Thank you - and the 10,329 others - for reading my blog this month
You might be interested to know that as well as you reading this site now, my blog got 10,329 other visits this month, too. That makes January the best month ever.
I've only been into blogging a few months, but the past few weeks have seen traffic increase exponentially. I'm especially pleased with the large number of constituents of mine - according to Google Analytics - now using my blog each week. It's really been amazing!
You might've noticed I've tweaked the layout - and hope you approve. In a while, I'll change the comment facility to make it easier for you to post your thoughts and ideas. Also, from the button on the right you can see I'm about to launch a new book list idea. More on that later.
Thanks for reading me. Please do take my RSS feed - it's free!
Posted on 30 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Alan Milburn wants education vouchers
I had to read it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining it. In this extraordinary interview in the Times, Alan Milburn says some pretty remarkable things about education.
Supporting Conservative plans to end the state monopoly of education provision, his only criticism seems to be that the "Conservatives haven't gone nearly far enough".
Milburn then outlines his idea for an education voucher credit and for making all schools independent.
One could be critical; what's Milburn's party been doing these past ten years? If they wouldn't accept academies, what chance will Labour dinosaurs accept this ... blah. blah.
Instead, I'll simply say this; the status quo of state monopoly education, with zero choice, is not working. But please let's not replace it with a centralised, top-down quango-run voucher scheme.
Elsewhere in Whitehall, a real head of steam is beginning to build behind the idea that local authority education funding needs to be administered directly from Whitehall. Why? The grotesque imbalance in local government finance makes the idea of centralising local authority expenditure (as opposed to decentralising revenue collection) superficially attractive.
If Milburn’s ideas on education vouchers and the idea of centralising local education authority finances converge, we could end up with proposals for a national education voucher quango (Qualifications, Curriculum and Education Credits Agency, anyone?)
No. Those of us who want vouchers must be careful not to support such a plan. A national voucher scheme run from Whitehall will strengthen Whitehall - not parental choice and school autonomy.
In this paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs, I suggest that vouchers be introduced by giving parents a legal right to control their child's share of local authority funding. Letting those unhappy with the status quo opt out is a far clever way of achieving change than imposing a new system on everyone.
Setting up a QCA type quango to administer a voucher scheme - with all the strings attached - will paradoxically reduce the very education freedom that vouchers are intended to create.
Posted on 29 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Lobbying: do we need a register?
Lobbying is back under the spotlight. It can be entirely legitimate. Indeed, I get lobbied by local constituents about many different subjects all the time.
Yet lobbying becomes a dirty word when there’s a suspicion that an interest group or corporation is able to gain an unfair advantage. Or use money to buy influence.
But is more regulation the answer?
The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency is calling for a statutory register of lobbying activity in the UK. As a free market Conservative, I find myself coming round to the idea. Transparency would help us remove any unfair barriers to entry that existed in the political market place. Yet I don't think more regulation of Westminster alone will solve things.
Many of the real decisions that a corporation might want to influence are either made by quangos (think who allocates the NHS drugs budget) or at EU level (think financial services).
Second,
I suspect that if there were a register, some lobbying might simply go below the radar. If company X wanted to maintain influence it might find non-lobbying ways to "engage stakeholders". Perhaps they'd contribute to one or two non-partisan organisations. With influence in Westminster. Which certainly never lobby, you understand? There's a good fellow.
Or perhaps company X might do no such thing. But business Y, which just happened to indirectly own a large slice of X, might ... well.. ummm .... You get the picture.
Finally, is knowing who's lobbying enough? We need rules on when its acceptable and when not. We know that the Association of Police Authorities has been using public money to lobby against the public having a direct democratic say over local policing. They've done so entirely legitimately and in accordance with every rule - as far as I know. But is it right that the rules should allow the quango state to lobby itself at our expense?
Any review of rules on lobbying needs to restrict how public funds can be used by state funded organisations to buy influence over public policy.
Posted on 29 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The nasty party
I'm in the chamber listening to Theresa Villiers make a very good, articulate case against Heathrow expansion. She speaks softly, but with intelligence and determination.
Up close, it's extraordinary to see how hectoring and bullying Geoff Hoon and Ed Milliband are. Nasty. Thuggish. The face of the Labour party today.
I wonder what Kier Hardy would think of the assortment of chancers and bully boys that grace the Labour front bench.
If I could video what I see, I doubt their constituents would be impressed.
UPDATE: It seems Hoon's extraordinarily nasty manner has been noticed by Jon Craig over at Sky News too.
Posted on 28 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The centre cannot hold
Ministers consider revival of local authority mortgages
- declares the Guardian.
No headline better illustrates what's wrong about the way we are governed.
It takes remote ministers in Whitehall to allow supposedly local government to find innovative ways of dealing with problems locally.
Why not allow self-financing local authorities to do this sort of thing for themselves? If it worked, others would follow suit. If it failed, local people could throw them out of office.
Either way, we’d have less of the tick-box minded inertia that clogs up so many town halls today.
Posted on 28 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Why does government spending increase ...
.... no matter who's in office?
Using perhaps the coolest website invented for policy wonks, I produced this graph. It shows how the amount of money spent by government has increased relentlessly since 1950 (at constant 2003 prices).
It's quite extraordinary. Sometimes a dip or pause, but the upward trend is clear. Why?
Between 1950 and today, we've had governments of all sorts; from socialist to Hayekian free market, to the mushy managerialists in between.
Maybe it’s not just about which political party has the majority in Parliament. Perhaps the graph also charts Parliament's decline as an institution capable of reining in government spending?
Unlike in 1950, today Parliament approves government expenditure more in theory than practice. During the budget day charade, MPs vote - but as the 10p income tax fiasco shows, without always knowing the details they are deciding.
Unlike the 1950s, real spending decisions come from executive fiat and Treasury officials. Quango chiefs spend billions without reference to Parliament at all.
Without the elected legislature acting as a brake on government largess, there’s been less to constrain how much money the government spends. The result is a 600% plus increase in real terms - and some grotesque waste.
Perhaps if we seek less expensive, wasteful government, we don't only need to change who holds office. We need to strengthen the ability of the legislature to say "no" to government. Why not require Commons select committees to vote to approve each department’s annual budget? Or insist every quango had its expenditure annually approved?
Reducing government waste means making government more accountable to Parliament for how our money is spent.
Posted on 28 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Law-makers should be elected. Full stop
Somebody called "Lord" David Lipsey writes in today's Times. He tells us what jolly hard working and earnest chaps they all are in the House of Lords. He lists all the areas of public policy he's involved in shaping. And hints about certain fiercely Hampstead opinions he seems to hold.
All good stuff. But one's left asking "who elected you?"
"Lord" Lipsey writes of his "addiction" to public affairs. I'm interested in public affairs too. It's why I did something called "stand for election".
