understand how bureaucracy and regulation could become so much more damaging over such a short period until we observe that Labour have brought in 15 new regulations every working day since taking office."

Doing something to curb this constant drive to regulate should be the key task for any reformed DTI that actually seeks to make government less of a hindrance to business.

"A Strong Voice For Business"

Praguetory doesn't offer any particular proposals for change. However, the best idea I've had would be to establish a new Regulatory Audit Office with a similar mandate to the, excellent if sometimes overly diplomatic, National Audit Office. While the National Audit Office attempts to highlight waste a Regulatory Audit Office might do the same for regulation that is counterproductive or harmful to business. It might highlight profitable areas of regulation to repeal or reform. Politicians would quickly become aware that new regulation faced increased scrutiny and might be more careful about the impact of its plans.

Of course, regulation emerging from the EU would be harder to tackle, we have a limited say over EU legislation. However, it would still be a fine thing to provide our government with detailed analysis of harmful regulation to present to other EU states and the Commission in negotiations.

I'm pretty sure that the National Audit Office is pretty inexpensive so a new Regulatory Audit Office would cost a tiny fraction of the amount the DTI comes to. It wouldn't tackle other business concerns like poor education or corporate taxation but I'd be wary of a generalised 'voice for business' that might just become one more PR machine. Instead, focus on the one issue that really requires both investigative resources and constant vigilance, an issue where a decent internal but independent auditor could really become influential and help government form policy more effectively. The cost of regulation. Let outside lobby groups provide a voice for business on issues like corporate taxation.

Teaching History to Boys

Fred Thompson and Ross Douthat make a sensible point I've heard before, and set as a motion for a debating competition. There isn't enough teaching of military history:

"I agree with the general point of Fred Thompson's defense of teaching military history, and the old Victor Davis Hanson column that he draws on, though I share some of the caveats expressed here. The best reason to teach military history, to my mind, isn't that the Battle of Gettysburg is necessarily more important than half a dozen other topics a student might study, but that it's more interesting, offering an exciting gateway - particularly for boys, whose progress through our educational system leaves a lot to be desired these days - into a subject that can easily become dry as dust. Plenty of people, myself included, have gone on to be interested in the Missouri Compromise, the tariff controversy, and Reconstruction because they first thrilled to accounts of heroism and cowardice, genius and incompetence, at Little Round Top and Marye's Heights and Lookout Mountain. I'm willing to bet the progression rarely happens in the opposite direction."

Education is dominated by left-libertarian academics who think that history's purpose is to 'understand people' rather than tell extravagant tales about ancient massacres. This means that even study about the Second World War becomes all about the Home Front. There's room for a lot of variety in such a varied subject and the basic skills can definitely be picked up through looking at battles, generals and the like. The focus on soft, emotion centred, subjects has turned boys off history. I read military history in my childhood and it seems highly plausible it played a substantial part in leading me to more general historical study. A serious attachment to military history is something that most young men should grow out of quite healthily but the phase is an important one.

While we're at it. The two Shakespeare plays I was introduced to most frequently in my education were Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Neither has the Henry V quality that I think might appeal more to the young male juvenile mind.

I'm not in favour of lowering standards to keep children interested. However, I don't think it is really credible to argue that teaching military history or Shakespeare's histories necessarily imply a lowering of standards.

Finally a green article that isn't hysterical

If every green article were like this one from the Scotsman the green debate would be so much less infuriating. It manages to combine a non-hysterical account of expected harms from global warming with an acknowledgement of benefits. It then moves on to a discussion of how we might go about adapting (or in this case helping species adapt) to the changes global warming will bring.

As an alternative to the apocalyptic scare story chosen from the absolute extreme end of the futures envisioned by the scientific community, completely ignoring possible benefits and making a lame case for global socialism it's a real breath of fresh air. Brilliant and far more persuasive.

Tranzi Watch: Save the children by paying all of Africa's medical bills...

This is truly spectacular, tranziism in its postnational incarnation:

"LONDON (Reuters) - Gordon Browns across Britain are calling for leaders of rich nations to help African countries abolish healthcare fees when the G8 meets in Germany next month.

In a publicity stunt, charity Save the Children has dispatched a car to travel round the country and find 840 people with the same name as the next prime minister.

Save the Children is campaigning for the G8 to pay for the abolition of healthcare fees in Africa and hopes by getting all the Gordon Browns in Britain to sign up, it might influence the Brown in government."

Brilliant, let's reinforce in African leaders minds that their budget is purely there for the purpose of enslaving or massacring their people. Replicate the dependency of poor regions in rich countries on an international scale. Create yet more corruption that ruins the chances of poor nations building decent states.

I'm not saying there's necessarily no role for international aid. Clearly at times, during disasters in particular, considerations about incentives and corruption need to go out of the window. However, institutionalising global healthcare provision is a dismal idea.

Gideon Rachman on Pakistan

The title for Gideon Rachman's piece on Pakistan "The Talibanisation of Pakistan" isn't quite right. He's actually talking about the Talibanisation of border regions at the moment. That doesn't make the evidence any less alarming.

"Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's north-west frontier province, is a depressing place to visit at the moment. Islamic militancy and violence are spilling over the border from Afghanistan. Suicide bombings used to be unknown in Peshawar. But there have been 16 since September. A bombing in January killed the local police chief, who had been cracking down on militants. Another bombing last week blew up a local hotel and killed about 24 people. This is following the pattern of Afghanistan itself. Suicide bombings did not happen there until 2005. Now they are a deadly, weekly occurrence in Afghanistan, and have spilled across the border into Pakistan.

The phrase "climate of fear" is a cliche. But it is an accurate description of the current mood in Peshawar. The American consultate - the last major western diplomatic representation in the city - is surrounded by Green-Zone style fortifications. Moderate Muslims are intimidated. Threats have been made to shops selling CDs, barbers who have the temerity to cut mens' beards and to girls' schools.

The threat of a "Talibanisation" of Pakistan is by no means confined to Peshawar. There is currently a dangerous stand-off in Islamabad, where a radical mosque - associated with suicide bombers - has kidnapped some policemen. And things are much worse in the wilder fringes of the country. Last week I met local journalists who said that it is now just too dangerous for them to travel freely in the tribal regions like Waziristan. This too is a relatively new development. The reporters who I spoke to say that as recently as last year they were prepared to risk it.

One of the sadder aspects of the whole situation is the extent to which the moderate majority are intimidated by the threat of militant violence. In Peshawar last Friday I went to a seminar on American foreign policy, at the local university. As one might have anticipated the criticism was pretty strong. But, beneath the surface, there was also clearly many students who are very frightened by their local militants. (In the audience, I would say there were about 30 female students - two were unveiled. Of the rest, about half wore a hijab - a veil covering their hair, and the other half had the niqab - a full-face covering, leaving just a space for the eyes.) After the seminar one of the students came up to me and said: "I'm a moderate. I don't have a beard. But if things go on like this in Peshawar, my family could end up being driven out or killed.""

