The Obscurer

Category: Politics

Wednesday 16th July 2008

A Short Post About Inflation

I have forgotten more about economics than I ever knew, and I hope to demonstrate that here today. While many people seem to be losing their heads over yesterday’s rise in the inflation figures, I’m long enough in the tooth to remember a time when such statistics would have been viewed with envy. Certainly inflation is high by recent standards and heading in the wrong direction, and the price of some household staples and essentials has risen by far more than the headline inflation rate – perhaps I am complacent because my recent shopping basket included two plasma-screen TVs, so presumably bringing my personal inflation rate down even as the rise in the price of milk and bread popped a few quid on the top of my weekly shop – but I still don’t think the current situation quite deserves the media’s hyperbole, even if over time it may do. After all, if it is generally held that Labour inherited a fairly benign economic situation from the Conservatives in 1997, and if inflation is now at an 11-year high, then from a different perspective aren’t we are back where Labour came in, in fairly benign times? My fears are reserved for the precarious future, rather than the somewhat over-egged present.

But my main thought today is for Alistair Darling’s response to those inflation figures. While obviously trying to play down concerns, alleging that the British economy is well placed to weather this economic storm, an assertion for which there is no evidence whatsoever, he was still anxious to stress that the recent rise in prices emphasised how important it is to bear down on wage increases in both the public and private sectors so we can avoid a horrific wage-price spiral.

True enough, in principle; but if, as is generally believed, the current inflation is largely due to the rise in commodity prices, then in the first instance inflation will continue to rise regardless of any wage restraint. If inflation is running at 4-5%, do we really need to be talking about pay rises of around the 2% mark to fight the good fight on inflation? If anything isn’t the opposite the case, that such a cut in real wages, while being marginally anti-inflationary, could cause more problems as people have even less cash to spend at the shops, so tipping us further into recession, and that rather than donning the hair-shirt we should be looking at reasonable rather than restrictive pay rises? We can overdo this wage restraint lark, can’t we?

I can assure you that you can forget any idea that I am motivated in saying this by the fact that my wage negotiations are starting soon and the Chancellor’s inflation line is bound to be mentioned as once again we are likely to get offered 0% of bugger all (now look who’s indulging in a little hyperbole.) Similarly, you can dismiss any thought that Alistair Darling’s statements are in any way predicated upon wanting to keep some sort of lid on the public finances, rather than purely fighting the doughty fight against the inflation menace.

What of our Shadow Chancellor then? George Osborne was on Newsnight last night and in a rush of blood to the head appeared to offer a policy. The government should cut tax on fuel, he said, so to help hard pressed families. How to square that with the Conservative’s green agenda? Well, with a piece of nonsense called the “fuel stabiliser” Osborne said a Conservative government would then raise fuel tax as the price of oil falls. For a Tory, a Tory, to suggest a policy that so neuters the price mechanism seems quite astonishing to me, but this went unchallenged by interviewer Gavin Esler. I have little faith in this Labour government, but the prospect of the Conservatives in power quite scares me; not because their ideology is repellent, and not because they have generally run scared of announcing what they would do if or when they form the next government (which seems a perfectly reasonable political strategy,) but because whenever they are asked what could or should be done about the problems we are facing at the moment, when the silence isn’t deafening their response is so utterly fucking clueless.

Leave a comment
Monday 16th June 2008

What Do You Get If You Multiply Six By Nine?

David Davis’s decision to stand down as an MP and fight a by-election on the subject of civil liberties, be it brave, foolish, principled or vain (and it is probably all four), will only become interesting to me in the unlikely event that it resolves some of those unanswered questions raised during the debate over 42-days detention. I have to doubt that Davis can provide me with those answers by fighting shadows in a by-election when a he didn’t manage it as shadow home secretary, but if he pulls it off he will have done me a great service.

I think I am a bit erratic on the matter of civil liberties. I am dead against ID cards, although for now it is mainly for the pragmatic reason that they are a monumentally ineffective waste of time and money. I similarly oppose the proposed database that will run alongside the cards, but I can see some worth in the similarly gargantuan NHS “spine”. The DNA database’s reach is far too extensive, but the profusion of CCTV cameras, whether state or privately owned, does not leave me over-fussed. On the matter of detention without charge I opposed the extension to 90 days in terror cases and I oppose the 42-day move now. I’m all over the place really, although perhaps no more than David Davis himself, a curious “libertarian” who despite his recent protestations is socially conservative and an authoritarian on many issues, supporting the repeal of the Human Rights Act and also – as many have pointed out – in favour of the death penalty. So while he is appalled by the metaphorical “slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms” he is far more relaxed about the literal, brisker, honest-to-goodness strangulation of a human being in a noose. He is against the state retaining our DNA and storing it in a vial but is happy to afford it the power to erase us from the face of the earth.