I'm sure his lordship has lots of worthy views on all manner of things. But no one voted for you, old boy.
Posted on 27 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Lobbying needs accountability
Allegations about the House of Lords keep flying. Whatever any of this might tell us about the upper House, what might it eventually tell us about the way big corporations buy political influence? A great deal, I hope.
I'd welcome it if we now had proper scrutiny of lobbying at Westminster - and elsewhere. Public accountability is the only antiseptic strong enough to clean up Westminster.
All in know for sure is that I've had a run in with some of the protagonists featuring in today's press. And one or two in receipt of defence contractor money who don't.
I don't think some of the methods used by some organisations to buy political influence will stand up to scrutiny.
Posted on 27 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Lazy thinking and politics
In politics, one often hears phrases that carry a certain superficially attraction and are difficult to take issue with. But which one knows to be profoundly wrong.
One such phrase often banded about is that such-and-such an issue "is too important for party politics. So why don't we just leave it to the experts?". It's a phrase guaranteed to get a cheer from almost any audience.
Yet "leaving it to the experts" was what we did with child protection in Haringey. It's what we did when we left the Bank of England independent to set interest rates. It's what we do when we let the unelected council officers make over 90% of local planning decisions.
It turns out that supposed "experts", when left unaccountable, often make disastrous mistakes. In fact, it's precisely because everyone tends to assume that "experts" really know what they're doing, initial errors often go uncorrected and develop into disasters.
Similarly lazy thinking often comes across when people discuss reform of the House of Lords; "Peers need to be above party politics - they shouldn't have to worry about elections and politicking", folk often say. "We need experts sitting in the upper House able to amend legislation".
Perhaps that, too, might not turnout to be quite the sensible idea it first seems.
Posted on 26 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Sunday Telegraph article
I've a piece in today's Sunday Telegraph outlining what we need to do to clean up Westminster, in the wake of the expenses farce.
Posted on 25 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Is Michael Martin still digging?
Last week, Speaker Michael Martin seemed to be suggesting that Daniel Kawzcynski MP had failed to check his facts before complaining that the police had entered the Shropshire MP's office, and made off with some constituency correspondence.
According to Iain Dale, it could be Mr M who might have rushed to make conclusions before hearing all sides of the story.
Iain suggests that it's Martin who needs to explain on what basis he made the statement he did to the Commons suggesting misjudgement by Daniel.
Perhaps this incident further reveals the extent to which it's the Commons clerks and the Westminster apparat who now really run the show called Parliament. Like an enfeebed Merovingian king (pictured right), I suspect that Michael Martin sits on the throne, but real decisions are made by others. Malcolm Jack, this time perhaps? The executive on other occasions?
And guess what happened to the Merovingians.
Posted on 24 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Weak banks, even weaker economic commentary
This economic downturn isn't just exposing weak banks. It reveals just how dreadful so much economic commentary and journalistic analysis has been.
Throughout, journalists and economic commentators have been behind the curve. For instance, they accepted uncritically the official view about Bank of England independence and the new FSA-style regulation. Professional commentators, like the BBC's Robert Peston, appear to have unquestioningly regurgitated views fed to them by officials and other "experts" - and presented it to us as considered economic opinion.
As things unravel, we are beginning to see which economic commentators are cut-and-paste cliché mongers, and which ones are capable of independent critical analysis.
Here's a list of commentators who saw how events were going to unfold:
1. Jeff Randall. No one else warned more persistently about the problems that excessive debt would cause.
2. John Redwood. His blog has been brilliantly perceptive.
3. Howard Flight. In a conversation with him some time back, Howard told me what he thought was likely to happen. Pretty much everything he said has either happened, or seems about to.
Please add details of any other commentators you think have been on the money - or way off?
Posted on 24 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Can we trust the ratings agencies this time?
According to the Evening Standard"in a rare piece of good news for Mr Brown, rating agency Moody's backed his rescue package." Umm.
If I remember correctly, as the credit crunch unfolded, it turned out that some credit agencies had given good ratings to certain financial instruments that in fact turned out to be worth less than a shack in Alabama. That’s because it turned out that the Collateralised Debt Obligations et al were in fact just a shack or two in Alabama.
I hope the ratings agencies have a better method of assessing things now.
Posted on 23 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Localism is now central
David Cameron’s speech to Demos
has been much commented on. But I suspect not always read by those with an opinion on it.
His speech made it clear that localism and direct democracy are deeply ingrained in the thinking behind the new model Conservatives. He spoke of decentralizing power and devolving responsibility half a dozen times.
His speech made it clear that the Conservatives – pragmatic and can-do – nonetheless have an underlying philosophy; “politics without a guiding philosophy is both empty and ineffective.”
I couldn’t agree more. One of the reasons that Blairism failed is that it had neither an underlying philosophy nor a compass of conviction (despite all that guff the commentariat once wrote about Blair being profoundly shaped by some obscure Scottish professor).
Indeed, towards the end of his decade in office, Blair (or was it Julian Le Grand?) started to grasp what sort of changes were needed to really improve public services – rather than just throw more money at them. By then of course, it was too late.
If you've a free half hour this weekend, do read what Cameron had to say. It's genuinely interesting to read - and it'll make you think.
Posted on 23 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Westminster stinks. Here's how to clean it up ....
Barack Obama is taking action to clean up Washington
. How about cleaning up Westminster?
Here are some sugggestions:
1. Full disclosure of MPs expenses.
2. Politicians to live under the same rules they impose on the people. MPs want a salary raise? Make sure it has the sort of tax deductions every other person would face, rather than having expense allowances tax free income. Want to pass an Equality law or FoI Act? Great. But don't exempt politicians when it has unintended consequences on all-women shortlists etc.
3. Shut the revolving door between Whitehall departments / quangos and big corporate interests. How many former MoD officials are now working for big corporate clients that rely on contracts from MoD? Precisely.
4. No more State-handouts to political parties. Obama funded his campaign with millions of small on-line donations from ordinary folk. Yes, we can, too.
An awful lot of Westminster
politicians this week are queuing up to associate themselves with the 44th President of the United States. Maybe they should try doing what he's doing, rather than just sucking up to him.
Posted on 22 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Breaking story: Police raid on MPs office
This afternoon police officers raided the office of Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury.
Why? They demanded to trawl through his constituency correspondence while investigating letters that have been sent by "someone in the Shrewsbury area" - apparently. They do not appear to have had a warrant.
The Commons authorities - the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms - did not know of the raid. They were not informed of the raid, nor aware of what happened until told afterwards.
Once again, we see that those who run Parliament are not up to the job. Last week, they were so quick to eject John McDonnell from the Parliamentary estate. Today, they don't even seem to know what happening on the Parliamentary estate.
Posted on 21 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Victory over expenses
It's been a good day, if I say so myself.
Following my question to the PM, it seems we’ve won - this round.
