Frinton music
Was invited to open the Frinton Music Festival today. Glorious sunshine and some great bands.
Called It's not cricket, the festival actually takes place at the cricket grounds - with a match being played at the same time. Interesting.
While waiting to go on the stage, I discovered a great track - David Byrne and Brian Eno's Strange Overtones - being played on the music system by the guys setting everything up.
It doesn't seem to be on Spotify, so I can't link you to it. But I will itune it this afternoon.
Posted on 30 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Thought for the day
What do our national currency, membership of the House of Lords and exam grades each have in common?
The government is responsible for the supply of all three - and has (inevitably) devalued the worth of each. A generation ago a peerage, £ or pass grade were each worth more than they are today.
Discuss.
Posted on 30 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
What do you think of Michael Martin being elevated to the House of Lords?
... someone asks me. Yawn, to be frank.
If pushed, I suppose it'd be wrong and small-minded to not give him a peerage.
But part of me also questions the point of having "Lords"? Isn't this just one more reason for abolition?
I've this old-fashioned idea that those who make our laws ought to be elected by those expected to live under them. But if we were to abide by that principle, we'd not merely scrap the unelected Lords.
We'd not have the EU make 80% of our laws, nor use statutory instruments to govern by executive decree.
Nor would we have a situation where 7 out of 10 Commons members came from "safe seats".
Perhaps it is this last point that helps explain how we ended up with the previous one.
I wonder what my all-time favourite East Anglian MP, pictured, would make of it all?
Posted on 29 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Welfare reform? Devolve control to local councils
Remember how Frank Field was asked to "think the unthinkable" on welfare reform. And then sacked for doing so?
One of the key obstacles to change was the Treasury. Run by one G. Brown.
As a consequence, a decade on and lots of folk who need help have difficulty getting it - and many who ought to be working, aren't.
It's sometimes said that welfare reform isn't something we can afford to do in an economic downturn. I'd say we cannot afford not to do it.
Here's a radical blueprint for change - give control over welfare to local councils. Devolve responsibility for running welfare to county and metropolitan authorities. You'd soon see innovation in helping people back to work.
Don't try to emulate Wisconsin welfare by cutting and pasting any one particular approach, however appealing. Instead, let's not have one particular approach.
Posted on 27 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Essex hedgerows
Up at the crack of dawn this morning.
Picked 2lbs of blackberries. Heaven.
Posted on 27 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
What's news? Items in the newspapers that really matter
When reading the newspapers, I often ask myself what items are really significant?
Many politics items look like hot topics - but only for a day or so. A story in today's Telegraph about a gold fish surviving 7 hours on the floor is perhaps of little long term importance outside one particular goldfish bowl.
Then one small little item caught my eye; a 3-D printer that can "print" actual objects, building them out of plastic and metal. It will one day be available for every home, allowing you to buy physical objects the way you can now buy music.
Imagine; the digital revolution extending not merely to iTunes or Amazon and print-on-demand, but to more or less anything smallish and made of plastic and metal.
That is something I think we're going to hear a lot more about in years to come - and it'll have big consequences on all our day-to-day lives.
Posted on 26 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
What are the consequences of mass immigration?
I'm concerned that too many politicians in the Westminster village don't want to discuss mass immigration - let alone do anything about it.
It seems to be one subject that many of the political and media elite simply will not face up to.
But, according to Christopher Caldwell's book "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe", we cannot keep ignoring demography. Caldwell - a "mild-mannered Financial Times journalist" - shows how continued mass immigration is likely to have a profound impact on Europe - not merely demographic, but social, cultural and economic. It is reviewed in the Catholic Herald by Ed West here.
I shall add it to my reading list. I fear many politicians will only start to address the issues raised in the book if they know that you have added it to your reading list too.
It's on Amazon here.
Posted on 25 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Who decides our policy on Libya?
Much has been said about the role of British and Scottish government ministers in the decision to release the Lockerbie terrorist. But what about the role of our Foreign Office?
It now seems certain that our diplomats have been manoeuvring towards some sort of deal over al Megrahi for months – if not years. Indeed, Britain had made a prisoner exchange agreement with Tripoli at least as early as June 2007 – proof that al Megrahi’s release was on the cards in King Charles Street.
In the intervening 26 months, there have been two different Prime Ministers and half a dozen different MPs rotated in and out of the Foreign Office, playing the role of minister. But it is the officials and Sir Humphrey who've remained constant.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia, we know the Foreign Office has been consistently keen to see certain UK companies secure contacts. So much so, in fact, our diplomats are no longer able to distinguish between the commercial interests of certain British companies and our wider national interests.
Could it be that something similar is dictating policy towards Libya? Could it be that the Foreign Office now regards the commercial stake certain UK companies have in Libya as paramount? So much so, that they’re willing to shepherd successive ministers towards a prisoner exchange / oil investment deal?
Of course there’s always a tension between doing what is morally right and realpolitik in our relations with foreigners. But surely it’s wrong that those who decide where the balance lies do so without accountability to the rest of us? This case proves how little democratic scrutiny there is over those who make our foreign policy.
