Conservative Commentary
"the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian
|
|
Conservative Commentary "the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian |
|
|
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Quote of the Day
"The whole theory that colonialism was exploitative was dreamed up by Vladimir Lenin, desperate to explain why capitalism still throve decades after Marx had predicted its collapse. That theory, like the rest of Leninism, now has all the intellectual respectability of an Elvis sighting." - John Derbyshire Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Gosh! Who'd have thunk it?
Teenage pregnancies have risen fastest in areas of the country where the Government has specifically targeted resources to reduce them, a new survey has revealed. UPDATE: Susanne Fields outlines the alternative. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Saturday, March 13, 2004
The consequences of university expansion
John Clare's Education Answers, a collection of letters to and answers from the great Telegraph educationalist, is a surprisingly gripping read. The book is full of revealing little titbits and anecdotes, the letters and responses painting quite a picture of Britain's education system. Here is one depressing correspondence. "The first year of my nephew's three-year degree course in English and history at Plymouth University is being taught under a 'franchise' arrangement at a further education college. He did not study either subject at A-level and his knowledge of them seems negligible. What particularly concerns me, a former teacher, is the low standard of work he is doing at the college. It would be more appropriate for a pupil aged 12 or 13 and is certainly below GCSE level. Is this what studying for a degree means nowadays?" Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization." - Caius Petronius, AD 66 Thanks to Patrick Whittome for this one. Any resemblance to present events and governments is entirely coincidental. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, March 12, 2004
The common ground in the culture wars
I have for some time been planning a piece here on the prospects for a backlash in the culture wars, with particular reference to the experience of Keith Joseph, who ushered in the economic backlash against the left. In a week or two, I will probably find time for that. In the meantime, keen Burkean MP John Hayes has a good Spectator piece emphasising a similar point, in which he focuses on how and why British Conservatives should emulate their more successful counterparts in Australia and the United States by resisting the objectives of the left in cultural as well as economic and foreign policy issues. Making a point Margaret Thatcher and Iain Murray have both made, he advocates 'Social Thatcherism' - the rejuvenation of responsibility and self-reliance in the social sphere - as a counterpart to her achievements in restoring those qualities to economic affairs. Of particular note is the point he makes about Sir Keith Joseph's distinction between the 'middle ground' - the midway-point average of where politicians lie - and the 'common ground' - the values of the people of this country. The two are far from the same thing, and something supported by the great majority of politicians can still be vigorously out of step with public opinion, as demonstrated by the issue of capital punishment above all. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any social issue on which the political class is not to the left of the voters. It certainly is the case that every political advance of the social liberals for many years now has been against the wishes of most voters. Be it the lowering of the age of consent for anal 'sex' to just sixteen, the denial of parental consent to contraceptive and abortion pills handed out in schools, the quasi-legalisation of cannabis, the scrapping of section twenty-eight, the great wave of migration and asylum cases or the widespread introduction of early release and tagging as an alternative to proper sentencing, all these measures were opposed by the majority. In addition, encouraging research is now suggesting that the curious phenomenon in the United States of most members of Generation X being considerably less liberal than their Baby Boomer parents is true in this country, too. On issues ranging from abortion, marriage and illegitimacy to asylum and the monarchy, it seems the sons and daughters of Thatcher are more children of the twenties than of the sixties. (Thanks to DumbJon for the link.) Whatever else might be said of the culturally liberal agenda, it isn't being pushed through because the voters demand it, and nor is its opposition restricted to church-goers, pro-family campaigners and the elderly. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, March 11, 2004
Those for whom alleged evil is not worth considering, so long as it is anti-American evil
[T]hey had all been in the combat zone in Afghanistan. One had been picked up in Pakistan, in a safe house used by Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden's former chief of operations and the most senior al-Qaida leader captured to date. Another one allegedly met Bin Laden three times. All four were described as veterans of al-Qaida training camps, schooled in terrorist skills from bomb-making to assassinations. It is certainly possible one of them was in that part of the world at that time for entirely innocent reasons. But four? Perhaps a trial will establish that this really is the case. But reading the left-wing press, it seems such questions simply aren't worth asking. To consider the very real possibility that they are traitors who waged war on British soldiers in defence of one of the most wicked regimes and terror groups in the world is just so uncouth. That they might pose a danger to British people if released is dismissed with the wave of a hand. 'The famous five with stories to tell' is the Guardian's comely headline. Those few words really do say it all. Famous five? Stories to tell? It seems that for the liberal elite, because these men are accused of waging war on those ghastly Bush cowboys, they must be earnest Enid Blyton characters, badgered and bullied by George's Golliwog Guards of Guantanamo Bay. It's not what they are or what they are accused of that matters - it's who defending them allows one to blame. I forget who it was noted that the left's preoccupation with defending the Rosenbergs owed far less to an assured belief in their innocence than to an utter indifference to whether they were guilty. It's a mentality alive and well today. UPDATE: All of them have now been set loose on a legal technicality. Dear Lord. UPDATE II: Richard Littlejohn has more: Security chiefs think it is only a matter of time before there is an atrocity here. We know al-Qa'ida cells are beavering away in Britain. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Quote of the Day
"For those who read their history, fascism was always about youth. Currently the nearest thing to a fascist youth movement is the area where animal rights, anti-globalisation and environmentalism meet. The kind of people who will hit an elderly hunt follower in the face with a hammer, surround a house containing terrified children and smash all the windows, burn foreign-owned property (if it's American owned, that is), publish lists of enemies to be dealt with, or wear 'Hurry up and Die, Queen Mother' t-shirts. Currently these movements all belong to the cultural Left." - Laban Tall Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Where one blogs
I don't write much here on blogging, but I liked Jeff Jarvis' suggestion that bloggers show their readers the locations where they write their posts. Glenn Reynolds and John Hawkins have both proceeded to put up their pictures. Here is my blogspace, when I am at university.
