CentreRight

The future belongs to Classical Liberals

Which party to you join if you believe that the state should stay out of the bedroom and out of the boardroom (and most other rooms)? They have been known under many names: Libertarians, Individualists, Laissez-Faire Capitalists, Reaganaites, Thatcherites. For the purposes of this article I will call them Classical Liberals.

For the last one hundred years or so the Classical Liberals, that is, those who cherish John Locke and Adam Smith, have been divided between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. The party membership card they actually buy will probably depend upon whether they attach greater importance to social liberalism (LibDems), or economic liberalism (Conservatives). Or how pure they are in their classical liberal beliefs: quite a few may not want to go as far as, say, totally legalising drugs, allowing abortion on demand, or abolishing the welfare state in its entirety. I know one or two purists who do not vote at all and who occasionally utter cravings for a Libertarian Party.

Gladstone was one. Thatcher was one (if we forget Clause 28 for a second). The Orange Book Liberals belong to the creed (though Vince Cable wrote a chapter and is most certainly NOT a Classical Liberal). I will leave it to your own detection work to identify which MPs are Classical Liberals today. I have a list of two dozen LibDem and Conservative MPs who could be defined as Classical Liberals. Many, many more have very strong Classical Liberal sympathies. To some extent virtually all present-day Conservatives are Thatcher's children and therefore at least partly Classical Liberals.

Where can you meet Classical Liberal politicians? Some are loners – which is natural as they strongly believe in individual liberty. The annual Libertarian Alliance conference would be a good start. Or the monthly meetings of the Progressive Conservatives in Central London.  Conservative Way Forward would be good bet, too.

Who are its proponents? Its twentieth century philosophers are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Its think tanks are the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute.

What are their victories? Privatisations, tax cuts, the sale of council flats. Yes: nothing very recent.

What do they believe in? They stand for meritocracy (as opposed to group or class privilege), equality under the law (as opposed to discrimination, “positive” or otherwise), “original” human rights which keep the state in check (as opposed to “social” or entitlement rights which coerce some to give benefits to others). The free market (though most support a modest safety net). Scepticism of the state (they want free trade with the world, not protectionism). They don't tolerate racism: people must be regarded as individuals, not groups. Trade not aid. Democracy (as opposed to the Leader Principle). Dan Hannan's and Douglas Carswell's The Plan is a good reading on the subject.

JP Floru: Big Society - Volunteers could run striking public services

Once again a last minute strike on London Underground will cost the private sector millions of pounds in lost time.  The routine of millions of hard working individuals is disrupted because of the excessive claims from a few thousand overpaid Underground workers.

Why is it that a trade union is allowed to cause financial loss without paying compensation?  Why is the Underground not fully automated, just like the Docklands Light Railway?

Perhaps we should not rely upon the state to provide essential services.  Why, under the Big Society umbrella, volunteers could do it instead! 

Volunteers providing public services while its workers are on strike has a long tradition.  The General Strike of 1924 caused trams, buses, gas, electricity, the Underground and other essential services to be interrupted.  A state of emergency was declared.  Thousands of volunteers pitched in and within a week the strike was called off.

In the first quarter of the 20^th Century college students often acted as volunteer strike breakers in the US.  In the Interborough Rapid Transit Strike of 1905 college students acted as motormen, conductors, ticket sellers and ticket choppers.

Last year, BA famously trained staff from other departments to cover on flights while cabin crew were on strike. 

But why not train outsiders to pitch in?  Many unemployed individuals would probably volunteer for free  – giving them valuable CV credits for future employment.

Big Society: bring it on!  Let’s stop relying upon the state.

In Mr. Bean’s world, we all end up with a begging bowl

He’s done it again.  After advocating strict BoE rules as to whom banks should be allowed to grant mortgages to, Mr. Bean, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England now believes we should just spend our savings like there is no tomorrow.

Both utterances are evidence of a profoundly un-Conservative world view.  The reason why we are Conservatives is because we believe in the positive value of private property.  People squirreling away to provide for a rainy day or old age.  Getting onto the housing ladder and acquiring one’s own castle, however small – your own stake in a hostile world.  Not expecting your neighbour to be forced to contribute for your wellbeing but trying to provide for yourself.  And not just for yourself: to enable you to help those around you: your family, your friends, charity.

Mr. Bean tells us living off interest is a bad thing.  Mr. Bean tells us we should spend it all.  In Mr. Bean’s world we would all end up on benefits.  He does not seem to be particularly concerned about this – and this is why we should be concerned about the Mr. Beans of this world.  Ever larger welfare dependency has never been of concern to socialists in general.  In the socialist’s view, scrounging off your fellow human through state coercion is morally acceptable.  In the age of irresponsibility we have a party today and somebody else will pay the bill tomorrow.  Or, as Mr. Bean’s friend John Maynard Keynes used to say: in the long term we are all dead!