It’s not merely Gordon Brown and Ivan Lewis that need to be thrown out of office - but those officials in King Charles Street behind this extraordinarily foolish and deeply harmful neo-mercantilism.
Posted on 24 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Gray Report; defence procurement is a scam
Back in 2007, I suggested that defence procurement was run as a protectionist racket.
By restricting the range of suppliers able to compete for business, the seller sets the terms of trade. As a consequence, I argued, the cost of equipment went up, the timeline for delivery went back and the excuses for failure went on. Instead, we ought to purchase kit "off-the-shelf".
Lots of defence journalists guffawed. There was no shortage of lobbyists in the pay of the contractors muttering how ignorant I was.
Oh yes?
Today the leaked Gray report reveals that the MoD's equipment programme was £35 billion over budget, five years behind schedule, and could not be afforded in the long-term.
Why has it taken people in Whitehall and Westminster so long to see this?
And when do those same folk realise that it's time to scrap protectionist procurement?
Posted on 23 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Plum jam
The five month old has been helping me make plum jam.
On a glorious English summer day, there's nothing I'd rather be doing.
Posted on 23 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Is Britain a reliable ally?
Successive post-War British governments recognised that the interests of the United Kingdom and the United States tended to be pretty similar. Not identical. But rarely miles apart.
With a common heritage, and similar economic interests in free trade, it has generally suited us both to try to do things together. In the two decades since the Berlin Wall came down, it's my view that the case for Anglo-American cooperation has grown stronger.
I can see why it suits us to work with the US. But I'm starting to have serious concerns that few in Washington are likely to see what's in it for the US;
The fight against global terror? Britain has just released someone convicted of murdering 270 ordinary folk - one of the biggest pre-September 11th outrages.
Ally in Europe? The UK's foreign policy establishment are signed up Euro-weenies (or at least they've signed the rest of us up). And anti-Americanism is a defining feature of that club.
Military ally? We've so under-invested in our armed forces they're stretched in Afghanistan to the point that the US has had to wade in.
Economic ally? Post-credit crunch, the UK has lost the dynamism it rediscovered a generation ago. Besides, with Brussels in charge, who in Britain is worth negotiating with over trade policy?
Diplomatic friend? I'm not sure many people in government have any real vision of Britain's role in the world. The certainties of the Cold War world have been replaced by vague, mushy irresolution.
Rebuilding trans Atlantic relations must be a priority for any new government. And that must start by ensuring we are once again the sort of country with which one would want to have special relations.
Posted on 22 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
George Walden on education
Thought-provoking article by George Walden on education in today's Telegraph (not on-line for some strange reason).
He seems to be suggesting that politicians let go, and cease trying to micromanage education - he writes of "... modern forms of selection ... opening-up of independent day schools to all the talents, the restoration of something like polytechnics ... the privatisation of the top universities".
All interesting stuff, but why didn't he do any of that when he was a minister and in a position to make things happen? Perhaps he tried to, but discovered that ministers rarely can make things happen? Maybe Walden, like many an MP temporarily transplanted into an office along Whitehall, simply ended up justifying the departmental position he inherited?
Whatever it was, so long as the brightest and the best in Westminster (of which Walden was clearly one) are attracted to being primarily part of the executive (politicians doing things) rather than defining themselves principally as part of the legislature (restraining politicians from doing things), politicians will always end up trying to do too much. And not merely in education.
Posted on 22 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Bronze blog
According to Total Politics, this is the number three blog by an MP - with Tom Harris and John Redwood in the top two slots.
The survey by Total Politics is based on readers nominating their top blogs - rather than any actual assessment of absolute unique users. But it's interesting nonetheless.
Posted on 22 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Will the next Defence Review overhaul procurement?
Steve Chisnall in the FT writes that "delivering adequate military capabilities means reforming procurement".
Indeed.
We urgently need to scrap protectionist procurement and curtail the power of defence contractors. Nothing else will ensure our armed forces get the kit they need, when they need it - and at a price we can afford.
Posted on 21 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Mr Bolt - fastest man on the planet
I think it's wonderful that the fastest man on earth should be called Mr Bolt.
Posted on 21 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Is supranationalism hostile to democracy?
Jonathan Delaney has a very thoughtful essay on this subject here. Just what you need to browse while watching the Ashes.
Posted on 21 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
How not to restore trust in politics
Somebody called CPP Seminars contacts me to invite me to come along and listen to a seminar on how to rebuild trust in the democratic process. How do we restore trust in politics, they ask?
Then I look at the line up of speakers; Harriet Harman, central government quangocrat, centre-left think tanker, local government quangocrat, prominent leftie, quangocrat….
Ummm. Renew trust in politics you say?
Posted on 20 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Lockerbie decision is deeply shameful
A man arranges the murder to 270 innocent people. They die in terrifying circumstances over the village of Lockerbie and on the ground. One of their murderers is then convicted in a fair trial.
But the sort of people who now run the criminal justice system in Scotland set him free.
The excuse is "compassion". Where was the compassion for those 270 ordinary folk - people like you and me - slaughtered on PanAm flight 103?
This is a deeply, deeply shameful decision.
Perhaps the United States government should consider black listing those associated with this appeasement of terror? No entry. No visas.
