Vince Cable should know better
I rather warm to Vince Cable. He's cheerful whenever I've bumped into him in Parliament. He can be funny - his quip about Gordon Brown turning from Stalin to Mr Bean was amusing. But he can also be wrong.
Today he was attacking Barclays Bank on Radio 4 because they have rejected government offers of money to recapitalise, instead preferring to raise the money privately.
Rather than challenge Barclays for rejecting the offer, surely Mr Cable ought to be asking what it is about the government offer that put Barclays off?
Barclays, it seems, is prepared to take money from private sources at higher rates of borrowing, rather than touch what government put on the table. Why? Because of the strings attached to the government money. Barclays management will have noticed that Northern Rock has been in the state sector for a few months yet management already faces political pressure to meddle.
Vince Cable is intelligent enough to know all this. I believe he knows its political mischief-making to suggest that Barclays has made its decision because executives want to be able to collect big bonuses. It's not executive pay that's the issue. If Barclays takes the government shilling, it'll only be a matter of weeks before officials start to tell the bank who it should lend to and on what terms.
Barclays is quite right to want to avoid that.
Posted on 31 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The blood price of MoD procurement policy
In yesterday's defence debate in Parliament, I said what I believe more and more people think, but few quite dare say – yet. ...
Leave a comment if you agree. If you don't agree, please explain why I'm wrong?
Posted on 31 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
ID cards will not protect us from terrorists
A top security adviser has admitted that ID cards won't protect us from terrorists. According to reports, Harvey Mattinson, a consultant at the information technology arm of GCHQ, said that the only real value of identity cards would be to help state bodies share information about people.
So there you have it. ID cards are about helping the state quangos administer us. "Tackling terrorism" is just the excuse.
If the British state was serious about tackling terrorism, its officials would act today.
1. First, they'd secure our porous borders.
2. Second, they'd stop handing out British passports and visas overseas the way that they do. (Soon after entering Parliament, I discovered, for example, that the Foreign Office has given away so many British passports in Pakistan that no one even really knows how many people living in Pakistan now have UK citizenship.)
3. Thirdly, they'd scrap the Human Rights rules that prevent us from throwing out serious trouble-makers.
They've done none of those things.
Instead, they pretend that making you and me carry an electronic dog-tag, containing our every detail, to be inspected at the whim of every official, is somehow going to make us safer.
Posted on 30 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Pritpal Singh is a hero
Drayton
Manor
High School
in Ealing has successfully defended it's right to set its own admissions policy. Three cheers to the school's head teacher, Pritpal Singh.
The vile educationalist establishment - represented on this occasion by Ealing education authority - objected that Drayton Manor admitted children who lived closest to the school. Instead, the experts demanded that the school weight their admissions policy in favour of those deemed to come from poorer areas.
The ludicrous - and now discredited - schools adjudicator, Andrew Baxter, supported this piece of social engineering.
Now the High Court has ruled in favour of the school.
Drayton Manor's victory should be a victory for all schools. It should entrench the idea that it's up to individual schools to set their own admissions criteria. Like most people reading this blog, I've no idea if Pritpal Singh is right to think that giving priority to children living nearest to the school is best. Or if other criteria should be used.
But I do know that Pritpal Singh - as the head teacher - and his governors are in a better position to know than me - or any "expert". That's why he's the head teacher, not me.
Pritpal Singh says he's "angry" at having had to go to court to vindicate the school's own policy. Let's ensure that his victory means that no other school has to do the same.
Posted on 29 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
What's Mandelson trying to hide?
Last week, I was the first MP to demand Mandelson reveal what meetings he's had with Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska.
I've not yet had a reply, but apparently His Lordship is refusing to divulge details.
What's he hiding? Did he have discussions relating to the Russian insurance company Ingosstrakh, or not? What’s he trying to hide?
Posted on 28 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Thank goodness for America
American soldiers have killed Abu Ghadiyah, the head of a Syrian based al-Qaeda network.
Predictably, the BBC - the organisation that gave us Russell Brand's obscenities - has been critical.
The rest of us should breathe a sigh of relief that there is a great power willing to tackle the people who gave us September 11th. The Pax Americana has given us the greatest period of peace, progress and prosperity in human history.
As a Barack Obama supporting Conservative, I think that the sneering, anti-American left in Britain are heading for a nasty shock. Obama isn't the internationalist peacenik they take him to be. Sure, Obama will be in the Whitehouse.
But he'll defend America against the Abu Ghadiyah's of this world, just the same.
Posted on 28 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Why the Criminal Justice System is not on your side
I've something over at ConservativeHome about the need to make the local criminal justice system more accountable to local people.
Posted on 27 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
No return to boom and bust?
-
Public debt is over £76,000 for your household alone - that's like a second mortgage
-
Today the FTSE 100 - a barometer of our economy's health - closed at 4,902 - lower than when Labour came in
-
Our currency has fallen over 15% in recent days, making us all worse off
For ten years he squandered your taxes. He spent your money. He encouraged more debt.
Now it's not boom & bust .... just bust.
Posted on 27 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Defence contractors keep winning
With the defence budget now largely spent in the interests of defence contractors, rather than the armed forces, it's been reported that there's concern amongst service personnel over John Hutton's appointment as Defence Minister. Why?
Some senior defence chiefs, apparently, regard him as little more than the Member of Parliament for Big Defence Contractors. Now the Sunday Telegraph seems to suggest that as a Minister, Hutton could be a shade too close to BAE Systems, who "employs thousands" in his marginal constituency.
Hutton has also apparently called in a firm of head-hunters to recruit the next Chief of Defence Materiel, when Gen Sir Kevin O'Donoghue retires. In other words, under Hutton, it's conceivable that a civilian with, say a background with the big contractors, could be put in charge of awarding contracts to ... um ... the big contractors.
I can already hear Whitehall spivs and Westminster lobbyists justifying it all; follows codes of best practice .... industry experience .... partnership ... Blah, blah, blah.
The fact is that you and me and, most outrageously, every serving British soldier, is being ripped off. Money that should be spent getting our service personnel the best kit available in the world is being thrown at a few projects that it suits a handful of contractors to supply. It's a good way to put taxpayer money onto the balance sheet of a few defence contractors. It's a lousy way to supply our armed forces.
It explains why there aren't enough helicopters in Afghanistan or UAVs. But why we've spent vast amounts on anti-submarine kit and the £20 billion Eurofighter (always useful against the Taliban airforce, apparently).