His concludes by responding to some Pakistanis who blame the US for this process, for funding the Afghan rebels against the old Soviet Pakistan. I think he's right to note that Pakistan bears just about as much responsibility as its Inter Service Intelligence agency played a critical role in their rise to power. More than that, I don't think that the old Muhajideen that the US funded were quite as radical as the Taliban, they were predominantely the old guard that the Taliban pushed out.

I also don't think he does enough to point out that the problem of extremism in Pakistan shouldn't be solely explained as an import from Afghanistan. Pakistan has its own problems with religious extremism that emerge from a dysfunctional politics and a state founded in religious identity.

The Political Economy of Fiscal Transfers

Wat Tyler examines fiscal transfers. Using numbers for regional taxation estimated by David B Smith Tyler reckons that the South East is transferring about 8% of its GVA north each year. He then posits that this is some form of electoral bribe by the Labour party. It's a fun argument but I'm not sure that logic can hold.

If you're the Labour party facing a first past the post election system your objective isn't just to amass a massive total of votes at each election, it is to win a majority of seats. That requires some kind of dispersal of votes over a variety of seats. Given that Labour has a massive surplus of votes in many Northern seats and the major electoral battleground is the South of England Labour is either very clumsy in its bribing or it puts in place a regional subsidy for other reasons. Equally, if this was just a bribe to the electorate by the Labour party wouldn't we expect to see more of an attempt to end the subsidy during Conservative governments?

The subsidy won't have existed before the twentieth century as the North-South divide is a creation of twentieth century industrial decline. As the twentieth was a Conservative century can we really explain enduring patterns in public spending purely in terms of Labour electoral advantage?

I would think the problem is most likely a result of a poorly thought out, ad hoc, initial response to industrial decline which became entrenched through chronic path dependencies. At first politicians just couldn't face trying to sell the idea that the North needed private sector recovery and would have to accept a decline in traditional industries, migration to the south and some degree of impoverishment (which would provide the incentive to new industries and migration south) for a time.

However, the spending designed to prevent this hardship, while it masked the problems for a while, made the root cause, the moribund Northern private sector, worse. As the Northern economy fell further behind that of the South it became less and less practicable to reduce the fiscal subsidy being sent north. After all, if public spending were cut from the North now it would have extremely low incomes as private sector activity is very low indeed. A vicious circle.

Gracchi on Pakistan

Gracchi appears to have built a rather elegant house of cards in his analysis, on Bits of News, of US aid to Pakistan. He first points to the fact that much US military aid to Pakistan since 9/11 has been used to strengthen its armoury to confront India rather than to bolster its fight against our common enemy in the Taleban. This is undoubtedly true but, as Gracchi notes, is not a critical objection in itself.

With military aid to any ally there will be a certain amount of leakage to that ally's other objectives. Britain was undoubtedly a very good ally for the US during the Second World War. However, clearly we did at times direct US help towards safeguarding our remaining imperial objectives which distracted, at least a little, from the fight the US was interested in: beating Germany and Japan. That was despite Britain and the US both having rather similar interests in most respects. Winning the Second World War was a priority for both.

In a state with radically different interests that effect is bound to be magnified. Clamping down on the Taleban is something in which Pakistan has only a marginal interest. Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was involved in creating the Taleban in order to stabilise their Afghan border.

I'm not implying that Pakistan is still loyal to the Taleban. I'm pretty certain the military at least see the danger in a revolutionary Islamic state next door. However, clearly in a list of Musharraf's priorities fighting the Taleban is much lower down the list than in the list of our priorities for Musharraf's attention.

As such, we're 'paying' Musharraf to do what we want. If we were to pay him entirely in the tools to do the job we want him to do why would he bother?

Gracchi's objection to this is that it alters the balance of power against a democratic state in favour of a military dictatorship. What he's missed is that this balance of power is far from delicate. No amount of US military aid is going to give Pakistan a realistic chance of winning a war with India. Even leaving aside nuclear weapons India just has too many people and too much economic power. It will always win a war with Pakistan.

Pakistan's strategy has been to create as powerful a military as it can, and develop nuclear weapons, in order to increase the costs of an Indian attack so that India cannot use a credible military response to strengthen its hand in negotiations over issues like Kashmir. The balance of power in this region isn't going to change if Pakistan is sold a few more jets or artillery pieces. At the very worst we might make Pakistan a little more intransigent over Kashmir. Given that pretty reasonable progress is being made on that issue at the moment I wouldn't worry too much.

The only real danger is Indian hurt feelings but given that Bush has signed a deal to break the Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to provide them with nuclear energy technology I wouldn't let fears of Indian resentment keep you up at night.

Sarko starts well

Mr. Eugenides sounded an important note of caution about Sarkozy when he was first elected. There is an unpleasant mercantilist strain to Sarko that the British right should be cautious of.

That caution is still appropriate but so far things have gone well. His choice for foreign minister is a socialist but a Christopher Hitchens-like hawk. His first 100 days priorities are inspired. Tax cuts including the near abolition of inheritance tax and an end to the 35 hour week. He's even planning on putting limits on transport sector strikes.

At the same time Sweden is abolishing its wealth and property taxes over the next two years. The two countries the left has used as its poster children for so long seem to want the economic dynamism of the Anglo-Saxon economies. Of course, there are things these countries do well, Swedish school choice and French healthcare (less socialist than ours and better quality). However, the people of France and Sweden have clearly understood that more economically liberal states provide a prosperity that an overactive state cannot match.

Burning our Money on Secondary Moderns

The LSE Library is, indeed, excellent. Wat Tyler has been searching through it for evidence on just why Secondary Moderns went as wrong as they did. What he has uncovered is that they were very poorly funded. If a grammar school system were to be revived today it seems unlikely that particular mistake would be repeated and that does suggest Secondary Moderns might fulfill their proper function. They might really prepare less academic students for practical careers.

I have a lot of conversations with a teacher friend in a hard, comprehensive, school. Those conversations confirm what we've read in Frank Chalk's book. That many children and parents utterly resent the education their children are expected to undertake. They resent it so much that they destroy teacher morale and the possibility of other children learning and waste vast amounts of expensive time in education.

Even those children for whom a higher education is probably not appropriate do need some academic training. They need to learn how to read and write at a basic level. They need to become somewhat numerate to function in the modern world. However, attempting to focus almost all of their attention on academic study for most of their youth is too much. Asked to study all day they become easily distracted and restless. If they were to spend most of their time acquiring practical skills they might be not only better engaged with their education in general but actually pay attention in the smaller periods they are required to study academic subjects. We would increase the productivity of their academic education by reducing the time spent on it. This effect could easily be sufficient to create a net improvement in the academic standards of the worst off at the same time as increasing their training in practical skills.