Posted on 20 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Why the most exciting new ideas come from the Right?
Listening to BBC commentators, you'd be forgiven for thinking that all this talk of "progressive Conservatism" was shorthand for Tories who accept the Guardianista world view.
Surprisingly, Ben Brogan in today's' Telegraph similarly assumes that progressive Conservatism is some sort of a leftward shift - against which the Tory right must be silently fuming.
New progressive Conservatism is anything but a leftward lurch. Neither re-heated Thatcherism, nor its repudiation, it is rather an entirely new post-Thatcher script.
If Thatcherism was about decentralising control over economic things (deregulation, privatisation, supply-side reform), the new post-Thatcher script is about decentralising control over politics and public service.
Progressive Conservative ideas means Totnes-type primaries, so everyone gets to decide their next MP. It has seen Cameron sign up to the idea of popular initiative - so MPs address the things that matter to voters, not politicians. It means changing the way Parliament works, so that our elected representatives hold government properly to account. It means directly elected police chiefs, and radical localism, and consumerism in public services.
What is so striking is that every single one of these ideas has come from the right - see The Plan or Direct Democracy or the Localist Papers. Leftie think tanks like Demos are playing catch up - their hesitation perhaps arising from a growing realisation of what this might mean for the Guardianista state.
If you doubt me, listen to Radio 4's Beyond Westminster at 11am this Saturday - lefties arguing against more democracy. Leftward shift? Progressive Conservatism isn't an acceptance of leftie thinking, but it's undoing.
Posted on 20 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
European Commission wants to fix your iPod
I see that EU officials have launched an investigation into "exploding" iPhones and iPods.
Phew! What a relief. Now we can forgive them all that other stuff - like nicking our democracy and regulating us to the point of stagnation.
I imagine that this initiative was cooked up by the Commission's PR people; "Hey guys, how do we make ourselves relevant to young Euro kids? How can we show that the Commission isn't just about fraudulent budgets and ignoring voters, but groovy, cool, things, too?"
"I know! Let's investigate the problem of exploding iPods! It combines consumer protection with a nice little hint of anti-Americanism!"
Alas, the European Commission is a product of the mid-twentieth century era of big, centralist, bureaucratic government. It cannot meet the needs of the iPod society. We should free ourselves from it - and our iPods might just manage to keep working.
Posted on 19 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Why I want the Swedish model
Fraser Nelson has a brilliant blog explaining why the kinds of innovations allowed in Swedish education could help raise school standards in Britain.
One small flaw in his piece; he suggests some MPs might lobby against such changes in their patch. Not this one, my friend.
If when local parents set up a new, independent local school (some are already demanding it), I'll be backing them 100%.
Posted on 18 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
I spotify
Entertaining the five month old with traditional lullabies on Spotify.
I still quite can't get my head around it - every song ever in the world, available to listen to for free. My laptop becomes a global jukebox - everything from ABBA to trance to piano concertos.
Isn't it wonderful to be alive in the digital age?
Watching the nipper gurgling with delight, I wonder what unimaginable things the internet will have brought us when the bambino's my age?
Posted on 18 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Future of Food
I half watched the BBC's Future of Food programme last night. How depressing!
Not because I fear that we're all about to go hungry, but because of the predictable and tedious anti-technology alarmism of the BBC. Yes, world demand for food is growing. But it has since the time of Jethro Tull (the farmer, not the band).
Surely the really interesting story is how Western technology has confounded all the Malthusian predictions? Doesn't the real fascination come from how new technology could, provided we don't regulate it out of existence, do so again?
Instead, George Alagiah went to Cuban for some wisdom on the joys of de-mechanised farming. Seriously. I'm not sure that Cuba has much to teach anyone about efficient food production - unless it's an example of how not to.
He then spoke to a Masai farmer for evidence of catastrophic climate change, as though there had never been such droughts in Kenya before. Why didn't he interview other African cattle farmers whose application of technology has seen their herds survive the regular droughts?
Perhaps I also missed the bit where George explains how new GM techniques have the ability to produce higher yields, with less water, fewer fertizilers and almost no insectide?
Modern technology allows us to feed a better diet to more people than ever before. Technology has the potential to eliminate hunger completely. Yet watching last night's programme, one might get the impression that technology was somehow the problem.
Posted on 18 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Free labour is what makes the world wealthy
For most of human history, most people have not been allowed to work for whom they wish and keep the fruits of their labour. Indeed, the idea that you might do so is actually rather recent.
Allowing people to work for whom they want is not only morally right. It helps explain the explosion in human wealth creation. It is a pretty good rule of thumb that those societies creating the most wealth tend to be the ones where folk are allowed to work as they please - and hold on to what they earn.
Conversely, those societies that tend to stagnate or remain poor, are those in which the individual is less free to work as they wish - and where they run a high risk of having what they produce taken away from them.
We should remember that when politicians demand government intervention of some sort that would in effect mean fewer people being able to work as they wish and keeping hold of what they earn.
Posted on 17 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Postcard from Tory Bear
Tory Bear sent me this postcard from his summer hols ...
