RKBA UK III

At least, I think it's my third post with that title. Anyway, gun rights historian and blogger Clayton Cramer had a great analysis of the state of English law on the subject of armed self-defense in the home on an e-mail list, which he has graciously allowed me to post here:

Unfortunately, British law, at least from what I have read about how the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 was written and is interpreted by the courts, doesn't give any ... benefit to the resident. As the law has practically been used (and as has happened in the Martin case), the law establishes a level playing field between an intruder and his victim with respect to use of deadly force. You can use a gun against an intruder if he has a gun, and gives you reason to believe that he is going to use it against you.

I happen to think this is an extraordinarily stupid law. If everyone was equally strong, in equally good health, criminals didn't rely on unfair advantages (like a concealed handgun or knife), and didn't engage in unsporting behavior like multiple intruders (as was the case with Martin), this sort of Marquis of Queensberry rules approach might be mildly supportable in an academic "Wouldn't the world be wonderful if we could all get along?" sort of way. The problem is that Offences Against The Person Act was written when Britons, even criminals, seemed to operate on a more civilized level.

I think this is right, even if there's room for quibbling at the margins about what the law does and doesn't allow. Remember that British police have never been routinely armed with anything other than a truncheon. The reason for that must surely be that they expected villains to give up and come quietly, and presumably those expectations used to be met regularly. On a side note, I remember reading somewhere about how policemen giving chase to some particularly ruthless (for the time) armed criminals in Tottenham in the Edwardian era borrowed firearms from passers-by to defend themselves. Ah yes, the Edwardian era. Just like Dodge City, wasn't it?

Anyway, Clayton also has a useful survey of the reasons why firearms restrictions were imposed on Britons in the first place. It wasn't because of gunplay in the streets. The title of the piece might give you a clue -- Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920. I recommend it if you haven't looked at this subject before.

Psychic Prison

Another friend, Eli Lehrer, has an excellent review of a new book by Yale's James Q. Whitman. Whitman has a thesis for why Europeans and Americans treat their prisoners differently:

Over time, Whitman believes, status-conscious France and Germany began to treat nearly all criminals in the dignified manner once reserved for members of the nobility and political prisoners. America, disdainful of such status distinctions since the Revolution, came to treat everyone in the low-status manner befitting peasants and common criminals. The United States, he argues, moved to one-size-fits-all vengeance while Europe moved towards individualized, nurturing justice. American justice thus "tends not to treat offenders with respect"--which puts the nation at peril through its indifference to suffering.

A nice theory, Eli suggests, but what about reality? Eli, who is a genuine expert in these matters, takes a look at comparative crime rates and other useful indicators. He then looks at the practice in prisons today.

Whitman has visited German prisons and read German guard-training manuals, but he doesn't appear to have done the same in the United States--and so he makes much out of European training-manual provisions and legal precedents requiring respectful treatment of prisoners, but he seems unaware that similar provisions also exist in the United States. French prisons, as Whitman concedes, are in some ways worse than their American counterparts. While he makes much of policies allowing French prisoners to wear their own clothes and have other petty comforts, he really doesn't make a convincing case that Europeans as a whole are much nicer to prisoners than Americans overall. They simply let them out of prison more quickly and suffer higher crime rates as a result. More disturbingly, Whitman's book has a strangely anti-democratic subtext. Whitman has many kind words for unelected European bureaucrats who run prison systems and, in one absurd passage, compares America's long prison sentences to Nazi torch-light rallies because both "lend themselves naturally to mobilizing mass support."

My first prison study for Civitas, available in PDF form via their website, takes a look at current approaches to the rehabilitation of offenders in the US. I'd venture to suggest that the best American programs put anything tried in Europe in the shade.

Income Inequality: Not What You Think

Very interesting study mentioned by the Dallas based think tank NCPA - Overcoming Wage Inequality. It seems that, despite increasing earnings inequality, this does not mean that some people are doomed to be poor while others are sat on great piles of cash forever. Here's how the NCPA summarizes the study, which you can get in PDF format by following the link:

One way to think about mobility is to array wage earners into fifths, ranging from the lowest income quintile to the highest quintile. Mobility is then measured by the movement among the quintiles over time. Even after a single year, there is considerable movement:

* After one year, about one-third of the workers who were in the bottom income quintile move to a higher quintile; and about one-quarter who were in the top quintile move to a lower one.
* Of those who were originally in the intermediate three quintiles, about half move to another quintile.

There is even more movement over longer periods. Comparing the wages of workers of the same age over a 15-year time period:

* The percent of workers who remained in the same quintile after one year was 60 percent.
* The percent remaining in the same quintile fell to 43 percent after five years, to 33 percent after 10 years, and to 29 percent after 15 years.

These results also point to the importance of knowledge and skill, as measured by education and experience, in facilitating economic mobility. Individuals who have responded to the incentives implicit in the increased earnings inequality have experienced the greatest mobility. The implication is that public policies providing individuals and their families greater freedom and opportunity to invest in themselves and their children will have the greatest positive impact on economic success.

The next time you hear someone spout that tired old cliche, "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer," remember this.

Blair: Labour's Best Weapon?

Roger does double duty in his analysis Blair Two Years On. Again, interesting reading. MORI's likely voters survey puts Labour on 39 percent, the Tories on 31 percent and the Lib Dems on 22 percent. This can't be good news for Conservative Central Office.

However, there's one question I want to see answered in a poll. It's "How would you vote if Gordon Brown were Labour leader?". Given that Blair's approval rate is 38%, but his government's is 30%, I'd say a sizeable proportion of that lead is down to Blair's continuing dominance of the center ground of British politics. Without Blair, I think Labour would be in big trouble. Perhaps some loyal Blairites might start taking soundings about the possibility of such a poll, hmm?

God's Work

My friend Roger Mortimore has a fascinating MORI commentary column looking at how Britain has changed since 1950. The answer is a lot in some areas, surprisingly little in others. Read the whole thing, but this struck me as particularly interesting:

Perhaps going hand in hand with the decline of a structured society is the erosion of the religious foundations on which it was once built. One tends to suppose that in the 1950s, Britain was predominantly a church-going (and of course Christian) society, whereas this is no longer the case. In fact, nominal church membership has not fallen precipitately: in 1951 the estimated baptised membership of the Church of England was 624 for every 1,000 in the population; by 1996, it was still 511. [Source: Butler & Butler, "Twentieth Century British Political Facts".] In the 2001 census (the first to include a question on religion), 72% identified themselves as Christians and a further 5% as belonging to other religions - although many of these can be only nominal adherents, since when we asked in a 2000 survey only 62% of the adult public said they believed in God. (The census figure, it should be noted, includes children as well as adults.) Churchgoing is much lower than theoretical adherence to a religion, of course: in 1957, only 14% of adults said they had been to church on the previous (February) Sunday. By 1993, attendance had fallen to the extent that only 18% said that they ever went to church on a Sunday, but it was clearly a minority activity even at the time of the coronation.

But what has certainly changed is that there is more acceptance of "new age" spiritualism, and other supernatural phenomena, as well as scepticism about organised religion. One 1999 MORI Social Values question gets at this trend quite neatly: 65% of the public agree that "Personal spiritual experience is more important to me than belonging to a church". This leads to what some would describe as a more credulous society. For example, in January 1950, only 10% of the public told Gallup they believed in ghosts, and just 2% thought they had seen one. By 1998 we found that 40% now said they believed in ghosts, and 15% that they had "personal experience" of ghosts; 6% of the public, indeed, said they had based a decision on their belief in ghosts. In 1951, only 7% of the public said they believed in foretelling the future by cards and 6% by stars; in 1998, 18% of the public said they believed in fortune telling or tarot, and 38% in astrology (though we didn't ask specifically about using it to foretell the future).

In other words, the people of Britain want to be religious. The Church however (see my arguments here passim) has abrogated its role as instructor of the nation, preferring to talk about nuclear weapons and gay marriages, and the other Christian churches have seen fit to follow its lead, amazingly, which has of course left the door open for spiritualist looniness.

What all this means for Niall Ferguson's theory that European economic decline has been caused by religious decline, I don't know, but I think it weakens them. One correspondent mentioned that there is probably a clearer correlation between the rise of the welfare state and the decline in religion (if the State helps you out, why worry about God?) than anything Ferguson worries about. I'm inclined to agree. It would also explain why, given Britain's relatively early welfare state, church-going was so low in the 50s, as Roger helpfully reminds us.

Looking at the stars, clearly from the gutter

Remember the book and film "Longitude" and how John Harrison was frustrated at every turn by a rival scientist with foolish ideas who was eventually appointed Astronomer Royal, using which position he blocked Harrison's proper reward? Well, it looks like one of his successors is following in his footsteps.

The cosmologist ... says the most frightening risks are probably man-made.

"A hundred years ago, the nuclear threat wasn't even predicted ... but that threat still hasn't gone away," he said.

The arms race, after all, was fueled by science, and the field has a responsibility to inform a wide public of the risks in deciding how to apply scientific breakthroughs, he added.

"For the first time ever, human nature itself isn't fixed. Biotech drugs and genetic engineering are empowering individuals more than ever before," Rees said.

With rapidly advancing DNA technology, "even a single person could cause a disaster," Rees warned, ... Thousands of people have the ability to engineer viruses and bacteria to cause deadly plagues. Even if one such "weirdo" didn't kill many people, that type of biological terrorism would profoundly change daily life, the scientist warned.

Nanotechnology -- the subject of a recent Michael Crichton thriller about the havoc caused by runaway microscopic machines -- are also a potent threat, he said.

If the field advances far enough, rogue self-replicating nanotechnology machines -- feeding on organic material and spreading like pollen -- could devastate a continent within a few days, Rees said.

The dangers of global warming are also addressed in the book, subtitled "A scientist's warning: How terror, error, and environmental disaster threaten humankind's future in this century -- on Earth and beyond."

Rees does not discount the possibility of disaster caused by scientific experiments involving particle accelerators. "Perhaps a black hole could form, and then suck in everything around it," he cautions.

And there's always the chance that this idiot could spontaneously combust, killing several Guardian reporters nearby. The office of Astronomer Royal should emphatically not be used to terrify people into believing that science is a bad thing, yet this is precisely what he's doing here.

So what does the Silly Asstronomer Royal think should be done?

The British scientist calls for better regulation and inspection of sensitive data and experiments.

"We need to keep track of those who have potentially lethal knowledge," Rees said.

That's it! Let's nationalize all science for the public good, and while we're at it, let's make sure we keep the dangerous intellectuals in camps. Hmmm. What could we call them? Gulags, perhaps?

Walker's Crisp Analysis

Martin Walker's National Review Online article today points out something that needs to be looked at closely:

... the striking characteristic of the Bush administration on Europe, as France and Germany explore an openly anti-American policy, is that outside the Pentagon there is no policy. Congress holds no hearings. Other than finally threatening legal action against the EU's scientifically unjustified barriers against genetically modified U.S. food exports, the U.S. Trade Representative explores no other options. When the Estonians are ordered by Brussels to start raising their tariffs on American goods as a condition of joining the EU, Washington is silent.

Maybe they are simply discouraged. Twice in the 1990s then-U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and his EU counterpart, Leon Brittain, negotiated a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement. Each time, the French vetoed it. Today, the Doha Round of world-trade liberalization is endangered by the EU's difficulty in scrapping its protectionist farm policies in the teeth of French vetoes. ...

Neither Congress and the administration has yet paid much attention to the EU convention, chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, that is drafting a new European constitution. And yet in Giscard's proposals for a strong EU presidency, a common foreign and defense policy and an increasingly uniform judicial system, the implications for U.S. interests are serious.

This is true. The Pentagon knows who its friends and enemies are. No-one else is willing to face the unpleasant truth. Yet Walker's suggested solutions strike me as quite reasonable:

The Bush administration would have allies all across Europe and the rest of the world if they openly singled out France for confrontation. The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve would also have support is they pressed the question why the European Central Bank and the eurozone economy are stagnating and helping bring down the wider global economy. And it's odd that so few people in the U.S. media or politics wonder why not.

The U.S. Congress might find it useful to explore Kissinger's idea of joint hearings with the European Parliament into issues like farm-trade obstructionism. The price they might have to pay could be other contentious hearings on the Kyoto Protocol and global warming, or on U.S. policies in the Middle East. Fine. Bring it on. Americans have arguments here that too few Europeans have heard.

Those last points are important. My recent work on global warming tells me quite how far the science has moved on since Kyoto, and it ain't in the direction the Europeans think it has. And we all know how little Europe hears of the moderate and/or Israeli views on the Middle East. As Martin says, bring it on.

Crying Wolf

The often excellent Martin Wolf departs from the Financial Times' "Euro NOW!" party line in his analysis of the Euro decision. There's some very pretty graphs, and the models of what might have happened if we'd joined the Euro/EMU back in 1999 are not encouraging for Euro enthusiasts. Yet, in the end, Wolf recognizes that this is a political, not an economic matter:

Where does this leave us? In limbo, is the answer. That is also where we are likely to remain for some time. I, for one, think that is the right decision for a country as sceptical as the UK about the implications of the currency union. And if you doubt this scepticism, take a look at how the government has approached this decision. It is because of British doubts that it has stressed the need for a clear and unambiguous assessment only of the economics. Not so much through its substance as through its style, this entire exercise shows that the British are not ready for membership.

That's something the FT/WSJ internationalist types need to hear.

Holier than thou?

Well, following Tim Blair's example I took the how dodgy are you? test (dodgy being a British euphemism for villainous) and, erm, got the following result:

In the clear
You can stand up straight and walk tall, no one's after you, unless they're trying to nick something from you! It's good to behave 100% correctly and to the letter of the law, though it's hardly life on the edge…

Based on your answers, we have calculated the maximum penalty for your crimes*:

Years in prison: 0 Potential fine: £0

As I said on Tim's site, I'm now looking around for some stones that I can be the first to cast...

Don't tell Michael Moore!

In Cambodia, the environmentalist groups are going heavily armed. They also are beginning to understand the plight of the native population. I wonder if they'll come back with a healthier respect for gun rights and economic development?

Railroad Tycoons?

Fascinating article by George Trefgarne in the Telegraph about how not to run a railway. The Third Way just doesn't work:

Network Rail is not a joint stock company, but something called a not for profit company. You can say that again. Network Rail made a loss of £290 million in the year to March, and without some fancy accounting, it would have been much worse.

The Government has effectively had to underwrite Network Rail's £21 billion of debts (although yet more financial engineering has kept this mighty sum off the Treasury's books). Driven by cries about safety, spending is out of control and the company will swallow £12 billion in subsidy by 2006.

Despite burning through all this money, the Network Rail locomotive has allowed delays to rise nine per cent in the past year. A fare increase for passengers is imminent. Costs are so high and service levels so poor that one of its biggest customers, the Royal Mail, is abandoning mail trains after 170 years.

Instead of shareholders, Network Rail has 116 members, including busybodies from the Crime Concern Trust, the Royal Association for Disability & Rehabilitation, trade unions, and the Cyclist's Touring Club. They are entirely unaccountable. Standards of corporate governance and disclosure are extremely poor.

The members' role has a contradiction at the heart of it. We are told they have "similar rights to those of shareholders in a public company", yet "no financial or economic interest" in whether Network works.

Ah, the stakeholder society at, erm, work...

Network Rail is a sort of Third Way on wheels. Tom Winsor, the rail regulator, believes it is a nonsense. He says a company with no shareholders is hard to incentivise. If he fined Railtrack for poor performance, it came out of shareholders' pockets.

But Network Rail has no shareholders, so just passes a fine on to the taxpayer or passengers in higher costs. "Shareholders with money at stake," said Winsor, "are far more likely to be responsive than public interest members.''

Trefgarne begins his article by telling how the joint stock company worked so well for so many years that Labour just had to improve on it by adding regulations, diktats and codes. Interestingly, that's precisely what regulatory bodies are trying to achieve over here in many other areas than just transport. Funny how "stakeholders" can achieve through agencies what lobby groups can't through Congress.

The Bownian Version

I have to say I was distinctly unimpressed by Gordon Brown's announcement that Her Majesty's Treasury doesn't think the Euro will be good for Britain -- yet. In particular, I was annoyed by the full steam ahead annoucement that he will order the supposedly independent Bank of England about:

He said the Bank of England would be told to change the current inflation target of 2.5%, and that a new Europe-wide measure of inflation would be used.

So much for the most widely-praised decision of his Chancellorship. In any event, I think the Telegraph summed up Gordo's stance the best:

Supporters of the euro have, by and large, accepted these facts of life. They agree, reluctantly, that Britain would at present be foolish to contract out its interest rates to Frankfurt. But they want the Government to bring about economic convergence. Convergence, one wonders, with what? With Euro-land's unemployment rate? With its burdensome regulations? With its high taxes?

If so, Gordon Brown is their man. One by one, the Chancellor has been ironing out the things that used to make Britain different from its neighbours, joining the social chapter, buying euros and, above all, raising taxes.

Significantly, his new taxes have been in areas where Britain used to enjoy a competitive edge over the rest of Europe. We had many more private pensions, so he taxed them. We had a higher rate of home ownership, so he raised stamp duty to continental levels. Now he has brought social security levies into line with the EU through his swingeing rise in National Insurance. How Mr Brown has come to be thought of as a eurosceptic is one of the wonders of our age.

I've always said Brown was untrustworthy of Euroskeptic support. This pronouncement underlines why.

The Telegraph also puts forward a powerful case for five real tests of economic performance for Britain:

1. Higher productivity. Britain has just slipped back into fifth place among the world's economies, behind France. Mr Brown's propensity to meddle brought a halt to the extraordinary surge in productivity which Britain enjoyed until 1997. His finicky schemes have created perverse incentives in the private sector, and raised costs for businesses.

