Late Night in America (and voters have a lousy choice)

Like most political geeks, I like a good election in a place where I've no skin in the game. People who know me well will have witnessed this obsession - with local election results in France and mayoral elections in Brazil among other excitements. The Big One, however, is the US Presidential Election - this is the daddy of votes, the grandest and most extravagent of all the world's elections.

And most years the US gets a pretty good choice. We don't have to think much of Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bob Dole and John McCain to appreciate that all of these men would have made perfectly fine presidents for the USA. Not as good maybe as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama but perfectly OK. It has always been something of a reassurance that the convoluted, over-long and expensive system of primaries, caucuses and straw polls does result in a final contest between two folk who'd make a decent fist of leading the nation.

Until 2016 that is. This year the American voter is presented with a lousy choice. And that's being kind. I struggle to find anything good to say about Hillary Clinton except that she isn't Donald Trump. Hillary is the distillation of the worst sort of crony capitalist, faux-lefty, heart-on-sleeve, crocodile tear liberalism. Rising to the top without any opposition - Bernie Sanders was a joke candidate - Hillary is comfortably the weakest democratic choice for president since Mike Dukakis. Yet she is very likely to win.

Hillary Clinton will win because the Republicans - the Grand Old Party - have lost their collective marbles and selected perhaps the only sort of republican who can actually lose. Not that Donald Trump is, in any recognisable way, a conservative let alone a Republican. It really beggars belief that the Party of Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan has selected as its candidate a massive charlatan, a creature of the corrupt establishment who inherited billions and has contributed nothing except to appear in second-rate reality TV shows and build over-piced New York apartments for the super-rich.

What is worse is that Trump has got this position by appealling to the most venal, bigoted, nasty and selfish negativity in US life today. The Donald's platform is a muck up of racism, protectionism, the poisoned legacy of 20th century Progressives and 19th Century Know-Nothings. A ghastly brew of bigotry, lies and appeals to grievance without an offer of betterment beyond the banal slogan "Make America Great Again". This is the man whose recent political career started with him claiming Barak Obama wasn't an American (or at least not born there) - that most racist and least appealling of Alt-Right conspiracy theories.

It really is a terrible time for the USA. And it will be one of the most depressing elections in a long while. For what it's worth - and I'm no expert - I think Hillary Clinton will win at a canter. If Donald Trump wins more than a dozen states I'll be surprised. What is sad in all this, however, is that the bigoted, racist train crash of Trump's campaign will drag down good Republican congressmen perhaps handing the Democrats not just Clinton as President but control of the Senate as well.

This lousy choice might be an unfortunate lapse in the US system or could presage the country declining into bickering political clans more focused on undermining other people than living in the place Reagan's campaign described in 1984. It's no longer Morning in America, it's a late evening and we're presented with the spectacle of two drunks abusing each other, hurling spittle flecked insults about, shouting at all and sundry. It is a depressing and sad indictment of a great nation's corruption - not the corruption of the ordinary man and women but the corruption of the elite from which Clinton and Trump have slithered.

All we can hope is that this great and wonderful country, once a beacon of liberty, can find its way again, can live through whatever terror awaits over the coming four years under Clinton's corruption or Trump's bigotry.

...

You want less corruption? You need smaller not bigger government for that.

****

This is what we must guard against yet is exactly what those who take the 'who will build the roads' line on government.




Government must be limited - in its size and in its powers - to prevent it becoming a protection racket for the select few, for the connected and powerful. I am always aghast when I see those concerned with corruption who see the solution in giving more power to politicians and the officials they appoint. They attack those like me who believe in small government and are blind to how the rules, taxes and controls they love are meat and drink to the powerful.

If you want a fairer society, if you want a less corrupt society then you should reject the idea of big government, high taxes and constricting regulation. Support freedom not authority folks.

....

Corruption in government. How bad can it get?

****

This is Chicago, Illinois:

Thirty-three Chicago aldermen and former aldermen have been convicted and gone to jail since 1973. Two others died before they could be tried. Since 1928 there have been only fifty aldermen serving in the council at any one time. Fewer than two hundred men and women have served in the Chicago city council since the 1970’s, so the federal crime rate in the council chamber is higher than in the most dangerous ghetto in the city.

