Longrider

Neil Harding wonders about my erstwhile membership of the Labour party given my remarks yesterday. Actually, on one count he is entirely right, what we earn and what we deserve to earn are not necessarily the same thing. My point, however, is that it is not up to government to dictate what we deserve – not least when MPs award themselves inflation busting pay awards that make pigs snuffling at the trough appear dignified critters when a direct comparison is drawn between the two. No, what people earn is entirely up to those who choose to buy their labour. Don’t like it? Well, take your labour elsewhere. If an employer wants the best people for the job, their remuneration package will reflect that. If they want to award a six figure sum to their CEO, well, it’s their money and a CEO can lose that coveted position at the drop of a Dow Jones or FTSE point, so the six figure salary and share options reflect the level of risk involved. It has bugger all to do with the state. There is no moral right by which the state may decide what we should earn and amend it accordingly. That is the behaviour of the totalitarian state.

Still, back to the point about my politics. There was a time during the Thatcher years when I was horrified by high rollers earning millions while others trotted down to the dole office. Not least because there were times when it was me doing the trotting and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. That’s why I took low paid temporary jobs and eventually managed to obtain employment in the rail industry at a salary and level that reflected my skills and intellect. History is currently repeating itself, but rather than go through the soul destroying experience of dealing with the state and its new start scheme (or whatever tacky euphemism the dole office goes by these days), I went directly into the temporary thing. It is low paid and I don’t much like it, but I am driven by the need to earn a decent salary again and the determination to get something that reflects my skill set. Do I envy those high rollers? Damn right I do. Do I begrudge them their earnings? Of course not; it gives me an aiming point. Squeezing the rich until their eyes pop out does not work. History repeatedly tells us that the socialist utopia is a pipe dream that is unsustainable. Yet still we hear socialists whining about high earners, complaining that they should be taxed more. Tax havens don’t happen by accident and more taxes will merely fuel more tax havens. Those who complain about the evils of capitalism conveniently ignore human nature as we are all capitalists at heart, but still Keynes’ mantra beats in the hearts of those who follow the socialist creed.

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

J M Keynes 

Well, if that’s so, why do wealthy men become philanthropists? Maybe they are not so wicked after all.

I am a reasonable man. I am intelligent enough to recognise the point when my opinions are directly contradicted by the facts. Sometime during the nineties my opinions collided violently with the evidence presented by the world about me. I look at Britain and where it was in 1979 compared with today, following the necessary economic changes of the nineteen eighties. I also look at France as it prepares to undergo the same painful transition and am appalled at the restrictive working practices that hold back growth and with it, entrepreneurism and the employment opportunities that stem from those prepared to risk all to start business empires.

What does a reasonable man do when facts and opinions collide? I could have continued to delude myself and ignored the facts. Or, to stick with Keynes for a moment, I could have revised my opinion so that it aligned itself with the facts.

I chose the latter, what would you do?

Christian Aid believes the rich in Britain pay too little tax.

A holy alliance of church groups and bishops is demanding that Gordon Brown closes legal loopholes used by the super-rich to avoid tax.

And it is their business because?

Christian Aid is part of the problem here. Relying on taxpayer subsidies from Britain’s Department for International Development, it is at the forefront of demanding ever increasing quantities of taxpayers’ money to thrown at “development aid”.

Ah, yes, yet another special interest group that wants to interfere in our lives. In this instance, wants to steal money from us. According to Christian Aid:

Andrew Pendleton, a senior campaigner at Christian Aid, said: ‘This is an economic issue. But it’s a moral one too. Is using perfectly legal methods of minimising tax right? The answer is no.’

Excuse me?!? What right does this nasty little statist presume to lecture others about morality? The money I earn is mine – because I earned it. If I want to give it to charity, then it should be my decision and I should choose the charity – and, frankly, any aid to Africa is firmly off my list. As pointed out by Alex Singleton in the article from the Globalisation Institute’s response, aid just doesn’t work:

Yet from 1960 to 1997, Africa received the equivalent of six Marshall Plans of development aid. Development aid over the last half-century has been a massive failure, damaging Africa’s prospects, not helping them.

There is a very simple rule of thumb when it comes to development aid: more aid causes less growth.

This is the old “give a man a fish and he eats today, yet teach him how to fish and he feeds himself” argument. What Africa needs (and frequently asks for) is free trade, not handouts that find their way into corrupt government officials’ Swiss Bank accounts and create increased dependency like a drug addict craving the next fix. I will not, therefore, take lectures on morality nor be told I pay too little tax (frankly, I pay far too much tax) from some religious fruitcake on a mission.

The answer to Andrew Pendleton’s question is that tax minimisation is not only legal, it is desirable. The less money that goes to the exchequer (and finds its way into the bank accounts of special interest groups like Christian Aid) the more is sloshing around the economy and creating growth. I suggest that instead of raiding our bank accounts, Mr Pendleton learns the art of creative thinking. Frankly, charities should get nothing from the tax payer. Charity should be just that; charity, freely given with no strings attached. If Christian Aid is worth giving to, people will donate. If not, well, then it will cease to exist.

