Nick Clegg's Lintilla moment...

****

Crisis is an essential ingredient in modern politics - without crisis, without some dread threat to civilization as we know it, people will go home, put the fire on and have a cup of tea.

As a result politicians invent existential threats - crises that threaten the very essence of modern society:

There are  just 100 days to stop the UK Independence Party becoming a permanent major force in British politics, Nick Clegg warns today.

And this of course is a crisis, a threat to something good and kind - in this case the opportunity for Nick and his friends to get nice, well-paid sinecures over in Brussels and for others of Nick's pals to siphon across lovely 'European Grant Funding'.

The problem here is that the crisis is entirely artificial. And UKIP only become a 'major force' in British politics if we indulge their rather eclectic range of self-contradictory policies - championing liberty when it suits an audience (smoking and drinking) and promoting bans or controls when it doesn't (burkas and immigrants).

What Nick Clegg has done - his Lintilla moment - is switch on the crisis inducer:

LINTILLA:
It’s a crisis inducer. Set it to ‘Mark Nine’ and… Hurry! They’re after us!

ARTHUR:
Who?

LINTILLA:
No one! Come on! Through the tunnel! They’re coming!

We really don't have only 100 days to save the universe (or Nick's future EU sinecure) from the dread UKIP. They're maybe going to get a few more MEPs and the Lib Dems might lose most of their MEPs. But that's it really. Nothing else will change. We will have elected a slightly different set of essentially pointless (but very expensive) politicians who can - as we've seen with e-cigs - simply choose to ignore the public's opinion knowing they aren't subject to any proper scrutiny as individual politicians.

Still Nick Clegg has activated his crisis inducer, got big headlines in sympathetic newspapers and got his dwindling troops agitated and active.

There is no real crisis just an artificial and pathetic flap.

....

All business conducted within the law is good business...

****

What is it about politicians wanting to pass moral judgement about business? Today it’s Nick Clegg’s turn:

The Deputy Prime Minister will launch today a campaign for a “well-rewarded workforce”, saying that businesses owned by their staff are more dynamic and have higher morale.

He wants to encourage companies to follow the model of John Lewis, the department store group which is owned by its employees and distributes its profits between them.

Mr Clegg’s call for “responsible capitalism” will come as City firms are preparing to pay executives billions of pounds in bonuses, despite pledges from politicians to curb excessive pay and growing hardship among ordinary families.

Those words – “responsible capitalism” – echo the sentiment of interventionist politicians down the years.  From Heath’s “unacceptable face of capitalism” to Miliband’s crass distinction between ‘producers’ and ‘predators’, we find politicians seek political capital from the making of moral distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ businesses.

None of this is to say that it’s a bad idea to reward employees with shares – this cements their interest in the firm’s success and acts as a spur to profitability. But it is a matter for the owners of businesses not a concern of government – granting some sort of “right” to demand that the company gives shares to employees is a pretty gross intervention in those businesses however much we might think it a good idea.

It is simply not the role of politicians – however well-qualified we make think we are – to pass moral judgements about capitalism. I can respect someone who believes that capitalism is immoral – they are wrong but honestly wrong – but the person who says that some capitalism is bad and some capitalism is good is trying to have his cake and eat it.

For my part, I believe that capitalism is inherently moral since it is the only form of economic organisation that reflects the primacy of individual choice and preference. All other forms – those imposed by governments in a futile search for man’s perfectibility – are immoral since they require that some people are told “no you can’t make that choice”.

And when we look at the distinction made between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ business, it has more to do with the effectiveness of the different firms’ public relations than a real understanding of the morality or otherwise of that business. We like John Lewis because it does nice advertising and runs Waitrose (where the supermarket-hating commentariat prefer to shop) – if Provident Financial adopted the same ownership approach would we suddenly approve of selling expensive loans to poor people?