2. Lower taxes. (And, equally important, simpler taxes.) Taxes are rising faster in Britain than in any other industrialised nation. The sheer complexity of the system is quite as harmful as the overall burden.

3. Public service reform. If nothing else, Labour has done us a favour by proving beyond any doubt that spending more on the public services does not necessarily improve them.

4. Fewer regulations. No government has imposed so many new rules on our businesses. A recent survey by the British Chamber of Commerce showed, with pretty convincing methodology, that the total cost of these regulations has been at least £20 billion since Labour came to power.

5. A balanced budget. At present, Mr Brown aims to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio steady over the economic cycle. This means, preposterously, that when the economy is growing, he aims to borrow more. A better target would be no net borrowing over the cycle.

Meeting these tests, of course, would make us less rather than more like the rest of the EU. Yet they would make Britain a wealthier country. There you have Labour's problem.

I think this makes a better Tory manifesto than Kelvin Mackenzie's...

Meanwhile, what do they think in Euroland? I find it particularly interesting that even the BBC correspondents find that Europeans just can't be bothered...

The European Central Bank President, Wim Duisenberg, put it thus: "I know why (Britain should join). I just don't know when"...

While Italians have accepted their new currency, and the loss of the lira, it has been less easy to accept the huge rise in prices that came with it.

They welcome the newfound freedom to travel without changing money, but mention the euro, and you will instantly be told that prices have doubled, yet wages have not.

For this reason, Britain's reluctance to join doesn't surprise people in Rome. ...

... few [Spaniards] feel passionately enough about the issue of the single currency to hold a grudge if Britain chooses not to join.

"If they want to keep the pound that's fine by me too," says Iguacelle Mateus, a young woman who lives and works in Madrid. ...

In this enthusiastically pro-European nation, Irish people know full well that the British have a pretty different take on Europe.

And the French?

Alain, a 50-year old doctor, comments: "I wonder sometimes whose side the British are on - Europe's or America's. I'd like Britain to join the euro, but the British will have to decide first which is more important to them." ...

Only one person disagreed - Sybille, a 25-year old Parisian student. She said that by siding with America on Iraq, Britain had ruled itself out of Europe, and did not deserve to participate in the single currency.

Actually, I happen to agree with Sybille. We don't deserve it. Naughty old us. Right, we'll be off then...

Bloggers: America's Tabloids?

Interesting side-note in the Times article attributing Howell Raines' downfall to bloggers:

The “screw-ups” were obsessively tracked by bloggers. Like British tabloid newspapers in hot pursuit of a wounded politician, they never gave up on their quarry.

Interesting. The US, of course, has no equivalent to the attack-dogs of British political journalism. Could it be that blogs are filling that ecological niche? Interesting also that they should go after the media first, an indication if I ever saw one of the Fourth Estate's arrogance and vulnerability.

I was, however, disappointed by this comment:

Nevertheless, the clearest example of the bloggers’ ability to take scalps was the forced resignation of Trent Lott, the Republican Senate leader, after he was vilified for making a racist remark at a southern politician’s 100th birthday celebration last year.

Only when left-wing bloggers began to make a fuss did newspapers such as The New York Times begin to notice that anything was amiss. Eventually Lott was shunned by the left and the right, including Bush.

Pardon me, but wasn't it the "right-wing" and libertarian-leaning blogs that made the early running and unsettled the Republican Party, thereby enabling this to be a nonpartisan issue? Of course the Times and the rest didn't notice until the leftists got involved, but even so...

Red Roses

I'd like to agree with other people's endorsements of Oliver Kamm's new blog. He is, apparently, a former Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club. Quite a few people who occupied that position during my time are now MPs. Interestingly, none of the people who occupied the Presidency of the Oxford University Conservative Association are, although that should change at the next election.

Blair and WMDs: part I

Jst a quick post to say what I thought of Tony Blair's performance in Prime Minister's Question Time (it's broadcast on the excellent C-SPAN cable channel over here at 9pm on Sundays). It was a robust performance, I thought, stating a coherent position articulately. The Joint Intelligence Committee agreed with everything he and other Ministers said, there were no orders to "sex up" the documents, no evidence to the contrary has been produced bar some unattributed remarks from down the food-chain in the intelligence service and, generally, the accusers don't know what they're talking about. I think I believe him.

The trouble is, as IDS said, the country at large does not. The accusation that the Government lied about WMDs has stuck, because it fits in with a pattern of mendacity, spin and half-truths that the people have associated with Labour. Interestingly, Tony was happy to use his own version during PMQs -- the lie that the Tories will impose spending cuts of 20% across the board, something that the public believes because it fits with the pattern it accepts of the Tories as hard-hearted stealers of baby milk (this goes all the way back to Mrs Thatcher's time as Education Secretary).

Assuming that Brown's economic train goes off the rails some time in the next couple of years, leading Labour to lose its reputation for economic competence, it seems clear to me that the next election will be fought between these two negative images (the Liberal Democrats, of course, are seen as lightweight opportunist know-nothings). And people complain about negative campaigning in the US...

I hope to have more to say on what I think about the whole WMD business tomorrow.

Hiatus

Well, given that I'm interning at the National Economic Council, the rules of the road require that I do not take part in any journalism. Whilst I am in withdrawal, I should explain my hiatus.. I'll be back in a few months.

Museum Update

Even the BBC is now reporting that Baghdad's archaeological treasures are 'mostly intact'. The total number of artefacts missing is now down from 170,000 to 3,000, 47 of them important (in the great scheme of things). Most of the artefacts were stored off-site. Now that number is still far too high, but it shows that if the US army had been stationed at the museum earlier, it's likely that all they would have been protecting was documents. Important in themselves, but not worth soldiers' lives being endangered. My ancient historian training overcame my skeptical training when I castigated the general staff for not taking better care of the museum, and for that I apologize.

Meanwhile, they have also found 39,000 manuscripts from the Saddam House of Manuscripts, which I believe (I may be wrong -- there are several different collections) had been desribed as burned. Grateful for clarification.

The New Warsaw Pact

Good news from Poland. The referendum on EU membership there has had a low turnout so far. Failure to achieve the 50% threshold will not quash the proposal, but it will send a powerful message.

Something else that speaks volumes is the identity of someone who voted "Yes." Remember this guy?

One "Yes" voter who raised a few eyebrows was Poland's Soviet-era military dictator, General Wojciech Jaruzelski.

"[Once] I would have said that [Polish EU entry] was science fiction, the theatre of the absurd," the 79-year-old former leader told reporters.

"It's a new reality and you have to take it into account. I took account of it by voting for Poland's entry into the EU."

Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic noted how so many of the Soviet-era rules they repealed after the fall of the Berlin Wall were in the process of being reinstated as part of the accession procedures. I believe Mikhael Gorbachev himself has compared the EU to the Soviet Union.

The question ought to be asked in Beltway circles, "Did we really win the Cold War?"

The Intangibles

An interesting argument below with Guessedworker (please don't roll over - you have me worried) has made me want to post. I'd like to see what ya'll think of this thought of mine regarding the unification of Europe into one "country".

The elitists of the EU beauracracy want to create a "superstate" just like the US but they seem perfectly clueless as to what makes all fifty of the US states one. These elites think it is just a process of merging tangibles. That all they have to do to make a unified Europe is create a single set of tangibles such as one monetary unit, one set of laws, one military, etc. and, ta da, Europe is one. But that's not going to work because the intangibles are more important.

The principal intangible is patriotism. The bond that holds us all together. It is the belief everyone shares that even though you just arrived here, George Washington is your Founding Father. I hate to use this term but it is indoctrination (a good version, but nonetheless). You know, learning about our Founding Fathers, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the national anthemn at every event sporting or otherwise, etc., etc. Every citizen passes a test proving their knowledge of their new country. Every child in the US goes through it or at least did until recently. It is a rite of passage that unites us all. (Oh, and rites of passage are big here in the states too.)

Liberal elites tend to pooh, pooh these acts. They don't understand the importance of patriotism and don't want to assimilate "outsiders". But the common bond of patriotism is vital when you have people from so many different places under one roof. And that is what the EU is supposed to be, right? One big supercountry?

When push comes to shove, Americans believe we are all one people. You mess with one of us, you mess with us all. If the People of Europe don't believe they are one at this same deep reptilian-brain-level as we Americans, then the EU ain't goin' nowhere. Few pro-EU types seem to understand that a sense of european patriotism is vital to a unified Europe. A patriotism based on commonality with each other, not an anti-something else stance. The problem with this for the EU elitists is that it actually takes more time and effort than they are willing to put into the project, let alone having a belief in patriotism. So they are going to hodgepodge the tangibles together and when the Germans and Greeks realize they have nothing in common but some pieces of paper, well then all heck is gonna break loose.

Caput in rectum usque ad faeces

That's the schoolboy Latin translation of the phrase Kris used to describe French philosophe Emmanuel Todd in his interview in Prospect Magazine. (A publication I used to describe as Blairite. Either it, however, has moved to the Left or Blair has moved to the Right because I think he'd roll his eyes at some of the rubbish contained therein these days). I used to subscribe to it -- I even had a letter published in it once -- but cancelled my subscription after realizing how tedious its tone was getting. For some reason, however, a copy dropped through my letterbox this month, which enabled us to read the Todd interview, which is not available for free on the web site.

With good reason, I think. The interview would have been fisked each way to Sunday by every blog to the right of Junius. I'm not going to bother, but I present here edited (not Dowded) highlights, so you can judge what a pompous, arrogant, self-satsfied spouter of idiotic assertions the man is. I have, however, added emphasis to some choice phrases:

MM: ... you speak of the fall of the US, which has just won the war in Iraq. How come?

ET: The war against Iraq was a military absurdity. The US won a victory over a country with a barefoot army which had been bled dry. It demonstrated its military omnipotence in Iraq in order to hide its economic weaknesses. True rivalry will no longer be settled using military force. The real counterbalance to the US is found in Europe, Russia, China and Japan. The main battlefield will be the economic sector. ... Actually, I like the US a great deal. Until recently, it was the most important factor in maintaining international order. But now it is a factor for instability. The industrial core of the US has been hollowed out. The American trade deficit amounts to $435bn a year. The country needs $1.5bn a day in foreign capital. The US is no longer self-sufficient. Europe, with its strength in exports, is. ... The US was the undisputed victor of the 20th century. Now it has difficulty in recognising its own dependence. Hitherto, the Europeans envied the US its standard of living and technological power. This generated a certain modesty. Nowadays the US leads only in military terms. In most spheres the Europeans have overtaken it.

MM: But Europe has been torn apart politically.

ET: Europe's strength is based on economic integration, which is independent of political decisions. Whether governments in eastern Europe like it or not, they are economically tied to Europe and Russia. The only things they can get from America are weapons; America cannot export anything else. The US has created dissidents in "new" Europe, but the latter still depend on "old" Europe and Russia. Turkey realised this and has kept its distance from the US. ... In conjunction with France, there is a core of political renewal independent of the US and with mass popular support. Spain, Britain, Italy and the east Europeans represent the "old" Europe, since they have not yet achieved autonomy. ... I hope that the British will find their way back into Europe. The driving force behind this will be the renewed violence and arrogance of the Americans. The British will realise of their own accord that they belong to Europe's community of values.

MM: What about the war on terror?

ET: The omnipresence of terrorism is a powerful myth, thanks to which the US has assumed the right to crusade around the world, whether in the Philippines, in Yemen or in Iraq. The US wants to keep the world on tenterhooks by means of this permanent state of war. But military methods don't help in the fight against terrorism. Only police and secret service work can help. The terrorist threat could have been minimised in this way since 9/11, but the collective psychosis of the Americans did not allow that. ...
I am a demographer and I'll stick to the facts. Arab and Islamic terrorism is not a relapse of these regions into barbarism, it is the result of a crisis in the modernisation process. All countries go through radical changes as a result of literacy and birth control. Because all the Islamic states have been weakened, there is no great power among them. The terrorism will disappear of its own accord with the end of the demographic revolution.

MM: Does international law have a future?

ET: The majority in the UN was opposed to war in Iraq. In spite of this, the US went ahead and thus violated international law. The UN's role has never been so important. In view of America's destabilising role, one might consider whether the UN security council should move to Europe, perhaps to Switzerland.

MM: Numerous rogue states are members of the UN.

ET: The UN is not a club of democracies but an organisation which tries to solve problems between countries without resorting to war. In recent years there has been enormous progress towards democratisation. This has not been imposed from outside; it is the result of education and the emancipation of women. We cannot start a war against Syria or China in order to introduce democracy in these places.

MM: The US is the only country with democratic universalist ideas which wants to export its values.

ET: The Iraq war was a geopolitical show of strength, not a selfless democratic mission. But the Europeans must demand that the US does now put democracy into practice in Iraq. With the overthrow of Saddam comes the end of American hypocrisy. In this respect, I am a long way from the deep-seated anti-Americanism of many of the French. My grandfather was an Austrian Jew and an American citizen. My mother fled to the US during the second world war. I have a positive attitude towards America. But sadly we can no longer speak of the US as a great democracy. Its electoral system is in crisis. Internal inequality is rising. A rich American is no longer comparable with a rich European. There exists a new plutocracy, which is spoiling the American dream. Since the financial scandals, faith in the free market has been destroyed. The US is projecting its own internal disintegration onto the whole world.

MM: Is America also weakened because it has had to bear the burden of keeping the peace for 50 years?

ET: After 9/11, the threat to the US, to a nation which had until then been considered the guarantor of global security, stirred up great anxiety all around the world. Every country wanted to help. But the Americans didn't want help. They listened less and less to their allies, and became more and more arrogant. As far as the balance sheet and financial flows are concerned, the US has long been a drain on the whole world. The Europeans can no longer react to this in a friendly manner; they must counter America with industrial and financial methods. ... If there is no opposition to American militarism, then—as the Europeans well know from their own wars—it will be encouraged to pursue more adventures. Europe and Russia must create a stable strategic structure to counter it. The Atlantic axis no longer functions.

MM: Is Russia a reliable partner?

ET: Russia is no longer dangerous. The Germans obviously see this in a different light to the French, who have fewer problems with the Russians. Russia is weak and is experiencing a similar demographic crisis to that of Germany and France.

MM: Would you like a complete break with the US?

ET: No, I feel a much closer affinity to Anglo-Saxon culture than to Russian culture. But we need a counterbalance to the US. It is not so much a question of a break as a question of autonomy. In order to avoid an antagonistic relationship with the US, it is important that Britain should come back into the European fold. The greater danger is that the US will become more antagonistic and anti-European. The EU and the UN are strong, but Nato is virtually useless. Russia is a more important guarantor of European security.

MM: What can the US do to prevent decline?

ET: For the moment, the US has chosen the military path. It would be better for it to strive for industrial reconstruction, to become productive again. The world believes that thanks to its victory in Iraq, the US has achieved worldwide leadership. In fact, it used military means in response to a non-military problem. I believe this shows it has lost its omnipotence.

Okay, chaps, fire away...

An Anniversary, No Less

I am ashamed not to have remembered an anniversary I looked forward to every day as a child. It's the 59th anniversary of D-Day. Here is a selection of articles on the subject from History Today on the 40th Anniversary. I remember Reagan, Thatcher and Mitterand standing on the sands watching the British color bearer fall over because some idiot decided it would be a good idea to do a quick march on a beach. So long ago!

Scruton on the Nation

I had the pleasure of seeing Professor Roger Scruton lecture at the Heritage Foundation yesterday (you can view the lecture at the Heritage live event archive), and then even more of a pleasure to have a chance to discuss matters with him a group of heavy-hitters afterwards. Incidentally, it was a delight to meet Ramesh Ponnuru at last. Anyway, and with the promise of no more name dropping (a personal vice, as I told the Archbishop of Canterbury the last time I met him...), I thought it would be appropriate to mention something that Prof. Scruton emphasised about nation-states. There is, he says, a territoriality that is probably more important to the nation-state than race or ethnicity. The sense that the land is the people's home, the very place where they rule themselves according to their own laws and customs.

I hadn't considered this before, but I think he's right. The King of England is and has been for a very long time constrained by the Law of England, not his law, or the law of the English. Similarly, America is somewhere "from sea to shining sea," which I now realize plays an important role in the reluctance of Americans to leave their isolation. It applies to the French, Canadians and Spanish. Italy and Germany were unified because of it. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union split because of it. It applies to China, Japan and India too, I think. It doesn't apply in much of the rest of the world, especially the Middle East (except for Turkey and Israel) and Africa. I don't know enough about South America to comment there.

The link between tyranny and terrorism is even easier to understand in this context, I think. With no real homeland as a unifying factor, artificial countries have to be held together by tyrants, of one stripe or another.

There's plenty of room for quibbling at the margins of this idea, but the central idea is unimpeachable, I'd suggest. Which is yet another reason why the European project is doomed to bloody failure.

El Kel

The former editor of The Sun (also the man who brought Topless Darts to the late but probably unlamented L!ve TV), Kelvin McKenzie has a four-point plan to lead the Tories back into Number 10. Here it is, in all its glory:

First, I would privatise the BBC. My investment banker friends say that would net £5 billion for the radio and television station. I would promise to return the whole lot to the 20 million-plus licence fee payers within 120 days of being elected. So, instead of you paying £112 to the Government, I would send you a cheque for £250.

There would be a lot of huffing and puffing from the chattering classes, but, once inside the polling booth, they would agree with me that they could do with £250 and that it would be no loss to say farewell to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation.

