Hopi Sen

Just wanted to say that there will soon be more blogging action here.

I want to redesign and self host the site, and migrate it to my own url, so will be a little while yet. But since the site is still getting a couple of hundred visits a day, thought I should mention the place isn’t dead, merely awaiting resuscitation.

I’m thinking of making it the first group blog by a single author.

After what feels like an age of indecision, yet is in fact less than a month, the UN resolution on Libya feels like a moment of hope. That hope is qualified, uncertain and unsure, of course, but real.

Like many more qualified, I worry that the progress that Gadaffi has made in the last fortnight has been enough to secure his regime, and isolate the rebellion. the UN resolution allows the protection of civilians, but that task will be hard to enforce from the air alone, especially in areas under the control of the regime. The knock at the door, the midnight kidnappings, torture and death squads will continue. The regime must surely fall, but it may yet hurt many as it collapses.

For the moment, it looks like Benghazi is safe, but many other parts of Libya are now under the control of a vindictive, oppressive regime. Thank God that at least the Libyan government no longer have the means to deploy chemical weapons, so the fate of Halabja and Marsh Arabs will be avoided. As the New York Times said

“Today, with father and son preparing for a siege of Tripoli, the success of a joint American-British effort to eliminate Libya’s capability to make nuclear and chemical weapons has never, in retrospect, looked more important”

That said, however uncertain the future, or dangerous for those behind Libyan lines, this is still a moment of hope. The United Nations has set out clear language, with little of the complexity of the resolutions that so hampered the UN in Bosnia. Although this is only a beginning, and there are many horrors to avoid, this is the right thing to do.

So a word of praise for the Prime Minister. In his own government he was perhaps the clearest, earliest voice for a no fly zone. He has firmly cast aside his early rhetoric about the purpose of British foreign policy. A choice has been made, and it is the right one.

The consequences of that choice, which surely requires the protection of civilians in the West as well as the East and the manner of the eventual ending of the Libyan regime, may throw up many more challenges. The road ahead will be tough, and there will be challenges to our resolve both in Libya and far beyond. But the right road has been chosen. The Prime Minister deserves support and congratulation for that decision, both now and when far harder times come.

Through a turmoil of seething jealously, I am summoning up the grace to congratulate Mr Iain Martin on his new job as a political columnist for the Daily Mail.

I might not have much time for the Mail’s politics, or indeed Mr Martin’s, but he is an excellent, witty, independent-minded writer, and the Mail will serve as a bully pulpit for him. Congratulations are deserved on such a promotion.

When he was at the WSJ Europe, Iain was one of the right wing writers I made a point to read, along with the likes of Alex Massie, Neil O’Brien and, Mr Finkelstein, naturally.

Anyway, his promotion is a good on for both Mail and Martin. Now if there is a popular mid market left of centre newspaper that wishes to employ me as a weekly columnist, I am willing to discuss terms.

What’s that you say? No such (Daily) Beast? How can this be?

*Oh, and a Mr Toby Young, who I think we can agree is one of the finest Conservative minds of his, or any other, generation. I’m sure John Stuart Mill would agree wholeheartedly.

On Saturday I went to the Progress political weekend. It was very nice. Jim Murphy spoke, and so did Liam Byrne, and Caroline Flint, and Douglas Alexander. Andrew Adonis also spoke. He was very nice and told us all about Birmingham. I have written a couple of posts about it on Labourlist. One was meant to be funny. The other one was serious. For some reason it felt a good idea to write this post in a “What I did on my Summer Holidays” style. I suspect this was a mistake.

(I want to come back to Douglas Alexander’s speech a bit more later on, because it was very good)

A letter has appeared in today’s Times opposing the Alternative Vote. This missive has been penned, or endorsed, by several prominent historians.

As you may know, I am a very mild supporter of AV. Still, this letter has given me the RAGE(tm).

Here’s the essential paragraphs (full text here for those beyond the pay-wall):

“The referendum on May 5 that threatens to introduce a system of “Alternative Voting” — a voting system that will allow MPs to be elected to Parliament even if they do not win the majority of constituents’ first preference votes — also threatens to break this principle.

For the first time since 1928 and the granting of universal suffrage, we face the possibility that one person’s casting ballot will be given greater weight than another. For the first time in centuries, we face the unfair idea that one citizen’s vote might be worth six times that of another. It will be a tragic consequence if those votes belong to supporters of extremist and non-serious parties.”

Let us avert our eyes from the unfortunate confusion between “majority” and “plurality” in the first paragraph. Understanding the difference requires only the most cursory understanding of mathematics, but as a History graduate, I can confirm that this is not regarded as an essential skill for burgeoning historians, except for those boring ones who study trade, or agricultural production or some other tedious byway.

