How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

Why The Tories Will Almost Certainly Win A Second Term

Guido has recently had a post up questioning whether we are witnessing a one-term Tory government. While the points raised are relevant, I can’t help but feel that Guido is hedging his bets to some extent. If the Tories win outright, he has a whole host of posts highlighting the failure of Labour to get anywhere. If the Tories lose, he can point to this post and again be “proved” right. But that could just be my natural cynicism (which is generally rewarded where Mr Fawkes is concerned, though). The point of my post is that, as things stand, I think the Tories will go on to win a second term.

There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while things may get worse in terms of the economy, there is also the possibility that things will get distinctly better – especially if George Osborne clocks that economic recovery is aided by tax cuts as well as spending cuts. A recovering economy tends to reward the incumbent government; if Cameron & Co can pull it off, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t reap the rewards in the ballot box. And, after a year and a bit in office, there is still a lot of time to do it before the country has to go back to the polls in 2015.

The second reason is that the Tories aren’t really campaigning at the moment. They’ve got other stuff to do. Like govern. And, of course, muzzle their coalition partners as much as possible. However, come the next election (and they will effectively decide when that is – don’t rule out the possibility of a snap poll if a Tory victory looks likely in one), they will be coming out all guns blazing, using the healthy war chest to try to dominate the core messages of that campaign. And I think they will be emphasising the compromises they have made for the supposed good of the nation (for example, going into the coalition), the difficult choices they believe they have made (cuts etc) at the same time as hammering Labour for leaving them such a fucking mess to deal with in the first place. In the meantime, Labour have little else to do but campaign. And how well are they doing at that? Well, they are attracting back some of the supporters they lost during the long, messy years they spent in power, but those people are coming back for no real reason other than they don’t like the Tories and the reality of that party being ineffective control of the country narks them a bit. Labour, despite having all the time that no longer governing affords a party, are struggling to effectively vocalise any sort of popular message or image.

Which leads me to the third reason why a Tory victory still looks likely – Ed Miliband is just plain shit at the job of being Leader of the Opposition. And if you are shit at that job you have precisely no credibility when it comes to pitching for the promotion to the top job. Especially when the guy you are fighting for that job is already in it. Cameron may be compromised by, say, his association with Rebekah Brooks, but he still looks a lot more credible and Prime Ministerial than his Labour counterpart. Of course, Miliband Minor might be binned before the next election. But who would they replace him with? The reason he won the last Labour leadership election was because he appeared to be the least shit of those running in it. That situation hasn’t changed; there appears to be no-one in the upper echelons of the Labour party who could look credible against even that lightweight David Cameron.

Of course, lots could change, politics is constantly changing blah blah fucking blah. And yeah, something could happen that radically changes the political landscape. But as things stand, I think that enough of the British people will decide, in balance and when faced with the reality of voting in the ballot box on Election Day, that they prefer the devil they know rather to the one they don’t. The Tories will, most likely, benefit from a grudging refusal on the part of the British people to embrace change unless they absolutely have to or have grown utterly repelled by the incumbent government.

After all, that’s what allowed the odious Tony Blair to be re-elected. Twice.

Best News In The World Ever...

...Cameron has called for a phone hacking probe.

Well thank fuck for that! Jesus, I'll sleep better tonight, knowing that there is a phone hacking probe to come! This is on a par with the Declaration of Indepedence. Thank Christ for that brave, bold politician named David Cameron.

More seriously, though, I can't remember when the coalition ran out of steam, but I think it was quite early on. But whenever it happened, the coalition has now become largely reactive. It does not offer bold, new policies designed to better the lives of the people in this country. Nor does it offer a genuinely new politics that might allow power to be returned to the people of this country. Rather, it offers a bland and facile reactive approach to politics, where responding to media narratives is far more important than doing anything big, ideological and genuinely radical. Therefore, when there was a chance to create positive headlines or, at the very least, offset some of the more negative ones, Cameron lept at that chance. Just as he has done with, say, his coalition's healthcare reforms.

Government needs to be more than a response to the 24/7 media cycle. It needs to be more than about responding to particular new stories. It needs to be visionary, and it needs to be confident. It needs to be able to say "I don't care about the phone hacking scandal because (a) it is being investigated by the police anyway and (b) I am trying to transform this country for the better". Unfortunately, our current government seem terminally unable to cope with the relative bravery that such a position might entail.