People start businesses with the intention of making themselves some money not as some noble social project. If people didn’t do this all the lovely stuff we take for granted – you know, the schools and hospitals – wouldn’t be there. If smart young people didn’t work eighty-hour weeks on trading desks the City of London wouldn’t be the world’s biggest financial centre producing £100 billion and more in added value.

If we start pretending that business isn’t about earning a living, if we begin to force our prejudices onto business owners, we set off down a road to a less wealthy, less creative, innovation-free society. Rather than condemning the city trader for his money, we should celebrate the fact that an ordinary guy from Dagenham or Sidcup can make that kind of cash and enjoy the good life that goes with it. It is wrong to make some moral distinction between the hedge fund manager and the artisan baker, to pretend that one is ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’.

All business conducted within the law is good business and the only irresponsible businesses should be businesses that fail.

...

It really is absolutely none of your business, Mr Clegg

****

Nick Clegg really doesn't have the first idea about what the word "liberal" means:

Nick Clegg has committed the government to a crackdown on excessive executive pay, saying that austerity in the public sector had to be balanced by curbs on "irresponsible and unjustifiable" pay rises in the private sector.

The clue here, Mr Clegg, lies in the word "private" - that means it is absolutely none of the government's business. How much business owners choose to pay executives is entirely a matter to be agreed between those business owners and those executives.

This is simply Mr Clegg seeking cheap headlines by playing to the gallery.

Clegg said he was particularly outraged by a recent report saying that directors working for FTSE 100 companies had had pay rises up by 49%. He said they were getting the extra money even though their firms were not doing any better and that this was "a real slap in the face for millions of people in this country who are struggling to make ends meet".

Outraged! Get that folks - now even if the headline is true (and trust me, dear reader, it isn't) it is still nothing to do with Mr Clegg unless he is a shareholder in one of those FTSE 100 companies. In which case the place to raise his concerns is the general meeting of the company not an interview on the BBC.

In the end, it isn't a zero sum game. High levels of executive pay do not lead to lower wages elsewhere. And the FTSE 100 companies are international businesses employing international executives.

Finally, Mr Clegg, let's look at the realities of this high pay. The Chief Executive of Sainsburys - a massive, multi-billion pound turnover business - earns around £900,000 per year. This is less that Carlos Tevez, who occasionally turns out to play football, earns in two months. I reckon the shareholders of Sainsburys are getting a rather better deal, don't you. Mr Clegg?

....

Nick Clegg is wrong about black students....

****

...but sadly he completely misrepresents the educational achievements of Britain's ethnic minorities:

What Mr Clegg is claiming:

Nick Clegg will today warn that hundreds more young black men are in jail than at top universities, in an explosive attack on race relations in Britain.

And what the proper facts say:

Based on detailed analysis of both the Office of National Statistics’ Labour Force Survey and the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s ‘HESA Student Record’, the report, ‘Race into Higher Education’, sets out how almost one in six (16.0%) of UK university students are from a Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background. This is up from 8.3% in 1995-96, the year in which Business in the Community founded Race for Opportunity. This increase is virtually in line with the growth in the BAME population from 7.7% of 18 to 24 year olds in 1995-96 up to 14% in 2007-08.

Even if we assume that the Russell Group universities do less well - say 10% from BAME communities - that's still 16,000 black students. If they achieve at 16%, that's over 25,000 black students - more that the 22,000 black people in our prisons.  The UK's student population as a whole is well over 2 million - meaning that there are at least 400,000 black students. This is four times the size of the entire prison population.

So Nick's just using carefully crafted statistics to mislead us. Typical Liberal Democrat!

....

Dear Nick, competition doesn't mean "flogging off to the highest bidder"

****

When some people speak of ‘privatisation’ they refer to the process of commissioning private businesses to deliver public services through some form of tendering process. And it leads to the Cardhousian contortions of Nick Clegg:

In a speech at a London hospital, the Lib Dem leader will say he supports the use of private providers in the health care service and that they have improved patient choice.

However, he will add: "It's not the same as turning this treasured public service into a competition-driven, dog-eat-dog market where the NHS is flogged off to the highest bidder."