Most of us support the welfare state to some extent: some will never be able to fend for themselves because of for example a disability or long illness.  There may be nobody to care for them.  We show compassion and agree that something should be done.  Part of the support for some sort of welfare state is less altruistic than generally believed: the realisation that any one of us can fall upon hard times.  The disagreement between Conservatives and socialists is about the extent of that welfare state; and about who should provide for it: the state, or charity, or a combination of both. 

But a safety net is not a hammock.  The property-rationed savingless society Mr. Bean seems to adhere to is one of generalised pauperism, where ever larger parts of the population end up with a begging bowl.

Discouraging saving and rationing mortgages is un-Conservative and would cost us dearly at the ballot-box – and rightly so.  Thankfully we still have splendid politicians like John Redwood, who effectively countered Bean’s utterances on Radio 4 this morning.

Home ownership should not be rationed by the Bank of England

Charlie Bean, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, wants to cap mortgages to value.  By the Bank’s diktat borrowers would have to put down a deposit of between 10% and 25% when they buy a house.

Perhaps this is to distract us from from the fact that both the Labour government and the Bank of England were directly responsible for the housing bubble?  Following on from Alan Greenspan’s American policies (started under Clinton) both the Labour government and the Bank of England jointly caused the housing bubble.  They increased the money supply twice; first by allowing a loosening of the inflation target, and then by switching from RPI to CPI – an inflation index whose basket does not include mortgage payments.  The market was flush with cash – resulting in 125 % mortgages being offered by banks.  And, presto, a bubble.

Banks have already become more careful in granting mortgages – in fact I wonder who out there nowadays receives a mortgage without forking out a 25 % deposit first.  Mr. Bean’s measure is therefore unnecessary – the banks limit mortgages already, out of prudence.  The 125 % mortgages were an aberration resulting from the Labour government’s money mirage.

Secondly, a loan to value ratio policy does not take into account other risk factors associated with the loan, such as the borrower's credit history and their other assets.  That is downright silly.  But then perhaps this is the thin end of the wedge and the Bank wants to regulate all aspects of a mortgage lending decision.

Thirdly, the measure is a cap on aspiration.  It is especially first-time buyers who would suffer.  Those who have owned property for several years are more likely to have built up positive equity.  Not quite a policy I, as a Conservative, would want to be associated with.  It was The Great Lady herself who abolished mortgage rationing the the eighties.

In fact the only parties which benefit from a compulsory deposit are the banks themselves. Ultimately when the borrower can’t pay back his mortgage the bank reposesses the property and sells to somebody else.  If house prices have gone down in the meantime a 25 % cushion guarantees that the bank is far less likely to suffer any loss at all.  For the mortgagee it makes no difference whatsoever.  I bet the banks are thrilled with the proposals.

Before the Bank of England starts contemplating the rationing of house ownership, perhaps it should apologise for creating the housing boom in the first place.

Happy birthday, Arthur Laffer!

What do John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have in common? All three lowered tax rates and increased tax receipts. The explanation is simple: when tax rates are raised the state receives more initially, but when the rates become too high the receipts diminish as people and businesses simply stop working or avoid tax. There is plenty of evidence that we are in the latter phase today.

Professor Arthur Laffer, whose birthday it is today, famously explained the phenomenon to Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (then Ford/Nixon officials) on the back of an envelope back in 1974. Laffer was modest enough to admit that what since then has been dubbed the Laffer Curve was not invented by him. The North African historian Ibn Khaldun described it in 1377 in his book Prolegomena. David Hume and Adam Smith mentioned it too.

Long academic palavers have tried to ascertain what the revenue maximising tax rate is. Estimates vary widely though many end up in the 25 – 30% bracket. For example in Hong Kong the corporate tax rate is 16.5 % - and Hong Kong is certainly not short of a penny.

Many countries have lowered their tax rates between 1979 and now, usually based in part on the Laffer curve. In the spring of this year a great number of UK economists and politicians such as John Redwood used it to argue against a proposed increase of capital gains tax to up to 50%. Their campaign ensured that CGT only went up to 28%.

A few years ago I stalked a number of politicians at the Conservative Party Conference with questions about the Laffer effect. In a Telegraph debate (Tebbit and Heffer against D'Ancona and Villiers) Theresa Villiers pointed out that the Laffer curve is a curve, and that tax receipts go up for a while when tax rates are increased before the Laffer effect kicks in and marginal receipts diminish. She apparently thought that UK tax rates were still sufficiently low to increase receipts with rate rises – which they were already patently not at the time. George Osborne was still in his “we are not going to make promises about unfunded tax cuts” - phase. And at a Reform fringe meeting Philip Hammond said that Laffer was too difficult to explain to the public at large. I suppose all those utterances have to be seen in their context at the time.

