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.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
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'.
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'.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
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?
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?
Monday, April 03, 2006
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The BBC enters the advertorial business
Listening to BBC3 in the car this morning (someone else's car) I found myself listening to a programme which was clearly designed for American cable TV. It was essentially an advert for a miraculous invention; glow in the dark house numbers so that ambulances/pizza delivery can find you more easily. While this was dressed up as a feature with incredibly probing questions like "well, wasn't it a little expensive?" to which the answer was, obviously, "the technology is expensive but we now have a special discount just for this show" it always reverted to a sales pitch. Had they been selling versatile blenders it couldn't have been much tackier.
With the collosal bias in the BBC news coverage, advertising features like this and BBC online's ongoing crippling of the UK online industry through its massively subsidised websites surely the case for scrapping the license fee has to be mounting. It was while I was in China appreciating the role of the BBC in undermining dicatatorships only to realise that the relevant service was BBC Worldwide (which was sold off and is a private concern) that I finally appreciated the complete pointlessness of the license fee we are all forced to pay.
With the collosal bias in the BBC news coverage, advertising features like this and BBC online's ongoing crippling of the UK online industry through its massively subsidised websites surely the case for scrapping the license fee has to be mounting. It was while I was in China appreciating the role of the BBC in undermining dicatatorships only to realise that the relevant service was BBC Worldwide (which was sold off and is a private concern) that I finally appreciated the complete pointlessness of the license fee we are all forced to pay.
BT released from price regulation
After 22 years Ofcom have decided to stop regulating BT's prices. The regulators deserve credit for taking a decision that reduces their ability to control and resisting the temptation to define their purpose ever outwards.
The logic behind this move is very sensible. The market for phone calls has been entered by VoIP phone services like SkyPE, cable operators and mobile phone companies. All of these firms bring different advantages from the flexibility offered by mobile phones to the extremely low costs available through Internet services. While BT has advantages in this market, such as a well developed infrastructure, these are not nearly enough to be worthy of monopoly regulation.
The stock market response suggests that investors do not expect new monopoly rents to flow. BT's share price responded with a slight fall; investors can see that with so much new competition and a mature market there are difficult times ahead. While this is hardly cast iron evidence that there are no monopoly rents for BT to make it does suggest that no one can currently see where they might come from.
The logic behind this move is very sensible. The market for phone calls has been entered by VoIP phone services like SkyPE, cable operators and mobile phone companies. All of these firms bring different advantages from the flexibility offered by mobile phones to the extremely low costs available through Internet services. While BT has advantages in this market, such as a well developed infrastructure, these are not nearly enough to be worthy of monopoly regulation.
The stock market response suggests that investors do not expect new monopoly rents to flow. BT's share price responded with a slight fall; investors can see that with so much new competition and a mature market there are difficult times ahead. While this is hardly cast iron evidence that there are no monopoly rents for BT to make it does suggest that no one can currently see where they might come from.
Funding political parties
State funding of political parties creates far too many difficulties for good governance to be a good idea. Such a move would leave the funding of political parties dependent upon the government and, therefore, create powerful electoral incentives for the government to change the system to skew it towards advantaging their own side. While it might lead to fewer funding scandals they would be replaced by massive cynicism each time a government attempted to fine tune the funding formula and commentators saw unsavoury motivations behind the changes. These fears won't always be irrational, the recent problems with Labour pushing postal voting too fast and risking fraud in defiance of the Electoral Commission in order to shore up its Northern vote provide an important example of the sort of trouble we don't want to see in the funding process.
Caps, as supported by ConservativeHome, are just as problematic. Last time these were floated it was a Labour response to Lord Ashcroft's financing of the Conservative party, the new Conservative enthusiasm for them can be traced to the widening of the Conservative funding base following the election of David Cameron. The level of the cap provides the ability for governments to adjust the system in their favour and, therefore, creates the problems described above for state funding.
The solution to this crisis has to be more along the lines of the ad hoc Labour response. When there are crises due to poor information in industries like financial services the best regulatory response is not to restrict the risk or return of products (a cap) or to have the state step in and nationalise (state funding). A proper role for government in situations like this is for it to ensure regular accounting standards and open information. This is a crisis caused by a lack of open information; the proper response is to let the information flow and leave the judgement on whether a party's funding is proper to the electorate.