It is easy to pick holes in what passes for the government’s case for 42-days. I have little doubt that Labour’s main reason for pushing the bill forward was political, to triangulate and to sound tough on terror while painting the Tories as weak. Certainly it is the case that some terrorists have been held right up to the current 28-days limit – just as the previous limit of 14-days was occasionally approached – but isn’t that the way with deadlines? If I am given 4 weeks to complete an assignment then it will take me 4 weeks; give me a 2-week extension and it will take 6 weeks.

And yet; I am not whole-hearted in my opposition to this bill, primarily because as I have no experience of investigating a terror plot I have no knowledge of what it actually entails. Certainly the government hasn’t effectively made the case for why the change it is needed, but the opposition hasn’t convinced me that it isn’t. It is an unpleasant feature of our parliamentary democracy that the whips operate to push MPs through the lobby to vote for their party rather than with their conscience and some of the reported horse-trading in last week’s vote reflects badly on the government, but I have heard far worse cases of bullying and intimidation under previous votes and governments; the whips work on both sides and it would be interesting to see how a genuinely free vote would have gone when many Tory MPs would have voted for 42-days rather than against the government. Much of the opposition case seems to be shrill and hyperbolic, to exhibit some unavoidable gravitational pull towards Latin, where Magna Carta, habeas corpus and cave canem get waved around for no very good reason, and where opposing 42-days is made to sound synonymous with supporting civil liberties. Sure, many of those in favour of 42-days can also some make utterly stupid points in response by, for example, saying they don’t care how long terror suspects are banged up for as long as we are kept safe, but I can easily dismiss such Daily Mail-style wing-nuttery as I don’t feel the need to understand and sympathise with such rabid nonsense. Not so the arguments made by liberals, and David Davis; but the latter’s speech to parliament in the debate on the bill was typically full of emotive talk of innocent people being dragged from their homes in the early hours and hurried away from their famillies and jobs to be slammed in a cell for weeks on end; true, of course, and uncomfortable to admit perhaps, but these facts apply as equally to the 28-day limit which Davis supports as to the 42-day limit he opposes.

But it is when the bills opponents compare the UK’s record with other countries that I become most concerned about the arguments being made. It is commonplace to blithely state that we already have the most draconian terror laws going, and Liberty published a document detailing how out of step the British legal system is, but what does that mean? Some things don’t seem to add up. Italy, for example, is said to be able to make do with a mere 4 days detention prior to charge, yet in the Meredith Kercher case I remember it being stated that the suspects can be held for up to a year pending investigation, the 4 day limit apparently being for the courts to authorise the initial arrest. Italy is a civil-law country and so the comparison may not be exact (which is part of the problem here) but what of other common-law countries? In the United States, when not being held indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, Liberty state that suspects can only be held for 2 days prior to charge, but again comparisons seem misleading. My understanding is that in the States it is the norm to charge suspects with a lesser crime and then use post-charge questioning to get at the real reason for the arrest; but is that really any improvement on the British system? It doesn’t seem a victory for civil liberties if we move over to a procedure where you can be arrested for some trumped up trifle – tax evasion…jaywalking? – and to then be held for as long as a friendly judge refuses bail. You still won’t know why you have really been arrested, you still can’t prepare your defence for the genuine case ahead, and it all seems to lead to a far less transparent system, with nothing like the judicial oversight that exists in the UK. In Canada, another common law country, under most circumstances charges actually need to be laid prior to an arrest – which certainly suggests a low level of evidence is required – and anyway within 24 hours. It beggars belief that the Canadian and British police are working under truly comparable systems or else we have to believe that our coppers are 42 times more lazy than the Canadians; but I guess I don’t know.