So thank fuck for Cameron's commitment to a phone hacking probe. Because that really is the biggest challenge facing us at the moment in this country. And it is precisely what he should be doing. In the world of Cameron, anyway...

Ed Miliband - On Borrowed Time?

You know, I really feel sorry for Nick Clegg. He's spent the best part of the past year acting as a teflon coating for David Cameron, and since Thursday's elections, he's doing exactly the same thing for Ed Miliband. Because it is only the fact that the Liberal Democrats did so badly on Thursday that hides the fact that it was also a very difficult and disappointing set of results for the Labour leader.

Let's look at the best result for Miliband Minor - the fact that the Labour party have gained seats and, indeed, overall control of some councils. As things stand (Saturday at ten to two, fact fans) Labour have gained 800 seats and 26 councils. Yet the vast majority of those gains have been at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, and taking votes from them at the moment really is like taking candy from a baby. But what should be worrying Miliband - what should really be worrying him - is the result for the Tories. Over the past year, they have been heading up a coalition pursuing, for many, deeply unpopular and divisive policies. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest against those policies. The results at their first electoral test in government? 81 new councillors, and 4 new councils. Far from struggling to hold onto their territory, they have actually gained ground since taking power. Ultimately, Miliband Minor needs to be able to take on the Tories properly if he wants to be installed at Number 10. There's no evidence here that he will be able to do it. In fact, the council results suggest all he has managed to do is win some seats that the Labour party should never have lost in the first place from a massively unpopular third party.

And the council results are the best for him of the day.

Because in Wales, Labour have made some gains, but still seem unable to take control outright. And Wales - Labour's heartland, again where they should never have lost popularity at all - is a crucial sign of the well-being of the party in general. These election results suggest that they health of that party is damaged at the very least. But that's nothing compared to what happened North of the Border in Scotland.

There, the Labour party appear to have handed overall control of the Scottish parliament to the SNP on a silver platter. And this is Scotland, for fuck's sake, where the last Labour Prime Minister was born. If they can't win here, then they are going to struggle to make any headway whatsoever in far more hostile parts of the UK. Furthermore, what is particularly damaging to Miliband Minor is that he campaigned in Scotland, and he's been rewarded with a big fat "fuck you" from the Scottish voters.

He also campaigned for AV, and guess what happened there? Oh, the movement was defeated conclusively at the polls. Miliband Minor seems to have inherited that inverted Midas Touch of his former boss - everything he touches turns to shit. In fact, this t-shirt (via Guido) seems very harsh but also extremely apt:

With results like these, I'd be surprised if Ed Miliband is still leading the Labour party come the next election. In fact, his best bet to lead Labour into that election would be if the coalition collapsed right now. Of course, he could do something extraordinary to turn his fortunes around, but he gives no indications that he is willing to do so, or even that he feels he needs to do so. He's just waiting for the electoral pendulum to swing back to Labour and install him as PM. These results show that just isn't happening.

In fact, we could use this as a litmus test of how serious the Labour party is about winning the next election: they will show they are serious when they get a credible leader, capable of communicating and coming up with some sort of genuinely different, and popular, policies. In other words, when they get a leader other than Ed Miliband.

Election Predictions

With the usual caveat about how dangerous it is to make predictions in politics, allow me to speculate on what might happen in the elections today.

Firstly, Labour should do reasonably well. Not because they deserve to, but simply because it is far easier for the opposition party to fare well in these sort of elections than the governing one. And also because, in the stale end to the Blair years and in the abysmal failure that was the Brown administration, Labour was damn near wiped out in many parts of the country at a council and regional level. It is far easier gain seats when you have previously lost so many, and far easier to end up with a victory that looks far better than it actually is since all you are doing is making up the ground you've lost.

The Liberal Democrats are, of course, going to get a drubbing at the polls. Again, they don't really deserve this - or, at least, their leaders don't. Their supporters - in particular those who cannot understand the need to be pragmatic and flexible in power for the sake of the country - perhaps do deserve it. But then again, it will be those ones who will be flooding into the Labour camp. Which is fine, as far as I am concerned. Stupid people flocking to the stupid party.

And the Conservatives? There'll be losses, and perhaps a partial retreat into their heartlands. But I'd be surprised if there was a wipeout. Mainly because many of their supporters have vivid, recent memories of just how appalling the last Labour government was.

