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.

Krauthammer on Immigration

Charles Krauthammer has written a superb piece for the Washington Post on the immigration debate in the US. His idea is that you combine the hard policy of building a physical barrier on the border of the US and Mexico with the soft policy of an amnesty on integration. This allows you to solve the problem of suffering illegal immigrants without the risk of incentivising future illegal migration. This proposal is of limited practical value to an island nation but does suggest at least the direction of movement; towards a more friendly policy for those already in the country if we can combine that with stronger controls at the border.

A problem is the brief suggestion that amnesty be dependent upon paying back taxes. That would make staying hardest for those who have been in the US longest and hurt the purpose of helping those stuck in the black market for so many years.

The other solution of having immigrants learn English makes more sense in finding those migrants committed to integration. An alternative would be a strong citizenship test such as that being suggested in Germany.

Since this report Merkel has set herself up in favour of it. Some of the questions are strong and clearly aimed at Islamists but should only really offend those that hold them (offending these people isn't a problem). Moderate Muslims should be more than happy that we exclude such extremists and to pretend that such views don't exist is absurd.

The only question which isn't directly targetted at extremists is that about homosexuality (which would catch many peaceable social conservatives who would have no trouble integrating in the UK) but this isn't a problem if the answers are interpreted such that milder, if illiberal, answers like "dissapointed" aren't cause for a red flag. The question is looking for an answer like that suggested by the University of London Union chair recently that he would "shoot a gay son".

While people can always lie having to study around the questions will give any applicant a good view of the values and opinions of the nation before they arrive and, therefore, still serve a purpose in informing their decision over whether to seek citizenship.

Twelve Books that Changed the World

Martin Goodman notes the selection chosen for the twelve greatest books of all time by Melvyn Bragg. As Martin describes the selection of books chosen is heavy on works which can hardly be considered literature at the expense of the novel. Martin’s choice for a novel to add is Lady Chatterley’s Lover as a book which, through the controversy it created, led to serious social change. He is obviously right that many of the books selected by Bragg have recorded changes which have already happened in the world of technology or the law and therefore form a poor advertisement for the power of the written word.

However, Martin is a writer of dystopian fiction, among other things, and I think that he has neglected to mention the poor showing that genre has made in a write up of the most important books. A Brave New World is unparalleled as a challenge to utilitarianism and is therefore clearly of huge importance in the development of human thought. It also acts as a warning which has been noted far and wide; it recently showed up in the film Garden State as the intellectual underpinning to an otherwise simple movie. 1984 is probably one of the most widely referenced books going which is currently both honoured by frequent name checking whenever someone wishes to defend freedom against autocracy and dishonoured by its new association with popular culture through Big Brother. Both of these books are clearly highly important and important in their own right as artistic and political statements rather than as the record of important activities going on elsewhere. They are a showcase for the written word which would better befit a series about great books than Bragg's series, which is likely to become a record of great 'things'.

The Union Modernisation Fund

Guido Fawkes highlights an ongoing concern for anyone worried about how the Labour party seems to be taking maximum electoral advantage from its time in government by every means other than actually running the country well. The Union Modernisation Fund offers £10 million over 3 years to the Unions for the purpose of "modernising". This, fairly vague, term appears to mean buying computers and websites. It is set out clearly on the DTI's documentation for the project that it cannot be used for funding political projects. This is an important distinction because otherwise the money is the Labour party using the Unions as a vehicle to fund itself from tax revenues.

The problem here is that the Unions have a budget restriction that forces them to make choices between, for example, spending more on computers or spending more on political funding for the Labour party. Reducing this pressure by, for example, paying for Amicus to communicate with its branches increases its ability to spread largesse elsewhere. The segregation of Labour funding in a political fund does not change the fact that this political fund's size is limited by the need to prioritise within the budget limitation that is the willingness of union members to sacrifice consumption for union representation. Clearly a Labour government policy is contributing to the same budget that funds the Labour party politically. Clearly Frances Maude is right that is "very, very direct sleaze. That is buying influence and buying taxpayers' money".

The argument that unions which don't fund Labour are also receiving money therefore the scheme is okay is utterly irrelevant. All that means is that Labour has no objection to spreading taxpayer money around so that it funds other unions as a byproduct of enabling those unions who do fund the party to continue to do so. Al Fayed also gave substantial money to his son, does that mean his payments to the Hamilton's were above board?

The Metropolitan Police investigation into this scandal marks another low for this government. With the investigation into the cash for peerages row that makes two policy probes into the Labour party directly that I know of at the moment. Really puts the problems at the end of the Major government into perspective doesn't it?

April Fool's Gold Prize 2006

Google, I believe, win the prize for Best April Fool's joke this year with Google Romance. Previous efforts from the company have been somewhat lacklustre with the faintly comic but lacking social bite or plausibility Pigeon Rank providing the premiere.

Google Romance, on the other hand, is both self effacing with its "Contextual Dating option, thematically appropriate multimedia advertising throughout the entirety of your free date" and incisive with "Post multiple profiles with a bulk upload file, you sleaze".

Iain Dale's effort concocting Tory donors deserves a mention as well.

Barry Eichengreen and the World Economy

Eichengreen provides an analysis of the imbalances in the World Economy similar to that offered by Wolf, as I discussed in an earlier post, but focussing in upon an analysis of different views on the size and importance of the US current account deficit. It is less broad than Wolf and probably less interesting for the policy minded but deals more throroughly with the economic questions behind the problem.

The main weakness he seems to miss of the 'Savvy Investor' view is that it requires foreign investors to be consistently poor decision makers. It would seem likely that if they continue to make poor decisions when investing in the US there is every chance that they will reduce their investment there rather than pressing on regardless. In this regard it appears to be vulnerable to the Lucas critique.

