The sentiments expressed in the final three verses of a hymn we sang at church yesterday must surely resonate around North Africa at this crucial time.
And lo, already on the hills
The flags of dawn appear;
Gird up your loins, ye prophet souls,
Proclaim the day is near:
The day in whose clear shining light
All wrong shall stand revealed,
When justice shall be throned in might,
And every hurt be healed;
When knowledge, hand in hand with peace,
Shall walk the earth abroad:
The day of perfect righteousness,
The promised day of God.
F.L. Hosmer, (1840 - 1929)
Monday, 28 February 2011
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Damaging Cuts
The announcement of each of the following cuts has provoked protests which seem to me to be perfectly justifiable. They are listed in no particular order of priority, except that I believe the cuts to the BBC World Service to be the most stupid.
BBC World Service
Sure Start
Probation Service
Libraries
Women's Refuges
Local government services to the elderly, roads, SEN support and fire and rescue services
Unniversity teaching in humanities
Adult learning needs
UK Film Council (which financed that nice little earner, The King's Speech")
Coastguards
Forestry Commission (there is a cut to funding as well as the now abandoned privatisation threat.)
Compared to the £9billion on defence procurement which has simply been wasted, as we learned this week, and the £42billion on uncollected tax, the savings on each of the above are peanuts.
Incidentally, John Lanchester's highly readable explanation of the financial crash, "Whoops", has a vivid way of explaining the difference between a million and a billion. A million seconds lasts just under twelve days, a billion seconds lasts almost 32 years! When I first read this I didn't believe it, but a few minutes on a calculator (or a bit of long division if you can remember how to do it)confirms it to be true.
Deficit scaremongers make much of the dubious idea that the burden of our debts will fall on our children and grandchildren. But, as Martin Wolf has pointed out (Financial Times, 25th November 2010):
...governments should not sacrifice the future to the pressures of the present. What is the sense of cutting spending today if the result is a poorer country tomorrow? This point turns on its head the refrain that we should at all costs avoid burdening the future with additional debt.
Since Lloyd George's "People's Budget" of 1909 we have spent a century, albeit with some backward as well as forward steps, building up a more responsible, caring and civilised society. We have a duty to hand that on to our children and grandchildren, not destroy it by attacking the easy targets and ignoring the waste and tax avoidance and evasion of the powerful.
BBC World Service
Sure Start
Probation Service
Libraries
Women's Refuges
Local government services to the elderly, roads, SEN support and fire and rescue services
Unniversity teaching in humanities
Adult learning needs
UK Film Council (which financed that nice little earner, The King's Speech")
Coastguards
Forestry Commission (there is a cut to funding as well as the now abandoned privatisation threat.)
Compared to the £9billion on defence procurement which has simply been wasted, as we learned this week, and the £42billion on uncollected tax, the savings on each of the above are peanuts.
Incidentally, John Lanchester's highly readable explanation of the financial crash, "Whoops", has a vivid way of explaining the difference between a million and a billion. A million seconds lasts just under twelve days, a billion seconds lasts almost 32 years! When I first read this I didn't believe it, but a few minutes on a calculator (or a bit of long division if you can remember how to do it)confirms it to be true.
Deficit scaremongers make much of the dubious idea that the burden of our debts will fall on our children and grandchildren. But, as Martin Wolf has pointed out (Financial Times, 25th November 2010):
...governments should not sacrifice the future to the pressures of the present. What is the sense of cutting spending today if the result is a poorer country tomorrow? This point turns on its head the refrain that we should at all costs avoid burdening the future with additional debt.
Since Lloyd George's "People's Budget" of 1909 we have spent a century, albeit with some backward as well as forward steps, building up a more responsible, caring and civilised society. We have a duty to hand that on to our children and grandchildren, not destroy it by attacking the easy targets and ignoring the waste and tax avoidance and evasion of the powerful.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Another warning shot
Tony Greaves is one of the founding fathers of the community politics which are the source of the strength of Liberals and Liberal Democrats in local government, and on which foundation the parliamentary party stands. Political opponents depict him as the epitome of the bearded sandal-wearing Liberal, friends as the guru of social liberalism. Liberal Democrat News has been dull since he stopped writing his regular column. Our leaders in government will do well to take note of his letter in yesterday's Guardian regarding the maketisation of social services.
