Janet Daley

You recently raised questions for Janet Daley.  ConservativeHome selected some of them and Janet answers them below.

Kathy: What is Ms Daley's opinion on Ann Coulter?

She is an interesting phenomenon from a British point of view. Her confident defiance of what Americans call the liberal (by which they mean left-wing) mindset, and her piss-taking approach to its fatuities, would be very difficult to replicate here. Almost everyone on the Right in Britain feels obliged to address the Left in its own terms – which is to say, to take its assumptions seriously. The more robust response of right wing commentators in the US is a reflection of the relative strength of right-of-centre media. There is an overweening consensus of pious left-liberal opinion in Britain reflected particularly by the broadcasting media – and not just the BBC – which turns rightwing opinion formers into defensive outsiders.

Penultimate Guy: Or on Ms Coulter's British equivalent, Melanie Phillips?

I certainly do not see Melanie Phillips, who is a perfectly admirable, and quite courageous, commentator as being anything remotely equivalent to Ann Coulter.

Malcolm: What do you think President Bush should do about Guantanamo?

Because of the necessary secrecy of the operations, it is very difficult to assess the usefulness of the intelligence that US security forces are getting out of the inmates at Guantanamo, but there is good reason to believe (judging by the success with which they seem to have averted further major incidents) that it is of significant importance. The obvious question is, how can the value of this information be measured against the clear damage that is being done to America’s position in the world by the existence of this camp? The irony is that it is just because the US takes the constitutional guarantee of civil liberties so seriously, that it must hold these prisoners in an off shore no-man’s land. Once they set foot on American soil, they immediately come under the protection of the Bill of Rights, even as non-citizens. In Britain, the government can simply suspend traditional rights – such as habeas corpus – if it chooses. I do suspect that the pressure of international opinion is already causing the US to run the number of prisoners being held at Guantanamo down to an absolute minimum, and that some alternative solution will be found for the last remaining ones before long.

Matthew Oxley: Is there a danger that the problem of knife and gun culture could become as great here as it is in the US?

Probably not as great, but that is not grounds for complacency. Private gun ownership has been an accepted tradition in American life since the beginning of the Republic, and is, of course, protected by the Constitution for historical reasons which go very deep in the national psyche. Legislating against the purchase and possession of guns is relatively easy here, but it is largely irrelevant in preventing the criminal use of them. (There are people who claim that arming the law-abiding citizenry actually helps to prevent crime.) The problem with guns and knives in Britain is not constitutional but a matter – like so much else – of ineffective policing. Knife-carrying by the young in inner city neighbourhoods has become a symbol of lawlessness but it is also a response to it: many young people now claim that they must carry weapons to “protect themselves” in a juvenile street culture that has become dangerously anarchic and violent. Only with a resurgent visible police presence on the streets will there be any possibility of breaking this cycle of threat and counter-threat. Gun crime requires rather more specialised techniques: it is strongly associated with drug dealing, and the turf wars of urban gangs. Combatting it takes sophisticated intelligence work and long-term dedicated investigation often involving international networks of informants. But in dealing with both casual, amateur knife attacks, and professional, organised gun use, it is essential that the police concentrate on prevention rather than simply responding to incidents after they have occurred. The police must see it as their duty to maintain order as well as to solve crimes. There is a real risk that the British public will come to see policing as so ineffectual that it will begin to demand the right to arm itself.
 

David Banks: Is the law on sentencing an ass or is it politicians who are the real donkeys?

The rules of remission on sentencing are absurd: they make a nonsense of any common sense public understanding of how the criminal justice system operates and so help to undermine public confidence in our society’s ability to protect law-abiding people. There is at least one sense in which this Home Secretary, and his predecessors, have been wrong to criticise the judiciary for what seem to be anomalous sentencing decisions: it is the political class that have led the cultural move toward leniency in the prosecution of crime and the repudiation of imprisonment as a remedy for making the community safer. The systemic assumption that crime is inevitably “caused” by sociological factors now pervades the entire apparatus of prosecution and punishment. There will have to be a significant change in the moral and political climate, reflected in the education system, the intelligent media, and the attitudes of the judiciary, before any real progress can be made.

Michael Edioze-Ediae: Is there a link between the Left’s refusal to be tough on crime and its failure to enforce international rules (ie on Iran)?

Yes. See the answer above. A culture of collective guilt, whether it is on a national scale, or an international one, does not make it easy for a country to defend itself.

Alexander Drake: Why on earth are you a small-r republican???

Because I am a meritocrat.

Cranmer: Your erudition and intelligence are evident to any discerning person, as is your common-sense brand of Conservatism.  Why do you think it is that the Conservative Party does not listen to you?

