Liberal Vision

You don’t have to be beautiful to be a fascist, but it helps

Gisele Bündchen has been in the news for reasons other than being pretty and well dressed and probably-airbrushed, recently.

According to the Brazilian supermodel, “I think there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed their babies for six months.”

This is a typical example of knee-jerk conservativism: a desire to use power to impose virtue on others. To re-frame this all-too-common viewpoint into a general statement: “I think that x is important/valuable/worthwhile, therefore the law should require that you do x as well.”

Let us take as read the justified criticism by Pam Lacey of the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers, who noted that “Some women have medical reasons as to why they can’t. A lot of new mothers hit a problem.”

Others, one might add, simply don’t take to it. Or they may not be available to breast feed whenever the child is hungry. In some cases, it is preferable to the child’s development that the mother does not spend six months at home – after all, not everybody has a $150m fortune and the resulting freedom from the need to provide materially for their family.

What matters to very young children more than anything else is that they are nurtured in a happy home, rather than one where their mother is stressed and depressed by having to make decisions that they would not choose.

However, this is not the extent of Ms. Bündchen’s error. Imposing breastfeeding with the threat of force is bad enough, but we need also to consider her demand for “worldwide law”. There are very good reasons why we do not have worldwide laws. For one thing, the law is best made and administered at a level closest to those that it will affect, which is why liberals support devolution, subsidiary, state rights etc. A second and related point is that many laws are culturally-specific: what applies in Guyana may not apply in Guinea.

But perhaps most importantly, a single world government (necessary for any meaningful “worldwide law”) would be so far removed from those that it governed that it would inevitably become either a bureaucracy (in the strict sense of the word, with officials exercising power without constraint) or an autocracy (even if the ruler were elected).

Ms. Bündchen has since rushed out to ‘clarify’ her words: “I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge,” she wrote on her website, though whether she thinks their experiences and opinions count for much is doubtful, considering she would use legal sanctions to impose her will on them. She also said that she regretted that her comment sounded so “black and white”, as though banning a practice was nuanced. “My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with the law”, she added, having previously said “there should be a worldwide law that mothers should breast-feed”. One might doubt her subsequent sincerity.

If Ms. Bündchen were not a famous supermodel, it is unlikely that we would ever have heard her authoritarian suggestion. Unfortunately, like participants at a Miss World competition, it seems that we have to listen to her views of the world as well. Beauty is hardly a prerequisite for authoritarian views, but if you want to get your ideas heard, it clearly helps.

Democracy

Democracy is a term we use to dignify the mechanisms by which the few govern the many. The many generally bear this subjection with stoicism. Occasionally they rebel and seek to establish a genuinely populist movement. But soon the new populism falls into the hands of its own elite, self-serving, self-referential and indignant when challenged.

Jonathan Clark
Hall Distinguished Professor of British History
University of Kansas

Niall Ferguson on fiscal stimulus

In yesterday’s Financial Times, the historian Niall Ferguson writes:

[W]hat we are witnessing today has less to do with the 1930s than with the 1940s: it is world war finance without the war.

But the differences are immense. First, the US financed its huge wartime deficits from domestic savings, via the sale of war bonds. Second, wartime economies were essentially closed, so there was no leakage of fiscal stimulus. Third, war economies worked at maximum capacity; all kinds of controls had to be imposed on the private sector to prevent inflation.

Today’s war-like deficits are being run at a time when the US is heavily reliant on foreign lenders, not least its rising strategic rival China (which holds 11 per cent of US Treasuries in public hands); at a time when economies are open, so American stimulus can end up benefiting Chinese exporters; and at a time when there is much under-utilised capacity, so that deflation is a bigger threat than inflation.

Are there precedents for such a combination? Certainly. Long before Keynes was even born, weak governments in countries from Argentina to Venezuela used to experiment with large peace-time deficits to see if there were ways of avoiding hard choices. The experiments invariably ended in one of two ways. Either the foreign lenders got fleeced through default, or the domestic lenders got fleeced through inflation. When economies were growing sluggishly, that could be slow in coming. But there invariably came a point when money creation by the central bank triggered an upsurge in inflationary expectations…

Also in the article, he notes (almost in passing) that:

In an influential paper published earlier this year, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff warned that debt burdens of more than 90 per cent of GDP tend to result in lower growth and higher inflation.

