Hypocrisy over Haltemprice - 5 comments

I think this is a fairly typical response from Labour bloggers to David Davis's by-election victory:

The man, David Davis, is a complete nutter, having put his constituents of Haltemprice and Howden through a phoney by-election for the sake of his own super ego. The man who thought 42 days to question terrorist suspects was too much and violated the principles of Magna Carta was nevetheless happy to support 28 days. This nutter wasted money on a phoney election merely to satisfy his personal ego. This by-election proved nothing except confirm its status as a safe Tory seat.

As such it's a thoroughly unreasonable collection of speculative personal attacks and irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims, that dodges the issues in order to gain some measly political advantage.

You'd almost think Labour bloggers supported the 42-day detention proposal. If I had to sum up the reaction from last month, I can't remember more than one or two favourable responses from bloggers who weren't Councillors or MPs.

The point I tried to make last month was that (aside from Davis's character being irrelevant to the issue at hand) that this was an opportunity for us all to combat the illiberal attitudes of the general public, that some of us believe were the real driver of the 42-day proposal, and others in a similar vein. If Davis did succeed in changing attitudes, at least in Haltemprice and Howden, then good - liberal attitudes are in all of our best interests, whatever party we associate with.The idea that you can temporarily breach your own deeply-held values for political advantage is not one I want to be associated with.

David Davis' resignation - 11 comments

Call me wet behind the ears, but I've been surprised by the amount of hostility directed at David Davis, who (for the benefit of future readers) resigned today as Shadow Home Secretary - even from those who ought to agree with him in their opposition to the 42-day detention plan.

He's an MP, elected to support his party, and to express his own views, and the concerns of his constituents. Clearly he's already addressing points (1) and (2), and it's apparent that he's prompting a by-election to address point (3). Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Besides, elections are a Good Thing, and democracy has no price, so to talk of 'frivolity' and 'wastes of taxpayer's money' shows a grotesque attitude to democracy. It isn't a risk-free strategy either: seats only appear to be 'safe' until a remarkable independent candidate comes along and turns the election on its head; and as I keep saying, vote tallies start at zero and increment, they don't decrement - party majorities are no more that statistics.

If these initial reactions are anything to go by, Labour's big guns are going to take a depressingly contemptuous line. Take this, from David Blunkett:

David Davis's behaviour is a pure piece of political theatre [...] This is childish and immature and it is not worthy of a major political party to engage in such theatre.

As good an advertisement as I've heard not to enter party politics (if one were needed). Thanks, DB.

Equally tawdry, I feel, would be the decision not to field a Labour candidate at the forthcoming Haltemprice and Howden by-election. That would be a decision bound to salt the earth for the local CLP and the PPC, who might well pay the price at a local level for years to come. Whatever our individual views, Labour, nationally, has made its decision, and so it must stick up for its policy, whether that allows it to hold its vote, or costs it a deposit. The Lib Dems are entitled not to stand if they fully support the Conservatives, but Labour can't withdraw too, leaving one side of the argument/electorate with no (mainstream) representative.

Returning to the democratic point: needless to say, the 42-day plan doesn't cease to be illiberal or (probably) unnecessary even in the event that the electorate does back it (the interventions of the loathsome Kelvin McKenzie and Rupert Murdoch are surely proof enough - via Phil), but if some good is to come out of this affair, it would come from Davis and the Lib Dems eroding that apparent public support, and changing public attitudes for the better.

Don't, by any means, take that as an endorsement, but the task for Labour activists during this by-election is the same as it ever was: to battle illiberal and conservative ideas and values, with liberal, cooperative, and socialist ones. It would be a shame if, in doing so, we couldn't hope for a Labour MP to be elected.

