Liberal Vision

Should your taxes be used to fund a Premier League football club?

 

One of the fastest-growing petitions in recent weeks has been this effort to stop millions of pounds in government funds being handed over to Tottenham Hotspur FC.

You can view it here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14605

Spurs recently announced annual revenue of £163.5m, a significant chunk of which they spend paying their squad of millionaire footballers.

Yet having launched a strong campaign to take over the (tax-funded) Olympic stadium in Stratford, the club is now set to receive a large taxpayer “incentive” to build themselves a new stadium in Tottenham.

Unsurprisingly Mayor Boris is happily trying to chuck the cash their way while the lobbying and rent-seeking is being driven forward by local MP David Lammy.

The riots, which began in Tottenham, are being used as a justification for the funding, which apparently involves “regenerating” the area.

Regardless of the flaws in believing that areas are reformed by chucking a load of cash at them from elsewhere (they aren’t), one must ask if this is the best way of improving the outlook for young people in the neighbourhood.

Is throwing money at the nearest football club, which actually wanted to leave the area, the best way of helping local people?

And if any regeneration is good for impoverished areas, why doesn’t the government fund all private developments in poor neighbourhoods? What about Tesco? They bring jobs to poor areas when the open new stores. What about Lidl and Morrisons? Who decides on the alleged social benefits of each new scheme?

And why weren’t other football clubs subsidised for bringing jobs to their areas when they build new stadia? Down the road, Arsenal invested hundreds of millions on a new stadium and had to build masses of affordable flats and help fund a new recycling centre and put money aside for public transport improvements.

Why did they have to pay the state millions on top of their own costs, when Spurs are set to be subsidised?

Why aren’t the government looking to subsidise new grounds for Chelsea and QPR? Shouldn’t they be “incentivised” to “regenerate” other poor areas in London?

The decision to fund Spurs smacks of the usual corporate cronyism that sadly still pervades the political system. Nearly any development can be dressed up as worthy of “support” by self-interested vote-hungry politicians and manipulated by equally ravenous businessmen.

Sign the petition to stop your taxes going towards Tottenham Hotspur FC.

The future of Liberal Democrat thinking

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking at the Institute for Government, on behalf of Liberal Vision, on “The future of Liberal Democrat thinking.” Chaired by Lord Adonis (boo… hiss!), the other panellists included Lord Clement-Jones, Neil Sherlock and Julian Astle from Centre Forum.

The IfG have provided a comprehensive summary of the discussion here (and, for those of you who are really bored, a full podcast here!) but I thought I’d briefly add my thoughts on some of the issues raised:

Lord Clement-Jones lauded our exulted one, rightly describing Clegg’s decision to join the coalition as “bold” and referring back to the writings of Jo Grimond to demonstrate that he is “entirely in line with the antecedents in the party”. I was less convinced by his referral to The Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett) when summarising key liberal texts from which to set the agenda for future liberal thinking. Really?!

Neil Sherlock, spoke well on the forthcoming priorities for the LDs: ensuring that the government is successful, delivering LD policies and demonstrating that coalition politics worked. All valid points, from a man who certainly knows a thing or two about the higher echelons of the party.

Julian Astle, Exec Director at the liberal (with a small “l”) think tank Centre Forum, was excellent in his defence of liberal values and in addressing the issues at the core of modern liberal thinking. His description of the “big society” as having a liberal core was particularly refreshing: it’s good to see a liberal sticking up for a liberal thesis irrespective of which party it emanated from.

Which brings us on to my point, which was that the LDs must be careful not to warp their agenda in order to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives. Liberal (small l) and conservative ideology is as distinct today as it was at the turn of the 20th century- when the Labour Representation Committee only held 2 seats (arh… for the good ole days!). Attempting to force the distinction, by compromising our core agenda for the benefit of the hard left, risks playing into the hands of our opponents at the ballot box- be they red, blue, green or simply nuts.

Let’s get on with bringing a truly liberal agenda to this government, show that coalition governance works for the people and stop worrying about what disaffected Labour voters think of the LDs in government.