If the House of Commons wasn't so monumentally useless at holding those with executive power to account, it would get a grip on the situation. But that would require a minister independent-minded enough to see what's going on, and with the strength of character to do something about it.
With Hutton at the helm, don't hold your breath ...
Posted on 26 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
BBC admits it is biased
The BBC has admitted it is institutionally biased.
It's good that the BBC recognises it's not objective, but the chances of them being able to redress the problem are precisely zero. That's because a corporatist bias is inevitable in any unaccountable corporatist institution.
No amount of "engagement with stakeholders" or tinkering with the BBC Board of quangocrats is going to make it better.
The only answer must be to scrap the license fee. No compromise. Once the legal basis for collecting the TV poll tax has been undermined, it's the beginning of the end for the people that gave us the openly leftwing Orla Guerin, Downing Street mouthpiece Robert Preston, unwatched Newsnight and self-regarding Today.
Once we've got rid of the license fee, those still willing to fund the low-grade, leftist leviathan called the BBC can carry on paying for it. The rest of us can use the cash to subscribe to other content providers.
BBC executives, wary of the danger, spend a lot of time lobbying MPs to try to retain the license fee. I wonder if there's an correlation between MPs views on the matter, and the frequency with which they're invited on to "star" on various BBC news programmes?
Posted on 26 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The Young Briton Foundation
It was a real pleasure to speak at the Young Briton Foundation's fifth Activist Training Conference this weekend. Young, enthusiastic, intelligent and with a real buzz about the place. I can't praise them enough.
Organised by the ultra sound Donal Blaney, the YBF trains young activists and helps to advance the conservative cause within our universities.
What is interesting about the YBF is that while it's definitely conservative, it's not Conservative. It's of the centre right, but is not part of the formal Conservative Party. I suspect that as the internet starts to change politics, formal hierarchical political parties will become less important, and the broader conservative coalition will become more important.
YBF is already playing a vital role in building a broader conservative movement.
Donal has understood the importance of creating such a coalition - years ahead of most other people. For his insight - and the verve and flair with which he organises these events - he deserves enormous praise and recognition. Bravo, Donal!
Posted on 25 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Dear Peter ....
As reported in today's Daily Mail, I've written the following letter to Peter Mandelson, asking if he could provide full details of the various meetings he's had with Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska.
If Peter can’t answer these simple questions, how can he possibly be a Minister of the Crown?
Dear Peter,
You will no doubt be aware that George Osborne has issued a statement disclosing fully details of his meetings with Mr Deripaska.Please can you now do the same?
Specifically, can you disclose when you had your various meetings with Mr Deripaska, what the occasion was, and what it was that you discussed?
In doing so, can you please provide details of any meetings that you may have had with Mr Deripaska prior to your signing off, while Eu Trade Commissioner,on a deal to remove EU import tariffs on aluminium products in late 2005?
Notwithstanding, can you please also provide details of any occasions on which you might have had meetings with Mr Deripaska relating to the Russian insurance company Ingosstrakh?
Additionally, can you also provide details of any occasions when you and Mr Deripaska had any discussions that
related directly to the interests of either the Czech company, PPF Investments, or the Italian firm, Generali?
I look forward to your full and comprehensive account of your dealings with Mr Deripaska and his associates.
Warm regards,
Douglas Carswell MP
Posted on 24 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Jam Heaven
I've just discovered the coolest shop for jam jars on the planet. I plundered it.
This weekend will be jam-making heaven - fig jam, green tomato chutney (thanks to local WI for the receipe), followed by blackberry jam.
It's what autumn was invented for.....
Posted on 24 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Lies, damn lies and government statistics
Today it comes to light that official figures have under-reported violent crime for the past decade.
What's shocking is that it's not shocking. We've reached the stage now where we almost expect officialdom to get it wrong.
Rather like the old Soviet Union, there's a vast gap between the world of official statistics, and the world inhabited by the rest of us. According to that parallel universe of officialdom, crime is falling, immigration is under control, tractor production is up, government borrowing is low and our schools have never been better. We all know that reality is very different.
If goonish officialdom was confined to Whitehall, we could gently mock it, as Englishmen have throughout history - and get on with our lives. Unfortunately its not. Big Government is in your neighbourhood, home, workplace, children’s class room and wallet as never before.
Posted on 23 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
What's gone wrong with local government?
Few things better illustrate what's wrong with local government than this;
Tendring district council in my constituency commissioned an expensive public fountain for Clacton town centre. Some local residents were sceptical, arguing it wasted public money. The fountain enthusiasts argued it put something back into our town. Either way, both sides could take comfort that it was a local decision.
Or was ....
Something called the Health Protection Agency has now got involved. One of their "experts" ordered the fountain shut. Apparently, to comply with "new draft national water guidelines" the
fountain must go "on public health grounds as a precautionary measure."
Thus are our town hall officials incapable of running a municipal fountain. Indeed, I doubt they could even run a bath. At no point does it seem to have occured to Tendring council that if you start asking remote officials whose job it is to say "no" for permission to do something, they are very likely to say "no".
The council didn't have a change of heart because they listened to local people. No. They paid heed to remote health and safety officials.
What is so insulting to local democracy isn't just that a bumptious little official at the Health Protection Agency carries more weight than local residents, but the fact that the council boasts of its willingness to submit to them. Tending council brags "the council is very fortunate to be working so closely with the expert from the Health Protection Agency."
If only council officials worked as closely with voters and the unfortunate, put upon council taxpayer.
Posted on 22 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Redwood is usually right
Soon after entering Parliament, I had a conversation with John Redwood in which he told me that he doubted the Bank of England would remain fully independent over the course of a full economic cycle.
"Not remain independent?!" I gasped. "Surely that's one thing Brown got right?"
John explained that when interest rates became a politically sensitive issue, we'd soon see how "independent" the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee actually was. In a liberal democracy, it's simply not realistic to expect those who set the price of borrowing not to be in some measure accountable. You cannot be totally independent and, at the same time, accountable.
A few days ago, the Bank of England cut rates by 0.5 per cent. It was part of a coordinated effort worldwide, and was done under instruction from government. Right or wrong, one can no longer pretend that the Bank was acting independently or of its own volition.
As Gordon Brown announced the rate cut in Parliament, I reflected - and not for the first time - Redwood is someone that deserves to be listened to in this crisis.
Posted on 21 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Hats off to fellow Essex MP, Brooks Newmark
Brooks has spent a lot of time with his calculator trying to work out just how much Gordon Brown has run up on the nation's credit card.