The Guardian:
Gordon Brown today made a dramatic retreat from plans to exempt MPs' expenses from the
Freedom of Information
Act ….. The move came after Brown was challenged by Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell over why he was in favour of keeping them secret.
The Times
Gordon Brown today performed a swift U-turn over government plans to block the publication of MPs expenses. …. Mr Brown made the announcement in response to a question from Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP, who asked why he was whipping the MPs to pass the matter.
Evening Standard
GORDON BROWN was forced into an embarrassing climbdown today over attempts to keep details of MPs' expenses secret. The first sign of the government retreat came at Prime Minister's Questions when Mr Brown was accused by Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell of proposing "one law for the people and another for the politicians".
Posted on 21 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Sir Humphrey Appleby deserves no sympathy
An MP colleague once said of a particularly useless Permanent Under Secretary "Don't worry. He's really one of us".
I sincerely hope it's not true. The idea that senior civil servants might be covertly loyal to the aims of the opposition party is deeply offensive to the notion of democracy.
Yet, sotto voce one can hear in Westminster the sound of the standing apparat aligning itself to the possibility of a change of government.
Yesterday it was the turn of Sir David Normington, the head of the Home Office to squirm
. It was those nasty coppers that were behind it all, he bleats, when explaining his role in the raid on Damian Green's office. I warned them they'd better be jolly sure before doing anything, he whines. He even has the nerve to claim he was "extremely surprised" by the whole thing.
It will not do. Sir David must get a P45. It is not possible to have the Home Office run by an official who instigates an investigation that leads to the arrest of an opposition MP.
The reason that Britain is so badly governed is not simply inept Labour ministers. The civil servants, quangocrats and the standing apparat are as much the problem. Changing politicians without overturning the Yes, Minister farce in Whitehall, will do little to turn our country around.
Posted on 21 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
A strong America is good for the world
As an ObamaCon, I was thrilled to see the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States yesterday. What a great country!
As I watched, a thought struck me from John Julius Norwich's Short History of Byzantium, which I've just finished reading. There were precisely 88 Emperors of Byzantium - twice as many as there have been US Presidents, thus far.
Between May 330 and May 1453, it must've been pretty difficult to imagine a world without Byzantium. Yet reading her story, by the end, they seemed such a nasty, unprincipled, disorganised lot; one had little sympathy for their final fate.
The same can never be said of America. She, as was Britain, is a philanthropic power. America is a force for good in the world. Just look at how the world's population votes with its feet. Not to mention that ex-US Presidents enjoy quiet retirement. The same could not be said for fallen Emperors!
I hope there'll be not just an 88th US President, but a 188th ....
Posted on 21 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Has the Westminster establishment been forced to retreat over expenses?
I've top slot at PMQs today. In the interests of a little direct democracy, any suggestions, please let me know?
UPDATE: Thanks for your suggestions - the question I put to Gordo: Why is the Prime Minister whipping his party to vote to keep MPs expenses secret? When it comes to Freedom of Information, why should there be one law for the people and another for politicians?
Judging by Gordo's bolshie reply, I think I may've helped achieve a minor victory.
It sounds like the government isn't going to railroad this through on a three line whip tomorrow (fear they might have lost it)? Has the Westminster establishment backed down? If so, this is a significant victory for the power of the web to hold our politicians to account.
PS. I won't pass on what one of the good old boy MPs from a one party fiefdom seat just said to me about my stance.
Posted on 21 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Andrew Tyrie MP attacks Speaker Martin
According to the BBC"Speaker Michael Martin has pledged to fight the "disparity" between society and Parliament." He could start by getting MPs to obey the same laws they inflict upon everyone else - such as disclosing details of their expenses.
But no. Much easier to call a meeting of Westminster insiders Speaker's Conference to produce a fatuous report.
Speaker Martin is not up to the job. I know it. The country knows it. Readers of this blog know it. Even most MPs know it. But why don't they say so?
Well, increasingly they do.
Andrew Tyrie MP has just written an article that speaks of Mr Martin having "botched" his role. Of failing to show leadership. Of looking "
like a pawn of the executive".
Coming from Tyrie, one of the gentlest and most thoughtful of Westminster MPs, this is strong stuff.
Tyrie has written to Martin asking that he refer the mess surrounding the Damian Green affair to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I've followed Andrew's lead and sent Mr Martin a note, too.
Michael Martin is the product of one party fiefdom, machine politics. If Martin wants Parliament to be made genuinely more representative, he should campaign for open primary selection contests to decide the Labour candidate in safe seats like Glasgow North East.
Posted on 20 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Economic crisis: what next?
So. It's not working, is it?
Even the sheep-like economic commentators at the BBC are starting to realise that conventional opinion on how to handle this crisis has been wrong.
Government policy to deal with the credit crunch has been to inject massive amounts of public funds into the banking system, coupled with ultra low interest rates. Not to mention promises of vast public expenditure projects.
And guess what? As this blog has repeatedly pointed out, it's not worked. And it's not going to work.
More of the same is not an option, either. Interest rates can't be lowered further. Borrowing on such a vast scale may prove impossible - indeed there's now a very real danger that international lenders will refuse to accept any more UK bonds IOUs.
Rather than cure the problem, Gordo's "rescue plan" temporarily alleviated the symptoms. Banks were happy to lend out money when it was the taxpayers' money. Now they've burnt through the pile Gordo gave them in the autumn, it's back to square one. Not much talk of a falling Libor rate now, is there?
Worse, Gordo's "plan" is based on a view that this is a problem of
low aggregate demand ("If only people would start shopping and spending again"). Low demand is a symptom of the problem - it's cause is debt.
Ultimately, there are two ways out of this debt crisis: you can hike up interest rates (higher savings to create more credit), or you can have higher inflation (which would involve devaluing sterling and discourage savings).
Which of those policy options is it to be?
NB. At no point during the crisis has the decision to allocate a nation's fortune on Gordo's rescue package been subject to a proper debate in the House of Commons, followed by a vote. MPs find the time to exempt themselves from FoI requests over expenses this Thursday, but not to hold the executive to account for spending your your grandchildren's money.
Posted on 20 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Reshuffling the pack
Here are some interesting comments about today's Tory reshuffle:
James Forsyth
says it's a set back for bold, Tory radicalism.
Dan Hannan
thinks it means I should be on the frontbench (tongue in cheek, I presume).
Iain Dale
has a well-written and interesting analysis.
Tim Montgomerie
has ten very perceptive insights, too.
As for me, I want to be Britain's last Minister for Europe.
Posted on 19 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
MPs expenses: why I'm going to publish details myself
This week the Westminster establishment will try to pass a law that would exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act and allow MP expenses to remain secret.
I've had enough of this farce. I decided over the weekend that at the end of this financial year (April 2009), I'll be publishing a detailed breakdown of all the things I've claimed for as an MP over the year. Want to see what I spend on travel or rent? I'm going to put it on-line for all to see.
