CentreRight

Badgers - time for a cull..?

I know little about the science or the research but this extended article from (an unlikely source) The Observer has convinced me of the need for a cull.  It seems clear that the badger - an animal with no natural predator - is linked to the spread of bovine TB, and that an entire British industry stands in jeopardy because of our inaction.

Incidentally, the piece convinced me of two additional things - (1) that that ministers in this government desperately punt issues off for "further study" rather than ever make a hard decision (ok, I was convinced of that already) and (2) that if Kenneth Grahame hadn't written Wind in the Willows, far fewer people would care about this issue.

Frank Field on Brown's rage

Listen to Frank Field note the PM's "indescribable" rage.

Pravda on the rates

There is a beautifully camp scene in an old 1960s episode of Doctor Who, where Patrick Troughton, locked in a cave full of cybermen, is confronted with the treachery of two human logicians, who have deliberately sabotaged their comrades' spaceship in order to give them time to build an alliance with the ice-cold creatures of steel. Why on earth do you believe the cybermen will form an alliance with you? asks the Doctor, in bemused horror. Because we're logicians, and because such an alliance makes sense, they reply: everything yields to logic, doc-torrrr.

I was quite powerfully moved by that scene as a child, and it probably had more to do with my ultimate choice of career as a statistician as anything else. Secretly, shamefully, I rather empathised with the logical humans. It's taken many years of therapy (aka "life") for me to discover that love is somewhat more important than critical thinking. However, I do retain a sincere belief that evidence, measured numerically, can tell us something real about the hidden motivations of politicians. Please don't quote Disraeli at me: even he wasn't right about everything.

What are Labour MPs so frightened of? Yes, Mr Dismore, we're talking about you!

Some weeks ago, Conservative Friends of Israel was invited by Hadley Wood Jewish Community to speak in a Dimbleby Question Time-style debate. We readily agreed. I myself was due to appear on the platform with a representatives from other parties.

Last Thursday, we suggested to the organisation, that given the Labour Panelist was a local MP, Andrew Dismore, and the Liberal Panelist, a Barnet Councillor, Monroe Palmer, that instead of myself doing the debate, it might be more apt to have Councillor Matthew Offord (Deputy Leader of Barnet Council and Tory PPC for Hendon).

The organisers were initially pleased with this idea, particularly since Hadley Wood Jewish Community is in Barnet.  Moreover Cllr Offord readily agreed to do the event instead of me.

The LibDems don't really care about democracy or devolution

During the debate on Lisbon we learnt that Nick Clegg put his commitment to European integration before his party's commitment to democracy.

We learn today that his party's commitment to abortion rights comes before his party's commitment to devolution.

For the first time ever the leaders of Northern Ireland's four main parties have agreed on something - opposition to a LibDem proposal that the Abortion Act be extended to Northern Ireland.

Hat tip: Slugger O'Toole

Thoughts on Crewe and Nantwich

I had a look at the local election results that overlap the parliamentary borough of Crewe and Nantwich, for each year since 2005. The results are encouraging ahead of the by-election.

In 2005 the Tories lost by 7,000 votes with 32.6% to Labour's 48.4%. In the Cheshire County Council elections held at the same time Conservatives got nearly exactly the same number of votes as in the Westminster election, but Labour did not. In fact, in those County Council elections Labour got only 35.1% or 5600 votes less, with most of those people voting for local independents.

Fast forward to the new unitary authority elections held on May 1st of this year. In the wards that are in the parliamentary constituency (more or less) Conservatives got 39.3% to Labour's 26.2%. This is obviously encouraging, but we should add back in many of those Labour voters who voted an independent in the local elections. Assuming the difference is the same as it was in 2005, about 13% should be added back onto Labour's May 1st result - which is 39.2% - a dead tie with this year's Tory vote. That's how a 7000 majority can vanish very quickly.

Labour plays the race card

Guido is carrying a copy of an official Labour leaflet from the Crewe & Nantwich by-election. It's a crass series of questions attempting to portray the Conservative candidate as a (yawn) toff.

But squirreled away in the list is this beauty:  "Do you oppose making foreign nationals carry an ID card?"

So that's the latest excuse for wasting billions on ID cards. At one stage they were a welfare entitlements card. Then it was all about anti-terrorism. Now it's "let's put the boot into foreigners."