It's pretty grim news; Brown has squandered such mind-bogglingly vast amounts of money that public debt today now stands at £1,866 billion. That's £76,000 for every household in the land!
And what did you get in return for what amounts to a second mortgage? Corporate welfare handouts for feckless bankers, unfinished and unfunded PFI scams schemes, social outreach workers - and, of course, a world beating mult culti industry.
Posted on 21 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Ne odolzhite mne pyatorochku, pozhaluista?
Barack Obama's campaign has, apparently, managed to raise $150 million in a single month.
When people say Obama has raised that enormous sum of money, what they really mean is that lots of private individuals chose, as free citizens of a democracy, to give him that money. What's extraordinary about American politics today is that most of it is no longer funded by big corporations, but by millions of small, personal on-line donations.
Indeed, a few months ago, when I looked at some of the statistics on campaign funding, I discovered that the typical donation made to Obama was an on-line donation of less than $90.
I find it rather moving that American democracy is now largely funded in this way. I hope our democracy adapts to the internet, too.
Posted on 21 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Concerns about mass immigation can no longer be ignored
Everyone's attention is focused on the economy - unsurprisingly.
Rising unemployment and falling living standards mean that concern about the economy is likely to remain the number one political issue for quite some time.
But, I'm convinced that a close second will be renewed anxiety about immigration.
In my surgeries, and in conversations with voters, I sense a bold, new, outspoken mood about immigration. The country I listen to is fed-up with mass, uncontrolled immigration - and I don't think that the officially approved views we are fed by the BBC and multi culti industry can hold for much longer.
Indeed, I suspect that Labour's own focus group findings have picked up on this new mood too, judging by the latest government spin about curtailing immigrant numbers.
When the political elite eventually wake up to this new public mood, we can expect to hear much knee-jerk analysis on the BBC and elsewhere about fears over immigration being triggered by concern about jobs etc. Blah. Blah. Blah.
I disagree. There's no easy way to put this; it's not about jobs, but identity.
Yet it's more profound that even that.
Voters concerned about immigration are, in my experience, angry too with the political class. Many tell me that successive politicians of all kinds have failed to talk about immigration - let alone get a grip on it. Indeed, just a few short years ago as a Parliamentary candidate, I was asked specifically not to talk about "mass" immigration, for fear that it give the wrong idea. Anger about immigration is part of a deeper anger against a remote and unaccountable political establishment.
Unless mainstream politicians are prepared to bring uncontrolled, mass immigration to an end soon, there may be some dramatic consequences. Pim Fortuyn ring any bells?
Posted on 20 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The Age of Corporate Welfare
The West is entering a dangerous new era of corporate welfarism. Instead of facing the consequences of government stupidity and corporate greedy, both politicians and big business have teamed up to make sure that you and your children take the rap.
Just because monetarism's unfashionable, it doesn't make it wrong; this financial crisis was caused by lax monetary policy. In Europe, America and Japan, interest rates were kept too low for too long. As a result of this public policy failure - not the markets - public, private and corporate debt grew. There was a debt-fuelled asset bubble.
Worse, governments - especially in Britain and the US - added to the size of public debt with extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, in the UK, off-balance-sheet PFI spending means that even now we perhaps don't have a full picture of the problem.
Piled onto government idiocy was corporate greed. Financial corporations invented new instuments of liquidity, which they traded for real money. Don't worry if you don't understand Collateralised Debt Obligations or derivative swaps. Neither did many of those trading them. Predictably, not all that glitters is of gold. Some of these newly invented financial instruments were purely invention.
It wasn't free markets that made government stupid or corporations greedy. The markets merely exposed such monstrousness for what it was. It wasn't the free market that pretended the debts on an Atlanta shack were valuable, or that 2 + 2 makes 5. Free markets didn't reward the fools who did. Rather it was the markets that called time on those attempting to defy financial gravity.
Yet since the markets screamed "enough", instead of a moment of truth, we've had weeks of lies. It suits public policy makers and corporate chiefs for us to blame the markets. That way we don't get to ask difficult questions about their own role in creating the mess.
Unchallenged, politicians and CEOs have bamboozled the rest of us into going along with their plans for corporate welfare. In the past few weeks alone, squillions of tax revenue that's not even been collected has been put onto the balance sheet of the banks. Indeed, people not yet even born will be paying higher taxes as a result.
Growth-crushingly expensive, this corporate welfarism will give the feckless a hand out, not a hand up. Worse, it'll drag down those able to manage their affairs. Neither HSBC nor Lloyds TSB ran their books irresponsibly. Yet already HSBC has been forced to play along with a programme that could see government telling them how and to whom they should lend. Lloyds TSB shareholders have been de facto robbed.
And for all that, will corporate welfare work?
It'll be as effective at getting big companies back on track as social welfare has been at getting the long term unemployed back to work.
Posted on 19 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
What's the point of Standpoint?
I bought my first copy of Standpoint magazine today. Yes, I'd heard about it before. I think I was invited to the summer launch party. I even got to flick through a sample copy at some point.
But today I actually put my money on the counter down at my local newsagent. And it's excellent.
Standpoint brims with interesting ideas and opinions. It's got many of the brightest and best thinkers on the new right, including Douglas Murray, Michael Gove, Robin Harris and Peter Whittle.
With the Telegraph reading like the Daily Mail, and the Spectator now little more than a life-style magazine with comment pieces by Fraser Nelson, there’s a real gap in the market for a serious centre-right magazine. Standpoint is it.
Posted on 18 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Corporate kleptocracy?
The OECD has criticised the lack of "political will" in the UK to investigate certain British companies accused of foreign bribery. I wonder who they had in mind?
Maybe we'd have the "political will" if we had transparency over how certain companies lobby and buy influence. I suspect that a lack of "political will" doesn't just happen - you need to carefully, expensively cultivate it.
Don't expect much action from Parliament any time soon.
I've repeatedly sought to table Parliamentary questions about the Al Yamamah deal. I've been prevented from doing so by the House of Commons table office.
"Mr Carswell, you can't table these questions about Al Yamamah" seems to have become the Commons table office default position. Why not? "You've no evidence of any dodgy payments". But I table questions about global warming without needing to prove climate change each time. "That's different".
Appealing to the Speaker was a waste of time. No surprise there, then.
