CentreRight

The hard left's Palin shame

American writer John Hawkins' collection of the twenty most obnoxious anti-Sarah Palin quotations is an education of a sort. The compilation is bewildering in its hatred, and it should certainly put to bed any notion that Palin is only being attacked for her views, and not for being a woman who dares to have such views. Nor are those quoted obscure bloggers, but leading journalists and luvvies.

Reading through it, I asked myself if even Britain's hard left would sink so low (and this list was before the 'edgy' liberal comedienne Sandra Bernhard said Palin should stay out of Manhattan if she wished to avoid being gang-raped by her "big black brothers"). But then I remembered how often that same disgusting and pitiable hatred is directed by them at British conservatism's leading woman. Is it a case of thinking that holding their political opinions is so much the be all and end all of morality and being a good person as to eliminate the even the requirement for basic decency towards those who openly disagree?

The economies to regulate most will recover least

Perhaps I shouldn't venture to comment at all on the economic news of recent weeks without reading more of the thousands or millions of words already written on it. But I think the bigger picture is most important and I would even venture to say that I'm unsure if my view would actually differ, a million words later, from what it was a few months ago.

While so many are rushing to dance on what they suppose to be the grave of low regulation capitalism, I continue to think that the case for much more regulation remains weak. Yes, some people in the City have made some exceptionally risky bets, and they haven't paid off. That seems less a case for bail-outs and regulation than for individuals watching where they put their money. Perhaps some are only now realising that plenty of City traders and investment bankers are scarcely the financial whizzkids they of course all present themselves as being. But this is not new information. For many years, academic studies comparing the performance of actively managed investment funds to those funds that blindly track the market average has shown how few of the former consistently beat the latter.

A contraction in credit of course affects the overall economy, but if there was any real truth in warnings we've all been hearing for years about how much consumer spending and confidence have been precariously reliant on continuing easy credit, then it seems bizarre to complain that easy credit is now being cut off. The point is surely that people were lending and borrowing too much before, not that they can't continue to do so?

Nick Clegg's creationism

Nick Clegg's conference speech yesterday contained some remarkable lines, but few more so than these:

My basic view of human nature is that people are born with goodness in them.

Of course, people can be selfish, cruel or violent -

But I believe no-one starts that way.

The trouble is, intrinsic human nature is not solely a question of ones subjective 'basic view' or belief. Apparently Clegg isn't familiar with any of the scholarship on human nature since Jean-Jacques Rousseau put forth a similarly optimistic view of the noble savage. Like Clegg, Rousseau explained all of man's cruelties and selfishness in terms of socialisation and flaws in society smothering that innate goodness. Human nature was emphatically not to blame.

But evolutionary scientists above all - George Williams, William Hamilton, Edmund Wilson, Robert Trivers, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby - have made groundbreaking advances in recent decades to establish what are the basic and not so basic scientific facts about human nature, and these are not at all kind to Clegg's remarkably rosy view.

Heh

This investment guide caught my eye when I popped in a bookshop at lunch time:

Oddly enough, it was selling very cheaply.

Drusilla Cotterill did exist

Who does the fact-checking for the New Statesman, and why did they let this line, from Darcus Howe's piece today, get through?

It is all myth and lies in the tradition of Enoch Powell, who in his bitter anti-immigrant speech in 1968, manufactured an old Englishwoman whom he claimed had been persecuted by grinning piccaninnies at her home in the Midlands.

A case, perhaps, of even demonstrably false attacks on Enoch Powell being okay because, well, it's Enoch Powell?

Boris should host Venezuelan democrats

More than merely issuing a statement of condemnation, what a good response it would be or London's Conservative Mayor to welcome to the city some of the opposition to Hugo Chavez. What a powerful way to draw a line under Ken Livingstone's gratuitous toadying before Chavez for his successor to provide an international platform to those who have stood up to him, and to the broadcasters he has silenced.

On the left-liberal blogosphere

Seeing the launch of the new blog CentreLeft got me thinking about left-liberal blogosphere. I read a lot of left-liberal blogs and don’t feel my time is wasted. There are a good many people with politics totally different from mine who can write well and persuasively, who can make good jokes and offer a political analysis that is surely accurate, even if it previously escaped me. But the left blogosphere has its problems, and they are what I want to talk about in this post, because they are telling.

I was amused to see CentreLeft launch with these words:

“[W]e must challenge and correct those Conservative bloggers who habitually distort and deceive.

“We need to adopt an oppositional mentality - not when it’s already too late, but now.  We need to be awkward; we need to be aggressive; we need to be persuasive.  Quite simply, we need to have the stomach for the fight.”

“… Cameron’s Conservatives are not so cuddly…and we intend to prove it.”

