Police and rioters

The publication of research into the thinking and motives (or lack of it and lack of them) of the summer rioters stimulated horrifying pictures of apparently mindless vandalism and thuggery on our television screens last night. The point of the research was that the views of the rioters had not been, but needed to be, heard. This does not, of course, condone their thuggery or justify the breakdown of law and order.

A common theme expressed from all parts of the country was antagonism towards the police.

It is a cliché of the left in Britain that most evils in our society can be traced back to Mrs Thatcher. This is unfair. After all it was a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dennis Healy, who introduced monetarism, and a Labour Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, who began the authoritarian centralisation of our educational system.

However, my own personal unease about the police and their methods goes back to Mrs Thatcher and the miners' strike. I can still picture in my mind police being bussed from other areas to "keep order" outside closed pits, and, from the safety of their buses, taunting the striking, and thus unpaid, miners by waving through the windows their five pound notes from overtime pay. Miners bussing themselves to other areas were illegally stopped on the motorways. It was at this point, I believe that the police ceased to be seen as agents of the public and guardians of the peace, and became an arm of the government attacking what the government, but not most of the public, saw as "the enemy within."

This breakdown of trust and respect has been fuelled by numerous other incidents: trials rigged and people convicted on false evidence (eg the Birmingham Six); vital evidence mysteriously lost when the police themselves are accused (if I heard him correctly the Tottenham MP David Lammy claimed on TV last night that 300 people had died in police custody and not one police officer has been convicted as a result); decent citizens exercising their legal right to protest "kettled" for hours without water or lavatories; police identification numbers hidden during such protests; police helicopters deliberately circling over the platform at political rallies so that the speakers could not be heard; the running sore of "stop and search" targeted at the young black and Asian communities. It is even argued that the police response to the original disturbance was deliberately held back as a message to the government that police numbers should not be cut.

I acknowledge that the police have a difficult job , that they are exposed daily to insult and possible danger, and I should not like to be one. However, dificult as it may be, the police need to make a determined effort to try to restore "Dixon of Dock Green" relationships.

One of the greatest tributes paid to the quality of Britain's civilised society is a story told by Desmond Tutu. As a young black man studying theology in London he claims that he and his black colleagues would often ask a policeman "the way" even when they knew exactly where they were and where they were going, just for the sheer joy of the experience that not only did the policeman not arrest them or demand to see their passes, but actually called them "Sir!"

This is a mountain the police need to start climbing.

Lower case liberal's halo dimmed

Ken Clarke is often lauded, or dammed, as the fifth Liberal in the cabinet, but his decision to impose mandatory minimum sentences on certain crimes is a sad reversion to the Tory stereotype. With all their faults we have an experienced and generally competent judiciary, and it should be up to them, not politicians seeking to appease the Daily Mail, to decide, having heard all the evidence, what punishment, and rehabilitation, is appropriate to each individual criminal. There are always exceptions to prove any rule.

Measures to increase the certainty of getting caught, rather than simply ratcheting up the punishments, are the way to reduce crime. Clarke's earlier remarks about trying to develop constructive ways to reduce the numbers in prison, ("an expensive way of making bad people worse" to quote an earlier Tory,) are more appro0riate for a liberal, even a closet one.

Dearly beloved...

The service began with an introit, then a hymn, and then a dignitary (the Dean?) launched off with "Dearly beloved..." No "Good morning everyone, nice to see so many here. Hope you didn't find the long wait too tedious..." and other vapourings with which today's parsons seem to find it necessary to begin services. There were plenty of "thee's" "thou's" and "unto's"; the prince of the blood was "this man" who was to be married to "this woman", thus showing that the greatest he and the least he are entitled to the same language in these key rites of passage. There was no threatening , take or leave it "This is the word of the Lord" at the end of the Lesson, no clapping the bride and groom for getting their words right and, thank goodness, no hiatus while everyone wandered around shaking hands with each other on the pretext of wishing them "the peace of the Lord." This was Anglican worship as it should be, conducted with reverence and dignity rather than the false matiness which has infected nearly all our parish churches and even some cathedrals.

