An Englishman's home. . . . .

Something called the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has decided  that even the private telephone calls, Emails, and letters of our members of parliament are not exempt from arbitrary interception by "the authorities."  So along with the rest of us, their private communications, however "confidential " they may be presumed to be,  can  be made available to umpteen different bodies on the whim of any bureaucrat who fancies a bit of finding out.

All this in the name of protecting us from  terrorist plots and sundry dangers.

What a contrast with the standards of privacy maintained in the mid 19th century.

In his splendid book "Bloody Foreigners" Robert Winder refers to the case of the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini, who, during his exile in England, discovered that the post office was tampering with his mail and passing on information to rival groups in Naples.  This caused an outcry, and debates in parliament, not because we were harbouring a revolutionary, but because his privacy had been invaded.  In a letter to The Times, the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle wrote:

It is a question vital to us all  that sealed letters in an English post office be, as we all fancied they were, respected as things sacred; that opening of men's letters, a practice near akin to picking men's pockets, and to other still viler and far fataler  forms of scoundrelism, be not resorted to except in cases  of the very last extremity.*

That was in 1843 when I'm quite sure there would be as much anxiety of terrorist and violent activity of one form or another as there is today. But then there was a greater determination to defend the freedoms that others might be out to destroy.

There is much huffing and puffing from the Bufton Tuftons of this world about the maintenance of "British Values."  One of these is surely the concept  that "an Englishman's home is his castle," meaning that "the authorities" are not allowed to invade it, or, by extension the privacy of the occupants, without good cause.

The present mass surveillance techniques (including, as I understand it, the requirement of communications companies to keep all data for at least a year in case "the authorities"  would like to check it out) is clearly incompatible with this ancient right.

The organisation "Liberty" (formally the National Council for Civil Liberties)  recognises, like Carlyle above, that privacy may be violated  in "cases of the very last extremity"  but argues, among other things, that there should be "prior judicial authorisation  for all surveillance requests" and that such surveillance be conducted "for only narrow and tightly defined purposes."  For more details visit: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/

The issue is to be debated in parliament shortly.  Now that MPs know that, for once, they, like the rest of us, are "all in this together" they will take steps to safeguard our and their right to privacy.

* Quoted on page 148 of Winder's  book, which is a riveting read about immigration, and puts that into perspective too.

Nonsense about fiscal responsibility

Our Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, is to introduce his (revised?) Charter of Fiscal Responsibility into parliament tomorrow. As I understand it the charter is to require that, from three years on,  every government, in normal times, must run a budget surplus.

Even if it made economic sense, such a charter would be nonsense. Under the British Constitution no parliament can bind a future parliament, or even future decisions of the same parliament, so any government with a parliamentary majority which wanted to repeal the charter could do so.  And of course, the definition of "normal times" can be varied to suite whoever wishes to describe the times as abnormal.

So this is just a piece of political grandstanding by Osborne, designed to embarrass the Labour opposition, which the Tory PR machine and compliant media have managed to tarnish as being  of questionable economic probity.  John McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, is not helping to regain their credibility by flip-flopping on the issue, having first announced that he would support the charter and now deciding, sensibly, that Labour will vote against (and I fervently hope, the Liberal Democrats too, or Keynes will be turning in his grave.*)

Keynes demonstrated that balancing the budget, come hell or high water, is an inadequate policy.  He showed that in times of recession caused by inadequate demand the government should run a budget deficit in order to make up the short-fall and maintain or achieve full employment, and in times of over-heating the government should run a budget surplus both in order to recoup the money spent in the recession, and to dampen down inflationary pressures.  Fine tuning of the economy in this way is what the modern chancellor should be attempting.  Osborne's policies are a throwback to the 1930s and before.

Strictly speaking it is not even necessary to balance the budget in the long run.  Even humble "A" level text-books have long  suggested that a prudent chancellor should aim for a  long-run budget deficit of around 3% of GDP.  The value, and cost of repayment, of the subsequently accumulated national debt, will be reduced through growth and inflation.  If however, we are to aim for "prosperity without growth," which I believe we should,  that percentage will have to be revised.

Even so, as Larry Elliot pointed out in an article some time ago, if the economy grows at 5% in money terms, as the UK's has done, on average, since the war, than long term borrowing at only 3% in money terms will gradually reduce the Debt:GDP ratio.

The really serious deficit in the British Economy is the current account of the balance of payments, which is running at or very near a dangerously high level of 6%.  Unlike  the internal deficit (ie that discussed above), which is largely "money we owe ourselves," this external deficit really is a burden on future generations.  It really will have to be paid back some day.

Rather than tackle the problem by measure to increase efficiency and productivity, Osborne's only policy seems to be to buy time and postpone the evil day by flogging off national assets with foreigners as eager and willing customers (yet more of the Post Office to go to "US institutional investors" any time now, with Northern Rock, the Ordnance Survey and Channel 4  in the pipeline).