UPDATE: The online Through the Keyhole continues with Brian Micklethwait. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, March 08, 2004
Partisan competition, not unity, is how to defeat fascists who lump all democrats together
Yet I genuinely don't see what good signing up to this campaign would do, and suspect that so far as people like me have any influence, it could do some harm. Liberal Democrat election chief Chris Rennard is of all people the one I think came closest to the truth on this issue, when the Guardian put him on a panel also containing representatives from the two main parties. All the panellists agreed that choice and healthy competition between the mainstream parties are essential to squeeze out the BNP. For all parties to 'Unite Against Fascism' in this way could mean falling securely into that trap of signing up to an anti-BNP campaign with the best of intentions and as a result portraying the BNP as the only real opposition to the existing state of affairs, the only ones who offer an alternative. This is a message the party's leadership fights endlessly to get across: as they put it, they are the only ones who can bring the change that the "establishment parties" all oppose. By publicly uniting into one single opposition, democratic politicians could be playing right into their hands. By definition, anyone who supports the Tories - as I do - opposes the BNP, and anyone who supports any party opposes all the others. Although the ideological source of the BNP's rhetoric and policies should never leave the lips of mainstream political activists who face them, I don't think voters need reminding that all the other parties oppose the British National Party. What they need to know is that the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all offer different ideas and have different policies on migration and asylum. Under the last Conservative government, Britain had small-scale, controlled immigration. Under Labour, asylum and immigration rates both doubled in five years. Under the Liberal Democrats, we would have still more people coming here. Which of these proposals sounds most palatable is a matter for individual preference, but no one must be left with the illusion that the choice is not there, as they might by any campaign stressing the similarities rather than the differences between the parties. Conservatives who want to see the BNP defeated shouldn't be afraid to say the other parties have got it wrong, and that we will fix things. Ditto Labour and Lib Dem supporters and activists. Healthy competition between democratic parties that raises voter turnout and makes clear the genuine choice on offer will hurt the BNP. Tokenistic co-operation may only serve to strengthen the case they put to everyone with concerns about our asylum and immigration system that they alone offer an alternative. UPDATE: Yesterday also marked Tom Watson's first anniversary as a blogger. It's not terribly consistent with the rest of this post for me to say it of a Labour MP, but congratulations to him. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
The difference is the state
Anthony Browne has some surprising words for those who deny the quality of British health care. Don't listen to the denigrators - the health service in Britain can be wonderful. I was recently walking down a London street on a Sunday afternoon, when I decided to have a medical problem dealt with. I dropped into a medical centre I happened to be passing, which was open, and asked to see the specialist, who attended to me there and then with a smile. In a sparkling clean clinic packed out with a vast array of brand new medical equipment that seemed like something out of a science fiction film, dozens of tests were quickly done, which, as well as diagnosing my medical problem, checked out a range of other conditions from brain tumours to diabetes. The specialised medical apparatus that was prescribed for me was manufactured instantly. Meanwhile, back in government hospitals: She arrived at 10am. The place was dirty and grimy and smelly. Parts of the waiting area stank, to the extreme discomfort of those having to wait there. She was finally ushered in for her scan, where it emerged that in spite of having consumed large amounts of water as part of the prep for the scan she had to consume yet more. The harassed nurse departed to look for drinking water which was not readily available. After sitting waiting for a while, the door burst open to admit not the nurse, but a cleaner who, without acknowledgement or apology proceeded to hoover noisily around the room and around the patient. Now if you really want to leave civilised political discourse behind, why don't you see if you can reach some reasonable conclusions based on these entirely typical anecdotes? Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, March 07, 2004
Link of the Week
The link of this week is to WorldMagBlog, the weblog of the American magazine World. Now blogging for them is the excellent social writer Marvin Olasky, author of The Tragedy of American Compassion. The posts are good, and even the comments section has some real pearls of wisdom, Christopher Taylor amongst others really arguing well. Thanks to Laban Tall for the link. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Saturday, March 06, 2004
Quote of the Day
"So we have 'female genital mutilation' which, in English, is called 'Grievous Bodily Harm' and 'honour killings' which, again in English, are pronounced 'murder'." - David Carr clarifies some cultural differences between the West and the rest Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Retro Conservative Commentary
I try to avoid posting too much at the weekend, and I have other things to be getting on with now anyway, so in place of much content before Monday, here are the essays up there so far. Comments are welcome.
