Conflating community and state

Libertarians and other people on the right are often accused of not caring about people, of adopting a laissez-faire attitude which protects privilege and confines others to the bottom of the income scale. In this school of thought the welfare of individuals within society is the responsibility of the state. The state ensures the wellbeing of citizens by providing. The degree to which the state provides varies by left-winger, but may include benefits in kind (healthcare, education, housing, childcare), benefits in cash (unemployment, disability, tax credits, pensions), and may extend to regulation of markets (minimum wage, job guarantees, state ownership of industry).

In contrast, libertarians do not believe in a large state providing all of these things for people. Libertarians believe in a small state providing the framework which allows people to do for themselves. Libertarians believe that a large state is inefficient, ineffective, and has perverse dynamic effects. Large states which intervene in the market reduce competition, innovation and growth. Large states which provide so much for their citizens help to make people lazy and irresponsible: a sense of entitlement with no sense of responsibility. Large state bureaucracies are inefficient and unwieldy, wasting tax payer’s money. Instead, the state should focus on providing a legal framework which promotes competition over monopolies, and social policies which allow people to engage in the market (e.g. many libertarians are passionate educationalists).

Disagreement over the role of the state leads to all kinds of accusations. These are particularly fierce in a society accustomed to handing over responsibility to the state. The left wing discourse suggests that anyone who does not think the state should do all of these things does not care about poverty or people, and only cares about privilege and maintaining the status quo.

That just isn’t true.

                                                                                                   

The point is that as a society – as a community – we are responsible for each other. We have a duty of care to our fellow citizens and human beings. We have a duty of care to our family, our neighbours and our wider community. In making the state responsible for so many things we have forgotten this duty. We expect a distant other to look after us and the needier members of society. We expect a distant other to pay the tax to foot the bill. We abdicate all responsibility and sense of power ourselves.

The state becomes regarded as an actor or a person itself. We forget that the state is just a collective expression of us all. The state is not above or outside of the community. The state is an expression of our national community.

The point is that we are responsible for each other. That is the principled stance. Depending on the need, the solution will be most effective at a different level. Sometimes that means the state is the most efficient way to provide. But sometimes it is the family, community, local government, or voluntary or charitable organisations. These methods of provision are not inferior or less principled. They too are an expression of our collective responsibility to one-another.

The problem is that we have now gotten so used to not being responsible for ourselves, our families, our neighbours, or our wider community. How do we restore a sense of responsibility and civic duty? Instead of thinking about what you should be entitled to, think about what you can do for yourself and for others. 

Equal marriage

For me, and many like me (I suspect anyone under the age of 35 who is not evangelically religious) equal marriage is just a none issue.

Equal marriage is the 'shrug your shoulders and say "yeh, why didn't it happen years ago?"' policy.

Equal marriage is the 'we already call civil partnerships weddings, and their results husbands/wives, so what's the big deal?' policy.

Equal marriage is the 'actually, we're mostly not religious so you don't get to tell us what to do any more' policy.

The whole opposition movement is just baffling to me.

My experience of the state education system

I am passionate about delivering high quality education to all. Lots of people are. But many (most?) of these people speak from a position of relative privilege. They attended fee paying schools, grammar schools, or high performing state schools. (or even just decent state schools)

I didn't.

My primary school was OFSTED inspected when I was in year 6, and placed in special measures. My first secondary school was closed half way through my GCSEs due to poor performance. A neighbouring school was expanded to take us all in. The result was that only 25% of my school year reached the benchmark of five good GCSEs including English and Maths (four years later, 26% achieved the same). Many of my peer group achieved no GCSEs at all. No qualifications at all. Some could only be described as, at the age of 16, functionally illiterate.

Such a failure of education has given me strong views on the subject. Sure, I can't assume that everywhere faces the same problems as my schools. Yes, it is important to take a macro view of education and analyse various case studies and factors. But it is also important to root your theory in the real world. A real world experience.

So in my real world experience, what were the problems?

Children running riot (on a couple of memorable occasions, literally). Teachers totally out of control. Poor quality teaching. Low expectations and low achievement. Lateness, truancy, and a general lack of discipline.