* Happily they did, so Keynes can rest.  (added 18th October)

Poem

Today is national Poetry Day.  Here is one of my favourites:

Ode on Solitude

Happy the man, whose wish and care

   A few paternal acres bound,

Content to breathe his native air,

                            In his own ground.

Whose herds with milk, whose fields with bread,

   Whose flocks supply him with attire,

Whose trees in summer yield him shade,

                            In winter fire.

Blest, who can unconcernedly find

   Hours, days, and years slide soft away,

In health of body, peace of mind,

                            Quiet by day,

Sound sleep by night; study and ease,

   Together mixed; sweet recreation;

And innocence, which most does please,

                            With meditation.

Thus let me live, unseen, unknown;

   Thus unlamented let me die.

Steal from the world, and not a stone

                            Tell where I lie.

Alexander Pope 1688–1744

Although I originally learned this poem, or parts of it, to be able to show, in essays, examinations, that Pope did  not always write in iambic pentameters, I'm very fond of some, though not all (I should not want to die unlamented) of its sentiment 

One of my most effective teachers was the Bradford historian Jack Reynolds.  He spent his entire career in this area and was highly respected by all who came into contact with him, and particularly those he taught.  This is in great contrast to those professionals who whiz around from job to job, often moving on to the next before the mess they've made in the last one becomes apparent.  More to be pitied are those unfortunates who flit around the world trying to leave themselves behind.

I suspect that today we do not esteem sufficiently those who confine themselves to " a few paternal acres. "  We should.

The Tories gave, and the Tories have taken away: blessed be he name of the Tories

Actually the quotation should be the other way round.  It was a Tory government under Mrs Thatcher which took away the right of local government to set, keep and spend the business rate.  Now George Osborne has the cheek to claim a revolution rather than a "U" turn by giving it back again.

Although, of course, not all the powers are returned.  Most local authorises will be permitted to vary the business rate in one direction  only - downwards.  Only those authorities which succumb to central government bullying and agree to combine and have a separately elected executive mayor will be able to vary it upwards, and then only by a maximum of 2% (and, curiously, provided they have the support of the business community - how will this be assessed?)

This may be devolution, but only in the sense of the conclusion of Stanley Holloway's monologue on Magna Carta, the result of which is claimed to be :

                      "That in England today we can do as we like.
                        So long as we do what we're told."

Osborne is also rather coy on how, and how much, money will be redistributed  from richer local authorities to poorer ones, which is one of the most important functions of central government..

Westminster council in London with a population of 227 0000, can raise almost £2bn from business rates   This, according to Larry Elliott (page 6, Guardian, 06/10/15) is more than the combined business rates of  Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and Bristol, with a total population of 3 million, can raise. 

Of course, equalisation can be achieved by the redistribution of general taxation and not just business rates, but without details, the Tory recipe seems to be one by which the already prosperous shall prosper even more.  Another odd biblical quotation  springs to mind:  "Unto him that hath shall be given...." even if nothing is actually taken away from him that hath not.

In all it is hard to avoid the conclusion that  what is actually devolved in this ploy is responsibility, and blame, for the public expenditure cuts made by the central government in their policy of reducing the size of the state

How catastrohhic was Labour's defeat?

The media, and even the Labour party itself, seem to have accepted that labour suffered a catastrophic defeat in May this year, and a consensus has developed that this was because their manifesto was "too left wing" and that Ed Miliband was "not prime-ministerial materiel."

Labour's defeat was certainly devastating, but only in the sense that, until the results of the exit poll were released at 10pm, we all thought that Labour and the Conservatives  were running "neck and neck" and those of us on the the progressive side of politics believed  there was more than an even chance that the next government could be a "rainbow coalition" of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens , and possibly, the SNP.

Those hopes were shattered as the exit poll, which few believed at first, proved to be right.  In the case of the Liberal Democrats, more than right: I  believe it predicted we should just attain double figure, but we ended up with only eight MPs.

It is indisputable that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats experienced a catastrophe in Scotland, losing between us a spectacular 50 seats to the Scottish Nationalist Party and retaining only one seat each.

However, the results in England reveal a very different story.

In England both Labour and Conservatives gained votes ( Labour  +3.6%, Conservatives  +1.4%) and seats  (Labour  +15 and Conservatives  +21), all, I think,  from we Liberal Democrats.

In Wales the Labour vote increased by only 0.6%, though they still lost as seat, and the Conservatives gained three seats with an increase in total vote of only 1.1%.  Neither party campaigns as such in Northern Ireland.

So, concentrating on the results in England, Labour's "too-left wing" campaign under the "not-priminsterial" Ed Miliband was by no means a failure.  They increased their vote, in percentage terms, by more than double the Conservatives, and it was only the distortions of the electoral system that this  produced fewer additional seats.