If the benefits of education become less esoteric parents might do more to help schools out. A parent from a non-academic background is unlikely to have much time for formal academic education but most have direct experience of the importance of having, or not having, skills. If this caused parents to become more supportive of education it could have a transformative effect on educational outcomes among the worst off. It also explains how secondary moderns might come to exist, with equal funding unlike in the old days, under a framework of parental choice.

Now, the case for allowing separate schools rather than streaming: It would seem that in a single school academic achievement will always push out practical skills as the main objective. Academic skills are the hallmark of the higher social strata in wider society. That means that the leadership both within a mixed ability school and the political leadership will be biased towards placing a higher value on academic achievement. It was what got them where they are. This means that schools will be judged by the criteria of whether they succeed academically. Practical skills will not be given the attention they deserve. A separate school might allow those teachers and pupils who see great benefits in a practical education to develop their own sense of pride in practical achievements and not be seen through the prism of how well they do academically.

If right-wingers want to argue successfully for giving schools the freedom to select by academic ability they need to do more than cite the benefits of grammar schools for bright children. It seems probable that you can get most of the benefits ascribed to grammar schools if you just stream every subject. It is rather counterintuitive to argue that poor educational performance somehow leaks through the walls. Arguments for grammar schools also suffer in the face of the 'worst-off test' that is applied by the current Conservative front bench. Grammars might help a small number of bright poor people escape the fate they face at the moment but Cameron's challenge for an educational policy is that it attempt to serve the interests of all students.

Instead of making the case for grammar schools yet again the right need to start making the case for secondary moderns. These schools might properly focus students time on skills that will be of use to them in later life and develop their own sense of pride in the development of hardworking and productive young people. In one of reality TV's few redeeming moments this was what was seen when underperforming students were given the chance at an old secondary modern education. Choice in education could give that chance to a vast number of young people we are currently letting down.

School choice and the grammar school debate

I finally got my opinion of the schools debate clear in my own head last night on 18 Doughty Street.

Firstly, what are our objectives? I think the right-wing has to be focussed more on school choice than on grammars per se. In a free education system where parents can choose the education of their children some might choose grammar schools, others would prefer well run, streamed schools. Many children with different requirements or in areas with different challenges might choose entirely different models of education. The idea that one solution, imposed from the centre, can be the right way to run something like education which is so complex and varied and requires so much intangible information to truly understand the correct approach in any given case seems fundamentally weak.

Second, how do we get there? Do we take a radical position on education reform and hope that either it proves popular and is enacted or it slips under the radar in the general electoral melee and is enacted anyway or do we try something moderate?

A radical position would involve offering close to complete school choice right away with the ability of parents to top-up their voucher and allowing voucher schools to select based on ability. The advantages of a radical position are that we can move faster and make more of a difference more quickly. Also, it may well be that people are sufficiently frustrated with education results that they'll embrace radical change.

A more moderate approach would involve a steady reduction of state control in the education market. It might start with academy style greater freedoms for state schools. It might then make it easier for civil society to open its own schools through a heavily restricted voucher, as exists in Sweden. After that you will have a broad base of parents many of whom would like to spend a little extra on their children and it would clearly be possible as their school is largely independent. The logic for allowing them to top-up with some fees becomes strong. Finally, the arguments against allowing selection based on ability would be weakened when it became clear that it wasn't such a monolithic decision thanks to huge variety in the education market.

The advantages of a moderate approach are that a steady ratcheting of school freedoms might be less likely to provoke a political response and be reversed. It also probably plays better with an electorate distrustful of radicalism.

The final question is what Willetts was actually offering in his speech. Was his central message an abandonment of grammar schools? This has certainly been the focus in the media but didn't seem to be the main content of Willetts' speech. After all, Cameron had already ruled out a return to grammar schools in the immediate future. Willetts didn't even spend a lot of time discussing grammar schools.

Burning our money made a very sensible case that the focus of this speech was on decontaminating the case for school choice. If Willetts can get the Hefferites sufficiently wound up then whatever education policy the Tories finally settle on will be treated as moderate. Perhaps they'll only go as far as academies. Nothing particularly wrong with academies but I think even a moderate approach to building school choice should be more ambitious. Hopefully, they're clearing the way for something more ambitious. That is a very credible approach to introducing school choice.

Brass Eye

Probably the best satire ever. Truly, inspiringly brilliant.

18 Doughty Street

I'll be on 18 Doughty Street from 9 till 11 pm. No topic and no idea who the rest of the panel are but I'll try to be entertaining.

Fred Thompson rocks

I got sent this a few days ago but I'm not sure the UK blogosphere has seen it yet. Bloody brilliant. Fred Thompson isn't a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination yet but could join the race. He criticised Michael Moore for going to Cuba and defending Castro's dictatorship. Moore missed the point and responded by challenging Thompson to a healthcare debate and accusing him of breaking the law by smoking Cuban cigars. This was Thompson's response, cigar in hand:



Moore's counter is so utterly joyless. It confirms the brilliance of Thompson's little video:

"Why would a potential presidential candidate provide photographic evidence of himself committing a felony?" the director told us last night before he showed his film to the 9/11 workers he'd brought to Cuba. "Someone should tell him that 'Law & Order' isn't just a TV show, it's real life. I hope the federal government will take the proper and necessary actions against him for violating the law."

A Very Good Idea

Peter Cuthbertson hits on a very good idea over at the ConservativeHome Platform. I read Frank Field MP's report on Monday and wrote it up for the TaxPayers' Alliance blog. Peter is absolutely right that Field is not only very angry at Brown (one reason he might take the job if offered it) but also has solutions in mind for the welfare system that conservatives should be very sympathetic to.

I also think this might highlight the best side of project Cameron. I worry that the Cameron revolution is becoming a thoughtless, reflexive centrism. However, Cameronism at its best is a much needed opening of the Conservative Party's mind.

At first, in co-operation with Iain Duncan Smith, who came into his own after losing the leadership, Cameron encouraged the party to think again about how we help British society and the family. David Davis was thinking some very interesting thoughts about civic renewal. The party stopped opposing Labour measures that were an improvement over the status quo just because in an ideal world we could do better.

Appointing Frank Field would be a return to Cameronism at its best. Accepting that he is doing some excellent thinking about welfare reform from the Labour benches. Tell the public, with complete justification, that Brown isn't willing to tackle welfare reform seriously and a serious thinker about reform should only be at home in the Conservative Party. Even if Field says no it would still say something very positive about how open Cameron is to good ideas.