Tony writes:
"..Liberal Democrat policies are for decentralisation and democratisation of public services, not hiving them all off to whichever private companies want to run and shape them for profit, with the inevitable loss of democratic involvement and accountability. Throwing a few high profile crumbs to charities will not mask a policy of wholesale privatisation or make it acceptable to the public. I have little doubt that the Liberal Democrats as a party will refuse to accept this rightwing nonsense - which anyway is not in the coalition agreement..."
On the same letters page a correspondent from Manchester explodes the convenient Tory myth of "public sector bad, private sector good" by asking:
"Where is the evidence that the private sector is better? Heathrow airport? British airways? Network Rail? The cartel that is now our energy companies? And what about the whole financial sector? Didn't their greed, short-termism and incompetent management almost bring about the collapse of the western world's financial systems(saved by public intervention)?..."
The proposed public sector "reforms," as currently constituted, are as ideologically driven as the public sector cuts, are illiberal and should be opposed
Tony writes:
"..Liberal Democrat policies are for decentralisation and democratisation of public services, not hiving them all off to whichever private companies want to run and shape them for profit, with the inevitable loss of democratic involvement and accountability. Throwing a few high profile crumbs to charities will not mask a policy of wholesale privatisation or make it acceptable to the public. I have little doubt that the Liberal Democrats as a party will refuse to accept this rightwing nonsense - which anyway is not in the coalition agreement..."
On the same letters page a correspondent from Manchester explodes the convenient Tory myth of "public sector bad, private sector good" by asking:
"Where is the evidence that the private sector is better? Heathrow airport? British airways? Network Rail? The cartel that is now our energy companies? And what about the whole financial sector? Didn't their greed, short-termism and incompetent management almost bring about the collapse of the western world's financial systems(saved by public intervention)?..."
The proposed public sector "reforms," as currently constituted, are as ideologically driven as the public sector cuts, are illiberal and should be opposed
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
A V Referendum III
For criticisms of the "Yes" campaign's arguments for AV please see the previous post. Here are eight arguments which in my view put a more positive and rational case for voting "Yes."
1. AV will put an end to the need for negative voting. This is sometimes called tactical voting but "negative" is a more accurate term. It means voting not to put someone in but to keep someone out: for example in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election urging Conservatives to vote Liberal Democrat in order to "keep Labour out." Negative voting is a regular feature of FPTP. Even in the bad old days of two party politics thousands of of Conservative votes were cast, not so much in support of Conservative policies as to "keep Labour out" and vice versa.
AV will enable everyone to cast their first preference vote positively for what they really believe in, and their second either for a genuine second preference or to keep someone out. The French do this expensively by holding two elections a week apart. In the first they vote "with the heart", in the second, after minor parties have withdrawn, "with the head" for the realistic choice. With AV we get the two for the price of one.
2. AV will produce a more civilised and rational debate. Parties will be seeking second preference as well as first preference votes, and therefore will not be so rude and scornful about each other or deliberately misrepresent each other. As Ed Milliband put it in last Thursday's Guardian:
"AV will ...force parties to admit where there is agreement between them , prising open our confrontational system so that similarities sometimes become as important as differences...Exaggerating disagreement in order to create black and white choices under first-past-the-post has only added to a particular style of politics that turns off the electorate."
In other words, AV will encourage the politics of co-operation rather than confrontation.
3. Under AV there more seats will become marginal, so the parties will have to campaign to gain the support of a winder section of the electorate rather than a tiny handful of "floating" voters in a small number of marginals.
4. AV will increase the choices open to the elector and therefore the sovereignty of each electorate. We are not forced to give a second, third or fourth preference, but we can if we wish.
5. AV will allow the views of minorities to come to the fore more quickly. For most of the second half of the last century Liberal/liberal Democrat representation was so small that our views could be ignored, so it took fifty years or so for valuable ideas for which we argued way back in the fifties and sixties (devolution to the nations and regions, a stakeholder society,and, yes, electoral reform, to name but three) to be considered in the mainstream. Britain has lost out because of this delay. Today there are other vital minorities struggling for a voice. The Greens are an obvious example. AV will bring their important views to the fore more quickly
6. By encouraging positive voting for a first choice, AV will give a truer reflection of the real opinions of the nation.
