We all know that Redistribution Is Bad. That is, except when it comes to the National Football League and it’s allocation of television revenues and draft picks.
Republicans vs Democrats, freedom-lovers vs evil socialists, explained to us by Bill Maher through the prism of American sports.
A documentary is just starting on UK’s Channel 4 TV (Saturday 13th April, 7PM), entitled “Margaret: Death of a Revolutionary”.
My interest was piqued when I saw that Channel 4 was showing a documentary about Baroness Thatcher – their news channel is skewed so far to the left that it defies belief, so I was curious to see what they would have to say about Britain’s post-war saviour.
But it was the description of the programme in my Sky TV guide that really affronted me:
“Martin Durkin presents his radical thesis: that Margaret Thatcher was a working class revolutionary, and that she believed capitalism was in the interests of ordinary people, not the toffs.”
Everything wrong with the British left-wing encapsulated in one sentence.
Where to start?
Why is this a “radical thesis”? I think that we are supposed to take this line of nonsense as a piece of magnanimity from the left – that the holier-than-thou leftists among us are willing to grant that maybe Thatcher was (albeit misguidedly) trying to help the less fortunate in society, and not just the “toffs” (don’t get me started on that word) that we all assume were the only people she really cared about.
What nonsense.
Of course Thatcher believed that capitalism was in the interests of the ordinary people. Because it is. This isn’t a “radical thesis”. The ignorant left may have accepted the nonsensical trope that capitalism benefits only the wealthy Monopoly-men style captains of industry and the “toffs”, but the rest of us sure haven’t.
We of sound mind know that capitalism (as opposed to corporatism, which is entirely different, and which Thatcher promoted no more than any other British politician) inevitably helps the “ordinary people”.
And did the person who wrote the programme description lose their mind? Who does he think the Right-to-Buy scheme benefited? The “toffs” weren’t the ones living in state-owned council housing, who were suddenly given the opportunity to buy their houses and move into the ranks of the middle class. Who did the deregulation and privatisation of failing state-owned industries benefit? Yes, wealthy people who had money sloshing around and could afford to snap up shares did well, but so did many middle-class people, as did the whole population who no longer had to deal with fuel crises and substandard products.
Yes, of course Margaret Thatcher believed that capitalism benefits “ordinary people”. Because it does. Nationalised, state-owned industries sure didn’t benefit us. Three day working weeks didn’t benefit us. Power cuts, garbage piling up, dead bodies laying unburied, industrial unrest, the country being run by the unions, none of these things benefited us.
And Channel 4 has the nerve to present their quirky notion that maybe Thatcher had the interests of “ordinary people” at heart as a radical thesis. That in fact perhaps Margaret Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter from Grantham, wasn’t actually in the pocket of the landed gentry and the “toffs” after all.
I despair of the left sometimes.
Today saw the installation of Justin Welby as 105th Archbishop of Canterbury.
The service was moving, with many elements incorporated to reflect the international diversity of the worldwide Anglican communion. Although myself a Roman Catholic, I wish the new Archbishop of Canterbury the best and pray for him as he seeks to tackle the many challenges facing his church.
I was, however, momentarily distracted from the beauty of the service by this image of a protester in Canterbury, shown on the BBC News website here.
We’ll let the misspelling of the word “privatise” go.
But both Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby can hang up their hats and go home, because this lady clearly has such a direct line to the Lord that she is able to tell us God’s political stance on any issue of the day. With such an ability we should probably make her a Lord Spiritual so she can sit in the House of Lords and meddle in British lawmaking with the others.
Christ would “NOT” privatise the NHS? Really? What does He think about Clinical Commissioning Groups? Is it okay with Him if private firms perform non-clinical work for NHS hospitals (such as cleaning or catering), or must this be owned and managed by the state too? And I have a feeling I know her answer, but does our Lord support the renationalisation of the railways in Britain?
Why does the left have such a monopoly, a stranglehold on the idea of compassion in our country?