The Liberal Democrats

Gracchi has it half right. It isn't just an alliance with Labour that could prove a disaster for the Liberal Democrats. Joining either coalition could be the Lib Dems undoing. Join the Conservatives and all their left-wing supporters abandon them. Labour shout "vote yellow, go blue" at any Liberal Democrat who pokes his head above the parapet between now and the end of time. Join a Labour coalition and you've propped up an unpopular government. More than that. People will just wonder what the point of the Lib Dems is. Why not just vote Labour in the first place?

The other parties complicate British politics. However, the same complications exist in all the Western countries. Even in the States the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy has to be considered. He might seriously affect the balance of votes in a coming election. Whether the Republicans or Democrats suffer the most is unclear although I've seen early polling suggesting the Republicans might lose more support. However, a lot can change between now and election day.

In a first past the post electoral system there is always something tragic about the minor parties. The Lib Dems can attract a relatively large portion of the vote but proximity to genuine power is toxic to their chances. A Bloomberg presidential run, even with the vast finance he could bring to bear, would make no contribution to getting the kind of policies he supports put into practice.

The Republican Candidates for President

This introduction to the top twenty prospective Republican candidates for President (via Andrew Sullivan) is very funny. It also highlights just how weak their field is.

A couple of extracts:

17.

A HUGE BARREL OF OIL

Pro: Coveted; influential; beloved by business community; understood by allies and enemies alike.

Con: Unlikely to support biodiesel-fuel development in the Midwest, potentially hurting chances in Iowa primary; slick.

7.

SAM BROWNBACK

Pro: Serves as a positive role model for ethnic brownbacks all over the country.

Con: Such an ethnicity does not technically exist; lacks the pen-gripping power of Kansas Senate predecessor Bob Dole.

In the Line of Fire Again...

If there is one developing country in the world Britons should really be keeping an eye on it is Pakistan. Thanks to old colonial links and the large British Pakistani community that nation's problems can have serious affects on British society. Pakistan is also crucial to the success of our mission in Afghanistan. Simon Tisdall takes a look at what is going on in that troubled country for Comment is Free. His article is a little muddled but his analysis is interesting. I think the important question is not "when will Musharraf leave", the issue Tisdall focusses upon, but "how will Musharraf leave".

Musharraf, is in serious trouble. Protests in an isolated rural area would be easy to dismiss. Riots in Karachi can imply a genuine threat to the regime. Talk of revolution is still a little premature. Hopefully, whenever change comes it will not entail too much violence. Violent political change is never fun. A bloody resolution to this crisis would be particularly unfortunate as it would increase the credibility of hardliners both in the miltary and the opposition.

Some kind of transition is needed that will convince the military its position and the person of its leaders are not threatened. Violence may encourage them to crack down in order to protect themselves from the mob. At the same time it needs to be shown that relatively secular and moderate opposition can be successful. That would undermine Islamist attempts to pose as the only effective opposition to military or corrupt rule. Once the opposition takes over it then needs to prove able to govern. It needs to prove the "après-moi le deluge" predictions by the military that the country will fall apart without their stewardship wrong.

Central to progress in Pakistan will be involving the wider populace in Pakistani democracy and ending the semi-feudal landlord dominance. This is easier said than done but the institutions of democracy will not last if the population is not properly invested in them.

TPA Blogging

My blogging is becoming somewhat dispersed. Today I blogged twice for the TPA. First, on the new government plans to allow entirely vocational education for age fourteen. A good idea although Labour's drive to push non-academic students into university might ruin it. Second, on Frank Field's study for Reform. It's a searing assault on Gordon Brown's New Deal. The story is a familiar one: too much central control makes a mess of the golden opportunity offered by a growing economy and goodwill towards a new government. Youth unemployment is, despite a decade of economic growth, higher than it was in 1997. Quite a failure. Field's recommendations are interesting.

Voting is open...

Voting for ConservativeHome's Blog Awards is open here. This blog is shortlisted for Best Young Conservative Blog. Vote early, vote often :)

Tranzi Watch: Mary Riddell

Consider Tranzi Watch a new occasional feature. My spotlight on the most egregious Tranziism of the moment. Today, Mary Riddell's piece about Gordon Brown's written constitution. Before I get going it should be noted that a constitution of the sort she's describing is more likely than one that Tom Paine would like. This should be enough to make anyone have second thoughts about the idea of a written constitution. I'll respond to the worst of it.

Firstly, this idiocy: "In fact, the lecture was a search for a set of values that would forge some bond between the potential jihadist and the Surrey golfer and lure people back to politics." How has that worked out?

It wasn't anything of the sort. It was an attempt to smooth over English frustration at having salt rubbed in the wound, by the appointment of a Scottish Prime Minister, of the democratic inequity Labour created with devolution. His articulation of values and national identity was lame and ignored with good reason.

"Insiders say that in the first weeks, or even days, of his premiership, he is likely to announce a national consultation leading to a British bill of rights. The result will not be the rights-lite version touted by David Cameron as an alternative to the Human Rights Act. This will be HRA-plus, in which Britons get extra safeguards on race relations and equality and the bill is more tightly ring-fenced against interference from any future government. Jury trial, a more extensive right to education and to free healthcare (and, I hope, much-neglected children's rights) might all be included."

This is the really dismal bit.

Extra safeguards on race relations? We have already made huge sacrifices in freedom of expression. She doesn't describe what these new safeguards will be. Constitutionally mandated positive discrimination, an even looser definition of what infringes race relations legislation perhaps? This is the Tranzi urge to do all they can to emphasise group rights (whether class, race, gender or sexuality) at the expense of people engaging with the state and the law as individuals.

She doesn't define what she means in calling for a constitutional safeguard for equality. The idea of taking what should clearly be a policy objective, at best, and turning it into a constitutional matter is absurd. Inequality is far too slippery, complicated and changing a phenomenon to be suitable for constitutional treatment. Is modern inequality, largely led by increased returns to education in the market, really a bad thing and the same as feudal inequality? It is a Tranzi hallmark to try and remove this kind of decision from democratic bodies and make it a part of their ever growing litany of 'rights'.

A right to free healthcare? As a person who can (and does) afford private health coverage why on Earth should I have a right to not pay?

With spiralling healthcare costs throughout the developed world does this sound durable? Particularly given how important lifestyle choices are becoming to healthcare costs incentives to healthy behaviour might become important.

Finally, the article's subtitle "his real target may be the monarchy". Almost a comically bad idea. Destroying freedom of speech in the name of fighting racists is one thing. Destroying Britain's flexible and durable constitutional code in the name of fighting the monarchy is an idea rather harder to sell. British people love the monarchy and dislike Gordon Brown. If Brown tries to take on the Queen and David Cameron his approval gap is likely to widen considerably.

"It's the Trading Gap shuffle..."

The hook is reasonable but otherwise I'm a little sceptical about ConservativeHome's Gordon Brown music video. It makes me want to shout "Get a Haircut" a little too often. Conservatives with long hair always alarm me. Also, isn't the video a little melodramatic for a humorous web clip?