His policy recommendation is the same as the fiscal component of Wolf's but without the focus on changes in developing country financial regulation. He simply advises tighter fiscal policy in the US and more expansionary policy in the developing world. I think Wolf's view is more useful here as changing fiscal policy without suitable financial institutions in the developing world would seem the route to a crisis which would probably have ugly consequences in China in particular.

Blair's plans for reforming the House of Lords

Yesterday in the Telegraph the details of the Labour plans to reform the House of Lords were detailed in an interview with the Lord Chancellor. When I wrote up my ideas for reforming the House of Lords I presumed two objectives. First, ensuring that the house has the democratic legitimacy to challenge the Commons when it needs to. Second, ensuring that its opinions do not change too rapidly in line with the Commons so that it acts to slow intrusions into liberties thanks to transient threats.

It appears, by contrast, that Blair's objectives for the Lords are that it should do very little at all. His opposition to elected Lords was on the grounds precisely that they would be able to challenge the Lords and the new proposals would rob them off their ability to temporarily block most legislation. Fears for the power of the executive can only really be understood as MPs feeling territorial; our system clearly allows huge power to governments which usually have large majorities thanks to first past the post and the freedom of an unwritten constitution. The Lords even now only has the power to delay legislation. While it is understandable that Labour feel it a poor result that their legislation is delayed the items which have been resisted most fiercely in the Lord recently were bills such as the Religious Hatred Act or ID cards which made significant changes to the balance between liberty and control and clearly should not have been passed in a hurry. The ability, under the Parliament Act, to ignore the wishes of the Lords in the final instance provides the Commons with all the supremacy it needs.

Martin Wolf and the World Economy

Martin Wolf (links from Brad Setser) has set out an immensely broad sweep picture of the state of the imbalances in the world economy. Regardless of the accuracy of his conclusions I would recommend it as a read if you want to try to get to grips with the issue.

His core observation on the world as it stands is that the current policy of Asian countries of neutralising surpluses by recycling to the United States is effective in avoiding an Asian bubble but creates reserves in Asia and deficits in the US which are reaching unmanageable levels, it is also very expensive for Asian countries. For this reason the large Chinese economy needs to move towards less export led growth.

His final conclusions are phrased in terms of a number of actions which need to be taken at the same time but to my mind he has really set out a series of desirable steps such as market exchange rates and a reduction in worldwide surpluses which are contingent on the prior step of reforming financial sectors in developing countries. This is necessary to avoid repeating the Asian Financial Crisis where financial systems which had been successful serving a less developed economy demonstrated vast flaws when dealing with exposure to international finance.

His ideas on how this financial reform should proceed are the Basel standard including strong regulators, proper transparency etc. but he does acknowledge that more information is needed on the efficacy of differing regulatory regimes. This clarity might be provided by the study highlighted in the Economist (requires subscription) which questions the wisdom of granting vast powers to financial regulators in developing states. It would appear that the crucial reforms are particularly those ensuring transparency in the affairs of banks; allowing lenders and borrowers to decide on the soundness of banks rather than empowering an additional layer of, often inscrutable, officialdom.

A British Fox?

Alex Deane has written on Conservative Home calling for a British equivalent to Fox News. The problem with this piece is that it seems to believe that the block to such a channel is a lack of willing investors.

I think key here is the regulatory agency. Fox News US, as it is shown in the UK via digital, was recently in trouble because someone, in a comment section, called the BBC anti-american. So long as we have a regulator which enforces the BBC as the standard for fair and unbiased deviations from that, left wing, code will be punished and impossible to maintain.

The only solution would seem to be to remove the rules governing impartiality and let right and left wing programmes duke it out as in the newspapers. Some kind of regulation is still needed for the state owned BBC (if abolition is not an option) but not for the competing private news stations. Were deregulation to happen the promise of an audience which would (as is the case in the newspapers) most likely be larger than that for left wing journalism would see right wing TV journalism proliferate.

Chirac's Nationalism

Chirac's storming out of a European Council of Ministers meeting in response to the horror of a Frenchman addressing the summit in English has to mark a new low for the defence of the French language. While the political reasons for Chirac to play the Franophone card while under siege at home are fairly clear one thing still shocks me.

How can Chirac do that with a straight face? As a well educated and intelligent man surely he can't really get angry enough to storm out of a meeting because the head of a multinational group uses a language he easily undestands and has interpreted?

Managing to pretend that he was serious in this stunt is surely an argument for broadening the Oscars. Best Head of State.

The Budget

I've been thinking of whether there's anything original to say about the Budget and have concluded that there is little new in it and, hence, little new to say.

Martin Wolf's commentary is, as ever, excellent.

The main thing that struck me about the speech is how strange it is to hear Brown boasting that he has spent vast amounts on X public service. Standard procedure in charity, business and the rest of life is to boast of doing something with little. Return on capital employed is the accountancy measure, charities compete to suggest that they are keeping costs down and improving the life of a fisherman so much for so little money by supplying him with nets. Gordon Brown doesn't talk about the value he is getting us for our money because the reality is that the value is very low. While measuring productivity in public services is difficult it is probably falling in the public sector (as Redwood mentioned in his generally good speech in the Budget debate) while rising at a decent rate in the private sector. Gordon Brown's boasting of huge amounts of "investment" is a boast of waste so long as he fails to take reform remotely seriously.

He has noticed that we face challenges, from India and China and other developing nations, but his response consisted of lots more funding for education (no mention of reform) and lots of window dressing. Does he really think that changes to the means of distributing academic grants (moving the decision from council to university) will make a serious difference to whether or not we take the opportunities of new markets?

Cameron's response was pure politics but I don't see that as a problem. The detail of the weaknesses in the chancellor's numbers was best left to the more technical MPs; Cameron should stay focussed on a message that can get through.