My colleague, Ben Wallace MP, had the courage to show the way, and I now intend to follow his lead.
This nonsense once again underlines that there is something profoundly wrong with the way Westminster is run. Speaker Michael Martin is not up to the job, and his good old boy gatherings Speaker Committee system simply isn't delivering credible or effective leadership. They might hate me for saying so, but they don't live in Clacton.
Mr Martin ought to unilaterally declare that Commons officials will place a breakdown of each MPs expenses on-line at the end of every financial year - and tell MPs who complained that if you spend public money, you must be accountable to the public for how you spend that money.
Incidentally, if some MPs don't have the moral nous to see that, how can they possibly have the moral nous to make judgements over vastly more complex subjects, like Gaza, or education, or today's Policing Bill?
Posted on 19 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
How the internet is changing politics in my constituency
Homer Simpson once asked of the internet "Is that thing still around?". There are those - not least in Westminster - who likewise think that the web is just a passing fad.
The web won't just change politics - it'll transform the relationship between governing and governed, as did the printing press. Guido Fawkes et al are here to stay, and it's through that kind of self-generating media that a lot of the political debate will happen. Politicians whose on-line presence is limited to a glorified CV personal website, won’t be heard.
And it's not only national politics that'll be different.
Yesterday, I took part in a community action day in north Clacton. Organised largely on-line, it drew in dozens of people who gave up their time to hand-out thousands of surveys to local residents.
What was striking is not just the good turnout of motivated volunteers, but the fact that many who helped had never previously had any involvement with formal politics. In a relatively small geographic area, like-minded people who might not otherwise meet, are able to get together and mobilise - not least via this (increasingly locally well-read) site.
Posted on 18 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
A Labour MP speaks a truth about defence
I don't often agree with what Peter Kilfoyle MP says. But on the Today programme this morning he appeared to speak a truth that few politicians seem prepared to acknowledge.
If I heard him right, he said that some of the large defence contractors have an unhealthy influence over how the defence budget gets spent. Well said, that man!
Alongside the extraordinarily brave Lewis Page, Kilfoyle was being interviewed about Trident. While he pointed out that the defence budget gets spent in the interests of the defence suppliers, Page added that too often factions within the MoD squabble over which kit to buy. All the while, no one asks if by buying "off the shelf", we might not actually get the equipment our troops in Helmand and elsewhere need.
After John McDonnell MPs outburst, this is the second time in a week I find myself agreeing with a Labour backbencher. Am I going soft and turning into a leftie Trot? Not at all. It's not me that's changing, but demoralised Labour MPs.
As this rotten Labour administration enters into its John Major stage of decline, its own MPs in Parliament have subtley started to have a change in outlook. Rather than think of themselves as the executive's cheer-leaders, they begin to see themselves first and foremost as members of the legislature.
If only all in Westminster viewed themselves as representatives of their electorate all the time - and not merely as apologists for ministers and quangos.
Posted on 17 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
How dare they? It's time to clean up Westminster
How dare the Westminster establishment seek to exempt themselves from the laws that they have inflicted upon the rest of the country? Daniel Hannan makes the case brilliantly.
1. Over the past decade, they inflict massively high taxation on the country - but then award themselves de facto tax-free salary raises aka expenses.
2. They unilaterally exempt themselves the laws they themselves have passed. For example over all-women short lists and equality legislation.
3. Labour MPs pass the Freedom of Information Act - but now try to exempt themselves from it.
It's time to make the political establishment in Westminster answerable to the rest of the country - and, as Daniel and I propose in our book, The Plan - they can start by living under the same set of rules as everyone else. Apart from being able to say what they want without fear of being sued, or arrested by the police for holding government to account, MPs ought to live pretty much like the rest of us as citizen lawmakers.
If that happens, perhaps our political masters might look more favourably at having lower taxes, less intrusive legislation - and they'd be viewed with a little less contempt.
Posted on 16 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Sergeant at Arms hunts down expelled Labour MP
I sit in the chamber watching a little drama unfold. It illustrates quite how monumentally useless our Parliament has become.
The government announces there will be a third runway at Heathrow. But there's to be no decision by those we elect. It'll be decided by the quangos.
A Labour MP, the chap for Hayes and Harlington, gets angry at the total inability to hold the decision-makers to account. As his anger grows, I see a man who seems to finally understand that he and the chamber in which he sits hold no purpose.
He snaps. He walks down, picks up the Mace and puts it aside. His dignity intact.
The Commons authorities, useless at ensuring the Commons does its job, are quick to expel him.
Unbelievably, as I walk out of the chamber I overhear two doormen talking to two police officers sent to remove the unfortunate MP. I hear one say "He's already left the Parliamentary estate ...". Phew. What a relief.
Ironic, isn't it. The Commons authorities are quick to expel from Parliament someone who represents their constituent’s views. They didn't seem to care who set foot "on the Parliamentary estate" the day Damian Green's office was invaded without a warrant.
As I walk across Parliament Square, I notice how the band of protesters is now much larger than it was when I was first elected. I wonder why ....
UPDATE: The Sergeant at Arms - you know, the one that said "okay" when the police wanted to raid Damian Green's office - was apparently a little zealous trying to track down and remove the MP for Hayes and Harlington. My mole says she was seen in full regalia hunting for him down in the library. Where was that zeal before?
Posted on 15 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Please can I be on your Z list, Mr Draper?
From:
CARSWELL, Douglas
Sent: 15 January 2009 12:22
To: 'mail@derekdraper.net'; 'mail@LabourList.org'
Subject: Please can I be on your Z list?
Dear Mr Draper,
I’ve been really enjoying your new blog, LabourList.org
.
I see that it links to a number of other blogs; the “A listers” (of whom I imagine you approve) and the “Z list” (of whom I imagine you disapprove).
Would you please be kind enough to add a link to my blog www.TalkCarswell.com on your Z list?
Thanks so much.
Douglas
Douglas Carswell MP
Posted on 15 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
275,000 foreigners to be handed British passports - each year
Our government wants to give away a quarter of a million British passports to foreigners every year. That's right - under Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's new Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill, over 5,000 immigrants a week wanting to settle in our country could be fast tracked for citizenship.
Also in the Bill are proposals by the government to tax the newly arrived foreigners British citizens. Having taxed those of us already here to the hilt, they clearly see this as a clever wheeze to raise more money for Gordo.
Have you travelled to America on a British passport recently? Much more difficult now, isn't it? That's because US authorities now have to assume that British passport holders could be anyone. Indeed. They could.
For the past decade, our government has adopted "polices" on immigration primarily aimed at managing domestic British opinion - rather than reducing the net inflow of people into our country. As with their bogus system of "managed migration" for "skilled workers", giving out British passports merely seeks to legitimise an existing pattern of mass inward migration. It does nothing whatever to reduce it.