This is the city that spawned Barak Obama:

Just look at who President Obama hired as top staff members. Daley fundraiser Rahm Emanuel served as Chief of Staff. Mayor Daley’s brother William followed him as Chief of Staff.  Another powerful figure is Mayor Daley’s deputy Chief of Staff, Valerie Jarret. The head of the less than successful Chicago Public School system, Arne Duncan, got promoted Secretary of Education. Chicago machine donor and housing fraudster Penny Pritzker got appointed to Secretary of Commerce. 

I make no comparisons in the UK. I can't think of a place as comprehensively corrupt. I fear though that the decline in mass membership political parties and the 'one-party' nature of some places means that a mafia or brotherhood could capture one of our great cities or counties.

....

How political parties get paid isn't the concern of government...it's the concern of members

****

I know you'll all start talking about corruption and the buying of influence but, let's be honest about that problem, it's not a consequence of political parties but rather the result of how government's willingness to fix markets makes bribing politicians an effective marketing strategy.

No, dear reader, how private organisations fund themselves isn't the concern of government - assuming that they're not doing so by doing things we've decided are illegal (drug dealing, running protection rackets, intimidation - all the things Sinn Fein used to use). Yet the Electoral Reform Society has decided - from its pinnacle of righteous knowledge on these matters - that action is needed:

The public are sick to death of party funding scandals. Over the last two weeks we have been exposed to yet more findings about the suspect dealings of party donors. It brings our democracy into disrepute, and we have to do something about it.

I'm not concerned here with the question of whether those donors are good or bad people. I take the view that, regardless of the political debate, they are mostly good people who care about politics. Care enough about politics to donate large sums of money to political parties and political campaigns rather than pouring it into the bottomless pits of football, sea-going yachts and opera.

What I'm concerned with is whether there's any justification for the Electoral Reform Society's campaign:

We propose three solutions, all of which have been recommended by previous committees looking into party funding and have been shown by ERS polling and focus group research to command support from the public. These are:

• A cap on the amount that anyone can donate to a party, to end the big-donor culture that has led to scandal after scandal
• An increased element of public funding for parties, to bring the UK into line with other advanced democracies
• A cap on the amount that parties are allowed to spend, to end the arms race between parties at election time

There is huge public support for doing what it takes to get big money out of politics, so whichever party takes a lead on this could stand to benefit at the polls.

To understand why the ERS are wrong we need to appreciate a few things. The first is just how cheaply we get our politics and democracy, the second is the lack of evidence supporting a link between political donations and party policies, and the third is that (as the Americans - after decades of campaign finance reform - have discovered) there's always a get around. I also take the view that there's a matter of principle here - in a free society people should be free to use their money to campaign for the things they think are important (including, of course, their own self-interest).

British politics and democracy is pretty cheap. Really it is. Over the six years from 2008-2013, the two main political parties had a total income of £386 million (split more or less equally - Labour raised about £5 million more that the Tories). I appreciate that this isn't all the money spent on politics - other parties raise funds, there are plenty of campaign groups (some very well funded) and there's the unquantified value of all that volunteer effort we see a glimpse of on Twitter.

To provide some context here, the annual player wage bills at Manchester City, Manchester United and Chelsea are all higher, at around £200 million, than the income of either the Conservative or Labour Party for the entire period of the current government. We get all our politics paid for for less than the wages at a football club. Yes, I know you think footballers are overpaid, but this still tells us that our democracy is, relatively speaking, cheap as chips.

Generally speaking giving money to political parties isn't a great way to influence policy. It's true that there's some reliable evidence from the USA that campaign contributions and policy outcomes are linked. Moreover there's some research suggesting a link between contributions and public contracts (although mostly the contributions come after the contract not before). There's also some evidence suggesting that the more 'professional' the legislature and the higher paid the legislators, the more likely it is that campaign contributions will influence decision-making.