My problem here is that while I instinctively support Liberty in its endeavours some of its claims seem disingenuous which undermines the case, as if they are playing fast and loose with the evidence in order to take a utopian line on civil liberties. It is easy to oppose 42-days on a high-minded principle when it isn’t your arse on the line if the current 28-day limit means you have to let a genuine terrorist go free; easy to tell others how to do a job you have no intention of doing yourself and to still keep yourself free to criticise if things do go wrong; easy enough to do it and stay put. No, the antis haven’t convinced me of their case; ultimately it comes down to how much time the police actually need to do the job, and that is something I simply don’t know.

But the antis don’t have to convince me, it is the pro-42-dayers who are seeking a change to the status quo, it is they who have to do the convincing. Some senior police officers may well want more time to question suspects, but who wouldn’t like more time in which to do their job? Just because they want it doesn’t mean they need it; if the police are given 42 days then they will certainly use them, but while that could be out of necessity it is as likely to be out of risk-aversion, to continue to hold people against whom there is no evidence just to be on the safe side. Neither side in this argument has persuaded me, but liberty is too vital an issue to take lightly. As in law, then, it is for the Crown to make its case beyond reasonable doubt. This is something it has signally failed to do.

Leave a comment
Wednesday 4th June 2008

Chameleon Day

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne, glottal stops and all, was on Radio 4’s PM programme yesterday, discussing his plans for a “British Day” bank holiday. Apparently he has canvassed opinion and he feels the “idea…has really caught on” that we need “an opportunity, permission, if you like” to celebrate Britishness, and so he has selflessly decided to promote the idea; it certainly has nothing to do with Gordon Brown having banged on an on about the concept for ages, and we can also disregard the fact that most of the public will agree with any old spurious reason to have a day off work.

Unfortunately the tight-fisted git isn’t proposing that we get an extra holiday to celebrate our country right or wrong, rather the existing August bank holiday is to be requisitioned for the cause: the fact that this holiday is already the date of the Notting Hill Carnival, Manchester’s Mardi Gras and the Lower Puddleton Annual Summer Ram Roast and Tombola, events that may not want to be roped into this all new homogenised celebration, seems to have concerned Liam Byrne not.

But when PM’s Eddie Mair pointed out that choosing the August bank holiday for British Day meant holding it on a day that wasn’t a bank holiday in Scotland, Byrne began to get himself into a bit of a tangle. He maintained that some time in summer – and preferably at the end of August – would be the best date to hold this celebration; in other words, no move from the August bank holiday, as far as I can tell. Mair countered that this would still mean that this proposed British Day “in and of itself excludes Scotland”, and that while the Scots do have a summer bank holiday, it is at the start of August. Byrne reiterated that the end of August would be better, for no particularly good reason other than that lots of people are away on holiday earlier in August; although presumably no more or less than later in the month I would have thought, and the Scots are seemingly currently unfazed by this fact. Eventually, after several unconvincing defences of his position Byrne finally fell back on the phrase “all I’m trying to do…is actually to get this debate started”. To which, Eddie Mair, seasoned as he is in dealing with this piece of rhetoric, would have been well within his rights to have said “No you fucking weren’t! You were stating your opinion. Now; is it your opinion or isn’t it, fuckwit?”

And that’s all I’m really bothered about here; this incremental increase, year on year, in the number of people who when challenged on their opinions think it is acceptable to use this piece of sophistry, to excuse their stated viewpoint by claiming they only meant to “start a debate” on the subject. Who do they think they are, deciding unilaterally to start an impromptu discussion on a matter? Don’t they know that by law you have to be a Dimbleby to do that?

But you know, I really don’t mind people using the phrase when they genuinely want to open up a debate on an issue at hand; it’s just that usually they don’t. These are mere weasel words, worse than management speak, an attempt, when criticised, to wheedle out of any responsibility for your already declared position, to strike a pose of neutrality on a subject you clearly felt strongly enough about to have raised in the first place. Whatever happened to just stating your opinion, defending it, and sticking to it? Then, if someone raises a reasonable critique of your plans you can have the decency to accept that you may consider any contrasting opinions or objections, that you are open enough so that when the facts change you can change your mind. Anything, anything rather than this deviousness, this cowardly backsliding, this transparent attempt at deflecting criticism rather than tackling it head on.

Whenever we see someone who inappropriately claims that they are merely trying to “start a debate” on a matter we should boo them – and hiss them – at every mention of the phrase, don’t you think? Or perhaps that’s a bit harsh; I’m only playing Devil’s Advocate to be honest with you, just taking up an extreme position in order to get the ball rolling, for others to avail themselves of this blog’s comments facility to discuss the matter amongst themselves, to, you know, what’s the phrase…?