Can I request an animated version of the Macavity poem?

Qutb and Marx

Dalrymple's articles are always brilliant and his new comparison of Qutb and Marx is no exception. In a rather stunning coup Gracchi actually manages to add significant value to Dalrymple's essay. All I can do is recommend that you read both articles. Take away both an interesting insight into Qutb's work and a new understanding of the reasons behind Islamism's similarities to Marxism.

Blogging is likely to be quiet for the next few days...

I'm afraid I'm going to be out tomorrow evening and then away for most of the weekend. As such, blogging is likely to be light to non-existent.

In the mean time, this report on the future of Bank of England is an interesting one. Its recommendations might allow the Bank to do more to cope with the challenge the Treasury is placing upon it. Despite the private sector growing strongly, which usually implies a rapidly rising tax take, we still have deficits. That implies large structural deficits. These will make the central bank's task a difficult one and we'd best give it the best chance we can.

One farmer keeps the right-wing flame alive in Scotland...

This video is pretty boring, earnest footage of some G8 protestors doing their hippy thing until about 4 minutes 30 seconds. At that stage the Police chase them into a field, one of them gets run over by a cow then a farmer threatens them with a hammer. Truly a right-wing hero.

Jonathan Freedland's crystal ball looks a little dodgy

Jonathan Freedland's article for Comment is Free arguing that a worldwide left-wing revival is taking place is dismally bad. His argument:

1) The Right are doing well electorally. This is true. He cites France and the UK within the last week but one could easily look to Sweden, Germany, the US for some years (only Republican incompetence is screwing that up), Canada, Finland or a host of others. There has been left-wing movement as well (Italy, for example) but that looks decidedly shaky.

His analysis of the local elections is a little odd. He decides that a vote for the nationalists in Wales and Scotland, parties that aren't really defined by their ideological position, is more significant than the elections in England where both left-wing parties lost hundreds of seats.

Also, he tells us that Sarkozy has a protectionist side, he's no Adam Smith. What a shock. It's France. He is still the candidate of a right-wing 'rupture' by the standard set across the Channel.

2) The Left are the ones doing well really. His evidence for this isn't exactly convincing. Inequality is rising and Democrats are telling us that they want to do something about it. No commentary on whether that message is proving persuasive. No real analysis about what it proves at all. He just assumes that with inequality rising the left-wing response must be convincing. Democratic presidential candidates are assumed to speak for America.

Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani appears to be losing his way in the US Presidential Race. I expected him to do well a little while before he began his long period of poll dominance. However, now he's definitely stumbling. At the start of the race it very much looked like the right wing of the Republican Party really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt over abortion. He's utterly failing to articulate an effective answer to the questions over abortion. Fudging isn't the problem. He needs to do that and it is probably what the public want if they're honest. The problem is doing it badly. The position doesn't trouble me but the poor handling of the issue raises questions about how he'll do as Presidential candidate.

He still might win. I worry that says more about the lack of a credible alternative than anything else. McCain's moment has past and Romney is distasteful. It seems unlikely the next President will be a Republican.

Local Elections: More on the Minor Parties

Iain Dale's numbers confirm what I observed happening in the local elections. The Greens made great strides. All the other minor parties and independents stood still or went backwards. How the Greens will affect the other political parties remains one of the most interesting questions to emerge from these elections. The BNP are an ugly and unpleasant force in British politics but don't appear any closer to an electoral breakthrough. The UKIP are close to irrelevant outside of European elections. The Lib Dems are the most popular protest vote rather than a genuine third party.

The Taxpayers' Alliance

I started work today for the TaxPayers' Alliance. It has been a very encouraging day and thoroughly interesting. I'm now distinctly tired. The student lifestyle has left me soft. As such, I doubt I'll be writing much this evening.

They have graciously given me permission to keep on blogging so Sinclair's Musings will continue. My voice on this blog, however, is purely my own. It should not be taken as any indication of the views of the TaxPayers' Alliance. They have their own blog, which I'll be contributing to.

Spiderman 3

**There are no serious spoilers in this review. However, there are a few minor plot details you might want to avoid if you're seeing it in the next few days**

I went to see Spiderman on Friday evening. It was a fun film. Concluding on moral choice was a fine idea. James Franco was good for once as Harry Osborn played a larger role in the plot this time out and he avoided the Tristan and Isolde perma-sulk. The main emotional story of Peter Parker and Mary Jane's relationship seemed credible. By superhero film standards it was a triumph of emotional realism. The script came up with plenty of excuses for jazz in the score which was very welcome.

It had some minor flaws. Some of the characters, Sandman for example, could have used more screen time to develop their own dilemmas and make them more credible. Too many villains for one film perhaps. Another little gripe, when Peter Parker leaves the theatre after the first performance of Mary Jane's musical there are signs suggesting the film has won a prestigious Tony award. However, the next day a major element in the plot is how bad the reviews are. How did the play get a Tony before the reviews came out?

However, my main problem with this film was Emo Spiderman. By all means have your character wrestle with the temptation of evil. A fine plot device and subject for a film. Don't dress him up like an emo. It upsets me.

First they came for my visa waiver...

Dave makes two arguments in his response to the possibility of America ending the visa waiver for Britons of Pakistani descent. Firstly, he argues it is racist and on that basis not only wrong but unenforceable. Second, he argues that we should oppose it as we should always support the interests of Britons. I'll rebut these arguments before making the case as to why this measure has some sense to it.

'Pakistani' isn't a race. You can't invent a race part of the way through the twentieth century. Pakistan contains a collection of people from different races. It is a nationality. That nationality is associated with a particular religion but that religion is not associated only with that nation. As such, this is also not discrimination against a particular religion.

As Pakistani isn't a race and there isn't Pakistani 'blood' or anything similar there is no need for the bizarre procedures for racial division Dave describes. I would guess that the Americans will use the simple criteria of whether a person has, or is eligible for, a Pakistani passport. That seems the most efficient criteria. That would essentially mean that this is simply a matter of no longer allowing people to travel under the best passport they possess. If not a simple question when entering the States of "have you, or any member of your family, migrated to Britain from Pakistan" would probably do the trick.

Now, to Dave's second point. The example he cites of Palmerstone blockading Piraeus in order to defend a Portuguese Jew who was a British subject from Gibraltar against Anti-Semitic attack establishes the principle that Britain should defend the rights of Britons abroad. I agree that is a good principle and certainly wouldn't, in an ethnic nationalist manner, deny that British Pakistanis are Britons. However, no one has a right to a visa waiver. It is a privilege given to the trusted. Pakistanis, in general, require a visa to enter the United States and this does not mean their rights are being infringed. I needed visas to enter China and Russia, why under Dave's logic did the Foreign Office not leap to my aid?