It was fun to conclude with the hearty singing of "Jerusalem," which I believe can be interpreted as revolutionary. One of the most impressive political speeches I've ever heard was by George Brown in Cleckheaton during the 1964 election. His peroration was that if we did this, that and the other we really would "build a new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land." and we all believed him and stood up and cheered. During the singing of the hymn the camera cut to David Cameron. I'm no sure that his market-orientated "devil take the hindmost" new Jerusalem is really what either Gorge Brown or William Blake had in mind.

Cycling "recklessly and to the common danger."

I was re-introduced to cycling in my two years of Voluntary Service Overseas in Malaŵi. There we were each issued with a bike as a means of getting about. The bikes were of "sit up and beg" design with rod brakes and no gears, and prompted condescending remarks from our Peace Corps contemporaries, whose bikes were VTT with 234 or so gears and fancy tyres, on the lines of: "Gee, do they still make those things! "

Fortunately the college where I worked was downhill from where I lived so I arrived each morning without a great sweat, and the five mile up-hill journey in the evening provided exercise which obviated the need for jogging. This Malaŵian experience prompted me on my return to the UK to buy a bike before I bought a car, and I use it for short journeys when it isn't raining and I don't have a lot of shopping to carry.

The above is to show that I'm really on the side of the cyclists, because I am appalled by the behaviour of the many who seem to think that the law simply does not apply to them. My own cycling conduct was learned in the 40s and 50s when you cycled on the road, stopped at halt signs and traffic lights, gave hand signals and displayed lights in the dark. I doubt if the proposal for a new a new law of "death by dangerous cycling" is really necessary, but we do need to change cyclists' culture and get the "lycra louts" to obey the existing laws.

One law I would like to see changed, however, is the use of the pavement. Within towns and villages these should be exclusively for the use of pedestrians, but there are many stretches of pavement between towns which are sparsely used by pedestrians and would provide a safer haven for cyclists than the road. This is the case, for example, in the two mile stretch between my house and the nearest supermarket, where the road is relatively narrow and has been made narrower still by little-used "pedestrian refuges." Lorries in particular rarely slow down for a cyclist when passing one of these and there is a real possibility of the cyclist being flung into the gutter. The law could usefully be changed to legalise the use of such pavements by cyclists, with the clear understanding that pedestrians had priority and cyclists should be limited to a moderate speed rather than emulating Mr Toad

Finally, all bikes should have a bell which should be used as a warning of approach rather than a demand to "get out of the way," and motorists should be fined heavily for parking across cycle tracks.

Robber Banks

The Vickers Report on banking has received a half-hearted welcome. The consensus seems to be that a "firewall" between retail banking and casino activities can be easily circumvented and will not stop them using our savings to gamble and, if the get it wrong again, once more bring the word's commerce close to collapse. Complete separation, as Vince Cable has long proposed, is the only effective safeguard.

The report does not seems to touch the matter that troubles me most at a personal level: that banks (and some building societies) will, unless you watch them like a hawk, put your savings on the "back burner" with a derisory rate of interest. With Lloyds TSB this is currently 0.1% gross, 0.08% net. That's per year. But if you borrow from them by an overdraft they will charge you 1.48% per month, or 19.3% per year. This huge gap, 241 times their savings rate according to my calculator, ought to cause outrage but we seem, like supine puppies, to have accepted it as the way of the world about which nothing can be done.

I realise that I am fortunate to have savings, and that anyone with debts would think it a luxury to be able to spend time shuffling savings around seeking an honest rate of interest. Frankly, I have better things to do with my retirement (such as delivering leaflets in support of AV). What I want is a bank or building society which will treat me fairly - one in which I can put my savings, not necessarily for the highest rate, but a fair rate, and one which will not drop to a derisory level if I don't keep constant track of it.

Competition ought to produce such a bank or building society, but it doesn't seem to. Perhaps here is a rôle for one of the government-owned banks. Failing that, strict usury laws, not just to curb excessively high loan rates but also to prevent banks from robbing savers who take their eyes off the ball.

Rubbish fines

It was anounced last Sunday (10th April) that the government is to forbid local authorities fining those who transgress their rubbish collection rules. How can this be? Both parties in the coalition are conmmitted to devolution of power to the lowest possible level. To we Liberals it is a fundamental tenet of our faith, and the Tories at least pay lip service to it. So if democratically elected local councils wish to enforce their rules and by-laws with a few fines why on earth shouldn't they, even if it does sound a bit draconian?

