Political haiku group - no comments

I've set up a Facebook group set up for serious, satirical, and humorous haiku (a Japanese poetic form) on political themes.

It's open to all, regardless of political persuasion, so join here and add your contributions. There are quite a few already, but the more the merrier.

Vulgar libertarianism, and The Mind of the Market - 1 comment

There's a great review of this book over at the Mutualist Blog. It's always a refreshing blog to read because it's built on actual philosophy and economics, and is thus free of assumptions about what and who are 'left' or 'right', and discussions about the 'characters' of individual politicians and potential leaders. You might point out that this detachment from 'everyday' politics is an unaffordable luxury; then again, it beats the current wave of Labour factionalism, and the attempts to define (or, more likely, resurrect) policy frameworks off the tops of people's heads, largely concerned as they are with reshuffling public spending, and marked by a lack of a consistent philosophical backing.

Anyway, who or what is a "vulgar libertarian"? Essentially, one who ostensibly supports the extension of - and removal of restrictions upon - economic and political liberty, but who does so assymetrically: (generally) targeting trade unions and those on state benefits, but allowing other powerful institutions, e.g. large companies, certain favoured institutions and individuals, to maintain those privileges unhindered. A Thatcherite, you might well say. So (my bold):

Shermer asks why people reject Adam Smith's theory of economics, despite its being so profound and proven. The answer just might be that the rhetoric of free markets, so closely associated with Adam Smith, has been misappropriated to defend a system of corporate power far closer to what Smith condemned than to what he supported. Adam Smith, like the other early classical liberals, was a revolutionary thinker who attacked the entrenched privileges of the landed oligarchy and the mercantile capitalists. It's almost impossible to go to a mainstream "libertarian" website these days without seeing the thought of Adam Smith misappropriated to defend the modern institution most closely resembling the landed interests and privileged monopolists of the Old Regime: the giant, state-subsidized, state-protected corporation.

As I suggested earlier, most people who display egalitarian reactions against existing inequalities and concentrations of wealth may well believe that what they hate is the "free market." But that's only because the rhetoric of "free markets" has been perverted, for the most part, by apologists for those concentrations of wealth which result from privilege and other forms of state intervention. [...]

Read the whole thing.

Ten New Policies - 2 comments

One of the indulgences of election-watching is to attempt to interpret what the electorate - aggregating across millions of individual decisions - 'really meant' . In defeat, this usually turns out to be a desire for greater movement on the writer's own pet policies; in victory, proof that the electorate's flirtations with the other side meant those half-baked ideas of yours were merely ahead of their time... Ideas do come cheap, and no-one spares a thought for the intelligent people within Government who developed what appeared to be a sound idea into legislation that the mainstream media, and those who lost most from it, insisted was a thoughtless or callous attack, and which now takes the blame for electoral defeat. That's a general point, not a defence of the 10p tax change (has there been one?)

Anyway, leaving all that aside, and for what it's worth, here are ten policy ideas of my own. They reflect my current ideological viewpoint, which might not be compatible with anyone else's vision of the Labour Party, but I imagine them to be both popular and just. Take from them what you will. Note that if I haven't covered a particular area, that could either mean that I think things are just right at present (e.g. foreign policy, and international development), or that I don't have any ideas at present.

In no particular order:

1. Workers' Control. Freedom for all workers, not just trade unionists, in a push for co-operative/mutual ownership that extends across the private and public 'sectors'. This offers the chance of economic autonomy for all, as an alternative to capitalism. It rejects Statism, in favour of co-operation and competition. Everything else is mere tinkering.
2. A Referendum to decide between three revenue-neutral personal tax systems: (a) the status quo, (b) a more 'progressive' one, (c) one that reduces income tax in favour of an extensive inheritance tax.
3. Assessment of the feasibility of replacing certain benefits, and the national minimum wage, with a guaranteed national minimum income.
4. A tougher line on monopolistic behaviour: especially in the broadcast/printed media, but including the actions of public sector trade unions.
5. Investigation of the role of planning controls and private land ownership in artificially inflating/sustaining house prices, slowing redevelopment, and limiting (note) aggregate economic freedom.
6. A 'loosening' of the criminal justice system: giving Police the powers they say they need to enforce the law thoroughly, in return for appropriate scrutiny; and investigate the state of, and capacity of the prison system.
7. Removal of any restrictions upon local councils adopting London-style 'congestion' charges.
8. Removal of immigration 'targets' and other arbitrary restrictions, in return for greater aid for host areas.
9. Do whatever is necessary to address the dysfunctional relationship between central government and teachers: whether it be reconciliation, or an amicable separation.
10. Disestablishment of the Church of England: so that it may adapt to more honestly reflect the views of Christians, rather than public opinion, and to expunge its residual political power.

There you go. I've been very brief, but can expand upon individual points on request.

I hardly feel I've formed the basis of a future, winning Labour Manifesto, let alone fostered 'unity', or provided Gordon Brown with a strategy he can hit the ground running with, but the Sunday papers have been full of them, so he's not missing out.

Nervous? - 1 comment

I'm not really looking forward to these results. I won't make predictions, but I suspect Labour will achieve a fairly derisory vote. That's unfortunate for a lot of existing councillors, and for many candidates who might have felt they had a chance.

That said, I can't see the point of poring over the results - the damage has been done at a national level, and all activists' energies need to be devoted over the next couple of years to deciding what the Labour Party is going to be, giving the electorate some good reasons to vote Labour, and to extricate the Government from the ludicrous situation it has got itself into over (if you really do ask me) terror suspect detention limits, and ID cards, to name but two distractions.

I might take a more robust approach than some in the party, but if there is to be a 'relaunch', I certainly wouldn't focus on portraying Cameron as a 'shallow salesman', a Diana-ified front-man for the same old Tory defenders of privilege and wealth. People know this already, but that only gives Labour an opportunity to be taken, and a risk for the Tories, not a fatal flaw. There's no value to the Labour Government (not just the party) weakening the case through overuse. They need radical but well-thought out, robust policies that can withstand the scrutiny of intelligent people, and that give activists like us a fighting chance of defending them, especially given that the amount of flak coming from a mainstream media that has tired of us and which feels pro-Tory stories are what the public want.

Today and tomorrow could be bad, but ride them out with magnanimity. The current incarnation of the Labour Party* has two years to live, at the very most. It cannot survive in Opposition in its present form. Let's make the next one a better one, one worth electing.

(* I'm referring to the 'Official Line', or 'Party In Government', or 'Current World-view/Policies/Ministers combo', rather than the party structure/organisation. You know what I mean. )

'Britons fear race violence': draw your own conclusions - 7 comments

It's hard to know quite what to draw from this BBC/Mori poll. For one thing, I can't find any detailed breakdown of the statistics. Perhaps they aren't broken down at all, which would be a tremendous weakness.

The most obvious flaw is the conflation of race, nationality, and immigration. A backlash against immigrants presumably involves opposing nationalities, though it need not - generational and cultural factors also play a part, not to mention economic differentials. Racial differences might play a part too, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the assumption held that racist violence was the preserve of predominantly white working-class communities against immigrants from the Caribbean or Indian subcontinent. Such racism still exists, but hardly has anything to do with current patterns of immigration.

Another problem is the assumption, presumably stemming from an odd faith in Enoch Powell's ability to foretell the future, of a contrast between the 'shaky peace' of today, and some kind of future bloodbath. Yet violence between gangs that define themselves on racial, ethnic, or nationalist grounds is hardly unknown, even if it's usually restricted to already violent areas. The absence of the large-scale riots of years past is hardly proof that tension and hostility has been reduced, just perhaps of social atomisation - the groups themselves are smaller.