Cohen on violent crime - no comments

Useful article on urban violence, from Nick Cohen (yes, at CiF), that tackles what he calls the liberal myth that there has been no substantial long-term increase in violent crime:

[...] Richard Garside, the centre's director, was contemptuous of the notion that inner-city residents have been duped by the media or false memories of an imaginary golden age into barricading themselves into their homes. 'Commentators who live in prosperous areas don't understand that their fears aren't panic attacks but the result of objective experience,' he said.

I'm not sure how widespread the belief is, but Nick explains why it is a tempting one for those lucky enough to have been insulated from violence. I suspect the reason I wasn't prepared to make a big deal about it in the past was the fear that it would be used ('exploited', if you like) by the political right to justify tougher measures against offenders and, conservative social policies. I'm sure I wasn't alone. And yet a recognition of the impact and threat of violence doesn't presume any particular political response, only that those who are genuinely concerned with the victims treat the issue as the priority it is, and advocate radical policies that are likely - if not proven - to work.

Economic freedom II / Chávez - 6 comments

My Monday post, on John Pilger and Hugo Chávez, has come in for a bit of criticism. Not so much for the post itself, which largely consisted of a large quotation from Hayek arguing that the existence of a democratic mandate does not in itself stop power being wielded arbitrarily by states, but for this extract from my follow-up comment:

In Venezuela, Cuba, and so many other countries, the top priority for their governments is (sic) to open their economies, cede political power, tackle corruption, and stop blaming the country's problems on internal and external enemies. [...]

Obviously I meant 'should be', rather than 'is', but I can't deny that's a fairly succinct, though hardly nuanced, expression of my view.

Tom from NewerLabour has left a couple of lengthy comments, and Citizen Andreas has also posted, so here's my response.

Firstly, when I refer to 'opening' one's economy - reducing state control of industry, dismantling tariffs, allowing the free movement of capital and labour, etc. - I don't mean to imply an 'off-the-shelf' solution with any guaranteed economic and political return, in any particular time frame, just that economic openness is correlated with greater individual rights and more economic wealth, less exploitation of the population by monopolists, and a reduced scope for political corruption. Note that this is not a specific point about capitalism, it's about the economic freedom of individuals from the state and from monopolies of labour or capital, and insofar as posited socialist or other future economic systems respect the individual, this analysis will apply just as much to them.

I can't make any similarly general point about the likelihood of an egalitarian distribution of income: only governments and powerful economic actors can claim to have the power to alter this - whether they really have the ability to deliver is another matter altogether, but consider this, as I quote for a second time from Hayek's The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 14), and try to imagine I'm not a starry-eyed 17-year-old Thatcherite who wears a suit to college [my emphasis]:

The refusal to yield to forces which we neither understand nor can recognise as the conscious decision of an intelligent being is the product of an incomplete and therefore erroneous rationalism. It is complete because it fails to comprehend that the co-ordination of the multifarious individual efforts in a complex society must take account of facts no individual can completely survey. And it fails to see that, unless this complex society is to be destroyed, the only alternative to submission to the impersonal and seemingly irrational forces of the market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and therefore arbitrary power of other men.

Tom continues:

There already exists a party which is meant to give us liberalism and nothing further (though I would argue that they are only liberal where it hurts poor communities and authoritarian in many other aspects. [B4L: presumably the Tories?] They may fail orthodox liberalism as Labour fails orthodox socialism). We need a party that offers more than liberalism: justice. That should be Labour.

Well, of course there has to be justice. Markets can't create justice: they have to work within the rules of justice that it is the state's responsibility to devise and enact. These can take an infinite number of forms. Only systems of justice that allow individual freedom, private property, and enforceable contracts are compatible with free markets, but this still leaves us a tremendous range: as law-makers we can try to reflect a society that enjoys risk and accepts wide variations in outcomes; one that is risk-averse and prefers strong and ample safety-nets; we could quite easily raise inheritance taxes to such a degree that inheritance was practically impossible, if society so desired. So equality of outcome can be tackled without substantially imposing on economic freedom. All of this, however, requires that the state sticks to the agreed laws and system of justice, and not penalise or promote people at its whim. This is the Rule of Law.