The smoke and mirrors of quantitative easing

Yesterday’s dire inflation and growth forecast by the Bank of England proves that increasing the money supply does not work.  It does not just fail to produce lasting results.  It is also harmful and destroys potential growth.  Here is why.

Increasing the money supply by way of quantitative easing or artificially low interest rates devalues the existing mass of money.  So everybody holding money ends up poorer.  Labour never picked up on the fact that QE is in fact a flat tax.  Your money can purchase less because the government is printing more of it.  This is typically (as now) reflected in an increase in the rate of inflation.  Therefore the amount of growth you could produce through spending or investing is less, than if the government had not printed new money.  You will for example have to pay more devalued pounds to buy fuel abroad.  As a result potential private sector growth is destroyed.

In the very short term QE produces a mirage of growth.  The state pumps the fresh money in the sectors of its choosing, creating a sudden boom.  This then has a ripple down effect in other sectors of the economy (see Dr. Eamonn Butler’s forthcoming book on Austrian Economics).  At the same time the existing capital devalues.   But this devaluation of the existing money does not register immediately with the money owning public. For a short time the private sector keeps spending and investing as before.  They may for example be working with existing stock, bought at pre-devaluation prices.  The double dip is the catching up – a sign that the penny has dropped.

But it is not even like for like – state growth simply replacing private sector growth.  The priorities of politicians or their staff (the Bank of England) will dictate where the freshly printed money is allocated.  Their priorities may be very different from where the free market would allocate capital to create maximum growth.  Politicians’ investments are virtually always less efficient than market investments.  Therefore they will destroy more potential private sector growth than they create through the state. 

Brown’s decision to print more money was understandable – he wanted to create a short term revival of the economy to win the election in the short term.  It did create some optimism in the beginning of the year – there was for example the temporary increase in house prices.  Sufficient optimism to prevent complete eradication  of the Labour Party and a non-win by the Conservatives.  Now the chickens come to roost.

Let’s not do it again. 

Pay off the nimbies

Few like it when a new house goes up next door.  It may result in loss of amenity (light, noise, street parking competition).  The value of your property may go down.  The existing Planning Laws do not allow for direct financial compensation to neighbours.  Very many objections to planning applications can be sourced to a (perceived) financial loss if the structure next door goes up.

In a manner entirely typical for the socialism which permeates so many post-war laws, the only form of compensation offered by our Planning Laws is to the collective.  With Section 106 Agreements certain obligations are imposed upon a developer, and in return he will obtain planning consent.  Section 106 Agreements typically provide recreation facilities, health, education and social housing.

Elderly Mrs. Smith who will lose part of her view over an arcadian field may not be moved by the offer of a new school in compensation, and will continue to object to the proposal at all costs.  Even if Mrs. Smith is so public spirited to be happy to lose money in return for a benefit to the public at large, her view of what constitutes a public benefit may be at odds with what the planning officers and councillors on the planning committee have in mind.

Direct financial compensation to those who have the most to lose, as proposed by Dr. Mark Pennington in Liberating the Land (an IEA publication), would transform many nimbies into happy neighbours.  More houses would be built and prices would go down.

This does not solve the problem of the neighbour who would not be moved by money, and who will oppose any development at all costs.  This is unavoidable.  But direct compensation would dramatically reduce their numbers.

Belgian elections: A not-so-boring result and what it means for the UK

On Sunday the Flemish nationalist NVA party became the largest party in the Belgian parliament.  What is the relevance for the UK? And, a question I have probably been asked close to one thousand times since I moved to the UK in 1994: will Belgium split?

First of all, our ally in the European parliament, the LDD classical liberal / libertarian party scored abysmally, and would not gain a seat in the next European parliament based on this result. This would mean losing representation in one EU state (25 MEPs from 7 states are needed to form a group). In this case, it would mean losing the very sound Derk-Jan Eppink MEP (LDD). Better start buttering up other parties sooner rather than later.

Second, the NVA seems to favour a nation state centered approach to the EU. It is also a centre right party. This could be good news as it is what we want. The NVA does currently not hold seats in the European Parliament. At the last general election they were in an alliance with the Christian-Democrats. Perhaps the Conservative Leader in the European Parliament Timothy Kirkhope MEP should take the tram to the NVA headquarters, bearing Cornish pasties (warm beer might not do the trick).

Thirdly, the result tells us a thing or two about proportional representation. 12 parties have seats in the national parliament. Forming a majority government is going to take a long time and a lot of horse trading. It always ends in more spending: each party wants spending increases for its pet projects and each region wants compensation for spending increases in the other regions. Guess who's paying.