Posted on 17 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Not quite the Ferrero Rocher ad
I owe our man in Ottawa an apology. Contrary to what I'd mischievously posted a couple of days back, he'd not been seconded to work for the EU. He ended up with the European Commission some other way.
As for my views about the pro-EU Foreign Office, over pre-lunch drinks he patiently explained how "Britain needs influence". Like over Belgium, you mean? How do we have "influence", when you've had to giving up on determining your own independent outcomes in the first place?
He went on that we need a "strong voice with our neighbours". Whose voice? That of the diplomatic elite. Or that of the rest of us?
"We can't go it alone" apparently. Like Australia or Canada, the country in which we sit?
And then there was "..... National sovereignty - whatever that might mean .....". They seem to know what it means in Russia, China and Tehran, these days. Even Barack Obama's US is unlikely to declare the nation state dead any time soon. But not, apparently, the FCO.
It's time to take a look at those cosy little Orders in Council governing diplomatic appointments. As I write in The Plan, its fine for our diplomats to argue we need more EU. But only once they hold office with some measure of democratic legitimacy.
My nineteenth century hero, Thomas Jefferson, understood the importance of keeping diplomats on a democratic leash...
Posted on 17 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
He's a quangocrat, and he's okay ......
As in the UK, here in Canada unelected officials decide what kids get taught at school. It's called having a government-run curriculum - and the provincial officials who run it here are explaining it to me.
Having a curriculum sounds like a good idea, I thought; it means we get to ensure children are taught properly. They get to learn real history, spelling, reading and maths Lots of rigour etc etc. Right?
Wrong. Completely and absolutely wrong.
The officials explain how they plan the curriculum; lots about "aboriginal perspectives", "environmental education", anti-discrimination education".
Okay. But where's the stuff those Conservative politicians promised when they created the curriculum in the first place?
It's not there. And then it dawns on me; it'll never be there if dull-eyed quangocrats run things. Forget what election-time politicians promised, if experts and officials are in charge, it won't happen the way most people want.
Quangos will always be anti-conservative. In Canada. In Britain. Always and everywhere against us.
If we want to ensure children are taught properly, we'll need to look to parent power. Not government officials.
Posted on 16 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Was it the web wot won it, eh?
The internet had a decisive impact on the Canadian election.
You don't agree? Okay. Then consider the following:
One reason the Liberals achieved arguably their worst result ever is that they're almost bankrupt. Agreed?
But why do you think they had so little money? Not because their reserves were in Iceland. Nor because they refused to accept the taxpayer handouts to politicians.
No. Canada's Liberals were cash strapped because when it comes to the web, they're at the ZX Spectrum stage.
Without a web-base, the Liberals raised cash from a mere 23,000 people. Quill and vellum raised them funds off a mere 3 percent of their membership base. That's right. 3 percent of their own party members donated funds to the Liberal's campaign. Spend a little time on the Liberals website, and you'll get to feel why.
Canadian Tories, in contrast, used the web as a pivotal fundraising tool. As a direct consequence, 140,000 Conservative party members, and tens of thousands of others made donations.
It wasn't just Tories. I found it impossible to switch on a computer in Toronto and not find an ad placed by the New Democrats.
The internet is going to transform politics radically. As in business and commerce, it'll tear down barriers to entry. It'll allow in new entrants, and redefine who does politics for whom. Canada's 2008 election shows the change is just beginning.
It's coming - and to those who beliefs are Edmund Burke.com, it's going to be beautiful to watch.
Posted on 16 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Election results are looking good in Canada
Here in Toronto, the general election results are starting to come in. It looks like Stephen Harper's Conservatives will form the next government.
But will they have an absolute majority?
In a number of key constituencies - "ridings" they call them here - the Conservative are ahead. In fact there's a suggestion that the Conservatives might win seats they've not held in years - especially around Toronto in Ontario.
It's looking good. And wonderful to hear the TV “experts” and pundits start to adjust to the idea of a Harper majority.
If I had to place a bet, I think the Conservatives will win a very slender majority - but only by a whisker.
Posted on 15 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Conservatives win in Canada - sort of...
Victory by Canada’s Conservatives should give us some pause for thought. I’ve a blog about it here over at Centre Right.
Posted on 15 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Trouble with the Foreign Office
"What side is the Foreign Office on?" asks the tourist in Whitehall. "That's a very good question, sir" replies the policeman.
Old jokes aside, why's the FCO so blatantly partisan in its support for the European Union? It's a question I ponder each time I meet a British diplomat - as I did in Toronto last night - and I think I'm starting to work out the answer.
Part of it's down to what the French call déformation professionnelle - or the tendency to look at things from the point of view of one's own profession. Diplomats, being diplomats, favour giving more responsibility to .... er ... diplomats. The EU, being a supranational institution, has a big role for diplomats - so naturally they rather like it.
But I've recently discovered that there's far more to it than that.
The Foreign Office also has its career structures deliberately built in such a way as actively create a pro-EU diplomatic cadre. The FCO's brightest and best are often sent to Brussels to work for EU institutions very early in their careers.
Before landing plum posts as ambassadors, they're often seconded to work for the institutions of the EU - including the Commission. Indeed, the one I was talking to last night had done precisely that.
When you create momentum towards ever closer integration with Europe within institutions such as the FCO, you don't really need to wait for an elected government to agree to it all. It just happens. Political scientists call it functionalism - and its sly, but clever.
Incidentally, it explains why for the past 30 years we've ended up with the same integrationist Europe policy regardless of which MP happens to be playing the role of being Foreign Secretary, or who is actually in government.
Those of us who've come to conclude that Britain's membership of the European Union is no longer in our national interest need to think seriously about how to deal with the Foreign Office. Any new minister wandering into the Foreign Office is going to be left in charge of little more than the wine list, unless they have a plan to address this problem.
Somehow, democratically obtained executive power needs to be excersized in a way that decouples our domestic diplomatic corp and civil servants from EU institutions.
Posted on 15 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Canadians and carbon tax
I'm in Canada for today's general election. The governing Conservatives seem set to make modest gains against a hopelessly muddled Liberal opposition.
Yet with recession looming, why aren't the Liberal opposition making hay?
Local commentators suggest opposition leader, Stephane Dion, has shot himself in the foot with confused calls for carbon taxes. We'll soon know if his demands for green taxes turned out to be a decisive mistake with voters worried about living standards.
Maybe there's a lesson there .....
Posted on 14 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Is the Speaker in danger of doing his job?