The British state is simply too incompetent to control who settles here - so they give out passports and tax them instead. And
arrest opposition politicians for exposing the Home Office's lies and deceit.
Posted on 15 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Peter Riddell doesn't get it
I once tried discussing the internet’s impact on Westminster with an old-school journalist. I think they thought the word "server" referred to the person handing out the canapés at one of Mr Speaker’s receptions.
According to Peter Riddell in the Times today, those pesky Tory "bloggers feed a frenetic mood that militates against long-term thinking".
Errr. I plead not guilty, M'Lud. In fact, this blog has been trying to promote quite a long term plan for some time (see the book cover title opposite – the clue is in the words "The" and "Plan"). It includes a draft legislative programme for the first term of a Cameron government - and it's proposal for a Great Repeal Bill was actually written by bloggers collaborating in perhaps the first ever wiki-politics initiative of this kind.
There’s plenty of short termism in Westminster, but I’d say its despite, not because of the blogs.
Want ideas on improving the NHS, reforming defence procurement, transforming schools or reviving democracy? You’ll find plenty of new ideas on ConservativeHome and the like.
Posted on 14 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The Plan in Standpoint magazine
Alasdair Palmer, one of Britain's top journalists, writes a very nice review of The Plan in Standpoint magazine here.
According to Alasdair, it’s a pretty good guide for David Cameron to follow to put our country back on her feet.
You know what? I agree
.
Posted on 14 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
PMQs live
12.05 First question is a government Whips office plant. Homer Simpson, Doh!
12.07 Brown claims the recession was made in America. Do you think he'll lecture Obama about that when he's over?
12.10. Cameron highlights inadequacy of the VAT cut. Gordo claims that a fiver a week extra per household will see us through the downturn.
12. 13. Gordo then echos what LabourList was saying yesterday. Do you suppose Mandy, ever the puppet master, now runs both? Nice to see "the message" being so tightly controlled.
Keith Vaz asks a question about the conflict in Sri Lanka. For a moment, I expect him to start blaming Israel for it. A small country the size of Wales seems to get blamed for most of the world's ill at the moment.
12. 22. John Randall asks if we get a democratic vote over Heathrow's third runway. No. Of course not. Unelected quangos decide.
12.30 Brown approves Obama's plans to restore the US economy. He'll be so pleased.
Posted on 14 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
How not to do it - LabourList.org
If you are interested in what sort of impact the internet might have on politics you really must have a look at LabourList.org. If it continues the way it's begun, it's going to be a wonderful example of how a website can have absolutely zero effect.
I predict LabourList.org will be to politics what the Sinclair C5 was to transport.
Intended to "bring Labour minded people together" in the way that ConservativeHome has mobilised Tory grassroots, LabourList.org has one basic, yet fatal, flaw; it's an echo-chamber for the Labour establishment, not a self-generating movement of centre-left activists and thinkers.
See for yourself; as of writing, LabourList leads with an Announcement from Our Dear Leader exposing Why the Tories Are Wrong.
Commentary includes incisive phrases like "Gordon is right" or "The Tory approach fails to understand". And then the commentator line up reads as might a Downing Street guest list - minus the Blairite celebrities.
ConHome works, not because the Tories are in opposition, but because it's the authentic voice of a wider movement. LabourList - with its talk of "war rooms" - is the voice of SW1, a collection of Mandelsonian press releases.
My hunch is that centre left blogs will never work as well as those of the centre right. Why? The blogosphere epitomises what Hayek called “evolutionary rationalism”. That's a fancy way of saying that out of all that sparky debate emerges something that is self-designing - and the antithesis of the centre left's dirigiste world view.
Posted on 14 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Desmond's currency conversion
Last summer, Desmond Swayne MP, went as a volunteer to Rwanda to do lots of Good Things.
On his return to the UK, he tells me, he happened to bring with him a batch of 160,000 Rwandese Francs (that's about £200). He expected to be able to change them back into Pounds without much trouble.
Alas, it turned out there are were not that many takers for Rwandan Francs down at Thomas Cook.
But with Sterling dropping faster than Gordon Brown's jaw, for how much longer? My guess is that Desmond's Rwandan Francs could start to look like hard currency. Indeed, rumour reaches me that the Treasury might ask if they could exchange Desmond's batch of Kigali banknotes for a bond or two....
So fast has our own currency fallen, having hung onto his Rwandan Francs, Desmond's net Rwanda worth is up 20%.
Posted on 13 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
When will we see more leftwing blogs? We won't
”Why aren’t bloggers more leftwing?” ask the commentariat. “When will we see more Labour-minded people communicating on the web?”
We won’t.
Or to be more accurate, those leftie Guardianistas are already on-line. There just aren’t that many of them.
Leftie views are not under-represented in the blogosphere. It only seems that way because they’ve got so used to their over-representation in the broadcast media in the past.
The BBC is a big, state-funded corporate media organisation. It's outlook, therefore, tends to be pretty favourable to big government and corporatism (see Robert Peston). Without having to compete for market share or customer revenue, the BBC views have been shaped instead by the prejudices of the public sector apparat.
Newspapers, on the other hand, are in fierce competition with each other for your custom. This means that their views fairly accurately reflect the views of the population (Guardian circulation 360,000, Telegraph 880,000, The Sun 3.2 million).
Blogs, of course, don't simply mirror people's views - their readers often help write them directly.
Just as the BBC is corporatist in name as well as outlook, the individualistic, free market blogosphere reflects a far more laisser-faire view of the world.
As it does with all that it touches, the internet removes barriers to entry and strips away unmerited advantage. In the world of on-line comment, Guardianista views are just the niche view that they’ve always really been.
Of course, there will always be space for Guardianista’s on-line - that’s the beauty of the internet’s “long tail” of endless choice. It’s just that the internet will bring together – or “aggregate” in techie-speak - many more people without a Guardianista world view than it will with.
UPDATE: One or two email me about my figures. The newspaper circulation data is from Wikipedia. The Guido and the Guardian data I had may indeed have been a little out. Thanks (Swarm intelligence, I think they call it).
Posted on 12 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Dad's Nose. Mum's Eyes. Gordon Brown's Debt
Posted on 12 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Wikio ranking
According to Wikio, this blog is now the 92nd highest profile blog in the country - and 59th biggest politics blog. Not bad for a blog from Clacton that’s only been going a few months.
Wikio's methodology is based on a web "footprint" and it's a little different from the Google Analytics measure of total unique readership.
However, with up to 5,000 unique individual readers a day, I'd be interested to know how this blog fared if it was based on readership, rather than footprint. My guess is that a graph of different blog readership would show a classic "long tail" distribution graph; Guido, Hannan and ConHome et al, followed by an endless tail of also rans.
My aim is to get out of the tail – and I think I’m half way there. The easier half....
Posted on 12 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Blackberry Storm - magic or squib?
