Longrider

The crash on April 25th in Amagasaki, Japan has caused Japan Railway to come under attack for its conduct not only during the aftermath of the crash but the corporate culture that placed efficiency before safety before it. Indeed the firm has been accused putting profits before people - where have we heard that one before?

Critics of the company said that it is obsessed with profits and adheres to a management philosophy straight out of the dark ages. Whatever errors there are in our management systems in the UK, at least we do not require drivers who make mistakes, such as overrunning platforms or even passing signals at danger to undergo what the Japanese Railway calls “day-shift education” where senior staff berate the employee and where they are made to write reports reflecting on their errors. This is nothing more than ritual humiliation and several members of staff apparently have been so demoralised they later committed suicide. I’m not surprised. Although, given our culture differences, I’d have walked, leaving a vigorous two-finger salute rather than disembowel myself.

Drivers who commit errors are not so much encouraged to learn from their mistakes - which at least is the aim of what happens in the UK - but they are left in no doubt as to the fate that will await them should they do the same again. If I thought the rail industry in the UK was archaic in its management style - let me unreservedly retract that right now. They are paragons of virtue compared to this lot:

“As one driver told the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper: “the [re-education] programme doesn’t make drivers want to avoid accidents more than they already do; it just makes them want to avoid the programme.”"

Reflecting on this, makes me realise that Railtrack clearly wasn’t that bad. At least no signallers were ever sent on a re-education programme such as this nor were they ritually humiliated. The management style may have left much to be desired, but Japan Railways can clearly teach them a thing or two about prehistoric management systems.
—–

I’ve been thinking about political identities lately. There was a time when I always considered myself traditional old Labour. Although even then, there were doubts. I recall being about twelve years old when I started to understand about nationalisation. Even at that early age the idea that a privately owned company could be seized by the state horrified me. While as an adult I appreciate that there are more subtleties than I understood at the age of ten or twelve, I still abhor the general principle of the state taking control of those matters that should be left in private hands. Certainly if I owned a business and the state decided to seize it I would be less than happy.

Having said that I was always comfortable with the idea that health services should be free at the point of delivery, rather than based upon the patient’s ability to pay. And I always believed in the general principle of a welfare state that provided a safety net for those who through no fault of their own found themselves in need. In principle, I believed in a society that looked after those who for one reason or another were unable to look after themselves, while providing opportunities for the wealth creators to do their stuff.

While on the one hand aspects of the left wing ideology, such as a safety net provided by the welfare state, appeal, I deplore the encroaching invasion in my everyday life by the nanny state. Whether it is the odious Identity Cards bill that seeks to track every transaction over £200, every visit to my GP, where I live, where I have lived, when I move, where I bank, when I change banks, and so on, or the readiness by government (local and national) to seize on any new technology that increases their opportunity for greater surveillance of the population I resent their interference and snooping in my private life; it is none of their business and I intend to keep it that way. I also abhor the increasingly authoritarian agenda of the current administration as it puts together the building blocks of a totalitarian state.

Frequently news stories find me horrified that people unable to think for themselves, or act for themselves seek government intervention in what appears to be to be the most mundane of situations where citizens should be able to solve their own problems and get on with their own lives without overt state interference. Here I tend to agree with the libertarian ideal of a small government dealing with what it needs to deal with and keeping out of our everyday lives.

While I agree with new Labour on the general principle that students should pay for their tuition, I cannot agree with the current top-up fees arrangements that leaves them with crippling debts. I tend to prefer the Liberal Democrat approach of a graduate tax. It is after all only reasonable that those who benefit from higher education and the improved career prospects that that brings contribute back in some form financially to that education. It is merely the matter of how that is done, where I disagree with new Labour. Here I agree with Liberal Democrats and their proposals. Indeed, as far as the authoritarian agenda is concerned I also agree with Liberal Democrats.

However with age comes experience. And with that experience I realise that the left right measurement of politics just doesn’t cut it. Even using the political compass that adds the dimensions of libertarian and authoritarian still don’t quite fit. Strictly speaking, I’m a left leaning libertarian. Certainly economically I am to the left of, say, Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair. I am well to libertarian of all major political parties in Britain and the USA. However, that is still not an accurate representation of where I stand. Trying to draw political maps and placing people on them lacks the subtlety necessary to fully understand where exactly each of us stands on any given subject. For example, I regularly read redbaron’s blog; this leans well to the left on the political scale. While I frequently find myself agreeing with redbaron’s comments on the political situation, I also read Patrick Crozier’s blog, and he is a self-confessed Conservative. Yet, I regularly find myself in agreement with his comments too. Indeed, while Samizdata is perhaps a little too far to the right for most of my thinking, I often find myself agreeing or at least nodding in mild agreement, at some of the comments on that blog. And therein lies the rub, I cannot agree with everyone all of the time. What I do find is that I agree with most of them some of the time.