When I've felt that the House of Commons Speaker hasn't done his job properly, I've said so. But it wouldn't be fair if I wasn't also prepared to praise the Speaker when he gets things right.
So, three cheers to Mr Martin. He's done the right thing in initiating an investigation into claims Tony Blair "deliberately misled" the House over the Ecclestone affair. Martin deserves the backing of every MP, in each party, over this. And I'd say the same if it was a Tory supposed to have done the misleading.
The primary purpose of our elected legislature is to hold government to account. The House of Commons hasn't done so effectively for years. That's one of the reasons so many voters don't bother taking part in elections to decide who sits there. Its why more and more people despise MPs.
The primary purpose of the Speaker should be to ensure that the Commons does its job of holding government to account. That means that when a member of the executive - be it Minister or quangocrat - misleads the Commons, the Speaker needs to be very robust indeed.
With the governing party holding a majority of votes in the Commons, the Speaker can only go so far. But there's an awful lot that a forceful and determined Speaker could do, which has never been done in recent years.
I like to think that Mr Martin might have adopted his new approach in response to a growing restlessness with the way things are. Once he's made it clear that misleading the House is a no no, here are some other things I'd like to see him do:
1. Demand Minister's (Labour or Tory) provide answers just as he sometimes insists that backbencher questioners get to the point.
2. Insist that the Commons votes to approve supply. In other words votes properly on all major spending commitments - starting with any £50 billion bank bailouts, for example.
3. Make it clear to the Commons Clerks and other men-in-tights that they exist to help MPs do their jobs, not run a cosy club.
4. Ensure absolute transparency when it comes to corporate lobbyists lurching around the Palace of Westminster. While respecting professional advocates as a legitimate part of politics, accountability over certain bodies (one or two All Party Groups and "Parliamentary" schemes, perhaps?) is a little opaque.
Previous Commons Speakers waited until retirement before complaining about how Parliament doesn’t work properly. Let’s hope Speaker Martin acts while he's in a position to do something about it.
Posted on 13 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Localism isn't necessarily about giving more power to local councils
At last! An article in the Local Government Chronicle.
Didn't Adrian Mole once write an article for them? I think it was about the Norwegian leather industry ….
Posted on 13 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
No time to blog this morning ...
... so instead I've cut and paste this curiously named poem - Gods of the Copybook Headings - by Kipling, which I had to learn as a child.
Half-forgotten fragments of it have bubbled up out of nowhere and echoed in my mind all week. Every time I read a newspaper or watch the news, in fact. I wonder why ....
Please do take the time to read it. It'll make you think
.
---------------------
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.
Posted on 12 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Article for the Guardian
Dan Hannan and I had a piece for the Guardian's Comment is Free section this week .... Tories are the new progressives.
Cat. Pigeons. etc.
Posted on 12 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The Plan in Clacton
Since publishing my book, The Plan: 12-months to renew Britain, I've received a barrage of letters and emails from constituents urging me on.
Before publication, I'd had some doubts. I feared the book's anti-political establishment message might be too focused on the Westminster village. Yet I needn't have worried. The reaction locally has been extraordinary.
I've lost count of the number of emails I've had containing phrases like "I've been saying this for years" or "At last!" or "I've always voted Labour, but ....".
Interestingly, three people I beat through the ballot box to become the local MP have written into the local paper complaining. The gist of their attack is as follows:
"Carswell's book says that we should scrap the Human Right Act!". Yes. It does.
"He's got a secret scheme to abolish the council tax and bring in some other system". Nothing secret about it. It's black and white in chapter two, if you read it.
"Carswell wants directly elected Sheriffs running the police, like in America!". You mean where they've zero tolerance policing and meaningful justice? Indeed.
"Carswell's causing trouble in Westminster, doesn't play by convention and has even called for the House of Commons Speaker to quit". Guilty as charged, M'lud.
"Carswell's plan talks about coming out of the EU". Absolutely. That's me.
"Carswell's book only sets out what he believes. It's not orthodoxy". Yet. Localism and elected police commissioners weren't mainstream orthodoxy when I first published papers calling for them. They are now.
Posted on 11 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Too many "experts" have got this crisis wrong
Back in mid-August, I forecast "The financial system is bloated ... it will shrink."
I went on "Too much money has been too cheap for too long. As a result, Western governments and individuals borrowed too much."
"We can no more prevent the consequences that will now unfold than we can suspend the laws of gravity. This won't stop some politicians from trying."
I suggested that when the crisis hits home, certain politicians would throw billions of tax pounds at it - yet not actually solve it. Because so many are in thrall to the "experts" who misunderstand its causes.
Now that everybody is clawing about for an opinion on the crisis, many seem to be merely regurgitating what the "experts" keep telling us. But much of its cobblers.
Turning private debt into public debt has not been a resounding success - see the $700 billion bailout in the US. What it has done is make the prospect that the US might default on Treasury bills, once unthinkable, a possibility.
Offering £50 billion for UK banks has yet to work - not one bank has yet taken the money or begun to lend more freely as a result.
Cutting official interest rates has not eased credit. Despite what all those "experts" thought was obvious, since the Bank of England cut rates, the real lending rates are actually up.
Ten days ago, I warned that credit-default swaps and other non-mortgages backed assets would be the next to blow. Today we see a growing realisation that many of these IOUs are essentially worthless.
It's time for some clear thinking; the cause of this crisis is debt.
Year of lax monetary policy caused too much cheap money. Cheap money meant public and private and corporate debt. That also fuelled an asset bubble. Now everyone is looking to switch assets for cash.
Worse, new financial instruments that didn't exist a decade or two ago - default swaps et al - made money from nothing (literally). Many of these financial instruments turn out to be voodoo. Now anyone holding them wants to trade them for cash.
There's only one sure way out of this crisis; reduce debt.
But it’s a brave “expert” who’ll explain what polices we are going to need to do that. Its an even braver government that'll take the action needed to do it.
Posted on 11 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Bank of England independence, anyone?
Ever since Gordon Brown allowed the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to determine interest rates to hit his inflation target, everyone has seemed to support Bank of England "independence".
Not many seem to really understand what such independence actually means. The financial crisis has revealed it means very little. The MPC can do what it wants - provided it does what the Chancellor wants.
Try holding interest rates in the current down turn, and it’s overruled.
Where have all those fashionistas gone, who lazily told us the Bank's independence was some sort of master stroke? Where are all those fatuous "opinion formers" when you need them to explain that Bank of England independence is simply an illusion?