And as for AV, I suspect the "no" camp will win. Mainly because their campaign was simple, overwhelmingly negative and very well-funded. It'll be a victory for them, but hardly the sort of victory that political legends are made off. They won by spending a fortune on slagging off their opponents. Well done you.

And how will I be voting? I won't. Not because I don't want to, but because Leeds City Council have effectively disenfranchised me. Nice work, Leeds. You're breaking new ground in the fiercely contested field of incompetence in local government.

Towards a Libertarian Union?

Ok, so, following on from my pessimistic post from the other day, what next for UK libertarians? I’m not going to rehash my arguments about why I think LPUK is screwed. What I will point out is this – the members of and advocates for the party who approach a realistic position are those who, like me, would argue that any real success for that party lies in the distant future. And given the constant encroach of statism and its advocates, the question is pertinent – what do libertarians do while waiting for LPUK to get up and running/do if the party disappears?

We can find a clue in the Rally Against Debt. A grassroots campaign started by two UKIP members has grown massively in a very short space of time. Indeed, its growth is something that LPUK could, and perhaps should, be jealous of. Why has it been so successful? In part, it is about topicality. Debts and spending cuts are at the heart of the debate raging in British politics today. But there is another reason. The rally against debt is not party political, and thus it is not exclusive. It can attract people from the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, LPUK and independents. Whereas a political party can only really attract those with no other party affiliation, or an affiliation that they are happy to sacrifice. That automatically limits its potential. So topicality and being inclusive rather than exclusive. What sort of organisation could allow for that?

It occurs to me that some sort of Union might be the way forward (or Federation, for those right-wingers who can’t cope with the idea of Unions). An organisation that can offer people membership in tandem with membership of other organisations – just as members of Trade Unions can be (and often are) members of the Labour party. But rather than offering representation in the workplace, this could be an organisation that fights for its members in the pursuit of liberty. As a Federation/Union, it could do things other than fight elections directly. It could offer support to campaigns run by other organisations (like No2ID, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute) and highlight events like the Rally Against Debt. At the same time, it could run its own campaigns. It could also have spokespersons on crucial issues and topical events – for example, an organisation that might offer Tim Worstall as Economics Spokesperson and Chris Snowdon as Health Spokesperson (or at least debunking the spurious claims of health “experts” spokesperson) would be pretty formidable. And it could do so without demanding they join a particular party. Likewise, it could attempt to attract high-profile libertarian politicians to write for it on occasion.

But where it could be most formidable is through having a dedicated band of volunteers who could work on behalf of libertarian leaning politicians in election campaigns. Politicians like Douglas Carswell, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan. And LPUK, if they ever become credible contenders in elections. On the flipside, it could also campaign against egregiously statist politicians. A host of Libertarian inclined people pounding the streets in Ed Balls' constituency arguing against his re-election could make all the difference, for example. Indeed, the organisation could replicate the influence of the Tea Party in America (albeit without that organisation’s occasional lapses into insanity). Not backing one party or running its own candidates, it could instead offer support to any candidate it perceives to be a champion of liberty.

Of course, it wouldn’t be easily achieved. Getting libertarians is, as numerous people point out, like herding cats. And there would be a need for the organisation to be professional at all times. There’s no point it being a super-swear-blog; candidates should want to be associated with it, rather than embarrassed by it. But a looser organisation than a political party, one more able to choose what battles it fights, might be able to circumvent the inherent anti-small party biases of our political system. A powerful, grassroots pressure group that can make or break candidates in constituencies maybe far more effective than entryism into an existing party or LPUK. The aspiration would be to have a UK based version of the NRA or a major Trade Union (albeit not necessarily with the core beliefs of either). It wouldn’t be easy, but it might just be worth it.

British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK

This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.

I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.

Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.

LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.

But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.

In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.

There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.

Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.

Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.

The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.

And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.

Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.

But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.

And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.

What’s next?

Bears, Woods, etc.

From the BBC:

More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

In other news, bears definitely defecate in the woods and the Pope is of a Catholic persuasion.

Seems almost tedious to point out that a substantial part of the funding that keeps the Labour Party afloat comes from the unions. It also seems tedious to point out that the unions are an interest group, just like those organisations that exist in the City of London. And it seems beyond boring to suggest that just because a political party takes money from a certain area of British society doesn't mean that they are beholden to every misconceived whim of said area of British society.

Instead, I'd just like to point out that anyone who finds this news surprising or, indeed, new, is fucking stupid.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

Whatever happened to Ed Miliband?

