 |
|
| Politics, PR and hack philosophy from A Guy Called Donald. But definitely no blogging. Probably. | |
29.11.05Postwatch, Energywatch, marketwatchThere are plenty of good reasons why privatization works, all too well-rehearsed to go into here. But one good objection rarely gets a look in: that far from releasing busineses from the shackles of the state, freeing Smith's invisible hand to get to work on our behalf, selling off state monopolies actually increases the reach of state control. The ownership state simply makes way for the regulatory state.It's an argument that will doubtless not feature in relation to today's damning indictment of the performance of "consumer champions" Energywatch and Postwatch: The consumer watchdogs for the energy and postal industries have been called "feeble" by a committee of MPs. According to the PAC report, in the three years to March 2004, these two almost invisible bodies between them cost us £84 million, levied from the industry but passed straight to us in higher prices. These aren't even the regulators, remember. Ofgem, the energy regulator, has published 20 separate documents just this month alone and is budgeted to cost £34 million in 2005/6. Postcomm cost us over £10 million in 2004/5. So, if one of the reasons for privatization was to allow the free market to do its thing, when are we going to see that happen? And if the free market can't work under conditions of natural monopoly, then why privatize? And why do we even need to spend £30 million a year on "consumer champions"? I thought the market looked after us on its own. 28.11.05Bloody Iraq, for the last timeI don't really write much here about Iraq. I certainly don't have a book on it in me. In fact, I might never write about it again, partly because it's a bit boring being branded a warmonger or an accomplice of Islamism, and partly because it doesn't actually matter what my opinion is, either way. Nor yours.I'm only writing about it now because I've had a bit of mud slung my way recently. Not especially intelligent mud, but then intelligent mud on this issue is rarer than a morel in autumn. So, I supported the war, and still do. To justify this, I'll revert to a bit of You're walking past a duck pond. In the pond, a child is drowning. You have the power to save him. There are twenty people sitting on the bank doing nothing about it, and you fail to swim in and save him. If he drowns, you've done a bad thing. But so have they — it wasn't your responsibility alone. Perhaps you're blameless: maybe you can't swim, or at least can't be sure you'll be able to save him without serious risk to yourself. At worst, you can swim, but they all can too, so there's blame to be shared around. But what about this: there's nobody else around who can save him, and you obviously can. It's either you or he drowns. You are obligated to save his life under any sensible moral code. Failure to do so marks a serious ethical breach. And it's here I think the "West" sat in relation to Iraq, circa 2002. We were obligated to do something — something to replace "let's starve them of medical supplies and food for the another decade". To do nothing at all while they laboured under totalitarianism (worse: part-created by us) would have been reprehensible. File under Spain, 1930s. Of course, that something didn't have to be invasion, and there are myriad objections to my simplistic logic and the conduct (especially the aftermath) of the war: 1. We're robbing them blind. This seems perfectly possible, knowing the narrow, greedy agenda of the global megacorp. But if in the process of saving the child, we pinch his wallet, on balance is it better that we should have let him drown? Obviously not. I'm not naive enough to think our motives in Iraq were primarily or even secondarily noble. So what? 2. It's an imperialist project. Heh, so was Japan in 1945. Now, instead of militaristic fascists invading their neighbours and peasants begging for rice, they're selling us Gameboys and cheap cars, and employing half of Sunderland. It's not utopia, but it sure beats the Meiji Restoration. Next. 3. We've committed war crimes along the way. There has never been a war where victor and vanquished didn't. "Young man with gun abuses position of power". In other news: the sun rose this morning. Prosecute them, and move on. Next. 4. We've killed a lot of innocent people. The alternative to invading Iraq wasn't that nobody died, just that different people did. A non-decision may be easier, but it's still a decision. Does it matter if there have been more or fewer deaths than the counterfactual? Is that number knowable? Do you construct moral cases for or against war on the basis of crude numerical analyses? 