Leave a comment
Wednesday 30th April 2008

Crocodile Tears

Yesterday, David Cameron decided to “’fess up” to the fact that he had failed in his endeavour to call time on “Punch & Judy politics”. I’m not too sure quite what part he feels he plays in such a puppet show mind you, but judging by Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier on today the Tory front bench are certainly managing a more than passable impression of the string of sausages.

But if we can take today’s PMQs as a guide then Cameron is better off sticking with making all those “loser”, “weird” and “strange man” jibes, as he seems pretty unqualified to do anything better. Asking all six questions on the seemingly solid topic of the proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill that allows terrorist suspects to be detained for up to 42 day without charge, Cameron was useless. Gordon Brown managed to defend the indefensible with ease while Cameron struggled to land a clean blow; and indeed that has more or less been the story of PMQs lately as far as I can tell. Cameron may be a slick performer but when he has to make the weather himself he seems flummoxed and clueless; only when events have done the heavy lifting for him – when Brown has already been on the ropes, be it because of the cancelled election, the lost data discs, or the abolition of the 10p tax rate – has Cameron been able to sidle up to PMQs and effectively deliver his sneering coup de grace.

Staying with that 10p tax rate though, I did find it bizarre for David Cameron to have said during his ‘fession on the Today programme that

I was very angry last week because I thought it was the week when actually we found out something about this Prime Minister…which is that that budget 2 years ago was a complete con.

Did it really take until last week for the penny to drop and for Cameron to actually become angry about something that any old fool spotted on the day of the budget itself, over a year ago? I can understand – although I can’t condone – Labour MPs being in denial over the details of the 10p debacle, but what’s Cameron’s excuse? And while he freely accuses Brown of dither and indecision, if it really has taken this long for a simple fact to sink into Cameron’s consciousness then I feel his only real rival is Homer Simpson.

Leave a comment
Monday 17th March 2008

Points Scoring

Are you still here? Well I am, more or less, and though perhaps a little bit behind the curve I have just noticed that there now appears to be a Libertarian Party here in old blighty. Yes the UK Libertarian Party has apparently been around for a few months now; they even have a website and everything, and their moral compass couldn’t be proclaimed more boldly than on its introductory page.

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don’t say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times.

Their emphasis, not mine. It’s rousing, unequivicol, take-no-prisoners stuff. And yet, and yet…glancing through their manifesto that articulates the virtues of their policies on the rule of law, the economy, heathcare, education and defence we eventually reach their

Immigration Overview
Totally free movement of people into the UK is not practical whilst we have a large welfare state and other countries are themselves not broadly Libertarian in nature. In line with the Rule of Law, a transparent, consistent points based system is one of our key proposed measures to humanely manage migration.

So, er, not liberty and freedom on all issues at all times after all then (my emphasis, this time around.) Still, it is the impractical idealism (as I see it) that some libertarians exhibit that means I often dismiss their theories as being strictly for the birds no matter how attractive they may seem, so perhaps a realistic policy is to be welcomed. No doubt a fuller discussion of their immigration policy than this mere overview will reveal an admirable aspiration to eliminate such restrictions on the free movement of people, once that troublesome welfare state is done away with by a Libertarian government, no?

Policy

  • The UK shall have full control over its immigration policy with any right of final appeal remaining within the UK.
  • We propose the adoption of a points-based immigration policy for economic migrants.
  • Asylum Seekers must present at a UK border otherwise their claim shall not be accepted. Those refusing to declare originating country and accept that denial of their application will result in their return shall be denied entry, and any right to seek asylum will be refused outright without appeal.
  • Move towards asylum seekers to be held “air side” while their case is heard as swiftly as possible, e.g. within 2 weeks.
  • End automatic access to education and resources for any child who presents itself to the authorities, i.e. vouchers will not be available.
  • Any concept of a mass “amnesty” for illegal immigration undermines Rule of Law and as such will not be entertained.

So that’ll be a no then. Now, I’m no Libertarian, so I could have got it all wrong here, but this all seems to be less a UKLP policy than a UKIP one; all of which is perhaps not too surprising, as that is only where the party’s Director of Communications has just come from.

2 Comments