However, illiberal as it may sound, I should welcome a tougher stance on littering, dog turds in the streets and parks, overflowing rubbish bins and bins persistently left out to spoil what I believe is now called the "streetscape." When I went on a school trip to Switzerland in the 1950s we were warned that dropping litter was a serious offence which could result in an on-the-spot fine. Careful of our modest means (though there were 8SF to the £ in those days, whilst the "success" of successive Tory and Labour economic policies backed by paliamentary majorities has now, I believe, recduced it to three) this caused us to be very careful indeed, and Switzerland retained its prisitine litter-free condition in spite of our visit.

I should like to see Britain's litter problem treated equally seriously, and propose a sustained and imaginative advertising progrmme for a year, pointing out that from such and such a date dropping litter would become an offence subject to an on-the-spot fine and, from that date not only the police but traffic wardens, park keepers (if there still are any), dog wardens and other "peaked cap" oficials empowered to impose the fines.

I know that sounds a bit like a police state and shouldn't perhaps be coming from one who is not only a Liberal but also a member of Liberty, but it would reduce my blood pressure and make Britain a tidier place rather than one which I'm often ashamed display to my visitors from abroad.

Happy birthday keynesianliberal

Keynesianliberal is one today. In the year since the first post on 8th April, 2010, in the early stages of the general election campaign, there have been 176 posts, just under one every two days. I haven't re-read them all in detail but I can't think of anything that I've writen that I'd like to retract and very little that I'd like to amend. In partiular, I stand by the very first post, which has been the theme of much of the rest of the blog: that there is no economic crisis and the wild exageration of the seriousness of the public finances is a Troy excuse for reducing the size of the state.

I have recently discovered a "statistics" link which has revealed some surprises for me. In the year there have been 11 727 "pageviews" or about 30 a day (although that is no indication as to how may of the "viewers" have actually read the page.) Over 4 000 of the "views" are from the UK, but almost as many, 3 883 from the US. Sadly only 244 from France and hardly any from Australia.

The most "viewed" page is that of 28th Novemeber 2010, entitled "An Airy-Fairy Measure." It is difficult to understand this as the subject was the feebleness of David Cameron's proposals for measuring national well-being by simply asking people how happy they are instead of using solid statistics such as unemployment and poverty rates, suicides and mental illness, the Gini coefficient of equality etc. I can only suppose that "airy-fariry" is code for something else of which I'm not aware. In pre-politically correct days "fairies" was a pejoritive term for homosexuals. Perhaps that's it.

My thanks to my followers and reqular contributers, especially Chris, Jaime (though I haven't heard from him for a while) and "Anonymous" (who lets slip his name from time to time.) I shall continue to post as regularly as I can, and would dearly like to be noticed by "Libdemvoice" and get into the big league.

Welcome amendments to EMA proposals.

Michael Gove's amendments to the original EMA proposals were greeted by shrieks of "U turn" from the Labour Party. I find this regrettable. It would indeed be nice if governments always got things right at the first go, but when they do not and are prepared to listen and be flexible, in a grown up democracy that should be welcomed rather than mocked.

The arguments for and against paying some students to continue their education beyond 16 are complex. My initial reaction to the EMA was the “grumpy old man” one that no-one paid me to stay on into the sixth form and my parents were certainly not rich. Indeed it’s interesting how perceptions have changed. In my grandparents' day children were usually required to go out to work to supplement the family income. In fact one of my father’s sisters who won a scholarship to the grammar school (that would be in the 1900s) was forced to leave at 13 because the family “needed the money” she could earn in the mill (at which humble level she stayed for the rest of her working life.) Although, in the 1950s my parents never put any such pressure on me it was clear that they regarded it as a sacrifice on their part to allow me to stay on at school.

So what’s their problem today, when we are approximately four times richer? Even families on benefits are probably, in real terms rather than comparative terms, far better off then we were.

These allowances are available to all students where the family income is below £30 000 (though I suspect that the full amount is not available to those at the top of the range.) Maybe I’ve been retired so long (since 1988) that I’ve lost track of the way salaries have moved, but, since the average wage is around £24 000 a year, £30 000 a year doesn’t strike me as the bread-line.

Still on the "grumpy" tack, the evidence is that 90% if the recipients would stay on in education anyway, so there is a heck of a lot of what economists call “deadweight loss.” In an article by David Blanchflower in the Guardian on 21st Jananuary (“Cutting the young adrift”) he claims that the evidence on which this 90% is based is rather flimsy, but one interpretation would be that it’s only 88% - still a lot.