Yes, it’s true that the post also said “we must fashion a space in which to argue and debate the direction of the left itself, looking inwards before turning outwards”. But the words quoted above far better reflect the posts made so far, and certainly they better reflect the modus operandi of most of the top established left-liberal blogs. Is there really a need for another attack-dog blog from the left?

It’s curious that for all that ‘oppositional mentality’, that aggression, that ‘fight’ and for all the left blogosphere’s many posts attacking Conservatives, David Cameron and conservative blogs, there is very little evidence of any effort to engage with conservative ideas. While there are plenty of posts in the liberal blogosphere about all of these, not many attempt to argue with the ideas expressed in their own terms. Common to most of them is the understanding that anyone expressing a conservative view is insincere – “habitually distort and deceive” - or half-crazed. Conservatives are to be understood as self-consciously unpleasant, bigoted, greedy people scheming to hide their real natures for electoral purposes. So why even bother refuting the arguments they make, when these are merely a cover to hide their true intentions? How naïve! This cynicism may also explain some of the hilarious paranoia one sees on certain issues – for example, the idea that Total Politics magazine is some kind of Tory front.

Thank you, George Orwell

We owe Orwell a lot for continuing to inform political thought so long after his death. One debt we owe is for popularising, in 1984, the notion of doublethink, where one holds contradictory opinions and believes both.

It means we have the perfect term to describe an Independent columnist who can write that "the schools system needs to be reworked to be genuinely comprehensive" just four paragraphs after bravely acknowledging that grammar schools do such a good job that two years ago "the gap between the best private schools and the best grammar schools in exam results was just 1 per cent".

How admirable to be able to believe both that academic selection works so well that money can't buy better, and that the way to reduce the role of money in education is a still more comprehensive, non-selective system for those who cannot afford to go private.

Another church with the courage of the Guardian's convictions

How pathetic for a church in Oxford to express regret for holding a call to prayer during Ramadan, and for celebrating the conversion of Muslims.

In 2003, Oliver Letwin asked if "in 10 years' time it will still be legal to proclaim Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven, a proposition from which I dissent but which I wish to preserve the right of others to utter". Well, we're only five years on and churches dare not uphold this view and Community Support officers in Birmingham have threatened to use hate crime laws against Christians if they try to convert Muslims. It would appear we're well on course.

(Link via Archbishop Cramner.)

Trying to get innocent people jailed should be an imprisonable offence

A lot of people are mostly decent, and would not be capable of a crime like rape, or of falsely accusing someone of such a crime maliciously. But some people are, and the law and its penalties should be designed to reflect this. There is therefore something hideously wrong with a situation where a reality TV contestant can be caught lying, admit to police that her accusation her ex-fiance raped her was made up, and then be fined just £95. If she had not been caught out, an innocent man could have been jailed for years, so how can it be reasonable that her only punishment is a fine equivalent to three parking tickets?

The only defence I can imagine is to say that making malicious accusations of rape is not as bad as committing rape, and so should be punished less severely. But this only makes sense insofar as the punishment for rape is does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. It's an argument for much tougher sentences for those found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of the crime, not for lenience towards those found beyond reasonable doubt to have made malicious and false accusations of it. If the penalty does fit the crime, then by definition falsely and maliciously accusing an innocent person of that crime is as bad as committing it, and the legal punishment should be just as tough. Why isn't she in prison?

Women's group no friend to women

I'm not sure if I want the New York lawyer taking Columbia University to court for offering women's studies but not men's studies to succeed. But I don't think one has to in order to find this kind of response repugnant:

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organisation for Women, said: "They have a men's studies department: It's called 'history', 'politics', 'business'. It's the entire university. It's all about men's studies."

Yeah - history, politics, business. Obviously no woman would have any reason to take an interest in any of that. Ugh. Does it need to be said any more that militant feminism is so often the worst enemy of women?

Remembering Leo Abse

Obituaries elsewhere are saying plenty on the politics of Leo Abse, the former Labour MP who died today, and they were certainly interesting. A convinced unilateralist, Abse opposed even the Falklands war – but he had no time for Tony Benn and appeared to think John Smith the ideal Labour leader. He sponsored the private members bill that legalised homosexuality - and he was a passionate opponent of abortion. As I say, an interesting set of convictions.

But I really only know Abse from his books. I think it was Iain Dale who described Abse's Margaret, daughter of Beatrice as the weirdest book one is ever likely to read on the former Prime Minister. Abse seemingly let his Freudianism inform every page – and so everything from Thatcher’s polices on inflation to her attitude to nuclear weapons is predictably brought back to, well, you can guess.