NOTE: Some excellent questions from the floor followed; my favourite of which can be summarised as “what would the LD’s have done differently had they been in power in 1997”. Well not THIS for a starters. Thanks very much for your thirteen year flirtation with “social-democracy”, but I think we’ve all had quite enough now!

Tags: Adonis, Conservatives, Labour, lib dems, thinking

Famine, like aid, is political

In today’s WSJ development economist and Aid Watch blogger, William Easterly, reviews Peter Gill’s new book on Ethiopia since Live Aid, “Famine and Foreigners”. Well worth reading if only for Easterly’s concise, but tragically accurate, summary of Ethiopia’s perpetual trouble with food insecurity over the last few decades:

“If it were possible to sum up in one sentence Ethiopia’s struggles with famine over the past quarter-century, I’d suggest this: It’s not the rains, it’s the rulers. As Peter Gill makes clear in his well-turned account of the country’s miseries since the 1984-85 famine and the Live Aid concert meant to relieve it, drought has not been as devastating to Ethiopians as their own autocratic governments.”

Unfortunately, many western NGOs find it inconvenient to recognise this fact and continue to tow the donor-friendly line of “climate change” as the primary causal factor for food shortages in the developing world. Great for western public relations, less helpful for the average Ethiopian, who would probably prefer to be given the opportunity to own land, trade freely and drag themselves out of poverty, than see foreign aid spent on useful projects like this, or this.

The last “naturally” caused famine in Northern Europe occurred in Finland in 1866–1868. The cause? Climate change, of course: unusually wet summer in ’66, then exceptionally harsh winter and spring in ’67. The actual cause: Poor infrastructure and communication linkages restricted trade and when it became evident a crisis was mounting the Finnish government refused to borrow money from abroad for fear of devaluing its newly introduced currency. By the time Rothschild’s came to the rescue with loans, it was too late and almost 15 per cent of the population was to perish.

Thankfully today, most of Europe has moved beyond oppressive systems of governance capable of starving entire populations for political reasons. The ability to exchange goods freely and the incentive, through ownership, to develop, improve and protect land helps to mitigate the effects of climatic fluctuations.  Ethiopians are intentionally prohibited  these luxuries. And their citizens are unlikely to benefit from the continued tunnel vision of western  NGOs, rock stars and governments intent upon perusing, and funding, their own agendas. Gill and Easterly recognise this: DfID, with its donation of £132m in bilateral aid to the Ethiopian government  in 2009, seems not to.

Diane Abbott shows that she knows very little about … well … anything really.

This Labour leadership race is a stark reminder of just how important it is to make this Coalition work.  Sure, some elements may not be ideal, but the prospect of any one of Labour’s unsavoury bunch getting back into power should be enough to quieten the staunchest of anti-coalitionites. The run-in looks certain to be a family affair, but what jobs have the aspiring leaders got their sights on within the shadow cabinet? The losing Milliband will presumably be in the running for a top post, Balls has his beady eye on the shadow treasury and Burnham will be happy just to be on a bench. Any bench. But what of Diane Abbott–the self proclaimed “alternative”? Which post does she have the talent to command?

Judging by Monday’s interview with The Guardian, the outlook’s not terribly auspicious. For those of you who found 12 whole minutes of Abbott and Poly Toynbee slobbering over each other too much to bear, here are the highlights:

On the economy: Simple. Rebalancing spending with tax increases. Apparently drawing her inspiration from Obama and Norman Lamont (et tu Norman?!), she proposes that spending cuts and tax increases are split 50:50. Thus followed  a breathless three minute rant: make the 50%  tax rate permanent, bring the threshold down to £100,000, increase capital gains tax, impose a financial transaction tax, double the banking tax, impose a new wealth tax, impose the mansion tax, tax assets more… etc, etc. Miss the part about public spending cuts? Me too.

Foreign Policy: “Withdraw the troops”–the priority is to get out before the US, regardless of the nuances, we must beat the yanks to the departure date. What to do about the Afghanistan? Not a problem, send in the UN, they’ll sort it out. “I have a lot of faith in the UN”, she reassures us.