There is a serious problem with radicalisation in the British Pakistani community. We have good evidence of this from many polls including one by Pew Research comparing them to other European and non-European Muslim populations. I'll try to give a brief overview of why as it is useful background although it is not crucial to this debate. Islamism has a particular potency in Pakistan for a few reasons:

1. Islam is the only alternative most poor Pakistanis have to landowner power (which owned the democracy).
2. The nation's existence is defined by Islam. While many Islamic nations define themselves as Islamic there would, without Islam, be Iranians. The same isn't true for Pakistanis.
3. The long confrontation with India has given the army a particular place in Pakistani life. This could be a force for secularisation or radicalisation. However, even if it acts as a force for secularisation in general it might produce a backlash.
4. The sense of an unexplainable relative decline in your society's power which many thinkers, e.g. Dalrymple, blame for the general problems in Islam, are strongest in Pakistan. The British Empire took India from them and when the Empire retreated they were not able to reclaim it.

Pakistan's problems are translated into the British Pakistani population because immigrants to Britain are often not the relatively secular elites that, for example, emigrate to America from Iran. We then make things worse by pursuing a policy that gives a disproportionate voice to community leaders we should snub. Other policy mistakes have clearly been made which have contributed to Britain having the worst domestic problem with Islamist terrorism in Europe. This clearly can translate into a serious threat of violence. The extent of that threat was revealed by 7/7, recent terror trials and the warnings of MI5.

This problem with radicalisation is, therefore, not a particular resentment of America. It is not really a problem that America can solve or that any American policy will make a lot of difference to. Even with Iraq it is far more plausible that British involvement had a radicalising effect than that the US policy itself did. Certainly, nothing as minor as a change in visa rules can credibly be expected to make a lot of difference. While we work on the problem of the radicalisation of British Muslims America needs to do what it can to protect itself from the danger some among their number pose. Getting the information that comes with a visa will allow the American government to better protect their citizens. That is an entirely proper measure for a state to take. We should respect it.

Travellers and the Millian Sphere

Dave has written two posts alleging racism recently but both appear to be tilting at racist windmills. I'll deal with the more substantial allegation against the US government for wanting to end the visa waiver for Britons of Pakistani descent in another post. First, he attacks Nadine Dorries for arguing that the traveller lifestyle is not suitable for life in Britain:

"Oh, really? Firstly, the illiberalism of it. What if I want to home-school my kids? What if I want to live in a yurt? British culture is not the monolith Dorries pretends it to be. Secondly, this is frankly racist. It is picking on a definable ethnic group (the Romany) and insisting that they conform to a particular vision of what it is to be British. The Romany arrived in Britain in the 1500s - before the Huguenots and before the Jewish resettlement - making Dorries' argument even sillier if you even accept the premise that you can't move somewhere and live your own lifestyle."

The problem with relying upon liberalism in this case is that you can't establish the necessary Millian sphere. There are two clear harms to others that come with maintaining a nomadic lifestyle in a settled, post-industrial country:

Firstly, an advanced industrial society has a density of population which makes upkeep of your surroundings a serious challenge. Not littering, respecting communal spaces and other behaviours which make living together in a densely populated country like the United Kingdom possible are absolutely necessary. There has been a decline in the understanding that we are all responsible for doing these things which is a part of the reason for urban decline.

However, travellers who aren't going to have to face the consequences of an environmental degradation have no incentive to take care of the area they temporarily live in. They have a reputation for making an utter mess of the area around where they set up camp and this is a key reason their arrival is often greeted with resentment by the locals (of course, this creates a vicious cycle as the travellers feel even less rooted in a community they live with).

One of the major disincentives to crime is the resulting social sanction. Without this social sanction to support it the criminal justice system will struggle to cope. If the approval of your local community is relatively unimportant to you as you expect to leave pretty soon then you are more likely to take the risk of undertaking criminal behaviour. Another reason that traveller sites are resented by local communities is the association with criminality.

The other thing to note is that the travellers aren't just asking for equal treatment under the law. This is one of Dorries' key complaints: "we know that at many of these sites the children don't go to school, the cars aren't insured, and people don't pay business rates as everyone else has to." Surely a racist would want some, more active, discrimination rather than simply applying the same law enforced upon others?

Flying rocks...

If there is one thing that really, really angers me in modern politics it is this attempt to label flying something ugly. To treat the wonder that is the ability of ordinary people to see the world as disreputable. If you really think we need to stop flying to save the planet then make that case but sound bloody morose about the idea of stopping people flying. Don't try to strengthen your argument with the combination of small-minded elitism (an unpleasant combination in itself) and kill-joy puritanism that an attack on flying almost invariably constitutes. Max Hastings' latest example is a classic of the genre.

"Now, in a conversion that would command the admiration of St Paul, he declares that "binge flying" constitutes a huge threat to the global environment. "If the travel industry rosily goes ahead as it is doing, ignoring the effect that carbon emissions from flying are having on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a very similar position to the tobacco industry.""

I don't want to stand in the way of a good buzz-word but this whole notion of 'binge flying' is utterly bizarre. Binge drinking is when one drinks a lot in an unhealthily short period of time. It isn't just drinking too much in general. Now, the person who flies more than once in a day is still something of a rarity. Surely alcoholism is a better analogy.

"He readily admits the irony that he, of all people, should articulate such a warning. He appeals for moderation, for setting some limits on our insatiable appetite for travel: "We now live in a society where, if people have nothing to do on a Saturday night, they go to Budapest for 48 hours. We fly anywhere at the slightest opportunity, 10 times and upwards a year. This needs to be addressed with the greatest urgency.""

How is the idea that if "if people have nothing to do on a Saturday night, they go to Budapest for 48 hours" seen as anything but bloody wonderful? What a brave new world that has such opportunities in it. A trip to see a fascinating city that would have been a serious undertaking even for the richest but a generation ago is now no more of an event than a trip to the cinema.

"For those who inhabit the developed world, opportunities for travel represent the most significant new personal freedom of the past half-century. Even as recently as the 1960s, hitch-hiking to Greece and Turkey was a big deal for the adventurous young middle class. Africa and Asia were high-ticket destinations, South America and Australia almost off the map."

Yes! Now he gets it. A massive, life-enhancing, glorious new freedom. I remember speaking with my grandmother about her flights back when civilian air travel was still something of a big deal. People used to dress up in their best clothes, to be seen. It was a rare luxury of the rich.

"Today, it is possible to fly almost anywhere for a few hundred pounds, and we all do. Every arriving jet at Nairobi or Ho Chi Minh City or Buenos Aires disgorges its crowds of package tourists and backpackers. Short breaks, which mean intensive plane use, are booming. Short-break destinations include Capetown and Dubai."

Isn't this absolutely bloody marvellous? In the film The Fog of War Robert S. McNamara lamented that during the Vietnam war they couldn't understand what was going on in the minds of their adversary. He used this as one explanation of why policy there was poorly formed compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the Missile Crisis we faced off against an enemy we understood. Now we're all flying to Ho Chi Minh City and meeting the Vietnamese.