The attitude amongst staff in the school was that all of this was to be expected. Look at the community it served: the children were clearly no hopers. To be fair, it is a difficult community. The usual problems of unemployment, welfare dependency, substance (alcohol, drugs) abuse, absent parents (more then average numbers in prison). The classic sink estate.

However, the attitude amongst staff was inexcusable. Those children had real potential. Yes, they were bit of a tough crowd, but that doesn't excuse giving up on them before even trying.

The problem, ultimately? Poor leadership.

The head teacher and his team created a culture of low aspiration. They accepted sub-standard teachers. They did not demand more and better from staff or pupils, and they did not create a disciplined and supportive environment in which staff and pupils could succeed.

Labour's answer?

The same as always: spend lots of money. They rebuilt the school whilst keeping the same management and teaching team. A few years later OFSTED put the school in to special measures and closed it.

The school reopened as an academy in 2011 with an ambitious team taking a no-nonsense, no-excuses, aspiration approach.

In 2012 56% of students achieved five good GCSEs including English and Maths.

When people talk about Michael Gove and I say he is an hero of mine, they look at me like I am mad. But I know - I am certain - that the free schools program and expansion of academies is absolutely what schools like my former one need. These policies tell educators that they can no longer blame poor performance on a tough crowd: they must aim high and they must innovate. Furthermore, the reforms equip leaders and teachers with the tools to do so.

If you think women should be equal, you should be a feminist.

This statement is frequently made and often accepted at face value.

I have a bit of a problem with it.

For one thing, I don't like being told what I should be. But putting aside that semi-childish impulse, there are further reasons to take issue with this statement.

Firstly, it assumes that feminism 'owns' the female equality discourse. That the only way to describe a belief in female equality is 'feminism'. I don't believe that is so. I think you can believe in gender equality without being a feminist.

For me, in labeling yourself a feminist, you're saying that gender equality is the most important struggle. Gender is the biggest barrier. Your gender is your most primary identity.

Now, lots of feminists will tell you that their belief in gender equality sits with their belief in equality by race, class, religion, or whatever other distinction you want to apply to human beings. They believe in equality, in all its forms.

I'm sure that is true for many feminists, but then why call yourself a feminist? Why not an 'equalist', or some other label? The impression you are giving is that gender is primary over all those other issues. I don't believe it is.

The identity part of this is important too. In identifying yourself as a feminist, you're saying something about your own identity. That on a personal level, in your personal interactions on a day-to-day basis, your gender is primary. For some feminists, maybe it is. Maybe they feel that on a day-to-day basis, their gender affects what they do, how people respond to them, and what opportunities they have. I don't.

The next big problem I have with feminism is something many people seem to see as a good thing. Its breadth.

You can believe in equality for all and be a feminist.
You can also be a racist and/or homophobic, and a feminist. 
You can believe any woman who has sex with a man is selling out, and be a feminist.
You can be a socialist and a feminist.
You can be conservative and a feminist.
You can believe women should have strong maternity rights, equal pay and equal position in the workplace, and be a feminist.
You can believe women really ought to stay at home with the kids, and be a feminist. 
You can be a lover of fashion and Cosmopolitan magazine, and be a feminist.
You can believe that bras are part of gendered control, and be a feminist.

It seems to me that you can be pretty much anything and be a feminist. Labeling yourself a feminist says nothing about your beliefs. It does not tell me your definition of what a woman is or what a woman should/shouldn't do. It does not tell me your view of equality (as good as men? better than men? free to do what you choose?). Nor does it tell me your view on gendered power structures.

To me, it is pretty useless.

Health inequality and personal responsibility

A discussion on Radio 4's Today program earlier in the week really caught my attention. I've been thinking about it on and off ever since.

The discussion surrounded public health inequalities. It was being considered in the context of the recent devolution of responsibility for public health to local authorities. A specific issue mentioned was heart disease, and the factors leading to heart disease. The contention is that heart disease is, broadly speaking, a lifestyle illness. That is to say that lifestyle factors such as poor diet, not taking enough exercise, smoking and drinking alcohol all make heart disease - a long with a host of other diseases - more common.

All of these things - poor diet, not taking enough exercise, smoking and drinking alcohol - correlate with having a lower income.

So why do poorer people take less care of themselves?