I've had a Blackberry Storm for a couple of weeks now. When it works, it’s amazing. Some of the applications are extraordinary - like magic. But that's when it works ....
It has teething problems – to put it mildly. The diary won't sync. The SIM card goes wonky. And it seems to have teething problems for much of the time. If it persists much longer, I'm afraid it'll be "Bye Bye Blackberry".
Posted on 12 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Speaking at Trafalgar square rally
I was asked to address today's peace rally in Trafalgar square. As my name was announced to the crowd, I clambered up the stairs - and looked up.
Then it struck me....
A sea of flags and thousands of faces – all looking at me. The whole of Trafalgar square a vast, cheering crowd in front of me - all waiting to hear what I was going to say.
I kept it short and to the point. Judging by the cheers, they seemed to like it.
Sharing a platform with our Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, is a real privilege.
Posted on 11 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Peace on the streets of London
Today's rally calling for peace in Gaza ends in violent scuffles in central London. Ummm….
Just what sort of “peace” is it that these demonstrators envisage in the Middle East, exactly?
UPDATE: Note how our state-run broadcaster is keen to play down the trouble. BBC correspondent Robert Hall said given the number of people involved, the "protest had been peaceful".
He would say that, wouldn't he? He works for the BBC.
For a more truthful version of the serious violence inflicted on London today, look at these shocking photos from the Daily Mail.
Posted on 10 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Why I support Israel
On Sunday morning, I'm attending a rally in Trafalgar square to show my support for Israel.
Why? Because she's a liberal democracy.
Not all Israel does is good. Neither are all her tactics wise. Nor do I doubt that the Palestinian people must have a state of their own.
But Israel is under attack from people who want to establish a Taliban-type government – and so I support her.
An early childhood memory makes me support Israel, too; I think back to a very different Sunday morning some 32 years ago. It's Kampala, Uganda in 1976 and I’m five.
There are lots of happy, cheery adults. Some are black, some are white. Some I know, others are strangers. They all laugh together and smile and clap each other on the back.
Something very good has happened. Somebody called “the Israelis” came to Entebbe last night. They surprised everyone, especially Idi Amin. They’ve hit him and his soldiers hard.
Yet those strangers greeted one another in celebration prematurely. Little did they know it wasn’t the end for Amin, and there’d be three more terrible years.
As a five year old, I could see that these Israelis had acted decisively for what was good.
Now aged 37, I wonder why all those others who should know better - the UN, Europeans, the international diplomats and the "international community" – failed to act with the same certainty against tyranny.
Indeed, I can't help notice something else. Those very same international organisations that tolerated Amin. That humoured him and excused him, and who left those people in Kampala at his mercy 32 years ago. They are precisely the same people who today vilify Israel for defending herself.
Posted on 9 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Look at how the EU behaves
If you still need convincing that the people who run the EU are deceitful, untrustworthy and hostile to freedom, read Daniel Hannan on The First Post.
German journalist, Hans-Martin Tillack, was detained by the EU after investigating Brussels fraud. The case for quitting only gets stronger ….
PS.
Read this delightful story
(hat tip: Daniel Hannan) about the way the Eurocrats tried to stamp out - literally - a message in the snow.
Posted on 9 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Proof that politics isn't delivering
Today it emerges that one in six hospital trusts still uses mixed sex wards. I've lost count of the number of times constituents - especially older folk - have complained to me about the indignity that this brings.
Yet over a decade ago, Labour’s election manifesto promised: “We will work towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards”. In 2001, they repeated the pledge: “Mixed sex wards will be abolished”.
In other words, the people we elect have been unable to deliver on a promise in over a decade. Why?
Is it purely ministerial incompetence? Alternatively, might it be that ministers - notionally in charge - are really just the mouthpieces for the officials and technocrats who really run the show?
In January 2008, health minister, Lord Darzi announced that the policy was “an aspiration that cannot be met”.
I suspect that Darzi was echoing the view of the unaccountable officials and quangos that really decide these things.
It doesn't suit that alphabet soup of officialdom - PCTs, NICE, NBA, HFEA et al - to have separate wards for men and women. So we don't get them. Despite three general elections, the fiction of accountability to Parliament and a decade of promises.
Posted on 9 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Lowest ever interest rates
Remind me. To what problem are interest rates of 1.5% the answer?
Will they encourage savings? Will banks find they have more credit to lend out with rates now below inflation? Will 1.5% interest rates help restore the country's debt-riddled balance sheet?
I didn't think so.
Posted on 8 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Crime in Clacton and Harwich
I've been using the new crime mapping website in my constituency. Have a look HERE.
First, a note of caution; not all crimes can be weighted equally. Second, the data isn't technically a record of all crimes committed, but of ones dealt with by the police. Also, some wards have very low crime rates, meaning that apparently dramatic increases or decreases, aren't always what they seem.
That said, the following facts stand out:
- Crime in east Clacton and Holland-on-Sea is up by 22% compared to this time last year, but in west Clacton it's down by 2.7%.
- In Jaywick it's increased almost one third, and Frinton's crime rate is up by 20%.
What I find disturbing isn't simply the increase, but the extraordinary variation within a relatively small geographical area.
- In Harwich and Dovercourt there were 58 crimes each month last year and in Frinton 23 - yet in west Clacton there were 193.
- Violence and anti-social behaviour seem to account for the lion's share of local crime in our area.
I hope that crime mapping helps local people hold police chiefs to account. But I also hope it leads to a grown-up debate about crime and police priorities.
For example, these figures show just how much local crime is violence and anti-social behaviour - much of it, I suspect, alcohol related. Maybe crime mapping will encourage us to have a local debate about the impact of alcohol on crime - and look at its availability.
We can't expect the police to deliver lower crime rates without also looking at the impact of alcohol. If crime mapping means we start to have this debate, then it'll be a step forward.
PS. A former police officer gave me an Essex Police tie for Christmas - which I shall be wearing with pride in 2009!
Posted on 8 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Brown's economic mess
Our economy is in a mess because of debts run up under Gordon Brown. From public, private and corporate debt, our economic woes arise.
And there are basically two ways out of a debt problem; a) higher interest rates or b) higher inflation.
News that the government is to use quantative easing print more money suggests that eventually, our bumbling public policy-makers seem to be to be groping their way towards b) higher inflation. I don't like to say "I told you so ...", but ....
Printing more money doesn't, of course, make us richer. It does, however, reduce the relative value of people's debts and savings, and the value of certain assets relative to cash.
Are we sure that option b) is preferable to a)? I'm not.
Posted on 8 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Police Authorities Association despises you
The Association of Police Authorities is determined that on no account should you or your neighbours be allowed a direct say over how your community is policed.
As the Telegraph reports today, they've spent £ thousands of your tax money hiring Westminster lobbyists to kill off proposals to make local police more locally democratically accountable - which had been expected in the pending Crime and Policing Bill.