Nor am I irritated by the idea that AV might make one vote worth “six times” that of another. This is mere boilerplate propaganda, and such simplistic piffle is as attractive to historians as the rest of us

No, what enrages me is that these prominent historians don’t seem to know their British political history. Since they are some of our most well known proponents of history, could they not be bothered to even check the facts?

They claim that “For the first time since 1928 and the granting of universal suffrage, we face the possibility that one person’s casting ballot will be given greater weight than another”. This is simply not true.

Until the end of the 1945-50 parliament, several seats in the House of Commons were reserved for the English Universities. Any graduate from these universities could vote in the election for these seats, in addition to their vote in the residential constituency. So the vote of University Graduates counted for more than that of non-graduates.

Further, from 1918 the elections for those seats were conducted by Single Transferable Vote. So Britain had both an unequal franchise, and a system of proportional representation in the House of Commons well after the introduction of universal suffrage. Indeed, the system was something of a controversy at the time, as the Liberal candidate in the two-seat constituency of Oxford University, Prof Gilbert Murray was regularly in second place in first preferences, but was repeatedly beaten by Conservative candidates in the 1920′s, because the surplus of the leading Conservative candidate (Hugh Cecil) was redistributed to the second Conservative candidate (Sir Charles Oman).

It is rather sad that such ignorance of the history of British election systems has been so publicly displayed by some of Britain’s leading historians.

Someone whose own personal history of pension planning is dreadful should not opine on pensions oermuch.

So I won’t.

Compulsory enrollment (or even an opt out system) in pensions twenty years ago would have done me the world of good, I suspect.

So I understand why public sector workers are keen to protect their pensions, and why others have little sympathy with their fears. At the risk of sounding wet and weedy, I’m going to let those who know whereof they speak lead on this one.

(Oh, and on a positive note, the export data for January was really good*. We may be getting a manufacturing led exports boom. That’s great, and much to be hailed. Only problems? Manufacturing’s share of UK economy is not that great, retail figures are poor and business investment is still low. Still, the good news is we’ve got a window of sterling driven competitiveness and high export profits. We need to use that short term advantage and turn it into something sustainable.)

*only one month figures blah blah blah choppy recovery blah blah still, signs of a trend blah blah.

Well, It’s less than two months until the nation decides what our electoral system will be, and I find myself in the unusual position of being a swing voter.

Partly, I’m a swing voter because the options I’m being given are unsatisfactory. While I can see the historical appeal of First Past the Post as a simple and well understood system, my personal preferred system for fair representation of votes would probably be something like:

AV plus > Multi-Member STV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AV/FPTP.

That said, I’d also be happy with FPTP for the Commons and a fully proportional elected second chamber, because in my head, that’s like AV plus, just in a bi-cameral system, with “lesser” rights to the non-constituency elected party list candidates whose upper house propotionality would balance the Commons led government. (The best argument against AV+ is that it seems way easier to be elected on a regional top up, with little constituency casework to do)

Further, there are two competing arguments about which result would lead to further electoral reform. If AV loses, then Ed Miliband might be in a good position to double down on constitutional and electoral reform, in a concerted move to show his commitment to political reform (and to appeal to Lib Dem supporters).

If AV succeeds, we will run at least two General Elections under that system. So it’s not clear cut that reform now will lead to more reform later.

Of course “fair representation” isn’t the only issue to consider. Both in the 1920s and in the Blair/Brown era, Labour was willing to consider AV as a way of building an anti-Conservative alliance, and hopefully, reflecting an anti-Conservative majority. (This was a much bigger deal in the 1920s than even now).

Indeed, the offering of AV in 1930 by Labour was basically an attempt to keep the Liberals on board with the Labour minority government.

All in all, I’m tending towards voting yes, not because I think it’s a much more proportional system, but because it will at least allow people to express their preferences for what sort of government they want.

However, since AV can produce really lopsided National results, It’s more essential that we get second chamber reform too, because we need an opposition that can work effectively when there’s an AV landslide one way or the other.

Chris Dillow has an excellent post up examining new business formation and deregistration rates.

Also, see this from the Centre for Cities, which makes some important points about the impact of history and social structure on business formation. This could be important territory for Labour. Extending business formation rates in communities that have historically low rates requires much more than simply slapping a few civil servants about.

I’ve mentioned before that since become Prime Minister, David Cameron’s major political speeches read as if the speechwriter has taken an early Blair speech and run it through a Conservativamizer (tm).

So it was this weekend, with the Prime Minister’s “Forces of Conservatism“, “Enemies of Enterprise” speech. Unfortunately, the Conservativamizer appears to be faulty.