This reeks. Not just because Labour would have raised blue murder if a Conservative had pulled a similar stunt. But because it's offensive, inflammatory and simply wrong. Apparently it's being distributed in the "poorer socio-economic areas" of Crewe - traditional Labour areas we can assume. It's a revealing illustration of what Labour really thinks about its core voters and what motivates them.

Every member of the cabinet, starting with Gordon Brown, should be asked to condemn this leaflet. Whoever authorised it should be dismissed from their campaign team.

Frank Field threatens Brown with "no confidence"

How is it that this has recieved so little comment? Any Questions last edition featured Frank Field and Alan Duncan. On the programme, Frank Field stated openly that he - and the Labour backbenches - were prepared to bring down the government if the 10p tax losers were not compensated in full, and that it was all backdated. (The sensational threat starts at 17:43 - hear for yourselves).

Field is a highly principled man. He is a Labour MP because he sees it as Labour's mission to assist the poor. As his Spectator article points out, there is no point being a Labour MP if Gordon Brown's new mantra is to be "tax the poor until the pips squeak".

We all know the story. Field tabled an amendment to alter the 10p tax penalty and had enough Labour MPs to force Brown to back down. Brown saw Field one on one and personally promised him that all losers would be compensated and the compensation would be backdated to April. Satisfied, Field withdrew his amendment. But as soon as Field backed off, Brown backtracked.

Hillary in the bunker

WARNING: This video contains offensive language.

Someone should make one of these with Gordon Brown as the central character, denying reality. Can anyone help? And the language could be a little bit cleaner.

Democracy at the wax works!

I thought this was a joke when I first saw the email from a friend, but I've checked the website and it seems to be true. Madame Tussauds has decided not to automatically make a wax-work of Gordon Brown as with previous Premiers - it's up to the public to vote as to whether they want one! Should we be melting GB out of GB history even now? Vote here before May 13th! And I wonder who can come up with the wittiest headline if the result is 'non'?

A Conservative government should...replace the term 'Islamophobia' with 'Muslimophobia'

I have a problem with the term Islamophobia (definition: 'fear' or more popularly 'hatred...of Islam').

The term has been used by Islamist groups to condemn anyone who dares to criticise not necessarily Muslims - but Islam as an ideological system. Not only does this give Islamist groups a weapon to further their own agenda - it also creates victims.

There are people in the UK, some of them my friends, with a highly rational and well grounded fear of Islam. They include the 3,000+ former Muslims who have dared to change their religion - mainly to Christianity. Many of these fellow citizens of ours face huge levels of harassment, violence and even kidnappings and attempts to kill them. I have personally met former Muslims who have been subjected to horrendous beatings and even induced abroad where they have effectively been kidnapped, locked in solitary conditions in an attempt to force them to return to Islam.

Is Boris mania getting out of hand?

Boris shouldn't let Michael Portillo's dubious verdict get him down too much. Emmet Tyrrell,  Editor in Chief of the American Spectator, is calling for Boris Johnson (American-born and therefore eligible) one day to run for President of the United States.

Something else Bendy Wendy didn't think through

As yet I have heard no convincing explaination as to why Wendy Alexander called for an early referendum on Scottish independence without consulting Gordon Brown.

A moment's thought would have told her that it would put the PM in an impossible position – something which many in the Labour Party would love to do to their leader, but surely not the devoted Wendy.

But there is another obvious flaw in her cunning plan: It would be foolish for any unionist politician to trigger a referendum campaign unless a 'no' vote was assured. In this regard, a campaign leader able to best Alex Salmond would be a minimum requirement.

So who would this campaign leader be? Well, the natural choice would be the leader of the largest unionist party, and right now that would be Bendy Wendy herself. Oh dear.

I hope the leaders of the other unionist parties are making it crystal clear to Scottish Labour that they can expect no cooperation of any sort until they find themselves a credible figurehead. This isn't just an internal Labour matter, the future of the union may depend upon it.

A Research Programme for Better Regulation

In this article, I want to tell you about some important developments there have been in recent years in the way that policymaking is conducted in Britain and at the EU level, in particular concerning the devising and fine-tuning of regulation.  Aside from this helping you to understand some useful things, including some issues relating to John Redwood and Alan Duncan's proposals for regulatory budgets, I want to point out to you a few areas in which there could be scope for politically-oriented policy-wonk thinking.  Thus this article is an invitation to you to participate in a political research programme.  It is also intended to suggest some matters than an incoming Conservative administration - e.g. at UK government level, but also at London level, would need to reflect upon.