28.07.02 Self-control is not state control
22.08.02 An unknown liberal's manifesto for Britain in 2002, written in the early sixties
23.09.03 An issue to be determined in local elections, not by referenda
30.10.03 The last Conservative leader ... and the next
18.11.03 Not a lurch, but a step to the right - and a good thing too
24.11.03 Thoughts on Michael Howard
25.11.03 Thoughts on Tony Blair
11.12.03 Thoughts on Charles Kennedy
27.12.03 In defence of outsourcing
Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, March 05, 2004
Bush or Kerry?
With the far more credible and interesting John Edwards defeated this week in the race to challenge Bush by Ted Kennedy's Massachussetts sidekick John Kerry, we now know the choice facing Americans in November: Bush or Kerry. Bush or Kerry?
 It's a tough one this time. More at Free Republic. UPDATE: The excellent Airstrip One, which doesn't receive nearly as much attention as it ought, focuses on Kerry's stance on Ulster: a rejection of Unionist demands that Sinn Fein/IRA uphold their end of the Good Friday Agreement if they want to sit in government. Philip Chaston thus concludes that "it would be in Britain's interests if Kerry remained where he belongs, unelected". I would go further and say that this stance might also give American voters further reasons to doubt Kerry's suitability. Can a man with such a selective distaste for terrorists really be the right one to fight a war on terror? As Mark Steyn has noted, waging war is about argument and rhetoric, not just bombing. Kerry may inherit the military end of this battle automatically, but he'll need to summon the moral side for himself. Is he capable of doing so? Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, March 04, 2004
Quote of the Day
"What I don't understand is why it's a great thing for unaccountable judges to change the meaning of the Constitution without a public debate while it is some form of tyranny for the House, Senate and fifty states to debate the issue over the course of months or years under the glaring spotlight of the media." - Jonah Goldberg Thanks to John Hawkins for the link. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The end of the line for Blairism?
[W]hat does such a swing [of 5%] do to the loyalist/rebel balance of forces inside the PLP? Twenty-one of the 50-odd losers would be MPs who are currently on the 'payroll vote': ministers, whips, or PPSs. These are solid Blair loyalists. A further eight are loyalist backbenchers, who backed the government on the crucial higher education vote. So about 30 Blair loyalists would be polishing up their CVs on a five percent swing. There are only four members of the Socialist Campaign Group - the so-called 'hard left' (hardcore serial rebels) who would be joining them: Philip Sawford, John Cryer, Robert Marshall-Andrews and Ann Cryer. Inside the PLP, the swing is towards those willing to vote against the government and away from those who support it. It is worth remembering how much the landslide of 1997 introduced a class of MP to the Commons who in normal circumstances would never have got there. In Servants of the People, Andrew Rawnsley records Blair walking into Parliament in May 1997, seeing some of the new Labour MPs gathering in the lobby and exclaiming "Doesn't he look like the guy who did Gordon's photocopying?!" to which he received the answer that the MP was the man who did Gordon Brown's photocopying. Above all, 1997 saw the election of many fiercely loyal 'Blair babes' who became their party's candidates only because superior male candidates were banned from competing. Independent-mindedness is not the first thing that comes to mind when one considers these sorts of member. The 2001 Election preserved this state of affairs, and has probably made Labour's first two terms much easier. So it should be no surprise that these landslide loyalists also look the surest to fall if Labour cannot secure a third consecutive landslide in 2005 or 2006. I have written before that Blair has little hope of getting forward any serious programme of reform either side of the next election. If Paul Richards' mathematics is correct, I now feel still more confident in that judgement. UPDATE: British Spin links to the same column, and his commenters give their thoughts. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"Amidst all the partying I did in Brussels last weekend, I somehow managed to find the time to actually learn a thing or two. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Now crooks have their own Suffragettes
Does the idea of vote-grubbing politicians in marginal constituencies canvassing the paedophile and rape sections of their local jails, smiling, shaking hands, making jokes and promises to the inmates, appeal to you? Apparently it does to the Liberal Democrats. A campaign has been lauched to try to overturn a 134-year-old law which deprives prisoners of the vote. And it's not just the Liberal Democrats, whose official policy is to allow convicts to cast their ballots in elections. They are being supported by the usual stock of prisoners' charities and even a few MPs from the two main parties. Why? Who knows? I certainly can't think of a good reason. One can only assume that the motivating principle is the same as that which prompts so much of modern legislation: the belief that making any distinction between right and wrong is a bit naff, a bit outdated, a 'subjective' judgement which rightly has no wider impact. Certainly, they'll no doubt argue, it's not our place to judge these people, to say that their inability to obey the law, for which they are currently doing time, should deprive them of a say in who makes those laws. In other words, the motivation stems from the very same immoral culture that helps ensure we have such fantastic levels of crime in the first place. At a time when voter apathy and distrust of politicians is a concern on the lips of almost the entire chattering class, this is a measure sure to help solidify all these problems. Could you shake hands through prison bars with a mugger who cracked a pensioner's skull open in the hope of taking her purse? Could you assure him that his views matter to you, that you will do what you can for people like him, that he can count on you? I don't know if I could. But some people could do that in a second, and some will no doubt already be in the House of Commons and many council chambers. What can safely be said is that more members of this class of politician will be elected if this immoral scheme succeeds. If canvassing the local nick becomes part of the job prescription of an aspiring MP or