The Conservatives recent shouting match over poverty has been nothing if not fun to watch. At least one Conservative blogger was moved to a swearblogging extravaganza that would have made DK proud.
I have come to the conclusion that Clark has no brain. In fact, I reckon that when he was a kid, his parents cracked open his skull, scooped out the minimal grey matter contained within, and then elected to use their child’s skull as a latrine/toilet bowl. Because there is no other logical explanation for the absolute shite spewing from Clark’s mouth. There is no other reason why an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition would be chomping at the minge of the atrocious Toynbee. There is no other reason why a member of the Tory Shadow Cabinet, just as the party stands for the first time since 1997 within grasping distance of power, would turn to the fucked up, unworkable policies of the twat Polly – policies so inane that even the Liberal Democrats would think twice before advocating them.
What would have made DK even happier the author's intention to join UKIP.
Today, Matthew Parris attempts to defend Greg Clark's report:
Pointless, I suppose, to recommend looking at the original document rather than media reports of it, but you should. The headlines were all about Winston Churchill and Polly Toynbee, but Mr Clark’s paper for the Conservative Party’s Social Justice Policy Group is not, in fact, an attack on Churchill and nor is it a headlong rush into the embrace of a female left-wing Guardian columnist.
Like everyone else, I have only read the headlines and so, goaded by Mr Parris, I tracked down a copy of Greg Clark's paper. It's here. And I must say, it seems to me to be pretty much as reported. While Polly Toynbee is mentioned only once in passing, it seems to me that the key sense of the report has been accurately related and that Matthew Parris' insinuation that it is otherwise is disingenuous.
The thrust of the paper is that we should accept the left's redefinition of poverty:
In the absence of significant levels of absolute poverty, one cannot accept that poverty is a real phenomenon in contemporary Britain unless one is defining it in relative terms. So what Letwin, Willetts and Duncan Smith all said implicitly, we should now say explicitly: Poverty must be defined in relation to changing social norms. We should reject completely the notion that poverty can be defined in absolute terms alone.Let's be absolutely clear. What we are talking about is inequality, not poverty. We have two words with distinct meanings. Poverty means a lack of material possessions. Inequality means having less than other people. Anyone who believes in honesty in public life should refuse to accept this Orwellian redefinition of the one thing as the other. Conservatives should be denouncing it.
Clark himself recognises what he is doing:
Whether one wants to call it poverty or not, this huge increase in income inequality has been rightly described as “one of the biggest social changes in Britain since the Second World War.”
So let's look at the logic of Clark's case using the proper terminology - namely inequality.
Firstly he attempts to make the case that inequality is a problem that needs addressing. In a section called "The Problem with Safety Nets" he writes:
In an age when absolute poverty [sic] a real danger for millions of people, the safety net represented an enormous advance. But in our own age, our ambitions should be higher. As individuals we should all have the chance to move forward and as a nation we should move forward with a sense of cohesion.
This will leave any critical reader completely in the dark as to what the problem with inequality is. He might also ask "Why should our ambitions be higher?" and what on earth "moving forward with a sense of cohesion" means. It might also occur to him to question whether any of proposed solutions might bring such a sense of cohesion about. There is another section called "Social Exclusion Matters" in which we are told that inequality "separates the poor from the mainstream of society". Again we are not told what this means. Clark unfortunately spends most of the rest of the paper trying to justify his acceptance of an Orwellian bastardisation of the English language and leaves us none the wiser.
He goes on to consider the history of poverty and inequality during the eighties. He demonstrates that poverty has been falling, but that inequality has risen. He looks at the reasons for rising inequality - two earner versus no-earner households in the main - then, hilariously, he seems to get confused by his own redefinition and tells us that
In large part beyond the control of the state, the extraordinary confluence of these factors programmed rising poverty and inequality into the system.
Two pages earlier, you will recall, he told us that poverty had fallen. My advice would be to say "inequality" when you mean inequality and "poverty" when you mean poverty. It's simpler that way.