Second, I want to pull up the drawbridge on Britain. Our roads are too crowded, our house prices too high, our trains too packed. I don't want any more white South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, Asians, Jamaicans, etc allowed into our country for the next five years.

Let's have a breathing space while we work out a better system. In the United Kingdom, there are 243 people per square kilometre; in France, it's 87; America, 29; and Australia, four. Let those with the space take the people. We have done our bit over the years. It's somebody else's turn.

Third, I want to reduce taxes. Isn't it incredible that the Conservative leadership is so gun-shy these days that it will not put tax cuts at the heart of its economic policy.

Unbelievably, tax kicks in at £90 a week. Why on earth should someone who earns so little - try living, working and travelling in London on £90 - pay any tax? I would set the starting threshold at around the £16,000 mark.

And, finally, the most important of all and the reason why I was in Oldham, I want to bring in the death penalty for DNA-proven paedophile killers. I made the speech in Oldham because it was less than 30 minutes from Saddleworth Moor, where Myra Hindley and Ian Brady buried their young dead. I object to people living their lives in warm cells with television, newspapers and three meals a day having murdered the most vulnerable in our society.

These four policies should see me comfortably into Number 10.

It both horrifies me and amuses me to say that he's probably right.

Simple Gifts

Peter Simple, who has been chronicling the decline of British civilization in his marvelous way for as long as I can remember is on fine form today:

Kiosk Speaks

At A seminar at Droitwich Spa this week, Dr Heinz Kiosk, the eminent social psychiatrist and chief psychiatric adviser to the Curtain Rail and Pelmet Authority, discussed the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"We hear a great deal about child soldiers and their part in the present atrocities. It is indeed deplorable. But can we be quite sure our condemnation of these children is free from the taint of racism and eurocentrism? Are they so different in principle from our own Boy Scouts, indoctrinated as they are with Western militarism?

"Are they so different from helpless young people conscripted into public school cadet corps? And in any case, haven't the children of the Congo learnt to commit atrocities by following the example of the European colonists who occupied their previously peaceful countries?

"It is time we faced up to the facts of colonial history and admitted our shameful part in it. Until we do so, we shall be members of a guilty society. But it is not only our society which is guilty," he went on, as his audience, alerted to the danger, began scraping back their chairs and desperately fighting their way to the doors and windows.

Too late. Dr Kiosk, his eyes revolving in opposite directions as he levitated four feet in the air, was already bellowing, "we are all guilty!"

Dr Kiosk is my leading candidate for the editorship of the New York Times, by the way.

Meanwhile, something to gladden the hearts of Rand Simberg and Jay Manifold:

A Celestial Snub

The British space probe, Beagle 2, now insolently speeding towards Mars, carries a fragment of a pop song and some fatuous art work by Damien Hirst, equally vile symbols of degenerate popular culture. Is there a chance that it will encounter our own columnar space vehicle, Don Carlos and the Holy Alliance III, now motoring on a tour of the solar system?

If it does, our august machine, programmed to avoid the swarm of vulgar objects now buzzing tastelessly about the heavens, will give no sign of recognition other than a slight increase of freezing hauteur. It will leave Beagle 2 to its banausic task of probing and burrowing into the surface of the Red Planet in its futile search for microbes and soda water.

Then away to the remote depths of space, for a weekend in the realm of the satellites of Pluto, discovered by our space vehicle on a previous expedition. There, on those delightful little worlds, a hereditary caste of noblemen spend their leisure hunting, fishing and, in the evenings, in their commodious hunting lodges, discuss such questions as the possibility of life, improbably near the sun, on our own unimaginably distant earth.

Personally, I'd name my space probe the W.G.Grace, but I suppose I'm a bit unusual that way.

Ah, the delights of local government

A friend of mine who is a Fellow at an Oxford college e-mails me this magnificent news:

The Oxford Times reports today that for a mere £1.50 pa subscription the Council will text message you when there has been a bio-terrorism outrage so you can run away. The image of everyone simultaneously picking up their phones and then trampling each other to death in the melee is just too delicious. Also we are going to have a dress rehearsal next Wednesday for and there will be a simulated attack on "a site of mass entertainment".

Obviously not Oxford United's Manor Ground then...

TCS Column Up

I have more thoughts about the administration's value of life farrago in Your Money and Your Life.

Frustrated with Blog*Spot?

And Blogger, for that matter? Then check out the redoubtable Dean Esmay's Blogspot Jihad. He is offering to convert people's blogspot/blogger blogs to Moveable Type for free. Zip. Nada. Just the hosting fees to register a domain and keep it up and running. If I didn't have a gentleman's agreement with someone else, I'd take him up on it today. Check it out, as they say. Looking won't hurt you.

La Belle de la France

Is France to be written off as a lost cause? Not if the new Joan of Arc has anything to do with it. It seems "Anglo-Saxon" ideas have inspired at least one charismatic young lady:

The daughter of two teachers from Reims, Mlle Herold was not interested in politics until about two years ago.

Since then, she has been devouring the great texts of "classical liberalism", seizing on thinkers such as Hayek, one of Margaret Thatcher's favourites, and wondering where France went wrong. Liberal conservatives are a rarity in France where the Right-wing parties are much more centrist than in Britain or America.

Mlle Herold, however, is not alone in pining for change in France. Like many of her generation, she would rather go on to business school than the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, the civil servants' graduate school that trained most of France's current political and business elite, but is losing kudos as the French state loses respect.

"There is no value put on work in France," she said. "I've just come back from Hong Kong where people love to work. In France they are always looking for a way to get out of it."

During an exchange term at Birmingham University she was impressed not only by the beer but also by the British work ethic. "If people want to work, they can work. In France we have let the union minority take us all hostage."

Chirac -- apres lui, le deluge?

The view from here

My friends Nile Gardiner and John Hulsman -- ferocious intellects both (John has worsted Paxman and appeared on The Daily Show) -- give us the American view of the current state of Europolitics on FOXNews.com. As they say:

All of [the recent idiocies mean] that now is an ideal time for Britain and America, with the support of the Poles, Czechs and other nations of Eastern and Central Europe about to enter the European Union, to present a new, positive vision for Europe. The grandiose dream of a united federal Europe, so beloved of French and German strategists, must be firmly rejected. In its place, London and Washington must call for a flexible Europe, united by a common heritage and culture, but which maintains the principle of national sovereignty at its core.

With this new vision of Europe, U.S. and British national interests converge. A common European foreign and security policy that prevents Britain from fighting alongside the United States would be a nightmare scenario for planners in Washington. The intense debate over Iraq has resulted in a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Europe. For 50 years the United States has encouraged and helped drive the process of European integration. However, the Bush administration is beginning to conclude that a monolithic Europe is neither in the interests of the citizens of the United States nor the people of Europe.

Sounds good so far. So what does that imply, chaps?

The vociferous condemnation of U.S. foreign policy that has emerged across Europe since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech has awoken a sleeping giant, which until recently had been content to quietly acquiesce in what German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer once described as "the finality of European integration." In the coming years we can expect to see Washington take a more pro-active and aggressive approach toward Brussels and work more with individual European states, rather than attempt to deal with a weak and comically self-deluded Brussels.

It will be in America's interests to strengthen the hand of those European governments that oppose the concept of a highly centralized Europe. In the years ahead there will be increasing calls in Washington for a Europe of independent nation states, held together not by an artificial constitution and undemocratic government, but by the principles of free trade, individual liberty and national identity.

My philosophy towards Europe in a nutshell. Thanks, gents!

And now the waiting starts...

Ministers reach euro decision, says the Beeb. "No, but..." predicts everyone, confidently. Meanwhile, John Prescott tells us what he thinks of the press.

The Great Chicago Blogfire

I was distressed to hear what happened to the Chicago Boyz blogspot site. I was wondering what ramifications the blogger "upgrade" would have. Less bloggage tonight, therefore, as I back up all the Edge/ Tory Revival archives in anticipation of a possible move to a new bloghome.

Wear This, Ya Hags

Okay, maybe I'm a little peeved. I turned on this ghastly BBCAmerica program called "What Not To Wear" and became infuriated. These awful women tear apart some poor chick's clothing style and then give her a "make-over" to help this woman be "better". Apparently this is a TV trend all over the US and UK.

I hate 'em. It's just free advertising for the fashion industry while filling viewers with self-doubt and loathing. Now I'm not an attractive chick. Nor do I wear fashion. Jeans, t-shirt, clean hair, no make-up and I'm out the door with Helen to a petting zoo, museum or playground. Now some women may want to "look nice" that's fine. I can dress up with the best of them. But to make it the basis for judging someone!?! Oh for crying out loud.

I know I look like a goofball most days but I like myself. I can't help but suspect that some of these women are putting on the clothes and makeup to cover up self-perceived "wrongs". That these TV shows feed into this insecurity drives me round the bend. That I'm being judged based on what I wear - well, I hate to say it but I'll judge you right back as a shallow-witted cow.

Distorted picture?

Interesting. According to the Touchgraph map of Top Blogs, I'm on the extreme right. This is, of course, because the map is assembled by working out who links to whom. Most of my top blog incoming links are from right-of-center or Libertarian blogs, so I'm stuck over on the extreme right. Now I happen to get a lot of traffic from left-wing and centrist blogs as well, but because they're all British, they don't register on the graphic. Odd, isn't it, that the Leftist American blogs don't link to Leftist British blogs in the internationalist way that the right and libertarians do... Any ideas why? (I'd especially like to hear from comrades on the British left on this one).

Holy Fool

Now I know tempers on fox-hunting in the Uk run a little high, but this is too much:

Hunting is morally equivalent to rape, child abuse and torture, according to one of Britain's leading Christian experts, who is closely connected to Labour's religious establishment.

The incendiary claim, which brought immediate condemnation from pro-hunting groups, has been made by Andrew Linzey, professor of theology at Oxford University and a recognised authority on morality and its effects on people's relations with animals.

In a report to be published by the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM) in the next fortnight, Linzey will argue that there is no moral defence for hunting as sport and that it should be completely banned. 'Causing suffering for sport is intrinsically evil,' he says. 'Hunting, therefore, belongs to that class of always morally impermissible acts along with rape, child abuse and torture.'

Now I think even the House of Lords committee that made the most in-depth investigation of the scientific information available found that there was precious little suffering involved in hunting with dogs. The assumption that the poor little beast is terrified comes from rather too many anthropomorphic depictions of the fox. Which makes this reaction entirely justified in my view:

'If you ask a rape victim or a victim of torture who has suffered so much whether they think what they have gone through can be compared to hunting, I think you know the response you would get.

'Frankly, it's disgusting. We are talking about a legal pastime which is being likened to illegal acts of gross exploitation.'

As the Countryside Alliance spokeswoman said, 'If Andrew Linzey is coming up with this stuff and it is being used by the anti-hunting lobby, it is no wonder they are losing ground so rapidly.'

Pass the port

Very interesting account of Sunday Times columnist and Hudson Institute fellow Irwin Stelzer's last dinner party, where he had several distnguished types discuss the state of economies around the world. There was a thumbs up (on points) for the American economy and the Bush tax cut, including a point I hadn't considered, but now seems obvious:

In my view the day was carried by the optimists, who say that we have learned from past errors how to respond to bursting bubbles. They predict that the American economy will be growing at an annual rate of a bit under 3 percent by year's end, and at a still higher rate in 2004. As these cheery economists see it, all the pieces are in place for such a recovery. Interest rates are already low, which should keep the housing market growing at the record pace of recent months. The decline in the dollar will stimulate the export-led sector of the manufacturing and service sectors, and ward off any deflationary tendencies. And now we have the president's tax cut. ...

Moreover, everyone is underestimating the size of the tax cut. Congress halved the president's request, and approved $350 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. But congress managed to keep the figure so low only by assuming that taxes will be allowed to return to their prior, higher levels on January 1, 2005. That, say the politicians who have experience with such things, is highly unlikely: Congressmen will not campaign in November of 2003 on promises to raise taxes shortly after taking office. So the reductions won't expire, and total tax relief is likely to approach the figure the president originally requested.

As for Old Europe, well, oh dear...

Germany is considered a basket case, its economy shrinking and its population declining to the point where it will be "economically irrelevant," in the words of one observer, within the next several decades. All of which is made worse by a soaring euro that is reducing the international competitiveness of Germany's already high-cost industries.

France is somewhat better off, partly because the one-size-fits-all interest rate set by the European Central Bank suits it better than it does Germany, partly because the exchange rates prevailing when the euro was adopted were more favorable to France than to Germany, and partly because the French simply ignore many of the growth-strangling rules that the more orderly Germans obey to the letter. In short, France's black economy provides a source of flexibility and growth not enjoyed by its German allies.

But what about the UK, and her Chancellor who so many assume to be about to push Tony Blair off his throne?

The consensus view is that the chancellor has got it wrong. His optimistic forecast ignores the noticeable slowdown in consumer demand, and the productivity-draining effects of the massive increase in taxes and the swelling of the public sector. Indeed, all of the jobs growth in the British economy now comes in the public sector, and consists of piling administrators on top of already-useless administrators.

Worse still is the effect that the new European constitution will have on Britain. The bureaucracy's ability to ensnare Britain in red tape will increase as the European court puts flesh on the bones of the constitution and its call for "worker dignity," stronger unions, and an enlarged welfare state. The U.K. economy will pay the price, and soon--or such was the view offered as the pudding was served.

Yes, yes and yes. Brown's halo will tarnish rapidly in the coming months, I think. Those EU points will loom larger as it does.

Almost, but not quite

I want to agree with the findings of the British Electoral Commission, but I can't. They have recommended the scrapping of deposits for candidates to stand for Parliament. Some may say that whoever wants to stand should be able to, without obstacle. Fine and noble in theory. Counter-productive inpractice. You see, British elections, especially by-elections (special elections) attract a large number of frivolous candidates, who really do discredit the electoral process by encouraging the electorate to treat it as a joke (strippers, local merchants, "loonies" and so on all distract from serious consideration of the issues at stake). This is not a good thing, but a perversion of the democratic ideal. It seems they didn't consider the option I would have chosen, reduction of the deposit amount but an increase in the number of verified signatures from the constituency to support candidature. That's a shame.

Two Worlds

The Pew Center for People and the Press, or whatever they're called, have released their mammoth international opinion poll on the state of the world. Very interesting reading it makes, too. It's pretty that world opinion is divided between the Anglosphere and its allies (including Italy, interestingly) and Old Europe and its hangers-on.

First, the UN is clearly seen as a busted flush. Both sides of the Iraq debate view it that way: 61% in France, 58% in Russia and 53% in Germany view their precious UN as less important now, compared to 60% in the US, 57% in the UK and 57% in Australia (also 55% in Spain and 52% in Italy). It was always the coalition line that France was dooming the UN by her intransigence. Looks like the French recognize that now. Well done, Old Europe. First you killed Kyoto, now you've killed the UN. Who knows, if the EU Constitution falls apart, we may get Win, Place and Show.

Similarly, while the British and Americans continue to believe the Atlantic Alliance has a chance, the Spanish, Italians and Germans want greater European military independence. Looks like NATO's days are numbered, too. I'm still in two minds as to whether or not this is a good thing. A lot, of course, depends on whether the UK gets sucked into a European defense identity. While that's still on the table, I want NATO to continue. The Canadians, by the way, remain heavily in favor of US-Canadian security ties.

America's image remains positive in the Anglosphere, in many caseshaving rebounded considerably since March. America is viewed positively by 70% in the UK, 63% in Canada (presumably non-Globe and Mail readers) and 60% in Australia. With the exception of Italy (60%), all the other countries with a positive view of America are former British territories in one way or another (Israel 79%, Kuwait 63%, Nigeria 61%). Everywhere else, America's image has taken a severe blow.

The strength of the antiwar movement in the UK is also revealed by the percentage who have considered or stopped buying American products: 6%. I seem to recall, although I may be wrong, that one of the nuttier Grauniad columnists called for this well before the crisis gathered. Ho ho.

Again, the Anglosphere speaks with one mind about whether or not the coalition tried hard to avoid civilian casualties: 82% agreed in the US, plus 64% in the UK, 62% in Canada and 61% in Australia. Again the Italians give us the benefit of the doubt (50%), while the Troika is less certain (Germany 41%, France 25%, Russia 14%).

The divide is also seen in the desire for more democracy in the Middle East. The percentage saying the area needs much more or somewhat more democracy is 69% in America, 61% in Canada, 61% in Australia, 60% in Britain (and 60% in Italy). Compare to 47% in France (only 5% saying "much more") and 37% in Russia. Germany is an outlier here on 67%, although the 8% saying "much more" there is lower than in any Anglosphere nation.

There's a table on the summary page showing how many people have confidence in Bin Laden or Arafat to do the right thing, which is scary. In the report itself, there's an interesting table that shows Blair is the most or second-most trusted world leader in the US (1st), Canada (1st), the UK (2nd -- behind Kofi Annan!?!), Italy (2nd, behind Kofi again), Australia (1st) and Israel (2nd, behind Bush). The President "wins" only Israel. Chirac, by contrast, won only Germany (Putin 2nd, Schroeder 4th), but came second in France (Schroeder 1st), Spain, Brazil and South Korea (all behind Kofi) and Russia (behind Putin). What the Democrats would give for Blair to be able to run for President...

Moving away from this theme, there's some very interesting questions asked in the Muslim world. In places like Pakistan, Uganda, Jordan and Ghana, Muslims want Islam to play more of a political role. In Turkey, Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Lebanon and Senegal, they want it to play less. That's heartening. The idea that Muslim nations are all charging towards fundamentalist lunacy is one that needs the cold light of day shone on it.