councillor, you can be sure that whoever is willing to sink the lowest and work the hardest at pleasing the most unsavoury elements of society will gain electoral advantage from it. No wonder the Lib Dems are so keen. They know that muggers, burglars and all the other undesirables they want released as a matter of course are going to vote for anyone offering them a get out of jail free card. But let none of them pretend that further lowering the class of politician elected to the parliaments and council chambers of this Kingdom will do anything but harm to the public's confidence in their representatives. One could, at a stretch, suggest that there are so few prisoners likely to be interested in voting that permitting it for those who do care would make no difference to any single election. Well, if it really will have no effect, then why on earth should it be pushed through? If it's not going to be an aid to shifty and callous politicians, then it's not going to help at all. Either way, there is no upside to such a reform. It should go without saying that there is not a single problem facing Britain today that would be solved if Ian Huntley and his fellow inmates were given the vote. All it would achieve would be to give a political elite already frighteningly partial towards the criminal a further, very self-interested, reason for so being. If that's what you want, vote Liberal Democrat. If they have any sense, that's what the criminals will be doing. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, March 01, 2004
Quote of the Day
Peter Briffa is back, and brings with him a wonderfully revealing quote. "Too often the left's over-devotion to individual rights usurps what should be its natural role as the defender of the power of the state - and of its servants." - Polly Toynbee If you want just one reason for opposing the left in all its manifestations, there it is. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
'Work and investment? What do we need that for?'
Michael T. Darda offers some supply-side smelling salts to John Kerry, making clear just how damaging it would be to enact his retrograde proposal to reverse so much of President Bush's tax relief. Kerry is proposing to cut the deficit in half by boosting the top two income-tax rates back to Clinton levels. This would lift the top rate to more than 39 1/2 percent from 35 percent and the second highest rate up to 36 percent from 33 percent. Presumably Kerry also would reverse Bush's 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, clearly the most powerful and pro-growth elements of the Bush fiscal repertoire. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 29, 2004
Migration and culture
For those who don't listen to the programme, here are three great quotes from the debate. "British society is rooted, for example, in the values of equality and liberty. The equality derives from Protestantism, the liberty derives from a particular liberal contract based on the rule of law going back to the Enlightenment. Now these are particular to British society - and one could say Western civilisation, but let's limit it to Britain. Now if you're not able to teach that history because not enough people can actually identify with it at any stage, then you're in trouble, aren't you?" - Melanie Phillips
I think there are two distinct paradigms now. One is the paradigm that we are all used to which is that our primary duty is to our family, our locality and our nation. The other paradigm which is now the sort of dominant view among the political chattering classes is that we owe an equal responsibility to the entire world, that the nation is somehow illegitimate and that instead of the nation we should have supranational laws and institutions, and this is a direct threat to liberal democracy." - Melanie Phillips
... [T]here has been economic benefits and other benefits that have come about as a result of migration. The one thing that I am uneasy about is saying to people 'These benefits have come. Now shut up and accept it' and that comes from Northern Ireland. It seems reasonably clear from our historical perspective that Ulster benefitted from the economic modernisation of the Protestant plantation of the 17th Century. Most historians would agree with that. But because of that plantation, ie. because of mass migration from Scotland to Ireland in the 1700s, we've got a huge ethnic problem now. And you thought you were being clever, Ian [Hargreaves] - and you were being quite clever - in bringing Ulster up, but Ulster is actually on Melanie's side of the argument not on yours because it proves that migration can lead, hundreds of years hence, to all sorts of social fracture." - Michael Gove Probably no more posts until Monday afternoon, I am afraid. Until then, I shall be doing this. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, February 27, 2004
Andrew Sullivan.com
EMAIL OF THE DAY (2003): After 9/11, I realised my position was unsustainable. Ever since my boyhood in Michigan, I had been a true liberal. I knocked on doors every day for months campaigning for Eugene McCarthy, and then raised over $5,000 for McGovern. I had my reservations about a President as right-wing as Jimmy Carter, but I held my breath and supported him right up to the eighties, which until recently I always looked back on as a nightmare decade. When Clinton won in 1992, I greeted it as a new dawn for America. I have long supported all the truest liberal causes. I want to see punitive corporate tax, compulsory sex education for five year olds, most of the military replaced by robed Buddhists who will disarm our enemies with a message of love, and all employment to be approved by the federal government. I want a total ban on guns and big knives, the Bible declared illegal hate speech and ultimately for America to become a Spanish-speaking Latin American country. But when September 11th came, I looked around my country, and what I saw of my party made me ashamed to be a registered Democrat. Criticism after criticism was levelled against the war on terror. People said the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Now they say we won't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The current stock of Democrat candidates is terrifyingly left-wing, a disgrace to their country and to the liberal principles I thought they believed in. Hard as it may be for me to say this, I am going to be supporting Bush 100%. I don't think my principles have changed at all. I am the same ultra-liberal I always was. But my party has retreated into extremism and anti-Americanism, and I cannot belong to it while that is the case.