Finally on this tack, a friend who has worked more recently than I with the 16 -19 sector, and who seems to me to have generous liberal instincts, says that for most of them the EMA is just mobile phone money. I rarely use my mobile phone because I feel calls are far too expensive. Better to wait till you get home and use the land line, on which all internal calls are free with the Phone Co-op.

On the other hand, Polly Toynbee, in numerous articles, claims that for “many” studentsthe EMA provides invaluable money for transport and even food as free school meals are no longer available for post-16s (is that right, even if you’re in an 11 to 18 school?) It also provides an incentive to work hard because the allowance can be discontinued for absenteeism, lateness and lack of homework.

In addition to observaions and experiences in this coutry I cannot help comparing the experiences of young people in this country with those of the students in this age group whom I taught in Papua New Guinea. Many came from isolated areas with virtually no cash economy. They or their relatives often had to walk many miles week after week to the nearest market with their produce and then sit patiently besides tiny piles of potatoes or other vegetables which sold at 20c a time in order to raise the "token" $20 fee to attend Sixth Form College.

The new proposals seem more efficiently targeted and cater for the most needy cases. Of course, in theory I prefer universal rather than means tested benefits, but free school dinners etc are already means tested so this is only a development of an existing scheme. Free local bus and train passes for all in full time education would be a sensible universal benefit which would get around the travel problems without much "deadwigth loss, " since the offspring of the rich would use their motor bikes and cars. As with so many other "welfare benefit" propblems, a lot of the difficulties would disappear if the Green's proposal of a Citizens' Income were adopted. If everybody gets it then no-one can grumble.

The big society, 1960s

As part of some long-overdue clearing out I have come accross the log book of a hike I organised, with a female colleague and her husand, in the mid-6os during a very educative spell as a primary school teacher.

We took eight girls and eleven boys aged 10 or 11 for a five day walking holiday in the Yorkshire Dales during the Whitsuntide holiday (which in those days really was held at Whit and had not morphed into the Spring Bank Holiday which we're now thinking of abolishing.) We travelled by train (a first for several children) and bus, stayed at three diferent Youth Hostels, and the total cost was £3-10s-0, which included 10/- (50p) pocket money. Participants had to pay a 10/- deposit and a "bank" was opened for weekly payment towards the balance. A discount was arranged with a local shoeshop for the purchase of "stout shoes."

In all we walked 50 miles, inculding a one day 14 mile treck from Kettlewell to Stainforth which we had expected to do at least partly by bus, but everyone seemed in good heart so we walked. We had planned for a day of rest and recuperation in the middle but were enjoying walking so much that we climbed Great Whernside
(2 310 feet)instead. The children record our many "adventures" and, perhaps surprisingly, are very enthusiastic about the food. We went to church on the Sunday and outnumbered the regular congregation. We seem to have filled in our spare time and worked off surplus energy by swimming in rivers and innumeralbe games of rounders until the boy in charge left the bat left it in the middle of a forrest.

There are no photographs in the log book as none of us had cameras, never mind moblie phones, BlackBerries or other fnacy gadgets. We did have an emergency contact list for parents. Most of these were to work-places as few people had phones in their homes. Happily most families seem to have had at least one parent in a job: unemplyment was about 250 000 compared with 2 500 000 today(plus another 2.5m on disability benefits.)

Since my female colleague's husband was unable to join us until the the second or third day for part of the time there were only two adults in charge of 19 children, a ratio which would not pass muster today. None of us had any formal qualifications in mountaineering, navigation, first aid or life-saving, none of us was CRB checked as that hadn't been intrduced, and no one had invented risk assessments. There is no record of any allergies or special dietary needs. And, of course, the whole event took place in the holdiay and none of the adults was paid: fairly typical of school "adventure" events in those days.

I do not disupte the necessity of some of the regulations which have since been introduced but I do suspect they have curbed a lot of the initiative and fun. To transfer thes reflections to another context, when businesses complain about over regulation I tend to take the view that one person's "red tape" is another's health and saftey. But maybe there is a case for being a bit more relaxed, partiularly in the case of small businesses.

.