7. The House of Commons will be more representative of those opinions.
8. The Commons will become more authoritative, since each MP will have the support of at least half of his or her electors.
Alas I am not a publicist so I have no idea how to sloganise the above or condense it into the 100 word limit required by the Yes campaign website.
1. AV will put an end to the need for negative voting. This is sometimes called tactical voting but "negative" is a more accurate term. It means voting not to put someone in but to keep someone out: for example in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election urging Conservatives to vote Liberal Democrat in order to "keep Labour out." Negative voting is a regular feature of FPTP. Even in the bad old days of two party politics thousands of of Conservative votes were cast, not so much in support of Conservative policies as to "keep Labour out" and vice versa.
AV will enable everyone to cast their first preference vote positively for what they really believe in, and their second either for a genuine second preference or to keep someone out. The French do this expensively by holding two elections a week apart. In the first they vote "with the heart", in the second, after minor parties have withdrawn, "with the head" for the realistic choice. With AV we get the two for the price of one.
2. AV will produce a more civilised and rational debate. Parties will be seeking second preference as well as first preference votes, and therefore will not be so rude and scornful about each other or deliberately misrepresent each other. As Ed Milliband put it in last Thursday's Guardian:
"AV will ...force parties to admit where there is agreement between them , prising open our confrontational system so that similarities sometimes become as important as differences...Exaggerating disagreement in order to create black and white choices under first-past-the-post has only added to a particular style of politics that turns off the electorate."
In other words, AV will encourage the politics of co-operation rather than confrontation.
3. Under AV there more seats will become marginal, so the parties will have to campaign to gain the support of a winder section of the electorate rather than a tiny handful of "floating" voters in a small number of marginals.
4. AV will increase the choices open to the elector and therefore the sovereignty of each electorate. We are not forced to give a second, third or fourth preference, but we can if we wish.
5. AV will allow the views of minorities to come to the fore more quickly. For most of the second half of the last century Liberal/liberal Democrat representation was so small that our views could be ignored, so it took fifty years or so for valuable ideas for which we argued way back in the fifties and sixties (devolution to the nations and regions, a stakeholder society,and, yes, electoral reform, to name but three) to be considered in the mainstream. Britain has lost out because of this delay. Today there are other vital minorities struggling for a voice. The Greens are an obvious example. AV will bring their important views to the fore more quickly
6. By encouraging positive voting for a first choice, AV will give a truer reflection of the real opinions of the nation.
7. The House of Commons will be more representative of those opinions.
8. The Commons will become more authoritative, since each MP will have the support of at least half of his or her electors.
Alas I am not a publicist so I have no idea how to sloganise the above or condense it into the 100 word limit required by the Yes campaign website.
Monday, 21 February 2011
A V Referendum II
As a signed-up member of the "Yes to fairer votes " campaign I've received the following Email from one of the organisers:
Your story could be used to help the campaign. It might be placed on our website, used in your local press or used on a leaflet.
If you’d like to get involved then tell us in 100 words why you’re supporting Yes. If you need some help you can tell us:
· What makes you most angry about MPs?
· How do you feel about MPs who have jobs for life?
· How did the expenses scandal make you feel
My true feelings in response to these three questions will not help the campaign at all. Firstly I'm not really angry about MPs: most of them work very hard for long hours doing a rather thankless job. I am, however, exceptionally concerned that too much of their time is spent acting as welfare officers for their constituents and too little examining policy and holding the government to account. Alas the "Yes" campaign seems to want to exacerbate the present situation.
Secondly it doesn't worry me at all the some MPs have a job for life, if that is what a majority of their constituents want. The idea that once a politician has secured a "safe" seat he or she is likely to sit back and do little is, in my experience, far from the truth. I have lived in a safe seat for most of my life in the UK. First it was safe Labour, then safe Conservative, and now safe Labour again, all the result of boundary changes. But both Conservative and Labour incumbents gained reputations as "good constituency MPs" and the last two have both worked hard on my behalf, largely on issues relating to Third World Development, although my affiliation to the Liberal Democrats is well known to them.