It is also interesting that in every Muslim state except Indonesia, including the Palestinian Authority, a majority believe Western-style democracy can work. In most such nations, majorities want to be able to criticize the government (exceptions -- Uzbekistan and Jordan), have honest two-party elections (exceptions, those already mentioned plus Indonesia and Pakistan) and have an uncensored media (same exceptions as for elections, plus Tanzania). Again, that's not the picture we get. Most of these nations, however, are not Arabic.

Anyway, there's lots more in there, including the overwhelming verdict that globalization is a good thing (France is the only country where anti-globalization protestors have anywhere like a good image), but also the interesting finding that most countries want to restrict immigration (US 81%, UK 80%, France 75%).

I'll finish with the views of Government. Here are the figures agreeing with the statements "Government controls too much of our daily lives", "Government is usually inefficient and wasteful," and "Government is run for the benefit of all people" in the indicator countries:

USA 60%, 63%, 65%
Canada 57%, 61%, 69%
UK 54%, 66%, 66%
Italy 64%, 82%, 88%
Poland 28%, 61%, 88%

France 55%, 70%, 40%
Germany 60%, 65%, 86%
Russia 34%, 57%, 50%

Jordan 46%, 48%, 50%
Pakistan 78%, 43%, 72%
Turkey 59%, 64%, 79%

Argentina 41%, 71%, 17%
Brazil 74%, 84%, 51%
Mexico 60%, 66%, 47%

India 48%, 60%, 71%
Indonesia 28%, 53%, 67%
Japan 42%, 74%, 26%

Cote d'Ivoire 46%, 52%, 69%
Nigeria 57%, 76%, 74%
South Africa 63%, 61%, 75%.

Very interesting. There's an almost universal pattern of desire of more freedom, resentment at government inefficiency but strong belief that Government can do good (except in nations where the system is on the verge of collapse, like Argentina and Japan). Funny that France should be the most cynical functional nation. Or perhaps it isn't...

PP: I've just seen the Pew Center's chairperson, Madeline Allbright, talking about this poll on The Daily Show. Her line was, basically, everyone hates us, as if Canada, Britain, Australia, Italy and so on count for naught. The silly woman was misrepresenting her own poll. This gives me a chance to tell my favorite Allbright story, though. In 1996, Clinton had just been re-elected and was replacing Warren Christopher as Secretary of State. The news came through to John Major as he and Michael Portillo were getting miked up for a press conference. Portillo leant over and told Major that Allbright had been appointed. Major exclaimed "Hell's Teeth!" loud and clear to the assembled press corps. One of the reasons why I may dislike Major's failure in office, but I don't dislike the man.

May the road rise to you

It's Slugger O'Toole's first blogiversary. You may note that I've finally got round to adding Mick's excellent blog to the blogroll on the left. There are a few more goodies added too. Check 'em out, as they say.

Sense of the Sensible

My colleague Marlo Lewis has an excellent column up at TCS today on what a proper "Sense of Congress" resolution on the "global warming" issue would look like. I agree entirely with Marlo's reading of the science, which has developed considerably since the IPCC's last report and presents a much less certain picture.

The Journalists Themselves

My two penn'orth on Kris's journalism post. We often forget that journalism used to be a working class job. You grew up in your local community, then joined your local paper from school to do legwork on local stories. Eventually you'd get to senior positions, but you were always grounded in that basis of how stories affect local people. Now, you go to prestigious Schools of Journalism, where half the class are trust-fund kids. You are groomed for success on royal jelly. As such, you look down on the masses from an Olympian position. You know what's good for them, and you write in that spirit. That's often forgotten in the current debate.

And, of course, people react against such biased news. They seek out news sources that will reflect their worldview rather than someone else's. Fox is just following a model the liberals pioneered. Did the networks just forget that half the country is conservative? Or did they actually think they could convert them by their 'enlightened' coverage? I'm not sure which answer would be more damning.

This thing keeps on rolling

Just checked out the blogosphere's Physician General, Medpundit, who has a few things to say about the health contract idea. The slippery slope argument is important here (Eugene Volokh will be pleased):

Where does this sort of thing end? At the moment, the western world is more tolerant of sexual indiscretions than it is of dietary indiscretions. More tolerant of drug abuse than of tobacco abuse. But what happens when the pendulum swings and sexual indiscretions are no longer tolerated? Will the NHS deny publicly funded treatment for sexually transmitted diseases to people who have sex outside of marriage? Will they deny obstetrical care to single mothers? AIDS treatment to gay men who chose to have homosexual sex? Or to drug addicts who chose to use IV drugs? Taken to its logical conclusion, it’s a very rigid, inhumane policy. Surprising for a political party that’s supposed to be liberal.

Meanwhile, Stephen Pollard shows that he deserves the title of Britain's Instapundit in a very real sense with this article for The Times. His conclusion:

There is a direct link between obesity and poverty. Charging those who break their “contract” means, quite specifically, charging the poor — the very people who most need access to their GP because of the effect of their diet.

But the brains of Britain behind Labour’s new “ugh, poor people, how perfectly horrible” NHS plan have done us all a favour. They have shown the inevitable path down which a state-funded, state- delivered healthcare monopoly ends up travelling, with a rationale at once totally logical and totally surreal. If demand for a service is too high, bar access to those who use that service most. Even if they use it most because they need it most. It’s genius. It really is.

And the policymakers have also revealed in its full, blazing glory the contempt in which they really hold their fellow citizens. If you don’t measure up, ship out. If you aren’t living up to expectations, you don’t count.

Good points. Labour has actually produced a policy that speaks directly against many who are in its core vote, telling them that they're second class citizens because of their lifestyle. How stupid can you get? This could end up having more effect than the WMD issue, much to the disgust of the Guardianistas, I'm sure. The Tories should never let the working class forget that Labour proposed this one, even if they withdraw it (as I'm sure they will).

Cold water

One YouGov poll and Peter Cuthbertson has Tories going back to their constituencies and preparing for government, while Stephen Pollard has the writing on the wall for Our Tone. First of all, I've long cautioned against WhateverYouWantGuv polls, untested as they are scientifically (I agree with Bob Worcester of MORI that they probably got lucky in the last election). Secondly, I hardly think Blair is in as much jeopardy as Stephen seems to believe:

One insider told me yesterday that the Chancellor “hasn’t been so happy in ages. Sarah is pregnant, and Tony’s stuffed. It couldn’t really be much better for him”. The Prime Minister’s flagship Foundation Hospitals policy, which was intended as the boldest of all the bold new developments, has been neutered by the Chancellor’s intervention. Mr Brown forced Mr Blair to fight a bruising internal war to get his university fees policy through – and it has yet to face the anger of backbench Labour MPs, let alone many parents. And as every day brings a further deterioration in the Prime Minister’s trust ratings, and ever louder whispers against him by Labour MPs, so Gordon Brown licks his lips in anticipation. The Chancellor said no more than the bare minimum required of him during the war, and the more Mr Blair is damaged in the aftermath, the more Mr Brown is strengthened.

I'd be more inclined to go along with Stephen if there were a lot of Labour heavyweights on the backbenches leading the Brown faction for him (as there were in a supposedly similar situation when Mrs T neared her end). There aren't. Cook and Brown don't get along and Short is off her pram, as someone once said. Stephen Byers? Please.

The upshot is that this isn't a rerun of Mrs T in 1990. Blair still has the support of most of the cleverest members of the cabinet. The damp squib of the Foundation Hospitals revolt shows that the Blairite faction still has the whip hand (pun intended) over the party as a whole. The WMD question will blow over. I think the only mistake Blair made in hadnling the war was in using WMDs as the sole reason early on, but anyone arguing that we went to war over the WMD issue hasn't read his Hansard. Here's how Jack Straw summed up the debate to "authorize" military action*:

I impugn the motives of no one in the House. The different positions that we have taken all come from the best, not the worst, of intentions. But as elected Members of Parliament, we all know that we will be judged not only on our intentions, but on the results, the consequences of our decisions. The consequences of the amendment would be neither the containment nor the disarmament of Saddam's regime, but an undermining of the authority of the United Nations, the rearmament of Iraq, a worsening of the regime's tyranny, an end to the hopes of millions in Iraq, and a message to tyrants elsewhere that defiance pays.

Yes, of course there will be consequences if the House approves the Government's motion. Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so, too, will innocent Iraqi civilians, but far fewer Iraqis in the future will be maimed, tortured or killed by the Saddam regime. The Iraqi people will begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs. The world will become a safer place, and, above all, the essential authority of the United Nations will have been upheld. I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.

I'm surprised the Government hasn't been making this point as forcefully as it could, which leads me to suspect that there's something big in the offing. If there is, I imagine Blair's trust ratings will rebound again. So I don't think he has anything to worry about from his own backbenches. He certainly looks brighter and less haggard now than he did a few months ago. Not the sign of a man worried about his future.

So what about the threat from the Tories? First off, one poll doesn't make an election. I want to see sustained figures at this level or better before I agree it's an even fight again. There's no doubt, to my mind, that the tuition fees announcement helped. Now perhaps some similar policies on transport, health and crime might help too. And an end to any of this rubbish about "the nasty party," which really has had its day. Having said that, the fact that we're still behind in the polls despite everything speaks volumes. If we're going to win the next election, we need to be more than ten points ahead in the next year. Governments always rally towards election time, so the prospect is daunting.

Realistically, ceteris paribus, I'd say Blair will win the next election with a substantially reduced majority, but that the Tories will gain at the expense of the Liberal Democrats as well as Labour. The Iraq opportunism badly damaged Kennedy's credibility, I think.

What I'd really be interested in is reputable poling figures about how much the European Constitution issue has entered public consciousness as a vote-determining issue. I'm not sure what its status is, but if I were the Tories, I'd want to find out.

* Of course, the debate did no such thing. All it provided was moral, not legal, legitimacy. Blair could have committed troops without asking Parliament, as war is an executive, not a legislative function.

Behind the curve

Well, I said I'd mention the health contract idiocy. Actually, Layman's Logic and Marcus at Harry Hatchet (both links drabbled) have already said all that needs to be said. Apart from one thing: the ideal of universal free healthcare funded by general taxation is revealed as a myth. Health rationing reaches its obvious conclusion, and the case for it crumbles. The case for opt-outs for private insurance is made by this very policy. Unless HMG wants to have its cake and eat it (in which case, shouldn't it go on a diet?).

What The People Want To Hear

During the Iraqi War, many news channels showed the same war from many different perspectives. Some views of the war were more distorted than others. We are still seeing some of this today in the coverage of the rebuilding of Iraq (let alone all the other current events).

In this 24-hour news world, I suspect that news organizations are no longer interested in actually presenting the news so much as telling people what they want to hear. Reinforcing their belief systems rather than telling people what actually happened. As access to news gets more and more fractured, news slants are becoming more and more obvious. I don't mind the bias part so long as the news organization is honest about it. Claiming, for example, "a no-spin zone" when you are clearly a right-winger is disingenuousness at best.

News is news. Opinion is opinion. They should be kept separate. On the other hand, knowing where to find both sides of the same story is a good thing too. What do ya'll think?

Apologies...

For the lack of bloggage. I've been a tad busy, and met up with team member Frank Sensenbrenner this evening. Frank is sorry to say his current employer won't let him blog at all, but he'll be back when his internship finishes.

You can expect some outraged reaction from me tomorrow, by the way, to the headline currently flashing on the BBC News Front Page: "Fat people may have to diet to qualify for free healthcare."

Ah, the egalitarian ideal of socialized medicine at work.

Desert Island Discs

It comes to us all in the end, I suppose. The spirit of Roy Plomley descended on me this evening during a second wonderful night out in a rown with my beloved bride and I asked myself, what ten records, book (Shakespoke and the Bible excepted) and luxuiry item would you choose if you were to be marooned on a desert island. So, after much thought, I came up with this list. The records first:

Wonderful - Adam Ant, something that reminds me of how much I missed my beloved while she was in Manhattan and I in London

Waterloo Sunset - The Kinks, something redolent of the beautiful side of London

10538 Overture - Electric Light Overture, a song I will always hush people up to hear when it comes on the jukebox

Oliver's Army - Elvis Costello and The Attractions, a song I will always get people to sing allong with when it comes on the jukebox

Beautiful Day - The Levellers, quote simply the best revolutionary song, ever

Wonderful World - Satchmo, well, Kris and I chose this as our wedding dance, 'nuff said

Time of My Life - Err..., the song Kris and I thought of as our own back in 1988...

Parklife - Blur, well, I'm such a Britpop fan than this anthem had to be in there

Protect and Survive - Runrig, Scots rock at its best ('s tu mo leannan alomist go the nod); and

Fields of Gold - Sting, a song with a very special meaning for Kris and I

Book -- The Federalist Papers, on the grounds I'll have lots of time to critique and design my own Commonwealth of Desertislandia

Luxury -- White tie and tails, so at least i'll be able to dress for dinner every night. Admittedly, I'll get crab and coconut juice all over it, but...

Alternative suggestions welcome!

City Journal piece up

Color me proud. I have a piece up at the City Journal site today. Getting Hitched looks at how the latest evidence demolishes various commonly-held arguments against people getting married when their children are born.

Tradition helps?

Not too much time to blog tonight, but I thought this little tidbit from the latest Nature might be of interest to those who have followed the town vs country debate in the UK. Hunt hosts conserve wildlife: Survey hints that field sports can boost conservation:

The idea that hunting can benefit biodiversity has not been evaluated before, says the study team. The fierce debate over such sports has traditionally focused on the conflicting issues of cruelty and pest control.

Woodland and hedgerows have been shrinking for the past 50 years in Britain, along with their resident populations of mammals, birds and insects. Many farmland species, such as the skylark and grey partridge, have dwindled alarmingly and are at risk of extinction.

From aerial photographs and interviews with landowners, Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues at the University of Kent in Canterbury conclude that those who allow hunting and shooting give a greater proportion of their property over to woodland. They are also more likely to have taken up government subsidies to plant woods or hedges during the past ten years.

Not a surprise to those of us who are familiar with private conservation efforts.

Strawberries

Helen and I were "strawberry farmers" today. A friend suggested we join her and her girls and pick our strawberries at a nearby farm. So, in fifteen minutes, we went from our near urban home to rural farmland and picked a bunch of strawberries. Got good and muddy too. Since this berry operation had its own little farm stand, I bought some wonderful green beans, tiny potatoes, homemade "FROG" jam, homemade bread-and-butter pickes, homemade donuts, and an eclair for Iain that closely resembles the one they used in the assassination attempt on Homer Simpson. I lose all control in farm stands. We had boiled peanuts (yum!) and fresh strawberry ice cream for lunch (am I a good mom or what?).

Okay. So my question is this, what do I do with all the strawberries? I've pureed and frozen a bunch in ice cube trays to make strawberry dacquiris with. I've pureed some more and am cooking it down as I type to make strawberry jam. I have a bunch with stems on to dip into chocolate this afternoon with Helen. But I still have strawberries. A lot of you are British. Strawberries are a big deal to ya'll. Any tips? Green bean recipes are welcome as well.

On a non-EU note...

Nice to see the Aventis Prize for Science Books getting more coverage this year. The US could really do with a few more things like this. These events normally get the whole country talking about literature in the UK, and I imagine they'd get at least the coasts talking over here...

Of course, they'd get taken over by New York Times columnists, wouldn't they? Forget I said anything.

European Judicial Supremacy

I promised to reply to Stephen Pollard's comments on my post below (Andrew Stuttaford also endorsed Stephen's views on The Corner, which puts me in opposition to two of the commentators I most admire). Stephen argues that Article 10 of the new constitution has far-reaching effects:

Leave aside issues of transferred sovereignty, and the move to a 'superstate'. They are, however strongly we might feel about them, judgement calls. Article 10 is clear, and specific, and whatever the likes of Peter Hain may say do involve a change, from a de facto supremacy to a de jure supremacy. At the moment we choose, via the 1972 European Communities Act, to agree to be bound by EU law. And we can choose, as Iain suggests, to unbind ourselves (with all the consequences that would follow). In the proposed new constitution that choice is taken away from us. The most basic part of the British constitution - that no Parliament can bind its successors - has been dropped, because even if a successor Parliament chooses to reassert its supremacy over EU law it cannot do so, having already conceded the primacy of EU law. Any such attempt would, by definition, be in conflict with the European Constitution obligations by which we would be bound.

To recap: at the moment the primacy of EU law is based on an Act of Parliament which can, like all Acts, be repealed. Under the proposed constituion, that primacy is based not on an Act of Parliament but on a Treaty which signs away the power of a Parliament to repeal its predecessor's decision if it conflicts with EU law, which holds that EU law is supreme - etc, etc.

I hate to disagree with Stephen, but I don't think this is the case. The doctrine that EEC/EU law is supreme over national law was established in 1964, and there was a host of jurisprudence backing up this interpretation by the time we joined in 1972. This led Lord Bridge in his opinion on the landmark case Regina vs Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (1990) to state the following, in no uncertain terms:

Some public comments on the decision of the Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdic­tion of the courts of member states to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based upon a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary.

Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. Similarly, when decisions of the Court of Justice have exposed areas of United Kingdom statute law which failed to implement Council directives, Parliament has always loyally accepted the obligation to make appropriate and prompt amendments. Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply and to insist that, in the protection of rights under Community law, national courts must not be inhibited by rules of national law from granting interim relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of that supremacy.

EU law is supreme over UK law in its areas of competence, however they are established, whether by this new constitution or by some other Treaty. That is not new. Legal scholars like Paul Craig of Oxford have stated that there are four bases for this interpretation: contractarian, in that when Parliament signed up for it the jurisprudence was well known, a priori and functional in that it is inherent for the EU to function adequately that its law must be supreme and the constitutional grounding of the European Communities Act 1972, which accepted transfer of legislative power to the European Institutions.