The evidence from the UK is more limited and mostly anecdotal. Transparency International reviewed 'Corruption and the funding of UK political parties' in 2006. This report didn't record a single identified example of 'corruption' or evidence of undue influence and opted to fall back on the same argument as the ERS:

The recent ‘Power’enquiry into the state of Britain’s democracy found that “there is a widespread perception that donations to parties can buy influence or position. It is clear that a system of party funding that relies increasingly on very sizeable donations from a handful of wealthy individuals or organisations creates an environment in which the perception spreads that democracy can be bought.”

Now there's some truth that a widespread view that money buys political power runs counter to the idea of a free democracy but the evidence of actual corruption or undue influence on policy is negligible (and yes I include the Bernie Ecclestone donation to New Labour in this conclusion). And there's not even all that much evidence closely linking donations and electoral outcome! Here's an expert on campaign finance effects talking:

For example, large shocks to campaign spending from changes in campaign finance regulations do not produce concomitant impacts on electoral success, nor do candidates with vast personal wealth to spend on their campaigns fare better than other candidates.

These findings may be surprising at first blush, but the intuition isn’t that hard to grasp. After all, how many people do you know who ever change their minds on something important like their political beliefs (well, other than liberal Republicans who find themselves running for national office)? People just aren’t that malleable; and for that reason, campaign spending is far less important in determining election outcomes than many people believe (or fear).

Our worry that somehow a shadowy bunch of hedge fund owners are somehow buying the election makes for good politics but there's precious little evidence supporting the contention that big donors - whether corporate or individual - either get what they "want" or influence the outcome of elections.

There is no case for legislation to regulate the funding of political parties any more than the degree of control needed for any private organisation be it a company, a charity or a campaign group. When the ERS refers to "scandal after scandal" it uses deliberately unspecific language - we've read the scandals in the newspapers and, if we're honest, they don't amount to any real threat to our democracy.

The losers in this dominance of party funding - including the access that can go with it - are not the voters or even the operation of government. The losers - and that's why the numbers have dwindled - are the ordinary party members. Our ability to have an influence over our party is what gives when big donors - whether institutional or individual - play such an important role. And this is the reason why I've argued for ages that the Conservative Party should simply impose an unilateral cap on the level of donations. The Conservative Club in Cullingworth will give £1,000 to the Party this year - and that club considers this to be a significant contribution. Because the Party - at a national level - is chasing those million pound plus donors, the emphasis on member recruitment, local events and the idea of the Party as a social movement as well as a vehicle for getting Tories elected has been lost. A voluntary cap on donations would force us back into doing just that - working to get ordinary folk to help us, in whatever way they can, get the sort of decent, efficient and effective government we need.

....

We propose three solutions, all of which have been recommended by previous committees looking into party funding and have been shown by ERS polling and focus group research to command support from the public. These are:

• A cap on the amount that anyone can donate to a party, to end the big-donor culture that has led to scandal after scandal
• An increased element of public funding for parties, to bring the UK into line with other advanced democracies
• A cap on the amount that parties are allowed to spend, to end the arms race between parties at election time

There is huge public support for doing what it takes to get big money out of politics, so whichever party takes a lead on this could stand to benefit at the polls.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/deal-or-no-deal#sthash.pLfWMR8L.dpuf

The public are sick to death of party funding scandals. Over the last two weeks we have been exposed to yet more findings about the suspect dealings of party donors. It brings our democracy into disrepute, and we have to do something about it. - See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/deal-or-no-deal#sthash.pLfWMR8L.dpuf

The public are sick to death of party funding scandals. Over the last two weeks we have been exposed to yet more findings about the suspect dealings of party donors. It brings our democracy into disrepute, and we have to do something about it. - See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/deal-or-no-deal#sthash.pLfWMR8L.dpuf

On the capture of government by special interests...

****

If we assume that the airline companies will try to capture the Civil Aeronautics Board, it makes sense to assume that professors will try to capture the National Science Foundation, teachers to capture the Department of Education, environmentalists to capture the Council on Environmental Quality, and civil rights activists to capture the Office for Civil Rights.  The plausibility of this assumption is sometimes obscured by calling agency-interest relations of which we approve “citizen participation” and agency-interest relations of which we disapprove “capture,” but the issue is very much the same whatever rhetorical label we choose to employ.