Actually, I think they do listen to me: they then just do the precise opposite of everything I say.

Aaron: Do we need to update our independent nuclear deterrent; how should we deal with nuclear challenge from Iran?

Failing to update our own nuclear capability would strengthen the hand of those who criticise British governments for being under the thumb of US foreign policy. The nuclear deterrent, under NATO auspices but with national governments in control of their own armaments, has kept the peace in Europe for two generations. To relinquish our own nuclear independence would tend to reinforce the fears (and the suspicions) of those who claim that there are dangers inherent in having only one global super-power, and who are inclined to talk of American hegemony.

On the second point, we must not vacillate in our resolve on the danger presented by a nuclear Iran. European countries have not distinguished themselves by appearing to put self-serving interests before a consistent stance on rogue states. The threat of serious sanctions, coupled with equally serious offers of help from the west for Iran, must be presented without equivocation or dissension. The lesson of Saddam – who was led to believe by his dealings with the French and the Russians that he was in no real danger of attack from the West – should be a cautionary tale. It is plausible to argue that his arrogant refusal to comply with UN resolutions (or to prove that he had complied with them) was partly a consequence of the disunity between America and Europe.

Comments

[SimonNewman]

Good answers of course.

"Penultimate Guy: Or on Ms Coulter's British equivalent, Melanie Phillips?"

What an appalling question! *eek*
Rather like asking "What do you think of Hitler or his British equivalent, Churchill?" Or Fidel Castro & his British equivalent, Tony Blair.

[malcolm]

Thanks Janet good answers.I agree with you about Guantanamo.Even 'though I was and am wholly against the Iraq war I feel President Bush has little choice other than to hold those he believes will be a danger to US citizens for as long as it takes.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes, I think that Janet Daley always seems to have a pragmatic response to problems...

I particularly like her answers to Matthew Oxley and David Banks questions.

[Alexander Drake]

Hmmm. I got spat on handing how-to-vote cards for the Queen here in 1999 during our republican referendum, when most of the political class and practically all of the media, were against us, and one of my sweetest moments as a political activist was telling a lefty republican journo in Adelaide to f-off the Monday after the result (we vote on Saturdays in Australia).

Janet Daley's answer to my question is therefore, imho, unsound. : )

[Graeme Archer]

It's not possible to be alive and not love Janet Daley. Oh how I miss the Moral Maze when it was Ms Daley and Dr (Dr! Yes it's Dr!) David Starkey, skewering sloppy thinking way beyond human decency and always, always always so brilliant to listen to.

Janet Daley is proof I think that you can be a right-ist commentator, at times critical of the party leadership, without being a wretched anti-human hate-monger. Not thinking of anyone in particular!

[Samantha Jones]

I'd like to know why none of the three main parties are willing to pull us out of the corrupt/illegal EU, which most of us want. Politicians just don't seem to be listening and that's why they don't get our votes. Aren't they supposed to work for us, i've not seen that for a very long time and am saddened by it?
We are losing our country and no one cares. Reid is giving away our veto today, without our permission, did the Conservatives fight on our behalf to stop him as i haven't seen much evidence of that.
I now feel there is nothing left for me in my own country and i will never forgive politicians for that, ever.

[Nigel Holder]

TRANSFERRING WEALTH FROM THE STATE TO THE CITIZEN

By Nigel Holder. (Ex RAF fighter pilot, onetime Tory activist, Referendum Party candidate in 1997, management consultant and interim programme manager.)

It seems as though the Tory Party has lost the courage of its convictions. Whilst it remains true that a successful Tory Party must appeal to the centre ground in politics, it is wrong, then to assume, that innovative and radical policies must be abjured. The ideal policy – and one policy is better than ten – would be radical, far-reaching, grounded in conservative values and of appeal to all but the most reactionary parts of the electorate.

In the current debate it seems that everyone has lost the will to advocate significant reductions in taxation. It is as though victory has been conceded to socialism on the battlefield of the public services. Is it not now the time for a Tory heavyweight to state a few self-evident truths? Given that David Davis has detached himself from the constraints of Cameron’s march to the centre ground – and has done so on the issue of liberty – perhaps he should elucidate these truths?

Taxation is evil – it may in some cases be a necessary evil – but it should be minimised at all costs. Why? – because taxation involves the sequestration of wealth from the citizen by the politician so that the bureaucrat may then exercise choices, notionally on behalf of the citizenry, in how that wealth is to be disbursed. In practice, the public sector is parasitic on the public purse, as it will always feed itself before it feeds the citizen. Furthermore, in taking choice away from the citizen and exercising it by proxy, the public sector regularly commits monopsony – the denial of free and fair competition through the exercise of monopoly purchasing power within a rigged marketplace. And this amounts to an assault on the most fundamental conservative value – freedom of the individual.