Y’know, I thought being Leader of the Opposition meant that you were supposed to lead, well, the opposition. Thus far, Ed Miliband's leadership had consisted of retiring from frontline politics to relative obscurity. Which is a bold strategy, but not likely to be a successful one given his current position. There are many types of Conservative leaders that Miliband could attempt to emulate; Iain Duncan Smith is not probably the best one though.

The reasons for his relative silence are something of a mystery. The coalition is doing many things that people find controversial – Miliband Minor’s response is to mutely shrug and wonder why people are looking at him with an expectation that he should say something.

But I do have a theory. Miliband Minor has managed to slip down one of the few remaining ideological cracks in the narrow consensus of modern British politics – he is lost somewhere between the centre ground (where everyone seems to want to be for reasons that frankly defy understanding) and the slightly left-of-centre. And the reason is simple – the ‘Red Ed’ tag. As soon as he had been announced as leader, he managed to get the tag ‘Red Ed’. He was tagged as the plaything of the Unions; a dangerous leftie throwback to the Labour party of the 1980’s. And that panicked him, and meant he was unable to position himself anywhere. He couldn’t be Nu Labour, because we seem to hate that brand now. And he can’t be left-of-centre without proving the cheap jibe of “Red Ed” completely correct. He’s got nowhere to go.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the case if he had a backbone. He could stay the course, and defend the Nu Labour brand, or he could be more the left-wing man many assumed he would be (and far closer to his father). But he doesn’t. Like most people in his generation in the political elite, he seems rather afraid that having political convictions will lead to difficult situations. You know, awkward stuff like having to defend his position. The sort of thing that politicians used to do as a matter of course, but now avoid like the plague..

But, while the “Red” tag was arguably cheap and has not necessarily been borne out by the Labour leader’s behaviour, it may yet prove to be one of the most effective nicknames given to a politician in recent years. It seems to be the root cause of the silence of the man who should be leading the opposition in our country.

Work For Welfare

And just what the hell is wrong with this new welfare plan?

Under the plan, claimants thought to need "experience of the habits and routines of working life" could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months.

The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

So, people who may be taking out the piss out of the benefits systems are going to be expected to do some work in order to justify their ongoing benefits payments. What the hell is wrong with that? It is basically saying that those who want benefits should have to work for them. Like, say, the vast majority of poor sods in this country. How the hell can that be controversial?

Fortunately, the Archbishop of Cunterbury is waiting to tell us:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, expressed his concern, telling the BBC: "People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

Good ol' Rowan Williams - he always manages to make the separation of Church and State seem like not only a good idea, but absolutely fucking essential.

Fundamentally, I don't get his point. If people are genuinely trying to find work as part of a quest for a stable future, then surely the government helping them with a work placement is rather helpful. Yes, it may not be the sort of work they want or aspire to, but remarkably few people actually have a job they proactively want to do. And this scheme isn't even aimed at genuine jobseekers - rather, it is trying to deal with welfare careerists and benefit cheats - those people who really shouldn't be paid for doing fuck all. And this is the point; people working for money is the norm. The fact that some people live of the beneficence of the state should not given them immunity from the need to work to earn money.

Sure, this policy will give certain people a stark choice - work or not get money. But the vast majority of people in this country have that choice and choose the former each and every day. There is nothing - fucking nothing - controversial about saying people should have to work for a welfare cheque. If you are on welfare and don't want to work then that's fine - that's your choice. But don't be surprised when the state - or the British taxpayer, more accurately - makes the choice not to fund you anymore.

The 'Libertarian Blogosphere'

Let me tell you a little secret about the Libertarian blogosphere. It doesn’t exist. Seriously, it doesn’t. Indeed, the idea of a united corner of the blogging world devoted to libertarianism is nonsense – there are few people as individualistic, willful and downright stubborn as libertarians.

Of course, when you read the phrase “libertarian blogosphere” it is not always alluding to some sort of homogenous libertarian conspiracy on the internet. It is a form of shorthand, a way of referring to certain types of blogs that are linked through ideology. Except this too is nonsense. You only have to look at the broad range of blogs that are dumped together under the tag of “libertarian”. Guido is presumed to be a libertarian blogger, but he is a right-of-centre muck-raker, whose occasional attacks on the Tories cannot hide the fact that his preference very much lies with that party. Likewise, Old Holborn is resolutely anti-statist, but the extent to which he is a Libertarian is open to question since his stance is one of naked misanthropy, more often than not. You can argue that he is negative libertarian, but to me his ideological position is far simpler than that – he just wants to be left the hell alone. There is no clear libertarian blogosphere, and those who are often lumped in within it are not themselves libertarian.