Once again, it’s John Redwood who has been consistently right about this. Read his blog here.
On September 17th, I blogged that the Bank's independence wouldn't last this downturn. I'd no idea it would end quite so fast.
Posted on 10 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Obama Conservatives - a cliche?
Way back in June, my friend Dan Hannan began a really interesting debate when he became one of the first elected Conservatives in the UK to endorse Barack Obama. Since then, I've lent that way. As have dozens of my colleagues in the House of Commons. (Not that I think either Whitehouse contender gives a hoot....)
Apparently Iain Dale today is the latest in a long list of UK conservative commentators to join the stampede.
What are us Sarah Palin supporting, Obama Cons to make of it all, eh?
Posted on 10 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Parliament's more bust than any bank
You, me and anyone else reading this blog invested almost £16,000 in top British banks yesterday.
You didn't know? Me neither, until I read the newspapers.
Perhaps it doesn't feel like you've just spent £16,000. That's because you've not yet actually paid for it. No, you'll be doing that for years to come through higher taxes. And your kids'll probably still be paying for it when they're your age, too.
In order to prop up some basket case banks, the government yesterday injected £50 billion of public money into them. That's on top of the £200 billion that the government has issued to banks in additional liquidity over the past year.
Has it solved the problem? Nope. And the plummeting markets said as much. Throwing good money after bad rarely ever does. No alchemist in the world can turn debt into gold by shifting it from the private ledger to the public sector.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the government's response, what is appalling is the way that this has all been done by executive fiat.
At no point during this financial meltdown, at no stage before he's handed over massive cheques to the banks, has Alistair Darling been subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, there's been no real debate or vote.
Our supine, spineless House of Commons has failed hopelessly. It's as credible in this crisis as an Icelandic fund manager.
In the United States, democratically elected Congressmen debated Hank Paulson's plan. They threw out the first version, and got brakes and triggers inserted into the second. Because of that, if the Paulson plan turns out to be as hopeless as some suspect, US taxpayers won't be lumbered with the full $700 billion bill.
Had our only elected legislature the verve to hold government to account, I'd be demanding to know how much taxes in the UK will need to rise to fund this bank bailout. I ask why banks with healthy balance sheets, like HSBC, are being dragged down by the feckless lenders. I'd want assurances about what might happen if (when?) the markets take a punt against HM Treasury.
As an elected MP, I can do none of those things. After three months recess, the Commons has scarcely touched on any of these issues.
It's not just Bradford & Bingley that's busted.
Posted on 9 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Waterwise lack much charm
Following my blog about Waterwise hectoring private business, someone calling himself
Jacob Tompkins claiming to be from Waterwise calls. The conversation ran something like this …
"Don't you understand we're an independent NGO!". Yep. For independent read unaccountable.
"But we've a board!". Stuffed full of people in receipt of public money.
"Don't you know that we're funded by water companies". Yep. Through higher water bills.
"I don't like your tone". You're the one who called me.
Click.
Posted on 9 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Norway's next Prime Minister?
I've just had a meeting with the wonderful Siv Jensen, head of the Norwegian Progress Party. She's a delightful person, and could well be on her way to becoming the next Prime Minister of Norway. I do hope so.
The Progress Party want to transfer political and economic power from the government to the people. They support a limited state and free markets. In fact, with their blend of practical localism, anti-politician ideas and classic free market beliefs, they seem everything a modern conservative party should be.
The purpose of our meeting was to discuss The Plan, a book I've recent published with Dan Hannan. The Progress Party are apparently attracted by some of the new thinking going on within the centre right in Britain.
Posted on 9 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Higher inflation and interest rates are on the way
Cut through the froth. Look beyond the dazed politicians and clueless Alistair Darling. The cause of this financial crisis / recession is simple; debt.
Public debt. Private debt. Corporate debt. Household debt. A sea of debt..... Debt, debt everywhere but not a drop to borrow.
There's three ways out of this debt-created mess - and none of them is pretty;
1. Higher interest rates - to encourage savings and force down borrowing (ouch!).
2. Higher inflation - to whittle away the amount outstanding (and of course, savings. Double ouch!)
3. Currency devaluation - really just a form of point 2 above.
Expect all three in the months ahead ....
Alistair Darling and certain other politicians will witter on - and continue to throw good public money after bad private debt.
The Bank of England may have today cut official interest rates - but, with less money to borrow and more people needing credit, the actual cost of borrowing is going to rise. Look at interbank lending rates for clues.
Nothing that the politicians or the officials at the Bank of England do will prevent the cost of borrowing going up, inflation rising and the £ sinking.
This period of Labour government will end as did the last.
Posted on 8 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
What's the cost of your champagne, Mr Brown?
According to the great Jonathan Isaby, the Prime Minister's people are ordering champagne into Number 10. So much of it, it seems, they're having to use trolleys to wheel it in.
This has prompted me to table two Parliamentary questions just now:
a) How much champagne has been ordered in each of the past six months by the Prime Minister's Office for consumption at events at a) 10 Downing Street and b) Chequers?
b) What has been the cost of champagne ordered in each of the past six months by the Prime Minister's Office for consumption at events at a) 10 Downing Street and b) Chequers?
It might sound like a small thing to Westminster village people used to swilling the bubbly stuff, but it's not small at all.
Pensioners in my constituency are having to tighten their belts, yet it appears the Prime Minister's office is ordering in the champagne.
It makes me furious that our political establishment is so out of touch. The rest of the country is worried about its savings. Decent folk who've lived by the rules face tough times ahead. And it seems our PM is living it up.
Posted on 8 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
In defence of Peter Hitchens
Over on CentreRight, I've weighed into a debate between Peter Hitchens' and various bloggers.
As I make clear, I don't agree with all the Mr Hitchens says. But, he does say somethings that we need to listen to.
We ought to be asking if we need a new kind of Conservatism to tackle the quango state.
My contribution to the debate is here
.
Posted on 8 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Boom and bust - on YouTube
I'm looking for a short 3 - 5 second clip of Gordon Brown boasting of "an end to boom and bust". I want him just saying those words, not the whole brag fest.
Full of hubris, he and little Ed Balls went on about it for years, so somebody, somewhere must have it?
I'm offering a bottle of House of Commons wine to the first person who sends me the clip - or a link to it at my email address carswelld@parliament.uk
Posted on 7 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Darling crashes
As he rose to speak in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, all eyes in the City were on Chancellor Alistair Darling. Was he about to unveil a plan, or restore confidence?