PS. When he gets back, do you suppose he'll be going about Westminster saying the idea of open primaries, radical localism, popular initiative etc etc were all his?
Posted on 16 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
I see sales of The Plan ...
.... are taking off again.
As a manifesto for the new progressive Conservatism, it's been extraordinarily successful in making the case for Totnes-type open primaries, radical localism, cleaning up SW1, and public service consumerism.
Not to mention sales.
Posted on 16 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The BBC - a broadcast version of the Guardian
Last summer, Daniel Hannan and I wrote The Plan: 12-months to renew Britain. What coverage did it get from the state-run BBC? Nothing. Zip. Despite lots of prominent coverage elsewhere, the BBC ignored it.
No matter. Over the intervening months The Plan sells many thousands, becoming an Amazon best-seller.
Then last week, Labour attacks it. Suddenly those BBC producers we sent copies to last year put it at the top of the news schedule.
In light of some of the big stories this past year, you'd think they might have shown some previous interest? The Plan's prescient calls to abolish MPs perks and clean up Westminster, perhaps? Its idea for open primaries and radical democratic renewal? Or its proposals for a new public service consumerism, or radical localism?
No. Such a manifesto for progressive Conservatism challenges the BBC/Guardianista "Tory-means-reactionary" script. So they leave it to one side.
Yet when the same people elevate Daniel's Fox News comments on the NHS to their lead news item, they dare imply he's not prepared to say in the UK what he said in the US. Indeed, they uncritically regurgitate the Labour line that its all a bit "unpatriotic", for this Hannan fellow to be giving interviews to these upstart American TV networks.
For goodness sake. Hannan published a best selling book, in the UK, months ago setting out his thoughts on all this.
Posted on 15 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
PR Week; What might change in Westminster mean for lobbying?
I've a column in PR Week talking about the way that open politics is starting to change the way SW1 works. I'm interested in how opinion forming is becoming more democratic - and the old ways of buying influence are going to have to change.
Posted on 14 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Daily Mail gets to the bottom of defence procurement?
The Daily Mail has run an interesting set of articles on defence procurement this week:
Why did we spend £27 million of helicopters that could have been bought for £8 million, they asked on Wednesday.
Then yesterday, Max Hastings wrote this extraordinary piece here, basically saying that the "revolving door" between MoD and the defence contractors is indefensible.
Extraordinary.
Posted on 14 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Open the party; open source politics is coming
When the subject of open primaries crops up, sceptics typically complain that they do way with the need for political parties. "Why join a party if everyone decides?" the grumblies mutter.
Think about it for a second to see how daft that line of reasoning is. Party members actually get MORE of a say with primaries; instead of being left to decide off the shortlist, they - rather than a committee - get to draw up that shortlist. The selection process is democratised at every stage.
Open primaries might spell the end for closed-shop parties. But why's that bad?
Is it right that selecting who governs us should be the exclusive preserve of two historic institutions - one that evolved amidst eighteenth century gentlemen's clubs and the other born out of nineteenth century trade unionism?
Re-reading Clay Shirky today makes me think. The great and wonderful gift of the internet will be to allow a whole new level of collaborative creation - Open source software. Wikipedia and wiki-learning.
Open source parties and politics, too?
If any clowns in SW1 still think politics and the internet equals twitter, let them....
Posted on 13 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
A new Lib Dem approach to localism?
Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, Lord Wallace, apparently believes that the Channel Islands must lose their local autonomy. Why?
Because, his Lordship feels, they are now major financial centres, making such independence inappropriate.
It clearly hasn't occurred to Lord Wallace that the Channel Islands have become major financial centres precisely because they are autonomous.
With a strong system of local democracy on the islands and a vigorous legislature, it's not been possible for quangocrats, officials and other looters to impose ruinous rates of taxation and regulation like they have elsewhere.
Posted on 12 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Death of the Left? Hopefully
Which party now uses open primaries and calls for radical localism? Who wants directly elected police chiefs and local referendums? Which party leader wants to decentralise power from Whitehall to the town hall, and from the state to the citizen? Which party's ideas for constitutional reform include popular initiative and recall?
Not one of these ideas emanates from the left.
The proudest boast of the British left used to be that they stood for the underdog against the powerful. The party of Keir Hardie once stood for the dispossessed against unmerited elites. The left was once instinctively hostile to unaccountable concentrations of power.
Far from being descended from the Levellers, the contemporary British left is a movement for the quangocracy - the defender of activist judges and EU commissioners, deeply illiberal multiculturalism and quotas.
The left's moral compass is so broken they've lost sight of what equality means - their (unelected) Lord Mandelson even advocates a form of educational apartheid, where university places are given out on the basis of social background, rather than merit.
But to get a real sense of how dire things are for the left, read Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian asking if the Conservatives are really progressive. Without intending to, he explains the intellectual bankruptcy of the Guardianista and the left far better than I ever could.
Posted on 11 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Why we need to localise welfare - Essex leads the way
You might be familiar with the idea of benefit cheats - people claiming welfare they're not entitled too. In my constituency advice surgeries, I also see the opposite - folk who ought to be supported, given nothing.