Freedom is only evidenced when the individual can exercise choices in what they do and how they do it. It is true that we have much freedom in many aspects of our lives – travel, speech, diet and association to name but a few areas. But, even in those areas where the State exercises fairly loose constraints - through sensible regulation – true choices are only available to those who possess what economists call effective demand or discretionary spending power. When the State sequestrates wealth through excessive taxation it shrinks the discretionary spending power of the citizen to such an extent that the taxation itself amounts to an assault on basic freedoms. Further, when the state arrogates unto itself the right to administer the delivery of essential services, then the assault on freedom of choice is even clearer.

The has been much talk of late about the role of the State a commissioner of services, with competition being provided through a multiplicity of providers, some of whom may be in the private sector. It is important to recognise that true competition only exists when an individual citizen freely can make a value for money distinction between providers that are vying for trade in a free market place. As anyone who has seen the public sector tendering process at work will attest, bureaucrat choice is a very poor substitute for the judgement of individual citizens about those choices which are in their own parochial and immediate best interests.

Socialism has always sought to transfer wealth from rich to poor. The principle mechanism devised to achieve this has been to tax the rich and to give benefits to the poor. However, an additional mechanism, the arrogation by the State of power over the delivery of essential services, has somehow become enshrined as an essential component of wealth redistribution policies. Both of these socialist nostrums should be challenged.

First, taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor is a “Revenue” rather than a “Capital” solution. State benefits will never enrich the poor; they just institutionalise the poverty trap. Conservatives, as believers in capitalism, should seek to transfer wealth, not just benefits, to the poor. The sale of council houses to their tenants was a classical example of compassionate capitalism and we should urgently search for new ways of wealth creation for the poorest in society.

Second, if we believe that true freedom is only achieved when individuals have the wealth to exercise free choices about all the goods and services that they might wish to purchase, then the purchasing decision must be transferred from the bureaucrat to the citizen in every feasible circumstance.

Third, if we believe that capitalism is the preferred method for the delivery of goods and services – because the profit motive moderated by competition is the best mechanism for delivering quality at the lowest cost – then conservatives have an obligation to ensure that, in every practical circumstance, public services should be delivered by profit seeking private enterprises operating freely within a competitive marketplace.

These ideas can be unified under a single policy strap-line – “Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen”. We should set out a programme to transfer ownership to our citizenry, of the all those state enterprises which cannot be defended as “Natural Monopolies”. Every hospital and every school should be incorporated as a limited company with share capital distributed to all in the relevant catchment area. It would be important to transfer the shares to citizens rather than sell them – millions of citizens would become capitalists at a stroke, able to trade their shares or to retain them as profitable investments.

Equitable education funding would be achieved by distributing vouchers to parents each year for the purchase of the national curriculum from any school of their choosing. By moving every school to the private sector, the damaging class-divide between the state sector and the independent sector would be removed – all schools including those in what is now called the independent sector would take these vouchers. A continuum of provision from independent schools would emerge, with some charging nothing, some charging for extra curricular activities and some charging significant top-up fees.

Healthcare, free at the point of need, would be preserved for all emergency and acute conditions, and in a highly subsidised form for all treatment of chronic conditions, by the introduction of a hypothecated tax that funded insurance payments to all patients. Citizens could choose their insurer from within a competitive marketplace. Emergency and acute care would be paid for directly by the insurer according to locally agreed schedules of rates for specified healthcare interventions. These rates would be negotiated between insurers and hospital companies within a free market. Chronic care would be subject to citizen choice of provider and basic care would be reimbursed by their insurer with “Optional Extras” paid for out of advance voluntary contributions or ad-hoc top-up fees. Thus the principle of free healthcare at the point of need would be retained for all accident and acute care, whilst a regime of differential insurance premiums would disincentivise the adverse lifestyle choices that require greater reliance on the healthcare system.

In summary, we privatise all healthcare and education, eliminate the sclerosis of state control, introduce competition into those marketplaces and thereby significantly reduce the costs of service delivery and simultaneously increase the quality of the services provided; empower the citizen with real choice rather than bureaucrat mediated choice, and give every citizen – even the very poorest in society – a first step on the capitalism ladder. Together, these policies would reduce the tax burden and more fairly distribute the benefits of taxation throughout society. Who would dare to oppose such policies? Or should I ask –who would dare to advocate them?