Nope.
From the time he rose to his feet, to the time he sat down 11 minutes later, the FTSE had fallen by 2 percent.
Thank goodness he only gave a short speech. Where might we be if he'd kept talking all afternoon?
Posted on 7 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
BBC and Waterwise hector private enterprise
Yesterday's BBC news featured an officious little item on Starbucks. According to our state-funded broadcaster, Starbucks are bad people because they leave the taps on while cleaning their cups and saucers.
To prove their point, the BBC asked a busy body organisation called Waterwise, for an opinion. Maybe it's wrong to use running water to clean the dishes. Maybe it isn't.
The point is that it's not for Waterwise and the BBC to bully private business in this way.
Who precisely is Waterwise?
It's an unaccountable NGO. It's board is stuffed full of quangocrats - from the Environment Agency and others. And it's funded by you and me through higher water rates.
What on earth are we doing using public money to pay for NGOs and the BBC to hector private business? Since when was it up to them to tell Starbucks how to clean their dishes?
Starbucks exists because it provides something we choose to pay for. Unlike Starbucks, the BBC and Waterwise get their money off us by force of law.
In the economic downturn, the last thing we can afford is publicly funded bodies making life difficult for private businesses.
Posted on 7 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Weber Shandwick's analysis of Conservative policy
Going through my in tray this morning, I've come across something from lobbyist firm Weber Shandwick. It's a "Conservative Party Policy Guide" arch lever folder. You finger through the index, and look up under whatever section you want details of current policy.
It's interesting reading for several reasons; first, it's a frank, outsider’s assessment of Conservative policy. Secondly, it's interesting to see actually how much detail there now is.
What most struck me, however, was the fact that the Conservatives are increasingly seen as being a serious alternative government.
Naturally, Weber Shandwick has written their assessment with one eye on their clients. And that's perhaps skewed some of their analysis.
For instance, on defence procurement they seem to be saying the things that certain corporate interests might want to hear. They seem to skate over (or be unaware of?) the significant re-think now taking place within the party.
Similarly, their sections on law and order, welfare and education, miss some key points - perhaps because the analysis was made by PR-types, rather than policy wonks.
But all that aside, Weber Shandwick hold up an interesting mirror for the Party to take a look at.
Posted on 6 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
John Redwood is today's "must read"
Once again, John Redwood's blog is full of insights. I recommend it.
Today in Westminster every tinpot politician has a (usually tepid) opinion on the financial crisis. Too many of them merely mouth off what they saw on the BBC last night.
Yet John Redwood and Jeff Randall are the two people who saw this financial crisis coming. We should listen carefully to what they are saying now.
Posted on 6 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Is it too late to swap McCain for Palin?
Political Betting asks what would happen if the US Republicans flipped candidates.
I'm not a pollster, so I'd not like to hazard a guess. But speaking personally, if John McCain was to be Sarah Palin's running mate, rather than the other way round, I'd be cheering them on all the way.
As it is, I'm a Palin supporting Obama-Conservative. Not that I get a vote, you understand. Alas.
Posted on 6 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell MP
Should interest rates be cut?
"Cut interest rates!" everybody cries.
When the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee meets on Thursday, they'll be under intense pressure to lower the cost of borrowing. Vince Cable, the CBI and all the supposed experts on the BBC seems to suggest lower interest rates are the answer. I'm more sceptical. Yes, I would like lower interest rates. But I'm not sure that it's quite so simple.
Why? This financial crisis was caused by interest rates being set too low for too long. The Bank of England, US Fed, Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank maintained super low interest rates for over a decade.
By making money so cheap to borrow, people and governments got drunk on debt. Intoxicated by cheap credit, many an Icelandic banks, not to mention one or two others, bought assets that they couldn't afford.
Cutting interest rates now has all the logic of giving a drunkard another shot. It'll bring temporary relief - but the hangover will be even worse.
The fundamental problem that we face in the UK is debt. Debt can only be reduced if we save more and borrow less. It's a law of economics that saving more and borrowing less means higher interest rates. You can no more defy the laws of economics than you can the laws of gravity. Alas, that doesn't stop people from trying.
However, I've yet to meet a politician who can make 2 + 2 begin to equal 5. Although there are some who look like they're about to try.
Imagine if our supposedly "independent" Bank of England caves into pressure for a rate cut on Thursday. It'll make little difference to the cost of borrowing, which will be higher in a month’s time than it is today whatever the Bank does.
Almost regardless of the official price of borrowing money, the real cost of borrowing - the so-called Libor rate - is already way above the official rate.
I suspect that the cost of borrowing is going to rise to record levels over the coming months, regardless of what the Bank tinkers with this Thursday. Why? Credit is already tight because of fears about mortgage-backed securities. Suppose that it's not just mortgage-backed securities that are the problem.
Over the past decade and a half, many new financial instruments have been created - some mortgaged-backed, some not. What if it's not just the mortgaged-backed ones that are the problem?
Did you know what was in those Collateralised Debt Obligations? The people who traded them didn't appear to either. Do you know what's in those credit-default swaps and derivatives today? You get my point.
Posted on 5 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Stop whining, Sir Norman
Sir Ian Blair was useless. It is a good thing that he is no longer in charge of the Metropolitan police.
Yet there are signs of a backlash. A number of senior police chiefs, perhaps alarmed at the prospect that they too might face democratic accountability, are starting to argue that Sir Ian's removal raises the danger of "politicising" the police.
One of them is Sir Norman Bettison, chief constable of West Yorkshire police. Sir Norman whines that "the dislodging of Ian Blair" represents a "threat" to independent policing.
Ever since I first published a policy paper back in 2002 advocating directly elected police chiefs, I knew this moment would come. "Don't politicise the police", cry certain police chiefs.
Perhaps the Association of Chief Police Officers might have thought more carefully about what that meant before some of their members lined up to support government plans for compulsory ID cards? Wasn't the police chief lobbyist who contacted me at the House of Commons to suggest I vote in support of the government's 42 day detention being "political"? (Incidentally, I don't think he'll be contacting me again anytime soon).
How a free society is policed is always going to be an inherently political question. And rightly so. In my own constituency, law and order is consistently one of the top issues on the door step.
It's precisely because policing cannot be separated from politics that in our democratic elections, we debate law and order. The trouble is that at present, there is almost nothing that those you vote for can actually do about local law and order.
That's just one of the reasons fewer and fewer people now bother voting at all.