Thirdly, on the expenses scandal, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Who has not pushed the rules to the limits of legality what the prevailing culture accepted it and those in charge actually encouraged it. Of course some MPs went beyond the legal or moral limits, but most did not. The expenses scheme was really a method of topping up a basic salary which was seen as inadequate but politicians lacked the courage to fix - a failure of the system rather than of individual MPs.
After each of at least the last three elections there has been public outrage at the unfairness of the result. This outrage has not been confined to Liberal Democrats, Greens and others short changed by the electoral system, but has been pretty universal. Unfortunately the outrage has lasted about ten days or so and then the media carnival has moved on. It is the task of the "Yes" campaign to re-create this outrage for the 5th May. So far I am not very confident of the methods and arguments being used.
Your story could be used to help the campaign. It might be placed on our website, used in your local press or used on a leaflet.
If you’d like to get involved then tell us in 100 words why you’re supporting Yes. If you need some help you can tell us:
· What makes you most angry about MPs?
· How do you feel about MPs who have jobs for life?
· How did the expenses scandal make you feel
My true feelings in response to these three questions will not help the campaign at all. Firstly I'm not really angry about MPs: most of them work very hard for long hours doing a rather thankless job. I am, however, exceptionally concerned that too much of their time is spent acting as welfare officers for their constituents and too little examining policy and holding the government to account. Alas the "Yes" campaign seems to want to exacerbate the present situation.
Secondly it doesn't worry me at all the some MPs have a job for life, if that is what a majority of their constituents want. The idea that once a politician has secured a "safe" seat he or she is likely to sit back and do little is, in my experience, far from the truth. I have lived in a safe seat for most of my life in the UK. First it was safe Labour, then safe Conservative, and now safe Labour again, all the result of boundary changes. But both Conservative and Labour incumbents gained reputations as "good constituency MPs" and the last two have both worked hard on my behalf, largely on issues relating to Third World Development, although my affiliation to the Liberal Democrats is well known to them.
Thirdly, on the expenses scandal, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Who has not pushed the rules to the limits of legality what the prevailing culture accepted it and those in charge actually encouraged it. Of course some MPs went beyond the legal or moral limits, but most did not. The expenses scheme was really a method of topping up a basic salary which was seen as inadequate but politicians lacked the courage to fix - a failure of the system rather than of individual MPs.
After each of at least the last three elections there has been public outrage at the unfairness of the result. This outrage has not been confined to Liberal Democrats, Greens and others short changed by the electoral system, but has been pretty universal. Unfortunately the outrage has lasted about ten days or so and then the media carnival has moved on. It is the task of the "Yes" campaign to re-create this outrage for the 5th May. So far I am not very confident of the methods and arguments being used.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
A V Referendum I
The Six O'clock News on Radio 4 yesterday reported that David Cameron and Nick Clegg had "traded blows" in the issue of the referendum A V . I admit that I haven't listened to both speeches in their entirety, but the clips I've heard from both exuded calmness, reasonableness and rationality (though naturally I placed Clegg's speech higher on the rationality scale that Cameron's). Of "blows" there was no sign. Why oh why does political debate in Britain have to be described in terms of gladiatorial combat?
Sometimes the seating arrangements of the House of Commons are blamed, but this debate will now be heard largely outside parliament, so that's no excuse. I am sorry to see the BBC creating sensationalism where none exists. Surely we can leave that to the red-tops. We rightly deplore the bear garden backbiting that characterises so many parliamentary exchanges, particularly in Questions to the Prime Minister, but why pretend that this childishness happens when politicians are behaving for once in a reasonably grown-up fashion?
Sir Ernest Barker defined democracy as "government by discussion." Let us for goodness sake have a reasonable discussion, even a "big conversation" if ex-Blairites prefer the term, based on relevant facts rather than wild imaginings, about this vital next stage in the development of our democratic machinery.
Incidentally, I suspect the BBC may have caved in to pressure form the "No" campaign and no longer refers to the referendum as being about electoral reform. This is obvious nonsense, since various far more highly debatable proposals are routinely refereed to as "reforms" without the blink of an eyelid: NHS Reform, Education Reform, Reform of the Welfare system, to name but three. If you have not yet sent a protest to the BBC Director General on this issue please do so as a matter of urgency.