The irony is that Abse himself was a brilliant observer of other politicians. When he abandoned the mumbo-jumbo and applied his own thinking to those he encountered, he showed himself to be a far better psychologist than Freud (of whom the best mainstream scientists are likely to say today is that he was on to something). In his book on Thatcher, and in others like Private Member and Blair: The Man Behind the Smile, Abse profiled figures he knew such as Sir Keith Joseph, Hugh Gaitskell and Enoch Powell so well that some years later I remember his accounts as if I read them this morning. All this backed up by a vocabulary that, though not 'accessible', was brilliant. I think I’ve observed elsewhere on this blog that of all who observe and write on modern British politics, only Leo Abse and Matthew Parris seem to have any real insight into the psychology of politicians. Now, sadly, we’re down to one.

This is, again, a Conservative country

Guardian journalist Andrew Sparrow reviews the recent PoliticsHomeIndex poll showing William Hague to be the most admired politician in Britain and draws these conclusions on how politicians can do well:

1. Don't be a member of this government
2. Don't take decisions that offend people
3. Tell jokes

Of these, I think the first tells the real story of the poll, and of the new political environment. Sparrow notes that "There are currently 23 names on the list. According to the latest figures, Hague is top, followed by Cable, Boris Johnson and David Cameron. They are the only four with net approval ratings."

As someone who became seriously interested in politics about a decade ago, and saw a lot of bad years follow for the Conservatives, I still find I am not used to the new political environment in Britain. Who would have predicted with any confidence even five years ago that by now three of the four most admired politicians would be the Conservative leader, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Tory Mayor of London? I struggle to absorb poll after poll and election after election being so fiercely positive, but all seem to tell the story of a consistent and genuine public enthusiasm for a Conservative government.

Who will be Britain's first Pavlik Morozov?

Others have already noted some unfortunate historical precedents for the creepy new campaign to have children keep records of 'climate crimes' committed by their parents - such as leaving a mobile phone charger plugged in and refrigerating hot food. I'm at once reminded of Pavlik Morozov, a Soviet boy who was supposedly murdered by his grandparents for shopping his parents to the authorities. Stalin's regime lionised the boy as a martyr to the idea of the socialist cause taking precedence over all else, including private family life.

Perhaps we ought to put up a statue to Pavlik Morozov in London, to symbolise Britain's robust approach to combating increases in global temperatures by any means necessary!

'Credit crunch' divorces suggest fiscal incentives for marriage may work

The Economist recently had a fascinating piece on how the economic downturn may be affecting the divorce rate. Wives of high-earners seem to be walking out at a higher rate, fearing their husbands' earning power will fall and wanting the divorce settlement to be based on current earnings. But middle class couples, their wealth overwhelmingly reflected in the falling price of their house, may stick together more because it seems a bad time to sell and mortgage lenders are more stingy with the credit needed to buy.

It's a decidedly unromantic look at why some couples do and don't stay together, but it does just further demonstrate that central insight of economics that incentives really matter. It also doesn't seem much of a stretch to draw another conclusion: if these financial incentives make a difference to whether some couples stay together, so we can expect the same of David Cameron's proposals to recognise and incentivise marriage in the tax system.

A few things you may not know about Google

Google is deceptively simple - anyone can learn to use it in seconds. But I cannot recommend enough learning some of the more obscure commands and features. Searching through many, many results isn't usually necessary, as there are a lot of ways to refine searches beyond adding more terms. GoogleGuide.com provides huge detail on these features, but here's my five minute version.

How not to oppose agricultural subsidies

With much competition, the Common Agricultural Policy is among the worst of the EU's many projects. There are all sorts of good arguments for cutting agricultural subsidies - the cost to the taxpayer, the cost to the consumer, the market distortions and opportunity costs. But this, from The Independent's Johann Hari, is how not to make the case:

At the moment, the EU and US spend more than $16bn a year on propping up our farmers. The poor world can barely afford to spend anything on theirs, and when they try, they are hectored and bullied by the World Trade Organisation to stop this 'trade distortion'. So when African farmers compete with European and American farmers on the international market, they start $14bn behind.

Here's what it means on the ground. If you are a farmer in Malawi and you take your chicken to market to sell, you are competing against European and American chickens that are being sold way below the market price. You can never catch up. African business dies there, at the moment of birth. The people who most need help get a kick in the gut instead.

So if the US and EU really were cutting most of their agricultural subsidies, it would be a great advance for humanity. Millions of Africans who will live hungry and die young today suddenly would have a chance at a decent life.

Yes, you read that right: millions are starving in Africa, he argues, because US and EU agricultural subsides make food there too cheap.

In Hobbesian Britain, carrying a knife is often rational

David Eyles’ thoughtful piece on the Platform today makes the obvious point that law-abiding people have plenty of legitimate reasons to carry knives some of the time, and highlights the dangers of reversing the burden of proof so that anyone who does so must prove their intentions were innocent.