Councils should not translate, but give vouchers for language classes

If we want to help poor immigrants, we need to encourage them to learn English. Speaking English will allow them to find a proper job, to improve their situation, and to take part in society.

Today's announcement that non-EU immigrants applying for a visa to join their UK spouse or partner will need to learn English is a good first step (another debate is whether we should ask for evidence that they will not become a burden upon the state). But we can do more to help immigrants. We can stop translating official documents.

The market gives positive incentives to learn English. It is the choice between a no hope job and a job with a future. Unfortunately government incentivises people not to learn English. You need no English to claim benefits. You need no English to obtain a council flat. And to claim those benefits, the flat, and to be assisted in all other aspects of life to do with officialdom, translations and translators are available upon request. Instead of showing people the way to self-reliance and responsibility by encouraging them to learn English, we show them the way to welfare dependency, permanent deprivation and social isolation.

Local councils and their agencies are the worst culprits. From a humanitarian point I can see that translating might be appropriate where a person is in distress or danger. But what to think of a council carrying out works on an estate sending out a leaflet indicating that all information can be obtained in “your language”? This message itself was translated in Arabic, Urdu, Mandarin, Spanish and Portuguese.

If we want deprivation, welfare dependency, and social isolation, we should continue to translate official documents, and provide translators upon request. If we want to help the poorest to climb onto that social ladder, we should stop translating now. Perhaps some of the money now wasted on translating could be spent on vouchers to pay for language classes.

Cuts by referendum

If Cameron and Osborne achieve their goal to emulate the Canadian public finances rescue operation of 1994 – 1997, their reputation could rise as high as Lady T's.  Slashing public spending by, say, 20 % would indeed be a good start.  In about three years tax cuts might be possible again, this time to slash our taxes which are now among the highest in Europe (and therefore the world).  Tax cuts to encourage work, saving, and our competitiveness – to encourage the private sector to create prosperity again.

But what to cut? Expect a public sector scrum.  Apparently George Osborne (“The Slashing Chancellor”?) would like to see a massive public consultation exercise to decide what should be cut.

Public consultations are a mistake for two reasons.  First of all they have a reputation for being window-dressing.  People are consulted, a report is drafted, the minister listens, and then he goes ahead and does what he planned to do all along anyway.  It has been used for a long time by politicians who want to give an impression of listening, but who are not.  New Labour especially used it to great misguided acclaim.  Livingstone's consultation on the Western Congestion Charge Extension is an infamous example – the majority didn't want it, but got it anyway.

Let us make the not unreasonable assumption that the new government will not “do a Livingstone”.  The problem then is "bussing".  All sorts of special interest groups and public sector workers and state handout dependants will mobilise their members, family and sympathisers.  I, for example, will write, blog, email and call everybody I know to urge them to write in to support a return to the minimum state.  The state of safety net, not safety hammock.  The state of wealth creation for the many, instead of redistribution for the few.  The state of the 5% growth instead of the 1%.  But I somehow think that Diane Abbott MP's constituents alone, a majority of who live off the public purse, will outnumber the friends of liberty and the free market.

It is always the same sort of people who write in to public consultations.  They are the people with a lot of time.  They are the people with a lot to lose or a lot to gain.  They are the people who are part of well-organised collectives to make them aware.  It is rarely the mother of three who works, picks up the kids, and does the cooking.  It is rarely the middle manager who has an eighty-minute commute every day, in both directions.  It is rarely the shopkeeper who works sixty hours a week.

Public consultations are self-selecting.  Why would a centre-right government use a method which will largely bypass its own electorate?  I guess the public consultation could take the form of an individualised letter to every person on the electoral register.  Or that other not-often-enough tried method of the referendum.  To save costs, it could even be done online.

Coalition government: the continental example

I grew up in Belgium, which, with its system of proportional representation has “enjoyed” coalition governments for most of the 20th century.  For the last decades coalitions of six or more parties have become the rule. On balance it is a negative experience, especially for the taxpayers.

Here is why:

1. It gives disproportionate power to fringe parties whose few seats are needed to form a parliamentary majority; small parties hold the large parties to ransom;
2. A few party leaders often secretly agree to form a coalition in smoky back rooms even before the electorate has voted, making the actual poll – bar the unexpected - quite irrelevant;
3. Election promises mean even less as all is up for grabs when the different parties negotiate a detailed programme between themselves after the election;
4. Instability as any party may pull out of the coalition at any moment over any politically propitious subject;
5. Every coalition party has its pet projects, with grave spending implications;
6. Grave economic consequences as coalition partners usually find it easier to agree on spending than on cuts;
7. Never a clear political direction; government policy will pull in all directions as the parties' policies and beliefs may be quite contradictory, and each party has ministers who will put their beliefs before the coalition agreement reached with the others;
8. Coalitions often enjoy a large majority in parliament, making the minority voters feel ostracised and disenfranchised – exactly the same claim proponents of proportional representation make in the UK;
9. The mere existence of coalition governments entices voters to vote even more for fringe parties, resulting in a further fragmentation of the political landscape.