But now I see an administration entirely in the grip of the religious right and that terrifies me. I am a true conservative Christian and I still believe what I always did. But look at what we now have. A Republican President publicly endorsing God's definition of marriage and refusing to submit to the expressed will of five of the Massachussetts Supreme Court's nine justices. To take such a major issue out of the hands of liberal activist judges is to violate everything our founders fought for, is to make the war on terror meaningless and the Constitution a lie. Hard as it may be for me to say this, I shall be voting Democrat next time. I long for the day when the Republican Party will accept my more moderate vision of America, and only hope they see reason and fight the right-wing to which the party has retreated. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, February 26, 2004
Notices
1. I have had to replace the comment system. It seems to be working now. Thanks to Ron West for his help. 2. I don't know if this idea has any chance of taking off, but as it is easy and costless to set up, there was little to lose. I have set up an IRC chat room which bloggers and blog-readers may or may not wish to frequent. If you have an IRC client, like mIRC, you can join by typing in the following. /server irc.blabber.net If you want to visit through an ordinary web browser, click here to join the server, and to enter the channel type in "/join #blogs" after entering a chat name. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Quote of the Day
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. ... The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honouring - honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." - President Bush Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Was it a decision to "out" Dr Kelly - or to KILL him?
Let's see what the Guardian forumers have to say. Rokossovsky: Hutton whitewashed "suicide," but we know: Blair was at the Kelly meetings and minutes were not taken; "Operation Mason" (including shredding Kelly-related documents) started when Kelly left home and ended around his death; the Blair regime had already tried to intimidate "rogue elements" in British intelligence; and many pro-Blair groups have the expertise to murder a Kelly. Dragonslayer: The official account of Dr David Kelly's death is so full of holes any amateur detective could spot the gaping discrepancies. Not to mention "Operation Mason" and all the conflicting evidence and statements. Liam: whether or not the government orderd the killing of Dr David Kelly I'm just hoping that thier isn't another inquiry Rokossovsky: you have an "authorised" political death squad running around Britain. This is like El Salvador! It is sad the SAS ... and Britain ... has come to this. Sydneysider: There never was a reason to believe that Kelly committed suicide. What's in question is who gave the order to have him murdered and what was the real reason for the order. I am 90% sure the order can only have come from Blair. adimaaya: I think it's a disgrace that the powers are literally getting away with murder. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The price we all pay for high taxes
High taxation is economically illiterate because it works directly against the principle of 'Division of Labour' that enables members of all modern societies to generate the wealth required to finance acts of charity to the needy. The result of the 70's taxation the bishops hanker for, where the state takes two-thirds of a person's income, is that someone has to be three times as efficient as you before it is worth paying them from your net income to do work for you instead of doing it yourself. This is a simplified account, because it bypasses comparative advantage (even if your secretary is much less efficient than you at typing letters, it may still make sense to employ her because you can be earning more than enough to pay her in the time you save) and the differing values people put on money (one person may value his net income of £333 at more than his rich employer values the gross pay of £1,000). But as a general principle, all other things being equal, the point is very important. When government creates a wedge this large between what one person pays for a job and what another person earns for doing it, then division of labour - the cause of the wealth of nations - perversely becomes less and less economic. You may be happy to work for x amount of money and your employer may be happy to pay it, but once the mega-state sticks its claws in, you have to start charging a price of 3x to take home that much pay. Small wonder if people turn away from economic transactions and resort to doing such jobs themselves, and badly, with the resultant fall in living standards going far beyond the amount one loses to the taxman. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 23, 2004
Quote of the Day
"Just for the record, Canadians are not humorless. We're humourless, OK?" - Mark Steyn Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
The 'Yanks' are the nuts here?
