The public aren't so keen on nannying fussbucketry after all!

****

A little glimmer of hope. A small break in the dark New Puritan clouds. It seems that the British public - or a large proportion of it - aren't so very keen on nanny:

There is little support for nannying.  Asked if Government should provide advice on what foods to eat and how much to drink, 48 per cent disagree and only 22 per cent agree.

I'm guess that the fussbuckets will carry on - after all they know so much better. Shame then that that British public rather doubts that they do:

Asked if politicians and civil servants are well-equipped to make personal decisions on their behalf, nearly two out of three Britons (65 per cent) disagree, versus only 9 per cent who agree.

Perhaps, in the light of these findings the Church of Public Health will back off a little especially given that the good old British public things their latest wheeze, plain packs for fags, won't work and is an imposition.

Just a quarter of people in the UK (28 per cent) think that selling cigarettes in plain packaging would discourage younger people from taking up smoking, the stance that health organisations are currently taking to push the law in this territory. Only 25 per cent of smokers agree that plain packs would put children off trying cigarettes.

And all the evidence suggests that the British public have got it right.

....

Do you believe?

****

I remember, in what seems almost a previous life, a quite attractive girl asking me whether I had seen the light. Because it was a quite an attractive girl asking and I was fifteen, I didn't give the glib answer - "just flip that switch over there, love".

If I remember correctly this quite attractive girl was talking about god. Although the rather damp church hall on Bingham Road in Addiscombe seemed an unlikely place for damascene revelation, I persevered (unsuccessfully) with talking to this quite attractive girl. Which led to the next bit of the induction - "do you believe?"

Tricky thing believing. We can be like Thomas and believe only when we stick our hand in the gory reality or we can be Mary Magdalene and believe on the flimsiest of evidence.  Belief has become more important than truth - indeed, that I might believe has become truth revealed.

All this brings us to politics, to the manner in which political communications now manifest a sort of religious fervour, an appeal to belief rather than any attempt to analyse, assess and decide. Politicians will say things they know to be nonsense merely to press a little belief button among their followers:

"Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history. I ask you to believe.”

Take this statement at its face. Is it not the most cynical, exploitative and deceptive of observations? We are cynical and fed up with politics because it has failed us or because we sense its vacuity, its amorality - yet we must believe. Just as half starved European peasants were asked to believe while watching bishops and friars living high on the hog, we are expected to believe in 'politics' unequivocally - our suffering (not theirs, never theirs) is for a greater good, for that belief.

Well I don't believe. No politician deserves support on the basis of "believe" for this is a con - we have tested to destruction the idea that elected representatives can magic us a better life. In the end the sorrow falls on our shoulders not theirs, we'll hear their sobbing sympathy but it is mere glamour, an illusion to fool us.

When Obama tells us to "believe" it is the language of the huckster - "trust me, I'm not like them" he's saying. Are we so foolish that we believe this to be true? Or will we be wise enough to tie the hands of politicians with the constraints of liberty - to say that we are free people, free to choose, free to fail and delighted to succeed. We do not need your "believe" but rather to stand in our own boots, make our own mistakes and, in the end, look at the far horizon with a job done.

....

Decisions...

The Quaker Meeting House at Sedburgh

Quakers - as far as I recall - have this idea of 'waiting on god'. There is no service, people say more-or-less what they want. I'm probably wrong in this but it always seemed an interesting idea. It is a fine thought that a whole 'service' can pass without a word being said and for those present to see this as good and valuable.

The first that enters into the place of your meeting. . . turn in thy mind to the light, and wait upon God singly, as if none were present but the Lord; and here thou art strong. Then the next that comes in, let them in simplicity of heart sit down and turn in to the same light, and wait in the spirit; and so all the rest coming in, in the fear of the Lord, sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the light . . . . Those who are brought to a pure still waiting upon God in the spirit, are come nearer to the Lord than words are; for God is a spirit, and in the spirit is he worshiped. . . . In such a meeting there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here; and this is the end of all words and writings—to bring people to the eternal living Word.

It's OK, dear readers, I am not rushing off to sign up for the Religious Society of Friends, but the idea of waiting for 'the light' - however we may want to define that 'light' - is a very appealing idea. We are too ready to shout over others, to engage in a babble of debate, bandying words, opinions, numbers and statistics around as if by their sheer quantity we will demonstrate the truth or proof we seek.

I like also the idea that we listen - I'm not very good at this but I like the thought. Not just to the opinions of others as if we were some sort of knowledge sponge but to the deeper sounds - what I guess the Quakers would call 'god'. We are enjoined to be logical as if that state is the antithesis of spiritual. We are told to seek truth yet do so without either the tools or a map for such a search.