Yes, it tries to be an early Blair speech, this time the Forces of Conservatism one from 1999. Look at the structure: Amusing letter about the opposition? Blair has “a man who said did I know the Tories had been listening to Britain. They can’t have been listening too hard, he said. They’re still here”. Cameron has “a man from Leicestershire called Ray” who is “a longtime Labour supporter” who has come to see that the “The policies you are making, the changes you are making, appear to be good for this country” and begs the PM to stop before his world view is disjointed. Oh so hilariously, the PM promises to disappoint him.

Notice too who is prayed in aid. Cameron quotes Thatcher and Churchill. Blair appropriates Keir Hardie and Attlee.

This is the real clue to the purpose of both speeches. The old heroes being called to service in the causes of today. In both cases, the speech is a rallying cry against a big bad wolf that needs to be beaten back – The Forces of Conservatism for Blair, the Enemies of Enterprise for Cameron. The challenge our enemies pose to our shared cause are so great, each leader argues, we must rally round and fight them together.

Cameron’s speech is basically a love letter to the Conservative party, and a reminder to the troops that David Cameron’s government, from which the Liberal Democrats have apparently temporarily departed, is truly a Conservative one. Only the Conservatives are the party of enterprise, says the man who made Vince Cable the Secretary of State for Business.

Blair’s speech served a similar purpose – it was a blatant attempt to rally the Labour party around a “third way” agenda by badging all those who opposed him as a small c conservative.

Blair’s “Forces of Conservatism” speech was intended to signal to the Labour party that the government he was leading was a radical one that fitted perfectly into the great values of the Labour movement.
Blair wished to rally a party bridling at a “middle of the road” strategy and refers directly to the attack that he is following tory economic policy.

However, there are two differences between the speeches. Both signal a surprising weakness from the current Prime Minister.

First, Blair’s speech was given to Labour in the 1999 conference, after the midpoint of his first government. Cameron is having to call on the old verities less than a year into his government. He is trying to shore up his support very early indeed.

Second, look not at what is in, but what is left out. Tony Blair’s speech was a paen to progressive politics, but it was also a challenge to the Labour movement. Blair includes a long section on how the Labour party never fulfilled its potential.” Born in separation from other progressive forces in British politics, out of the visceral need to represent the interests of an exploited workforce, our base, our appeal, our ideology was too narrow. People were made to feel we wanted to hold them back, limit their aspirations, when in truth the very opposite was our goal.”

This comes after Blair brands some in the Labour movement as a “force of Conservatism”.

Cameron dares no such move. The Conservative party is not only the only party on the side of enterprise, its history is apparently flawless.

Banks need to lend, Cameron says, but apart from that the only people who stand in the way of an enterprise society are regulatory civil servants, town hall paper pushers and government procurement managers.

Now, I suspect many people will agree that these people are enemies of enterprise, but they make a pretty unconvincing big bad. If Britain has stopped growing purely because of a bunch of clerks wielding complex forms, we’re in bad shape.

Besides, as history it doesn’t make much sense. Yes, regulation is a problem, but do you remember planning officers demanding a multi-billion pound bail out? Procurement is a major issue, no doubt. But I don’t recall procurement staff selling mortgages to any American with a pulse, then refusing to lend to business when their bets went wrong.

This one-sidedness is the great weakness of the speech. It is what keeps it from being anything more than a party rallying cry.

If there had been recognition within Cameron’s speech that there are enemies to enterprise far more ingrained and insidious than can be erased with an enterprise zone or a lifting of a regulation, the message would have rung out more clearly.

Imagine if Cameron had said that the reforms of the eighties were vital, but in truth not all boats had been lifted by the rising tide. Too many had sunk, and that was not good enough for the new national challenge.

Cameron could go on to say that the enemies of enterprise included those who were willing to allow only market forces to decide where businesses could prosper, and that he saw it as his job as PM to change that for ever, to extend to everyone the chances Thatcher gave to some.

It would have involved an attack on the soft bigotry of low expectations, a belief in the entrepreneurial power of everyone, a passionate call for the nation to provide the skills, education and support for those who have never had the chance to build businesses that could create growth.

Such a pro-enterprise agenda would place infrastructure, both the hard infrastructure of road rail and cable and the soft infrastructure of skills, research and talent at the heart of what makes Britain a great place to build a business. It would be a “Big society” type of plea and one firmly in the one nation tradition.

Instead, there’s a brief reference to an enterprise allowance scheme, with another plug for a Thatcher era-programme, and then it’s back to pressing traditional Conservative hot buttons.

So after reading the speech, my question is – why did Cameron feel he could not take on a single verity of his party, even as he praised it to the skies?

My nagging suspicion is that the speech reveals a concerning truth – Cameron genuinely does not think there is any enemy to enterprise in Britain that regulation and supply side changes can’t fix. In which case, his “growth” agenda will be just be reheated Redwoodism.