In this week's Observer, Oliver James explains: About one in seven Americans believe they have seen a UFO, and 3.7m claim they have been abducted by aliens. Half agree with the statement: 'The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.' OK, the Yanks are nuts. Can you tell he isn't a proper psychologist? I thought so. But let's examine his case despite his absent credentials. One in seven Americans believe they have seen a UFO. Well, while this is may be a point of interest to plane-spotters and astronomers, I don't think much of a conclusion can be drawn about sanity in the United States. Like one-seventh of Americans, I have myself seen a flying object I could not at that moment identify. But this is less grounds for consignment to Bedlam than for better general education about the various aeroplane shapes and sizes. If the more pertinent "Do you believe the earth has alien visitors?" had been asked, I suspect a somewhat lower figure would have resulted. The 3.7 million who claim alien abductions is certainly worryingly high, but if Oliver James were a real psychologist, he might know about the phenomenon of sleep paralysis and the reasons the experience can lead to delusions of such abductions even in quite sane people. But it is the last point that really clarifies his argument. If anything is liable to horrify liberal opinion it is a firm and unwavering belief in the Bible. 'Native' Americans can claim that all of their ancestors, however far back one goes, lived on the American continent, and you won't hear a peep out of leftie multiculturalists. Countries from all over the East and South of the globe can loudly assert their various creation myths and be heard in respectful silence at worst, but more often be assured by a gaggle of postmodernists that their interpretation of man's origins is an equally valid and important contribution to human thought as anything science might have to say. But if anyone declares himself fervently to believe in the Bible, then as far as liberals are concerned he automatically joins those Neanderthals he denies ever existed. The best example of this mentality is probably Anthony Lewis, the New York Times columnist who retired shortly after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, and who used his final article to compare Christians who believe in a six day creation to those who perpetrated the atrocities of September 11th. I'm a Darwinist, and I am about as sure as I can be of the validity of evolution. Further, as I noted last month, I think evolution has enormous cultural implications of which conservatives should more and more start to take notice. But I must confess to feeling none of the bile against believers in Adam and Eve, forbidden fruit and Eden. I do not think they are crazy or malign or even ignorant in a way distinct from, for example, those who do not understand photosynthesis. What is even more puzzling is the set of beliefs that seems to go hand in hand with this incredible condescension. I can understand a well grounded, commonsensical and sceptical thinker scoffing at the idea of a six day creation. But it's not grounded, commonsensical or sceptical thinkers who do scoff. It's the ones who believe that state schools are better now than forty years ago. It's the ones who think a slap on the wrist for crime works but prison doesn't. It's the ones who believe political bureaucrats are generally much better qualified to spend the money you earned than you are. It's the ones who think Britain will in a decade and a half have a climate like Siberia's. It's the ones who think fathers are superfluous to the raising of children. It's the ones who see in the United Nations and the European Union enlightened and progressive governace. Against sensible judgement and overwhelming evidence Oliver James and his fellow travellers hold to such ideas as if they were carried down as stone tablets from mount Sinai, yet they still feel fit to sneer their nostrils clear at those with a comparably credible view of the origin of species. Forgive me if I find that odd. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Someone with a traditional conception of marriage - isn't that a phobia?
But no. The only explanation for my view is that I hate dead people. People like me have a latent prejudice against those who have passed away, and want to deny them rights out of spite. That I hold this view proves I must be a bigot and a hater, that I have a phobia about the dead. If I'm honest, it probably stems from a deep-seated fear that I am myself dead. It is no good for me to say that I would similarly refuse marital status to two flatmates or a single person, and that I similarly mean no harm and feel no animosity towards them. Nor does the fact that I am defending a conception of marriage that has existed and succeeded for millennia for a moment mean I can possibly be thinking rationally. Marriage being an incubator for the next generation? An institution that protects kids needs protection? Pah! Anyone who thinks this is verging on the mentally ill and should probably be silenced by force of law. Thank goodness there are so many people on the left who are ceaseless in their willingness to point out the mental problems and personal hatreds of all those who disagree with them, who share my conception of marriage. If people were able to argue in favour of marriage as an incubator of children without psychoanalysis and character assassination, where would we be? It doesn't bear thinking about. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 22, 2004
Link of the Week
The link of this week is to the charming web site of the RESPECT Coalition, an esteemed group of people sure to change the face of British politics come the next election. Do check it out. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Great minds ...
"John Kerry became the Democrat front-runner by being the anti-Dean candidate. Can John Edwards become the Democrat front-runner - which at this stage in the game means their Presidential nominee - by being the anti-Kerry?" - Conservative Commentary, 6 February 2004 "[H]aving anointed Kerry as the unDean, a significant chunk of Democrats are now looking around for the unKerry. The only guy available is John Edwards, the pretty-boy trial lawyer from North Carolina." - Mark Steyn, 22 February 2004 Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Quote of the Day