The same is true of pretty much classification on the internet. The left-wing blogosphere can encompass the mercurial ramblings of Liberal Conspiracy, the demented world-view of Terry Kelly and the occasionally engaging work of Tom Harris. Likewise, talking about the Tory blogosphere involves a broad canvass of bloggers, from the mad, mad world of Nadine Dorries, the preening, self-regarding Iain Dale and the often critical ConservativeHome. The broad categories are meaningless; they deny the vast range of blogs available.

But it isn’t the existence of the categories that bothers me – it is the way in which vast vartieties of blogs can be dismissed using these categories. Take this article – it attacks certain libertarian blogs, and in doing so dismisses the whole of the libertarian blogosphere. To do so is curiously effective, yet also crass and completely unfair. It is a sign of ignorance to lump people together based on a crude prejuidice – yet this is typical of the tendency to define blogs not by their content, but by a broad label that may or may not be applicable to the individuals concerned. In a sense it is bigotry, and I’d argue it should be treated accordingly.

Pragmatism and Politics

Let me state something outright – I believe pragmatism is essential to politics. If you are not pragmatic then guess what? You ain’t ever going to get anywhere in politics. Indeed, one of the reasons why I would not run for power is because I am a stubborn sod most of the time – and that is not a particularly helpful attitude in those who want to win the votes of others.

But let me state something else – pragmatism in politics is important, but it is only part of the political process. You can be too pragmatic or, to put it another slightly more graphic way, you can whore yourself out for a couple of votes and lose the reason why you got into politics in the first place. Don’t believe me? Well, you only have to look at Tony Blair for a striking example of this phenomenon.

So the practice of politics is a delicate balancing act between pragmatism and ideology. Individuals need to work out how to carry out that balancing act, and more importantly, what the line is that they will not cross between being pragmatic and being committed to core beliefs. It is particularly true of those who adopt the strategy of entryism – those Libertarians in the Tory party, for example, who are aspiring (vainly if you ask me) to make that party genuinely Libertarian. The question they need to ask themselves is “at what point do I say enough is enough? What would it take for me to decide this party is not longer tight for me and I should leave it?”* I think former Labour party members found that out in 2003, while a lot of Liberal Democrats found out what their breaking point was in May of this year.

In other words, I get that some people think it is worth being a part of a party that does not represent all of their views but might be, if they are able to get into power, able to make some of their views in actual government policy. Such a position is pragmatic; it is a compromise I can understand. But pragmatism must have its limits lest people want to end up being compromised. So I’ll put the question to those who are a member or supporter of one of the main parties again: “what would be the breaking point – the moment when you decided enough was enough and it is time to take your political allegiance elsewhere – for you?”

*Ok, yes, that was technically two questions.

Blogging Fatigue

So, as Obo the Clown fucks off in the blogging afterlife (for how long, no-one knows - I suspect that, like many bloggers, he won't be able to stay away from the blogging world for too long) and a whole host of posts appear about the apparent decline of the right-wing blogosphere (at least compared to the left), I drift towards writing one of those tedious posts. Yep, I'm going to do it. I'm going to blog about blogging.

See, I think sometimes we forget that for the vast majority of bloggers, this is a hobby. It is a venture done in their free time for no remuneration whatsoever*. Sure, you can argue that they choose to do so and there's no promise that when you start blogging, you're going to make any money whatsoever. But it also means that if someone's work life becomes busier, or their interactions with the real world become more time-consuming, then it will be the blogging that suffers.

But there is also the fatigue that comes if you are a Libertarian blogger. Because, despite the result of the General Election in May, very little has changed from a Libertarian perspective. Labour bloggers can get excited about now being able to attack, which is why there's a rise in the prominence of leftie type blogs. The Tories can celebrate, knowing they're back in power, and that's probably why their bloggers have either shut up shop or become less than essential reading for many. But for Libertarian bloggers, nothing has changed. The government is still the problem, since what divides Labour and the Con-Dems is dwarfed by the fundamental statist assumptions they all share. We've got another five years of statism to endure, and no guarantee at all that there will be any meaningful change after the next election.