The new Constitution makes no claim, as I said below, to say how countries order their own constitutional arrangement. It is clearly not a competence of the EU to legislate on. So EU law has no supremacy there. The Treaty to which Stephen refers only has any legislative legitimacy in the UK by virtue of being adopted into national law by passage of an Act of Parliament. Parliament remains free to repeal said Act.

As to whether the people should be consulted, this goes to the heart of the unanswered questions about the British constitution. Does ultimate authority reside with the people? Locke, the Levellers, the Chartists and Freedland might answer yes. I'm not sure Constitutional analysis backs them up. Most of the legitimate authority in the UK derives from the Crown or the Crown-in-Parliament, and I'm pretty sure that's as far as it goes (the elective aspect of the Saxon monarchy is all very well, but a bit of a red herring). The Crown exists, and, as far as the British are concerned, always has, so I can't see the constitutional basis for a referendum having any extra legitimacy. After all, they are authorized by individual Acts of Parliament.

Having said that, the Courts recognize the priority of certain bits of Constitutional Legislation. The Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Reform Acts, Parliament Acts, European Communities Act, Human Rights Act and the various Devolution acts all have special status attached to them in jurisprudence. Some of these had citizen involvement. Some did not. Parliament has seen fit to play around with provisions of the Bill of Rights despite it being based on the Declaration of Right. I think citizen involvement gives a constitutional act protected status for a while, but it can wear off. This is one of the reasons why I worry about losing a referendum. Even if it becomes obvious that the EU Constitution is to be applied in the dreadfully over-interpretive way the ECJ loves, we will have no recourse for far too long.

(This is a separate question from whether the people should have more of a role in the UK constitution. I'm pretty Freedlandite in that respect.)

As to Stephen's point about a referendum going hand in hand with standard political pressure, I have to say I worry about us wasting our scarce resources. HMG and the EU will have plenty of money to throw at any referendum campaign. If we spend all our money getting a referendum and then have nothing to spend on the No campaign itself, we're in real trouble. I'd much rather see us keep our powder dry. There is, for instance, the question of a Euro referendum at some point as well.

So I remain unconvinced of either the constitutional or tactical case for a referendum.

Ah, the Absurd!

Perilous Annual Cheese Chase Called Off is the headline. The reason? The first aid crew was called to help survivors of an earthquake in Algeria.

This must have been a Monty Python sketch at some point.

The costs and benefits of EU membership

I would be continuing this in the comments section of the large post below, but YACCS is playing up again. One of my respected commentators has raised the argument that most of Britain's exports go to the EU. True, they do. But that is simply goods. Add services into the quation, and the picture changes somewhat, with British trade being 55% outside the EU (see this PDF from Global Britain, a Euroskeptic group).

But even that's not the full story. We really have to look at all the costs the EU places on our economy as well. Back in 2000, a study from the Institute of Directors (available here in PDF form) looked at this in detail. The IOD is very much in favor of British membership of the EU because of the trading benefits it brings its members, but they had to admit that EU membership imposed a net cost on the British economy of GBP 15 billion per annum. They also calculated that joining the Euro would double that cost. This is a real problem for the pro-Europe lobby, I'd suggest.

Orthodoxia

I've always liked the Greek Orthodox church and its respect for very old Christian traditions (I can't tell you how frustrated I was when Helen acted up at her Godmother's wedding in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Long Island and I had to miss the service as a result). Now we have an Orthodox blog. OrthodoxyToday.org contains both ALdaily-style references and a blog on moral issues. Splendid.

HM the Q in EU

Steven Den Beste has another post on the EU, this time on the status of Queen and Commonwealth, and he's exactly right on all of this, although he should have mentioned the last exercise of essentially vice-regal power by a Governor-General in a major country, when the then incumbent sacked Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 following a series of political and constitutional wrangles.

But I use his post as an opportunity to post a warning to my Euroskeptic friends. You will overplay your hand if you try to portray the proposed EU constitution as something that will abolish the British constitution. And the fanatics will be delighted you walked into their trap. The fundamental sources of legitimate political authority in Britain -- Crown and Parliament -- are untouched by the Constitution. As I say below, the simple repeal of a few Acts will free Britain from its European entanglements. (If a referendum approved the entanglement, the situation would be a lot trickier, given the dubious constitutional position of referenda). As long as there is a Crown and a Parliament, Britain governs itself. The proposed constitution leaves Her Majesty's position intact, as it does the positions of the Kings and Queens of Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark (have I missed anyone?).

In many ways, the correct way of looking at the EU is as a gigantic Environmental Protection Agency or similar regulatory body. Congress has delegated legislative authority to that organization, and it causes tremendous problems, acting as a Fourth Branch of Government in many ways, but it should not be argued that the EPA has abolished Congress or dismantled the Constitution. The EU should be opposed on the ground of the damage delegating powers to it causes to British interests, not on some imagined abolition of the source of those powers. Yes, Britain's Parliament will become increasingly irrelevant, but it's not going to be abolished. The argument should be that Britain needs to retain powers jealously in the British interest, not that it is under threat of abolition.

The proposed Constitution is bad enough on its own, as I shall investigate over the coming days, and Britain should resist ratification with all its might. I am beginning to come to the conclusion, however, that the best way for people to do this is not to campaign for a referendum. Besides the constitutional arguments advanced below, I have no faith that the referendum itself will not be loaded (imagine the question "Do you support HMG's efforts to promote peace and prosperity for Britain and Europe by adopting certain administrative measures outlined in the White Paper distributed to all households on 7 June?" or something like that). Moreover, going down the referendum road is liking losing your virginity. Once done, it becomes easier the second time. Even if we win, the question will be posed to us again every time a pro-European government comes to power. The only way for us to obviate that course of action is if we win a referendum that removes us from the European entanglement entirely and sets us down another course, which the people will then see is better.

My preferred course of action is for us to make it politically impossible for HMG to support ratification. In all of what follows, we need to base our arguments on clear, regular, up-to-date polling data, which will probably continue to support the Euroskeptic position in a way that might not be the case with referenda (especially private referenda, as I mention in the comments section on my previous post below).

We need to target marginal Labour MPs, making it clear that the issue is important enough to their constituents that they are in danger if they support ratification. We need to target business interests, pointing out the likely effects of stifling European regulation. We need to target supporters of civil liberties, pointing out the raison d'etat and asking whether free speech and other liberties will really be respected in this new Europe. We need an all-out education campaign telling people the truth about Europe's ambitions to legislate for us and how our Parliament is perfectly capable of doing that and still keeping us the fourth largest economy in the world. We need to point out how withdrawal will not damage our economy, if the EU adheres to international law (and if it won't, why are we in it?). If all these arguments fail to move HMG, and they'll require substantial funding, then and only then we should resort to demanding a referendum, with all its hostages to fortune, anchored on the idea that HMG is willfully ignoring the expressed mood of the nation.

Yet I have a feeling that just a modicum of pressure on endangered Labour MPs might do the trick. Blair will not want a split in his party over Europe, seeing what it did to the Tories. The small but influential Labour Euroskeptic movement should be in the lead here. Over to you, Stephen.

Overall, if the EU is a tangled web and the constitution the spider, we are at least a wasp. Let's sting the spider and fly away from the web.

PP: Stephen Pollard has an important post replying to this argument, which I shall try to answer later today. The most important point is that Article 10 is essentially already part of UK law and has been since 1972. I'll examine the legal reasoning later.

Defining rights down

A good example of what the UK has in store for it if it agrees to European definitions of fundamental rights comes in this outrageous reaction from an EU commissioner to a fly-on-the-wall documentary. The film crew followed Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen at an EU summit. They took film of several of his meetings. The reaction of Gunter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enlargement, to the German screening of the film speaks volumes:

Mr Verheugen has not seen the film and told the journalists in Hamburg, that he was not going to see it. "The picture painted can only be wrong", he said and added that he regarded the film as a violation of human rights.

"International politics must essentially be based on trust. You must be able to discuss things, without having it out in the public the day after. It is all about decency", he said at the meeting in Hamburg.

What exactly did Verheugen think the cameras were doing? Filming a commercial for the EU?

It outrages me that the first reaction of this pompous panjandrum to a film he has not seen is to call it a breach of human rights. Isn't free expression a human right, according to the EU's beloved charter? And what does this tell us about how the get-out raison d'etat clause (allowing 'fundamental' rights to be ignored in the interests of the Union) will be used by EU officials?

Alles banditen, as they say.

Misunderstanding Science Two Different Ways

My TCS column is up here.

Two Different Ways

When the Framers were drafting the US Constitution, most of them felt that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, because the people's representatives would always be guaranteed to uphold those rights. Of course it didn't work out that way, because the Anti-Federalists won that particular bit of the ratification argument. Nevertheless, that is basically the principle on which British rights have rested for 300 years. Property rights came under severe threat during the Socialist era of British politics from 1945ish to 1979. Nevertheless, a government was elected then that restored property rights, privatized most of the industries stolen in the name of the people and won the argument such that property rights are, to all intents and purposes, as strong as they were in the 1930s. It seems to me that the current era where civil liberties are being eroded will see a similar shift back, with a future government undoing the centralist insanities of the major-Blair years and returning individual liberties to their rightful place in the British way of life.

The British constitution is flexible, unlike the American constitution, which is a great virtue but also a great danger. It is very easy to change British law, but so is it easy to change it back if it doesn't work out. In the history of the American experiment, we have only ever seen one Amendment repealed. The USA is still suffering from the ludicrous decision to directly elect Senators, for example, which severely unbalanced the federal system in my opinion. In the UK, we could return to the status quo ante of an hereditary House of Lords, should we so wish, by the simple repeal of an Act.

So I am concerned that the argument that the European Constitution must be subject to a referendum may be a hostage to fortune. If the "yes" camp were somehow to hoodwink the British people into voting in favor, it would be very, very difficult to argue for withdrawal in future, and would certainly require another referendum to gain the moral legitimacy needed, which would be subject to the same tricks. By contrast, if it were done by Act of Parliament, a future government could withdraw from the EU Constitution simply by repealing the Act. That's what representative government is for, it seems to me, to take more measured views of what is good for the nation than the people normally allow. I believe the Federalist Papers speak to this very point.

When no Parliament can bind its successors, this makes it very difficult for great experiments to succeed in altering the ground rules forever. You'd have to abolish Parliament and the Monarchy together, such that no future Parliament could be legitimately summoned, for the EU to succeed in its unspoken desire to abolish Britain.

Having said all that, I lean more towards a referendum on the Constitution than away from it, but I think the constitutional reasoning of people like Steven Den Beste needs a little more consideration of the nuances of the British constitution than they have so far given it. I happen to agree with Steven that Britain needs a genuine Charter of Rights, despite what I say above, but this whole question is far more complicated than that.

E-mail group working!

At long last, I've got the e-mail distribution of this blog's posts working. Of course, blogger has decided to lose my template (AAARRGGGHHH!!!) so I can't put the link back on the left.

If you want to get this blog's posts by e-mail, subscribe by sending an e-mail to englandssword-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. I think.

Two pieces of good news

First, the inquiry into the conduct of Col. Tim Collinsa has found no evidence of war crimes. Jolly good. This always smelt funny to me.

And Wolves are back in the premiership! Huzzah! The news will be all the sweeter given that their rivals the Baggies got relegated. Wolves have been my "second team" for a while now, so this takes a little edge off my grief over Sunderland's awful performance this season.

Con-stitution

Blueprint for Europe published, says the BBC. In other words, the European Convention has set out its proposals for the European super-state. HMG is desperately spinning the idea that an elected European President and Foreign Minister, the recognition of the EU as a 'legal personality,' a binding common foreign policy and a binding charter of 'rights' (except when the Union doesn't like it) is merely a 'tidying-up' of previous agreements. That just won't wash. I'll have some more detailed thoughts later, and it would be a good idea to keep an eye on Airstrip One, where Philip Chaston wil doubtless dissect the document with surgical precision. Junius also has some initial observations (the document is a mixture of the bland and the alarming).

This one will grow and grow, and may be the first nail in New Labour's coffin.

Hey hey, we're the Wanderers

Up far too late again, but my hopes and prayers are with Nick Barlow and Chad Dimpler for Wolverhampton Wanderers to end their too-long exile from football's top flight tomorrow. With such ex-Sunderland stars as Alex Rae and Paul "Pies" Butler in their midst, the future looks bright for the young lads from the Black Country

-- Harry Clarts
Your football correspondent

It was an accident

Just as Britain did not intend to be the mother of modern democracies, the US did not intend to be a superpower. We just wanted a place to be free. As luck would have it we managed to carve out a place that allowed for individual freedom and expression that has worked out real well for us. But it wasn't on purpose. At least not until after WWII, when we realized we had to fill a void. If you ask an everyday American what they want, dollars to donuts, the answer will be a better life for myself and my children. Same as everyone else. In short, I believe that Americans would give up "superpower" status so long as we were able to defend ourselves and do honest business with the rest of the world. Other countries may "plan" for greatness, we kinda feel ass-backwards into it.

Too Much TV

Okay, so Iain and I watch a lot of TV. Too much TV really. But every once in a while it pays off BIG time. Tonight we found an AMAZING show, Most Extreme Elimination Challenge on TNN (soon to be known as Spike TV). Sooooo worth it. It is apparently a really sick (wonderfully sick) Japanese show where contestants have to do insane physical challenges. The best part is they make no effort to dub the show's original language, but instead provide a tongue-in-cheek made up American commentary. So you see these crazy contestants who are clearly Japanese with names like Rich and Lenny Cheney sliding down waterslides in a giant rice bowl with the voice overs talking about their sexual life choices. Hilarious, subversive good fun. Watch it and thank us later.

Am I an American?

The Memorial Day service at our church Kris describes below brought me a torrent of conflicting emotions. It began with the Battle Hymn of the Republic, a powerful hymn which was present in my old school hymn book, Hymns Ancient and Modern (so much for its peculiar Americanness). Nevertheless, as we sang America the Beautiful, I felt something stirring in me. When it came to God Bless America, I started to cry. Part of it was in the affirmation that America is a land that I love, but part of it was at the words "my home sweet home," when I realized that England's green and pleasant land was truly no longer my home. That was a shock.

So as we remembered those who had passed away from the church during the year -- again, a truly moving event -- I began to have my doubts about what I was. If I feel stirring emotions at the evocation of the glories of the land I live in, does that not indicate that I think of myself as American? But if I can feel such sadness at being away from my native land, does that not show my love for England? I remembered Wordsworth, when he says in Lucy:

I travell'd among unknown men,
In lands beyond the sea;
Nor, England! did I know till then
What love I bore to thee.

'Tis past, that melancholy dream!
Nor will I quit thy shore
A second time; for still I seem
To love thee more and more.

Yet then, when the video Kris refers to below came on, anchored on Lincoln's funeral oration at Gettysburg, I found myself emotionally shaking at that final phrase:

that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

I am left with the conclusion that I am English and, yes, I am American. The INS may not recognize my nationality, and Congress may forbid me from formal recognition by requiring an oath it itself ignores, but I love both my countries, both of them more and more as the days go on. God Bless America, and God Save the Queen!

Incidentally, it was nice of them to play God Save the Queen, even if it was under the title "America"...

It would be remiss of me not to mention that the day's message also helped reaffirm my Christian faith. Jordan passed.

Britain Out of Eurovision!

For the first time in the history of the Eurovision Song Contest, a British entry failed to get a single point. As a result, humiliated duo has been advised to call themselves Nil Points. I reckon great success awaits them under that title.

Oh, Turkey won, beating the neo-nazis (allegedly) from Belgium and the underage lesbians (allegedly) from Russia. Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.

Last Mad Cow Post for a While, I Promise

Canadian listeners can hear me on Cross Country Checkup this afternoon talking about Mad Politician Disease.

Memorial Stones

Today at church we celebrated Memorial Day. There were so many moving ceremonies in today's service, thank goodness Iain brought tissues. At one point, they showed a short film. It ran specific text lines from the Gettysburg Address throughout, had no voices, just music and images of America's wars from the Civil War to date, and concluded with the address's final lines. I finally understood. I had intellectually realized that the American Civil War was deeply linked to the unresolved issues of the American Revolution. But seeing this little film helped me understand how hard it had been to get everyone to agree on what the American Revolution had meant. What it meant to be an American. In cataclysmic pain, America was reborn with a renewed love for a purer freedom. Happy Memorial Day.

Oh Canada

I have an editorial on mad cow disease in The National Post up there in the Great White North this morning.

Tribal Clashes

Zoning out "The Wiggles" this morning, I started to wonder what would happen if the US pulled out of NATO. I figured various European nations eventually would declare war on each other as per usual.

But why? So I thought about how every region on earth seems to have the same history of war. Except America. Other than one civil war, Americans tend not to kill each other on the same scale as those in Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America do or have done. One of the big differences seems to be a lack of tribal/clan groupings. Even "sophisticated" Europe seems to have some race memory remanents of tribalness to it. (By tribal, I mean the bonds held between a range of people from small local groups to nations as well as ethnic background and family arrangements.)

Perhaps it is the act of immigrating to America and starting fresh in a new culture that breaks the ancient tribal/ethnic ties. Certainly, ethnic groups in America have clumped together - the Irish, Germans, Italiens, and Jews spring to mind. But even if the immigrants maintain their "tribal" affiliations, their descendents are relatively quickly assimilated into the larger national American culture. Most hyphenated Americans have only a tenuous connection to their former tribal group and I suspect would not give up their US citizenship to return to the old country.