The real big society

Last week I was flattered to be chosen by my U3A class to propose the vote of thanks to our lecturer at the end of our course. I should have liked to have been elceted to perform this imortant task by the Alternative Vote or some similarly sophisticated method but in fact was approached by "men in dark suits" (actually two ladies in black cardigans)and told "It's you", rather in the manner that leaders of the Tory Party used to "emerge."

Our classes were fortnightly and our lecturer produced for each one a fluent, searching and erudite accout of some aspect of 18th Century British social and economic history. He is a good friend of mine and I know for a fact that he has frequently missed atttractive social alternatives, partiularly jazz concerts, in order to spend time preparing materials outside his normal area of interest. Our whole class (some of whom were attending for the fourth year) agreed that he gave excellent value.

Of course, as with all U3A teachers, he received no money for his services. Actually, that's not stricly true: he was given £30 at the beginning of the session for "expenses." There are two things of interest here. Firstly the size of the payment: cetainly not millions, nor thusands nor even hundrends. Secondly, the fact that the payment was made at the beginning of the course, not at he end for reaching some artificial target. Our lecturer was trusted to do a good job and he did. And he'll do it again next year.

This is just one example, not only of the thousands of people who work voluntarily, as youth leaders, in drama roups, gardening clubs and the numerous other voluntary societies which make up our already existing "big" society, but also the millions in employment who do their best for an agreed wage without the incentive of performance bonuses. All of these simply "perform."

Perfomance bonuses distort because they reward the recipient for reaching targets which rarely reflect the over-all purpose of the function. Examples are legion: in secondary eduction the concentration on A to C pass rates which force more attention on the marginal C/Ds and less on the rest; inappropriate sales of insurance policies and mortgages because they provide a bigger commission for the seller, and most damaging of all to date, the bankers rewarded for short term profits rather than long term stabliity.

I should like to see all bonuses scrapped and all workers at whatever level engaged to do their best at their particular job for an agreed wage and trusted to get on with it.

Mists and Mysteries about Pensions

In a Guardian article John Cridland, Director General of the CBI, paints a glowing picture of public service pensioners living off the fat of the land on pensions funded by the taxpayer whilst the sternly realistic private sector cuts its coat according to its cloth. Somehow he fails to mention the absurdly high pensions paid to Fred the Shred and others of that ilk, nor does he mention what pension he expects for himself.

Several facts reveal Cridland's views to be somewhat distorted to say the least. Lord Hutton's report shows that the flow of income into public service pensions actually exceeds the amount paid out, and that the costs of public service pensions will fall dramatically once the current "spike" of baby boomers has been passed. Unions point out that the average ex-public servant's pension is very modest indeed because most are low paid, and a friend of mine who has worked in local government and knows about these things assures me that in Yorkshire at least local government pensions are funded from investments and the "pot" is healthily in credit.

Clearly if we are going to live longer then we need to pay more for our pensions or receive less, or a bit of both, but the debate should be based on facts rather than the bias of "private sector good public sector bad." We also need to recognise the purpose of a pension, which is to avoid penury once one's earning life is over, rather than to provide vast funds for the life of Riley or to finance advantages for ones children and grandchildren. I should have thought that about half the average income would be enough to avoid destitution, and the average income should be enough to provide a very comfortable existence.

At present values the average income is about £24 000 a year so I see no reason for any pensions to rise above that, and the minimum pension should be around £12 000 a year or £230 a week. It seems to me that the minimum figure should be provided by the state out of taxation, regardless, and the "top up" from contributions. Then we could all get on to enjoy the luxurious lifestyle that our sophisticated economy can sustain without all this fuss, distortion an jealousy.

Multiculturalism

Cecil Rhodes, the colonist of central Africa, is said to have claimed that: "To be born British is to have won first prize in the lottery of life." The French take a similar view, and believe that to be French is the greatest privilege civilisation can bestow. Hence immigrants to France have the good fortune to be able to embrace its culture and the most beautiful and logical language in the world and enter into that privileged state. This view has a certain logic

Historically Britain has taken a more liberal stance. In the Guardian of 28th November 2007 Timothy Garton Ash wrote: "Liberalism properly understood (is) a quest for the greatest possible measure of individual freedom, compatible with the freedom of others." Hence immigrants over the centuries have, give or take a few glitches, had the freedom to continue their own way of life to the extent that it did not interfere with the established one, and our culture and diet have been greatly enhanced, and our economy stimulated.