So I reckon Libertarian bloggers might be dropping out of the blogging world not because they are closet Tories (although some clearly are), but rather because of the overwhelming sense of fatigue that comes from knowing that we're going to be making the same points to a new group of people who believe that everything is going to be better because the football team party they support happens to be in power. It's a bit like Groundhog Day, but with stakes somewhat higher than the sanity of a fictional character depicted by Bill Murray.

And I feel this fatigue - I feel it every time I hear a lie, or a fabrication, or a fresh piece of idiocy emerge from the gobs of politicians of every party in this country. When I hear phrases like "growth deniers", "Robin Hood Tax", "tax on banking bonuses", "marriage incentives", "National Service", "Burqa Ban" and all the other terrible shit that is spouted by centrist, statist politicians searching for a positive headline. And it is only the rage at their self-serving pomposity and egregious ignorance that allows be to continue with this blog despite that often overwhelming feeling of fatigue.

So for what it's worth, this blog isn't going anywhere...

*I will confess that while I've been blogging I've received donations totaling £30 and a free Cure album. Which is very nice, but not enough to sustain me for too long. If you'd like to increase the profitability of this blog, then there's a donate button in the side bar.

The Big Society

So that's it? Really? That's all it is? Cameron's great, exciting, bold new vision for the future is little more than a Lyndon Johnson rip-off? Actually, I don't know why I'm surprised. It was always going to be like this. They are, after all, the Tories.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increased localism and increased voluntarism. Yet this doesn't feel like the great rolling back of the state that we almost seem expected to think it is. Firstly, there's a suspicion that the areas being foisted onto volunteers are all areas which the government can no longer afford to fund and run itself. Furthermore, I remain very uncomfortable about state-promoted voluntarism; it has the potential to become the state interfering further in people's lives rather than the state retreating from the private realm. Besides, by definition, voluntary work taken up under compulsion from others ceases to be voluntary work.

However the biggest problem I have with all this is that it is state led. The central government is telling its people what areas they are allowed a little bit of autonomy in, and no doubt will also tell people how to go about their voluntary actions. This isn't about freedom, it's paternalism rebranded. It is a bit like parents allowing their kids to do a few things on their own - ultimately the parents remain in control because they can decide which areas their kids are allowed to be free in, and can also decide to remove that freedom whenever they see fit.

All this is based on the assumption that the central government knows best, and that state control is a given. And I just cannot stomach that. All this is saying is "you can be free if the government lets you." And that isn't freedom; in fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want a big society, headed up by a bloated government. I want a free society, where those living in it can decide for themselves what that society should look like, rather than responding to government control and "guidance".

On Electoral Reform

The recent news about a potential referendum on electoral reform has created a lot of excitement for some. Despite the fact that I can see a case for the reform of the electoral system, I can't get too excited about this referendum. Firstly, all electoral systems have flaws, and you're not going to get true representation under any system. As far as I can see, we'd be replacing one flawed system with another, equally flawed, system.

And there's another reason why I don't think it is worth getting too excited about the concept of electoral reform - it isn't going to happen. I think the referendum will go ahead - it is too important for the Liberal Democrats and therefore for the coalition to be abandoned in the Commons. But at that referendum, only the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for electoral reform. The Labour party will have overcome their brief flirtation with electoral reform that they experienced after the election, and will use the chance to fight against electoral reform during the referendum campaign as an opportunity to punish the Liberal Democrats for not joining them in a so-called "progressive coalition". The Tories aren't going to campaign for electoral reform either; the current system served them very well prior to 1992, and (the way things are going) will give them a workable majority at the next election. The electoral machines of the two main parties in this country will almost certainly campaign against electoral reform which means, with the best will in the world, that it ain't going to happen.

However, let's not get too carried away with the notion that the Liberal Democrats are seeking electoral reform because, unlike the two main parties, they are concerned with issues of representation. The reason why the Liberal Democrats want a new voting system is because it will benefit them. They are the victims of this current situation, and they - perhaps understandably - want to change that. However, this has nothing to do with democracy; instead it is down to self-interest.

And that's the biggest problem I have with electoral reform - it isn't going to change the way politics in this country works. It is smokes and mirrors - creating debate about a potential change that will, in reality, change very little. The problem with our democracy is that it is now dominated by three parties which, on so many areas, operate in open agreement on political fundamentals. And their party machines choose candidates - they take them, remove independence and thought from those candidates - and turn them into blind automatons to fight elections without using ideology or controversy. Then they can enter the Commons, where they become lobby fodder. In the unlikely event that they reach a position of real political power, they will be so used to conformity and so fearful of taking a controversial position that they will be just as bland as every post-Thatcher PM has been. The problem isn't with the electoral system; it is down to the fact that our "democracy" has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by bland party machines lost in a general ideological consensus.