If memory serves, the Labour budget earlier this year referred to a then-current national debt of c.£800 billion, rising to £1,400 billion by 2014. That is likely to be roughly equal to GDP even if we recover and grow quite well over the next few years.

Four economists on fiscal stimulus

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir… many of the troubles of the world at the present time are due to imprudent borrowing and spending on the part of the public authorities. We do not desire to see a renewal of such practices. At best they mortgage the Budgets of the future and they tend to drive up the rate of interest – a process which is surely particularly undesirable at this juncture, when the revival of the supply of capital to private industry is an admittedly urgent necessity. The depression has abundantly shown that the existence of public debt on a large scale imposes frictions and obstacles to readjustment very much greater than the frictions and obstacles imposed by the existence of private debt. Hence we cannot agree… that this is a time for new municipal swimming baths, &c…

“If the Government wish to help revival, the right way for them to proceed is, not to revert to their hold habits of lavish expenditure, but to abolish those restrictions on trade and the free movement of capital… which are at present impending even the beginning of recovery.

We are, Sir, your obedient servants,

T E GREGORY, Cassel Professor of Economics

F A VON HAYEK, Tooke Professor of Economic Science and Statistics

ARNOLD PLANT, Cassel Professor of Commerce

LIONEL ROBBINS, Professor of Economics

University of London, October 18

Okay, it was 1932, but if that was their view during the Great Depression, it must surely apply in today’s recession.

Their original letter, a response to an earlier letter by six economists including Keynes and Pigou, can be downloaded here. Hat tip to Dr Richard Ebeling.

The Great Repeal Swindle?

The Liberal Democrats called it The Freedom Bill. The Tories called it The Great Repeal Bill. But the essence is the same. The over-mighty state has replaced our free society with one where personal liberty is curtailed and our ability to pursue our (enlightened) self-interest is inhibited. We need to sweep away the legislative and bureaucratic red tape and free ourselves to be the best we can.

The government’s answer is not only to repeal (or so it claims) vast swathes of legislation, but to ask the people what legislation should go: “As we tear through the statute book,” said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, “we’ll do something no government ever has: we will ask you which laws you think should go.”

Stirring stuff, but is it true? And just how far do the Tories and the Lib Dems really agree on why the bill is needed what it should seek to repeal?

The original Liberal Democrat proposal included a 2,000 word draft Bill. Though they did consult at the time, the draft bill does (perhaps unwittingly) convey a sense that the decision as to the content has already been taken. In that respect one must say that the Conservative proposal did represent a more honest consultation – though that may simply be because it came from two backbenchers rather than the party leadership.

In practice, however, one has to wonder just how genuine this exercise will be. Please don’t misunderstand! I do not think for one moment that our new Ministers are consciously planning to provide us with a sham consultation. But do you really think that in practice they will approach this exercise with an open mind?

For one thing, there are clearly areas of legislation that they would not even give a moment’s thought to abolishing. The National Health Service Act? The Income Tax Act? The Bank of England Act? Okay, those might seem like extreme suggestions, and they would be unlikely to carry much support in the country, but the point remains that it is incredible to believe that the government will really consider any suggestion that the public makes.

(And is it really so unfeasible that a movement might arise that wanted the abolition of Income Tax?).

So let’s take some more mundane suggestions. The bans on fox hunting and smoking in “public” (actually private) places are both examples of meddling legislation that seeks to ban practices based on legislators’ views of the ends that people should pursue. Whether or not you agree with either or both law, they would fit neatly under the rubric of Clegg’s “encroaching centralisation” that has led to “citizens’ rights [being] eroded by the quiet proliferation of laws”. Yet I can’t see the government abolishing either.