So what am I? A political schizophrenic, or pragmatist who is prepared to agree with one political ideology on a given subject, and another on a different subject. And why not? Maybe I’m not a schizophrenic, perhaps I’m a chameleon.

Some years ago on the way back from a training course in Cheshire, I stopped at Frankley Service station on the M5. As I walked across the car park to the main cafeteria building, I was approached at by a couple of wide boys who wanted to sell me a watch. Their pitch was that they had been at the motor show on the Porchë stand and they had been giving out these watches. The show was over and they were trying to capitalise on the leftover watches. Possibly they were telling the truth; they were driving a new Porchë and looked the part - sharp suits and even sharper ties. They were pretty annoyed with me when I flatly refused and let me know it in no uncertain terms. They made some abusive comments about my lack of taste as if they were doing me a favour. Here we have to agree to disagree - the watches were ghastly.

I was reminded of this incident by the news that unwary buyers have been taken for a ride recently by these two rogues. Apparently they stop passers-by and sell them a laptop computer. They show the prospective buyer the goods and switch bags once the deal is done leaving the buyer with a bag full of rubbish.

Okay - so it’s a low thing to do. But what is going on in peoples’ minds to even contemplate buying expensive electronic goods from a complete stranger who just stops them in the street? Those buyers who ended up with bits of wood and an Argos catalogue deserved what they got, quite frankly. I guess stupid, greedy people are self-selecting when it comes to this type of confidence trick. They believe they are getting something for nothing - or, in this case, a too-good-to-be-true bargain. Of course, if something seems too good to be true, then it usually is. Yet, despite numerous warnings on the television, radio, in newspapers and magazines; despite the best efforts of consumer protection agencies, people still fall for it - because they are greedy and stupid.

I don’t buy from scallywags in the street (or car parks). I buy from reputable traders who have a fixed address and provide a guarantee. That way I don’t get conned. It’s a simple enough formula and if everyone followed it these types of confidence tricks would be that much more difficult to pull off. It is, after all, greed that they are preying on.

This morning Tony Blair is finalising his ministerial team. The chastened, humbled Prime Minister has bought David Blunkett back into his Cabinet less than five months after he resigned as Home Secretary. So as I suspected, it is business as usual. So much for the “honourable” resignation. There was a time when a minister resigned and stayed resigned. Not any more it seems. Less than five months after his shabby exit from Cabinet, David Blunkett is back with us. Going by his comments yesterday, none of the arrogance and puffed up self-importance has diminished. The drubbing received on Thursday night appears to have had little or no effect on the attitude of this arrogant, conceited and authoritarian government. Mr Blunkett’s return to Cabinet is a two fingered salute to the British people. We have served our purpose, we have returned this authoritarian regime to power. We are no longer needed and may resume our humdrum lives and keep our opinions to ourselves for next four years.

There’s democracy for you.
—–

Following a fairly uninspired four-week campaign, this morning we see new Labour returned with a much reduced majority. The BBC’s Exit Poll appears to have been accurate. So what does this mean for the country? Well, the increased showing for the opposition parties hopefully means that such authoritarian agenda as the identity cards bill will be scuppered when it goes through the House of Commons. I hope, but I’m not optimistic. Despite Mr Blair’s claims of listening to the electorate following the dramatic reduction in Labour vote, I suspect that once ensconced in No 10 Downing Street, it will be business as usual and the electorate can go hang the next four or five years.

Locally I registered a protest vote. The local Labour candidate, Roger Berry, was returned with a reduced majority, which was in line with the national average. Interestingly, the Conservative candidate, Owen Inskip, increased his vote as well as Geoff Brewer, the Liberal Democrat. So the swing here was both towards the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. And my protest vote? Well, given our first-past-the-post electoral system, it was a waste. Pretty much as I expected. No change there, then.
—–

I heard on the radio yesterday that the Pope again renounced moral relativism. Not surprising, of course - after all, religions tout the idea of absolute truth and moral certainties.

So, is moral relativism the evil that Joseph Ratzinger (and, I believe, Tony Blair) tells us? I’ll take just one simple example of the logic and follow it through. Let’s take a look at the ten commandments - bastions of absolute truth that they are. Or are they?