5. It was illegal. I guess that should read probably illegal, but it doesn't matter. The Bush administration's attitude to international law has been dangerous. But, in this case, if you've already decided this war is moral (or immoral), is legality much more than window dressing? Can anyone construct a decent argument to change their attitude to killing tens of thousands on the basis of bought-and-paid-for UNSC abstentions from Putin and Chirac? 6. It was bound to increase the terrorist threat to the West. Also a fair point, but it didn't create that threat. Non-action wouldn't have eliminated it, perhaps not even have reduced it significantly. Even the genesis of London 7th July stretches back as far as 2001, if recent intelligence leaks are accurate. Should we take care not to do the jihadists' recruitment for them? Absolutely. Should the existence of this rival imperial project deflect us from a policy we've already decided is right? Not unless you're happy for al-Zarqawi to be given a job in Whitehall. This objection is trivially true but irrelevant, a rehashed version of 4. 7. It's shown the world the true nature of American hegemonic power. Which is a bad thing? Next. 8. It can't possibly work. This is where most intelligent objectors come from, the Kissingerian conservatives and the anti-imperialists. They may be right. But, looked at from a distance of a decade or two, they might also be wrong. The Second World War looked a mess in Dunkerque. This is ultimately a judgement call, a realpolitik puzzle, one to which nobody alive knows the answer for sure. There are good reasons why it will never work: no basic liberal culture to sew democracy onto, nothing granted rather than earned ever sticks, little interest from the occupying powers in creating real democracy. There are good ones why it might: decent electoral turnout in dire circumstances so far, the innate human desire for autonomy realised through democracy, the tendency for democracy to grow organically over time, no matter how limited its initial seed. Political scientists call it a "fuzzy gamble", which is a nifty bit of jargon. I'm not arrogant or deluded enough to expect this piece to change anyone's opinion. I'm merely justifying my deeply irrelevant, pragmatic support for invading another sovereign country. (Now, if you want to misrepresent me, you can do so accurately.) We owed the people of Iraq a shot at liberty and democracy, and there was no viable alternative way to pay the debt. By 2003, there was the first opportunity since 1991 to cough up. The result will obviously be flawed, imperfect. But we were right to invade. I'm glad I didn't have to fight, though a sort-of cousin did. I'm relieved I didn't have to make the decision: non-decisions are much easier, and I changed my mind several times along the way. I do, though, think that how you call this says little about your political stripe. It does make you an idiot to pronounce on with certainty. However much you pose and preen, your best guess at a known unknown doesn't make you a virtuous or evil person. See you in hell, perhaps. 25.11.05Stateside nonsense and database BritainOn the McCain anti-torture amendment, this:When legislation passes in the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote, it is often a sign that it is either meaningless fluff or a bad idea. The author is Rich Lowry, writing last week. This is the very same Rich Lowry who two years ago thought the USA Partiot Act so important that any successful challenge to it would amount to culpability before-the-fact in mass murder: If the ACLU gets its way on [challenging] the Patriot Act, some future successful terrorists will want to remember it in their prayers as well. The USA Partiot Act passed by 98-1. So either: 1. There's something magical about precisely 90-9 majorities, something that doesn't apply when it's 98-1 that Lowry isn't sharing with us. Crystal healing, runes, colonic irrigation? 2. The USA Partiot Act was a bad idea enacted by an authoritarian government, which we're desperately trying to ape over here via the Brussels bypass. 