Not a good idea.

Red Tories and the freshly painted door

J P Floru is a Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.

The soundest party activist in my ward recently recounted what canvassing was like in the eighties. When you went canvassing on a council estate and you found a freshly painted door, you knew what to expect. The family living behind it had bought its flat. And they would vote Conservative, absolutely. When you go canvassing on a council estate today, do the residents have an equally strong reason to vote Conservative – or any other party?

The Right to Buy policy did not just hand the flat to them, as say the winter fuel allowance hands over money today. The individual had to save money and had to decide to buy the flat. He had to make an effort to effect this change in his life. He felt that he had helped himself to climb the ladder. The individual was helped to gain a stake by his own efforts. Or as The Great Lady said: “Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people. That is the way to One Nation, One People.” When individuals participate and take decisions affecting their own lives the enthusiasm and drive is far greater than if they are given a mere handout.

These individualistic policies – the government retreating and allowing individuals to choose for themselves - gave the Conservatives four consecutive electoral victories. Perhaps for the first time “the little people” felt that they had an interest in voting for what until then had been considered to be the Party of the Top Hats.

Discretionary tax law is now a fact in the UK

Over the last ten years there has been a marked tendency to make tax law discretionary.  New tax rules are left intentionally vague to allow the tax man to tax no matter what.

Tax evasion is illegal.  But tax avoidance (or tax planning as it is called in civilised circles) has now become suspicious to the point of being put on an equal footing with the illegal and the shady.  As Mark Serwotka's Public Services Union puts it:

“The main political parties should make it a New Year’s resolution to focus on over £130 billion worth of uncollected, evaded and avoided taxes to close the public deficit”.

Is it not normal that when you close a deal you look up what the law is and then try to minimise the tax you will owe?  Why pay 20% if legally only 10% is due? It seems like good housekeeping to me.  In fact most people do it in one form or another; they may for example make a will.  Yet it is precisely this tax planning which is targeted, and vague discretionary tax rules are the means to achieve the clamp down.

The chief executive of a small financial institution recently told me that he has been trying to find out for months whether or not any bonuses he pays his staff will be subject to the bonus tax. The rules are completely unclear.

During Labour’s tenure, there have been three particularly worrying developments in tax policy.

Gordon Brown killed aspiration by a thousand cuts

Gordon Brown's mantra of aspiration is either a remarkable reversal of his policies, or cynical spin at par with the lies floated by Labour back in 1997.

After thirteen years social mobility is at an all time low.  Vast numbers of people have been pushed into state dependency and are punished if they try to climb out of it.  As a councillor I regularly meet perfectly able and intelligent young people who only work minimum hours out of fear that otherwise their welfare payments will be taken away.  Grammar schools are stifled in their expansion and the assisted places scheme – allowing the poorest to go to the best schools – have been abolished by Labour.  Labour doubled the tax rate for the working poor from 10 to 20 % and urged them to claim tax credits instead.  Clear red water: give us your pay and we'll give you state alms instead.  For thirteen years Brown was the driving force behind pushing aspiration to the margins of society.

Is his clarion call for aspiration just cynical spin?  Would that be unheard of?  Labour famously won the 1997 elections after Tony cuddled up to the middle classes.  Tony and Gordon then proceeded to increase the size of the state from 39 to more than 47 % of GDP – a truly massive increase of socialism.  Who pays for this? The wealthy have tax shelters or (increasingly) flee.  Those on benefits don't pay .  So who does?  Those who are in work.  Those who are no yet wealthy enough to afford tax advisers.  Those who are not net recipients of state handouts.  In other words: the lower middle and middle classes.  If ever turkeys voted for Christmas it was in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

So what is it: has Brown come to his senses, and will he reverse his socialist policies and reduce the size of the state to allow the aspirational to thrive?  Or is it cynical spin?

Have you been stopped under the Anti-Terrorism Act?

Today I was stopped in my Smart car on the Charing Cross Road, Central London, by the Metropolitan Police.  The officer told me this was under Anti Terrorism legislation.

I may have terrorised the blogosphere at times, but I would never have guessed it was that evident from my appearance or car.  My name and date of birth were taken down in triplicate.  Then he wanted to know my height - “for intelligence”.  I refused to give my height (it’s a bit of a sore point as I am smallish).

