Wise Words

In summary, this is what is wrong with Labour, and now unfortunately it is what is wrong with Britain, too:

One by one, Labour’s illusions are being dispelled. We cannot incentivise idleness and expect it to diminish. We cannot spend more than we earn and expect to become richer. We cannot borrow more than is affordable and expect to remain solvent. We cannot import millions of economic migrants and expect higher wages for low-paid workers. We cannot run a non-selective state education system and expect its output to waltz into Oxbridge. We cannot dumb down academic standards and expect employers not to notice. In short, we cannot cheat our way to sustainable prosperity.

Yes, you guessed it.  Jeff Randall again.

How to shut down debate

Gordon Brown shows us how it is done.  When his economic policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) is questioned, he accuses the questioner of ‘talking down’ Britain.  Does he really think that those in the Gilt markets are unaware that an excess supply of Gilts will increase their cost, and therefore the interest rates we will have to pay to secure that credit?

I think perhaps he does, but as noted by Jeff Randall in the Telegraph, his preferred method of engaging with this question is to insinuate that somehow the questioner is unpatriotic and undermining the interests of Britain by questioning his policies at all.  That, in case anyone was unaware, is how despots operate, that they begin to believe that their very word, their very person is, in fact, the state itself.

Wise Words

Jeff Randall in the Telegraph:

Britain has got away with it, so far, because as the Debt Management Office pumps out Government IOUs, known as gilts, the Bank of England is furiously buying them back through its programme of so-called quantitative easing (QE). Yes, we’re printing money to fund our own credit. This, I’m sure you’ve spotted, fails the common sense test. Were it that easy, the whole world would be at it.

If we can only meet our debt obligations by creating money through QE, what happens when we stop printing?

A key Conservative task is to oppose Labour

Conservativehome, the excellent home of current conservative thinking, highlights some research that shows Modern Conservatives voting against the government less and less.  36% in 1997-8 to a mere 15% in 2008-9.  The implication seems to be that this is a good thing.

He (Gordon Brown) wants to manoeuvre us into a position where we are seen to be voting against motherhood and apple pie.

Sure, this might not look good for the Conservatives but why on earth should we accept that voting against Labour is to vote against ‘Motherhood and apple pie?’  I would have thought the exact opposite was more accurate.

The Conservatives still hold a 9 point lead in the polls, but there are growing signs that conservatives are beginning to wonder how committed the Modern Conservatives are to real conservative principles.

You cannot win the argument and turn the people to your way of thinking if you do not engage them in the argument.  The 50p tax rate should be opposed (out of principle) because it is a political stunt that will damage our economy, and the Equalities Bill should be opposed (out of principle) because it is, in fact, an Inequalities Bill.

The case against the case against profiling

Alex Massie makes the case against profiling here.  This is my response:

Your rejection of profiling simply demonstrates your ignorance of how profiling works.

Profiling is not about ‘muslim (or arab) passengers,’ but about suspicious passengers – those that sweat profusely, those that seem distracted (or incredibly focussed) and those who fit a ‘profile’ of a potential terrorist. Yes, an Asian, Arab or N. African racial profile might have relevance, but race is not the driver of profiling, behaviour is. But then you don’t know that so you pretend it is the same (or very similar) as internment.

Just because it will not prevent all attacks does not mean that it should be rejected out of hand. Profiling is an addition to existing measures, not a substitute. What is this ‘decrease in security in other areas’ you talk about? And if you suspect that it will make a negligible difference, just talk to a proper security expert.

The one relevant point you make is that, handled badly, profiling could alienate people who feel themselves being targeted because of their colour or dress habits. But, how about all those people who are being alienated now by waiting hours to be checked through?

The airline industry will cease to operate if we subject everyone to the same checks. We have to be clever, and human profiling is a key component, not as the only approach, but as an approach which complements existing physical security measures.