So there you have it – after all the shouting about how the Liberal Democrats will be different, about how they will die in the ditch to protect the beloved NHS from evil Tories what do we get? Just what we have already – a system using private providers but where those providers are accountable only to NHS managers not to those using the service or to elected officials (and don’t give me all that nonsense about accountability to the Secretary of State for Health).

Now I’ve trawled through the collected comments (well perhaps not all of them) of health ministers, have looked at the proposed changes and nowhere in all this can I see any proposal – not even an inkling of a proposal – that the NHS will be “flogged off to the highest bidder”. There is a discussion as to how we improve health outcomes and a debate about the merits (or indeed demerits) of competition in helping deliver these improved health outcomes but that isn’t about selling chunks of the service off, it isn’t about ‘cherry-picking’ and it isn’t really much of a change from the programme of change instituted under the last Labour government.

The idea of ‘any willing provider’ is the central element of these pro-competition policies – this isn’t privatisation any more than using external suppliers is privatisation. What AWP is about is preventing NHS commissioners from closing off the market by saying they have to consider any organisation that is able to comply with the requirements. The result should be a more diverse supply to the system and end of the current situation of bureaucratic inertia.

As competition dawns there will no doubt be many providers, both larger and smaller, seeking to offer so-called integrated approaches in particular communities, which are, in fact, a byword for long-term monopoly. Once the commissioning bodies are dependent on the new arrangements the provider can turn the handle, raise prices and lower quality as much as it wants.

If this happens, it will be an expensive route back to what we have today in most public services: costly, unmoveable, low-quality, low-innovation services. The solution, of course, is for the principle of diversity of supply – allowing no one to become dominant – to be an absolute non-negotiable in local public service markets.

The comment above – from a Liberal Democrat with expertise in health care markets – signals the problem we face. The current situation isn’t good enough and the core solution of pumping ever larger amounts of cash into the service isn’t working well enough (which isn’t to say the cash isn’t welcome, merely to observe that health outcomes haven’t risen in line with that spending increase). However, within that diversity of supply we have to recognise that price must be a consideration in commissioning decisions – this isn’t about simply taking the cheapest but does recognise that price is a driver of efficiency and improved outcomes.

My big worry is that populist considerations fuelled by healthcare producer lobbies and trade unions (and sucked up by an increasingly clueless Labour party) will lead to a big climb down and we will lose the momentum towards using competition to provide accountability for NHS decision-makers and real advances in health outcomes. And it seems more of the evidence points to competition as the most important factor in driving improvement:

This is particularly ironic given the strong evidence now emerging that hospital competition not only works abroad, but also in the UK. Dr Zack Cooper of the London School of Economics and Professor Carol Propper of Imperial College have each produced studies showing that hospitals in more competitive areas performed better on quality and efficiency than those in less competitive ones. The LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance has shown that competition increases managerial quality in hospitals. Dr Nick Black and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have shown that the much-maligned independent sector treatment centres, introduced by the Blair government to shake up provision of simple elective procedures such as cataract removals and hernia operations, have produced work of equal or better quality than their NHS equivalents.

None of this is about changing the NHS model of free care at the point of need – instead it recognises that there is more than one way to deliver this promise. Breaking away from the hideous monopoly of the centralised NHS – a process begun haltingly under Blair – is essential if we’re to get the full benefit of that “investment” put in over recent years.

...

Banning interns won't increase social mobility

Much frothing and spluttering among the political classes about Nick Clegg's social mobility strategy - or rather about the matter of so-called "interns".

Nick Clegg's scathing attack on inequality of opportunity was branded ‘total hypocrisy’ last night.

As he unveiled a drive to improve social mobility, it emerged his millionaire father had secured him the internship that launched his career and a titled family friend helped get him his first proper job.

The LibDem leader was also forced to make a humiliating apology for employing unpaid interns in his own office, while criticising the practice in public.