Fortunately I wasn’t arrested on the spot.  Next I had to open the boot of my car.  I breathed a sigh of relief as it wasn’t filled with five tons of semtex this time around – but my box with out-of-date In Touches drew a lot of attention.  “Suspect was in possession of inflammatory political material” must now be in my file at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of Scotland Yard.  I lost ten minutes of precious time.  They didn’t take a DNA sample though, so I’m not in that database yet.

I see random police searches inCentral London all the time.  They are an invasion of our civil liberties.  They are a waste of police time.  Thousands are inconvenienced without any explanation given.  Does anybody know why?  Is it indeed, as Lord Carlisle (LibDem), the independent reviewer of anti-terrorism law suggested back in June, to have a racial balance in police statistics?  Is it done in the hope of catching terrorists by accident?  Why not search every house, office and chicken coop in the land while they are at it?  Any other guesses?

Boris, can’t you stop this lunacy?

Democratic control over the police is an absolute necessity

Sir Hugh Orde of the Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that police chief constables may resign if the police are brought under political control, as proposed by the Conservative Party.  He says that operational independence is essential and that political influence over how our streets are policed is undesirable.

Is it not normal that the public has a say over how they are policed? Do citizens not pay the salaries of police officers?  Do citizens not suffer the consequences of crime? Do citizens not vote for political representatives to run public services?  Why should the police be an exception?

At the moment policing is divorced from the priorities of citizens.  The priorities are politically imposed from very high above.  For the last ten years or so the priority seems to have been political correctness.

I am a ward councillor for Hyde Park Ward in Westminster, which include the west side of the Edgware Road.  The Edgware Road is of course a centre for citizens of Middle Eastern origin.  Virtualy all are hard working law abiding citizens.  But time and time again I have seen how the police adopt a very peculiar style of policing whenever there is trouble on the Edgware Road.  The trouble is almost always caused by outsiders.  On the Edgware Road far more is allowed than elsewhere. 

Policing is systematically done in an über-sensitive way – presumably to shield the police from any possible spurious allegation of discrimination or racism.  Political correctness rules at the expense of protecting the public.  What the residents living around it – of whatever origin - have to suffer is apparently quite irrelevant.  Typical is the non-intervention by the police when there are for example noisy celebrations for whatever Middle Eastern event.  Often these result in disorder on the streets.  Often the police just stands by and watches. There are exceptions.

As a ward councillor one is quite powerless.  The only thing you can do is to beg the police to maintain law and order.  The only weapon you have is their goodwill.

Some progress was made when the Metropolitan Police introduced ward panels: regular meetings between local police and local citizens to set priorities.  But this suffers from the usual non-representative nature of (often self-styled) community representatives.  Councillors elected by all are put on an equal footing with individuals who often do not represent anyone but themselves.

Boris and GLA Member Kit Malthouse (responsible for the Metropolitan Police) are trying to introduce democratic control over the Metropolitan Police.  The Conservative Party wants locally elected leaders to be in charge of the police.  Frankly, if police chief constables are unhappy about this, I wish them good luck and goodbye.  I’m sure we can find replacements. Real cops who make our streets safe again.

How capitalist is China?

I visited China twenty years ago, as a backpacker.  I had an awful time: everything was grubby, people were rude, food was poor.  But on every pavement men and women in blue mao suits were trading.  Day and night.  Their wares were often exhibited on not much more than a handkerchief.  A few lighters.  Five cabbages.  There was private banking, too.  Out of nowhere somebody would turn up to offer you a quick mutually beneficial illegal currency exchange in sign language. The hard currency allowed them to buy Western products.  Evidence of a strong mercantile instinct was everywhere.  I remember thinking that if they were ever allowed capitalism they would grow very rich, indeed.

A few weeks ago I went back: what a change.  Will they overtake us economically ? Many think so.  I don't.  At least not with their present  political system.  They are missing out in one vital aspect.  The People's Republic of China was a communist tyranny.  Now it is just a tyranny.  The growth in prosperity created by capitalism is seriously hampered by bureaucracy and bribes.

The lady who accuses the EU of Soviet-style practices should be EU President

Vaira Vike-Freiberga has compared the selection process of an EU President to the secrecy of the Soviet era. Indeed, Eurology is the new Kremlinology. Many months of guesswork by the media have resulted in the naming of the Seven Dwarfs - but what Snow White will look like we do not know.  The Public will of course have no say in the matter. This is now customary in the EU.  Why bother with democracy if Wise Men and Mandarins do it so much better ?  Ah. The D-word (disapproving glances from Eurocrats and statists) - the D-word is not to be mentioned. After all, we all know that if we'd had a democratic say, the EU would be a free trade zone and not much else.  The Wise Men and Mandarins would simply not have been there.