Do they simply not have enough money to make healthy choices?
Are healthy choices inaccessible for other reasons (eg no shops selling healthy foods)?
Are they not educated enough to know what is healthy?

I don't find these arguments convincing. Money can be an issue, but budgeting makes healthy eating much cheaper than takeaways. What's more, if money was the key issue surely smoking and drinking alcohol (non-essentials!) would disappear? This is an issue of prioritising spending.

I accept there may be a few small communities where the only food sold is from the local chippy (or similar), but I don't think there can be many of them. As we keep hearing, Tesco (or her competitors) is everywhere. And Tesco sells healthy options.

While there may be some confusion about the finer details of a healthy diet, I think we've all got the key messages: smoking, alcohol, high fat/sugar/processed foods = bad. Everyone knows what we mean by '5 a day'. Everyone knows regular exercise is good for you.

The reasons above call for intervention. The state should intervene to ensure people have a minimum income (which will magically make people more responsible with their choices).

Now, to Conservatives like me - liberal Tories - this just does not sit right at all. Especially when accompanied by quotes like this:

"And if people’s jobs are less stable, they may be forced to change their diet, or drink and smoke more." [emphasis added] - Dr Perviz Asaria, quoted here on heart disease.

Which to me, is just plain ridiculous.

These paternalistic attitudes are dis-empowering and strip people of personal responsibility. This is not helping people. The reason poorer people eat poorer diets, exercise less, smoke more and drink more alcohol is because they choose to do so. People are, or should be, responsible for their own choices. Taking out personal responsibility in this way is making healthy choices even less likely to be made.

On its own, this may seem overly simplistic. I accept that various factors (income, education, culture) may make it harder to make healthy choices. What I do not accept is that any of these things make healthy choices impossible, or unhealthy choices inevitable or forced.

If we are to tackle public health issues like this we must move responsibility downwards to the individual. Devolution of public health to local authorities is a welcome step. Not least because it means the variety of approaches will allow us to evaluate more and less successful methods.

I think it is time to consider the ways in which the NHS, as free and without judgement, is possibly contributing to these lifestyle illnesses. Does the sense of security created by the NHS make people less concerned about taking care of their own health, and preventing illness? Does medication to treat the early ill-effects of lifestyle disease lead to complacency from the individual? How can we introduce enough personal responsibility in to healthcare provision to mitigate these effects, without leaving people to suffer?

Thatcher's grandchildren

There's this stereotype of Tories. They're all a bit posh. From the south of England. They have rich, or at least middle class, mummies and daddies. They like shooting things (animals). And destroying the lives of things (people: mostly poor and disabled, but anyone vulnerable). They are Privileged.

I'd like to say I'm the exception. The minority within the Tory party that is Normal. But I'm not.

I mean, I am Normal, but I'm not a minority. It is very noticeable within Conservative Future that though there are some posh boys and girls, there are also an awful lot of regular people. People who aren't born to it, but nevertheless are very much persuaded by Conservative ideology.

I'm from the north of England. An ex-mining town actually. The kind of place where Thatcher is a synonym for 'everything that is, and ever will be, wrong with the world'. I'm not rich. I'm from a single parent family, and while my mum does well now, there was very little money I was young. I definitely don't like shooting things. Tory confession: I'm a vegetarian. Please don't out me when I next attend a Countryside Alliance event. Even more shocking, I have my own disability (Crohn's disease).

I won't claim to be a 'Working Class Tory'. I'm one of those not really working class (education excludes me), but not quite middle class (no money) people (the BBC reckons I'm an 'emergent service worker'). But I do belong to a generation of young Conservatives who are, in a sense, Thatcher's grandchildren.

Thatcher's grandchildren love the free market. We simply adore the concept of a small state. Cut spending, cut taxes: Osborne should stick to Plan A. If he'd done Plan A properly we'd be doing much better. In the things we do think the state should provide (healthcare, education), we favour bringing in the market and the power of competition. Michael Gove; my hero.

Deeply skeptical about unions (they represent a niche interest, not the public good), many of us think Boris has the right idea. Actually, Thatcher's grandchildren love pretty much everything Boris says/does.

Like most Tories, we tend not to like Europe either (except for holidays and Camembert). The EU represents another layer of government, and Thatchers grandchildren share her horror of THAT.