Having failed to demonstrate that there is a problem and having become disorientated by his own terminological manglings Clark sees fit to tell us what Conservatives should think.
The answer is, apparently, to accept the definition of "poverty" which has just so confused him. He also talks about redistribution, and says that the Conservative party has always redistributed. It is of course a fallacy, an argumentum ad antiquitam, to invoke past actions in support of future policy. The question that needs to be asked is whether redistribution has worked. It hasn't of course, and the determination to continue with redistribution despite this fact is why so many people think it's time to leave the Conservatives.
Jock Coats has found that his political compass score is now in the south-eastern quadrant of the political compass - he is now officially a libertarian. Perhaps there is hope for the LibDems after all.
Bravo Jock! Anarcho-capitalism beckons!
Plague of doors in Geoff Hoon's office!!
Questions asked in Parliament!!
According to The Daily anyway.
Following the revelation that Europe Minister Geoff Hoon’s new office door plague now reads, “Minister for Europe - Attending Cabinet”, theIndependent reports that a Parliamentary Question has been tabled asking to know the cost of the new plague.
According to Mr FM, the Health & Safety Executive has closed down his local branch of Riding for the Disabled because its toilet facilities were "not compliant with the Disability Access Act".
Upon hearing this, I remarked that it didn’t seem too unreasonable to expect an organisation that handles disabled people to have DAA compliant loo facilities …. big mistake(!). As Mrs FM pointed out once she had dropped the piece of ‘fourbetwo’ she was hitting me with (the doctors say that the kidney bleeding should clear up in four to six weeks) those punters that aren’t very disabled (i.e. at least 100% black blind) are quite capable of using a common or garden kharzi: however the overwhelming majority of them are so bl**dy disabled they have colostomy bags!
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has become a publisher too. Another free newspaper dropped through my letterbox. It's The Londoner and it is absolute rubbish.
One might point out that Ken is more of a Cuba fan these days, but the sentiment is a valid one. And while the amount is piffling in the greater scheme of government waste, this doesn't alter the fact that it's immoral.
Two new ones for the blogroll.
First up is The Language Business, which is very interesting on the subject of the British Council - not a benevolent institution at all.
Secondly is Red Tape - the blog of Ross Clark, the author of How to Label a Goat.
Speaking of which, did anyone hear Ross Clark interviewed on the Today programme on BBC Radio Trot? I've heard gentler interviews given to politicians by Comrade Naughtie. Yes, the BBC admits it's biased. Doesn't mean it intends to change though.
Ain't gubmint a wonderful thing? Where would we be without them?
Today our protectors in Holyrood have announced their long-awaited plans for school boards:
Deputy Education Minister Robert Brown said:
"Parents and headteachers are probably the most important influences on children's experiences at school. It is vital that we build strong partnerships and ensure that parents are an integral part of the appointment process. Indeed, this is only part of our wider programme to involve more parents in their children's education.
Robert Brown, Deputy Education Minister & Dissimulating Creep
Unfortunately for parents of school age children in Scotland Deputy Education Minister Robert Brown is a dissimulating creep. Well, actually he's a real creep, but he is dissimulating.
At the moment parents currently occupy half of the seats on each school board in Scotland. This gives them a great deal of power, particularly in the appointment of headteachers. Of course the teaching unions don't like this one bit - can't have uppity parents having any say in their children's education can we? And of course money talks, so Labour, supported by their LibDem acolytes have decided to bow to their paymasters' demands and to do away with school boards.
And what will replace them? Well, according to the Creep, the new regulations will
The proposed regulations will:
ensure that parent councils are consulted before any recruitment process begins
give parents a legal right to be involved in the short listing process
guarantee parents make up at least one third of any appointment panel
As everyone knows "consulted" is a word which, in government circles, means "ignored". To "be involved" means that they can watch the grownups talking. And making up a third of the appointment panel means that they can be outvoted by the education establishment. The decisions are now out of the hands of parents and the nanny state will look after us.
Ain't the gubmint a marvellous thing.