I try to speak up for older people - who've worked hard and paid into the system with every wage packet they've ever earned - left to go without. Just the other day, a young mum contacted me. She's a serious debilitating disease and several young children to look after - yet she's not getting the kind of basic support she deserves in a civilised society.
How did we end up with such a system? We left it all to central government.
Essex council chiefs are now suggesting that responsibility over welfare should be devolved locally - with payment rates and eligibility set at county hall. Three cheers!
This could have enormous advantages. In The Localist Papers 5. Local Welfare, a group of progressive Conservatives identified several key reasons why we need to localise welfare:
Firstly, local councils can tailor their policies to suit local needs. A uniform system that covers 60 million people is bound to contain loopholes, tempting into dependency some who were never envisaged as claimants.
Second, pluralism spreads best practice. The freedom to innovate means that local authorities will come up with ideas and pilot schemes that the Department for Work and Pensions would never have dreamed of. Those that work will be copied elsewhere so that, as in the US, councillors start speaking of "adopting the Surrey model" or "introducing Essex-style reforms".
Thirdly, non-state agents – churches, charities, businesses – are likelier to involve themselves in local projects than in national schemes.
Localism transforms attitudes. At present, many see benefit fraud as cheating "the system" rather than cheating their neighbours. Above all, localism will restore the notion of responsibility: our responsibility to support ourselves if we can, and our responsibility to those around us – not an abstract category of "the underprivileged", but visible neighbours – who, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves. This would help make us all better citizens.
Posted on 11 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The Open Primary Bill
Imagine if there were open primaries for everyone - not just voters in Totnes? Every voter, in every constituency would have a real say over who got to be their MP - not just those in marginal constituencies.
Imagine the impact on our politicians? MPs would become far more accountable to local people, rather than party whips, knowing that they faced a properly competitive contest to keep their job every four years.
Well, all this could become a reality if enough MPs back my Open Primary Bill.
Before the Commons went into recess, I managed to wangle a slot to introduce a Bill as soon as the House reconvenes. My Bill would allow local parties and citizens to petition their local returning officer to arrange an open primary in their constituency - provided they were willing to meet the cost, of course.
But under my Bill, cost would cease to be such a hurdle; if enough local folk demand a primary, the contest would be "piggy backed" on any other pre-scheduled poll - local, national or European. And with participating parties splitting the bill, the marginal cost increase of printing an extra ballot paper would be divided several ways.
Since Dan Hannan and I first proposed open primaries in 2005, the Conservatives have been won round to the idea. Martin Bell now backs my Bill. Senior Labour figures, such as David Miliband, say they favour primaries. Lib Dems, meanwhile, have been complaining about the unfair system of "safe seats" for as long as anyone can remember. Here is something they can do to change things right away.
Since Expense-gate, not a vast amount has actually changed. Left to those in SW1, a lot of it is business-as-before. My Open Primaries Bill could bring about a quiet revolution right away. Every MP, even in the safest of seats, will need to prove to local people they deserve to remain their representative.
Posted on 10 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Running ....
Having been a lazy-bones and not done much exercise for a week or so, I went on a long run. Listening to Tiesto's Dance for Life. I found that I ran, and ran, and ran, and kept on going ...
Posted on 10 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
The Observer on the internet; acres of newsprint to miss the point
Today's Observer carries an interesting comment piece by Rafael Behr on the Tories and the internet. But I fear it somewhat misses the point.
Behr discusses the impact of the internet on politics and public service provision entirely in the context of what Westminster "insiders" think of it. He seems not to grasp that the whole point of the web is that the concept of SW1 "insider" itself becomes quaint.
Second, how the politcos might postion themselves in relation to it is not really the point. The changes that the web is bringing doesn't need, nor await, the permission of any Westminster hierarchy.
The web breaks down unaccountable concentrations of power - in business, commerce and politics. It is profoundly democratic - with information and with aspiration. It allows free markets to exist (eg digital publishing) where once they were impossible. Together these forces will create a more classically liberal, directly democratic and free market society - regardless of what appears in any politicians manifesto.
The internet will create an Edmund Burke dot com revolution because - after decades of retreat in the face of a centralised state - it breathes new life into the "little platoons".
Posted on 9 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Exclusive: MoD chose to spend £27 mn on helicopters it could have bought for £8 mn
If you were in charge of making sure our armed forces have enough helicopters in Afghanistan, would you:
A) buy a make of helicopter costing £8 million each. It'd be fully operational in Afghanistan in 7-8 months - and had the added bonus of being tried and tested by our US ally.
Or
B) spend £27 million per helicopter - over three times the amount - on something that won't be ready for 4-5 more years, and which has no greater technical capability of use in Afghanistan. In fact, it carries less.
In answer to a Parliamentary question, I've just discovered officials at the MoD opted for B).
That's right; 62 Future Lynx helicopters for £1.7 Billion. The Parliamentary answer shows a cost increase of £700 million over the price MoD originally gave.
Worse, the option of A), buying BlackHawks, was repeatedly put to MoD. On at least three separate occasions the company that makes them offered to supply BlackHawks at a fraction of the price. On one occasion, it almost took MoD as long to respond to the letter as it would have taken the manufacturer to deliver the helicopters.