Absolutely - and public health lobbies will capture the Department of Health!And, of course, bankers the treasury.

We need to remember this at all times. Government and bureaucracy is never neutral, seldom innocent and is inevitably corrupted by the people and organisations it regulates. The solution isn't more government. The solution isn't some weird thing called 'better regulation'. The solution isn't more so-called democratic oversight (as if the people the democracy puts there are innocent, uncorrupted paladins).

The solution is less government, less bureaucracy and less regulation.

...

"Big Oil! How the EU works...a reminder

****

There has been a hoo-hah about the proposal to force restauranteurs to sell only factory-produced and approved olive oil. It hasn't quite been described this way rather as a ban on those cute little dipping bowls and in unlabelled bottles. The proposal has been dropped  - a welcome and unusual reaction (I guess that the EU was found out). And this is what the industrial olive oil folk have to say:

Copa-Cogeca, a farming association that represents industrial olive oil producers who would have benefited from the ban by getting a higher price for factory packaged bottles, attacked the climb down.

"It is totally ludicrous that the commission just withdraws this measure due to political pressure - it has been discussed for over a year and passed through all the correct legal procedures," said Pekka Pesonen , the general secretary of Copa-Cogeca.

"Perhaps it wasn't explained well enough. But it was necessary to ban refillable bottles and the traditional aceiteras found on restaurant tables. It is totally unacceptable that the Commission has done a complete U-turn and has succumbed to political pressure like this." 

You will notice a couple of things here - these producers "would have benefited from the ban by getting a higher price" and that the proposal has "been discussed for over a year". Moreover the ban, we're told is "necessary" - presumably for the owners of these industrial oil companies.

This is how the EU works. Organised lobbies corral officials and MEPs to browbeat them with proposals to protect their particular interests. We see this with the car industry and OEM parts, with industrial cheese manufacture in Italy and Greece using PDOs and PGIs, and with the pharmaceuticals business over herbal supplements (and more recently e-cigarettes).

All of this is wrapped up in warm words about 'health', 'safety' and 'protecting business' when, in reality, it is simply a ramp for the interests of the lobby. As a European consumer my interests are not served - and I am the poorer for this - by the failure of those who represent me (politicians, ministers and so forth) to do so. Now this is a feature of government everywhere - you only have to peek at the sugar industry in the USA to know that - but the EU has managed to achieve its perfection.

This olive oil ban is overturned (it will be lack, trust me) but ask yourself how many restrictions, bans, privileges and preferences have damaged our interests that haven't made the papers and haven't caused an outcry? The EU may have grown too large for us to take it round the back of the barn and finish it off with an axe but we have to option to leave.

We should take that option.

....

A story...

****

I knew a bloke who set up an erboristoria in Ragusa - or rather his wife did and Dave helped. Now, as you'll know, to set up any shop in Italy requires a licence and, in this case, there was a further licence because of the medical nature of a herbalist.

Now in Sicily there are three ways to get a licence.

The first way is to go to the municipio queue up and collect the requisite form, complete the form, attach the requisite payment and submit it to the appropriate official. And wait. And wait. There is a chance that, at some point in the future, that official (or someone on his staff) will not be at important meetings, at lunch or otherwise engaged. And will deign to look at the completed form, apply the stamp of approval and place it in the tray for the licence to be sent. There is even a chance that the licence is actually posted back.

The second way to get a licence is to get your neighbours cousin - the one with the nice car who never seems to work - to get his business associates to speak to the official in question. Shortly after this the license will be issued. However, each Wednesday friends of the cousin call in and politely ask for a small consideration for their efforts. Not paying this consideration is, I believe, foolish.

The third way to secure that license involves the most expensive espresso you've ever bought. You speak to the local mayor and he tells you he can help and can you meet him at his brother's caffetteria perhaps for a late morning caffè. You agree and on arriving you buy the mayor a coffee, hand him the completed form. He drinks the coffee (it being Italy this takes little more than a minute), says he's happy to help and leaves. The brother brings the bill across. Your eyes pop out but you pay secure in the knowledge that tomorrow your licence will arrive.