Outside Story on how there used to be a party which was genuinely in favour of small government:
In this connexion the thing to be remarked is that the Whigs proceeded by the negative method of repealing existing laws, not by the positive method of making new ones. They combed the Statute-book, and when they found a statute which bore against "the liberty of the subject" they simply repealed it and left the page blank. This purgation ran up into the thousands. In 1873 the secretary of the Law Society estimated that out of the 18,110 Acts which had been passed since the reign of Henry III, four-fifths had been wholly or partially repealed.
and Jock Coats on the hapless Matthew Taylor.
Magnus Linklater has a strange op-ed in Scotland on Sunday today on the subject of Blair's legacy. In it, he points out the obvious - namely that Blair will be remembered for telling a lot of lies. He also thinks that for some "viscerally hostile critics" the buying off of New Labour by Ecclestone et al and the selling of peerages might also be remembered as having eclipsed the "stunning victory" of 1997.
But, according to the sage of Princes Street, this is
a simplistic, and ultimately misleading view, which ignores the way that Blair has fundamentally changed politics and political perceptions in Britain. Behind the scandals, the spin and the whiff of corruption lies a legacy of reform which no future government can possibly ignore. No Tory party would now dream of attempting to reverse the foundation hospitals, city academies, welfare-to-work programmes, Private Finance Initiatives, pension reforms, Sure Start initiatives or the bids to end child poverty which have been the hallmarks of New Labour. There will be arguments about how effective they have been, as well as complaints about their fairness; but they are now an indelible part of modern society.
Eh? Run that by me again. It is unthinkable to reverse the policies of foundation hospitals ( expensive, bureaucratic and inefficient according to some), city academies (among the worst schools in the country), welfare to work (what welfare to work?), PFI (ludicrously overpriced), pension reforms (you mean causing the closure of just about every final salary scheme in the country - what planet are you on Magnus?), Sure Start (ha, ha ha), and bids to end child poverty (which have completely failed)?
Mags says that there will be arguments about how effective these policies have been. Too bloody right. So why then is it unthinkable that they should be scrapped? Out in the real world, if something doesn't work it is usual to try something different. Only in the wacky, unaccountable world of Westminster is a policy failure met with a claim that to change is unthinkable. It's this sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that is going to kill the mainstream parties, and hopefully their acolytes in the mainstream media too.
Then again perhaps it's something else. Are you after a knighthood or something Magnus?
Natalie Solent hits the nail right on the head on the subject of the Dutch burqa ban.
The burqa is obviously bad. Where it is not oppressive it is arrogant. The situation ought to be
- you want to wear it in the street? OK, if you must.
- you want to wear it in my shopping centre? Sorry, against company policy. OR Welcome inside. Depends on the company.
- you want to wear it in an airport? Ha ha, most amusing madam. This nice gentleman will now escort you to the exit.
But as she points out, we must not accept that the state has a right to dictate what clothes we wear. If they can enforce that, they can enforce pretty well anything. Burqas may be offensive and a crime against fashion, but hey, so is wearing greying y-fronts and most members of parliament (except perhaps Chris Bryant MP, a man who is proud of his kacks) are probably guilty of that particular sin.
I'm probably not the first to say it, but illiberalism usually breeds more illiberalism. Civil society would, if unhindered, deal with burqa-clad agents provocateur by shunning them and refusing them access to shops and jobs. But this is impossible because of the morass of legislation making this sort of gentle pressure illegal. Liberals need to recognise just how illiberal the race relations legislation is. What on earth do those on the left think that freedom of association means if not the right to choose who you associate with? Deprived by this illiberal legislation of a response to the burqa brigade, we now have the crazy situation where we have to suffer the removal of yet more of our liberties - which is precisely what the Islamists want.
Richard Adams has a piece on Milton Friedman on the pages of Comment is Free about Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman, who has died aged 94, was not the most important economist of the post-war era - that title belongs to the brilliant Paul Samuelson - but he was certainly the most controversial. Yet despite his views being championed by so many politicians on the right, it may come as a surprise that Friedman's career as a policymaker largely ended in failure.