And even if there were no “Red Lines”: who will decide which suggestions will be enacted? Will it go to a vote? That would certainly fit with the Conservative’s enthusiasm for “Citizen’s initiatives”, but it seems unlikely that our political masters would accept the will of the mob so quiescently. After all, the Human Rights Act – an assault on which has already been declared a resigning issue by at least two government (including one Cabinet) ministers – is hardly popular with the tabloid-reading masses. Yet if, instead of some sort of referendum, the proposals have to be considered by some “expert panel” of the Great and the Good, it begins to look remarkably like it is the elite, and not the people, that will decide what is to be repealed.

This brings us on to a second question: just how united is the vision behind the bill?

At first glance, all looks well: Nick Clegg said, in his speech of 19 May 2010, that “encroaching centralisation” has led to “citizens’ rights [being] eroded by the quiet proliferation of laws”; Conservative MP Douglas Carswell wrote that “Laws, regulation and red tape stifle individuals, infantilise communities and strangle enterprise”; Chris Huhne suggested that Labour’s legislative programme has represented “the slow death by a thousand cuts of our hard-won British liberties”.

But a second glance reveals differences – not only between, but even within, parties. For some, the act is about civil liberties and human rights. It is about the abolition of the “Database State” and the power of police officers to shake down anyone they choose. But to others, it is as much about freeing businesses from stifling regulation and removing the absurd burdens that legislation places on daily life (It is, notes the quiz that accompanies the Freedom Bill proposal, illegal to import brazil nuts from Brazil, bring potatoes over from Poland or to sell a grey squirrel).

Both parties in fact have plenty of new regulations planned with which to disrupt individuals and businesses, from bans on airbrushing to minimum prices for alcohol. In practice, the political elite represented in both parties share one thing in common with their ex-Ministerial Labour foes: a belief that they know what is best for society and that – having won the election – they have the right to impose their will upon the citizen.

In practice, therefore – Great Repeal Act or no Great Repeal Act – I suspect that we will see plenty of new legislation in the economic and social sphere, even if our civil liberties may be strengthened in the short term.

A rousing statement in support of liberalism

Over at Lib Dem Voice, Steve Cooke has written a rousing statement in support of liberalism as a unique ideology, separate from Labour and not party of some loose “Left Wing” fantasy land:

The Liberal Democrats have our own beliefs and our own values – we are not and never have been Labour Mark II as so many disaffected socialists wish us to be. Labour simply doesn’t believe in individual freedom and valuing people’s right to be autonomous and make choices. Labour has always thought that the state knows what’s best for us, whether we agree or not – and this is something that no liberal could ever agree with…

The problem with Labour is that it cannot see that its own interests are separate from the interests of the country or the world, because it cannot tolerate people with different views to its own. Well long live differences in opinion I say … And long live freedom.

Long live liberalism…

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

The Bishop’s Gambit

It’s not often I write to a bishop, let alone 26 bishops. But I was inspired by (not to mention encouraged by the easiness of) the Power2010 website’s call (and tool) to email all 26 Lords Spiritual and ask them to support a fully elected Upper House of Parliament.

Naturally, I didn’t just accept the words provided by Power2010. Firstly, I have a natural predisposition to disagree slightly with anybody else’s wording, especially on matters of politics. Secondly, I think that my email has a slightly higher chance of being read and receiving a tailored response if it is not the standard form letter. My letter reads as follows:

Dear Archbishop/Bishop,

I am writing to you as a member of the upper house of parliament to request your help in bringing about much-needed constitutional change in the UK.

As you will appreciate, recent events have highlighted the moribund and unrepresentative nature of our legislature. However, while this has been brought home to citizens of the United Kingdom in recent months, it is in fact a longstanding problem, and one that is increasingly alienating the public and leaving them feeling disempowered and cynical about the leadership of our country.

We need radical reform of the way our country is governed, including the introduction of a more representative voting system, making parliamentarians more accountable to the people, and giving individuals more power over their own lives. One key way that this could be brought about would be to make the upper house, which is currently entirely unelected, an fully elected chamber.

The current House of Lords is a strange admixture of ancient privilege, modern cronyism and bizarre corporatism. It is wrong that legislation should be made and revised by people who are in power as a result of lineage, patronage or the occupation of a particular office.