Quite which option Dave and his wife used I don't know.

It may all be a myth, of course!

....

Why the FA should leave FIFA

Much debate has followed from the latest round of corruption allegations directed at senior board members of football's governing body, FIFA. The boss, Sepp Blatter is blustering his way through the ensuing media furore:

Asked if bribery allegations against two of his most senior former allies, Mohamed Bin Hammam and Jack Warner, and continued questions over the probity of the Qatar 2022 bid constituted a crisis, Mr Blatter said: “What is a crisis? Football is not in a crisis. When you see the final of the Champions League then you must applaud. So we are not in a crisis, we are only in some difficulties.” 

Let's be clear about this - FIFA's owners (the various national football associations) are unwilling to act, to prevent bribery, to throw out corrupt officials and to deals with the games financial problems. This is because none of those national FA's are prepared to risk being outside the sty, away from the trough. And, of course, FIFA controls the World Cup.

However, there comes a time when tolerating corruption, bribery and malpractice simply to get the right to enter a competition ceases to be acceptable. And offering soft challenges, threatening to abstain and calling for delays doesn't cut the mustard - the fat cats running FIFA will simply ignore the FA. The only lever is for the FA (ideally along with a couple of like-minded associations) to inform Blatter that they will be withdrawing from FIFA until such a time as the organisation addresses corruption and reforms its governance.

What I do know is that we will not get a reform of FIFA so long as the criticisms of the FA and others can be ignored by FIFA's executives. Pulling out might be painful in the short run but may prove the only way to force FIFA's hand. Right now Sepp Blatter can ride out the criticism because it can't really damage FIFA sufficiently to require substantive governance changes. And in a few weeks time all the press will have wandered off to the next story leaving FIFA to wallow happily in its sty once again.

....

Why Cameron is wrong to have a Business Council to advise him...

****

I am a member of the “Party of Business” – or at least many of my fellow members remind me often of this. Indeed, in the mythology of past dualist politics, we in the Conservative Party armed ourselves in the great battle with Labour – the “Party of The Unions”. This great duel characterised – indeed corrupted – debate. And that debate was couched in the manner of a war between these two great forces – between business and organised labour.

The result of this was the terrible destructive, protectionism of the peace deals between these two factions – the arrangements that suited the big business and the big union. Everywhere we look – be it agriculture, aerospace, steel, motor manufacturer or mining – everywhere we find the deep scars of that battle of old. A battle in which we all were losers.

It’s OK, there’s no need to panic. I have not suddenly become some advocate of a middle way – I remain unequivocally committed to the irreducible truth of the free market. But I am not “pro-business” any more than I am “pro-union”. These two beasts of that past battle still strut the land baying and bellowing – laying claim to special privileges and trying to guide or control the parties they once commanded to fight on their respective behalves.

It is gross and corrupting that the baneful influence of unions determined who became leader of the Labour Party – indeed that the campaigning arm of those unions were directed to procuring a particular, protectionist, anti-business position from that new leader. I weep for socialists – and other left-leaning folk – who have had their party stolen from them again.

And it is just as gross and just as corrupting for the leader of my party to announce panel of business people – a Business Council. David Cameron is granting a certain set of people – already wealthy and powerful – a special position of access and advice. And this access is granted because they are business people – apparently representing sectors that are strategically important (whatever that may mean) to the country.

Why not a panel of consumers Mr Cameron – of ordinary men and women who do the buying, the eating, the living and the dying across most of the nation? Why not a council of corner shopkeepers? Or a committee of street sweepers, drain clearers and plumbers? Are these people less important? Less valued? Less significant? I fear that is the case.

I fear my party is being taken from me by this coalition of wealth and power.

...