You also suggest that profiling would ‘demonstrate that the islamic and christian worlds must and almost by necessity be at war with one another.’ This is ludicrous. Firstly, that is what the extremists already think and no extent of hand-wringing will stop that. Secondly, I was unaware that Christians ran our airports and security services. And thirdly, there IS a fundamental conflict going on between the West and Islam – not all of Islam, but Islam is what motivates these people, and for us to pretend anything different is self-defeating.

You make the classic error of Western liberals in thinking our actions are constrained by not wanting to strengthen our enemies worldview. All that does is allow the terrorists to dictate the pace and direction of this conflict. And pretending that there is not some ‘civilisational war’ going on already is mind-boggling – that is exactly what is going on. They know it, but we seem not to and we will lose if we do not get our act together. And anyway, improved security at airports is not going to aid them, it will hinder them.

When countering a terrorist threat, it is essential that security personnel operate in an inquisitive culture. They must not be afraid to use their brains and look out for those tell-tale signs that betray the terrorist. To insist against the intelligent use of profiling is to deny them the freedom to use their heads, relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. That is how people switch off. And we don’t want that.

You seem to have distilled this debate down to a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between a ‘deliberate, explicit, unabashed targeting of a given societal group,’ and no profiling whatsoever. Your final admission that there might be a de facto profiling policy in place anyway shows up the error in your analysis. Profiling is subtle, it is intelligent and if sensitively handled will improve security and reduce disruption to the airline industry. That is what we want, not liberal contortions that make our enemies laugh at us.

The Queen’s Speech was insulting

No time for frills here. The contents of the Queen’s Speech was probably the most mendacious and duplicitous program for government I have ever seen.

Why would an outgoing government want to pass legislation that made it law to halve the budget deficit within four years? Yes, that is right, to give them a stick with which to beat the next Conservative government in case they are unable to clear up the mess created by said Labour government within four years. This is quite incredible. There is nothing wrong with wanting to halve the deficit, but if that is their intention, then why not just do it? Yes, there we are again. Legislation designed to attack the Tories.

He also vowed to continue the fiscal stimulus, which, as we know, means printing money to fund the debt he says must be halved. But then all they want is to continue piling on the debt for the Tories to pay off when they get into office. In fact, the higher the debt, the better, because it will prove an even greater headache for the Tories – this is scorched earth politics.

When he says, ‘as a nation we will go for growth,’ what he really means is, ‘going for broke.’ There is a litany of ‘progressive’ and feel-good policies on care for the elderly, training for the unemployed and the like, which of course he hopes will convince the public that he is on their side, but they are all incompatible with reducing that deficit. Oh, we are back to that one are we.

Just to re-cap: he doesn’t care how much more damage he does to the country because he figures that the Tories will cop the flak when they clear it up.  This government is beyond the pale, if it was not already.

Is Inflation Returning?

Gordon Brown was quite adamant that inflation had nothing to do with the credit crunch and the subsequent recession, and so he is quite happy to pump billions of pounds into the economy, confident that inflation will not return.

The current Bank of England base rate stands at 0.5%, which it was hoped would stimulate the economy and so alleviate recessionary pressures, but at the beginning of this year it was clear that recession was not going away anytime soon. As a result, he, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bank decided to create a new euphemistic facility called Quantitative Easing. I know, sounds quite benign doesn’t it.

This facility has so far pumped a little over £175 billion into the economy, and it was hoped that, since interest rates could not be reduced to zero or below, this approach would stimulate business and so shorten the recession.

What is unfortunate for those who disagreed with such a policy, is that nothing can really be proven. How do we know if a recession is shorter or longer than it might otherwise be? Quite, but this works very well for the government. No-one can categorically demonstrate the foolishness of this policy.

However, while recession is never good for an economy, or employment, inflation is not great either. And that is where we seem to be heading. The CPI has, this month, risen to 1.5%, which is above all the other G7 countries, and we should be worried. Hopefully, it will remain at around the ‘target’ rate of 2%, but we cannot be sure, only time will tell.