"Recently, about 4,000 people rallied on the Boston Common in opposition to gay marriage. I talked afterwards to one of the protesters who seemed rather discouraged. He noted that, as he has gone around and talked to people in the state about the issue, he has found many who are diffident. They have essentially bought the line, 'Why should I care? If two gay people get married, how does that hurt me?' In truth, it probably wouldn't. The destructive consequences would fall mainly on the young and the vulnerable who would grow up in a society without the bulwark of traditional marriage protecting them against the excesses of their own immature appetites and the rapacious desire of older males ever eager to expand the zone of sexual permissiveness." - Peter Wood UPDATE: Okay, I am back, had a good weekend, but am somewhat bewildered by the (70+ so far) comments this post received. Those arguing that already wed couples are unlikely to break up, or that heterosexual older men can be predatory, are unwittingly making Mr Wood's case for him. His point, which I thought obvious even given this snippet, is that the main threat posed by the radical proposed change to marriage is not to couples already married, but to people who will grow up without the moral anchor of a central social institution which links sex to procreation. Future generations of boys and girls will enter adolescence as strongly influenced as ever by their own immature appetites but also much deprived of the proper moral context in which to view them, and so will be prime targets for older men happy to take advantage of this. Agree or disagree, this was the point of the quote: a new moral climate will be created once marriage is redefined so that its meaning is divorced from procreation in which the very young and not-yet-born have the most to lose. And so far, the only answer to this point has been to note that many rival pressures in the same direction exist, which is if anything a case for a more, not less, stringent attitude to marriage. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Reading material
At the London flat of a Republican friend a few months back, I was flipping through a book on his coffee table, Paul Krugman's account of currency crises. "That's from before he went crazy," the friend assured me. And indeed, that rather blunt summary is a useful way of thinking for those who doubt the almost Chomskyite or Michael Mooreite Paul Krugman of the New York Times is an especially impressive political commentator. Because he was - or is - a good economic writer, the books he wrote in the 1990s being very worthy of a read by left and right. (Indeed, I see he has received fierce criticism from some sections of the left precisely for the free-trade, moderately pro-market tone of some of this writing.) In that spirit, I read and enjoyed his Accidental Theorist a fortnight ago, and afterwards pondered whether it was worth shelling out over seven pounds to buy the book. My dilemma was answered when a quick internet search revealed that of the twenty-seven essays in the book, twenty were available online, and of the remainder four were so close to the text of the book that they were almost indistinguishable. So I've put together an online version of The Accidental Theorist, with links to all but the three essays not available on the web. I recommend it to all those with any interest in any of the areas he covers. But if you only read three of the essays, my recommendations are Unmitigated Gauls, on why governments making conditions cushy and marvellous for employees is so bad for employment; In Praise of Cheap Labour, a strident defence of third-world sweat-shops; and Four Percent Follies, which has all sorts of valuable lessons within. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 16, 2004
The Right Wing in America - a threat to civilisation?
Let's hear what the Guardian forumers have to say. PNACman: Anti intellectual, aggressively certain of their superiority, devoid of morality, masters in the art of propaganda and profoundly insecure. These sociopathic bullies are gaining control of America. macthebrief: I'm not so sure it is correct to say that the "last" time it happened was HitlerZeit. chimpwatch: A ferocious anti-democratic right wing political movement has seized power in the U.S. mari333: I watch the news all day, or what is supposed to pass for it.. PNACman: Mari you're right about the internet and probably represents the last chance to stop the rot. samac3303: Kissinger will probably go down in history as the worst murderer / human rights abuser all -time. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"Among the rare authentic stories of [Prince] Philip's childhood is the account of how an insensitive grown-up arrived one day on the beach with toys for all but an invalid child, assumed to be ruled out for playthings. Philip, who was five, went into the house and collected all his personal treasures and presented them to her, the latest aquisition on top. It could have been showing-off. It was more probably an early glimpse of character. One of his equerries recently came out with something on this: 'What people don't realise is that he's immensely kind. No one has a bigger heart, or takes greater pains to conceal it.'" - The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
And now it's time for Any Questions: in the chair is Jonathan Dimbleby
JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Welcome to Hull, a beautiful exemplar of British culture and civility since the beginnings of time. We are the guests of Robert Mugabe Sixth Form College, a school reknowned for its academic excellence and community ties. So fierce is the competition for places that professional assassins are alleged to move into the area from as far away as Brazil to meet the demand for their services. Twice winner of the Department of Education's coveted 'Most Diverse Floor Tiles' prize, the college ably serves parents and students across the county. On our panel tonight; Oliver N. Message, a hard-working Labour backbencher since 1987, he rose to the key role of Food Standards Minister after the last election, before selflessly resigning last year for personal reasons. 2003 was also a time when he reached that pinnacle of political achievement in winning the highly respected New Statesman magazine's prestigious Parliamentarian of the Year award. Sir Percival Pyke, the Booker Prize winning novellist and playright, has written thirty books totalling over ten million words - and as many readers. This witty, anti-Establishment, literary giant reached controversy last month after describing the Queen as "the sort of filthy mess so vile that, if you step on it, you immediately throw away the shoe and walk home barefoot". (Laughter and light applause) Baroness Blight, a Liberal Democrat Peer, speaks for her party on Local Government. Described by none other than Jenny Tonge's constituency agent as a future Shirley Williams, and a true champion of civil rights, she has long put the boot in successfully when faced with Tory and Labour opponents. And William Hague, a little-known Tory backbencher of whom one letter to a local newspaper said "Genghis Khan would be truly appalled by how right-wing he is". And he is also the fourth member of our panel. (Applause) Our first question, please? QUESTIONER 1: Robert King. Is David Blunkett's proposal for minimum sentences of two years for axe-murderers yet another sign of this shameless authoritarian's desperate bowing and scraping towards the bastions of cheap tabloid populism? JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Oliver