ja_mageia

It is reassuring to see that the “new” generation has got a good grasp on the economic path that needs to be taken if the UK is to reverse its national debt. I'm not talking about Ed Miliband's new shadow cabinet, but the 18-24 year olds polled by Radio 1 about how they, the “new” generation, felt about the imminent cuts.

The poll showed that 62% of 18-24 year olds believe that cuts are necessary, and when asked whether they would prefer cuts or tax hike, 76% went with cuts. This shows that the proposals outlined by Lord Browne yesterday, in regards to University funding, should be welcomed by students above the previously muted graduate tax – what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It also gives the lie to the idea that young people are generally left-wing. Just because "student leaders" are loudly Marxist doesn't mean that the people they claim to represent are – most are elected with very low participation by an active minority, with the majority of students staying far away from the process. As in many groups of people, there is a silent majority of the young who simply want to be left alone to live their lives as they wish.

It is not just this younger generation, who arguably may not feel the full impact of the proposed cuts, who believe the coalitions cuts are necessary. A recent ICM poll showed that a majority of voters support axing child benefit for high earners. The same survey indicates that people would rather see cuts in welfare than in defence or education.

It appears that these recent polls show a swing towards rationality, particularly where cuts are involved. We cannot continue to live either, individually or as a nation on credit. Both individuals and the government have to take responsibility for their past actions; only when we acknowledge the problem can it start to be fixed. I'm glad that so many others agree.

The Evening Standard reports that cocaine use has fallen 14% this year (based on the number of addicts seeking treatment) due to dealers lowering the purity of their product. This illustrates a number of problems with drug prohibition.

The principle problem is the limit to regulatory oversight that can be exercised on the trade due to its illegality. This doesn't just mean government regulation, but the potent voices of consumer groups, the media, and competition, which don't resort to violent means. It is a testament to the power of the market that even considering the power of drug addiction, they have recognised the drop in drug quality and gone in search of substitutes.

Just imagine if the media could easily report on specific cases of drug dealers adding cancer-inducing substances to their products. Imagine if consumer groups could easily assess legal dealers, approving some, and destroying the bad ones through boycotts and low ratings, with addicts easily able to switch suppliers without the threat of violence. Imagine drugs sold with no risk to the dealer, no longer having to rely on the protection of violent gangs for a cut of the profits, but on the law. Coupled with the legalisation of prostitution, how would gangs, terrorist groups and sex traffickers then finance themselves?

The illegal drugs market is dangerous and flawed precisely because it is illegal. "Market failures" of low quality, even dangerous products, along with powerful suppliers with local monopolies enforced by violence, are all caused by prohibition. Without any oversight or the ability of consumers to gain information about the products they buy, dangerous substances will always be used to bulk out the powders sold. Without drug users able to come to the law for help, they will often become pressured and coerced by criminals who are happy to use violence instead of trading. It is remarkable that consumer pressures could have had an effect even with all these obstacles presented to them. The effects of the market with these obstacles lifted would be almost miraculous.

Happy birthday from the Adam Smith Institute.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is often criticized for the decisions it makes in the approval of drugs and their advice regarding clinical practices. Over the years they have managed to cultivate the negative image of putting the cost of drugs before patient welfare. This stigma has recently been partially disproved, with it emerging that three-quarters of cancer treatments, and 83% of all drugs and new treatments have been approved over the past decade.

This news shows that, despite their perceived image of withholding access to innovative treatment, it is in fact not this organisation that is guilty. Instead those patients, charities and politicians should instead look to the NHS and the primary care trusts that control around 80% of the NHS budget. These trusts are highly bureaucratic and complicated, reducing efficiency and losing sight of the needs of the patient. The problem of access to treatment is just one area of discontent, but surely it raises the question over the organisational structure and even the “public” status of the NHS. Even if there is a need for universal healthcare, why does it need to be provided by the government? What we do need is greater consumer choice in the system – not just over treatment but also over location, doctors, admission times, generally encouraging a higher level of clinical care.

In the current era of cuts, the NHS has been ring-fenced for political reasons. This is a mistake, but there is still room for greater efficiency within the organisation. Ultimately, efficiency cannot be achieved in the current public system with the escalating cost of treatment and increasing numbers of patients, particularly the elderly. With NHS funds and medical contact time at a premium, surely it is time for a shake-up by privatizing parts of the NHS. Give the public back their choice and let the market fix the NHS.

The Browne review, which is published today, is a big step in the right direction for university tuition funding. It calls for the price controls on tuition fees to be removed, so that the cost of a degree represents the supply and demand for that course. I was on Stephen Nolan’s Radio 5 Live show on Sunday night talking about this, which you can listen to here.

As FA Hayek showed, prices are the market's way of communicating how much of a good is available versus how much demand for that good there is. A highly-priced good is difficult to come by, ensuring that only the people who need it most (and thus are most willing to pay for it) will get it – this ensures a fair allocation of goods to the people who want them most. The current cap on university fees means that universities have no way of communicating the scarcity of university places to prospective students.