Sometimes the seating arrangements of the House of Commons are blamed, but this debate will now be heard largely outside parliament, so that's no excuse. I am sorry to see the BBC creating sensationalism where none exists. Surely we can leave that to the red-tops. We rightly deplore the bear garden backbiting that characterises so many parliamentary exchanges, particularly in Questions to the Prime Minister, but why pretend that this childishness happens when politicians are behaving for once in a reasonably grown-up fashion?
Sir Ernest Barker defined democracy as "government by discussion." Let us for goodness sake have a reasonable discussion, even a "big conversation" if ex-Blairites prefer the term, based on relevant facts rather than wild imaginings, about this vital next stage in the development of our democratic machinery.
Incidentally, I suspect the BBC may have caved in to pressure form the "No" campaign and no longer refers to the referendum as being about electoral reform. This is obvious nonsense, since various far more highly debatable proposals are routinely refereed to as "reforms" without the blink of an eyelid: NHS Reform, Education Reform, Reform of the Welfare system, to name but three. If you have not yet sent a protest to the BBC Director General on this issue please do so as a matter of urgency.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Bully-boys
Happily I was never bullied at school, nor did I bully anyone else, so I'm not really sure of the techniques. However, I suspect that if you can't bully the biggest boys you turn your attention to the lesser fry. That is exactly what the government is now doing twice over.
In the first place it is continuing Labour's failure to tackle the tax evaders and avoiders and instead focusing attention on the benefits recipients and the unemployed at the bottom of the pile. Way back in the early 80s a Tory (sic)MP protested that forcing people relentlessly to apply for jobs when there aren't any is like making people play bagatelle on a board with no holes. (Note to younger readers: bagatelle is a non mechanical precursor of pinball)
Secondly, having failed to make any significant dent in the bankers' bonuses, which amount to millions, the government has turned its attention to local authority chief executives who may earn over what is by comparison a paltry £200,000 a year. Reducing such salaries, although they are enormous by any normal standards, will not of course make any significant difference to the public sector deficit. The move is an example of petty vindictiveness and the Tories' ideological assault on the public sector whilst cosying up to the private sector. Liberal Democrats should be ashamed to be associated with it.
On the general matter of wage differentials, the national minimum wage is at present £5.39 per hour. For a 40 hour week that's £237.20, or £12,334.40 per year. Applying the x20 multiplier which David Cameron suggested for public sector wages, no one in the public sector should get more that £245,000 a year (and very few do). In my view a multiplier of x10 would be quite sufficient to reward talent, training, effort and enterprise (Plato thought x4 was enough) and this should apply to both public and private sectors. Any earnings above £123,000 a year should be taxed to the hilt. If greedy people don't like it they can go somewhere else and the rest of us can enjoy the benefits(as demonstrated by Wilkinson and Pickett) of the more egalitarian society which would result.
In the first place it is continuing Labour's failure to tackle the tax evaders and avoiders and instead focusing attention on the benefits recipients and the unemployed at the bottom of the pile. Way back in the early 80s a Tory (sic)MP protested that forcing people relentlessly to apply for jobs when there aren't any is like making people play bagatelle on a board with no holes. (Note to younger readers: bagatelle is a non mechanical precursor of pinball)
Secondly, having failed to make any significant dent in the bankers' bonuses, which amount to millions, the government has turned its attention to local authority chief executives who may earn over what is by comparison a paltry £200,000 a year. Reducing such salaries, although they are enormous by any normal standards, will not of course make any significant difference to the public sector deficit. The move is an example of petty vindictiveness and the Tories' ideological assault on the public sector whilst cosying up to the private sector. Liberal Democrats should be ashamed to be associated with it.
On the general matter of wage differentials, the national minimum wage is at present £5.39 per hour. For a 40 hour week that's £237.20, or £12,334.40 per year. Applying the x20 multiplier which David Cameron suggested for public sector wages, no one in the public sector should get more that £245,000 a year (and very few do). In my view a multiplier of x10 would be quite sufficient to reward talent, training, effort and enterprise (Plato thought x4 was enough) and this should apply to both public and private sectors. Any earnings above £123,000 a year should be taxed to the hilt. If greedy people don't like it they can go somewhere else and the rest of us can enjoy the benefits(as demonstrated by Wilkinson and Pickett) of the more egalitarian society which would result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)