Why did MoD deliberately decide not to have a competitive tender process at the outset - as Ministers have admitted to me in writing?
I wrote and circulated a research paper two years ago in which I showed how the helicopter budget was being catastrophically mis-spent. Just been re-reading the responses. Doesn't make certain "experts" look very good now, does it?
This is much more than just another "MoD incompetence" story. It raises disturbing questions about how public contracts are awarded and how corporations lobby for business.
Posted on 8 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
When good ideas start to spread ....
When a good idea in politics starts to spread, the meme runs through three stages of acceptance.
First, those unfamiliar with the new idea tell you that it's kooky. Eventually, some start to agree with you - but tell you that it's alas just not practical. Finally, those same folk tell you how it was actually their idea all along.
I came across this phenomenon with localism and directly elected police chiefs (and with the suggestion we oust the Commons Speaker!). I see it at play again with open primaries. All of a sudden, everyone appears to be in favour.
Yet as the meme goes from kooky to mainstream, it can often mutate. The initial idea gets distorted or diluted. Everyone might proclaim their support for localism or locally accountable policing. But what they actually mean by that varies enormously.
A classic example of this is David Miliband rowing in behind the idea of open primaries. Read what he is actually saying, and he's not backing "open" primaries at all. He wants a system of registered Labour supporting voters, and selection contests to include only them. Far from being "open", that system is in fact the precise opposite - a "closed primary".
A good time to link to the paper that set out the original thinking behind open primaries, as written by a group of Conservative modernisers here.
Posted on 8 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Quote of the day
"A heavy grey Scottish mist, the sort known in Gordon Brown's home territory as a "haar", has settled over our politics. When Mr Brown finally departs, the sun will shine more brightly." - Charles Moore in today's Daily Telegraph.
Posted on 8 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Am I a blogger or an MP? Both
An angry reader demands to know "why don't you resign and run a blog full time".
What is odd about Mr Cross' question is the implicit assumption that being an MP and blogging might somehow be mutually exclusive. It takes me less than 10 minutes per blog posting, mostly on the train, tube or bus. As a consequence, it got me direct contact with 27,000 individuals last month - many of whom are constituents.
Pretty good bargain, surely? With figures like that, what's surprising is that more MPs don't yet blog.
Perhaps not one of life's more progressive personalities, Mr Angry then goes on to berate me for criticising the Commons and having insufficient "respect" for it.
Guilty as charge, M'lud. I think the current Commons is hopelessly indolent and self-serving. Only radical change can make Westminster worthy of respect.
Perhaps attitudes to blogging and to the way we do politics are not unrelated?
Posted on 7 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
MoD response to Gray report is totally inadequate
Having frittered away large chunks of the UK's defence budget in the interests of certain contractors, today the MoD has the nerve to say it'll set up a "new unit" to improve the process of ordering kit.
Balls.
Leaked details of the Gray report into defence procurement failures show that the tax payer is being ripped off and the armed forces let down.
But solving the systemic failure within defence procurement has nothing to do with hiring more desk-jockeys or any "new unit" of MoD planners. No amount of tinkering with process will do. The problem lies in basic economics.
If you only purchase off a tiny handful of approved suppliers, they get to set the terms of trade.
Until we abolish that protectionist racket known as the Defence Industrial Strategy, our armed forces will never be properly equipped.
Posted on 7 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Quality journalism
A hostile sounding journalist 'phones up demanding to know "where will you be going on holiday this year, Mr Carswell?"
I resist the temptation to give him a short answer. Or to say "a fortnight in Ulan Bator".
"Walton-on-the-Naze" I reply, since that's where I'm due to go with the extended family that afternoon.
"What'll you be doing there?" he snarls.
"Playing with a bucket and spade".
"Will you be flying there?" he demands.
"I hope not", I say.
And they say journalism is degrading from being a profession to becoming an activity....
Posted on 7 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
You've just been robbed?
Today the Bank of England has created an extra £50 billion. This so-called quantative easing will, to use the phrase beloved of the commentariat, "pump money into the economy". Naturally it won't be pumped into your bank account.
But all that extra money will have a big impact on you. With all those extra £ pounds out there now, the ones you might have in your bank account or pension fund have just got a bit smaller.
Large corporate interests that racked up vast debts get to swap their outstanding IOUs for money. But you - and every other person who uses the national currency as a store of wealth and has lived within their means - lose out.
Perhaps now you might understand the graph above. It shows the value of £ sterling since 1750. For 200 years it held its value pretty well - until big government discovered that by debasing the currency, they get to control more resources at your expense.
Posted on 6 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Political judges
Judge Ian Trigger could face the sack for being "too political". Having spoken out about the way illegal immigrants abuse Britain's welfare system, he's due to be hauled before the Office for Judicial Complaints.
The Law Lords meanwhile ignore the fact that Parliament does not want to change the current law on assisted suicides, and forces a de facto change in the law. Just the latest example of judicial activism.
There are no shortage of activist judges willing to make, rather than merely interpret the law these days.
But why is it that the only judges who get hauled up for being "too political" are the ones who say things that the leftist establishment doesn't want to hear?