An APA spokesman said "Quite rightly, police authorities across England and Wales united on behalf of our local communities against plans to introduce direct elections".
Read it slowly to catch the jaw-dropping arrogance. In other words, we acted on behalf of local people to stop local people having any say.
Mr APA's concern to protect us from ourselves continues; "[direct election] could have resulted in single issue .... groups gaining control over local policing".
You mean a single issue like "crime reduction"? Surely, this is also an argument against having elected councillors?
The Association of Police Authorities - whose comically ironic slogan is "Giving People a Say in Policing" - seem to despise the people they are supposed to serve. Their high-handed contempt for local decision-making reinforces the need to abolish Police Authorities and replace them with directly elected Justice Commissioners or Sheriffs.
Working for the Conservative Party policy unit in the run up to the last election, I looked at various options for reform. As a backbencher, I used the Parliamentary recess to put together an actual draft Bill - with the help of Commons clerks - that would implement the change.
Posted on 8 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Judges are going to be a problem
Human Rights legislation has empowered judges to make political decisions. Matters that ought to be decided by those answerable to the rest of us through the ballot box are increasingly determined by the judiciary.
Government by unaccountable judges adjudicating on the basis of abstract texts is what you'd expect to find in Tehran. Yet - different texts, different outlook - it's how lots of public policy questions now get answered in the UK, too.
For those on the centre right, this is going to become increasingly difficult to ignore. Our unaccountable judiciary seems to have a particular leftist tilt - and serious tension between the judiciary and a future Conservative government is not impossible to imagine.
Note how senior judges have undermined measures introduced by successive Home Secretaries aimed at controlling large scale immigration and asylum into Britain. Ever noticed a judge order the executive to uphold the law the other way, and remove an illegal migrant? Me neither.
Today, the Lord Chief Justice complains that some lawyers don't fancy becoming judges because it's all about the wrong image.
Apparently.
The question is not do certain lawyers fancy being judges, but how might the rest of us start to scrutinise who it is that we are making judges?
Methinks, Lord Judge, would be wiser proposing a form of public confirmation hearing for judicial appointments. If he doesn't, I will.
Posted on 7 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Where are the radical Tory ideas? - asks Simon Heffer ....
.... in today's Telegraph.
Here, Mr Heffer. The Plan
sets out a bold and radical agenda for the first twelve months of a future government.
It guarantees to clean-up Westminster, make government smaller, less wasteful and more accountable to you - and cost you less.
Posted on 7 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Crime mapping: information without power
Over on ConHome, I've a blog about the Home Office's new crime mapping initiative.
It means that you're allowed to know how much crime there is where you live (good). But you're not allowed to do anything about it (bad).
Crime mapping is effective in the US because local people in over there also have a mechanism to hold police bosses to account. Yet our government has recently dropped the idea of directly elected police chiefs from the Policing and Criminal Justice Bill, having buckled to lobbying by powerful vested interests.
You might now be able to know how much crime there is where you live. But the same "experts" who've presided over its increase are still going to be left in charge.
Posted on 7 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
BBC tries to ignore Freedom of Information requests
Following Robert Peston's biased reporting, I've put a number of FOI requests to Craig Oliver, Peston's boss and the man responsible for the 10 O'Clock news.
Oliver's initial response this morning is a high-handed brush off. He suggests I go through the BBC complaints unit, and completely ignores the specific FOI requests. BBC attempts not to answer FOI requests are a little hypocritical given the number they submit themselves.
No, Mr Oliver. The BBC has a legal duty to conform to FOI requests. Just answer the questions I put to you in my letter. It'll be easier for you in the end ....
I'll keep you posted.
UPDATE: Within two hours of posting this blog, Mr Oliver contacts me with an apology for overlooking the FOI requests. They will be answered. Another example of how the web acts as a great equaliser, allowing individuals to take on vast concentrations of corporate power at the BBC and elsewhere. I hope ...
Posted on 6 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
A Clash of Civilisations: was Samuel Huntington right?
Samuel Huntington, who died just before Christmas, challenged some of our intelligentsia's key, post-1960s assumptions. He seemed to suggest that
cultural identity is massively important - and that Western-style economic and political liberty are not universal. Not entirely a cultural relativist, much that Huntington says undermines the intellectual rationale of "multi-culturalism". As a one time follower of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis, what Huntington had to say changed my mind.
Mark Steyn writes a thought-provocative piece about it, that you should read.
We like to think cozy thoughts. But perhaps the truth is rarely quite so soft and mushy and comforting ...
Posted on 6 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Tax cutters must win the argument - and fast
Barack Obama unveils plans for some of the largest ever tax cuts in the recent history of the United States. That's right. "The Senator with the most leftwing voting record" - so we were told - is planning to cut taxes before he's even in the Oval Office.
It's time for British politicians to recognise that we, too, need to cut taxes. Rather than a pathetic gimmick on VAT, how about getting rid of some of the morally wrong and economically indefensible taxes on savings?
Posted on 5 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Meet the quango that uses your money to stop you having any say ...
That's right. The Association of Police Authorities use your money to lobby government to try to stop you having a direct say over how your community is policed.
Even the government's own officials recognise that the public is losing faith in the criminal justice system. With local police officers forced to answer to remote target-setters, the public's own priorities are too often ignored. The answer is to give local people a greater say over how their communities are policed.
Yet the quangocrats who benefit from the current undemocratic system don't want real
accountability. It's no surprise - turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
But it is outrageous that they should be able to use public money to pay lobbyists to short circuit our democracy like this. All three political parties are now committed to making police more democratically accountable. Yet here we have a quango, founded in 1997 and in receipt of large sums of public money, lobbying to stop you deciding police priorities where you live.
Here's my email to the APA asking for details. I'll keep you posted:
From:
CARSWELL, Douglas
Sent:
05 January 2009 13:49
To:
'fionnuala.gill@lga.gov.uk'
Cc:
'ian.barnes@lga.gov.uk'; 'bob.jones@lga.gov.uk'; 'm.bryant@connectpa.co.uk'
Subject:
Lobbying against localism
Dear Ms Gill,
I am writing to you with a request for some information. I should be most grateful if you would provide me with the answers.
Please could you let me know how much public money the Association of Police Authorities, and any of your member Authorities, is paying to lobby with regard to the Policing and Criminal Justice Bill specifically, and with regard to reform of Police Authority structures more generally.
In a phone conversation this morning with a lobbyist at Connect Public Affairs, it was confirmed to me that the Association of Police Authorities is paying money to retain the services of Connect. Can you please let me know how much public money you are giving Connect in relation to this lobbying?
Please can you also provide me with a copy of the brief, and other related paperwork, submitted to Connect Public Affairs in relation to this contract?
I would also be grateful if you would let me know how much money the APA receives from various sources each year?