I believe this lack of "old world" ties coupled with universal sufferage means no one needs to fear losing their liberty to another. That the enshrined freedoms of the American Bill of Rights removes the threats that generally motivate "tribal" violence because no one group of people is more important than another.

At any rate, this started off being about America and NATO. As much as I'd love to tell the EU to stick it where the sun don't shine, I am afraid America must try her hardest to keep NATO intact. As sure as tides and taxes, if Europe is left completely to itself, her occupants are certain to start killing each other yet again and dragging us (America) into the thick of things. NATO is actually cheaper in the long run. That said, on another unrelated note, I'm still not buying french stuff.

Romford fallacy

Michael Gove's and Andrew Cooper's recent presentation to Cchange makes some good points, and some poor ones. Michael is right about the need for change in the party. Even John Redwood agrees on that matter. However, he misses the mark in claiming that it's the Tory agenda that's failing. It's rather the Conservatives' adherence to a old 'brand name', that hasn't been refreshed. I canvassed for a friend running for council in Leytonstone (by no means a Conservative area), and most of the respondents thought tax was too high, or they weren't getting value for their tax money. However, the failure to link the abstract 'tax cut', which can be erroneously seen as only for the rich, to questions like 'what would you do with 50 pounds?" (which you could receive from lower taxes) seem to prove the Tory failings. While most respondents agreed to the Conservative message, they both did not identify it with the Conservatives, or it wasn't relevant to them. In short, they wanted a tax cut, but from anyone but the Tories, as they didn't see the Tories as working for the ordinary individual. Therefore, the Conservative message does resonate, but we're stuck with linking ourselves to the boons and busts of the Thatcher and Major years, instead of constantly reminding the electorate of the continuing relevance of Conservative ideologies.

Gove and Cooper seem to claim that Andrew Rosindell's stunning result in Romford was an aberration, due to the demographics of Romford. Hardly. As someone who knows Andrew well, Rosindell had a variety of keys to victory. First, he was a local candidate with a track record that he could point to as delivering for Romford citizens. As an auxiliary point, he was local, so knew the issues, and knew how to link Conservative policies to local issues. Not many people vote for abstract ideas, but if you can link them to actual change in their neighborhood, they are far more likely to vote Tory. It's why the Lib Dems do so well on a grass-roots level. They link their national policies to local results. In addition, Andrew's a formidable campaigner, and came up with his own election leaflets (as opposed to the CCO mandated ones) to distribute in Romford, which were much more effective in communicating his message. I accept Gove's point that Romford is not demographically like the average constituency in Britain, but Rosindell's success was not as much a function of demographics as it was of communication. Andrew is what could be called a Toryboy, with lots of laurels in the Conservative youth movement, but he merges that with a very practical political view towards serving constituents. That's the key to success. Campaigning like Andrew Rosindell, whether one likes his policies or not.

Congratulations!

I've had to cut the song contest short, as I'm leaving Britain on Monday for a summer internship at the National Economic Council in the White House, but would like to congratulate Mr Spin, of British Spin, whose entry (and rationale) of Sophie Ellis Bextor's "Get Over You", trumped the rest. Unfortunately, songs like "Another Brick In the Wall II", a good commentary on Labour's education policy (plus the children's chorus is from Islington Green school).. but for that matter, most of "The Wall" can be viewed as good commentary on the Tories, and anything by Natalie Imbruglia (former girlfriend of Tory frontbencher, and possible future leader Liam Fox, who was even thanked in Imbruglia's album credits).

Referendum

A tradition, if not rule, of British governance is that no Parliament can bind its successors. That is why a referendum on the Euro-constitution is needed. The Constitution will practically bind future Parliaments, if not theoretically, and therefore, any change in the nature of British representation should be held to the people. It is up to Parliament to decide what to do on its own accord, but it is not any Government's prerogative to change the form of popular representation. Again, in theory, any future parliament can undo the work of a past parliament, but for those instruments which tend to become Gordian knots, referenda are obligatory, as they constrain the scope of future Parliaments' activities.

A regressive tax

In his memoirs, Nigel Lawson notes that Lady Thatcher's least favourite tax was the BBC license fee. Thankfully, the Tories have decided to consider action against this. Consider the complete lack of accountability in the BBC which would make the European Commission green with envy. The BBC's competitors have an independent regulator to review their practices. With the BBC, it's an internal review board, which, at most, tells journalists to review their practices if they're breached guidelines. While the ITC investigates Sky TV for its allegedly biased airing of Fox News on its digital channel (all of 9 complaints received by the ITC), the BBC has no such problem, despite the views of many Britons, including the crew of the Ark Royal. The BBC should be held to at least the same standard as its competitors, if not a greater standard, due to its receipt of funds from the public purse. Asking any body to self-regulate is a foolish decision.

Furthermore, the BBC's quest for ratings leads one to question its public service remit. One would be better off with competitive bidding for public service programming, similar to the way in which other service providers bid for licenses (and tend to receive some sort of subsidy for service).

Then there's the integrity issue. Until Greg Dyke stops throwing around apparent polling numbers without referencing the source, I fail to give any credence to them.

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello

The Times also suggests some new tests for applicants to Britain's police forces. A sample:

3. Language and Comprehension. Potential officers will be tested on their ability to understand key words in modern policing. The old test, which probed comprehension of outdated terms like “apprehend” and “criminals”, will be ditched. The recruitment panel will now be looking for those able to use words like priority policing while being able to explain convincingly why no one ever turns up to investigate a crime any more. Those who can deploy a cliché like “in a modern policing environment, reflecting contemporary society” might be considered as senior officer material.

The British police is proceeding in a westerly direction down the drain...

Pounding away at the Dollar and Euro

Anyone whoi is tempted to crow about the Euro's current strength against the Dollar should sit down, take a sip of water and read this Times editorial. The Euro's previous weakness may have helped mask Euroland's economic woes:

Far from hurting America, in fact, the falling dollar seems to pose a much greater threat to those euroland economies. Several countries have chronic unemployment problems, which are likely to get worse. And leading European companies, ranging from the French defence firms to German car manufacturers have blamed relatively poor figures on the weak dollar. These companies have been reliant on exports given the weak demand at home — for example, the economist Roger Bootle has noted that Germany’s barely visible GDP growth last year would have been more embarrassing but for a 2.6 per cent rise in exports.

Worse, the impact of dollar movements is accentuated because of the number of currencies that are pegged to it. The Chinese yuan, Hong Kong dollar, Argentinian peso and Malaysian ringgit, to name but a few, bob up and down in line with the greenback. So the dollar’s decline against the euro means not only that American cars are now 27 per cent cheaper in France and Germany than they were 15 months ago, but also that Chinese electronics are 27 per cent cheaper. This potentially leaves the eurozone in a very uncomfortable position sandwiched between two powerful economies, one (America) competing with Europe on high-end goods and services and the other (China) on the low-cost products made by unskilled workers where Europe is already very vulnerable.

The apparent inability of the European Central Bank to see this threat coming — the equivalent of the elephant in the living room — is one more reason why UK Treasury officials may feel reluctant to cede control of British monetary policy. The Stability Pact prevents members of the eurozone from responding to the threat of the falling dollar by reducing interest rates or borrowing to accelerate growth. It is hard not to conclude that the Federal Reserve is currently being run more intelligently than the European Central Bank.

I fail to see how the Prime Minister can ignore these harsh truths. That is why I remain convinced that his current support for the Euro is more a factional move aimed at keeping his transnationalist wing on his side, rather than seeing them charge off to join the Lib Dems.

Cui bono?

It appears that Col. Tim Collins, whose speech to his men at the outset of the Iraq War was as moving an expression of British martial values as one could get, is being investigated for breaches of the Geneva Convention in the maltreatment of prisoners. The accusation, it appears, came from an American officer. This strikes me as very fishy indeed. Does anyone have any theories as to what's going on here, as it baffles me?

Paging Rep. Sensenbrenner

The old order changeth, the attitude changeth not. Despite its abolition, it seems that the prevailing attitudes of the INS -- arrogance, discourtesy and incompetence -- are still in place in America's airports. That is, if this story has any truth in it (and I see no reason why we should doubt the correspondent's word).

Blair and neconservativism

Apparently the venerable BBC investigative program Panorama had a hit-piece this Sunday complaining about shadowy neo-conservatives and their influence over Tony Blair. Stephen Pollard has already stuck the boot in, deservedly, but it is clear to me that these Panorama luvvies haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. Here's the addled old Auntie's definition of a neocon:

They tend to have three things in common.

That they are prepared to use military force for moral purposes - unilaterally if necessary - have shifted their political beliefs from the Left to the Right, and are strong believers in religion.

Compare and contrast original neocon Michael Novak's definition:

the creed of the neocons may be also be happily stated, in three structural propositions:

* Economic realism, breaking from leftist utopianism, is fundamental; and the dynamic drive of realism in economics flows from mind, creativity, and enterprise. Also, in the real world, incentives help mightily.
* Politics is more fundamental than economics, for without the rule of law, limited government, and respect for natural rights economic progress is scarcely possible.
* Culture is even more fundamental than politics or economics, for without certain architectonic ideas, certain habits of the heart, a love for argument and evidence and open conversation, and a few other moral and spiritual dispositions, neither a republic respecting rights nor a dynamic capitalist economy can thrive, or even survive.

These three are the structural conditions for a free society.

In a word, the free society requires for its maintenance and its flourishing three successive inner conversions, or transformations, of the mind and heart — economic, political, and cultural. That is why most who become neoconservatives (barbarous name!) experience their becoming so as something like a conversion.

Friends of mine who saw the program say that the cultural and social policy aspect of neoconservativism -- the most fundamental aspect -- was not mentioned at all. Obviously, our esteemed BBC fact-checkers were too busy working on the Jessica Lynch story to bother to pick up a copy of The Public Interest.

It is a shame that Jonah Goldberg's excellent series on NRO about the use and abuse of the term neocon was not published in time for what few diligent people remain at the BBC to consider. I think his conclusion, even though he is probably unaware of Panorama's pantomime, fits the discussion perfectly:

If neoconservatives are hawks who favor democracy, then most conservatives and Republicans are neocons and therefore the term is too broad to be useful. If neocons are Jews, then stop calling Max Boot, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich neocons. If neocons are ex-liberals stop calling Bill Kristol a neocon and start calling the founders of National Review neocons. And so on and so on. If you mean "hawk" say hawk. If you mean "Wilsonian" say Wilsonian. If you mean "Bill Kristol" say Bill Kristol. And, if you mean "Jew," for goodness sake, say Jew.

But if you mean neoconservative, you should know what you're talking about.

The BBC: ignorant, unsophisticated, and careless. All those adjectives have been applied by British media critics to, ooh, I dunno, Fox News amongst others. What marks the BBC out as worse than any of those networks in this case, however, it that by broadcasting such badly-researched drivel it is betraying the public it is supposed to serve. Lord Reith would have had kittens.

Further DeLay

In case you're interested, here's the text of the speech Tom DeLay delivered at the CEI Dinner last night. We also had a chance to meet Bjorn Lomborg (Kris to Bjorn: "Dude, you rock!") and toasted the memory of data-driven journalist Warren T. Brookes. A pretty sound night, all told.

Mad about the cow

My article on what I continue to view as the folly of precipitate precuationary action over mad cow disease is up at National Review Online.

ROFLMAO

After getting back from the CEI Dinner -- of which more anon -- Kris and I watched the last episode of Buffy. Suffice it to say, I actually fell out of my seat and drooled at the single most hilarious moment in the history of television fantasy. A triumph from Joss Whedon, who has to do Dr Who now...

PP: Volokhian co-conspirator Dan Drezner has the best set of Buffy links around.

Kinda A Bargain

Rumsfield has ordered a "lessons learned" analysis of the Iraqi War according to Newsweek. Apparently Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley has already compiled some raw data. Most interestingly, the known costs of the Iraqi War were $917,744,361.55 —an amount equivalent to 46 minutes, 10.5 seconds’ worth of total U.S. economic output in 2001. Goodness!

It All Makes Sense Now

In another Newsweek article I've learned that the US military is "breaking Saddam supporters" by constantly playing heavy metal music and children's songs. That explains a lot about me since my days are filled with the same children's songs over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...

A Prayer for the Innocent

I spent much of this morning near or in tears reading in Newsweek about the Saudi bombings. In particular the discovery of two charred child corpses found hugging each other under a stairwell. May God guide us in finding this evil and destroying it with righteous justice and thorough vengence. Our prayers are with all those who have suffered pain and loss at the hands of these evil, evil men. May God forgive them because I can not.

Three cheers for Chirac?

Who killed Kyoto? Everyone says it was President Bush, but a closer look at what went on outside America in November 2000 suggests it was the French. That's the topic of my TCS column today.

Nuku bombiin

Thanks to Nick Barlow for bringing my attention to Austria's entry in this year's Eurovision Song Contest. Not since Samiid Aednan, a Norwegin song about the environmental plight of the Lapps, which received "nul pointes," or my personal favorite, Nuku Bombiin (sp?), a Finnish punk-rock cry of angst against the peril of nuclear war, have we seen such environmental awareness in a melody:

Alf Poier says: “My song called “Man Is the Measure of All Things” is all about animals living in the filth created by man. However things like water, trees of the forest, anthills, pure light, elephants with their trunks and cockroaches living under tiles have to count as well. My song is a hymn to individualism and against collectivism. I am in favour of balls and against circles, for corners and against edges, for every tree and not the generalisation of a forest. It is not so much the song that counts in my performance, but the moral behind it. Whoever votes for me is against being standardised and cemented into the ‘European banality’."

What a star. Those young Russian girls in the see-through shirts don't stand a chance.

Yes!!!

Tony Blair must be doing something right. Canada's looniest lefty columnist, Heather Mallick, says that Britain is becoming a hateful place ruled by a madman. She doesn't like Our Tone:

Mr. Blair thinks gays are dirty beasts, doesn't like immigrants or atheists, loathes the word "feminist" and is a born-again Christian. No wonder his wife is still giving birth in her 40s.

Erm, sorry, run that by me again? Nope, too late, it's time to remember wistfully the golden age of socialist Britain under an unlikely leader:

Get this: The gap between rich and poor is now wider than under Margaret Thatcher. I miss that brave woman. At least she paraded her contempt rather than "spinning" it.

Result!

Mallick also says:

Cherie is clearly off her rocker, with her flowing clothes, her crystals and frolicking with the asteroids or whatever.

Takes one to know one, dear.

(Hmm. I think I was channeling Peter Briffa for a moment there).

Spot the condescension

The REU, which I think used to be the Racial Equality Unit, has decided that old people from ethnic minorities in the UK must have a poorer quality of life because they have experienced racism at some point in the past. Leaving this idea aside, the press release seems hard-pressed to find any real negatives in their overall quality of life, pointing out how they're quite happy to form communities of their own to make up for the lack of the traditional social structure for old people in their country of origin. As it points out, they accept thing are different in Britain and show no desire to return to their home country, which I suspect must have disappointed the researchers terribly. But the condescension reaches new depths towards the end:

Perhaps contrary to expectations, a high proportion of people identified religion as providing meaning and purpose to their lives. This was especially true of Black Caribbean women for whom their local church was one of their most important sources of social support.

"Perhaps contrary to expectations..."!?! Words fail me...

Is that it?

Thanks to the marvelously cantankerous Numberwatch website, I was reminded about Christopher Booker's Notebook, a weekly survey of excessive regulation -- often European in origin -- that the Sunday Telegraph does its best to hide on its website for some reason. This week's edition contains a bombshell about mad cow disease:

The chief reason for doubting a link between beef and CJD lay in the epidemiological evidence, which even in 1996 suggested that the promised epidemic was a fantasy. Over the past seven years, as the incidence curve has begun a steady fall, that has seemed ever more certain. Now, after reviewing the evidence, Professor Roy Anderson and his Imperial College team have published a revised estimate of the total number of victims likely to die of vCJD in the future (link available through www.wamwell.com [sic]). Their figure? Not 400,000, or 40,000, just 40.

I was amazed. Not too long ago, Anderson was still claiming the likely figure would be in tens of thousands. So I followed that link, via Warmwell.com, not wamwell, and found the peer-reviewed paper at BioMedCentral. Sure enough,

Our results show a substantial decrease in the uncertainty of the future course of the primary epidemic in the susceptible genotype (MM-homozygous at codon 129 of the prion protein gene), with a best estimate of 40 future deaths (95% prediction interval 9-540) based on fitting to the vCJD case data alone.

When they add in the possibility that the disease could be spread by surgical equipment -- hypothesized, but no examples have yet occured -- the number rises to 100. Hardly earth-shattering.

Of course, each of these deaths was a tragedy but no more so than a death from any other incurable disease. Did the British economy and public confidence in science need to suffer so much for this? I may have a piece published later in the week on this very subject. Watch this space.

Morris dips his toe in Anglospheric waters

Like David Mellor, American political strategist is known for toe-sucking, but unlike the erstwhile Conservative his clever advice helped his clients win elections. More than anyone else, perhaps, he provided the Clinton team with the direction it needed to win the White House twice. So it is intriguing to see that he recoignizes the Anglsophere, in all but name, as an idea whose time has come:

Always globalist in its thinking, Britain has learnt the lesson of its pre-Second World War days and has embraced the need for a strong hand in foreign affairs. Understanding the reason to use force against injustice in a way German post-war conditioning (for which we must be grateful) will not allow, Britain can and should step up to the permanent role in global leadership that its limited population and economy forced it to abandon in the 1950s. The era of "no commitments east of Suez" is long gone.

In an econo-centric world, the British Commonwealth counts for little. But in the global fight against terror, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other English-speaking countries are valuable and important allies.