The obituary of Denis Healey in today's Guardian  quotes him as reconsigning the need to "close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country."  Labour's present establishment  could tackle this not by deserting or ditching what whey perceive as their even more unelectable leader and retreating on his even more left-wing policies (most of which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable) but by support him and using  their energies to explain, refine and publicise the  policies which have so energised Mr Corbyn's supporters.

Liberal Democrats should contribute, not by taunts of "hard left" and "Trostkyite," but by emphasising the policies on which we agree, such as housing, fairer taxation,and the protection of human rights,  and bringing to the mix our enthusiasm for Europe, and, of course, proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

McDonnell's economics not from Planet Zog

In an earlier post I've used this quotation from Owen Jones's excellent book, "The Establishment":


Those policies that challenge the position of the Establishment . . . are dismissed as a recipe for ruin: businesses will leave, capital will flee, tax revenues will collapse, and so on.

After his speech to the  Party Conference  on Monday Labour's new Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell was interviewed on BBC 2's "Newsnight" by Evan Davis.

Now, I have a great respect for Evan Davis.  He used to come to day conferences  for sixth formers studying economics and give us easy to understand talks on the state of the nation's economy, was a presenter  on Radio 4's "Today" programme, and has recently replaced the aggressively rude Jeremy Paxman as chief interviewer on "Newsnight."

Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but when he asked McDonnell about the possibility that a Labour Government might introduce a Financial Transactions Tax  or Land Value Taxation he did so with what seemed to me an air of incredulity  - "Surely you can't be serious?  Do you really mean that?"

Yes, I know, he didn't actually use those words, and even had he done so they are  well bellow the level implied by the Jones quote.  But a lot can be deduced from body language and facial and vocal expression.

In fact there  is nothing outrageous  or even novel  about either of theses taxes.  The idea of a Financial Transaction Tax was first put forward by the American economist and Nobel Laureate James Tobin  way back in 1972 and some of us have been advocating it ever since we heard of it.  The European Commission considered introducing one  in 2014 and is to make another attempt in January next year.  So there is nothing from Planet Zog about it: it is mainstream, and that the Labour Party should be giving it serious consideration is perfectly sensible.

And as for Land Value Taxation, we Liberals have  been banging on about it for over a century. (We used to call it Site Value Rating)

But, as Jones points out, the media, perhaps unconsciously in the case of Davis, is skilled at regarding anything that might upset the City, or the owners of prime pieces of land, (or land banks hoarded by builders and supermarkets) as outrageously beyond the pale.

Fortunately Mr McDonnell remained cool.  He is to set up commission to examine these, and other proposals.  Liberal Democrats should volunteer to contribute.  We have a lot of experience of  good ideas.

A wind for change

The late great Richard Wainwright, doyen of Yorkshire Liberalism and Liberal MP for the Colne Valley 1966-70 and 1974 - 1987, compared politics to sailing.  You could be in the Doldrums for ages, seeming to be getting nowhere, but when "the wind" came along, you needed to be alert to catch it and forge ahead.

Jeremy Corbyn has released a wind for change and, rather than catching it, our Liberal Democrat leaders  seem poised to miss it.  An article in today's Guardian headlined "Cable: Lib Dems and moderate Labour can take centre ground" reports  Vince Cable himself, and fellow ex-coalition ministers  Ed Davey and Norman Lamb, all urging that we unite with "moderate" Labour MPs unsettled by Corbyn's victory in order to occupy the "vast space space between Cameron and Corbyn."

This is completely to ignore the reasons for the Corbyn victory. To me it signifies a desire for an end to triangulation, timid moderation, the unfairness of making the poorest pay for the errors of the financial sector, dogmatic privatisations, and craven fear of doing anything that might frighten the bankers or upset the rich.

It is call for a challenge to the " market forces rule OK" Establishment dogma  (as described in the previous post) and  for genuinely radical change.

On the letters page of the same Guardian is a selection of indignant protests from Liberal Democrat activists (including one from me) pointing out to our leadership that we "have had enough of the party establishment seeking equidistance.  We are a left-leaning party of the centre left."

I hope Tim reads these and recognises his isolation from the main-stream of the party before he delivers his speech tonight. If not I fear we shall hear denigration of the"hard left" (only "hard" because the centre has moved so far to the right), siren calls to worried Labour MPs to join us in the centre and a recipe for decades in the wilderness.

There is a danger that Corbyn's wind may not blow for very long - Gleggmania barely lasted a week -  but while it does last we need to identify ourselves with it with a profound "me too" for those of his policies which overlap with ours: economic expansion rather than damaging austerity to reduce the deficit; non-replacement of Trident (I hope),  fairer taxation, a social security net that treats people with dignity;  house building;  green energy, constitutional reform; and a humane attitude to refugees and the many still poverty-stricken nations.