Finally, I note that the APA uses the slogan "Giving People a Say in Policing" on your website. Can you please explain how that is compatible with using public money to lobby against the democratisation of Police Authority structures?
I look forward to your reply.
Warm regards,
Douglas Carswell MP
Posted on 5 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
BBC Revolt: Bravo Michael!
My esteemed colleague, Michael Fabricant MP, writes of how he has lost faith in the BBC World Service to "present news in an unbiased manner". Michael has written a formal complaint about their coverage of events in Gaza/Israel to the BBC Trust board. Bravo, Michael!
However, I fear Michael is expecting too much from the smug, self-regarding BBC quangocrats. The BBC Trust couldn't care less what MPs think.
MPs are not even able to table Parliamentary questions about the BBC and the license fee
- and the BBC knows it.
The World Service - which Michael objects to most - is even less accountable, being funded separately from the license fee and run at the behest of the Foreign Office. It's only natural that the World Service reflects the world-view of those urbane Guardianista’s at the Foreign Office.
No. Much more likely to be effective is the Charles Moore solution - non-payment of the license fee. I'm not advocating non-payment, which would be illegal. I'm merely noting that a sustained, mass campaign on non-payment is more likely to be effective than the occasional cross letter.
NB. For the record, it would be wrong to refuse to pay the BBC license fee or to break the law. Charles Moore's campaign not to pay the BBC license fee is just as wrong as John Hampden's refusal to pay Ship Money, or Benjamin Franklin's position on tea tax, or Mahatma Gandhi's objections to salt tax. And where did that get us, eh?
Posted on 5 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The new scramble for Africa?
An interesting article here in the Independent.
Western Europe once exported people in large numbers. It seems China has started to export her people in large numbers to settle parts of Africa.
Do you suppose that the Western intelligentsia, once vicious in their condemnation of wicked Western colonialism in Africa, yet fulsome in their praise for the likes of Robert “Bob” Mugabe or Jomo Kenyatta, will be critical of these new settlers?
Posted on 4 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
To what problem are lower interest rates the answer?
"Lower interest rates!" urge the experts. Again.
As if 2% wasn't low enough, the "independent" Bank of England is being urged to reduce them further. Why?
Edmund Conway in the Telegraph says its "essential if the UK is to stand any chance of avoiding slipping into a Japanese-style depression". Ummm. Not sure I quite follow his logic.
Look at the graph opposite (thank you Norges Bank). Seems Japan had plenty low interest rates (top line) and massive government borrowing (bottom graph) - and still a mega slump. Sound familiar?
Lowering interest rates can be helpful if your economy's a little cyclically sluggish. If your economy is slowing down because the engine could do with a little more juice to climb the hill, then touching the accelerator pedal with an interest rate dip can help you through those occasional, run-of-the-mill bumpy bits. It'll get more shoppers shopping and businesses doing business.
But if your economy is slowing down because the motor has been seized-up by debt, the accelerator pedal isn't the answer - no matter how hard you push it to the floor.
Today's falling aggregate demand and consumption are symptoms of a much deeper problem; debt. Yet the government behaves as if low demand was the primary problem. It ain't. The lack of confidence out there is a rational response to economic reality - it's not the cause of the problem.
I don't see how cutting interest rates is a cure. Indeed, if the malaise has been caused by too much debt-fuelled consumption, then encouraging cheaper debt and more consumption is not very clever.
As some commentators have started to notice, there's a bit of a "savings strike" at the moment. Indeed, one might say a decade long "savings strike" explains the lack of credit today. With interest rates yet lower, people certainly aren't being encouraged to save now. Without one person's savings, where is their neighbour’s credit?
Rather than join the sheep-like throng bleating for lower rates, I wonder what would happen if it was left to banks to determine the cost of borrowing and tax on savings was scrapped. Banks could find a cost of borrowing that would attract investors, build up savings, and ease the shortage of credit.
Perhaps this will be the recession which teaches us that the state can no longer fix the price of borrowing, any more than the state now fixes the cost of grain or labour or phone calls?
Posted on 4 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Home Office worse than useless
The government has under-estimated the number of illegal immigrants in our country by many tens of thousands. No surprise there then.
The British state is no longer run by people with the ability or the desire to do things like control our borders. Indeed, they are so incompetent, they can't even accurately measure the scale of their failure. Instead of taking action, ministers efforts go into trying to appear effective, while senior civil servants put their energy into evading accountability.
It's no thanks to either that we know the truth about illegal workers. No. It's thanks to the heroic work of my colleague, James Clappison MP.
Until those organs of the state - like the Home Office - are made more directly democratically accountable to the rest of us, their failure and incompetence will continue.
Never forget, the head of the Home Office - Sir David Normington - initiated a process that resulted in an elected MP - Damian Green - being arrested for exposing the truth about the failure of his department. We cannot control immigration until the Home Office is under control. And that doesn't just mean a new Permanent Secretary.
We need to democratise the way we appoint officials in charge of immigration.
Posted on 3 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Bravo Liam
In an excellent article for the Telegraph, Liam Fox writes that we did not join the EU for defence purposes. Indeed.
Can anyone remind me why it was that we did join?
Posted on 2 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Britain is open to extremists
Remember how all right thinking people demanded the closure of Guantanamo? Apparently George Bush and co were doing unspeakable things to lots of perfectly innocent jihadis.
Legions of BBC-types had us believe that being made to wear all that orange was a grotesque violation of their human rights. How unsophisticated of those Americans to assume the worst simply because a fellow happens to have been holidaying in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Well, now the Americans are going to do as our human rights brigade have demanded. Guantanamo is to shut.
And guess where the inmates are going to live? Yep. Some are coming to Britain. Maybe even the town where you live.
"Helping shut Guantanamo" means decanting her jihadis directly to Europe. Unless something dramatic happens regarding our border controls, I guess that means the lion's share could be living in London within a few years.
Remember those hardened "militants" from the Bethlehem "siege" a few years back? Recall how amid the glare of TV cameras they were offered sanctuary in Spain? What's the bet they still live there? Indeed. Same thing when you allow your Guantanamo extremist settlement in Sweden or Germany.
Long after the last British soldier has left Helmand and the desert has reclaimed where Camp Bastion stood, the consequences of importing Guantanamo jihadis into western Europe will be with us.
The first duty of the British state is to protect her people and her borders. Allowing Guantanamo's inmates to be imported to Britain illustrates how the British state is no longer run by people with the judgment, moral sense or character to fulfill their primary obligation.
Posted on 1 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The BBC can't be trusted
Our government broadcaster, the BBC, claims that 71% of us "still don't want the Euro". I'm not sure I like their use of the term still.
With people like Robert Peston free to mix personal opinion with current events, and call it "the news", I don't trust the Corporation one inch. Or as our government broadcaster might insist, one centimetre.
Posted on 1 January 2009 by Douglas Carswell