Too often, self-proclaimed socialist regimes have taken root within states that glorify nationalism and have contempt for individual rights, or have attempted to shift opinion in that direction. This means that, as far as justice is concerned, all bets are off. The erosion of individual rights that makes it progressively harder for people to organise outside the state represents a second reason why aspiring dictators cannot be allowed to continue far down the road to autocracy. It's all the more unfortunate when the government in question appears to have a genuine commitment to aiding a previously disadvantaged social group, as in Venezuela.

Returning to economic nationalism, Tom says:

What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to tackle the priorities of the Venezuelan people [...] without allowing multinationals from other states to take control of certain industries.

No, not necessarily. It needn't make any substantial difference what country a particular company 'comes from', and while 'faceless multinationals' are a minority in the world economy, one compensation for homogeneity and hierarchical organisation is exposure to international labour standards.

The 'take control' reference is also crucial: whatever the economic system, my view is that the cases where society is not best served by monopolistic companies (whether in the public or private sector, foreign or domestic) being open to competition, belong in the textbooks. Free economies should not permit domination, let alone 'control' of industries, nor ought they to be as susceptible to this kind of abuse than those where state control provides companies with opportunities for corruption and collusion. Of course our favoured politicians are of unimpeachable morals, but our freedoms shouldn't depend upon the character of a few good men.

Tom also argues that:

nationalism is often progressive where the intentions of outside actors are regressive in character [...]

I would very much disagree with the 'often', and I find even qualified support for nationalism mystifying. I concede that it might bind a population together sufficiently to overthrow a tyranny, but unless that unifying force is swiftly replaced with more rational economics and politics, a generation of domineering politicians will take root, backed by the dead hand of the military, with the population stifled.

A final point on liberal institutions: the idea that Chávez (and so many before him) should have domestic restrictions tolerated on the grounds that their domestic achievements would otherwise be overturned by powerful domestic or foreign forces is, I'm sure, very persuasive for the left. Democracy's greatest weapon might not literally be 'people power', but Cuba demonstrates how those who claim to 'protecting the revolution' have created themselves a job for life. Chávez's best chance of protecting his social programmes (which I'm not going to analyse in detail) is to liberalise his economy and state, to ensure the state's monopoly of force, to break up power blocs, allow a free press and media, have a trusted legal system, and to avoid acting in such a way that prevents his government winning international friends from mainstream political parties.

Update (29/08): There are currently 6 comments stretching to approximately 3500 words, so clearly I'm not going to be able to respond "in full", but I will try to pick out a few topics and deal with those. If you want to comment yourself, please be concise and read what's been said earlier on!

Neal Lawson's illiberalism - 2 comments

Says the Don (who also links to several other critiques), Compass Chair, Neal Lawson, is "a man with a track record of inept and counter-productive support of a range of good causes". The latest mission: using your own ignorance of economics and philosophy, and reluctance to engage with other's arguments, erect a straw man, and call him The Political System. Then, contrarian, demolish with whatever argument you fancy: here, the lukewarm platitudes of priests.

Where do we get moral leadership from today? As we pick up the pieces of another swiped out festive season it's a fitting question. Is there something more to life than the endless cycle of overconsumption? How can the Iraq war or exorbitant city bonuses be justified? Increasingly it is our religious rather than political leaders who attempt to answer these difficult and pressing questions.

The mainstream media in this country undoubtedly trivialises politics in the UK, but the world is full of moral guidance (leadership, if you must): throughout our lives we watch, listen to, and read about the activities of people ranging from family members, to schoolteachers, businesspeople, politicians, and people with many different points of view and ideology, and we respond to what we take to be the positive and negative consequences of those actions, adapting towards what we hope to be 'the good life'. It's central to Lawson's argument that humanity is incapable of any such growth; without the moral leadership - and Lawson clearly has specific moral leadership in mind - the result is disaster. After all, what else could "overconsumption" mean? It's impossible to prove either way, it can be defined any way Neal likes, it sounds bad, and it plays on our guilt, so it's an essential part of the vocabulary for any budding puritan.