Which reminded me of PJ ORourke's comments about the "brilliant" Paul Samuelson.
Professor Samuelson [...] turns out to be almost as much of a goof as my friends and I were in the 1960s. "Marx was the most influential and perceptive critic of the market economy ever," he says on page seven. Influential, yes. Marx nearly caused World War III. But perceptive? Samuelson continues: "Marx was wrong about many things ... but that does not diminish his stature as an important economist." Well, what would? If Marx was wrong about many things and screwed the baby-sitter?
(If you visit the piece on CiF, you will need a strong stomach. Some of the comments fom are pretty revolting. The left has some truly disgusting people in its ranks.)
Cicero's Songs is a blog by a LibDem of the liberal persuasion. He's usually very sensible, but today there is a startlingly silly piece about the EU.
I see that the more rabid conservative bloggers are advertising a meeting of the Bruges Group over the weekend that intends to discuss policies for "a post EU" Britain.
You might expect to see such immaturity on the amusing Guido Fawkes blog- but I was moderately surprised to see the same event given equal coverage on Iain Dale's blog.
This is not much better than name-calling. Why "rabid"? Why "immature"? There is not a shred of explanation for the use of these insults. What is immature about wanting to leave the EU, or indeed for discussing what life might be like outside its embrace?
The EU is an organisation of which Cicero himself has elsewhere recognised the failings:
The European Union seems to have become a bloated failure, bogged down in over regulation and elitist projects that do not connect with the general population.
Surely immaturity and rabidity lies in sticking with a bloated failure, not with demanding withdrawl?
He continues with the, now traditional, accusation of triviality:
[T]he majority of British Conservatives can no longer have a sensible debate about the costs and benefits of membership of the European Union and have taken the maximalist position of complete withdrawal...
This seems to be a standard tactic of EUphiles - roll the eyes and say that rational debate is impossible. This is surely nonsense - plenty of bloggers are filling their postings with detailed argument about the costs and (purported) benefits of the EU. EU Referendum anyone? And what about the more formal critiques of the costs of membership?-
The Civitas report on the costs of membership, which found that the UK would be better off out by between £17 and £40bn per year, was linked to by precisely zero LibDem bloggers. No attempt to engage in debate there then; not even rolling of the eyes.
Patrick Minford recently published a report estimating the costs of EU membership as £25bn a year. Again, I have been unable to find a single LibDem linking to the press release at the IEA, Tim Worstall's related article, or any of the numerous other articles discussing Minford's work. So where is the LibDem debate?
Cicero goes on to describe Conservatives:
Either they are fools who do not understand the vast political and economic costs that withdrawal would inflict on the UK, or they are hypocrites who know those costs but like to fantasize about withdrawal in front of the electorate, while all the time knowing that they could not take the final step.
It's worth remembering that Patrick Minford is an eminent economist. The Bruges Group also includes another outstandin economist, Professor Tim Congdon, among its commentators. LibDems cannot simply brush aside their views. If they are wrong, tell us why. Calling them names like "fools" and "hypocrites" reveals more about the author than it does about the subject of the invective.
And while we're about it, how on earth can the LibDems explain the contradiction between their love of the EU and their claims to support localism. And no nonsense about subsidiarity please - when did subsidiarity ever happen in practice?
Oh yes, and wasn't it ridiculous of Menzies Campbell to criticise Labour for the volume of legislation they produce
"The government is addicted to legislating. It feeds its appetite for headlines with proposals and bills that are often confusing and repetitious," the leader of Britain's third biggest party said.
The Lib Dems calculated that since coming to power in 1997, Labor have passed 370 parliamentary acts and 32,776 statutory instruments.
Ming accidentally forgot to mention that most of those 32,776 statutory instruments were forced on the UK by our European colleagues. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The EU is protectionist, has legislative diarrhoea, is a financial shambles, and is corrupt and ineffectual. The Liberal Democrats recognise most of these criticisms but still say we should stay in, arguing that we should win the arguments within the EU. And they say the Bruges Group are immature?