The political lesson of the war in Iraq is that the people of America and Britain have far more in common with one another than do the British people with the French or the Germans.

Our common linguistic heritage, shared values, renunciation of appeasement as a policy option, commitment to do battle against injustice, and our essential optimism about the possibility of success make us partners in a way that continental Europeans, with their history of foreign occupation, can never hope to match.

Morris finishes by looking sideways at Blair's pro-European policies:

The British are a can-do people, imbued with energy and positivism. Like Americans, they look to their future. Unlike the French, they are neither cranky nor neurotic. Unlike the Germans, they have been neither beaten nor humiliated.

Britain can trade and share its currency with anyone its wants. It can subscribe to joint domestic policies with the continental bureaucrats if it so desires. (Although I suspect the door to Nafta is open to Britain if it ever gets tired of its current confrères.)

Make your economic destiny with the Continent if you wish. But save your political vows for a marriage with America. We want you ever so much more than they do, and our joint future is a lot brighter than theirs.

The Anglosphere idea allows for continued British interaction within or without the European Union, but it draws the line at political union. Morris is perhaps a little too headstrong in using the term "political marriage," but the basic idea -- that Britain and America share more than Britain and Europe ever could, barring Britain ceasing to be Britain -- is the basis of the Anglospheric idea.

Religion Hour

Time to sound off on Christianity. As regular readers will know, in the UK, I'm a lapsed Episcopalian/Anglican, due to the extreme politicisation of the Church of England. Rowan Williams has alleged that members of the Western Church indulge in boredom, greed, exploitation, and indifference, according to The Times. The Church seems to have lost hold of the transcendent aspect of faith in its services today, serving up a mish-mash of contemporary 'trendy' religion, and old high church. I blame part of this on politics. When one attends a service, the point of any religious sermon is to explain to the believers how to adopt the principles of religion in life, not advocate a controversial view. For example, it is not controversial to want peace. However, if one is told whom one should support in the Iraq conflict, it's a bit too far. Another part is the nature of the services. There are quite a few 'smells and bells' which may be useful to the praise of God, but in today's fast-paced society, a long service will dissuade people, while they will listen to a preacher. Ceremony and ritual are important, but the current system seems to satisfy neither traditionalists nor modernizers. Instead of striking a middle ground, the church should provide separate services, as the two groups will never agree on the style of worship.

Birdbrained

Today's Guardian features Peter Singer, pontifex maximus of the 'two legs bad, four legs good' theory. In other words, he's the founder of animal rights. As an aside, I have to be impressed by the Australians. They were originally a dumping ground for British undesirables, but they seem to send most of their more extreme 'theoreticians' (e.g. Germaine Greet & Mr Singer) to other parts of the Anglosphere. According to Mr Singer, we're all oppressors, since we harm living things. Don't plants live as well? To him, it's shocking that we're related to chimpanzees. I guess evolutionary relations therefore justify equality. And fish feel pain! Cows don't like their stalls! Mr Singer fails to point a fine line between humanely treating animals, and what's necessary to survive. He'd argue that we shouldn't eat anything which can feel pain, which really doesn't have much to do with humane treatment. Again, if we treat all animals this way, what makes it different to be 'human'? Where do animal's 'natural law' end, and mankind's rights begin? I previously argued against a ban on kosher and halal slaughtering, claiming it to be pandering to political correctness, and offensive to orthodox adherents of Islam and Judaism. The methods of slaughtering used are far from barbaric, and to me, it seems trivial to argue over whether a cow will suffer a millisecond of pain when it's killed. While it is obvious that we should avoid inflicting pain on it, we are killing the creature, and any talk of halting religious laws to accomodate the sensations of an animal for the slaughter is trivial.
If Mr Singer wants to talk evolutionary history, mankind's ancestors were omnivorous, though descended from herbivores. While he argues that we should make leeway to our close evolutionary brothers, the great apes, he fails to realize the entire point of evolution is changing to adapting conditions. In addition, we did eat meat in the past, as homo habilis, erectus, et al all were omnivorous. Only Austrolepithecus wasn't, and he fell by the wayside. One wonders about the pure health benefits of a vegan diet (surely, Mr Singer et al wouldn't want us to stop at vegetarianism).

Besides, one reason I find animal rights a bit farcical is that none of these groups stresses conservation of endangered species. There seems to be an aesthetic test for preservation. If it's an adorable bunny, it must be saved. If it's a manatee, who cares? (I admit, I am a supporter of Save The Manatee and will support the Australian Platypus Conservatory, when I stop my idleness) Surely, if the gist of animal rights is that we should not inflict pain on any feeling creature, more than just food breeding and animal testing should be taboo?

Contest time

Time for something slightly frivolous here, and a test of yahoo's spam filter. Given the current state of the Tory Party, what songs might be appropriate for it and why? Not just titles, but also lyrics. Note: D-Ream's "Things Can Only Get Better" has already been taken. Enter as many times as you'd like. The overall winner will receive something interesting that I spot at Politico's later this week, and winners of certain categories (rap songs, country songs, etc.) will also be recognized, unless they'd prefer not to be. E-mail me at fjsinlondon@yahoo.com with your entries. There are a few more judges as well, who know far more about the music business than I do.

Boycotting for an exam?

Well, it's exam time for me in the UK. Just finished one earlier today. However, in Florida, black leaders are calling for a boycott of major industries to combat the administration of a exam that students need to take to graduate high school. First, last I checked, you didn't need to be a high school graduate to work in certain fields (from politics to others). Also, don't you need to pass exams to graduate? Otherwise, what's the bloody point of showing up in the first place? Bishop Curry claims that since some of these students have received athletic scholarships, they've proven their academic merit. First off, sometimes, scholarships are revoked if an athlete fails to meet a threshold on either the ACT or SAT (aptitude tests). So receiving a sports scholarship doesn't have anything to do with academic ability. If students can't pass, then they don't deserve the same qualification as their peers who do pass. Yes, many inner-city schools are woefully bad, but should the slackers at that school deserve the same merit as those who have achieved against adversity? The solution is not to lower standards, as that will further complicate things.

A stopped clock is right

John O'Farrell makes a good point in today's Guardian. According to proposed European regulations, halal and kosher methods of slaughtering will be banned as insensitive to animal rights. He's right in claiming that we cannot claim to be a tolerant society while only allowing those whose religious beliefs who do not offend our ideals to practice their views. Yes, animal rights are equivalent, if not superior, to the rights of observant Jews and Muslims to practice their religion in the eyes of the PC Brigade. So, doesn't that seem to equate to a view that animals are better, and more deserving of those rights than practitioners of those religions? Yes, the right is often criticized for comparing minorities and religious people to animals, but the left is far worse in this case.

A good idea from the Tories

In today's papers, the article mentioning the Tories' plans on the Lotto has a small snippet which I'd like to hear more about. Apparently, there will be 'a presumption of tax relief' on charitable donations. The current system of charity financing in Britain allows the charity to claim back the tax you would have paid on your donation. So if the tax is 10%, and you give 100 pounds, the charity gets 100 from you, and 10 from the government. The US system of deductibility is far better, allowing tax deductibility for charitable donations up to a given threshold. If you give money in the UK, you still have to pay the same amount of tax, while in the US, you can cut your tax bill while also encouraging the voluntary sector. It plays to self-interest, but countries with a tax-deductibility system seem to have far greater per capita donations than those without. This may be one way to help solve university funding problems.

An 'understanding of Europe'?

Denis Macshane, the Minister for Europe, contends that MPs aren't spending enough time in Europe, so don't understand them. Balderdash. Many of the most fervent Eurosceptics holiday in France, Spain, or Italy, speak a European language, etc. At least the Foreign Office has extended the budget to meetings outside of Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg, but only to other capital cities, so the flight to the Riviera will be stayed, for a bit.

Corruption in Government

The French love of opera buffa on the governmental level furthers itself today, with the Elysee Palace claiming that the White House misled France about Iraq in an attempt to discredit Chirac's administration. Surely this isn't the same Jacques Chirac who inveighs against the Bush adminstration's ties to Enron. It must be some other Jacques Chirac, not the former Mayor of Paris known for taking slush fund payments for his party and bribes in suitcases, and someone who would have made even Neil Hamilton turn green with envy (speaking of which, Fayed was a big Chirac supporter, too). Someone whose close allies and fellow ministers in his RPR administration are either on trial for corruption, or under investigation. One doesn't need to editorialize about this guy, as facts are enough to bury him. Even diehards like David Horowitz would probably see this guy as far dodgier than President Clinton, and equally passionate Democrats would have the same view of Chirac relative to Enron. He's just honest Jacques. So, how can Chirac be discredited? That would imply he had a reputation for probity. Crying wolf over this is rather like the BNP claiming that they're falsely portrayed as racists, although admiring Hitler immensely.

Double Take

Those of us who remember a former President of the National Union of Mineworkers will have surely had to look twice at the headline Gormley unveils metal model nudes...

'We don't do burglary'

Then there's this article by a Londoner who had his moped stolen, but who had eye-witnesses who saw the crime happen. He asked the police for help pursuing the criminals, and got this reply:

‘We don’t do that,’ said the female duty officer, as she drained her can of Tizer.

‘Right,’ I said. ‘We will continue our search, and if we find any of the boys we’ll frogmarch them in here so you can arrest them. I know this sort of thing is pretty far down on your list of priorities, but it matters a hell of a lot to some of us.’

‘You can’t do that. If you bruise them, their parents will accuse you of assault. You can only detain them.’

He and his eye-witnesses sought out the stolen vehicle anyway and, on finding the evidence, were told:

‘We don’t do that,’ said the same duty officer.

‘What do you mean, you don’t do that?’

‘We don’t even visit the scene of a home burglary any more unless there are exceptional circumstances.’

‘But don’t you want to get the fingerprints so that if and when you catch them you will have some evidence? Don’t you want to get a proper description of what they look like from the decorators? Don’t you want to be seen to be on the case?’

‘It doesn’t work like that,’ she said. ‘But you’re welcome to report the crime, and I suggest you do if you intend to claim on your insurance.’

There are a lot of stories like this. Equally, there are stories like the one Stephen Pollard told recently of swift and assured police response to complaints. It is, perhaps, the inconsistency that annoys me the most. A citizen can't be sure of what is going to happen when he calls the police for help. That's just plain wrong. At least knowledge that the police have abrogated their role in all cases of burglary would probably inspire wholesale rejection of the system and the "revolutionary" action that would be needed in such a case. The present system just leaves citizens dangling. Distribution of justice in the UK is becoming capricious -- 'freakish and wanton' as someone once said of a certain form of justice over here.

If the Tories are going to make anything of this, they should remember that the weight of the evidence is that longer sentences are not the answer to crime. It's certainty of capture and punishment. Police must catch burglars, and they must be sentenced to custodial punishment. That's the reverse of what most people -- including the police -- in the UK seem to think.

Right and wrong

Now this article, about the Tory approach to Iraq, is better. It certainly gets the motivations behind current Tory strategy right, such as this observation, which I've echoed elsewhere:

Party strategists took the view that the way to gain maximum political advantage out of the crisis was to be staunch, not sceptical. Talk of doing what Labour did during the Maastricht debates in 1992, and voting against the government to try to bring about its defeat, was dismissed out of hand. Such cynicism, it was felt, would backfire. Instead, the Tories calculated that by voting with the government, more Labour MPs were likely to rebel.

Indeed. If you want to make Labour appear divided, vote with them more often. Unfortunately, the article then goes off on a weird tangent about the neoconservative influence in DC, and over IDS. This article shows a profound misunderstanding about neoconservatives and their role in Washington politics. I half get the feeling that the author would call the Heritage Foundation neocon. Actually, to borrow a line from sp!ked, this analysis tells us more about current British conservative issues than it does about Americans.

What the author is in fact describing is the distinction between Old High Tories -- paternalist and skeptical of foreign adventures -- and the dominant Conservative philosophy of the past 100 years, since the Liberal Unionists joined the Tories to create the modern Conservative coalition. That philosophy allows for liberal conservatism, which is why it has been so successful. The Tory paternalists, who have grown in strength since the mistakes of the Major era split the coalition as I've described here many times, don't want to give up their strength. Meanwhile, the liberal (in economics, mostly, but social as well) wing grows more and more suspicious of the Old High Tories. Blaming this all on neocons is a convenient tactic for the paternalist wing, but it won't wash when you come down to it.

Let's take, for instance, the analogy this High Tory is using:

[E]nthusiasm for the new Bush doctrine is not universally shared by Tory MPs. One of its most cogent critics is Andrew Tyrie, who has set out what is at stake in an insightful pamphlet published jointly by the Bow Group and the Foreign Policy Centre. ‘The international system’s stability depends on the mutual recognition of states’ legitimacy. It is a common-sense principle: do not invade my house and I will not invade yours. George Bush is setting that doctrine aside.’ It is a recipe, says Tyrie, not for international order but for ‘international anarchy’.

Rubbish. It's civilization, not anarchy, because Tyrie doesn't push his analogy far enough. You sit happy in your house while your neighbor sits happy in his. When you hear sounds of beating and cries for help from his wife, you rush round to help, breaking down the door. That's the common-sense principle. Tyrie's idea of international order involves plugging up your ears, turning up the music and settling down to read the paper, ignoring brutality and leaving civilized behavior behind. It's the "Bugger you, Jack, I'm all right" idea that Tories fought so hard against for so long. Now we see Tory MPs advocating it. That's despicable.

Wrong!

Lots to comment on in the new Spectator. I happen to think the cover article is dead wrong. It says that Blair is finished and that Short's resignation is the end of his dominance. I wrote about this below, saying the complete opposite, and have nothing realy to add. Blair's super-majority means he can brush aside a much more numerous awkward squad than previous prime ministers could, and he'll continue to be able to do that. If Oborne's conjecture is right we would have seen a much bigger rebellion over the foundation hospitals issue. Besides, who would you rather have in your cabinet: Baroness Amos, the glamorous first black woman Cabinet Minister, or dumpy, mad old Clare Short?

The Spam Song

I have been thinking about how to stop spamming. Given that my father is in charge of the committee of congress dealing with it, I have had numerous conversations with him as to why it should be banned. Firstly, there are regulations on other use of telecommunications (telemarketing, etc.) that place statutory guidelines on behaviour. However, whatever angle I use, he retorts with the rightly held belief that individuals have the right to contact each other. Contemplating that, I think a strong legal case can be made for preventing spam 'bots' (automated programmes which e-mail lists, or harvest addresses, compile them, and all the user has to do is press send). It is fair to say that individuals hold these rights. But a piece of code which automatically performs a task deserves no claim on these rights. It would be akin to someone claiming that a program they created has a 'right' to do things. In addition, in ways, spambots are similar to Denial of Service (DOS) attacks, and have similar effects. Shutting down a firm's website costs it business, but I might lose business if a full inbox due to spam prevents me from receiving important e-mail. Although there is little 'actual' loss, there is a great opportunity cost. After all, most DOS attacks involve obsessive 'pinging' of websites. Isn't that the same as communication (it's a request for information.)? And like 'spambots', it's a program doing all the dirty work. Simply, it might be wise to ban these programs. That way, the cost structure is reversed. If a company wants to increase its marketing scope on the internet, it can hire more employees, who are ultimately accountable for the 'right' of the corporation to be heard. This would not gag companies, but force them to compete on the same terms we expect of other marketing firms. Legitimate mailing lists (as in when you add yourself to a marketing list in return for receiving content from a website) would be exempt from this.

Of course, it's always tempting to require any bulk e-mailer to confirm their e-mail. After they send the spam, all the recepient's ISPs would automatically reply (more 'bots') asking the spammer to confirm for each person e-mailed. Given the number of e-mails spammers send out, it's rather likely they will be spammed out of existence quite fairly, as they'd receive a copy of each e-mail they send.

Human Rights?

Yvette Cooper, a high-flying Blairite minister (I'm surprised she hasn't been placed in the Cabinet in any of the recent moves), praises the Human Rights Act in the Guardian. The Human Rights Act is a hodgepodge of blanket human rights declaration and social contract between the European state and people. In it, it promises certain 'human rights' only to Europeans, which seems to contravene the meaning of human rights to me. Also, it's very easy to abuse. Corporate law has seen a proliferation of cases with firms suing due to violations of the Human Rights Act. As a firm is a legal 'person', they apparently have the same 'human rights' as individuals, and whatever one thinks of that, I doubt ensuring corporate rights was HRA's intent. Hence, one can cite HRA in just about any lawsuit. That's why Cherie Blair makes so much money.

She's Back!

The Iron Lady returns to the stage and calls the French 'collaborators'.

Hat tip LGF

Education Part Two

Contrary to what seems thought, I'm fully in favour of paring down university places, but IDS' proposals do not address the lack of funding for universities, which is critical. First of all, we need to look at the A level system. Well meaning admissions tutors seem to look at admissions as 3 'A's are equivalent to any other three 'A's. As the prospectus for the General Studies A-Level shows, this ain't true. And the solution proposed? A Critical Thinking AS Level. It's hard to claim meritocracy when everyone's a winner. I take issue with Iain's comment about former polytechnics. I'm studying at City University (formerly known as Northampton Polytechnic), and although it's not the dreaming spires, the business courses here are better than the University of Edinburgh, and recommended to be as the best in Britain by a tenured professor at Columbia Business School. Hardly cause for a blanket claim that all polytechnics are diploma mills in sensitivity management. Here is a good list of silly courses offered. I accept that there is a good deal of faux courses, but there's also quite a few success stories among former polytechnics. And let's not delude ourself that only former polys have daft courses. It's present everywhere, though garbed in sophistry at more sophisticated institutions. Instead of Beckhamology, it's the historical dialectic of sexual identity as expressed in popular culture. Same difference to me. However, if the worthy courses and students aren't receiving the necessary funding, it's a moot point, isn't it?