Racism, nationalism, and hostility to outsiders, are common to all human societies, and the greatest limitation on the development and progress of humanity, but I doubt there's been any serious diminution of these impulses in centuries, with the exception of some large cosmopolitan cities (researchers in this field who are professional enough not to write pieces off the tops of their heads are welcome to comment on this point). Disappointingly, internationalism is a truly tiny movement in the world, and I suspect that socialism in practice has had a thoroughly negative effect, certainly when compared with free markets.

It's nearly two years since I posted this, but the section I quoted from bowblog still sounds to me like the best strategy for maintaining social harmony without surrendering to bigots (my emphasis):

Our effort, in the wealthy world, (where, let's face it, immigrants are going to continue to arrive in large numbers if we're to remain wealthy) must go into improving the capacity of our reception communities [...], boosting the resilience of the bottom social tier, taking working class grievances seriously and easing the pressures produced by ineluctable change. The goal must be to build social solidarity, to neutralise the embitterment and disconnection that feeds the fascists.

House price reports - 3 comments

According to the BBC:

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (Rics) said that 78.5% more surveyors reported a fall than a rise in house prices in March.

Sounds dramatic: I wonder if anyone thought that meant that 89.25% reported a fall, and 10.75% a rise (89.25 - 10.75 = 78.5)? Or else that 78.5% reported a fall?

In fact, if we take the article at its word, and assume that no surveyors reported no change, it turns out only 64.1% saw a fall, 35.9% a rise (64.1 / 35.9 = 1.785). Let's assume that 20% actually saw no change at all, which doesn't seem too unreasonable: that would take the fallers down to 51.3%, and the risers to 28.7%. That wouldn't be dramatic, unless there really was a sound reason for an inexorable rise in the asset in question, and it says nothing about the size of any increase or decrease.

I'll assume that the BBC doesn't have an agenda to shock, and didn't spin the figures for maximum effect, but whoever pitched the story did. The question is, as Chris Dillow and others have asked, Why Worry? I'd like to see the focus of economic policy shift away from the preservation of the domestic housing market back to things that matter to the entire population, not just those lucky enough to have acquired a phoney wealth by buying or selling their house at the right time: investment in businesses; education, training, working practices, employment, and productivity; the free movement of capital and labour; and international trade.

The Euston Manifesto is 2 - no comments

As I mentioned before, it's seven months or so since I had much contact with the blogging world. As a result I can't remember whether I have always thought Daniel Davies, posting at Comment Is Free about the Euston Manifesto's 2nd anniversary (covered here back in 2006), was a muck-stirring pedant, demonstrating a wannabe journalist's contempt for the earnestness of people who happen to think international democracy and human rights are pretty important, or whether that feeling has struck me more recently.

It's been a while since I've had much contact with the Manifesto team, but I believe that the document is as good a statement of aims as any you'll find - and statements of aims are important things. What's more, it defines my political values more closely than - I have to say - any political party.

Read more here.

A correspondent writes... - 4 comments

A correspondent writes:

Dear labour party
I am disgusted at the abolishing of the 10p tax rate . This has a considerable impact on my situaion. It works out as a 20% decrease in my pension even after the so calledd cost of living rises being factored in.
I have always voted Labour but will not from now on and this is because you are too "dear" to support.
Incidentally how could such a measure be put through without our guardian politicians bringing it to the publics n otice. I think the accusation of taxation by stealth levelled at the labour party is sadly TRUE.
I and my wife will not vote for you until this injustice is put right.
I also want you to note that I know many poor who are tragically affected by this unjust labour party do you think you will get away with this nasty policy especially with elections coming up. Our forefathers must be turning in their graves.
My MP is Mr Byers Wallsend please pass onto him.
yours sadly.
Mr P Dxxxx

What would your response be?

Incidentally, I get a lot of this sort of message. This is by no means the first about the 10p starting rate, but I thought I'd post it as an example. How the 10p rate could be restored without revisiting the entire Budget, I don't know. Who knows what newspaper Mr. Dxxxx reads, or what he can remember of last year's Budget; one thing's for sure, those headlines sure do stick in people's minds.