The real reason, however, for Gordon to manoeuvre this policy – which is, in fact, the printing of money and debasement of the currency – is to pay for his budget deficit. Is it a coincidence that QE (the overwhelming majority of which has gone on Gilts) has created £175 billion, which just so happens to be the exact figure for this year’s projected budget deficit? I think not.

So, when Gordon Brown tells us that his policies are there to provide money for cash strapped businesses, he is only telling half the truth. The main purpose is to provide money for his spending addiction, and like most serious addicts, he finds a way to get other people to pay for it.

Boris and Dave: friends or foes?

A few days ago, Channel 4 put on a docudrama called ‘When Boris met Dave,’ or something like that. The main thrust of the piece was to show the two characters in contrast, and endeavour to shape the narrative of their future rivalry through their mutual past. Dave was, therefore, easy-going, politics coming naturally to him, while Boris was more deeply driven and ultimately frustrated by how hard he had to work to get there. The reality, however, might disabuse us of this assertion, but there we are.

It, therefore, seems that Boris’s attack on the 50p tax rate in the Telegraph, ‘We should worry that Tracey Emin, Hugh Osmond and Michael Caine are fleeing the 50p tax rate,’ might have been a proverbial raising of the fingers to Dave and his leadership, from the maverick, and ultimately right, Boris, who should really be the next PM and not merely a provincial Mayor.

I am not so sure that they work in this way, although the article can be seen as a swipe at Cameron’s decision to not immediately repeal the 50p rate. But let us not forget, Cameron has said he wants it gone, but just not yet (ever the politician).

Although Boris does not specifically call for a change in Conservative policy, one must assume that he would like it gone sooner rather than later. And in this, he is right; high taxes destroy enterprise. The tax is little more than an envy tax from economic illiterates who care more about shoring up their hardcore support than serving the best interests of the country (could we ever believe different?).

That it will not raise significant amounts of money (if any) should be reason enough to get rid of the rate, but the overriding reason why this tax rate is idiotic, is because we, paradoxically, need low tax rates to bridge the budget deficit. We need people to be happy paying tax, which means they must be lower, and we need entrepreneurs to be incentivized and to stay here to drive the economic growth we need to fund the deficit. Just as recession reduces the tax take, so growth increases it. If we do not have serious growth in the next few years, we will never get the public finances back on an even keel.

Economics aside, it might just be that Boris has identified the true needs of the electorate. Cameron has taken the view that he must not rock the boat, he must avoid upsetting people who might vote against him and so secure office through damage limitation. However, the example of his friend and No. 2, George Osborne, should be noted. The dramatic change in Conservative fortunes almost to the day coincided with his bold declaration that inheritance tax would be reduced.

The electorate are in dire need of a politician who says what he believes and says it with conviction, even if that upsets a portion of the voters.  In short, they need and want proper leadership. Perhaps Boris understands this, and is showing that he has the conviction to lead the country better than his ‘rival.’ Then again, perhaps he is merely showing Cameron, his friend and colleague, the way, as a generous team player, and we are not, in fact, seeing a variation on the abysmal feud between the two most destructive politicians of this century so far, Blair and Brown.

On what other policies should they show leadership?  The EU?  Immigration?  Welfare State?  Education?  Unfortunately, the Conservative only seem to be grasping the educational nettle, the other areas remaining leadership free zones.  This is why support remains lukewarm for the conservatives.  Why, oh why, do they not try putting forward a genuinely conservative manifesto?  They might be pleasantly surprised at how well they do.

It is the traditional family, stupid

When people of the political left recant the views they previously held with such conviction, we are supposed to rejoice at their enlightened ability to see the error of their ways. And so it is that Demos, a left-wing think tank, has completed a study, Building Character, that recognises ‘tough love’ as an essential ingredient in the successful raising of children.

But, unfortunately, there is usually a caveat. It is as if those on the ideological left are so loathe to recognise that they were wrong, that they end up undermining their new found clarity.