With so many people travelling to so many places might they learn something and create a more understanding and sensible world?

Certainly I came back from China, and Russia before that, with a new understanding of the peoples of those countries. I also saw first-hand that sometimes when Greenpeace tells you a catastrophe is going on they're entirely lying. Equally, we've started seeing a lot more Chinese tourists on the streets of London since we made it easier for them to get visas. Most of them seem to be enjoying themselves. Every happy Chinese tourist face fills me with hope that they'll go back and want their resurgent nation to reconcile itself with the wonderful Western world they've discovered.

"Common sense tells us that all this is environmentally disastrous. Yet common sense also tells us that tourism is doing great things for the economies of poor societies all over the world. Carbon emissions soar as a result of flying flowers and vegetables to Europe and America from Africa and Mexico. Yet if that traffic stopped, millions of needy people in the growers' trade would suffer."

Indeed. So let's make sure, if we really need to curb emissions, we try and do it while keeping regular flight possible rather than dreaming up draconian and chronically inefficient new taxes on aviation.

"All this leaves many of us as confused as Ellingham. Relatively speaking, the travel boom has hardly started. In the decades ahead, many more millions will possess the means and the desire to fly further and more often. The Chinese, for instance, have only just begun to discover the joys of holidaying abroad. Suggesting to people who live in newly emergent economies that they should forgo travel is comparable with the modern western enthusiasm for saving Africa's great animals, after slaughtering them wholesale for a century or two."

Eh? It's rather different isn't it?

Trying to save animals after slaughtering them is changing your mind and then regretting your old decision. Trying to stop developing nations discovering leisure travel you enjoy yourself is an active hypocrisy.

"Even in the west, it is dangerous politics for a government to seek to check the electorate's passion to fly, just as few democratic nations dare meddle with the freedom to drive. All credible curbs must be based on pricing. Yet if it becomes harder for the poor to travel while the rich stay airborne, this does not sound good on the hustings."

No. Small-minded, elitist, kill-joy puritanism rarely does.

"The best and simplest way forward would be to tax aviation fuel, to end the crazy anomaly whereby moving a plane is cheap, while driving a car is expensive almost everywhere in the world save Iran and the US. But it is almost impossible to reach an international agreement on taxing aviation fuel that would stick. No government will act unilaterally, with the prospect of watching its aviation industry migrate elsewhere."

Indeed. That would be stupid. However, taxing flights has a very similar effect. If Britain continues to ramp up taxes on flights watch Paris Charles De Gaulle or some other European airport in a country with lower aviation taxes claim Heathrow's spot as European hub of choice.

"Ellingham suggests a £100 "green tax" on tickets for all flights to Europe and Africa, £250 to more remote destinations. The first benefit of this would be to deter short-haul flying within the UK. It is absurd that it costs far more to take a train to Newcastle or Edinburgh than to catch a plane there. Lots of us, including me, love trains and are only deterred from using them by the cost."

Perhaps a better solution is for improvements so that taking the train is not so chronically, bizarrely expensive. Privatisation was working better than it has been given credit for. It should have been improved instead of being clumsily and partially reversed. However, bear in mind that high-speed rail travel, the only kind that can effectively substitute for planes, creates more carbon emissions than flying.

"Some destination countries would benefit from discouraging low-budget travellers, because the environmental costs which their visits impose outweigh the cash that they spend. The Samburu National Park in Kenya is currently threatened by the building of two 500-bed hotels. Samburu is a small area, famous for its elephants. Tourists in such numbers will overwhelm its fragile ecosystem. Any rational long-term view of Samburu's interests would come down against the new hotels, and in favour of extracting more money from fewer tourists. The projects will go ahead only because a handful of people will profit handsomely from their construction."

There are two possible solutions to the problem of a hotel being built that shouldn't be in Kenya:

1. Increase taxes on aviation and reduce all air-travel until it becomes uneconomical to build hotels near a safari park.
2. Encourage the Kenyan government to make its process for approving new building plans more transparent and democratic.

Which sounds like the more sensible course of action?

"The low-budget traveller creates dilemmas for destinations all over the world. The mayor of Venice, Massimo Cacciari, wants a levy of €1 a head imposed on the 20 million tourists who come to the city each year, to help with the huge municipal costs they impose. Venice is currently struggling to enforce the ban on picnicking in St Mark's Square, and on walking the streets bare-chested or in bikini tops.

If this sounds pompous, the citizens of Venice reply that, at present, a great host of visitors spend next to nothing and conduct themselves in a manner that diminishes the grace and beauty they come to see. Other Italian cities, including Rome and Florence, are drawing up codes of conduct to restrain boorish behaviour by tourists."

They should do that. The Vatican already imposes special standards of decorum upon its tourists and they don't seem to mind. The new levy Venice is considering sounds like a very measured way to ensure tourists pay their way. Why try to replace this with a generalised attack on travel?

You would replace a specific and tailored response to the problems in Venice with an attempt at a one size fits all policy to defend tourist destinations in general. Venice has very different problems to most tourist destinations. Other areas would love to have more visitors.

"Here, it is easy for a good democrat to explode: "Do you want to restrict the wonders of the world to rich bastards?" But it is an obvious truth that the more people who visit a given place, the greater damage they inflict upon it. Ellingham again: "Balancing all the positives and negatives, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a 'responsible' or 'ethical' holiday."

Holidays are a good of themselves. They are enjoyed, good for and valued by the traveller. That does come with an environmental, financial as well, cost. Expecting flights to be a net positive for the environment as well as those taking them isn't realistic. Most human activity wouldn't pass that measure.

"The bad news for the environment is that it is impossible to believe that the global travel boom will stop. Whatever is done in Britain, or in the western world at large, amid our consciousness of climate change, many other nations which have only just begun to experience prosperity have no intention of depriving their citizens of its privileges.

As with other responses to climate change, however, this is no reason for us to do nothing. Even if the British government is obliged to act unilaterally, it must be right to impose higher costs on air travel through taxation. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to do so."

Why? He's just said, rightly, that Britain's choices are of limited importance when faced with growing emissions in the developing world. Why on Earth is acting unilaterally still the responsible choice? It sounds pretty vain to me.

Throwing away "the most significant new personal freedom of the past half-century" in the name of not stopping the global travel boom is a rather dismal idea.

Milgram

I was discussing the Milgram experiments with a friend and a common question came up. Would people still show the same obedience now that deference to authority figures such as doctors is in decline? Would people still act to kill another person just because the man running the experiment told them to?

To find out I did the natural thing in an Internet age. I checked Wikipedia. I found out, of course, that not so much has changed. The mechanism for the Milgram experiment isn't deference to a particular authority. "The essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow."

