EU referendum vote

Yesterday's (Monday) vote on a EU referendum revealed the size of the constituency that exists in favour of complete wihdrawal from the EU. Of course this is unthinkable as we would be reduced to third world status very quickly, unable to deal with the tariff barriers which would be placed against us. Much of the current 60% of foreign trade would melt away. Our only realistic alternative would be to cecome, de facto, the USA's 51st state and that would be like catching a lift on the Titanic as things stand !

So how do all three political parties deal with this ? For now, do nothing because we cannot be reforming the EU while it is in crisis and possibly a transformation stage. In the long run though we must, I think press for reforms, e.g. to the CAP (possibly abolition, which Brown campaigned for unsuccessfully) and use the strength of anti EU feeling in England (sic) as a bargaining counter. The EU needs us as much as we need it. This might be a blessing in disguise for those who want the European project to succeed.

tax and contribution

I was recently reading a book by Steven Pinker, the philosophical etymologist and he reflected on what would happen if the word tax, which is a negative term, were replaced by contribution, which is positive.

Imagine filling in your social contribution form rather than your tax return ? I.e. this is how much I should contribute to the welfare of my society rather than this is how much the government is entitled to confiscate. Food for thought !

breakdown in normal moral behaviour

What have these people in common ?

Fred Goodwin
Carlos Tevez/Wayne Rooney
Jonathan Ross (in association with Russell Brand)
Liam Fox MP
Andy Coulson
Philip Green
Aubrey Morley MP

The answer is, of course, that they have all been in a privileged position through wealth or position and, I suppose, as a result, believe that the common norms of behaviour in our society do not apply to them.

If they are rare exceptions, this is of relatively little concern. The difficulty arises if they become role models for others.

I was reflecting that people who are fantastically more wealthy than the mass of the people have always been with us. What may distinguish them from the list above is whether they have recognised their privileged position and acted in a responsible way. Downton Abbey is currently portraying such a family, but I wonder whether they are a fictional exception. In a way I hope such disfunctional, privileged people have always existsed because that would mean that current society is no more decadent than any other. I remain unsure......

Daily Mail outing

Today's (Tuesday,11th) Daily Mail seems to have revealed the truth of the Fox-Werritty affair through its political cartoon which is pretty explicit. This, if it is true, would explain why Labour seems to be tiptoeing around the issue. If the reasons behind the mysterious movements of Mr Werritty are as the Mail seems to be implying (I won't say what they are, but have a look, you can probably guess - we are in Ryan Giggs country here) then the affair is probably less serious than it might be and would only raise questions about Dr Fox's character.

It clearly stretched credulity when we hear that Mr Werritty gained no financial or political or any other advantage from all his contacts with Dr Fox, unless there is another reason why he seems to pop up everywhere. The question is , how long can Fox hold out for before he does reveal the true nature of their relationship ? This is tricky. Dr Fox made a mistake right at the outset, by lying - he has admitted as much. When anyone tells lies, we have to ask what they may have to hide. So, politically, this need go nowhere and just as well in view of the sensitivity of defence issues, but isn't it time that politicians can be more open about their relationships ?

It may well be perfectly 'innocent', of course......

The cat and the fox

Are the two animal stories of the week linked ? Well, only loosely but they both contain warnings about how British politics is going.

The cat was, of course, an example of the Dailymailisation of politics. That a senior minister should resort to dubious Mail tactics is very worrying. There is a very serious debate to be held about immigration, asylum and the Human Rights Act. Telling journalistic quarter truths to bigoted audiences does not advance such debates one jot. Our Home Secretary should be consulting with professionals and opinion leaders and then speaking with authority. Fortunately party conferences no longer matter. What does matter is the fear that Theresa May may start to believe her own headlines.

The Fox affair is still unfolding. Whatever has gone on it must be nipped in the bud and the most serious of sanctions needs to be considered. I suspect that Mr Fox's friend may be pushing himself as a kind of Middle East-style 'Mr Fixit'. This must not creep into British politics. It would be utterly destructive. If a minister has abused his or her position, s/he must be removed immediately. If we stamp on small indiscretions now we will prevent greater ones in the future.

So the link is ..........both tendencies need to be stamped on quickly and firmly before we find ourselves in the position of Italy or a corrupt Middle East-style sheikhdom - or the newsroom of the Daily Mail.

Going for growth

I agree with the dissident Conservatives who have asserted that the Government needs a clear growth plan. Furthermore, I believe we need to micro manage this; it is not sufficient merely to create the macro economic conditions for growth. Fundamentally the UK's reliance on the financial sector is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for two reasons - first it creates many moral difficulties, given the conduct of banks, arbitrageurs, hedge fund managers, speculators etc. Second it is clearly an inhibition on tax policy.

It seems to me that economic growth should be directed in four ways. First towards those industries where the Uk has a clear comparative advantage, e.g. insurance, bio technology, higher eucation, entertainment, sport, technology generally. Second it should be directed towards growth with long term benefits, i.e. infrastucture, communications and the like. Third it should be environmentally beneficial, ie. renewables, eco technology. Fourth it should boost employment and the quality of the worforce, especially the young workforce

This may look a little like socialist planning, 1970s style, but we hve proved, I think, that the free market simply does not work when it comes to long term benefit. The free market is fundamentally short term. Only governments can inject the necessary long term considerations into the market economy. Ah yes, but, of course, the political cycle is also short term - i.e. five years, ten at most. Now that is a problem......

May be, definitely not

Theresa May's sabre rattling about the Human Rights Act needs to be put in its place. First, the HRA will not be repealed because there is no chance parliament will vote for it. This is a step too far even for the Lib Dems. Second the European Convntion is not binding on parliament, which remains soeverign. So, all we need to do if we don't like a clause or implication of the Convention is to pass an exemption through parliament or simply legislate in opposition to it. The UK has often, in thr past, ignored the Convention, there is nothing to stop us doing so again.