In this way, Demos seeks to facilitate ‘tough love’ with ‘targeted support for parents.’ This might seem like a good idea, and delivered by real conservatives whose DNA runs rich with ‘warmth and engagement with consistent enforcement of rules and boundaries,’ it might be successful. But unfortunately, left wing governments, epitomised by the fatuity of New Labour, who retain the power to take up these proposals, are incapable of following the sentiments of the report to their logical conclusion.

The family, whose demise is the primary cause of our failing society, will not be supported. The state will do what it always does: bypass the family, undermine its authority, encourage its breakup and subsidise other household constructions in an attempt to make things better. The only sure way of re-establishing the traditional family as the basic building block of the civilised society is to abandon those reckless policies that de-Christianise society, facilitate easy marriage and easy divorce, subsidise single parent households, and place the state above the parents in an ever-increasing proportion of our lives.

‘Tough Love’ is most natural in the traditional family, and so it is the traditional family that we must reinvigorate. For the state to bypass this level of society and target ’support’ direct to the child on their own conditions is to miss the point as spectacularly as the left missed it all along.

Blanket condemnation of the Army does not help

Allegations of Iraqi abuse at the hands of British Service personnel have reared their ugly head once again. Only this time, the lawyers acting for former Iraqi detainees are calling for that ubiquitous stick with which to beat the establishment: the public Inquiry.

There are 33 abuse claims that they want dealt with and some of them, it has to be said, are pretty sordid, one of them being an alleged rape of a 16-year-old boy in 2003. No-one would excuse this sort of behaviour and the Law of Armed Conflict is quite clear on what is and is not permitted in the theatre of war.

There are, however, one or two points that need airing before we accept the prosecutions line that the British Armed Forces were engaged in a systematic programme of abuse with collusion from civil servants, senior military personnel and politicians.

First, abuse claims are a weapon of war just as much as bullets and bombs. And when dealing with asymmetric warfare, it is often far more effective for under-gunned Iraqis, just like the Islamists, to use our legal system and moral sensibilities against us. This is not to say that none of the allegations are true, they are and cases have already been proven, but those who oppose Western nations know that often the most effective way to undermine them is through the self-defeating contortions of our own legal and human rights edifices.

Second, the use of hooding, stressing, food and water deprivation and noise are not indicative or a deeper and darker problem. As an ex-officer, I am not sure I would have been happy with using such techniques, but the most vocal critics are usually those who know the least about the stresses and strains of military service. How exactly does a small group of soldiers take a large group of prisoners and remain confident that they are not going to turn on them? Hooding, despite it being a questionable practice can often save lives, but the lawyers and activists don’t always care about this. That these things happened on occasions, I have little doubt, but to claim they are systematic is ludicrous and another case of our opponents using our sensibilities to denigrate the whole.

Third, the use of a public enquiry might sound like a good idea, but quite frankly, I am not happy for people who know nothing of the unique demands of military service to lie in judgement on the Armed Forces; they have no right, in my opinion. The military justice system is seen as a contradiction by many, but it is effective and deals with things in an open and fair manner without letting the activists hijack justice for their own political ends.

Phil Shiner is the lawyer for the Iraqis and in his brief TV interview came across as a reasonably fair man, but his hyperbolic claims that the ‘whole barrel is rotten,’ is offensive to the men and women who are prepared to risk their lives for his freedom to criticise them in this way. Justice, yes; smear, no.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces minister, has mounted a spirited defence of the Armed Forces on this. ‘Allegations must not be taken as fact,’ he says. But although Shiner agreed with this sentiment, it did not stop him from declaring that ‘the few bad apples thesis does not work’ and that the problem was ’systemic’.

As Bill Rammell said:

Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast, vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behaviour, displaying integrity and selfless commitment.

Unacceptable behaviour is, well, unacceptable, but public enquiries and blanket condemnations is no way to see justice and high standards maintained. All that will happen is a battening down of the hatches by an institution that is already under siege from ‘progressive’ forces in this country.