Quick highly scientific research on Wikipedia taught me that Ms. Vike-Freiberga's family fled Latvia after the communist takeover. She was a professor at Montreal University. She was Latvian president twice, with very high approval ratings. She apparently liked to meet her constituents in person (eyebrows go up in Brussels).  She is outspoken on moral values and democracy (eyebrows in Brussels go even higher, accompanied by frowning).  Like every female top politician abroad since The Original she has been called The (Latvian) Iron Lady. Of her views little is said though The Daily Telegraph reports that she is seen as centre right.

So yesterday she lamented the secrecy in Brussels... That lowers the odds of her getting the job to something like one million-to-one.  Even Brown may stand a greater chance.  I think her utterance shows that she is perfectly qualified for the job.  Personally I would of course prefer to remain a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, rather than a president.  But Labour and LibDems decided otherwise.

It's time to privatise the Royal Mail

In the last ten working days the Royal Mail has delivered letters to my house twice.  On those two occasions I received my large piles of snail mail in the late afternoon.  I also receive, on average, two letters a week addressed to another house in my street.  In that same period two CDs and one DVD, addressed to me, “were lost in the post”.  They say this is due to regional strikes – but I only receive a pile of post twice or three times a week at most times.

Occasionally I have to queue at my local post office.  This may take from anything between fifteen and thirty minutes.  At many times of the day and in any weather the queues continue outside on the street.  And am I the only one who notices that the counter staff seems to work in slow motion ?  And that they use every opportunity to disappear from their post, or to chat with their colleagues, or to lean over their colleagues shoulder (at another counter) to assist or to witness what is happening?

Consulting with "stakeholders" is collectivist in its purest sense and denies the value of individuality

One of the most successful neo-collectivist inventions of recent years is that of “The Stakeholder”.  Theoretically a "stakeholder" is anyone with an interest in a political project. He could be one single individual.  But "stakeholders" are almost always understood as a group: residents’ associations, employees, consumers, etc. Government, especially local government, will consult "stakeholders" on virtually every decision.  It is politically incorrect not to do so.  Unsound Tory councils all over the land have happily bought into the system.

Consulting "stakeholders" bypasses the individual.  As such it is collectivist in its purest sense.  For the collectivist individual desire, ambition and choice is subservient to the group’s desires, ambitions and choices.  It denies the value of individuality.  As such it is de-humanising: to the collectivist the world consists of herds.

For the authoritarian politician, consulting "stakeholders" rather than individuals is a winner.  Groups are easier to reach and are easier to contain.  Appeasing groups ensures greater political success than appeasing individuals – the groups can organise support and praise for the politician.  Meeting and pleasing groups is more visible than doing something for anonymous individuals at home.

Consultation of "stakeholders" will give legitimacy to a politician’s decision.  Cynics will say that the high-profile public consultation of "stakeholders" is more often than not window-dressing.  The politician is seen as “listening” when more often than not he will go back to his department and decide himself what he wanted to do all along.

"Stakeholders" would not be a problem, if only they represented every single view of every single member of their group.  But they never do.

UKIP's flaw

UKIP’s flaw is the belief that EU countries will be queuing up to give us free trade access to their markets if we pull out.  I believe they would do quite the opposite. If we pull out they are very likely to start posturing and to refuse us free access.  Finding an enemy – perfidious Albion – would be a perfect deflection from their own economic failure.

The usual reply to this argument is that “it is in the EU countries’ own interest” to have free trade relations with us.  Their balance of trade with us is positive.  But that reply omits one crucial fact: continental Europe has not acted in the best economic interest of its citizens for the last fifty years.  Why would they start doing so now?  Because we ask them to?   

No, posturing against us would be the logical outcome of us pulling out.  Look at how they reacted to the Lisbon Treaty referenda.  Look at how they react to the Conservatives’ pulling out of the EPP.  Not conciliatory.  Not in their own economic interest.  For them unlike for us, the EU is a political project, not an economical one.

The Conservative position is a far more effective one than UKIP’s – while not risking to lose free trade if we achieve it.  If we can force a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we all know how it will go.  That would stop the European superstate in its tracks.  Then we have the leverage to demand the repatriation of powers – such as social and employment legislation.  This has never been tried before.  Why risk 50% of our exports if we can achieve our goals in a much saner way?

The Government is chasing the golden geese off the farm as it milks the middle classes

New Labour famously came to power by telling the middle classes that old style socialism was dead.  After twelve years we know that it was deceit all along.  We saw the size of the state grow and grow.  We saw ever larger parts of the population being pushed into state dependency.  We saw state employment going up and up.  Taxes going up by stealth, so we wouldn’t notice.  All of this resulting in the economic crash.  Caused by Labour’s policies; yet used to attack capitalism and used to increase the size of the state even further.

It was die-hard socialism all along.