Caps, as supported by ConservativeHome, are just as problematic. Last time these were floated it was a Labour response to Lord Ashcroft's financing of the Conservative party, the new Conservative enthusiasm for them can be traced to the widening of the Conservative funding base following the election of David Cameron. The level of the cap provides the ability for governments to adjust the system in their favour and, therefore, creates the problems described above for state funding.
The solution to this crisis has to be more along the lines of the ad hoc Labour response. When there are crises due to poor information in industries like financial services the best regulatory response is not to restrict the risk or return of products (a cap) or to have the state step in and nationalise (state funding). A proper role for government in situations like this is for it to ensure regular accounting standards and open information. This is a crisis caused by a lack of open information; the proper response is to let the information flow and leave the judgement on whether a party's funding is proper to the electorate.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
An idea for reforming the House of Lords
The new cash for peerages scandal highlights the problem with the lack of a long term solution to the organisation of the House of Lords. So long as the House of Lords remains an appointed body it will remain a means for patronage. Making the funding of political parties more transparent is clearly a good idea but this will not remove the suspicion surrounding a system where presence on a house of parliament can be used to return a favour.
Designing a new House of Lords faces the fundamental problem of balancing several conflicting priorities:
First, there is a need for democratic legitimacy. Without a link to public opinion the House of Lords will increasingly lack the authority to challenge the Commons and fulfill its function as a second house. This authority is necessary for the Lords to be able to properly defend civil liberties and other minority issues. Appointment is simply not close enough to the electorate and leaves the Lords as a subsidiary of the Commons dependent directly upon Commons' structures.
Second, it is important that the balance of opinion in the Lords not track the currents of public opinion reflected in the Commons too quickly. If the Lords is simply a duplicate of the House of Commons with a slightly different electoral cycle then it is likely to offer little in terms of improved governance. Defending the interests of a minority is best done in a similar manner to that of the US Senate, by having the balance of power change slowly; this allows the Lords to slow radical programmes from incoming governments who may allow transient overreactions to endanger liberty. Clearly appointment is little help here as it acts to reflect the balance in the Commons.
Finally, the Lords should be as free from the pressures of reelection as possible so that they can act as a check to interest politics and the distortion of the electoral cycle. The system in the US Senate appears to be failing in this regard. The debates over issues such as drilling in Alaska demonstrate a failure of the deliberative body as it descends into farcical interest politics.
Another concern, although subsidiary, is that there needs to be a mechanism for an orderly transition to a new system which does not involve bringing collosal tranches of new members at once.
The best system, in my view, would be to combine the life time appointments of the current House of Lords with an entirely elected system. Elections could be held in line with each general election and every Lord who died since the last general election could be replaced. The exact system for electing them would need to be designed in detail but should be a direct vote. The number of Lords who we can expect to replace each election can be calculated from the mortality rates for those in the Lords' age bracket multiplied by the number of Lords. The final figure would probably be around 72 initially (using the 65-74 age band as the average age of a Lord is 68) but would probably fall as the Lords become younger once no longer appointed in return for, and after, a life of service to country or party.
Judging by the criteria above this seems to be a suitable design. As directly elected representatives they will possess the legitimacy needed to challenge the Commons when required. Movement in the house of around 10% per election is sufficiently glacial to act as a bar to transient majorities. As the Lords would not need to be reelected they would not suffer the interest pressure which appears to have found its way into the Senate. This system even suggests a mechanism for transition by removing no current peers but instead treating the current balance as the starting point from which replacement elections are held.
The problem seen in the Supreme Court with life appointments, that each appointment has far too much at stake is negated by the House of Lords being a body of hundreds. Could a system of lifetime election be the way forward?
Designing a new House of Lords faces the fundamental problem of balancing several conflicting priorities:
First, there is a need for democratic legitimacy. Without a link to public opinion the House of Lords will increasingly lack the authority to challenge the Commons and fulfill its function as a second house. This authority is necessary for the Lords to be able to properly defend civil liberties and other minority issues. Appointment is simply not close enough to the electorate and leaves the Lords as a subsidiary of the Commons dependent directly upon Commons' structures.