I am inclined to go further and enter the head of a young person growing up on one of the many estates that exist in so many places in Britain where marriages don’t happen, fathers don’t raise their children and the welfare state pays far more bills than does work. It is easy to empathise with the Dorset farmer who needs a knife to do his job, but what about the teenager or twenty-something who grows up on such an estate? Much as he might cause middle aged hearts to skip a beat when he gets on the same tube carriage as they do, he is not especially tough or intimidating compared to his neighbours. Even if he is, what family he has may not be, and he worries about their safety whenever he hears about the latest mugging, burglary or stabbing. Even if he is confident of his ability to face-down the violence and intimidation that are a continuing part of his existence when it comes from a single person, he can hardly be sure of his ability to take on three or four inner city youths who take against him. Police are almost never seen on these streets, and if they ever do turn up to prosecute someone, the sentences are paltry.

Muslim extremists are a minority, but not a tiny minority

Today' YouGov poll of Muslim students in Britain makes for mostly grim reading. The Centre for Social Cohesion, which commissioned the poll, has published its full report Islam on Campus on its web site. The Executive Summary notes:

• 32% of Muslim students in Britain believe that killing in the name of Islam can be justified.
• 40% support sharia law for Muslims in Britain and 33% support a global Caliphate based on sharia law.
• 40% believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to mix freely.
• 57% said that British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of taking part in military operations in Muslim countries.

Demos meets Hamas

The left of centre think tank Demos has largely acknowledged that the IslamExpo, which took place this weekend, was a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front. But it took part anyway. Over at Harry's Place, Peter Demos' Peter Harrington today explains why. Nick Cohen's response is withering.

"Such impertinence!"

Complaints about Germans' sense of humour have been overstated if this thoroughly enjoyable six minute (subtitled) video is anything to go by. A German news crew sets up its cameras in the European Parliament to film MEPs turning up at 7am to claim their daily expenses and then heading straight home. Before long, MEPs are fleeing to the lifts and hiding their faces from the cameras. Their shame ends when they chillingly persuade the Parliament to kick out the film crew so that they can continue to cheat on their expenses unobserved. Of course, the Parliament obliges.

(Link from David Frum, who comments: "It's good to be a Euro MP! 14,000 euros a month in salary and allowances - and the right to eject from the building any journalists who asks, never mind how politely, whether you actually showed up for work on days you claimed credit.")

Re: To have-a-go, or not to have-a-go

Many people are quite rationally very scared of feral yobs and street hooligans. But even more are just as reasonably afraid of the legal consequences if they do show the courage to act. Cases like this are all too typical:

A former soldier who made a citizen’s arrest on a yob terrorising his home was then arrested himself – on suspicion of kidnap.

Frank McCourt endured a three-month legal ordeal while the yob and his gang went unpunished.

This Speaker is doing genuine harm

That Betty Boothroyd was famously very popular in places like Japan was, in a minor way, a tribute to this country's democracy. That her successor as Speaker inspires no such following is also telling.

Watching the current Speaker oversee parliamentary debates can be an uncomfortable, baffling experience. Why, when he sees fit to quieten hecklers and other misbehaviour, must he do so in a pathetic, pleading way or - more often - must he do so openly giggling along? If it's not that serious, why intervene? This is a Speaker apparently uncomfortable about asserting the slightest authority and so constantly descending, David Brent-like, into efforts to show "I'm one of you, really - I don't take this stuff seriously".

While Washington is in limbo ...

Among the more macabre online political bets that have been available for some time are spread bets on when America might attack Iran. Increasingly, foreign affairs commentators are suggesting than such an attack is more likely from Israel, whose interest in preventing Iran gaining nuclear weapons is even clearer. The Economist quotes John Bolton as he suggests one possible time-frame - November 2008 to January 2009:

"Israel may think the best time to attack would be during America’s presidential transition—too late to be accused of influencing the election and before needing a new president’s green light."

"Privileged white men ... get a taste of their own medicine"

Cath Elliott, writing for the Guardian web site, was asked in a job interview 23 years ago if she planned to leave and have children. Now, she crows "quite frankly I really couldn't care less if privileged white men are about to get a taste of their own medicine" (before implausibly denying that Harman's so-called Equality Bill does just that).

How well those words capture the real ugliness of militant feminism and race-baiting. Of course, her then-interviewer almost certainly won't be adversely affected by this legislation. But righting wrongs and achieving justice for individuals is not the point - if it were, she would believe in colour-blind hiring. Instead, other "privileged white men" must serve as proxies for their sex and racial grouping, and "get a taste of their own medicine" as a penalty for past wrongs by others who have a Y chromosome and share their skin colour. She admits freely she doesn't care who they are - for her, being white and male is enough to make them suffer.