On an aside, why are British teachers not doing the job? For the most part, the Education faculty has the lowest A-level threshold of all programmes offered. So although some brilliant individuals who desire to teach learn education (which strikes me as stupid.. the best teachers I've had didn't have education degrees, but unionism tends to stop good teachers without teaching certifications), we're stuck with a load of students who received Cs in their A-levels.

Wow!

I just discovered we're one of BlogStreet's Most Important 100 Blogs (ranking #60, well below our Nat at #4). I learnt this from the vir honestissimus Dr Weevil, who has produced a table of Bloggers' Bloggers which puts me at #32. Golly. That's one place above the Blogfather and Andrew Sullivan, but well below a lot of other great blogs. I'm staggered. As Glenn always used to say, I'm amazed anyone reads this stuff...

I'm an eejit

... for continually failing to link to Mick Fealty's Letter to Slugger O'Toole. For anyone interested in what's going on in Northern Ireland, his now-famous piece Can Unionists Embrace Change? is worth a read. As, by the way, is Portadown News, a real case of laughter through the tears. Coming soon to the links section near you (i.e. on the left).

E-mail group active

And I think I may have solved the problem whereby no-one was getting the posts by e-mail, either...

If I'm correct, and I'll update if I'm not, by clicking the link on the left you'll get any posts any of us make by e-mail.

For the approbation of the masses

Despite the posting details above, I have finally gotten around to setting Kris up with her own account. You'll now be able to see her posts, in all their glory, under her own name.

Iain Murray
Kris's husband

PR: the Technocrat's Choice

I've been saying for years that "proportional representation" will destroy the whole point of representative democracy -- the link between a representative in the legislature and his or her constituent. Now a new study from the Economic and Social Research Council says that proportional representation distances MEPs from their constituents:

"The introduction of proportional representation had substantial and immediate effects on who was elected," says Prof David Farrell, the report's co-author. "The British contingent became more proportional in party terms and the number of parties represented rose from four to seven. However, there are also indications that with substantially larger Euro-constituencies, MEPs now place less importance on representing individual voters and more importance on representing their party."

The researchers found that British MEPs are still more likely to have regular contact with their electorate than many of their European counterparts. But almost half of the MEPs interviewed regarded constituency representation is a fairly minor part of their job.

The British contingent is likely to be reduced from its current 84 MEPs when the European Parliament includes representatives from its newest members in Eastern and Central Europe. "As that happens, British MEPs will be spreading themselves even thinner," adds Prof Farrell. "And that means they are even less likely to regard themselves as constituency representatives."

If this wasn't bad enough, the idea that a representative represents all his constituents, even those who didn't vote for him or her, is also under threat:

Nearly three fifths of MEPs said that they saw themselves as being in parliament to represent their political party. Dr Roger Scully, the report's co-author adds: "MEPs increasingly see themselves as representatives of their party and their party's supporters within the region, rather than representing the whole regional electorate. Given that a typical region will now have MEPs from several parties, this is perhaps not surprising. But it means that they spend a lot of their time communicating within their party rather than to the voters.

If members don't care about their constituents, the constituents will cease to care about them. When the problem is systemic, as it is here, then voters will acheive nothing by voting the member out, and so won't bother to vote at all. No wonder turnout in the European elections is only 23%. PR is an affront to democracy as the British understand it.

A Restrained Thumbs-Up to IDS

Like The Telegraph, and unlike Frank below, I'm actually quite happy with IDS's "fair deal" speech. I have to say that the pronouncement of Terence Kealey that the Tories are the new socialist party, quoted approvingly by Stephen Pollard is simply nonsense. The proposal to abolish tuition fees goes hand in hand with a pledge to reduce public spending on higher education by ensuring it remains more selective; there aren't many more conservative approaches than that. When was the last British socialist pledge to reduce spending on education? My point exactly.

What IDS is doing is in fact appealing to two traditional Tory values. The first is the idea that education should be meritocratic. There's no real advantage to society if half the population have dumbed-down degrees in golf course management from former Polytechnics (actually, the Major government's decision to allow the Polys to call themselves universities remains one of the stupidest of that benighted ministry's many idiocies). Yet this decision to abolish the silly Labour target has to go hand-in-hand with a serious revamp of the education system so that everyone who is bright enough can go to university whatever their income level by a sensible system of targeted scholarships and grants. Meanwhile, universities can be encouraged to reduce their reliance on central government funding and local authorities might perhaps offer incentives for people to attend local universities (the almost non-existent ties between local government and their universities can be strengthened this way -- interestingly, Adam Smith himself suggested there was nothing wrong with local funding of universities). The Telegraph's suggestion of endowments to universities is also one to consider.

The second value is, of course, the appeal to what I've called recently "social justice conservatives". They're people who are proud of British civilization and institutions and who were turned off by an over-reliance on economic arguments that led to the frequent accusation that the Tories knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. They were happy to see privatizations when the service improved (as in BT or some of the other utilities), but were skeptical of privatizations where new difficulties were introduced by the new structures or which, as in the case of railways privatization, seemed to be done in a bizarre fashion. These sorts of Tories are also worried about the effects of crime and drugs on their communities, and so the linking of the policies together under one umbrella seems very sensible to me. These Tories were natural Tory voters who were let doen by Major and have now been let down by Blair. They now have a choice of the Lib Dems or the Tories, and the Conservatives should be careful to stress the actual Lib Dem policies on these areas, which will certainly scare true social justice conservatives.

So I'm cautiously optimistic about IDS's new strategy. It seems to go a long way to attempting to rebuild the Thatcher-era coalition of economic liberals, patriots, moral authoritarians and social justice conservatives. Yet IDS should not forget his liberal wing. He should remember to stress the spending reductions implicit in his new approach. Otherwise, we'll have more people making the perfect the enemy of the good and calling IDS, quite unfairly, a Marxist.

Fear of Dependence

It has recently occurred to me that one of the biggest challenges families face today is the fear of being dependent on each other. I never for one instance considered that I was taking a big risk with my life when I stopped working to take care of my child, husband, and home. That my complete and utter dependence on Iain for everything made me extremely vulnerable never entered my mind.

I used to be afraid, in my twenties when I was an advertising copywriter for NYC agencies. The loss of independence was terrifying. No longer. Now, it is what is best for my family and myself.

So many men and women are afraid of being dependent. Iain's strength of character means he considers it an important responsibility not a burden to be the sole income provider. (Actually, we'd like to be immensely rich so we could spend all our time together but that ain't gonna happen.) I'd like to work but not if it means sacrificing my child's childhood or our family time together.

I am beginning to suspect that the divorce rate climbed once women started working because it was easier for men to shrug off their responsibilities once their wives were financially independent. And I believe that women felt more capable of leaving their husbands because they had an income of their own. Neither side felt compelled to work things out. The thought pattern shifted from "us" to "me". People began to think "I can do it on my own so why should I bother trying harder at my marriage." But has everyone become happier? Are families better off? Has quality of life improved? Are the children of double-income parents happier and better behaved? Overall, I'd say no.

Everyone makes choices. Some have no choice. I'm not going to judge (except perhaps on an individual basis 'cause I'm like that). But I do strongly believe that fearing dependence has lead to a real breakdown in the family and community as a whole. What do ya'll think?

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

Postscript: When I talk about being dependent I mean it in a good way. Being able to depend on each other is the touchstone of marriage. A good thing. It's the unwillingness or fear to sacrifice our independence that is the problem.

Two way street

Ya know, I've been thinking about it and I've decided that I am sick and tired of this whole economic theory that tax cuts to the rich and to corporations are the best for America. Poppycock! Reagan said the tax cuts for the wealthy would "trickle down" to the poor in the forms such as higher wages and better training. Didn't happen that way. The extra money from the tax cuts went to shareholders. Then the vogue business trend of lay offs kept shareholders happy and no one else. Now that bubbles have burst, and the interest rates are cut, and the theoretical budget surplus is very solidly gone, what next? May I suggest that if the President wants to stimulate the economy, he'd better stop asking people to spend more unless he starts making sure those people have better wages. It's kinda ridiculous in a sluggish economy like ours to ask people to spend money they don't have. Rather than catering completely to the rich, why not dole out a few bucks to the lower and middle classes who spend more as a group anyways? Also, Iain's article about cutting the tax on foreign corporate income from 25% to 5% is a very good way to bring more money into the country (with the Senate's caveat that the corporations use the extra money towards R&D or employee training). I don't know how to make links so Iain will have to link this comment section to his article (I think it ran on UPI). At any rate, helping the vast majority of Americans (lower and middle class folks) and encouraging corporations to bring their foreign income into the country is in my economically-ignorant opinion a much better idea that rewarding the wealthy yet again.

Kris Murray
Iain's Wife

IDS: cleverer than he looks?

I promise to give you my thoughts on Iain Duncan Smith's 'fair deal for all' tomorrow lunchtime (I'm a bit busy tonight). Suffice it to say for the moment that I'm not as outraged as others are and can see positive signs in it.

Education, Education, Education

The Tories have wrong-footed it again. IDS has announced an end to tuition fees under a Conservative government, claiming that the fees are reducing access to working-class families. As I have said before, this is utter nonsense. First of all, under the old system, British taxpayers were paying for the education of foreigners studying at British universities out of a presumed charitable impulse. Secondly, if a university degree is worth enough, why isn't borrowing, or a combination of work-study programmes, grants, and student loans facilitated by the government (as in the US) sufficient? Apparently, the Tories had some interest in this idea, but not enough. Loans can be forgiven for those who go on to work in the public sector, and those working in the private sector tend not to have a problem repaying their student loans. Given this view, I'm surprised if Damian Green has even approached a university recently.

The problem is not in access, but in the quality of education, which in part is related to funding. Many students would agree with the stress on quality vs. cost. The current university system is characterized by a poor teaching staff to student ratio, an incredible paucity of contact between lecturers and students, and poor utilization of learning resources, like libraries. Only the rabble-rousers of the NUS, who are by no means representative of average student views, carp endlessly about loans.
When you can't compete with other employers to offer lecturers' salaries, you will lose out, and the best teachers will probably not be teaching. Tuition fees aren't a tax on learning. Those who benefit from an education in terms of earning power are those who receive it. Therefore, one ought to be willing to pay for an education, as it leads to increased earning power, even after weighing loans and fees against the discounted present value of future earnings. This also probably will kill those courses decried as 'silly', but would let the market dictate. If enough people believe that courses in curry-cooking will increase their future earning power, they'll pay for it. While much of the debate around higher education seems to have circled around costs, little discussion has mentioned the role of quality in education. The Tories seem to be forgetting this.

Taking Care of Business

The EU is nothing like Bachman-Turner Overdrive. Far from the paragon of free competition it would like us dumb Yanks to believe it is, it's a stultifying bureaucracy. That's why today's ruling on 'golden shares', shares which allow a government to veto proposed takeovers/restructurings of privatized firms. The EU court considered 'golden shares' "excessive", and restricting the free movement of capital. Surely this is no different from other measures of competition policy, but instead of issuing a blanket restriction on general movements within an industry, it works as a measure preventing control of monopoly firms (in the anti-trust sense.. not the only competitor, but the predominant competitor beyond a shadow of a doubt). Surely if we support less restrictions on markets, we'd support a golden share policy as opposed to blanket restrictions.

In the line of European competition policy, we turn to increased subsidies for train operators in the UK missing their target. (Can't find it on the FT website, but it's on the front page of the print edition) Govia, a consortium of the GoAhead Group and a subsidiary of French national railroad SNCF (and thus subsidized by yet another country as well!), will receive an increase in subsidies for running South Central trains despite missing targets. Why haven't the mandarins in the Ministry of Transport decided on a subsidy scheme with a variable component tied to performance? That way, if you don't perform well, you don't get as much money, but you are ensured a minimum amount. If we're to believe the publicity coming out from all operators, these franchises are glittering prizes, that some firm will adopt if one exits the industry. Therefore, why not pay less for lesser results? If firms decide to leave the franchise, someone else will take it up who can run it profitably. While I tend to oppose subsidies outright, I do understand that there are occasionally needs for them. The great problem is when subsidies pile upon other subsidies, completely reducing accountability and transparency within the system. Surely the goal of a subsidy is to ensure an acceptable level of performance for citizens, not to cover up for incompetent performance.

Interesting Blog

I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but Reason of Voice is a nice, well-argued centrist blog. And the formating issue is exactly why I abandoned that template very early on in my blogging career.

Nice to be back at work

In case you were wondering, i had an enjoyable first day as a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It's an organization I've respected for a long time, and, although it's been a while since I studied the climate change issue, there's still a lot going on there. Expect to see a few more posts on that subject in the future...

I also had the pleasure of meeting Hanah Mechtis, who runs Quare. As she says, it doesn't rhyme with square.

Caught Short

Blair rules by diktat, rages Short. It's taken her 6 years to realise that? Seriously, this is only good news for the Tories, but even that is small beer. After the damp squib of the hospitals rebellion, Short's resignation can't damage Blair within Labour. What it can do, however, is give the Tories another stone to throw at the Government for being divided. The question then is whether the electorate cares. Historically, they have -- divided parties lose. But in this case, something different may happen. The divide in labour could well be seen as being between sensible realists and loonies. Part of the problem with division in the past has been that the public viewed the loonies as dangerous. In New Labour, they aren't, and won't be as long as Labour maintains a huge majority. Labour's dominance enables it to keep the loonies under control, so as long as we continue to support Labour in vast numbers, the public reasoning might go, we don't have to worry about the loonies. What needs to happen is for the media to give the public the impression that the division is more serious than it is. And you know, the BBC and its ilk might just be stupid enough to do that...

Anti update

Auntie Beeb gives us the views of two major Labour party figures on anti-Americanism. First up, Lord Robertson, former Defence Secretary and now Secretary-General of NATO:

"Anti-Americanism I see not as a criticism of individual policies or even an individual president. It's a sort of racialist view that the USA is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.

"It is a generic attack on America and American standards and American values and approaches.

"I'm very worried about anti-Americanism because I think it is deeply corrosive to a relationship that is critically important for the overall security of the world.

"These attitudes are deeply worrying, deeply corrosive and have to be tackled head on. If they're not, then the future is bleak indeed.

"If they continue to be criticised in that unreasoning and emotive way then I see disengagement being the outcome and that being much more dangerous to all of us than American involvement or interventionism."

Next, Jack Straw:

"I am worried about trite anti-Americanism in this country," he told the programme.

"I think that people get obsessed about the United States because of its immense wealth and power. I think it's just become fashionable, this kind of anti-Americanism, and it's a convenient parody.

"If you look at the United States of course there are things that we would not necessarily approve of, but if you look at the US's contribution to where we are today, it has been immense and for the good.

"First of all they did literally save Europe from the most terrible tyranny in the Second World War but in addition if you look at IT, you look at biotech, the things that these days keep us going, make our lives happier and healthier, it's to America that we owe a huge amount.

"People need to remember that."

Couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks, chaps!

Good riddance

David Mellor has left the Tory party. About time, if you ask me. Mellor was a disgrace as a Minister and a politician, whose sleazy lifestyle, appalling treatment of his wife and ties to the PLO helped contribute to the current negative image of the Conservative Party. A lot of people turned their backs on the Tories as a result of the actions of this man and his like, and I imagine they'll begin to question whether the Tories are doing something right now...

Thumbs up (or was it thumbs down?)

You may or may not be pleased to hear I've decided to keep the comments section going. As well as the benefits comments sections bring to blog readers, on balance I think that my original opinion has often been refined (and on occasion changed) by a good debate in the comments section. So the comments section is spared, but I won't be policing it quite as closely as I have done in the past few months. Not that I've needed to intervene much -- for the most part I have remarkably civil posters compared with other blogs. Actually, that reminds me of one thing I've been meaning to say for a while. I'm always amazed when other bloggers tell me about their hate mail. I have never received a hateful e-mail, and the number of blogroaches this site has attracted is miniscule considering its reasonably large readership. For that, I thank all of you.

Raddickal thoughts

While we're on the subject of whimsy, a novelist I know informs me that the literati are going nuts for the Amazon.com book reviews of one Henry Raddick. An example:

Surviving Divorce: A Handbook for Men by Gay Search

A well-written and challenging book which I bought for my Uncle Sandy as he attempts to cope with the aftershock of divorce. Unfortunately he thought the author's name was a coping strategy being suggested and he refused to read it.

Another friend suggests that this must be William Donaldson, the man behind Henry Root (he wrote outrageous letters to prominent figures, then published their often unintentionally hilarious replies), on the basis that Raddick might be an anglicization of Radex, the Latin for root. Possible, but even if there is no connection the reviews themselves are well worth perusing.

Warning warning

The Telegraph article Warning: this salmon may contain fish contains some smile-worthy examples of idiotic legalese. Quite how an American Airlines peanut packet qualifies for "Britain's top 10 silliest packaging instructions" is beyond me, but the point is well taken.

On a tangent, this reminds me of one of my favorite Bloom County strips. Steve Dallas had been beaten up by Sean Penn while trying to take a photograph of him throwing up. The gang wondered who to sue. Sean Penn? No, he might come back for more -- never sue psychopathic celebrities. Mrs Penn (Madonna at the time, of course)? No, she might react even worse than her husband. The Nikolta Camera Company? Yes! They have lots of cash and can be sued for failing to include a warning not photograph dangerous celebrities on their equipment. The strip finished with Opus the Penguin waving a flag in salute to America, "land of the lawsuit". How easily we forget that there was a time when Sean Penn was regularly portrayed as a violent idiot...