Second, it is important that the balance of opinion in the Lords not track the currents of public opinion reflected in the Commons too quickly. If the Lords is simply a duplicate of the House of Commons with a slightly different electoral cycle then it is likely to offer little in terms of improved governance. Defending the interests of a minority is best done in a similar manner to that of the US Senate, by having the balance of power change slowly; this allows the Lords to slow radical programmes from incoming governments who may allow transient overreactions to endanger liberty. Clearly appointment is little help here as it acts to reflect the balance in the Commons.
Finally, the Lords should be as free from the pressures of reelection as possible so that they can act as a check to interest politics and the distortion of the electoral cycle. The system in the US Senate appears to be failing in this regard. The debates over issues such as drilling in Alaska demonstrate a failure of the deliberative body as it descends into farcical interest politics.
Another concern, although subsidiary, is that there needs to be a mechanism for an orderly transition to a new system which does not involve bringing collosal tranches of new members at once.
The best system, in my view, would be to combine the life time appointments of the current House of Lords with an entirely elected system. Elections could be held in line with each general election and every Lord who died since the last general election could be replaced. The exact system for electing them would need to be designed in detail but should be a direct vote. The number of Lords who we can expect to replace each election can be calculated from the mortality rates for those in the Lords' age bracket multiplied by the number of Lords. The final figure would probably be around 72 initially (using the 65-74 age band as the average age of a Lord is 68) but would probably fall as the Lords become younger once no longer appointed in return for, and after, a life of service to country or party.
Judging by the criteria above this seems to be a suitable design. As directly elected representatives they will possess the legitimacy needed to challenge the Commons when required. Movement in the house of around 10% per election is sufficiently glacial to act as a bar to transient majorities. As the Lords would not need to be reelected they would not suffer the interest pressure which appears to have found its way into the Senate. This system even suggests a mechanism for transition by removing no current peers but instead treating the current balance as the starting point from which replacement elections are held.
The problem seen in the Supreme Court with life appointments, that each appointment has far too much at stake is negated by the House of Lords being a body of hundreds. Could a system of lifetime election be the way forward?
Friday, March 17, 2006
More riots in France
The new riots in France should not be considered another outburst of anger from a downtrodden group in French society in the mould of the car burnings we saw earlier this year. Graduates of the Sorbonne may face some difficulty finding work with a youth unemployment rate of 23% but as they are emerging from a top university it is far more likely that they will succeed than fail in finding employment. These demonstrations are more in the mould of the regular strikes by French public sector unions defending their interests; they are strikes in the defence of the status quo.
This is significant because if the earlier riots, in the banlieues where unemployment is 50%, constituted a powerful case for reform the new demontrations, and the public support for them, are indicative of the strength of the political forces opposed to such change. The simple reality is that most French people are employed and a large number of the unemployed are safely contained within the banlieues away from the sight of the middle classes. So long as those in work fear reforms which hurt their security of employment more than they do France's present steady stagnation change is unlikely.
This is significant because if the earlier riots, in the banlieues where unemployment is 50%, constituted a powerful case for reform the new demontrations, and the public support for them, are indicative of the strength of the political forces opposed to such change. The simple reality is that most French people are employed and a large number of the unemployed are safely contained within the banlieues away from the sight of the middle classes. So long as those in work fear reforms which hurt their security of employment more than they do France's present steady stagnation change is unlikely.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
South Park vs. Scientology Round 2
It appears that after legal threats from Tom Cruise the South Park episode which so offended Mr. Hayes will not be shown in the UK or repeated in the US. There are even suggestions that this is due to his threatening to cancel publicity for Mission Impossible III with Viacom. This is an absolutely tragic violation of freedom of speech that seriously needs to be fought. Using the court system to harass those who speak out against their religion has been standard practice for the Scientologists for some time and South Park is a show uniquely placed to get past this thanks to its high ratings and experience with controversy.
Of course, the episode has already leaked onto the Internet and free speech will find a way but it is dissapointing that even a well known TV show cannot freely speak out against a group which is only differentiated from the other nutty cults by its funding. Exactly the same logic applies here as it did during the Danish cartoons crisis or after the cancellation of the play about a Sikh temple. Freedom of speech is the principle which guarantees accountability and accountability is a major part of what makes the West the success it is. Freedom of speech is a principle which we should defend to the hilt.
Of course, the episode has already leaked onto the Internet and free speech will find a way but it is dissapointing that even a well known TV show cannot freely speak out against a group which is only differentiated from the other nutty cults by its funding. Exactly the same logic applies here as it did during the Danish cartoons crisis or after the cancellation of the play about a Sikh temple. Freedom of speech is the principle which guarantees accountability and accountability is a major part of what makes the West the success it is. Freedom of speech is a principle which we should defend to the hilt.