Most policies, at UK government and regulator level and at EU level are subject to what are called "regulatory impact assessments", or just "impact assessments" (sometimes also called "cost benefit analyses").  I helped develop the training guidelines for the European Commission's impact assessment programme, as well as the training and better regulation guidelines used by Ofcom and Ofgem in the UK, and have led teams carrying out impact assessments (or parts thereof) on many significant regulatory measures, including for example MiFID, HIPs, the Toys Safety Directive, and many others.

What is an impact assessment?

As I conceive of it, and teach others to think of it, an impact assessment is a framework for introducing economic reasoning into the process of policy-making.  Specifically, an impact assessment is the set of answers to five questions (for the European Commission, six, but let's ignore that for now):

Portillo didn't vote for Boris

He revealed the fact on This Week with Andrew Neil.

Please use this thread to identify the Portillo deed that most annoys you.

Calling Southampton

In the elections that took place a week ago the most remarkable result was in Southampton. The Conservatives gained control of the Council despite the pundits having explained this would be a virtually impossible feat given that only a third of the seats were up for election.

If anyone from Southampton happens to be reading this I would be interested to hear what happened. Here is my understanding. In February there was a minority Conservative administration. They proposed a budget for this year with a 2.99% Council tax increase but with a the introduction of a 10% discount for pensioners. I don't know how many pensioners there are in Southampton but I suspect that it will have equated to a reduction in Council Tax overall. That would have made it the only Council in the country to have cut the Council Tax - apart from, er, oh yes, Hammersmith and Fulham. There was also the interesting idea of scrapping Council Tax for Special Constables as an incentive to people to serve in that capacity.

To pay for it all they cut back on posts at the Town Hall and altogether they found efficiency savings of over £8 million.

Labour and the Lib Dems weren't having it. They ousted the minority Tory administration in a sort of coup. A week ago the voters of Southampton delivered their verdict. I trust they will now enjoy reductions in the Council Tax bills that hitherto only those of Hammersmith and Fulham have seen.

Don't just look away when the bully starts shouting

A good article from my university classmate Ruth Fowler over at Comment Is Free: Failing to fight the good fight:

In groups we look to others to lead the way in challenging abusive behaviour and when they don't, we stay silent and passive

RE: Dominic Grieve QC MP: Is "Britishness" useful or redundant?

Dominic Grieve's piece on the Platform today is well worth reading if you haven't done so yet.  Quite a bit of his speech is about the role of England post-devolution, and I've nothing to add to my normal line on that - that under the British constitution Wales is a region of England-and-Wales, not a separate crown, has been a region of England-and-Wales for some seven hundred-odd years, and that it would seem to me an unnecessary self-inflicted wound for us to accept any form of constitutional separation between England and Wales at this stage.  For this reason, since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, I have always believed that the proper Unionist response was to favour having regional assemblies throughout England-and-Wales - thereby emphasizing that Wales is just one region of England-and-Wales, not a nation under the Union.

However, that's not what I want to dwell on today.  His title them concerned "Britishness".  This has been much discussed in recent years, particularly in the context of multi-culturalism (as indeed Grieve discusses it).  The thought seems to be that if we want to move away from multi-culturalism then we need to offer an account of an incumbent "British" culture, to which immigrants might be assimiliated.

Let us set aside for now objections to neo-assimilationism, and focus on this "Britishness" thought.  "Britishness" seems to me to be a flawed concept, connection with the idea of Britain as a Nation State (as opposed to a state made up of several "nations" - several tribes - or the rejection of the nineteenth-century concept of a "nation" altogether).

How should we tackle Lords reform?

Life peerages are a good thing. They offer the State a way to provide a tremendous reward to an individual at no cost to the taxpayer. They incentivise businessmen to donate to charity and they acknowledge major contributions to the life of the nation. By limiting the title to one generation, they do not corrupt an ancient tradition of hereditary titles.

The problem is not life peerages. It's the idea that anybody should have a seat in the legislature for life.

Effective Lords reform should separate the honours system from Parliament.

The Bastiat Prize

Given that it conveys a significant cash prize to the entrant deemed best to advanced the principles of liberty and defended free society in his writing, I thought I would advertise the Bastiat Prize.