There was further embarrassment for Mr Clegg as it emerged that the LibDems may not even have paid expenses to some young people.

The party hurriedly brought in new guidelines yesterday to ‘put our own house in order’.

As they say round here – “oops”!

However, I am struck by the possibility that rules restricting internships will impact on genuine volunteering. It seems to me that there’s a case for stopping internships being used as a smooth route for the children of the wealthy to secure employment in professions like law where there are limited opportunities (and too much supply). But would this prevent, for example, a community law centre offering unpaid volunteering to young aspiring lawyers?

My concern is that HR managers in the voluntary sector (and let’s not forget that political parties are, in principle, part of the voluntary sector) will interpret any new rules in such a way as to prevent young people using volunteering as a way to secure experience – to make a meagre CV look a little more sparkly. And charitable organisations already face huge pressures that are eased by the use of internships. Here’s one household name’s offer:

This summer we'll be offering internships lasting three months in a wide range of areas, including community fundraising, events, marketing, communications and healthcare. Whatever team you join, you'll make a big difference to Macmillan and to the lives of people affected by cancer.

We'll be recruiting for summer interns between mid-April and mid-May - pop back from 11 April for more information. Unfortunately we are unable to accept CVs, covering letters or applications for summer internships, until 11 April.

Are we saying that charities should be stopped from making such offers in case those taking them up gain some sort of advantage as a result? At the same time as we speak of ‘Big Society’ and the encouragement of volunteering?

As is often the case with these debates, the choice of a relatively insignificant barrier to social mobility as a high profile target completely misses the point. If we see the lack of upward social mobility as a problem (and not everyone does), then we must address the source of that problem – the continuing failure of our education system and especially the ever-widening gap between the privately and publicly educated. Gabbing on about interns, babbling about ‘income equality’ or beating up merit-driven university entrance won’t address our problems.

From 1964 to 1997 – thirty-three years – our nation was led by the products of grammar schools, people from pretty ordinary backgrounds. After 40 years of comprehensive education, the nation’s leaders – in politics, business, arts and literature – are the products of private schools and a privileged background.  And unless we give children a better start, all the fixing of internships, “fair access strategies” and other elements of Mr Clegg’s social mobility plans will achieve nothing – except the inevitable unintended consequence.

....

In which I find myself agreeing with Nick Clegg (except I don't believe him)

****

In an interview with Henry Porter at The Observer, Nick Clegg - professional euro-crat turned Deputy Prime Minister said something I agree with:

"I need to say this – you shouldn't trust any government, actually including this one. You should not trust government – full stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good."

Absolutely Mr Clegg, my sentiments entirely. So why is your "Protection of Freedoms Bill" so selective in the freedoms it wants to protect? And why don't I believe you when you make such an agreeable statement?

Is it because I watched your party colleagues calling for intrusive and draconian extensions to police power under the licensing act? Plus of course the Liberal Democrats illiberal and undemocratic support for minimum alcohol pricing! And should I mention the smoking ban - introduced on the back of bad science - that has further harmed our struggling pubs.

And why not restrictions on speed cameras, voyeuristic (and pretty useless) CCTV and the hounding of innocent motorists on the back of ANPR? Where is the removal of rights of entry to private property for public officials and the reform of family courts to stop the police seizing the children of innocents?

I could go on, Nick. I know you mean well. But these "Protection of Freedoms" come while your government extends restrictions and while your old pals in Brussels drift slowly towards a secret, unaccountable, almost fascistic superstate.

So Nick, I don't believe you.

....

Dave, Nick - it's the economy that matters NOW not voting systems

This is beginning to get me annoyed. Look guys and gals, it’s pretty simple. The only thing that matters right now – the ONLY thing – is sorting out the government’s financial crisis before it comes over all Hellenic.

By all means have a nice fireside chat about voting systems in the down moments from sorting out the mess. But we don’t have to have another election for five years – yes, folks you’ve got five years to discuss and explore the options on voting reform.