Following on from yesterdays egregious attempt by an unelected, self-appointed busybody group to impose its values on the rest of us, my mind turns to the nature in which our society has changed over the past couple of decades or so.

As a child I was raised to be aware of my own personal responsibility. If I tripped on a paving slab and cut myself, the typical response would be to watch where I was going in future. In other words, it was up to me to make sure that I navigated the hazards in my life; it was not the responsibility of outsiders. Sure, we all have a responsibility under tort law not to injure our neighbours and quite right, too. It is my responsibility to make sure that my drive is safe for visitors to walk up to my front door without causing them injury; I have no problem with this. But, and here’s the rub, it is also their responsibility to take care of their own safety – it’s a two way process. Let’s put it this way; should I trip over a loose paving slab, I will initially castigate myself for being careless enough not to be paying attention in the first place. Then I will contact the authority responsible and notify them so that they can fix it. I would not dream of suing for compensation.

In the workplace since the advent of the Health & Safety at Work etc., Act (1974) we have witnessed a plethora of safety legislation enacted as delegated regulations under the auspices of that enabling act. Most of which have come from the EU and, frankly, most of which is redundant if one follows the principles outlined in the original act. For the purposes of brevity, the 1974 act places a responsibility on the employer to assess the risks caused by the operation, identify who is at risk, and then to put in place effective control measures. It is left to each individual employer to decide what is appropriate and effective. As an act of parliament, I’ve always considered it a sensible one. In essence it is saying “Look at what you do and manage it accordingly”. Also, importantly, section 7 of the act requires employees to take responsibility for their own behaviour; to cooperate with the employer and not to cause harm through acts and omissions. Frankly, every regulation passed since then merely adds to that general principle. Unfortunately what it has done (all 11 million words of it) is create confusion and a culture of “itselfansafetyinnit?”. People have created an industry from the detail rather than concentrating on the principle, which is a pity. Less here is definitely more.

Having digressed into the workplace, I want to get back to the overall culture that has now enveloped our society. Young people we are now told, drink to excess. Yes, and have you noticed that the sun rises in the east these days, too? As a consequence of observing the eye wateringly obvious, we have special interest groups who represent no one but their own warped ideas bending the ear of government and suggesting ever more illiberal legislation designed to impinge on our own ability to manage our own lives; because we clearly cannot do it by ourselves. Alcohol Concern is merely the latest variant of this phenomenon. As I mentioned yesterday and as other bloggers were quick to point out, parents managing their offsprings’ alcohol consumption encourages sensible drinking rather than the opposite.

Frankly, you can trace this culture shift back to the welfare state; the concept that the state is mother, the state is father. The state, the expectation goes, will make us safe. And the state is all too happy to oblige. Recently I took on a temporary contract working for a large company in Bristol. For the first time in a long time I am working in a corporate environment with predominantly young people in their early twenties. When I look about me at the generation that followed mine I am horrified at the blind acceptance of propaganda as truth. What happened to critical thinking? I may not have agreed with the ban the bomb marchers or the Greenham Common protesters, but at least they were prepared to make a stand for an unpopular viewpoint and challenge the government of the day. I find myself working with a generation who accept without question the unproven concept that we cause global warming (sun? What sun?). Come to that, this is a generation that is woefully ignorant of geography, history, language and maths. When I find myself having to explain to colleagues how to work out something as basic as percentages or simple spelling, I despair. If I try to engage anyone on English history or global politics, I quickly find that they are quite literally, lost. And this is not unusual, I am the one who is unusual because I can spell, string a sentence together and add up… Oh, and I know where the Dardanelles are. And I am the one who failed my eleven plus on maths…

This same generation has grown up with the expectation that bad things shouldn’t happen to them and if they do, then the government had better do something about it pretty sharpish. The state is mother, the state is father, the state does not lie, the state will look after us.

That’s why nasty little self appointed groups like Alcohol Concern do as they do. Their arrogance is fuelled by this blind belief that our safety is the responsibility of others; in particular, that of the state and that the state can be relied upon to listen sympathetically to such calls. I really don’t know how we will overcome this. What I do know is that if we do not, then the liberties that previous generations fought and died for will be frittered away by a generation that desires life in a gilded cage with guaranteed safety from cradle to grave.

Yet again the nagging nannies want to regulate our lives to the point of what happens in our own homes. Not content with over 3,000 new offences on the statute book, Alcohol Concern wants to add more. Maybe they would like to introduce telescreens so that big nanny can watch our every move while they are at it.

Parents who give alcohol to children aged under 15 should be prosecuted, a charity has said.

The call comes in an Alcohol Concern report on the government’s Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy.