Politics exists for one reason - we have to make decisions. There is no other purpose to the profession - the good folk of Bingley Rural elect me to do that for them. My problem is that, when the work informing us is done well, those decisions are not easy. We get little chance to contemplate, to wait for that 'light' - so often we end up uncomfortable with the compromise, questioning of the evidence and unsure of the options. Yet a decision must be made. So we make one.

For me the result of this is to doubt. I've said before that no-one without doubt can be a conservative and this remains my view. And I believe that the central importance of doubt should lead us to political inaction rather than political action. Since we cannot be sure that the changes proposed will make things better, the current arrangement should be preferred unless it is broken beyond redemption.

Perhaps, before making those decisions - before changing something, ahead of curtailing someone's rights or ending someone's business - we should sit in silent contemplation of the decisions we will take. We should maybe listen to the deeper sound of society, think closely about what it might mean for our neighbour and then decide whether we make the change. Perhaps, instead of filling rooms with statistics, analysis and documentation that no one person has read let alone understood, we should instead think whether, when we think of what we've chosen, our heads will go up and a smile will come on our face.

....

Trust me, I'm a politician!

****

Trust is a tricky old thing – that headline probably brings out the sense of irony in you (although you don’t know for sure whether or not I actually mean “trust me”). Indeed our default position is, as Martin Vander Weyer points out, more often distrust:

...trust is no longer offered, in any sphere, as it used to be; distrust is now the default response. It’s easy to argue that business leaders, especially in the City, have brought this on themselves by behaving greedily and uncaringly. But that’s not the whole story, which is also about social change.

At the core of this is a presiding sense that they’re out to rip us off. Politicians, lawyers, doctors, journalists – the entire panoply of professions – are cynical, driven by personal success rather than by any concept of service. And our mistrust extends further – we see train drivers striking on boxing day and see self-interest rather than a collective response to injustice, we tell tales or teachers or council officers seeing the “strike day” as an excuse for a jolly and we’ve got used to anger at huge bonuses in large firms and big public organisation that seem merely to reward failure or incompetence.

The other day, Jack of Kent pondered on why everyone hates lawyers and concludes that it is the majesty of the law that we fear rather than its agent, the lawyer:

It is perhaps not so much that lawyers are hated, but that law itself is feared and mysterious.

That this is the case is unfortunate, and it is an entirely fair criticism that many lawyers do not do more to promote the public understanding of law.

Of course, barriers to lay understanding can suit the interests of lawyers. Lawyers have no general interest in enabling potential clients to work out their own legal problems.

And, so to that extent, lawyers really only have themselves to blame.

But it isn’t quite so simple – what has happened is that we have stopped trusting lawyers because they are lawyers, doctors simply for the fact of their doctoring and politicians by dint of their elected authority. The brands of these professions are corrupted by our awareness of their failings, our recognition that lawyers, doctors, MPs and other ‘professionals’ will close ranks, will protect their privileges, rather than have those failings exposed.

This is a good thing although we still give too great a credence to the self-interest of the Law Society, the BMA or the ‘senior backbencher’. However the growing doubt as to motive means that trust must be earned. It’s perfectly possible to trust a lawyer, a doctor, even a politician but only in so far as we trust the individual behind the badge.

When I urge you to trust me because I’m a politician, I’m asking you to trust the idea of such a person rather than to trust me. Such heuristics damage society by granting to a given organisation, professional body or political party the power to bestow trust.

You should trust Simon Cooke because he has proven himself trustworthy not because he has the stamp of politician.

...

What are politicians for...?

I appreciate that this sort of question raises an endless torrent of sarcasm, cynicism and vulgar repartee but it’s an important question. And one we don’t often ask, preferring instead to wander along in a safe assumption that somehow we need politicians. Which I think rather lets us off the hook and allows us to ramble on about “leadership” even, horror of horrors, “community leadership”.

Frankly I think leadership is a vastly over-rated element of politics. I’m not elected to “lead” but to represent, yet the debate is always about political “leadership” rather than political “representation”. This isn’t to say that politicians shouldn’t lead but it is to observe that leadership is not the purpose of politics or politicians. Yet it remains the obsession of observers – who seem to want a kind of magical spirit of leadership to emanate from politicians:

Yet I couldn’t help think that there was something missing in all the talk of leadership. There were numerous real life and theoretical examples of people ‘doing’ leadership or asking others to show leadership, but I couldn’t help but feel that I was no nearer understanding what Cameron’s definition of leadership is, how it manifests/shows itself and why he thinks the examples that he used demonstrate leadership (as well as what politicians can learn). One of the problems with our body politic at present is that all of those references to leadership could have been sprinkled into the speeches of Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg and none of us would have noticed any different.