The sixth commandment; Thou shalt not kill is pretty straightforward and makes sense to most of us. Except, of course, moral relativism creeps in at the start. The original text does not say “kill” it says “murder”; there being a difference. “Kill” is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text. The absolute truth of thou shalt not kill means that armies would have to lay down their weapons - yet we realise that there are times when taking up arms and killing the enemy is necessary for our survival. It would also mean that when George Bush signed the death warrants for convicted murderers, he was committing a heinous sin (a Christian disobeying the ten commandments - whatever next?). Therefore, thou shalt not kill does not apply - even the original text recognised the need for relativism rather than absolutes. Thou shalt not murder makes much more sense. Except…

If someone close to you is dying from a terminal illness and is suffering all that that implies - pain and loss of dignity - and they ask you as someone they love and who loves them to grant one final wish; the one thing that you can give them; the opportunity to choose the time and manner of their passing - what do you do? If you accede to their wish, you commit murder. But is it morally wrong? Of course, according to the Catholic Church with its view of absolute truth, yes, it is. To many of us, it is a painful decision with no absolute truth. And therein lies the rub. Whatever decision an individual makes in such a circumstance, it has to be their decision based upon their own sense of morality. Most of us can understand the pain of such a situation and ask ourselves how we would react in their place. We all recognise that murder is morally wrong - yet, given such a circumstance, some of us would commit murder and believe it to the be the right and honorable thing to do - and others looking on would not judge harshly. Yet a criminal offense has been committed.

And that is all that moral relativism is saying. Unlike the black and white absolute truths peddled by religious despots, moral relativism recognises the agonising choices those of us living in the real world have to make. It is not evil, it is real life.

I’ve been taking a close interest in the build up to the UK election. I wonder why sometimes, because our system is so cack-handed that it is all but impossible to make any serious difference to the outcome. It is only once every twenty years or so that the real difference occurs and a landslide victory results. Thatcher in 1979 and Blair in 1997 are two such in recent history.

Anyone reading this blog will realise that I am one of those strange beasts; a left-wing libertarian. No, such a thing is not an oxymoron. It is possible to have left-wing ideology without overweening state intervention in the minutia of our lives.

Anyway, that apart, I fell out with the Labour party. The war, the anti-terrorism legislation and systematic erosion of our civil liberties along with putting together the building blocks of a totalitarian state meant that as someone who is “old” Labour, I could no longer cast a vote for my Labour candidate and maintain good conscience. In our constituency at the last two elections the Tories came second. So a tactical vote would be best placed there. I have been steeling myself to do this. Steeling because the Tories are even further from my beliefs. However, unseating the incumbent MP was my short term aim - the longer term would have to look after itself.

All well and good. Until I stood with the ballot paper before me and the pencil hovering over it. My conscience got the better of me. I just couldn’t vote Tory. Almost without further thought, my cross landed beside the Lib Dem candidate. Have I wasted my vote? Who knows - but at least my conscience is clear.

Patrick Crozier and Natalie Solent have been expressing concern about bias at the BBC overtaking Dr Who - to the detriment of the latter. Having just caught up with the episodes in question and having read the comments on both blogs prior to doing so, I watched with these comments in mind.

Art has always mirrored life - it always will. That is where it draws its inspiration. So the story whereby a family of greedy aliens want to start a global war and use the politics of fear to generate it so that they can sell off the remains of Earth to anyone who wants to buy it resonates with what is happening at the moment. And, yes, the 45 second threat was less than subtle when the alien disguised as the PM came out with it. But….

Sorry Patrick and Natalie, for me, the Slitheens had more of the Vogon than Bush and Blair. Yes, the writer indulged in a little satire - and why not? But this was more piss-take than serious political comment. I certainly don’t go along with the comments made by the commentator; Mark, that Natalie quotes:

I`m against the iraq war but for the bbc to put out a programme which basically suggested that Bush (i`m not a fan)was behind 9/11 in order to start a war on iraq was grotesque. I expect to see that kind of extremism on anarchist/islamic and white supremacist websites, not on the BBC.

Actually, here I agree with Natalie - it was a weak joke that raised half a smile but I didn’t take it as seriously as Mark. Nor for that matter did I feel as worked up as some of the 20 commentors on Natalie’s blog. Nor, for that matter did I feel as Natalie did, that it jolted me out of my suspended disbelief. Indeed, my main feeling following the comments and having watched the programme was to echo Michael Winner - "Calm down, dear, it’s only a story."

As for bias? Well, of course the BBC is biased - all of the media is. What’s new?