Sure, yeah, let's have a referendum on electoral reform. Let's change the electoral system. But until we are actually willing to use that electoral system to reject the bland mainstream parties and consider more radical alternatives, nothing will really change in British politics.

The Graduate Tax

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is proposing a Graduate Tax to replace student loans:

He said he had asked Lord Browne to look at the idea of a graduate tax "as a priority" in his current review in to higher education funding in England.

This would mean students paying for their studies through the tax system, rather than through subsidised loans.

He said high-earning graduates would pay more than those on low incomes.

Right, let's look at why this is wrong. Why it is more than just wrong - why it is both dumb and appalling. And let's do that through an analogy.

Two students walk into the students union shop to claim a free pen when they first start their degrees. One student uses his pen to take lots of notes on lectures and seminars during his time at university. The other uses his pen to draw genitals in various library books. The former gets a first, the latter a third. Is then right to slap the former with a hefty charge for his pen (in part to fund the pen of the latter) because he managed to put it to much better use than the latter? Because that is what this tax is effectively trying to do.

If you do well at university, and consequently get a high paying job, you will end up earning more than someone who spunked away their time at university in various bars. However, you will have used the benefit of a university education far better than the person who just used it as a chance to party for three years. However, under a graduate tax, you would pay more than someone who did bugger all at university. You would pay more for having done well at your studies. You would end up paying for someone who has done less well than you, on account of nothing other than their relative failure.

On what planet is that fair? On what planet is that not penalising those who work harder at university? And is that the sort of society we want to be? Where we charge those who work harder more than those who waste their opportunities? Do we really want to disincentivise people from getting good degrees from good universities, and then going on to do good jobs?

Cable justifies it in this way:

"It surely can't be right that a teacher or care worker is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon," he said.

Well, yes, it can be right if they have all got degrees. It is like saying that it can't be right that a care worker has to pay the same as a commercial lawyer for a bottle of coke. It is right, given they are buying a commodity - through their own choice - of the same, or at least comparable, value. Sure, by all make your case that commercial lawyers earn too much relative to care workers, but the way to combat that is not something as regressive as a tax on the wealthy. It is to start getting people to question why there is such a wide disparity in salary between more vocational work and more commercial work. The way to change this - if you actually believe that this needs to be changed - is through changing attitudes. Not to further penalise the successful through regressive taxation.

And while we're on the subject, let's lay to rest the myth that those who earn more should pay more tax. Because the reality is they already do. Someone who earns £20,000 and gives up 25% of their earnings to the tax man will give £5,000 to the state. Someone who earns £40,000 and gives up 25% to the state would be losing £10,000. And that is assuming a flat tax rate across all earnings which, of course, does not exist.

All this achieves is creating a culture where those who have done well are made to pay more for their success than those who have done less well. The graduate tax is effectively saying "don't worry if you've got a third and are heading for the dole queue - the person who has just got a first and is heading for a decent job will fund your further education". It is nothing more than an example of the ever unworkable Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And this is supposed to be "radical" thinking on funding further education. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. This is absolutely typical of the mindset of modern political parties. Got a problem? Tax it. People drinking more than you would like? Increase the tax on booze. Do the same thing if you have an issue with smoking. Too much congestion? Try a tax. Further education a problem? Here's a thought - try tax. If it moves, tax it.

In short, there is nothing radical about tax, and in particular about tax increases. They are the norm, not the exception. You want to be genuinely radical about universities? Why not start thinking about reducing the number of people who go to universities? If you want to think the unthinkable, why not consider having fewer universities? Why not consider abandoning the arbitrary target set by Blair for university placements? Why not entertain the idea that some people might be better served by not going to university?

A graduate tax would be a further corruption and devaluation of the university system in this country. It would further extend the idea of entitlement at the expense of others in this country. If the Tories have an ounce of backbone or dignity, they will kill this idea from the socialist-in-denial Cable right now. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it needs to be stopped.

Reckless Drunk

The wonderfully named Mark Reckless on being too drunk to vote on the Finance Bill:

"I remember someone asking me to vote and not thinking it was appropriate, given how I was at the time.