Cameronomics
Cameron's article today on conservativehome.com got a familiar reaction. Conservatives like winning and there was broad support but nervous questions about the statement that tax cuts will not be prioritised over economic stability. Reform responded to this when it was first announced with a standard, and clearly correct, line that a small state is not more unstable. However, there are two possible processes at work if a party states that they will not prioritise tax cuts over stability:
1) They are left wing and believe that private sector irrationality makes capitalism inherently unstable and in need of state sector stability.
2) They believe that should we come to possess a debt/GDP ratio radically higher than it is today (a severe fiscal crisis) then it would be sensible to prioritise austerity over ideologically driven tax cuts. While there are no policy implications now we need to let the public know that our ideology does not imply poor decision making in a crisis.
While the first paradigm is patently false I believe it is the second that the Conservatives are addressing and this is far less troubling.
1) They are left wing and believe that private sector irrationality makes capitalism inherently unstable and in need of state sector stability.
2) They believe that should we come to possess a debt/GDP ratio radically higher than it is today (a severe fiscal crisis) then it would be sensible to prioritise austerity over ideologically driven tax cuts. While there are no policy implications now we need to let the public know that our ideology does not imply poor decision making in a crisis.
While the first paradigm is patently false I believe it is the second that the Conservatives are addressing and this is far less troubling.
MatthewSinclair.com
http://www.matthewsinclair.com now points at this blog.
Buying your own name as a domain name when you are not famous can be a form of bet on your own success. There have been several corporate cases where substantial amounts have been paid for domains and private individuals have surely had to do the same on occasion. My MP has http://www.oliverhealdmp.com which is so much less satisfying than oliverheald.com would be. Avoiding the confusion and disgrace which comes from having your name point at someone else's website becomes highly valuable if your name has meaning. That famous names can drive traffic to websites was the first mover advantage rationale behind firms like Amazon investing so much early on.
By buying the name now I incur a steady cost of £8.99 per year. At the moment I am not famous and this domain therefore has little value beyond a vague sense of satisfaction and control which I will treat as insignificant. Still, it takes ten years for me to become famous and by then I will have paid around £90. According to this shady looking website domains can go on sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars but with only the moderate success of a thousand pounds in value my domain name becomes a fine bet if I believe that I have a greater than one in nine chance of becoming famous. Of course there is an opportunity cost in tying up my capital in this way but it is unlikely to be a problem if my expectations of my own success are rational.
The reason why I can get a good deal in this case is an information assymettry. Domain registrars and shady individuals behind sites like "openforsale.com" know less about me than I do. For this reason they have to treat me in a similar manner to a random individual. The name of a random individual has a very low value as they will not bid for it and very few people become famous. I have an ability to differentiate between my promising self and random others that domain registrars do not.
Buying your own name as a domain name when you are not famous can be a form of bet on your own success. There have been several corporate cases where substantial amounts have been paid for domains and private individuals have surely had to do the same on occasion. My MP has http://www.oliverhealdmp.com which is so much less satisfying than oliverheald.com would be. Avoiding the confusion and disgrace which comes from having your name point at someone else's website becomes highly valuable if your name has meaning. That famous names can drive traffic to websites was the first mover advantage rationale behind firms like Amazon investing so much early on.
By buying the name now I incur a steady cost of £8.99 per year. At the moment I am not famous and this domain therefore has little value beyond a vague sense of satisfaction and control which I will treat as insignificant. Still, it takes ten years for me to become famous and by then I will have paid around £90. According to this shady looking website domains can go on sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars but with only the moderate success of a thousand pounds in value my domain name becomes a fine bet if I believe that I have a greater than one in nine chance of becoming famous. Of course there is an opportunity cost in tying up my capital in this way but it is unlikely to be a problem if my expectations of my own success are rational.
The reason why I can get a good deal in this case is an information assymettry. Domain registrars and shady individuals behind sites like "openforsale.com" know less about me than I do. For this reason they have to treat me in a similar manner to a random individual. The name of a random individual has a very low value as they will not bid for it and very few people become famous. I have an ability to differentiate between my promising self and random others that domain registrars do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