However, Thatcher's grandchildren do part company from the great Lady somewhat. Perhaps it was inherent to her, or perhaps it was just the time she was in. But social conservatism? No. This next generation of Conservatives don't go in for that. We are liberal conservatives. All those things that get the oldies into a bit of a tizz (equal marriage?) are perfectly acceptable to us. Non-issues. 'Why-didn't-we-do-it-years-ago' issues. I believe in a small state, and that includes the state keeping out of people's private lives.

We are strong patriots and supporters of the armed forces, but since we missed the Cold War ordeal, we're a bit more relaxed about all of that.

I was born in 1989. I cannot claim to remember a female Prime Minister. So for us, for me, what is Thatcher's legacy?

In real terms: privatised industry, The City, weakened unions. Britain on the world stage, not a broken post-colonial failure. I'm sure you've read lots of these articles on economy, international relations, etc etc in this last week. These are important, of course they are. But let's be honest: it is all I've ever known. For me, that stuff is all really cool, but it didn't bring me in to politics.

The ideas are so much more powerful. The ideas are inspiring.

The idea that you can work hard and get on. That if you are determined, you can overcome. That you are responsible for your destiny. 

Of course, anyone can say those things set on their own. But Mrs Thatcher brought them down to earth. She demonstrated what determination can achieve in her own battles. She set aspiration in the context of limited state, lower taxes and an (unfinished) attempt to break dependency culture.

On Wednesday I will be going to pay my respects to Mrs Thatcher, but let it be known: her legacy lives not just in that lot in government now, but in the next generation of Conservatives too.

Class and politics

In many ways politics used to be simple. Labour, built around unions, was for the working man. Conservatism was for rich folks (or southerners). Things are different now. Change to a service based economy has all but destroyed the traditional Labour base, with the public sector now the most heavily unionised industry. This change has been accompanied by a broadening of the welfare state with many middle class people now net beneficiaries.

Changes to the economy have changed the debate too. Growth cannot be taken for granted. Britain's place at the top of the pile is no certain thing. This is no longer a discussion about sharing the proceeds of growth: we're talking about how to make sure the country survives with relative wealth.

The ideological conflict that results from this is not about class. It is about conceptions of the world and how to succeed within it. On one hand are state based solutions, where the state acts to pour money into the economy and into redistributive measures. This money comes from either borrowing or taxation. The other argument suggests the state steps back and allows the market (through the agency of individuals) to flourish.

These are not issues about where you are from, what level of education you have reached, or what your income is. You can belong to any socio-economic grouping and hold either of these views.

I am a Conservative. Not because I want to keep rich people rich and poor people poor, but because I believe in the ability of individuals to achieve. I believe in people keeping as much of what they earn as is possible. I believe in the market as being vital for creating incentives to work and innovate. I believe in the state as being a facilitator and a safety net.

This should be the message of the modern Conservative Party. It is about creating equality of opportunity through good quality education for all. It is about empowering people to set their sights high, and creating the economic incentives to do so. It is also about maintaining our commitment to care for those in our society who are vulnerable.

Referendum

It has been reported this week that a referendum on EU membership could form part of the Conservative election manifesto in 2015, with a view to being held within 18 months of that election.

It is now time for this referendum.

I am a believer in many of the economic benefits of the EU in terms of trade. I do not share the concerns that some people have around immigration. For many years I have been as pro-Europe as a Conservative could be. However, I do not believe in 'ever closer political union' and I do not enjoy the bureaucracy and lack of accountability in the EU. I increasingly feel that the core benefits of membership of the EU can be achieved from outside of the EU through treaties and other legal and diplomatic mechanisms.

A referendum is an issue of the democratic sovereignty of the people of the UK, and their right to decide on their membership of a multilateral organisation which is able to make laws and legally binding judgements. The argument for a referendum does not need to be pro- or -sceptic. It is an important constitutional issue.

The issue of Europe, hotly debated within the party and within the country, needs to be decided by the people. I support a referendum at the earliest opportunity.

Politics and Targeting Voters

There is a bit of an issue in British politics today, and that is an issue of policies targeting certain groups. Naturally parties wish to gain support for policies which will convert into votes and power, but it seems to me that increasingly the 'greater good' or the moral course is being sacrificed in favour of a few vocal voting groups.