Posted on 6 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Defence procurement - the truth is it's a racket
Regular readers must forgive me for banging on about defence procurement yet again. Another report out today suppressed by the government shows that £ billions are wasted each year because the MoD makes late payments only buys kit from a small number of contractors, who benefit from the protectionist Defence Industrial Strategy.
Don't get distracted by the chaff; The defence budget is poorly allocated because it gets spent in the interests of the large contractors - not our armed forces.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the answer lies in smarter, streamlined procurement processes; The solution is to abandon protectionism, and purchase the best kit available to our armed forces off-the-shelf.
The status quo is unsustainable. Even the smarter contractors - if not always their lobbyists - are starting to realise.
Expect movement on this, I wrote yesterday. And today we hear Joint Strike Fighter engines will now be acquired off-the-shelf. There's a lot more of this to come....
Posted on 6 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Sir Humphrey is the problem ....
It's not just about gaining power. Politics is also about what you do with it.
If politicians are to hold power - and not merely office - they need a clear game plan. Otherwise they end up like Labour ministers under Brown - mere mouthpieces for their departments. Apologists for failure.
Turning Britain around begins by ousting Labour. But there needs to be a plan to deal with the permanent bureaucracy and the quango state responsible for so much of what is wrong.
As Paul Richards first-class article in the Times today puts it:
"If Mr Cameron really wants to reform the Civil Service, he should make senior civil servants, from Grade 3 and above, directly accountable to his ministers, appointed by the government, and subject to pre-appointment scrutiny as in the United States."
Real accountability to those we elect? Sir Humphrey'll hate it.
Posted on 5 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Defence industrial scam
A must-read comment piece in today's Boston Globe editorial, Where our defence budget goes. It's about the way that the defence budget gets spent in the interests of big business, rather than the military. As the authors put it;
The defense budget is no longer just about defense. Rather, it has become a system of corporate welfare driven by jobs and campaign contributions ...
Much the same could be said over here in the UK, where the Defence Industrial Strategy Scam means only preferred bidders get the contracts - and competitors willing to deliver better kit, more quickly and at lower cost, are excluded.
As in any market, when you constrain the supply, the seller then sets the terms of trade. The consequence is that we pay over the odds for substandard kit for our armed forces, which arrives late.
Protectionist procurement is unsustainable. Expect some movement on this soon....
Posted on 5 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Ethics of banking
Lloyds Bank, which is part state-owned, makes a £4 billion loss.
Barclays, which turned down state handouts and borrowed off private lenders to avoid state interference, makes a profit.
Which bank gets vilified most?
Is it not better for banks to make profits, rather than incur losses that taxpayers end up having to carry?
Posted on 5 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Thought for the day
Would we have more faith in politics if it became less of a profession for the few, and started to be an activity open to everyone?
Posted on 5 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Totnes triumph for direct democracy
Over 16,000 local people voted to decide who'll be the Conservative Parliamentary candidate in Totnes. A magnificent result!
This idea was advocated by Tory modernisers in Direct Democracy: an agenda for a new model party several years ago. It has enormous advantages; it reenergises grass roots politics, it democratises how we choose who gets to be MPs, it favours citizen law-makers with strong local roots over professional politicians.
Congratulations to the winner, Sarah Wollaston!
She now has a clear headstart over her Lib Dem opponent - a 7,914 head start, to be precise. Not all of the other 8,000 or so folk who took part in the primary selection will back her, but the evidence is that very many will support the party that allowed them a say - regardless of whether their candidate won.
And that's why ultimately other parties will have to follow suit if the Conservatives roll this process out everywhere (which they will).
This autumn, I'm introducing a Bill in the House of Commons to give local people in every constituency in Britain the right to demand open primary contests, too (without, I should add, in any way interfering in the selection processes of political parties).
Posted on 4 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Their trade is treachery
When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", he gave tremendous encouragement to the dissidents.
When British Foreign Office officials attended the official ceremony endorsing Ahmadinejad as Iran's president, it can only discourage those brave men and women willing to take to the streets of Tehran.
Posted on 4 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Halcyon days?
I had lunch the other day with an old friend from my time in fund management. I ask if he's optimistic, given the rally in shares?
Not a bit of it, he says. Normally one of life's optimists, he is anything but. His theory is that the full fall out of the financial crisis has been delayed by all the Keynesian injections, bailouts and subsidies over the past year.
This up-swing, he tells me, is a brief respite before the full impact of decades of over borrowing return.
The sandwiches were good, though.
Posted on 4 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
More wiki-politics - the Totnes Open Primary
At 12:30 tomorrow, we'll hear who is going to be the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Totnes in the first every proper open primary contest in Britain.
Allowing everybody who lives in Totnes to decide who gets to be the Conservative party candidate is a major step towards open source politics and direct democracy.
You mean non-Conservatives and people who don't even vote Tory get to decide the Tory candidate? Yep - everyone.
Won't that allow anti-Conservatives to sabotage the result? Not at all. The party still decides who gets to be on the short-list. And if lots of non-Conservative voters turn out to vote for the winner during the primary, all the evidence is that they're then far more likely to back that person in the General Election.