The modern name for this liberal tolerance is multiculturalism , and it is a nonsense to say that it has failed. Of course there are problems. Ghettoisation is one, although immigrants themselves are hardly solely responsible. As Tariq Modood writes in yesterday's Guardian: "Research shows that all minorities - including Muslims - want to live in mixed neighbourhoods , and ghettos are created by those who move out." A more intractable problem arises where a traditional norm, such as an inferior status for women, clashes with the liberal value of equality held by the host country.

For centuries both Roman Catholics and Jews were regarded as suspicious aliens: today hardy anybody notices, though their faithful still carry out their own customs and practices. It is a nonsense to declare our present multicultural society a failure The solutions to the problems it presents are dialogue, tolerance, measures to promote interaction and prevent discrimination and, above all, time.

Bank Holidays

Apparently we have a Ministry for Tourism and it is thinking of abolishing the May Day bank holiday and replacing it with one in October, possible to be called UK Day (ugh!) or even Trafalgar Day (double ugh!)

In my view if any of the spring bank holidays is to be abolished it should be exactly that, the Spring Bank Holiday. This was originally the Whitsuntide Holiday but was replaced to a fixed day (since Whitsuntide, like Easter, is a movable feast)by Harold Wilson's government, hence it was know for a while as "Wilsontide." Since it no longer has any religious significance and no antiquity, other than a welcome day of it would would be no great loss. The glorous Saddleworth and District Band Competition would doubtless ignore all this messing about by governments,and continue to take place on Whit Friday, as it has done since 1884.

A holiday in the autumn would be welcome, but it is hard to decide which of the two suggestions is the more toe-curlingly embarrassing. That we should commemorate Trafalgar Day (21st October)with a holiday is obviously an attempt to pander to the prejudices of neanderthal anti- Europeans who love to bury their heads in the sands of the present, revel in past glories which are nothing to do with anyone alive today, insult the French and have no vision for the future. A UK Day to "celebrate Britishness" is almost as bad. My youthful diet of the novels of W E Johns and Percy F Westerman taught me that British patriotism should be understated. We should aim at apparently effortless competence but not shout about it as lesser nations do. I'm no longer so keen on the "lesser nations" part of the creed but feel that modest competence in all areas is something to be encouraged but applauded only discreetly.

My own suggestion for an October bank holiday is United Nations Day, 24th October. This would help place a more favourable image on an organisation which, though still imperfect, is our best hope for the future - the organisation specifically devoted to peace through international co-operation and the international rule of law.

Libraries and Buses

Bus subsidies and library services seem to be high on the list of things to be reduced as a result of the cuts imposed by central government on local government. As usual these services are more important to the poor than to the rich. We comfortably-off can swan around in our cars or even 4x4s, can afford to buy our own books and have enough heated rooms for our children to be able to do their homework in peace and quiet.

Today there are to be nation-wide demonstrations to try and save libraries. I wish them luck, but at the same time have reservations about the quality and nature of the libraries to be preserved. A correspondent in the Guardian this week wrote that "(libraries) offer the rare commodity of peace and quiet as well as a whole world of imagination and information. Older children can safely go there to browse, revise or do homework without background distractions."

I had experience of a local library like that during my recent year in France, but here in Kirklees, my local library has been turned into a one-stop "Information Centre" where, in addition to borrowing books, people come to pay their council tax, rent and other dues, receive advice from counsellors and councillors, and on at least one occasion, a mother an baby group rent the air assunder with a spirited rendition of:" The wheels on the bus go round and round." That occasion apart the noisiest people are normally the staff, who welcome the various participants with loud enthusiasm. Hushed tones are a thing of the past. Yet this mixture of incompatible activities is regarded by our Council as a great success and a model for the rest of the District.

A report out this week advocates that local government should sell off purpose built buildings and concentrate activities in just one or two such "one-stop" centres. Fine if there are separate rooms for separate activities. Otherwise this trend should be resisted. Libraries should be preserved as libraries.


PS A splendid article by David Blanchflower in this week's New Statesman compares the coalition's economic policy to that of Lord Cardigan at the Charge of the Light Brigade. Well worth a read.