My parents introduced me to alcohol at an early age. Their rationale was that it would encourage me to drink in moderation. So I had the odd glass of wine with a meal and a glass of cider at special events. Indeed, their approach was similar to thousands of French parents who introduce their progeny to alcohol in a responsible and adult manner. It is parents, after all, who have the responsibility for bringing up their children, not the state and not the interfering busybodies at Alcohol Concern.

Fortunately, the government appears to be resisting this call and a good thing too. This comment from Caroline Flint is a remarkable outbreak of common sense from a government minister:

I don’t think passing a law to ban alcohol for those under 15 would be enforceable or necessarily effective.

But certainly one of the things that we do need to think about is how we all, as parents with families, do what we can do to have a sensible drinking message within our own homes.

Quite. That is achieved by parents introducing their offspring to alcohol in a managed way; a way that they consider suitable for the children concerned. It is none of the state’s business and it is certainly none of Alcohol Concern’s business. Or as Mr Eugenides points out when discussing the same story:

By what authority do Alcohol Concern presume to tell me how to raise my child? Fuck off.

Exactly.

Interestingly, having tried alcohol as a child, I stopped drinking it by the time I left my teens. I never acquired the taste, I suppose. Certainly my parents introducing me to it before the age of ten didn’t turn me into a binge drinker…

Update: The Devil’s Kitchen has a somewhat more sweary response to Alcohol Concern’s concerns… Read and enjoy

And this is sublime.

Harry Reid writing in the Herald talks about leaks and spin. Specifically Peter Clarke’s comments regarding counter intelligence leaks. The complaint being that it is a betrayal and “beneath contempt”. Well, yes… I tend to agree with Clarke that leaking intelligence in this manner is not on as it places agents’ lives at risk.

The article then compares this with the recent arrest of Lord Levy and the mistrust that now surrounds government. In it, he states that:

This, in turn, leads to widespread suspicion about the rapid growth of surveillance by the state. It is now almost impossible, for example, to have a mature and reasonable argument about identity cards because we no longer trust those in authority.

Fair enough, but… Whose fault is it when any attempt at a mature debate results in government ministers vilifying anyone who dares to cross them? Or, for that matter try to use the law to keep details of their schemes from those they are charged with serving? Reid tries to suggest that ministers are not the ones at fault here:

It would be wrong to blame current government ministers for this climate, in which suspicion, paranoia and conspiracy theories flourish, but they have not helped matters.

Woah! Hold your horses cobber… Ministers are entirely to blame for this culture of suspicion and mistrust. Behaviour begats behaviour. This administration has behaved abominably; its effects on our liberty have been corrosive. If we as a consequence are cynical and mistrustful, you must look to those whose behaviour caused it, not us. The cynicism and suspicion is a consequence, not an antecedent. We (the collective “we”) elected them. That is our part. But that and that alone. From then on in, it has been their behaviour and theirs alone that is responsible for the current climate; the lies, the misinformation, the spin, the briefings and the leaks. Don’t you dare put the blame anywhere other than on the shoulders of those responsible; government ministers and no one else but government ministers.

Reid then goes on to compare his own early behaviour as a journalist engaging in the practice of leaking during the Callahan years:

I suppose this was a classic exercise in spinning, in the manipulation of information.

That’s exactly what it was.

I took part in it and was happy to do so.

So Reid cannot really complain about what is going on now and I notice from the qualifying comment that follows that in essence, he doesn’t. To do otherwise would be supreme hypocrisy. Now, however, we get to the nub of this little moan. It isn’t the government, it isn’t the sneaky little spinning journos that are responsible for the corrosive atmosphere in our current politics; oh, no, there is another, more sinister force at work:

But we now live in a world in which misinformation, malice, conspiracy theories and powerful paranoia are being purveyed night and day in the so-called “blogosphere”.

Sigh… It doesn’t take log for some “professional” hack to try to blame us for something. The culture of suspicion and cynicism isn’t the fault of ministers who are, after all, just fine fellows doing a dirty job; nor is it the the fault of the journos who are, after all, merely reporting the “truth”; no, it’s you and I, the nasty bloggers who are to blame. We have dared to voice our opinion and that just isn’t right, is it?

Professional journalists may not have been subject to many restraints apart from legal ones, yet the media has always been regulated, as any editor knows. Citizen journalists are not regulated at all, not subject to any restraints.

Ah, yes, “regulation”. While there are a good many blogs out there that are, shall we say, just a little less than reliable, a good many provide considered opinion that far surpasses that of the so called professionals. Those same professionals who are lining up to attack those whom they see as invading their turf. That’s what this snide little piece is all about. An unholy alliance with the state would serve their purpose nicely as it would silence their critics and what they see as their unregulated competitors.

We could soon see the most unlikely alliance of all: an alliance between the old media and governments against the new army of bloggers.

I wouldn’t be one little bit surprised.