I am writing to request that you champion a radical reform of parliament, by committing to, and publically advocating the following:
1) That all people participate equally in public life through free debate, civic society and the democratic process;
2) That both houses of parliament be fully elected and publically accountable;
3) That members of both chambers commit to maximising the freedom of all individuals within society, ensuring that each person has the maximum freedom possible such that it does not directly detract from the freedom of others;
4) That the electoral system differ sufficiently between the two chambers that they produce sufficiently different and independent chambers;
5) That parliamentarians recognise that no mortal person is infallible and that parliamentarians should therefore proceed with humility and not assume that they know best.

I would be grateful if you would confirm your support for these principles and work with your fellow bishops, lords and parliamentarians to create a more democratic and accountable parliament.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Papworth
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.

Yes, the correct term of address is “Dear Bishop/Archbishop”. I know!.

If you would like to send an email to all 26 bishops, you can visit the Power2010 website and do so.

Just don’t say anything that would reflect badly on Power2010, eh?

Are we turning German? (or, The rise of the dual word)

The lexicon of government neologisms is a heavy and depressing tome. Indeed, politicians and bureaucrats have a remarkable capacity to speak differently from everybody else.

Remember Tony Blair’s ‘sentences’ without verbs? Or the verbisation (sic.) of nouns (the latter not unique to government, as anybody who has ever partied will attest)? When did encouraging and rewarding become “incentivisation”?

The latest fad seems to be in conflating words, creating one word where two would do. A couple of years ago the new anti-smoking legislation led to the creation of “Smokefree” zones.

Today I learn that TfL is to urge London’s motorcyclists to get ‘BikeSafe‘ while being invited to a ‘Smartmoves‘ conference.

The Local Government Association sought to discourage around 200 examples of local government jargon last year, but they seem to be fighting a losing battle against the forces of ‘newspeak‘.

Roy Jenkins: You’re too liberal!

Over the weekend I watch the first episode of the BBC’s series on the Great Offices of State, which focussed on The Home Office. At one point they had footage of Roy Jenkins visiting the wreckage of the Birmingham pub bombings. As he walked past the angry crowds, a voice (or it may have been two voices) shouted out “Bring back hanging!” “Your’re too liberal!”

At the time I just chuckled a bit. “You’re too liberal” isn’t a common critique in the UK, where (unlike the United States) liberalism is not conflated with socialism, and people tend to be practical rather than philosophical.

Indeed, for my mind, Roy Jenkins wasn’t liberal enough, in that it was his and our tragedy that he reached the zenith of his political career at around the time that the Liberal Paty was in its nadir.

Yet this morning I was suddenly struck by something that I had overlooked at the time. The woman who was accusing Jenkins of being too liberal was doing so in the context of the Birmingham bombings. Those same Birmingham bombings that led to the wrongful conviction of six people.

Too liberal? Thank heavens Roy Jenkins was liberal. Thank heavens he was Home Secretary after the abolishion of capital punishment, and so was not faced with the onerous duty of overseeing the execution of six men. Thank heavens that we didn’t determine, 17 years too late, that we - too - had killed the innocent.

In fact it wasn’t Jenkins who abolished capital punishment, but James Callaghan. Still, it seems like a very long time since we have been confronted with the prospect of a Home Secreaty who could in any way, shape or form be call liberal.

What’s wrong with a Bill of Rights?

Power 2010, a campaign to reform the UK constitution, is inviting people to vote on five reforms to which they will ask parliamentary candidates to sign up before the coming General Election. There are some excellent ideas, some not so good and some deeply flawed.

Among them is a suggestion that on face value should be welcomed. Over at the Adam Smith Institute’s blog I examine the call for a UK Bill of Rights. As I note, “a Bill of Rights that set out the freedoms that people should enjoy as citizens (not subjects!) of the United Kingdom – bringing together both ancient liberties and new ones – would be a good thing… However, as is so common when talking about ‘Rights’, the authors of this proposal go on to conflate two very different issues, and in doing so they undermine their case…”

To find out where they have gone wrong, read the full article.

[Please also leave any comments there rather than below: why have two conversations when we can have one?]