3. Lowry is a dishonest, right-wing stooge, as I've suggested before. Wanted: one top secret memoOn the off chance you're reading this from Whitehall and have a copy of that memo to hand, feel free to scan and/or email it to the address on the top right of this page. I'll happily run it word for word and take the consequences.This has nothing to do with the Iraq war (which I support), and everything to do with the kind of society we need to be living in. Blair is not our boss — he's our employee. And it's appraisal time. Changes and restsSo, not just a new name: you've probably noticed the re-design, too. Natty, no? Anyone who knows me knows that I couldn't possibly have done it myself. So a big thanks to Justin, who I now owe his own bodyweight in beer. If you spot any problems (it's already been tested in IE6/PC and Mac/Firefox), please don't hop over there to firebomb him with spam in vengeance. Take a deep breath and leave a comment in the box below. Ta.24.11.05Didn't I used to be a blogger?Since Tim's new book (buy it here, go on) hit the shelves last week, I'm now famous. Shucks. But posting's been light recently, for one reason: I'm afraid to say I'm rather going off us bloggers.Take last week and the Guardian piece on The New Commentariat. Not that I read it — just skimmed to see what they had to say about Justin, which wasn't nearly enough, and who they picked, which seemed broadly fair (with one major oversight). What bothered me, though, were the hilarious hissy-fits from the uninvited... First, this from Lenin: I want no part of this narcissistic gang of petit-bourgeois navel-gazers, particularly with their latest Ways To Be Good. Hence, I wasn't even remotely put out when a number of people wrote to me to point out that the Tomb hadn't been included in The Guardian's run-down of The new commentariat. No, what I was put out by was that celebrity had eluded me yet again. I swiftly resumed composure, and reconciled myself to never having the pleasure of meeting Oliver Kamm. He's offended, I suspect. At least, disappointed for the fans. It was a conspiracy, as one comment-box moron points out, to over-represent the pro-war left. That would be because the Graun is stuffed with pro-war writers, now excommunicated members of said left? Maybe Lenin (both of him) isn't against hierarchy as such — just one that excludes him from his deserved spot in the inner circle. (This reminds me why I was never keen on a dictatorship of the proletariat. It wasn't the proletariat bit — just that dictatorship by any crazy utopians armed with a final solution is a Very Bad Idea.) But Len's (supremely intelligent, at least) tantrum pales by comparison with Scott Burgess: The "special report on Britain's most influential political bloggers" features 7 blogs, which I list below. In an objective attempt to rank popularity and/or influence, I've included the number of sites linking to each, as reported by Technorati.... It's gratifying to know that, had the Daily Ablution [432 linking sites] been included, it would have ranked 5th in this table, with well more than double the figure of the last two entries. And so on (with added Andrew Ian-sanity [383 incoming] in the comments). Scott's beef: because he gets more links (and he took the time out from his busy schedule to crunch those numbers, remember), he really ought to have been invited, in the interests of accuracy. He helpfully prints Oliver Burkeman's email address at the bottom — in case any of his fans are upset enough to complain. But why does Scott give a toss about what the Graun thinks? He's spending the bloom of his youth in pyjamas firing broadsides, scorn and emails at Seumas Milne. Could it be that, like the drunken husband who beats his wife but still, like, really loves her, deep down, he's feeling a bit spurned. Unloved (yet gratified). Shame. Last one: more puerile than petulant, Recess Monkey was so pleased with something he dropped in a comment box, he recycled it for his site: is it because I is a replicant? I was somewhat surprised not to be included... On reading the piece I realised this was for two reasons. Firstly, Recess Monkey isn't "serious" in the "takes himself very seriously" [You've just sunk that one - Ed.] sense — and secondly, it seems to be a piece exclusively about white political bloggers. Open-and-shut cyberweb racial discrimination, then. He provides Alan Rusbridger's email address — yep, for those gutted fans again. It's all very depressing. Bloggers were supposed to subvert* and engage the traditional media, the dead trees, the MSM, the legacy media, etc. etc. — on our terms, not as preening supplicants. We're packing pejoratives; we talk a good game, the alternative channel. I thought we didn't really give a toss what they thought people wanted to read. Apparently not: the big prize, communicated by some far more effectively than with words, is to get invited to their parties and have the honour of their respect bestowed on us. The medium is the message, and for some that message reads: can I have a job, please? *To clarify: I'm not saying bloggers should refuse to write for broadsheets, magazines and so on. I have and do, and did long before I was a blogger. Just that it's childish (and all too revealing) to squeal like a girl when a lunch invite doesn't come your way. 16.11.05A