Why is it that to speak out against the state taking such a large, meddling role in all of our lives marks one out as a mean-spirited and cruel person, indifferent to the needs of others?
And why do we all buy in to the idea that in order to be charitable and compassionate, we must funnel our efforts to help our neighbours, the less fortunate and the downtrodden through an inefficient state bureaucracy?
If the counterargument is that people would be selfish and insufficiently generous without the heavy hand of government coercion and taxation to take wealth and redistribute to those in need, what does this say about the leftist’s view of human nature?
Did it ever occur to this protester that perhaps it is directly because the state plays such a large part in everything that we do, from cradle to grave, that the church to which she belongs is withering and shrinking by the year?
To a great extent, aside from the divine aspect, has the British welfare state not done away with the purpose of church, of knowing your neighbour, of being part of a community, altogether?
I ask these questions because the answers to these issues of how best to act charitably, to help your neighbour and provide for those in need seem to be self-evident to so many on the left. Of course, they say, we must give more to the government so that they can give back to us according to our need. Certainly the newly-installed Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, seems to subscribe to this mindset, from what we know of his recent remarks.
I could not disagree more vehemently.
Veteran Labour MP Denis MacShane had a good think, and decided that the way to fix all that ails Britain is to introduce a draconian new method of social engineering. The BBC reports:
Only people on the minimum wage should be allowed to stand for Parliament in 10% of seats to make politics more representative, a Labour MP has said.
Denis MacShane said the backgrounds of MPs from all the main parties at Westminster had become far too narrow.
The backgrounds of MPs had become far too narrow? Seriously? I agree that there is a long way to go until the membership of the House of Commons comes remotely close to mirroring the population at large (if indeed this is even a desirable goal, which is questionable), but to suggest that we are moving backwards is surely pure lunacy? Has there ever been a time (the Blair Boom of 1997 aside) when the Commons has been more representative? And yet MacShane tries to convince us that a decades-long trend is underway, filling the Commons with wealthy landowners at the expense of everyone else.
Now, the BBC’s poor journalism makes it hard to divine exactly what Denis MacShane means. The BBC headline refers to “working class shortlists”, but the article only quotes MacShane advocating the idea that 10% of Parliamentary seats be reserved for those on the minimum wage. Both ideas are dumb, but it would be helpful if the BBC quoted MacShane properly, or at least came clean about what he is actually in favour of.
If a person earns 1p/hour above the minimum wage, would this render them ineligible to run for Parliament in those constituencies with “poverty shortlists”?
How would the Electoral Authority decide which parliamentary constituencies should have the shortlist? Would you select the wealthiest areas of the country, to stick it to all the rich suburbanites in Surrey and Kent, or let the “working man” represent his “own kind” by having the shortlists in traditionally lower-income constituencies such as my hometown of Harlow, Essex?
And if Denis MacShane literally means that 10% of Commons seats should be reserved for people who fall under the nebulous definition of “working class”, how are we going to define that? People on the minimum wage? People who did not go to university? People whose parents did not attend university? People who live in council housing? Does it depend on your accent, perhaps? Would I, as someone who grew up in a single parent household reliant on government benefits, be eligible to run as a “working class” candidate, even though I now earn a good salary?
What a useless contribution to the public debate.
How often do we hear politicians bemoaning the fact that their profession is “unrepresentative”, and expressing the hope that at some point (always indeterminately in the future) less people “like them” will hold the reins of power? Well, MacShane gives it to us again today:
Mr MacShane, an Oxford university graduate who worked as a journalist before becoming MP for Rotherham in 1994, said there needed to be fewer candidates with his kind of background in the future.
Feel free to do your part by resigning now to make way for the pilot scheme.
Andrew Sullivan posts an excellent retort to Mitt Romney’s fear mongering that the United States is about to make a binary flip from being a free enterprise nation to having a “government-run economy”, based on this illuminating chart:
As you will note, the line indicating growth in corporate profits (in billions of dollars) obstinately refuses to go in the direction that it would need to point in order to signify the government-led smothering of the private sector that Romney wants us to believe is currently taking place.