It is no accident that those groups most targeted are also the groups with the highest propensity to vote. This means that groups of people already excluded from politics are excluded further.

All parties are guilty of this. The most recent example if that of 'the squeezed middle', who are gaining sympathy from all angles. I appreciate that many people in the middle are finding things difficult and having their finances squeezed in the current economic climate. However, instead of having policies and sympathy being directed towards this group I feel it is better to appreciate that the 'middle' are doing much better than the bottom of the socio-economic heap and continue to be advantaged in many ways.

It is a very sad state of affairs when the Labour Party, supposedly for the working classes, is more concerned with the people in the middle who are comparatively doing fairly well. This perhaps speaks to the dominance of public sector unions.

As a Conservative I am not about maintaining or reinforcing unequal social structures. I believe in equality of opportunity and gains as a result of hard work. That is why while my party is occasionally drawn in to this regrettable discourse of the squeezed middle, I am proud to support the rising personal allowance which takes many people out of tax, the academy and free schools programs which work towards every child having a good start, and enterprise zones to encourage industry and entrepreneurialism.

It really is time for people in the middle to understand their good fortune, and for policy makers to understand that the 'underclass', which was allowed to deepen under the previous government, is a serious challenge to fairness. The Conservative solution is not an oversized welfare state, but good education, a culture of aspiration, and policies (especially in tax) to facilitate this.

Why should Britain continue aid spending?

Today I spoke about the benefits to UK security of our development budget at the ResultsUK conference. Here is the argument:

There are lots of arguments for increasing UK development spending and often these arguments are humanitarian in nature, focussing on a moral duty to do something about suffering. I fully support these arguments. But development aid can also be self interested. At times this has manifested in propping up puppet regimes, or in opening up markets to exploitation.

I argue that self interest can be combined with what is morally right in international development policy. Specifically, I make the case for development aid’s ability to enhance UK security.

I believe that making a self interested case for development spending, alongside the moral imperatives, is extremely important, especially at a time when budgets are being squeezed. There is a strong public discourse which argues for the aid budget to be cut, and we need strong, persuasive arguments against that. 

DfID understands the connection between development and security and is orientating policy in this direction. There are some direct policies from DfID around governance and conflict resolution along with broader policies also feed into this benefit.

The task is huge and requires more in resources and commitment than the UK alone is capable of providing. This is what makes a multilateral commitment like the 0.7% of GNP target especially important. The UK must play its role in fulfilling this commitment and use all our diplomatic strength to encourage others to do the same. 

When talking about UK security we should understand it not just in terms of border sovereignty, but also in terms of the safety of British interests overseas. We should also understand that development aid in a general sense helps our security because unfairness can eventually lead to insecurity. 

Poverty and bad governance promote conflict and regional instability, so development aid which counters these not only benefits the countries in which aid is focussed but their neighbours as well. In turn this lessens the extended threat to the UK in our globalised world and helps to protect British interests operating in these areas.

It can be difficult to directly link development spending with specific outcomes, as security threats are diverse and uncertain. When working preventatively it is impossible to know which places would otherwise have developed counter to UK security. Some examples of areas in which development spending has a role in enhancing security are immigration, counter-terrorism, piracy and organised crime:

•  Immigration can be perceived as a threat to UK security and is often caused by conflict, human rights abuses, famine and other humanitarian crises. Tackling these issues helps to reduce the ‘push’ factors of immigration.
• Development is also part of counter-terrorism strategy, with the understanding that poverty, instability and failed states all increase the risk of international terrorism in the UK and against UK interests abroad. Even when terrorists do not originate from failed states, failed states provide space away from government in which training, radicalisation and planning can happen. Examples of this include Afghanistan under the Taliban and Somalia with Al-Shabaab at present. 
• Another good example of insecurity affecting UK interests is piracy, which is allowed to continue through ineffective government in Western Africa. Keeping shipping routes accessible is vital to UK security and economic interests. 
• Instability and failing states often provide fertile ground for transnational organised crime such as the drugs trade, people trafficking and similar. Accumulated power in criminal networks can be extremely difficult to break. In terms of UK security this is of greater concern when geographically closer. However, globalisation and trade bring distant concerns closer to home. For example, instability in Colombia has an impact here through trade in cocaine. These kinds of concerns are not always conceptualised as security issues, but as they represent a lack of state control over borders and are associated with criminality here, they can be conceptualised as a security issue. 