But we don’t have five years to sort out the deficit, begin to reduce the debt, stabilise the economy, end the squeezing out of private enterprise and get the economy going again. I’m not sure we’ve the luxury of five months to do this urgent work – the markets, the lenders and the investors won’t give us five days if we insist on blabbering about voting systems rather than sitting down and working out what needs to be done NOW to sort the public finances out.

So Dave, Nick and all the other chatterers – shut up about voting systems and get on with sorting out Gordon’s mess – it’s why you were elected!

....

Nick "Crazy" Clegg loses the plot

I am stocking up the extensive cellars at Cooke Towers with essentials – canned foods, batteries, dried mushrooms, red wine and so on. I intend to be ready for the future that is facing us. The great sage, Nick Clegg has warned:

The Liberal Democrat leader said he feared "serious social strife" if an administration with minimal support raised taxes, laid off public sector workers and froze wages.

Taking his cue from St Vince “Jeremiah” Cable, young Nick is predicting riots, looting and thousands taking to the streets to protest.

Now I don’t know about you but this reads to me as the utterings of a man wholly unfit to be put in charge of anything – let alone someone who should be allowed anywhere near any sort of lever linked to even the remotest outpost of power.

If there are to be any riots – and I doubt this somehow – they’ll be because smug, euro-fanatical greenies like Nick Clegg have clobbered ordinary people once too often. It will be the price of petrol – or something similar – that will send people onto the streets not that a few thousand diversity managers, five-a-day co-ordinators and climate change policy officers have lost their jobs.

Sadly, Nick and Vince are so desperate to get jobs, big offices and fancy cars after the election that they’ve swallowed Labour’s hung parliament strategy hook, line and sinker. Don’t you understand Nick – Gordon knows Labour can’t win and wants a hung parliament so he can keep his mitts on the keys to Number Ten!

....

For Sale: One Liberal Democrat Party (slightly soiled) - further product details

***

It's a while now since Nick Clegg put his Party up for sale to the highest bidder. Today his dancing partner - St Vince of Twickers - added further impetus to the sale by saying that he'd like a nice cushy ministers job with a car, a fancy house and everything.

...

For Sale to Highest Bidder: One Liberal Democrat Party (slightly soiled)

***

Writing in The Times today, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg effectively put his party on the market. A limited market to be sure and dependent on specific market conditions – a hung parliament – but Nick definitely put up a big “for sale” sign.

Here’s the sale notice:

"My message to Mr Brown and Mr Cameron is simple: the Liberal Democrats are up for real change. We are not up for sale."

Ignore the “we are not for sale” statement – that’s just Nick giving the other leaders a glimpse of his stocking tops. The rest of the article unashamedly sets out the nature of the deal Nick will (try and) lead his party into. A the key lies in the rhetoric rather than the substance (such as it is) of the Liberal Democrat offer.

Nick’s big word – ever the social democrat – is “fair”: fair taxes, fair start for children, a fair economy and fair politics. Now what we need to understand here is that Nick’s offer is specific – if there isn’t a clear and substantial role for him and his party there is no deal. Forget about the weasel words, Nick is doing what Steel, Ashdown and Kennedy did before – offering his party’s support to the highest bidder.

So don’t be fooled by Nick’s denial of his Party’s availability – put the right job and the right rhetoric on the table and he’s all yours!

...

It's an election we want Nick...and we want it now!

.

Nick Clegg clambered up onto the limited soap box provided by the Independent to get all radical and angry about the Queen's Speech.

...and what does he want?

1. Fixed term parliaments - so MPs get a solid four or five years to feather their nests?
2. State funding for politics - so all the aspirant MPs can get cushy jobs at party HQ
3. An electoral system designed to give the Lib Dems a permanent hold over Government
4. A House of Lords filled with still more washed up old hacks
5. A "code of conduct" for candidates - as if the electorate can't spot the scumbags

Nick, you're a nice man and they say you're very bright...but what people want is an election. And they want it now!

.