The Republican presidential candidate has been giving speeches bemoaning the notion that President Obama doesn’t understand capitalism or the free enterprise system, and that this ignorance is leading Obama to implement policies that are harming the economic recovery. Romney has advanced this line of attack frequently, most recently at a campaign event in St. Louis, Missouri, though to be fair, he seems willing to ascribe Obama’s supposed failures to ignorance rather than malice:
I do not believe this has been done with evil intent or ill will. But for a family watching their house being sold at foreclosure, or the family that is forced to spend their kid’s college savings just to make ends meet, the results are just as devastating.
Oh wait, perhaps not:
I will not be that President of deception and doubt. I will lead us to a better place.
Then, of course, comes the obligatory lie about Obamacare, the Affordable Healthcare act:
Today, government at all levels consumes 37 percent of the total economy or G.D.P. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, government will reach half of the American economy. And through the increasing controls government has imposed on industries like energy, financial services and automobiles, it will soon effectively control the majority of our economic activity.
This line only works if you are ill-informed enough to actually believe that Obamacare effectively appropriates and nationalises the entire US healthcare industry, bringing it under government ownership as opposed to just regulating the industry to a higher degree and increasing the customer base of the insurance companies through the individual mandate. So it’s basically a big fat lie, though Romney is clever enough to choose his words carefully, stating “government will reach half of the American economy”, a quite meaningless phrase, but one that deliberately and incorrectly suggests ownership and control of half of the US economy without actually putting him on the record as having said so.
And finally, the crux of Romney’s argument:
One must ask whether we will still be a free enterprise nation and whether we will still have economic freedom. America is on the cusp of having a government-run economy. President Obama is transforming America into something very different than the land of the free and the land of opportunity.
We know where that transformation leads. There are other nations that have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.
I don’t want to transform America; I want to restore the values of economic freedom.
This is what really irritates me about the Romney argument, this idea that there is a binary choice between “free enterprise” and “government-run”, that America has always dwelt on the free enterprise side of the line and that Obama wants an old-school socialist planned economy. It is borne out of the total allergy to nuance or shades of grey currently affecting the Republican party, and is one of the main reasons why I cannot bring myself to support them at the moment.
Of course there is no such binary choice. What percentage of GDP would have to be consumed by government spending for “free enterprise” to officially be declared dead according to the Romney definition? 37%, the current figure? 50% + 1? Something else? All conservatives – myself included – want to see government spending account for as small a proportion of GDP as possible, and most would agree that the current level – in Britain as well as in America – is too high. But the size of government has expanded under both parties, and though Obama may be guilty of failing to reverse the trend, he has at least slowed the rate of increase in the size of government, when the stimulus measures are factored out. For Mitt Romney to suggest that the US is teetering on the brink of becoming a planned economy under Obama when government spending accounts for 37% of GDP is not only the worst type of scaremongering, it also ignores the significant contribution that his own party made to the problem.
And as for this narrative about Obama seeking to “transform” America, to turn it into something unrecognisable from before – while it may be the only narrative that Romney can hope to ride to the White House in November, it is also untrue. Obama is a centre-left politician implementing mostly centre-left policies, some of which would actually have enjoyed a measure of support among Republicans if they had been proposed by a President Bush, Cheney or McCain. But for Romney to get out the vote, he must convince his supporters of something patently untrue, that Obama is a radical, a dangerous subversive trying to alter the fabric of America.
I’m an economic conservative, I believe in a small state and limited government involvement in private markets. But given the choice between someone on the centre left who is making an honest effort along Keynesian lines to solve the economic difficulties facing America and someone on the right who screams “socialism!” where none exists, and who remains in denial about his own side’s complicity in the downturn and the detrimental effect that his policy proposals would have on the recovery, I have to hold my nose and support the centre left guy.
Which is a shame, because it would be nice to have a genuine choice in 2012.
Semi-Partisan Politics 