What we have here isn’t leadership (and Puffles is right to make that observation), it is representation – people want leadership so our representatives present themselves as leaders. And what we mostly want is one of two things – and often both:

1. The leaders to take away the problems of our life – be it work, health or relationships. We want it to be “someone else’s problem”; we want the magic government fairy to sort it out. This applies whether you’re a billionaire banker or a poor pensioner
2. The leaders to fix things for our benefit, to make rules that favour what we do or that stop those things of which we disapprove. Sometimes this is about economic protection, sometimes it is the projection of a moral position but it is always about fixing things so we benefit.

When politicians don’t do this – or do it for someone else and not us – we accuse them of being weak leaders. Yet the irony of such accusations is that the very opposite is true – it takes a real strength (and a willingness to risk electoral defeat) to tell people they can’t have what they are demanding.

None of this is to argue that politicians shouldn’t lead but it is to say that we don’t have politics and politicians for the purpose of leadership – we have politics and (under our system of representative democracy) politicians to resolve dispute. To make the choice between competing policy options, to decide what course of action to take. And the representation bit is important – my member of parliament has the job of representing me (and the sixty-odd thousand other Shipley electors) in that process of choice.

This is representation and, if we opt instead to devolve responsibility for our economic, social and personal well-being to these people, we are making a colossal mistake – we stop being free men and women and become mere supplicants. Wide-eyed beggar brats gazing into the shiny political salon hoping they’ll notice and “do something”. Because of this, politicians have become a peculiar species of social worker – mollycoddling their electors rather than doing the primary job of representing those electors in the making of choices, in the job of politics.

Puffles suggests that the system for choosing politicians (the selection process rather than the election process) is at fault:

One of the paradoxes I find is that some of our political institutions and the practices of political parties end up suppressing leadership rather than encouraging and nurturing it.

I remain unconvinced - so long as we shuffle about like well-fed sheep waiting for the man with the crook or the dog to herd us in their chosen direction, so long as we see the problem as one of leadership, so long as politicians are expected to wet nurse the voter we will have this crisis of leadership.

I look to a world where, to borrow a Marxist turn of phrase, the need for politicians withers away. Some call this a process of apathy, the rebirth of idiots, but I welcome private strength, individual choices and people who want to be free from the “leadership” that politicians are urged to provide.

As I wrote a couple of years ago:

...the core consideration is the extent to which we are able to live as Greek idiots. Quietly, privately, without bothering our neighbours with our problems – and when such people want change they will get up from their armchairs, walk away from the telly and vote. The idea that not being bothered with voting most of the time makes them bad people is a misplaced idea – they are the good folk.

Above all we should listen quietly to what this “apathy” calls for – it is less bothersome, less interfering, less hectoring and more effective government. Such people want government to be conducted at their level not to be the province of pompous politicians with overblown and lying rhetoric. And they want the language of common sense, freedom, liberty and choice to push away the elitist exclusivity of modern bureaucratic government.

 ....

Untouchable...

Not surprisingly, many from the left are praising Peter Oborne’s latest grumble about the corruption of Britain’s business, political and social elite – a continuation of his theme of the last several years:

Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.

The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.

Oborne’s thesis is that we face a moral crisis rather than an economic or political crisis – this suits the left’s world view since it suggests the need for moral leadership. Indeed left wing leaders of the past have taken the same position as Oborne – that what we need is a remaking of man rather than a reinvention of the state. It is part of socialism’s essence that man is perfectible and that leaders are needed to direct that programme – to manage the moral reformation.

But all those people Oborne scourges – fiddling MPs, millionaires taking their money overseas to reduce their tax burden and feral youth smashing and looting in London – are they not acting as rational individuals? Or are they swept along into some immoral maelstrom created by our leaders’ failures?

Unlike Oborne – and unlike the left – I reject the idea of man’s perfectibility. Or indeed that we are in need of a “moral reformation” – it is an economic and political reformation we require, a change to the order of things. It is not moral decadence that links the powerful to the rioter but a belief that they are untouchable, that the normal rules of society do not apply.

So rather than rant about the moral failings of such powerful men, we should instead ask how they might be made touchable – subject to the mores of England rather than to the decadent glitter of elite society. And the answer to that – in as much as we can ever free the world from corruption – rests in removing power not in moral lectures.

In my days as a marketer I used to describe the point and purpose of marketing as being the securing of monopoly – markets in a state of equilibrium are not profit-making so we must create dysfunction so as to achieve our business aims. Much of marketing – the bit condemned by Naomi Klein – is directed towards securing a monopoly of attention in the individual consumer’s mind. This is what all that advertising, all those carefully crafted brands are for – not selling you stuff but making sure my stuff is what you think of first.