Next up: torture and rendition. Not an issue. The problem isn’t Labour’s record on abusing human rights–it’s the audacity of the Tories to launch an inquiry into the subject. Clearly a shallow attempt at defaming Labour MPs.

Social Justice: this one’s easy, obviously it’s the fault of the bankers–increase taxes.

Education: Not really interested in talking about this, or the issue of her son attending a private school. This isn’t really about education, she laments, it’s about “being a women in public life–all anyone is interested in is shoes and family”!  Even Poly baulks slightly at this, but no Abbott is certain, she has no case to answer because she’s a woman. Harriet Harman eat your heart out.

Finally, on her fellow leadership contenders. Nothing. Not a thing. She can’t even declare who she has more in common with Dave or Ed. All we get is a “nice suits, nice red ties, nice hair-cuts” quip.

So back to my original question- where next for Ms Abbott? Presuming that there has been no-one since Tony Benn crazy enough to let this tax-devouring-fiend anywhere need anything of economic importance, the main jobs at the treasury, home office, BIS, and pensions are out. Trusting the UN to resolve anything shows a fairly basic misunderstanding of international affairs, so out are the FCO, Defence and DfID. Education or Health? Nope. Justice? Probably best not.

In truth, it’s hard to see just what exactly Ms Abbott could do. Her ascendency bears testament to just how far playing the “persecuted-black-single-mum-from a poor background” card can get you in politics. The Millibands will be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

Tags: Diane Abbott, Labour party

Burkan Nationalism

The fallout from France’s recent decision to ban people wearing the burka in public epitomises the irreconcilable divide between conservative (with a small c) and liberal ideology. Those truly committed to a liberal agenda should oppose calls for the government to further dictate what we can and can’t wear in public.

Firstly, this isn’t a debate about religion, security or multiculturalism. It’s about individual liberties. Many Conservatives opposed the smoking and hunting bans on precisely these grounds. They seem to have forgotten these noble principles when it comes to this issue.

But civil liberties don’t just extend to principles you agree with- they must be universal. As a lifelong non-smoker (and no fan of fox hunting) I will still defend the rights of others to do this. As I would defend a Muslim’s (or anyone else’s) right to wear whatever he, or she feels fit in public.

Which brings us on to the crux of the debate: the reasons for implementing such a ban. Very few commentators are taking the security concerns issue seriously; after all there are no calls to outlaw oversized hats or sun glasses in public. Private property, of course, is a different issue and the question of appropriate attire should be left to the discretion of proprietors.

In France, part of the justification was the threat to “Frenchness”. Which is fine–so long as you are not one of the anti-French that their all-knowing bureaucrats decide constitutes a threat to national identity. Neither is popular opinion a reasonable justification. The role of government is to protect everybody’s rights- not just those of the groups large enough to make themselves heard. The fact that this will only affect 2,000 French residents is as irrelevant as Mugabe arguing that only a small handful of white farmers will suffer as a result of his “popular” land re-distribution schemes.

The justification championed by Mr Sarkozy (and Andre Gerin- which is a good indication that it’s a truly terrible idea!) is that the burka represents a symbol of oppression of Muslim women: “The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience,” Sarkozy informed parliamentarians. Agreed- It most probably is. I, like many others, am not duped by the media focus on “happy-burka-wearers” into believing that there isn’t a deeper social issue at stake here. But since when has prohibition been the best way of approaching such egregious issues? Does anyone really think that banning black eyes in public will prevent domestic violence? If those pertaining to champion Muslim’s women’s rights are sincere in their virtues they should be looking much deeper than at outlawing a visual representation of that oppression.

Unlike some of the more vitriolic lefties I don’t see those calling for a ban as racist, ignorant or anti-Muslim. But I do see them as conservative. And it serves as a timely reminder that the ugly “nimby” side of conservatism will always be at odds with those committed to a liberal society.

Tags: bansturbation, burka, France, liberalism