"If I was in the sort of situation generally where I thought I was drunk I tend to go home.

"Westminster is a very special situation and all I can say... is given this very embarrassing experience I don't intend to drink at Westminster again."

It's funny, but in most places I've worked if you are drunk in the workplace then you get the sack. Reckless is lucky - very lucky - that he is in the Commons, where it is one rule for his lot, and one rule for the rest of us...

The best government in a generation?

"The best government in generation" - that's the way I keep on hearing the coalition being described, including by some intelligent people. It bothers me a bit, so I though I'd work out why.

On one level, the description is entirely accurate. That this government is better than the last one is a given, and will remain so as long as the coalition doesn't actually declare open warfare on its own people. The Brown administration was the worst one we have had in this country since Anthony Eden nearly got us into a war with America over Suez. But the Brown government didn't last for a generation; it struggled to exist for just over half of a Parliamentary term. In order for the coalition to be the best government in a generation, it will have to do more than just be better than the last administration.

So let's travel back in time, and see whether the coalition is better than the Blair governments. Well, the first Blair administration did absolutely nothing - even when it had to do something, like during the petrol crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak, it did nothing other than faff about a bit. Blair's pitch for re-election in 2001 can be summed up like this: "give us another four years, and we'll actually do something this time." His second government was the one that took us into war with Iraq - and in doing so pretty much guaranteed that Blair's legacy would always be tainted, and his government associated with the starting of an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And Blair's final years in office after winning again in 2005 saw a man desperately trying to cling to power in order to find a positive historical legacy - something that would never happen. So yes, thus far the coalition has been better than the Blair administrations, but that isn't difficult. The Blair years consisted of apathetic indolence, pointless warmongering and vicious infighting. They hardly represent a model government.

And what did we have before that? The Major years - a government that managed to destroy then rebuild the economy, and never managed to stop fighting amongst itself. Furthermore, the Major administration from 1992 appeared to be mired in sleaze and also appeared to be completely detached from the people it was meant to represent. And any government that ends in the sort of wipe-out that the Tories experienced in 1997 cannot really stand as anything other than a failure. Again, to be better than this doesn't take much.

We actually have to go all the way back to the second Thatcher administration from 1983-1987 to find a functional government that actually did something effectively for this country - since from 1987 the Tory government became increasingly dysfunctional and developed its taste for regicide. 1987 saw the last good government in this country; a fact that is simultaneously terrifying and absolutely unsurprising.

So yes, this coalition - which is a fledgling government that will not be possible to assess effectively until after it has left power - is, thus far, the best government in a generation. But for over 20 years, this country has had pretty dreadful government from its political class. And this is what bothers me - it isn't really an achievement to be the best government in a generation when you've only just started and when your immediate predecessors have been shit. The bar has been set so low for Cameron et al that they will be able to claim success even if they succeed at nothing other than avoiding direct, clear-cut failure.

Revealing Labour and the Con-Dem attitudes to freedom

This is a very revealing section from a BBC news report on the smoking ban - revealing, that is, of some of the attitudes of the main political parties in this country:

The government has dropped a planned review of the smoking ban in England.

The previous Labour administration had promised it would be looked at again in autumn 2010, but the coalition says it has "no plans" to do so.

Publicans - who feared a review would extend the ban into beer gardens and doorways, damaging trade - backed a campaign to partially lift the ban.

First up, you might have thought that a review of the smoking ban might lead to the smoking ban being repealed, if only in part. If so, more fool you! No, for the Nu Labour government, a review is an opportunity to extend an illiberal, invasive and stupid policy. But that's Nu Labour for you - determined to interfere in your life as much as they possibly can, and then a little bit more.

Secondly, it is very interesting that the Con-Dems are not going to go through with the review. On the one hand, this is a good thing - no review, no extension of the smoking ban. On the flipside, no review, no repeal of the smoking ban. The Con-Dems increasing seem to be labouring under the delusion that if they don't extend the limits of state control in this country then they are being inherently liberal. That is, of course, absolute nonsense. If anything, it makes them conservative. If they truly want to be liberal, they need to roll back the impact of the state on its citizens that so dramatically increased under the last draconian government.

As things stand, it almost feels as if we are meant to be grateful when the state chooses not to further extend its often malign control further into our lives. I'd be far more grateful to the government, though, if it decided to roll back the frontiers of the state. But, as always, I'm not holding my breath.