As you can see development spending and security is not a simple equation of certain actions and outcomes. Many of these threats to security may never happen no matter what we spend. However, working against the things which fuel these in a general sense is likely to have benefits for UK security and these benefits are enhanced by working in partnership with allies. 

A key part of enhancing UK security is good governance around the world. This should be distinguished from previous policies which promoted ‘strong’ governments at all costs, and also be distinguished from the idea that democracy itself solves everything. Good governance IS about democracy and civil liberties, but it is also about functioning economies, the rule of law and state provision of goods. 

Development policy under this government works closely with defence and diplomacy to ensure that UK interests are identified and worked towards coherently. 

Where the UK undertakes military interventions, development aid forms an important part of strategy, both in terms of enhancing the safety of troops on the ground and as part of exit strategy. This is an issue where the war in Afghanistan provides a lesson of what can be done better in the future. 

Development aid is also used as part of diplomatic strategy, enhancing UK influence abroad. This influence helps security in two key ways: by encouraging intelligence sharing (for instance on terrorism with Pakistan), and encouraging governments to take action in ways which enhance UK security (for instance through extradition treaties).  

So, from a security perspective what would happen if UK development spending was to be drastically reduced? It is difficult to argue that there would be direct attacks in the UK or to measure a specific cost in other areas of government spending. The link between development spending and security is too complex. However, I do have some suggestions:

·         Of key concern is the multilateral effect of development spending. If UK spending is withdrawn it is even less likely that other countries will seek to meet the 0.7% target, magnifying the impact on our security.

·         UK diplomatic influence could decrease as we lose some of our bargaining power. Diplomatic influence is not reliant only on development spending, but as we have decreasing hard power, the contribution of development is increasingly important.

·         There would be a cumulative effect of lack of funding of humanitarian causes and support of good governance, which in some cases would lead to insecurity and failing states. This in turn would have an impact on the UK in terms of terrorism, transnational crime, UK owned enterprise abroad and UK supply chain. 

I understand that some people may argue that this level of self interest in development policy is wrong and that people should be helped on the basis of need instead. From a humanitarian point of view I whole heartedly agree. However, policy makers have to consider two key issues:

•  Firstly that there are so many people around the world in need that it is impossible to help all of them adequately. Our own interest therefore serves to narrow the field.
• Secondly, in difficult economic times it becomes harder to justify the protection of, and increases in the aid budget with the electorate. Articulating a stronger self interested argument would help ensure that protection of the budget continues, which is surely better than being caught in a turning tide of public opinion.

Time for Plan B?

George Osborne has been urged again by the Labour Party to change course, most lately at the announcement of a double dip recession by the ONS.

I absolutely disagree with Labour's prescription for our economic difficulties, but increasingly feel that a change in policy is needed. Towards the middle of 2011 I felt the same discomfort, but was persuaded by George Osborne's speech at conference. The economic situation has worsened since then.

I very strongly feel that the UK economy requires rebalancing. A decade of Labour led to an overinflated public sector, fed by debt and allowing the distortion of indicators like unemployment.

The measure of a strong economy should always be the strength of its private sector. The UK was done an injustice when it became overreliant on the state for employment and growth, and it is now upto this government to take the action necessary for rebalancing.

It is a credit to the Chancellor that the UK has retained its credit rating on the back of a commitment to deficit reduction. This, in the face of European sovereign debt crises, is an achievement which is extremely beneficial to us all. However, whilst enough action may be being taken to (only just) satisfy the ratings agencies, it is not enough to turn around our economy.

Rebalancing is entirely necessary. It is inevitable that it will happen at some point in the future, and it is much less painful to do it now than to wait. My argument is that small steps towards change over a long period of time is just prolonging the pain and damaging public confidence. I would prefer a shorter, sharper course of action.

It has taken some time for me to come to this conclusion, but I very much feel that this should be a turning point in policy. We are simply not doing enough. Deeper, faster cuts in the public sector are necessary. A truly pro-business tax-regime, along with a truly pro-business Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is needed. There is no doubt that this will be painful, but if this action is taken at a faster rate the recovery can begin sooner and be more entrenched.