In the process I found my evidence that things have not changed. I hadn't heard about this case and it's almost completely unbelievable:

"The final prank call in this scheme was made to a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky on April 9, 2004. According to assistant manager Donna Summers, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', he described an employee whom he said was suspected of stealing a customer's purse. Summers called 18-year-old employee Louise Ogborn to her office and told her of the suspicion. Following the instructions of the caller, Summers ordered Ogborn first to empty her pockets, and finally to remove all her clothing except for an apron, in an effort to find the stolen items. Again following the caller's instructions, Summers had another employee watch Ogborn when she had to leave the office to check the restaurant. The first employee she asked to do so refused, so she phoned her fiance Walter Nix, asking him to come in to 'help' with the situation.

According to Ogborn, after Summers passed off the phone to Nix, he continued to do as the caller told, even as the caller's requests became progressively more bizarre. A security camera recorded Nix forcing Ogborn to remove her apron, the only article of clothing she was still wearing, and to assume revealing positions. As time went on, Nix, per his instructions, began to slap her and had her perform oral sex on him. The tape showed that Summers re-entered the office several times and dismissed her pleas for help, a statement which Summers denies.

When another employee was asked to take part and objected, Summers decided to call the store manager, whom the caller claimed to have on another phone line. She then discovered that the store manager had not spoken to any police officers, and that the call had been a hoax. A quick-thinking employee dialed *69 to determine that the caller had called from a supermarket pay phone in Panama City, Florida. Summers then called police, who arrested Nix and began an investigation to find the caller."

Milgram's experiment remains one of modern science's most interesting discoveries. It is an example of why, despite its weaknesses in some areas, psychology will always be fascinating.

France chooses Sarkozy

Exit polls suggest that Sarkozy will claim the French Presidency. This after a truly monumental election campaign. 85% turn out, the largest since the Second World War. The possibility of riots if Sarkozy wins. A clash over visions for the future of France.

This election matters. Our rather grasping love of disparaging jokes about the French should not be taken too far. It would be a great thing if Sarkozy could create a framework for talent in France to really show itself. This is what the French, with their rejection of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, are missing at the moment.

Martin Newland argues that we should be cautious in pronouncing our liberalism so superior to the French model. The French expats living in London are outnumbered by British migrants to France seeking its lower cost of living and superb healthcare and transport systems. He argues that Britain's "pleasures are far more accessible to the super rich and tax-favoured non-domiciled billionaires". Of course, there are things we can learn from France, its less socialised healthcare system would be an improvement on the NHS. However, his main case that there is a more just outcome under the French economic order is undermined by the evidence he cites.

As he notes the French migrants to Britain are largely young graduates seeking work. The upwardly mobile strivers. The other group in France that really suffers is the young, non-graduate population of La Zone. This group is hidden away in the banlieues and faces chronic hopelessness. Neither group can find employment in the French economic system which makes new hires rare thanks to the legal obstacles to firing people and shuts those with few skills out of the workforce through high non-wage labour costs. Those who migrate to France, on the other hand, are older, middle class people who retire to France to spend money they have already earned. Those in France who defend the system already have well-paid and legally secure jobs, often in the public sector.

It is the Anglo-Saxon system that gives hope and employment to the worse off, those who wish to strive and seek to improve their own condition. Hopefully Sarkozy can create a France that gives strivers a chance to shine.

Hip-hop

Over the last week Ruthie has expressed her concerns at the effects of the hip-hop lifestyle. She fears for what it is doing to a young nephew of hers and huge numbers of other young black men and women. She then wrote a second piece highlighting music which she feels showcases the positive potential of hip hop.

For those who don't know Ruthie she is an American journalism student and single mother that James Higham introduced to the British blogosphere. She mixes in cultural and political observations with her thoughts on her own life. Both the outward and inward looking sides to her blog are well worth reading.

The two posts are interesting not just as a look at what is going on in parts of the States but as the problems she discusses filter into the most troubled areas of the UK and other European countries as well. Dalrymple's discussion of French rap is revealing in this regard (as always with Dalrymple the entire article is indispensable reading):

"But at the same time, official France also pays a cowering lip service to multiculturalism—for example, to the “culture” of the cités. Thus, French rap music is the subject of admiring articles in Libération and Le Monde, as well as of pusillanimous expressions of approval from the last two ministers of culture.

One rap group, the Ministère amer (Bitter Ministry), won special official praise. Its best-known lyric: “Another woman takes her beating./ This time she’s called Brigitte./ She’s the wife of a cop./ The novices of vice piss on the police./ It’s not just a firework, scratch the clitoris./ Brigitte the cop’s wife likes niggers./ She’s hot, hot in her pants.” This vile rubbish receives accolades for its supposed authenticity: for in the multiculturalist’s mental world, in which the savages are forever noble, there is no criterion by which to distinguish high art from low trash. And if intellectuals, highly trained in the Western tradition, are prepared to praise such degraded and brutal pornography, it is hardly surprising that those who are not so trained come to the conclusion that there cannot be anything of value in that tradition. Cowardly multiculturalism thus makes itself the handmaiden of anti-Western extremism."

To end on a positive note my favourite hip-hop track is this one:

Carole Malone manages to demean the abortion debate

My position on abortion is complex and uncertain. There are so many hard moral questions that I'm always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to possess any certainty on the issue. Anyone attempting to address abortion has to grapple with some difficult questions of morality and personhood. Unfortunately, Carole Malone, writing for the Mirror, prefers to write a ridiculous, ad hominem and largely idiotic attack on GPs refusing to refer patients for abortions. She spends most of her time repeating just two utterly ridiculous arguments. I'll rebut a choice example of each argument:

"What I don't expect from GPs, who (according to the BMA) now earn an average of £100,000 a year and work shorter hours, is for them to make moral judgments on me or my lifestyle."

That the government utterly screwed up their negotiations with the medical unions does not make GPs bad people. Any union will negotiate for the best deal they can. Particularly when its members are employed by the government, with no risk of going bust. It is up to the government to ensure this does not result in a vast waste of taxpayers' money and reduced services. That their union got them a sweet deal in no way reduces an individual doctor's moral capacity.

"The days are long gone when we used to see doctors as gods. We know better now. There are some fantastic GPs - some of them in my own surgery - however, they ARE fallible, and they DO make mistakes, which is why none of them have the right to tell us what to do."

Every person is fallible, anyone can make mistakes. Why does being fallible remove someone's right to make moral judgements?

Moral judgement is central to civilisation's defence against barbarism. As fallible creatures there is always a risk that we could be wrong when making moral decisions and for that reason we should show a certain tolerance in assessing the actions of others. However, taking that to the bizarre extreme of shirking our responsibility to make moral judgements is utter lunacy. It is also massively destructive to the maintenance of a healthy society.