But why join a party if everyone has a say? Party members still do get a say. And evidence suggests that democratic selection contests actually draw new people into party politics and re energises the grass roots.
So who loses out? Rival party candiates selected by only a tiny number of people. Old-style party politics. And, best of all, the all-powerful Westminster whipping system.
With around 7 out of 10 MPs coming from "safe seats", at present Westminster Whips can have a greater impact on an MPs career trajectory than local voters. But introduce open primary contests to decide who gets to be the candidate in the first place, and local voters will start to count for more.
Open primaries will mean more independent-minded citizen law-makers, and fewer professional politicians and party yes-men.
UPDATE: Newsnight's Michael Crick is suggesting over 10,000 voters may have taken part in the open primary ballot. If true, that is a stonking result - and a victory for direct democracy!
Posted on 3 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Wiki-politics works?
A week or so ago, I started an experiment in wiki-politics. I wanted to see if it was possible to draft a Bill to present to the House of Commons using collaborative intelligence.
Why? Up until now we've left it to the professional politicians to initiate laws and draft legislation. Or worse, EU commissioners and quangocrats. I want to see if we could have a system of open source politics and direct democracy so that everyone can have a say.
Taking the idea of a Great Repeal Bill - first advocated by Daniel Hannan and myself in our book, The Plan - I posted it onto two wiki sites; one guarded wiki here and the other totally open here. The Great Repeal Bill seemed an ideal candidate for this experiment since it requires experience of over regulation, rather than specialised technical knowledge.
I hoped that by throwing it open to everyone, I'd get to hear about red tape and regulation that folk in SW1 are unaware of. And sure enough, the range of suggestions has been pretty extraordinary.
As impressive, much of my initial text has been rewritten and the structure of the draft Bill reordered - and it reads much better.
I half expected the trolls to take over - and indeed one or two have contributed. Not all the suggestions seem in keeping with the purposes of the project or sensible. But the extraordinary thing about wiki collaboration is that such contributions tend to be shortlived. The damage caused by trolls is swiftly healed (so far!).
Why? It seems as if the number of people respectful of the projects aims seems greater than the number of trolls. As Clay Shirky says in his book, Here Comes Everybody, imagine if it was easier to delete graffiti than to spray it.
Like most wiki projects, this one is still a work in progress. If you have had a specific experience of over regulation, why not add to the Bill here?
Posted on 3 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Immigration - government keeps lying to you
Immigrants will have to "earn" citizenship. They could even be denied passports if they join unpatriotic activities such as demonstrating against British troops, the government spin machine tells us today.
Sounds impressive and tough, no?
Except the spin masks certain truths; Call it having to "earn" a passport, they're still being issued in record numbers, and the number of people receiving citizenship is going up and up and up.....
Parliamentary questions I've tabled since becoming an MP convince me we've a hopelessly flawed system of immigration controls, open-door visas and student visas, and state officials unwilling to enforce the law. As a consequence, there's no effective control to determine who gets to settle in the UK.
Suggestions by ministers that it'll affect someone's citizenship status if they take part in Luton-style demonstrations against our armed forces are merely intended to make them appear tough in the run up to an election.
The government has had a decade to implement the no nonsense approach to immigration John Howard took in Australia. Ministers chose not to.
Posted on 3 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Open-minded about climate change?
Enjoying my copy of Heaven and Earth by Prof Plimer this morning over a coffee. It says:
“If it is acknowledged that there have been rapid large climate changes before industrialisation, then the human production of CO2 cannot be the major driver for climate change …..
… climates far warmer that the Late 20th Century Warming existed before industrialisation and human emissions of CO2. The notion that climate change is tied only to human activity .... is a simple and erroneous explanation of modern and ancient climate change”.
Is the good Professor wrong?
I'd like to know before I vote to limit CO2 emissions and push up my constituents energy costs.
Posted on 2 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Gardening is good for you, says survey
Bravo! The National Trust survey findings make perfect sense. I'd rather be in the garden than almost anywhere.
Here are some photos of some of the flowers I grew earlier this year.
Posted on 1 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell
Where did the defence budget go?
You know how there's not enough funding for our armed forces in Afghanistan?
Here's a clue as to where all the money might have gone: Britain yesterday agreed to buy another 40 Eurofighters.
The Eurofighter, designed to stop Soviet MIGs over northern Europe, is now one of the most expensive planes ever. It's arguably more costly than the US joint strike fighter - and, according to some, in the same price bracket as the F22. Pulling out of Eurofighter now is, I'm told, not an option.
Yet it's now two decades since the Soviet empire crumbled. And almost 40 years since the West lost a fighter jet in air-to-air combat. So why do we continue to plough precious £ billions into large scale contracts for such expensive kit that's of little use in the expeditionary wars we actually fight?
For the same reason that we blew most of the helicopter budget on a £billion project that won't give us helicopters for years - and all at twice the price of the off-the-shelf alternatives.
It's all thanks to something called the Defence Industrial Strategy - a protectionist racket designed to siphon off the defence budget.
Perhaps you think I overstate my case? Then ask this simple question; each time a large scale contract is confirmed, whose share prices go up? Go figure.
Posted on 1 August 2009 by Douglas Carswell