It should be made clear to opponents of George Osborne that cuts are not a choice: they are an economic necessity. It was striking that when the GDP data was released every economist the news channels broadcast were arguing for either a maintenance of course or for deeper cuts. All stated that this must happen for the economy to recover: within the experts, there is no debate.

Our only choice is whether we want the pain to be long and drawn out, or short and sharp. Do not be fooled by the promises of the Labour Party. Their plans may provide some comfort in the short term, but result only in ruin in the long term.

The strength of a lobby

There is a very interesting example at play in the UK today of the difference in strength and influence of different political lobbies. What makes this difference particularly interesting is that it can be seen in the same area of government: public health.

Take three substances and three different approaches: tobacco, alcohol and cannabis.

Tobacco has had a number of measures taken against it in recent years in the name of public health: punitive tax, a ban on smoking in public, a rise in the legal at which to buy and most recently a move towards tobacco going under the counter.

Alcohol gives a different picture. 24 hour licensing liberalised consumption whilst small steps in raising taxation have been taken. There is also discussion of minimum pricing for alcohol, and a strong public discourse against the 'horrors of binge drinking'. There is no hint towards raising the age of consumption or restricting the sale of alcohol any further,

Cannabis remains a banned, Class B drug with penalties for possession.

These substances undoubtedly have a negative impact on health, but arguably this impact is roughly similar for all. Indeed, arguably alcohol has the greatest impact on society - both in terms of health and public order - but also has the least regulation.

Cannabis was briefly reclassified to a Class C drug, but public opinion was strongly against this and it was returned to Class B.

The difference between alcohol and tobacco is that over several years a strong anti-smoking lobby pushed firstly the legal case for a smoking ban (focussing on health and safety for employees) and then developed a discourse which capitalised on public fear of cancer.

Though the health risks of alcohol use have been articulated, current discourse focusses on public order issues. The impact of smoking on health is made clear: it is never good or even neutral. The impact of alcohol on health is less clear, with changing advice about units where many people underestimate their consumption, ocassional research that suggests some alcohol is good for health and the idea that it is only excessive alcohol which is a problem.

Therefore politicians focus on binge drinking and scenes of public disorder. The cost to the NHS is mostly articulated as being in Friday and Saturday night incidents rather than the cumulative effect on health of years of moderate drinking.

It seems that liberalisation of any of these substances is now extremely unlikely. The differing speeds of change are largely explained by the dominance of differing narratives and their ability to persuade public opinion.

Election and referendum results

I'm very pleased with the results today. The UK has voted decisively against AV and in favour of the present FPTP system. It seems that such a strong vote (around the No - 68%, Yes - 32% mark) shuts off questions about further electoral reform. If the vote had been No but closer there may have been an argument for PR, but I don't think that is the case now.

It was a good day for Conservatives in the English local elections also. There was concern that as a sitting government pursuing a range of austerity measures the Conservatives would suffer huge losses. Instead the vote has held up and some small gains have been made.

The Liberal Democrats made big losses and Labour picked these up. Some commentators are of the view that the LibDems have acted as a human shield for the Conservatives as the junior coalition partner. I have a different view.

I feel that last year people voted Conservative because they took the same long term view of painful cuts in the short term to provide a solid economic base and prosperity in the future. The results today show that those same people still believe in cuts now for a better future.

In contrast people voted Liberal Democrat for differing reasons. Those people who voted LibDem as a protest are no longer able to do this with the LibDems in government. But more importantly many people voted LibDem based on their core policies which have now been abandoned - especially on tuition fees.

The reason the Conservative vote has held up while the Liberal Democrat vote has collapsed is not because the LibDems are a human shield. It is because people who voted Conservative have got what they wanted and people who voted Liberal Democrat have not. 

What is particularly interesting is that many (former?) Liberal Democrats are also supporters of proportional representation. I wonder if they should reconsider this position considering the way coalition government works!

I'd also like to congratulate all of the party activists who worked hard for the Conservatives and for No2AV over the course of the campaign. We've spent hours leafleting, doorstepping and generally trying to engage members of the public in the issues and its nice to see the hard work come to fruition.