reply from Diane AbbottAfter my email on the eve of last week's 90-day vote, I've received a reply from my MP, Diane Abbott. It's not quite how I framed my opposition, but I'm delighted she was one of the Sun's traitors. I've bolded the money quotes. In full:Dear xxxx 14.11.05When it’s rational to kill yourselfSomething from me on suicide bombers at The Sharpener.10.11.05Lock up yer liberalsThe only sure way to spot satire is when you read something that itself defies being satirised. Marcus and Brownie of That Estimable Place have vaulted the bar like Sergei Bubka over my back gate. Brownie sets the scene in an imagined future (think solemn):The Prime Minister, a stalwart defender of civil liberties who ignored the advice of the security services and police chiefs to permit suspects to be held without trial for a maximum 90 days, even with the safety net of continuous 7-day judicial review and an annual sunset clause, is forced to resign amid opposition claims that he has “blood on his hands”. And Marcus: Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing This lot, remember, like to bill themselves as Muscular Liberals. Muscular in the sense of Complan-drinking surrender monkeys that happily ditch 700 years of common law precedent as soon as some twat blows up a bus. And it's a curious liberal that jumps enthusiastically onto the first rungs of a police state. That's in a quite literal sense, not a matter of opinion. It's not a liberalism that Locke, Mill or Rawls would recognise. It sounds more like that old (ahem) "liberal" Thomas Hobbes. From Leviathan, ch. XXI: The liberty of a subject lieth therefore only in those things which, in regulating their actions, the sovereign hath pretermitted: such as is the liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to choose their own abode, their own diet, their own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; and the like. Next week: 9.11.05Support my MPVia, this despatched to the office of Diane Abbott five minutes ago:Hi, The Sun's list of shame (the email addresses of MPs on our side, that is) can be found here. UPDATE: What I didn't mention in the letter is that I'd happily back Diane if she proposed an amendment to lock this cunt away for 90 days. I'd even drop my opposition to torture and pay for him to be rendered to a third country that knows well how to make 'em squeal. More grammar schools please, sir?Something new from me at The Sharpener.8.11.05US voodoo in ZimbabweFor foreign diplomatic staff posted to Harare, it must be a badge of honour to get yourself expelled for "meddling". Well, it looks like the US Ambassador is about to earn his Zim-wings:The government of Zimbabwe said Monday that it might expel U.S. Ambassador Christopher W. Dell because of its displeasure over speeches last week in which Dell accused the government of President Robert Mugabe of "corrupt rule" and "gross mismanagement." And it probably wouldn't take too many of the Euphrates division to finish the job. But what caught my eye was the language used by Dell in his criticism of Mugabe's butchery of the Zim economy: He also called Mugabe's policies "voodoo economics." Dell is no economist. On voodoo economics: ...a school of macroeconomic thought which emphasizes the importance of tax cuts and business incentives in encouraging economic growth, in the belief that businesses and individuals will use their tax savings to create new businesses and expand old businesses, which in turn will increase productivity, employment, and general well-being. More R. Reagan than R. Mugabe. Maybe Dell's Tom Tomorrow subscription needs renewing? 2.11.05Back to the clients for DavisSupporters of the most predictable loser since Bruno fought Tyson have been getting all moist about Basher's new tax and growth rule. Owen has dealt with the dodgy economics, but I'd still like to hear more. On this:He will set out the compelling economic, social and moral case for lower taxes No, I really do. I'd love to hear the compelling social and moral case for his plans to abolish inheritance tax. Why, for example, it's fair to tax the hard work and industry of the working classes, while allowing inherited wealth and privilege — brute luck —to cascade through the generations untaxed, with all its second-order, self-reproducing advantages. He'll have achieved something no convincing political philosopher ever has. And that has to make good reading. The proper Tories paint DD as the new hero of the working man. In fact, he's just serving it up to all the old clients. 1.11.05What should higher education policy look like?Some newness from me at The Sharpener. |
contactfairvote@gmail.comrecent postsarchives
resources
linksjuly 7
stuff   
|