Yesterday the masks came down.  Now even class struggle is back.  50% tax for the rich will make the Socialist Worker’s readers swoon.

The rich will be off soon,  if they haven’t moved already.  The rich never pay tax: they pay tax experts.

It's the same with companies. Many companies have moved abroad: Shell, Hiscox, Beazley, Omega, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Henderson, Charter, Rhodes, Experian and Invesco all have escaped Brown’s British Dream.

United Business Media, WPP, Astra Zeneca, Diageo, Amlin, Smith & Nephew, International Power, BP, BAE Systems, Brit Insurance, Vodafone, ITV, Aegis, and GlaxoSmithKline have either expressed concern or have threatened to leave. These lists are non-exhaustive.  Many banks have contingency plans to move departments to Switzerland .

We are not killing the golden goose: we are chasing it off the farm.  What remains is the middle class cow: to be milked.  And milked.  And milked.

Brown and the EU must be blamed for the increasing number of jobs going abroad

Gordon Brown and the European Union have decided to continue their policy of exporting jobs out of Europe. No reason was given, but previously they said that companies should pay their fair share of tax and that European workers deserve a high level of social protection. This results in fewer jobs and less tax revenue. Less is more for Brown and the EU.

Brit Insurance (a Lloyds of London insurer) announced yesterday that it will move its headquarters to the Netherlands. In 2007 BI paid £36 million in taxes and believes that the move to Holland will reduce its bill to £6 million.

Brown’s persistent haziness about his plans for companies’ foreign profits has disastrous effects. It is feared that a change in those tax rules will result in a dramatic rise in taxes.

In defence of social climbing

I recently heard Telegraph columnist Janet Daley express her amazement at the peculiar notion of “living above one’s station”. I remember being equally surprised when it was used to attack Peter Mandelson a few years ago. When he borrowed money to buy a big expensive house, he was not only attacked for the loan’s questionable origin, but also because he had dared to aspire to such accommodation. How odd, I thought. Surely when somebody does well for himself, one ought to congratulate him?

“He lives above his station” is used to shame people who want to improve their social situation. A successful upstart is often sniggered at for being a social climber.

On the right it is the language of those who think the world has gone to the dogs since indented tenure became obsolete. The eighteenth century equivalent was moral opprobrium for becoming wealthy through commerce rather than to live of dwindling land holdings. Left wing intellectuals snigger at social climbing too: they portray it as petit bourgeois ambition. Imagine the monstrosity of the working classes aspiring to become middle class – the hallowed principles of class war would be no more!

Attacking social ambition is the enemy of contemporary Conservatism which, since Thatcher, has been the driving force behind social mobility. The Great Lady was sniggered at, too, for being a grocer’s daughter. Social mobility was what John Major defended when he spoke up for a classless society.

There is a great deal of jealousy behind the denigration of successful people of humble origin. It is unpleasant for impoverished old (or, more often than not, not so old) money to see their cleaner’s son rise to riches. It is a stark reminder of their own ineptness at earning the income needed to fund a lifestyle to which their ancestors became accustomed. So the unpleasant fact is sniggered at, as they cannot think of any other avenue to put the successful upstart back in his place. There is jealousy from the left wing intellectual, too. He cannot deal with the fact that a working class person could become financially more successful than him – without any state aid, collective bargaining or class solidarity. The self-reliant individual is profoundly unsettling for the socialist dogmatic.

Today's Childhood Inquiry is crypto socialist rubbish

Today’s children are FINE.  It is commonplace to rant about how children are being treated and how they behave more badly than ever before.  There are 2,000 year old records of the same complaints.  Imagine the hell we would be living in if it had been true; if every new generation had been worse off or behaved more badly than the previous one!

According to The Good Childhood Inquiry, commissioned by the Children’s Society, and endorsed by The Archbishop of Canterbury, children had it much better in the olden days.  Individualism (read: capitalism) is to blame.  What else is new from those quarters?

Let’s go through a few of the assertions, as widely quoted on the BBC today:

• Excessive individualism by parents who seek private advantage is blamed for children’s problems.  It does not seem to occur to the writers that the parents’ material welfare might be shared with the children.  However prosaic self-made toys, or making do, may sound in the ears of your average champagne socialist, I distinctly remember how toy cars or (heaven forbid!) toy guns from the shop had a far greater appeal and receiving them caused substantially more happiness than the non-commercial variety.  I was thrilled when my parents sought private advantage because it meant I had it better.

• Income inequality is said to do damage to children.  Really?  Income inequality is a market method to show which behaviour leads to improving one’s situation, and which doesn’t.  Somebody staying in bed all day will be worse off than somebody working ten hours a day.   It is income inequality which creates growth.  Arguably, it is thanks to income inequality that health, material welfare, and happiness of children has substantially improved over the last millennia.