When certain senior police chiefs demand that policing be kept "independent", what they really mean is that they wish to remain unaccountable. In the age of the internet, that is no longer acceptable. And accountability isn't just "crime mapping".
Chief constables should no longer be Crown appointments. Local people should have the ultimate say. Until that happens, we will never get the sort of policing that we need.
In London, where there is a directly elected Mayor, the Mayor should have the power to appoint the police chief. Elsewhere, we need to have a directly elected justice Commissioner (I prefer the term Sheriff), making the appointments and setting local priorities. Such local democratic oversight is perfectly compatible with operational independence and equality before the law.
Sir Norman clearly dislikes the idea that he should be made democratically accountable.
If Sir Norman doesn't like it, he can follow Sir Ian.
Posted on 4 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Will we win in Afghanistan?
"If we fail in our mission, the Taliban will come back. And if the Taliban come back, the terrorist training camps come back. That would mean more terrorists, more bombs and more slaughter on our streets."
David Cameron's support for our troops' mission in Afghanistan could not have been clearer. And rightly so.
But can we win?
After seven years of unceasingly conflict, are we any closer to achieving our strategic goals there than we were in 2001? No.
If we are going to prevail, we need to start asking the right questions pretty sharpish.
1. Are we using the right counter-insurgency tactics? In Iraq, the US fundamentally rethought its tactics, turning a critical situation into a success story. New tactics involved more troops, higher risks and winning over local allies.
The new tactics General Petraeus implemented in Iraq are about creating a system of indirect rule by co-opting local allies. The fact Petraeus is now in command in Afghanistan should give us cause for optimism. But we should expect a change of tactics if we are to win.
2. Is poppy eradication sensible? Destroying the cash crops of small farmers in Helmand is a good way of instantly antagonising them. Indeed, many of the Taliban’s hired guns are bankrupt farmers looking to earn a few dollars. Farmers grow heroin poppies because it's an instant, non-perishable cash crop - not because they are wicked people. If we want local allies to defeat the Taliban, we must rethink poppy eradication.
3. Who are our allies? On paper, we're in Afghanistan with our NATO allies. In reality, it's the US, Brits, Danes, Ozzies and a few others. In order to prevail, we need allies willing to pull their weight, under US command, in combat roles. Unless our supposed allies are willing to do that, we need to make clear that it will have serious consequences in our relations with them elsewhere.
4. Why are our troops so badly equipped? Our troops face serious shortages of kit in Afghanistan - especially of helicopters and air support. Without helicopters, we have less tactical flexibility. To win in Afghanistan, we must scrap the monumentally inefficient Defence Industrial Strategy, and start buying most kit "off the shelf".
If we did so, we'd have dozens more helicopters and UAVs. And our Apaches would be deployable in greater numbers.
The Defence Industrial Strategy is good at putting tax pounds onto the balance sheet of BAE Systems and others. It’s useless at getting our troops the best kit available quickly. With public finances being squeezed, all the more reason to ensure we get better value out of each tax pound spent.
If we address each of these questions, I'm confident that we can prevail. If we don't, we won't.
Posted on 3 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Sir Ian Blair's successor should be appointed by Boris
Sir Ian Blair, head of the Met, has quit. Good.
There will be acres of newsprint about the why and the how of his departure.
I shall say merely that his successor should be appointed by the directly elected Mayor of London. Indeed, I argued the same when Ken Livingston was Mayor.
New York's Mayor oversees the policing of that city. London's Mayor should oversee policing in our capital.
In New York, where the elected Mayor is in charge, they have zero tolerance policing. In London, where there's no democratic oversight, we have rising crime, disorder and politically correct policing.
If Sir Ian's successor is to have legitimacy long-term, he must have a local democratic legitimacy.
Posted on 2 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Financial crisis: Will the rest of EU "do an Ireland"?
The markets are full of speculation today as to whether or not other EU countries might "do an Ireland" and give a blanket guarantee on retail bank deposits.
Given the bovine BBC coverage of this crisis thus far, such a step - announced at a high profile EU summit no doubt - would almost certainly be presented as being "a good thing".
Would it be such a good thing? What might be its consequences?
Here are some thoughts you can guarantee Peter Preston and co are unlikely to pick up on, but which the market is today taking seriously:
a) If each EU memberstate were to give an Ireland-type guarantee, it'd give a superficial, short-term confidence to the EU banking system for sure. Or rather, it'd make it less likely that individual depositors would take their money out of dead-duck institutions, and put it into ones that have been properly managed. This week, at least. The basket-cases like Fortis will still be basket-cases. The eventual outcome will still be the same.
But such a guarantee wouldn't fix the system, just force the taxpayer to take over the bad debt.
Belgium, for instance, already has public debts of approximately 90% of GDP. If it's serious about putting bad bank debts (including non-mortgage ones) on to its public books, how would a national debt of, say, 120% or 150% GDP look? Could you do that and still say, have a Belgian public health system and taxes below 50-60%? We may be about to find out.
That's just the plus side of everyone "doing an Ireland". Here's the downside ...
b) If retail banks across the EU gave a blanket guarantee, what would be the point of banks having collateral? Banks would no longer need collateral to borrow. Think about the possible consequences of that. Some banks (B&B, Fortis) are in the mess they are because the people running them allowed liabilities to grow without due regard to collateral. Some banks (Lloyds, Barclays) weren't so irresponsible.
What happens if each EU government says to the responsible banks, as well as the feckless, "don't worry chaps, no need to find collateral to borrow". Ummmm ...
c) If all EU banks were basically zero risk, lending to an EU bank on an unsecured basis becomes risk free. In an era of global financial markets, that fact will have consequences. If, for instance, EU banks are guaranteed, but non-EU ones are not, it'll have a major impact on banks willingness to lend to one another. Interbank lending rates will be distorted.
d) Finally, and perhaps most important, the bad debts we see now tend, sort of, to be those associated with mortgage-based debt. Yet the past decade has seen a vast range of entirely new instruments of financial liquidity created. Might some of them turn out to be as worthless as a sub-prime based Collateralised Debt Obligation? If so, this is only the beginning of the problems we're about to face.
At least the United States is a democracy. When their ruling establishment of bankers and politicians insisted that private stupidity be bailed out with public money, Congress was able to force them to re-think. In the EU, our political elites are not that accountable. Let's hope they do more than watch the BBC before deciding to follow Ireland or not.
Posted on 1 October 2008 by Douglas Carswell