Post Ofice Privatisation

I seemed to receive a rather large number of Christmas cards this year featuring pillar boxes or post boxes, and assumed this was some sort of subliminal protest against their privatisation. However, in the end the robins outnumbered the post and pillar boxes by eight to five.

I expect I am not alone in thinking that the Post Office and the Royal Mail are one and the same organisation, but apparently they are separate. The Post Office is to be "mutualised" and it is the Royal Mail which is to be pivatised. As far as I know our local Post Office belongs to our postmaster who has some sort of licence to run it (as does Susan in The Archers) so presumably it is the big post offices in the cities, the Crown Post Offices, that are to be mutulaised. I'm not clear what that involves but it sounds reasonably in tune with Liberal thinking.

The privatisation of the Royal Mail includes a gesture towards Liberal thinking, in that ten per cent of the shares are to be allocated to the staff. However, this is only a pale imitation of the wonderful schemes the Liberal Party dreamed up in the 1960s with the aim of substituting co-operation for the capital/labour confrontation which did so much harm to British industry. I can't now remember the exact details but the general idea was that the boards of all firms over a certain size should comprise one third representatives of the shareholders, one third the employees and one third the community. Hence no one group would be able to force a decision without the support of at least some of the others. This would, of course, apply to the size and distribution of the profits, of which the employees could, if they wished, have a share.

Ten per cent share ownership is a rather tame step in this direction but, now that Liberal Democrats are in government it is surely time to revive interest in the revision of company law, which at present requires that companies act solely in the interests of their shareholders. Shareholders may invest only a few pounds in a company: employees often invest their lives.

Aid for the Third World

A large part of this morning's Radio 4 "Today" programme was devoted to international aid: does it help development or hinder it, and is it just a gravy train for the well intentioned?

For those who wish to "knock" aid there is no shortage of ammunition. Though now rather dated Graham Hancock's "Lords of Poverty" (1989) is a rich source. The frontispiece contains this extract from a delightful poem:


We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution --
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting

For the full text see "The Development Set" by Ross Coggins.

Having been a campaigner for more and better aid for half a century, and actively engaged in it (in Papua New Guinea and Malaŵi) for over ten years in total I'm well aware of the problems of misdirected aid, of waste and the dangers of the culture of dependency, but also the inestimable good that well directed aid can do.

Here is a 12 point "Good Aid Guide."

1. Aid by itself will not bring justice to the World's poor, but can help. Always see aid in the context of trade, debt relief, human rights, the arms trade and other relevant issues.

2. Campaign for better quality aid as well as increased quantity.

3. Good quality aid involves local people : make sure that the poor are consulted about what they need and involved in providing it.

4. The most successful projects seem to be small scale ones directed at the needs of the poorest (often women) rather than large scale prestige projects.

5. Non-government organisations on both sides have a good record.

6. Good aid is in an appropriate style...

7. ...and uses appropriate technology.

8. Provision for long-term follow-up is essential.

9. The motivation should be justice rather than charity.

10. Aid should be in the interests of the recipients, not just the donors.

11. Good aid aims to develop people rather than things.

12. Aid directed at individuals rarely solves the cause of the problem: aim to help communities.

Equality: a response to a response

As Chris Wales acknowledges, the "equality" question is so broad and deep that it deserves several posts rather than a few comments. After all, R H Tawney wrote a whole book about it.

So here are a few rejoinders to the detailed and thoughtful comment Chris has made to the previous post

1. Is promoting equality designed to save the rich for themselves of to save society form the rich?

Both really. As Wilkinson and Pickett show, the rich themselves are happier in more equal societies. I think this probably arises from "all being in it together" (and having to spend less time and effort protecting their wealth from the dispossessed.) Perhaps David Cameron's attempt to measure happiness will confirm this.

But equally democratic societies meed to be protected from the rich who, through being disconnected from society, and, believing (mistakenly) they have no need of it, withdraw their support from the means of sustaining it. In addition the very rich can and do wield undue influence in trying to manipulate the political process to preserve their privileges, not only for themselves, but also for their offspring. Why else is no party prepared to introduced effective inheritance taxes?

2. Some rich are philanthropic.

Yes of course they are and thank goodness for them, especially Bill Gates's foundation to combat AIDS in Africa. But neither national nor international society should be dependent on the whims of the rich for "good works." The rich should pay realistic taxes to repay, preserve and improve the societies which have enabled them to prosper.