Courses with high demand cost the same as courses with low demand, removing this information mechanism and forcing students to rely on hearsay about the quality of courses. In a freely priced system, these high-demand courses would be more expensive and their popularity and quality would be communicated through prices. This would allow students to make an informed choice about which course is best for them and prevent the overdemand and undersupply of places that currently takes place.

The second point is that government subsidies for university education are a net transfer of wealth to university graduates from non-graduates, the latter of whom are overwhelmingly the poorest in society. By demanding that ‘the government’ pay for them, students are tacitly accepting a system that steals from the poor to give to the rich. It is absurd that someone earning minimum wage should pay through the tax system for someone else to study history, economics, law or medicine – that lucky person getting the education will go on to earn far more than the person who’s had to pay for him. A free price system in education would communicate information effectively and make sure that it is the student who pays, not the poor.

A leaked civil service assessment suggests that many of Michael Gove's vanguard of 16 free-schools won't be ready to open next September. Whilst the reform is to be lauded, a key element is missing. I suggested months ago that the price of not including profit-making schools in the free-school scheme could be to see a disappointing take-up.

Unfortunately, this assessment appears to be coming true. Labour have already rightly pounced on Michael Gove's depreciating estimations of the number of free-schools to arise from his policy. In Sweden, the Social Democrats eventually abandoned their opposition to free-schools thanks to its speed and effectiveness – but this speed was largely down to profit-making bodies, and even so, it took years. Whilst free-schools break open the government monopoly on state-funded education, this small victory risks being easily reversed by a more statist future government simply because take-up was so slow due to profit-making being barred.

Perhaps a similar malaise lies at the heart of the lack of popular enthusiasm for David Cameron's Big Society. Whilst volunteering and non-profit involvement can play an important part in replacing government provision of state-funded services, it is obvious that there is a limit to the amount of time that people will be willing to give, no matter how developed the vision of a volunteer-based society becomes.

Profit-making bodies could have a huge role to play, with the added incentive spurring greater numbers of entrepreneurs to rapidly fill the yawning gap in demand for better public services. Unlike volunteering, where it seems a good idea but so many people don't think they could find the time, profit-making is both a good idea and is easily a full-time occupation.

Fortunately, the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is allowing profit-making bodies as well as charities to be paid by results with regards to reducing re-offending rates: we can expect this policy to be a huge success, and it's no surprise that it appears to achieve cross-party support. Why Michael Gove insists on pursuing an underwhelming revolution in education when the power of entrepreneurs could be so effectively tapped remains a mystery.

The role of the police is to protect the public from those individuals who commit violence against themselves or their property. As the agency with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force in civil society, the police must be tightly controlled by the law to restrain this force. Thus, the content of a recently leaked report from Sir Paul Stephenson, the head of the Metropolitan police force, to the Home Secretary is particularly disappointing.

The report showed that Sir Paul believes the police should be shielded from legal action launched by the public. In the appendices of the leaked report, he called for the government to make it harder for individuals to mount cases against the police. Furthermore, Sir Paul also asked for a greater financial barrier to be put in place in obstacle to the public obtaining general information about the police through the use of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

Despite the cost to the police of fighting legal battle, it is the fundamental right of the public to mount such a case. So too are FOI requests, which give an open, transparent and accountable environment that allows the public to access information about the government that they are paying for. Though public institutions must cut costs, the costs of litigation against the police and FoI requests are cornerstones of our right to hold public bodies answerable for the decisions they make.

Sir Paul’s view of the protection from the law that he wishes for the police are disturbing. They come from a person who represents the police force – the foundation of our legal system. While the police hold criminals accountable for their actions, the police themselves must also be accountable to the public. Without this recourse to the courts, the current justice system would be even more illiberal than it currently is. Police must be answerable to civilians for their actions, and without the ability of the public to legally question them they are putting themselves above the justice system.

National stereotypes can have a basis in truth, but they can also be a lazy way of thinking about the individuals within a country. As such, it is always good to be confronted with a reality at odds with preconceptions, and my recent trip to Berlin did just that. Visiting bar after bar, I was struck by the sweet smell of freedom: cigarette smoke.

Not only are smokers tolerated, they are actively encouraged, with a polite message welcoming smokers affixed to many doors. Not all bars are smoking bars, but this is one of the joys of the system – smokers are also tolerant of non-smokers. Locals know where to go if they want to avoid the smoke, and where to go to avoid those that wish to avoid them. This is how a polite society functions. While most smokers in other European capitals have caved in under pressure from their governments, the Germans have simply ignored the legislation.

The freedom to smoke in private establishments has become a signature issue for proper liberals. It is one that we should continue to push, not because it is the most popular, but because it is one of the most flagrant attacks against the ability of people to choose the kind of life one wants to lead. Onerous government legislation combined with public subservience has dramatically undermined that most glorious of stereotypes: The freeborn Englishman.

In this country schools are indoctrinating generation after generation to hate smokers. A counterculture is being formed in reaction to the nanny state, which might in time subvert the statist status quo. But better to turn off the tap of hate, relax, and live and let live (or die for that matter). If not, we might as well be learning German.