But think for a second or two – if our marketing investment is directed to the creation of a monopoly we control, is it not quicker and probably cheaper simply to bribe the state into giving us that monopoly? Rather than directing our limited marketing resource towards the tricky business of building brand equity, we can influence politicians, newspaper editors, bureaucrats and broadcasters so they see the evident rightness of fixing the market in our favour.

It is this marketing effort that Oborne is attacking – because governments have assumed the power to interfere in, limit and even control important markets, the people making money from those markets are both the creatures and the controllers of government. It is a symbiosis of corruption, a cartel against the interests of the ordinary man. So when those on the left rail about how the banks dragged down the economy, they are right. And when their right-wing counterpoints blame government, taxation and regulation they too are right since that regulation, taxation and governance has been conducted in co-operation with those very bankers.

And when we peek a little further into this, we find other groups engaged in the system protecting and promoting their especial monopolies – in healthcare, in education, in the production and distribution of food and in the making of guns, planes and bombs. We see the same monopoly and self-interest prevail in the law, in accountancy and even in sport – rather than fight fair in a free, competitive market, the businesses, trade unions and professional bodies prefer to get government to fix the rules.

The reformation is simple – we should neuter government, take away from it the power to fix markets in the interests of those with the best lobbyists and biggest bribes. It is the overweening state that created the sinful world Oborne describes not some wider moral malaise.

The solution is in our hands. We probably won’t take it.

 ....

Let them have their holidays...

What’s the problem with holidays? Or rather with politicians taking holidays?

OK so there’s image of the politician lying in the sunshine, bottle of San Miguel in one hand, trashy crime novel in the other while markets tumble, riots unfold and the self-righteous (who of course never ever take a holiday) take to the airwaves to score cheap political points about such indulgence.

I know also that politicians are superhuman beings who can stay up all night, work at least seven days each week and remain alert, relaxed and attentive enough to make decisions of great moment whenever called upon to do so. In some cases decisions that amount to life or death.

Clearly such paragons of our workaholic age don’t need a holiday do they? And if they do dare to take a break, to slip away for a day or three, those self-righteous immediately look for the opportunity to call for the paragon to be dragged back from the little break so as to attend to some momentous happening.

Yet these same self-important folk would be the first to complain if their bosses told them they couldn’t have the essential two-week break over Christmas or rang them up with questions and queries every five minutes – interrupting the recharging of batteries at that nice tapas bar on the banks of the Betis in Sevilla.

We’re in a pretty sorry state if we can’t cope for a fortnight without our leaders. And what exactly are these leaders going to do when we’ve shamed them into coming home early from holiday? Hold a meeting. That’s all they’ll do. Or maybe three or four meetings (often dubbed “summits” but that’s just an effort to make a meeting sound useful or important). And those meetings will finish with a press conference where the leader will make reassuring noises that change precisely nothing.

Let them have their holidays.

....

Welcome to the "Eric Illsley Defence"

****

Some people really don’t get it do they? Here’s Eric Illsley on his trial, punishment and (brief) imprisonment for fraudulent expenses claims:

“My case shouldn’t have been brought before the court,” said Illsley. “There are so many others who have walked free and nobody is going to say a dickie bird about their situation.”

It seems that Mr Illsley believes that because some others – in his opinion – have “got away with” the same crime, he shouldn’t have been punished? Imagine the next of Barnsley’s burglars up in court:

“M’lud, I shouldn’t be in court because my mate Wayne is also a burglar and he hasn’t been charged.”

That would work now wouldn’t it?

....

Why do we do this?

There has been much debate - and a modicum of understandable schadenfreude - at the departure of well-known "right-wing" bloggers from the scene. Most recently has been the departure of Iain Dale mostly it seems to me in preference for other more interesting and more lucrative activities.

I was struck by this little comment from Paul Evans, where I think he comes close to understanding why bloggers find it hard to sustain their activity especially when it is subject to constant attack by those - from all sides and with a range of motivations. With the compulsory (for left-wing bloggers) snide sideswipe at Nadine Dorries, Paul says:

Tom H, Nadine and Iain have distinguished themselves by being more-active-than-average online. None of them have been able to do the useful things that social media allows them to do - at least in part -because the personal engagement crowds out the political / policy conversation (though I suspect Nadine would just be a little puzzled by the concept in the first place). If you place yourself in full view online, you leave yourself open to disruption. Keep quiet and you don't.