N. Message? OLIVER N. MESSAGE: Er ... no. I think this is a reasonable measure. I personally do worry that judges have too little power in this country (Hear hear) and I do have my concerns about anyone who would propose to let tabloid editors dictate how long these people spend in jail. But I don't think this is what the bill is about. I cautiously support this measure, because I think when you're dealing with axe-murderers - who let us not forget have chopped innocent people to pieces - a couple of years is just about right. (Light groans) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Baroness Blight. BARONESS BLIGHT: Oooh, this just upsets me to the bones. It really is a chilling day in British justice when this sort of fascist measure - let me repeat that - fascist measure (Enthusiastic applause) can be proposed before the House of Commons. Yes, I'm sure this will get a good headline in the Daily Mail (Hiss!) but all I can think about is those poor people inside prisons who will be denied justice because of it. Thank God my party, the Liberal Democrats, is here to speak for them. (Hear, hear) Because the moment we forget about them, then the terrorists have won. (Long and loud applause) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Sir Percival Pyke. SIR PERCIVAL PYKE: You only need to look at Guantanamo Bay to see how much this government - and its moronic allies - care about justice. (Cheer) George Bush (Mocking laughter), George Bush ... well, he's a turd isn't he? (Standing ovation) .... Baroness Blight is absolutely right: what we're forgetting in all this ghastly tabloid hoo-ha about 'murder victims' is who the real victims are in all of this. They're the ones sitting in prison cells across our country! (Applause) Frankly, I couldn't give a monkeys what Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Wade think about our criminal justice system. (Applause) And Paul Dacre! That compassionless squirt! (Laughter) It's because of people like him we need axe-murderers in Britain! (Laughter, then applause) What makes judges so skilled is that they are isolated from popular opinion and they don't need to worry about accountability to the people they serve. If we ever change that, just imagine what would happen - judges would have to be more concerned about the people outside the prisons than the good of those inside. It would be a nightmare, anarchy ... (Hear, hear) ... so help me God: Texas! (Laughter) Quite frankly, if the Sun, Express and Daily Mail don't think someone should be released, then there couldn't be a better reason to let him loose on the streets! Prison doesn't work, prison doesn't work: let everyone out! (Roars of cheering and sustained applause) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: William Hague. WILLIAM HAGUE: I think the measure is sensible, which is why my party is supporting it. Sadly, it doesn't go nearly far enough. (Mocking laughter) We're talking about criminals who have ended someone's life by cutting them up like wood, here. These people have committed the most henious crimes and they are a danger to everyone around them. To give them a two year minimum sentence is like giving someone 50p for finding the cure for cancer. Sir Percival says we need judges to be isolated from public opinion, but that's precisely the problem: they are giving sentences without any reference to the feelings of normal people who actually have to live with crime. If the Home Secretary is needed sometimes to assert that role, then it's absolutely necessary that he does so. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Ahh! Now let me pick you up on that very controversial point. You mention people who have cut others to pieces. Does not compassionate conservatism extend to them? Or is it as selective as your critics claim? WILLIAM HAGUE: Well, obviously compassion towards killers rather compromises compassion towards their victims. You have to put the innocent first. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: (Chuckling) I see. And further, when you say judges aren't sentencing with reference to public opinion, is that just your way of demanding the Daily Mail set every prison sentence in the country? (Laughter and shouts of "Yes") WILLIAM HAGUE: No, it's a reflection of the fact that judges are ultimately public servants who need to take account of the needs and wishes of the people they serve. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Okaaaaay, as it looks like the audience will vote the way I want them to, I'll take a poll. Who thinks the two year minimum sentence for axe-murderers is, as the questioner put it, an authoritarian appeal to the tabloid press? ... Okay, and does anyone think it is right - or insufficient? ... Well, in this audience overwhelmingly the view is that the measure is a mistake. Can we have our next question, please? QUESTIONER 2: Angela Collins. With the Government vetoing the EU's relocation of the Crown Jewels to Brussels and the Conservatives supporting them, are the Liberal Democrats the only true opposition in Britain? Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 15, 2004
Commenting on this site
As there seems to be some confusion on the rules for leaving comments here, I have done what I probably should have done when I started blogging, which is put them up where all can see. I won't remove posts for their political content, but I will delete them if the poster in question does not follow some common sense guidelines for maintaining civil discussion. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Site content Copyright 2002-2005 Peter Cuthbertson
|
|
 |
|
|||
|
 |
|||||
|
||||||
The Guantanamo captives held by British authorities, let us be clear, were picked up in very, very dodgy circumstances. None of them have yet been found guilty of a crime, so it is wrong to say for certain that they are terrorists, but the 
A group called Unite Against Fascism has launched a blog-based campaign against the British National Party, and 
I am currently putting some of my longer and better pieces up in a special essays section of this site. This will consist of lengthier posts here which I feel make important points of lasting relevance. So far the section includes pieces from mid 2002 and late 2003. Eventually it will feature material from throughout the twenty months that I have been blogging, and beyond.
Paul Richards has a piece in Progress, the magazine for 'Labour Progressives' (don't laugh - the left really do think conservatives oppose progress), 
If you get the chance between now and Wednesday evening, do listen to this week's 
Ron West kindly sent me the text of a letter he wrote to the Times in response to the Catholic Church's call for higher taxes. As he notes, for any aid given to others to be moral, it has to be voluntary. Money taken by the taxman on threat of imprisonment does not qualify. He also points out the disastrous effects on incentives once the bulbous state is a part of the economic landscape.
As a Frenchwoman 