I had intended to post just before Christmas in defence of consumerism. It seems to be used overwhelmingly in a puritanical, as well as a snobbish manner, implying that self-appointed arbiters are a better judge of what people spend their money on than they themselves, that the general population is too unsophisticated to see through advertisers' messages, that most shoppers - unlike the happy aesthete - shop out of habit, and for the sheer love of money, and possessions. Consumerism^* also implies the population, free to walk the streets, and the puritan fears this kind of mass movement. What is this moral guidance that the religious authorities have to offer? An anti-democratic contempt for the above, but without anything so controversial as an appeal to charity, humility, or generosity? Nothing but platitudes appear in Lawson's piece, just the unfalsifiable "Something (what?) is wrong; something must be done!" that we expect from a Cameron or a Princess Di.

To sacrifice the concept of individual freedom, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appears to advocate - something that the powerless have struggled to seize from the powerful (religious leaders very much included) throughout human history - in favour of some hot air about "the fundamental questions on the sense and direction of our lives", seems designed to return humanity to the stupefaction of centuries past. If Lawson were to realise that it is attempts by religious authorities to increase their presence in schools, to advocate and enforce dress codes (those affected naturally only become "some of society's most vulnerable people" for Neal when the rules are challenged, and the religion takes offence on the individuals' behalf), to defend blasphemy laws, to suppress freedom of speech, to meekly tolerate violence against their own communities, or to tolerate and even advocate the preaching of violence against others - rather than the peaceful faith of individuals - that is a matter of legitimate public concern over the influence of religious representatives, he might be less inclined to impugn atheists, secularists, rationalists, and politicians, not to mention workers at Goldman Sachs.

Our politicians have forgotten that power and principle are two sides of the same coin. Politics has stopped being a different vision of the good society and is instead a job for technocrats and for self-proclaimed rationalists.

To suggest that those involved in politics aren't interested in visions of a good society is a pretty ignorant comment for someone loosely involved with the blogosphere, and who must encounter individual politicians and political bloggers frequently. Neal might have a point if he has "managerialism" in his sights, but substituting the idea that unelected religious teachers should "lead and motivate the nation", in place of elected politicians doing so, hardly seems an attractive one, even if you believe that people have to be led. The fact that individuals, companies, or collectives, could be empowered to tackle society's problems in a more decentralised way seems hardly to have been considered. Now who's out of touch?

Not content with using the current state of Iraq to say "we were right" to the disparate group known as "opponents of the war", whatever the arguments - some 'realistic', some repulsive - those individuals employed, what Lawson implies is a kind of victor's justice, under which those who fall into the "supporters of the war" camp are to be judged moral criminals, morally vacuous, timorous, or 'careerist', irrespective of the arguments they used, and the principles they sought to promote and defend. Whatever kind of politics could produce this, it's not liberal. Only a tyrant - or a mob - could celebrate the chaos in Iraq - or indeed any argument they believe themselves to have won - with a victimisation of their opponents, as if the moral case was done and dusted, and the continuing debate pushed to one side. Norm's piece on this is a breath of fresh mountain air in comparison.

I don't deny that there will be religious figures (and to reiterate, I'm not talking about individuals with religious faith) who, on the basis of their brains, imagination, humanity, and so on, have acquired a moral authority of their own - or who bring evidence to discussions - and have earned the right to be listened to by thoughtful people. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes they enjoy the same right on the basis of their status within their particular sect, or on the basis of a personal recommendation by Neal Lawson (for whom "overly rationalist" is a censure, rather than a precondition for an intelligent debate), can get to the back of a very long queue.

-----
^* My dictionary gives an additional definition of "consumerism", namely "the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers". Is this also frowned upon?