The question for those in the 'public eye' is whether to take the risk of conversation - the whole point of social media - or remain aloof. Most politicians and political celebrities do not engage with the process - they give their opinion (very carefully) and refuse to engage beyond that point. Blogging allows the conversation to take place but, as I often point out about this blog, politicians cannot take the risk of allowing a conversational free-for-all since your comment on my blog is as likely to offend, upset or be exploited as my own thoughts.

To be quite honest we do this for selfish - rather preening - reasons. As a politician I am opinionated - indeed an unopinionated politician would be decidedly oxymoronic. Blogging and social media provide a platform for me to get my opinion across - whether that opinion's about the national debt, the clearing of snow or the winner of X-Factor. More importantly, having an opinion is what I'm good at - it is my special talent and the world is better for everyone to have the chance to hear my opinion. Or maybe I'm just an arrogant git with a big mouth!

What I do know is that something may come along that grabs my attention, engages my interests, even excites...and then, like all those others who have quit blogging, I'll be off. Until then I afraid you'll have to put up with me!

....

Freedom Act - just a thought

****

Amidst all the froth and bother about scrapping laws (and Nick just amend the smoking ban and allow all shops to open on a Sunday), I've been struck by a thought.

If 'crowdsourcing' laws is such a good idea (and I'm not really so sure that it is) then why do we elect politicians? Surely such participation eliminates the need for represtentation?

So maybe we should just scrap politicians?

Just a thought.

....

Pigs...

Pigs are better than sheep for a whole load of reasons. It’s not just the diet – pigs eat all the same stuff we eat which makes having one in the yard a pretty good idea (says he in a pigless environment) – but the lack of flocking. Pigs are family animals rather than herd animals.

But pigs get a poor press – it’s not just that Jews and Muslims won’t eat them (I visualise the Porcine High Command in their bunker near Basingstoke planning the exodus to Riyadh and pig liberty) – but the endless harping on about greediness, filthiness and general bad manners.

And all this stuff about troughing – especially the adjustment of politicians’ pictures to incorporate parts of pig anatomy (prize to the first one to feature the corkscrew-like porcine penis). Well it won’t do – stick food in front of a pig and it eats but how many politicians could find you a truffle?

Pigs are, I think, the champion domesticated animal – you can eat all of them, they don’t need great fields to graze on and they are prolific breeders. And the world (other than those parts with a silly taboo) gets sausages, bacon, chitterlings, belly pork, black pudding, gammon, scratchings, chops and spare ribs. What more could we ask?

Family values, good hygiene, low environmental impact, versatility and no fuss. Go on folks – ignore Bing Crosby – grow up to be a pig!

....

What exactly is the necessary qualification to hold a cabinet post?

****

I was struck by the implied theme of a recent post from the Laser Cat Party on the subject of cabinet diversity. And it wasn’t diversity but qualification – with the argument being that George Osborne isn’t “qualified” to be chancellor or rather as Charlotte puts it – “monumental overachievement”.

You see the problem is that George has never had a “proper” job (although it remains unclear as to what constitutes such a job) something he appears to share with most of our current crop of leaders:

After graduating from Oxford University, Miliband became a Labour Party researcher and rose to become one of then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's confidants, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers. Miliband was elected Labour Member of Parliament for the South Yorkshire constituency of Doncaster North.

Born in London, Miliband studied at Oxford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and started his career at the Institute for Public Policy Research. At 29, Miliband became Tony Blair's Head of Policy whilst the Labour Party was then in opposition and was a major contributor to Labour's manifesto for the 1997 general election which brought the party to power. Blair made him head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit from 1997 to 2001

Pretty close to George’s career – and the same could go for shiny politician after shiny politician. Posh school, Oxbridge, policy or research job, suck up to existing leaders, safe seat, cabinet…..

But this is to stray from my point, which was to ask a simple question: what exactly is the necessary qualification to hold a cabinet post? Do you have to be an economist or financier to be chancellor? And a social policy wonk or former top copper to run the Home Office? An ex-teacher to be in charge at education?

Surely this isn’t the case – we want top MPs to have experience, to be clever, decisive and able to lead. But we don’t want a government of policy wonks and statistics geeks! Which is why Charlotte worried me a little with her comment on Theresa May:

“As an aside, I looked at Theresa May’s Wikipedia page and found this:

From 1977 to 1983 she worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997, as a financial consultant and senior advisor in International Affairs at the Association for Payment Clearing Services.

A natural fit for the Home Office, I’m sure you’ll agree.”

And why not? Clearly, clever and connected and with more pre-politics experience than all the Balls, Milibands, Osbornes, Blairs and Camerons put together!

....