This is a prestigious prize with high-profile judges which aims to reward writers who work to defend liberty. There's $15,000 to be won, plus trips to New York for the awards dinner. Deadline for submissions is June 30th.

Who decided to downgrade cannabis in the first place?

Much has been made of the fact that the Government is upgrading the classification of cannabis against the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs.

But just how reliable is the advice of the ACMD? From the way it is described in the media, you'd think it was an independent and unbiased group of experts qualified to sift through the scientific evidence on the impact of cannabis on physical and mental health. At the time that it initially recommended the downgrading of cannabis, I thought I'd check out exactly who had made the decision. This is what I found:

The ACMD has around 30 members at any one time, 28 of whom attended the meeting on the 25 January 2002 which agreed to recommend that cannabis be downgraded to a class C drug. Of these, at least 14 were leading figures in one or more of the following groups (all of which have pressed for a softening in the drug laws):

• DrugScope – Britain’s foremost pro-liberalisation pressure group

• The UK Harm Reduction Alliance – another pro-liberalisation pressure group, funded by George Soros

• The Methadone Alliance – Linked to the UKHRA, who want drugs not only liberalised but made available through the NHS

• Action on Hepatitis C – Another pro-liberalisation pressure group allied to UKHRA and Methadone Alliance

• The Runciman inquiry – An initiative of the leftwing Police Foundation, this was a high profile forerunner of the ACMD in recommending the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug.

• The Association of Chief Police Officers – At the time, ACPO’s drug policy sub-committee has played a pivotal role in the campaign to downgrade the classification of cannabis.

There were no representatives from organisations opposed to the softening of the drug laws such as the National Drug Prevention Alliance or the Police Federation. Of the rest of the ACMD members, most worked for government drug enforcement or drug treatment services (many in senior positions of responsibility) leaving the ACMD in a poor position to advise on problems with the implementation of drugs policy. Very few of them were scientists.

As it happens, I'm highly sceptical as to whether drug classification makes a great deal of difference to the situation on the ground – not when the police are so reluctant to enforce the law on drug abuse and so many other 'minor' crimes. However, when the Government is seeking scientific advice it should get it from scientists not activists.

Is it finally over for Hillary?

Telegraph America have recently listed the top fifty pundits in America.  Top pundit number seven (Tim Russert) and top pundit number six (Matt Drudge) have told their audiences that results overnight from Indiana and North Carolina mean that Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democrat nomination is effectively over and Senator Barack Obama will be the candidate to take on John McCain in the November General Election.  Watch Tim Russert here.

Bolton calls for strikes against Iranian terror camps

Today's Daily Telegraph quotes former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, calling for strikes against Iranian camps involved in training Iraqi Shiite militias. According to Coalition forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have brought in Hizbollah guerillas to train Iraqi proxy militias at a camp just outside of Tehran.

Bolton is right to call for retaliation against the Iranian regime, which is actively engaged in arming, funding and training terrorist groups in Iraq. The Iranians have British and American blood on their hands and should face the consequences.

Is it all about us again?

It is often said that oppositions do not win elections; governments lose them.  As I've written before, I think that that is wrong.  In my view, almost all of the time after the Atlee government, the Labour Party did not win elections; the Conservatives lost them.  My thesis was: Britain is, and for decades has been, a Conservative country; if Conservatism of a plausible and competent form is on offer they vote for it; if the Conservative Party really screws up, then the voters get the Labour Party in until we sort our act out, then vote Conservative again.

Sarkozy is no Reagan

Today is the first anniversary of Nicolas Sarkozy's election as French President. On taking office, many American and British commentators saw him as a modern-day French Reagan, or a Gallic heir to Margaret Thatcher. One year on, however, France looks pretty much the same — backward, miserable, and stuck in the 1970s, with business confidence plummeting.

Ronald Reagan revitalized America as a great power. Margaret Thatcher restored British pride and turned her broken nation from the sick man of Europe into the continent’s most dynamic major economy. Nicolas Sarkozy has a long way to go before he can make similar claims for his record as France's premier. So far, he has been heavy on spin, but light on delivery, more a showman than a political leader who can bring about change on the home front.

The first year has been disappointing to say the least. I've wriiten a piece on Sarko for National Review Online.  Read it here.