Thoughts on why bilateral aid doesn't work

****

I have always tried to avoid writing about international aid – not because it’s a subject without importance but because, frankly, my neighbours in Cullingworth don’t put it in their top ten areas of concern. Indeed, there are plenty of folk out there who believe that charity starts at home. But I sense, in the debate about cuts, an imminent upwelling of righteous anger at the audacity of ordinary people who’d prefer their taxes spent on schools, hospitals and coppers rather than on buying 4X4s for ‘aid workers’ to drive around Africa.

Although to be honest, that’s not where the aid cash goes as the biggest (by far) recipient of UK aid is India (nearly £300 million in 2008). You know, that poor country that owns Jaguar and our steel industry (at least the bits it hasn’t closed down yet). Perhaps we should have sent some of that aid to Redcar instead?

OK, I hear you saying that all this can be fixed, a good government will shift the aid programme away from supporting Britain’s foreign policy to targeted support for the poorest countries. Somehow, I doubt this – the purpose of the aid budget is not to alleviate poverty but to purchase the continued support of the recipient countries (although how much this actually works remains moot). That and bilateral aid programmes continue to distort the development of poor country economies because they are not associated with requirements for policy changes.

It is in this last point that multilateral aid differs as the intervention of the World Bank and IMF is always associated with requirements to change economic policies, develop better legal enforcement structures and perhaps try to collect a few taxes. The aid is still market distorting but it provides the recipient nation with a pathway to better governance. That pathway includes things like ending arbitrary land seizure, repatriating overseas sovereign funds, collecting taxes and repaying (yes, repaying) some of that debt.

But when the donor nation doesn’t like the medicine prescribed it just sidles up to a giver of bilateral aid, reels out its sob story and lo, the aid is forthcoming. And nothing is done to give people property rights, no efforts are made to end graft and governments continue with market distorting programmes of urban food subsidy, price-fixing and nationalisation.

The changes that are beginning – slowly – to improve Africa are happening in spite of aid programmes. In truth aid programmes can actively discourage the development of a strong business culture – why bother developing the necessary infrastructure of a free economy when the aid fairy will drop some cash on you tomorrow? If we worried less about so-called fair trade, social justice and other such nonsense – and concerned ourselves with promoting free markets in Africa then we’d be doing a damn sight more for poor folk than all the billions of bilateral aid money.

But if we’re going to spend that money let’s use it to change things rather than prop up corruption, graft and the old third world disorder.

....

Barak Obama, Cincinnatus and the political career

***

Sometimes - perhaps cynically - politicians really do say the right thing. So when Barak Obama says:

"You know, there is a tendency in Washington to believe our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That's not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and to help people."

..I want to applaud.

After all there's no point geting elected unless you intend to do something now, is there?

Sadly for most politicians the "doing something" means getting preferment - means climbing up the pole of political power and influence. Not so as to change anything - all that rhetoric to get elected is just that, rhetoric. Or rather what we really want to change is the wealth and status of the politician. And we don't have to get all Ramsey Mac to realise this or even to quote the plot line of Howard Spring's "Fame is the Spur".

Since us politicians will not behave like Cincinnatus, we have to be made to do so.

I've been a local councillor* now since 1995 - I like to think a passing fair one. Today I have the good prospect of being re-elected in 2011 and continuing to receive the benighted taxpayers' £13,000 stipend for a further four years. For my colleagues (and in my honest moments, me) there is the further prospect of chasing other preferments - places on joint bodies, chairmanships of panels and so on - each paying a few thousand more.

Indeed in Bradford, if you chair a planning committee, have an executive position on a joint authority (police, fire, PTE) and maybe an LGA Board you can clear £50,000 in earnings. All for about five or six meetings a week. Local politics has become a career costing ever more money(we even get to play in the public sector pensions game) and having less and less relevence or significance to the public who elect us.

Surely the time has come for us to stop this gravy train? And the only way to make us go back to our ploughs is to introduce term limits - no more than three terms (12 years) for Councillors and no more than two terms (10 years) for MPs.

Involvement in public life shouldn't be a career - that just corrupts. Involvement in public life should be an act of service done for the right reasons not for power, glory or, as seems the preference these days, the cash.


*Important note for local government bureaucrats and fellow travellers: the word is COUNCILLOR not ELECTED MEMBER.
...