3. People who strive should be rewarded.

They should and they will be, but that does not mean they should become so disproportionately rich in material and financial matters that they endanger democratic health. Even in societies with a high measure of equality (which, to repeat, does not equate to "sameness") individuals will still strive for job satisfaction, the good opinion of their neighbours, political power, sporting prowess, domestic happiness, and, for those for whom it is a priority, a superior level of material wealth.

Equality

In a comment on an earlier post Chris Wales confesses that he's not too keen on the state trying to preserve a measure of equality in society. Rather,if I've understood him correctively, he is in favour of unfettered (and not necessarily equal?) opportunity.

This is an interesting question and deserves a full post (and perhaps several) rather than an additional comment.

Most modern states, as Chris acknowledges, accept that there should be some sort of welfare safety net to prevent too severe destitution, and we have had such as system, with varying degrees of generosity, in this country since the Elizabethan Poor Law. It was Jo Grimond, in an article, I think in the Observer the early 1960s, who alerted my to the concept that the democratic state also had a duty to prevent some people becoming too rich, because, as I recall, they endangered democracy. Lord Aschcroft, Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi are prime examples of how right he was (as in so many other things.)


A few rich individuals perhaps add a bit of glamour to society (the Dockers provided it in the 1950s, though, as far as I know, they paid their taxes, and at a pretty high rate) but a substantial section of society who become so rich that they are detached from the rest of us, live in gated communities and cease to be affected by our common concerns endanger the cohesiveness of our society, just as does the detachment of the bottom 20% into their separate Toynbee "caravan." We would be so much happier as a society if we really were "all in this together." This explains so many people's nostalgia for the war years, when the rich as well as the poor had a chance of being bombed out of their homes or called up for service.

It is a sad reflection on the current spirit of the Labour Party that, although Ed Milliband seems keen to retain the 50% higher tax rate as a matter of principle other senior members aren't so sure. When Neil Kinnock was their leader his book choice on Desert Island Discs was R H Tawney's "Equality", which contains this wonderful passage:

"It is possible that intelligent tadpoles reconcile themselves to the inconvenience of their position by reflecting that, though most of them will live and die as tadpoles, and nothing more, the more fortunate of the species will one day shed their tales , distend their mouths and stomachs, hop nimbly on to dry land, and croak addresses to their former friends on the virtues by means of which tadpoles of character and capacity can rise to be frogs" (Allen and Unwin edition,1931, page 142)

As Tawney clearly saw, equality of opportunity is merely equality of opportunity to become unequal. To become unequal and not pay your dues to the society that enabled you to do so is even less acceptable.

At-Home Days

The British winter no longer comes as an annual surprise, but we are still not sufficiently certain that it will be so regular and prolonged as to make it worthwhile to invest heavily in snow-clearing equipment on the scale of, say, the Alps.

So when there is heavy snow, as today, the the intermediate solution for avoiding chaos is for local authorities to have the powers to declare an "At-Home Day." This would mean that all non-essential workers - most shop and office workers, teachers and students, etc. - would be instructed to stay at home, leaving the roads clear for essential workers - power suppliers, police and security workers, medical workers, firefighters and rescuers, and of course, the snow ploughs, - to go about their business.

This idea was put to me by the deputy head of a school at which I worked in Bradford in the early 80s. He was called Wally, which as far as I know was his full first name and not a diminutive. It was not regarded as either pejorative or funny at the time

Students and the Immigration Cap.

There are forecasts that the proposed cap on immigration is likely to reduce vastly the number of foreign student in our universities. This seems to me to be totally dotty. Higher education is one of the few "products" that we offer which is "World Class": why on earth stop people buying it? As anyone studying "A" level economics will tell you, a foreign student coming here to buy one of our courses is the equivalent of an export (that's without taking into account the additional money they will spend in living expenses and entertainment while they are here.) Stopping then buying the product is the equivalent of refusing to sell Rolls Royce engines to the Australian. By pandering to the prejudices of the tabloids and Tory right the government is about to score a devastating own goal.

It is also a devastating comment on the values of our society that whereas top class footballers are to be excluded from the cap, top class scientists are not. If our universities are to maintain their "World Class" status then they need to be able to employ the best of international talent.

We get the impression that Vince Cable is trying to resist this nonsense: all power to his elbow.