No to AV

Yup, its referendum time on Thursday. I hope you're all registered to vote!

I spent an hour or so of today handing out leaflets for the No to AV campaign in Surbiton. I was pleased with the level of interest in the issues: lots of people coming over to get info, and some people interested in talking about it.

The No to AV website has quite a comprehensive list of reasons why AV would be a pretty bad idea (http://www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/), but here are the key things which helped me make up my mind:

1. I feel it is fair that whoever gets the most votes (on first preference), wins. It doesn't sit properly with me that a person who is nobody's first choice could win a seat. 
2. I believe the complexity in counting votes and deciding a winner would turn people off of politics. There is a lack of transparency in the process. We all know that actually voting in preferences would not be difficult - its the count that is. 
3. I think that if AV forces politicians to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters there will be less choice between parties as the scrabble for the centre ground becomes even more pronounced.
4. If we want to reform the voting system to make votes fairer and politicians more accountable then there are better, more effective ways to do it. AV will not achieve fairness, proportionality or accountability. 

For those who are interested the No to AV website also dispels some myths which have been propagated, eg the Tory leadership is not decided on AV, AV does not guarantee an MP is elected on over 50% of votes, and AV is certainly not a step towards PR. 

My stance on the death penalty.

When people think of the death penalty they often respond emotionally. They may think of how they would feel if their child was a victim of a paedophile murderer or similar: very difficult to detach from.

However, when considering as big an issue as this I feel it is important to detach somewhat emotionally to review all of the related factors and issues. I then think its good to put the emotion back in to 'test' how the rational conclusion feels.

The factors I feel are core to this debate that I will discuss here are: safety of convictions, deterrence, human rights, state power and justice.

Safety of convictions

For me this is the deciding factor. I am against the death penalty. The risk of convicting and executing an innocent person is, in my opinion, not worth any benefit that having the death penalty may bring. Unforunately, that risk is great. Forensic science, though fantastic, is still flawed. In the UK (and the US) there operates an adversarial system of law which further contributes to an insecurity in convictions.

I cannot envisage a time where enough convictions could be 100% certain to justify a death penalty without infringing very greatly upon the civil liberties of us all.

Deterrence

Many people argue that having the death penalty deters people from committing crimes. However, studies have shown that this simply isn't true. In countries with the death penalty crime and murder rates are no lower than in countries without - indeed, some have even higher crime and murder rates. In addition the studies show that the death penalty offers no greater deterrence against crime than life imprisonment.

This information shows that in the US states with the death penalty actually have a consistently higher murder rate than states that do not have the death penalty. Some criminologists argue that the death penalty has a brutalising effect on people, thus creating a more violent society. 

Human rights

Human rights are often denigrated in our society as the preserve of the 'loony left' that continually stop justice from being done. In my view human rights are important. Human rights are what help guarantee us all a basic standard of living and of security from the state. To deny one section of human rights is to devalue the meaning of those rights for th rest of us.

State power

The issue of state power over its citizens is a pretty big one for me. In the UK we are lucky that while we may often be dissatisfied with our government it does not terrorise us. When considering how quickly other liberal democracies have fallen into totalitarianism it is my view that it is best not to advance things which could make this process quicker or easier. This is not a paranoid stance. I believe in a limited state and a larger private sphere. Things like the death penalty (giving the state a right to murder its citizens) impact on this.

In a situation of a corrupt government and a corrupt judiciary having the machinery for state execution in place (perhaps initially with public support) wouldn't be a good thing.

Justice

Many people argue that the only way for there to be real justice for victims of horrendous crimes is for the perpetrator to be executed. I fully understand that perspective. I often get an emotional response in the same direction when I hear about horrible things: I would argue its a somewhat natural human reaction to horrendous things.

However, that doesn't make it the most healthy thing to do for our society. Execution does not reverse the crime or make anything materially better for the victim or the victim's family. In my view ensuring that the perpetrator is removed from society and does not have the freedom to hurt more people should be the core issue. In the case of severe crimes life long imprisonment without parole would serve this purpose. Revenge is tempting but overall not productive.

In conclusion:

Perpetrators of horrendous crime should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives. The risks of executing innocent people, sacrificing the human rights of all and giving the state too much power are too great to justify urges for revenge and a disproved deterrence effect.