Adam Smith Institute

58. "If people don't like the policies of their trade union, student union or local council, they have only their own apathy to blame. They should become more active and change things."

Why should they?  Why should people be punished for the pursuit of their lawful interests?  Why should they have a system inflicted on them which takes away their rights unless they become active in organizations which do not interest them?

Most people eligible to participate in trade unions or student unions, and most local residents, probably have spare time activities. There are innumerable hobbies and pursuits to engage an active mind or an energetic body. Students, for example, are often interested in sports, in entertainment, in socializing, and even, occasionally, in studying. These are normal pursuits. Those who feel impelled to engage in full-time politicking are the unusual ones. The rest of the group should not be penalized for being normal, and should not have things done in their name that they object to.

The same applies to trade union members or local government electors. They should not be required to engage in unpleasant and time-consuming pursuits in order to prevent things being done to them or in their name which they do not support. It is not apathy which keeps them away from this type or activity, it is normality, and they should neither be blamed for it, nor made to suffer because of it. Those who have tried to operate "within the system" know how tiresome, time-consuming and corrupt it can be, with political extremists relying on late-night meetings and turgid procedural points to drive away normal people.

There should be freedom of association, and no compulsory membership of organizations claiming representative powers, no forcing people into trade or student unions. Those who wish to join and participate can do so, and the others should not lose rights by declining to participate. Non-participation should not be blamed as 'apathy,' but respected as a free decision.

ConservativeHome asks whether the government’s new found enthusiasm for electoral reform could have anything to do with the Conservatives’ poll lead (recently put as wide as 16 percent). Frankly, it had not occurred to me that there would be any other reason for it. The official line, however, is that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is worried that once the House of Lords is elected by proportional representation, the supremacy of the House of Commons will be challenged.

The simple solution to that concern would be to stop messing around with the Lords, since it works perfectly well as it is. They actually scrutinize legislation (unlike their elected colleagues), they stand up to the government (unlike their elected colleagues), and they don’t even get paid (again, unlike their elected colleagues). Unfortunately the government can’t bear to just leave things alone, and have set their hearts on making the upper house more ‘democratic’ (i.e. ‘more obedient to the government whips’).

Or maybe I’m just being cynical...

With the news that the Green Party’s London mayoral candidate Sian Berry has urged her backers to give their second preference votes for the current mayor Ken Livingstone and visa versa, it is worth taking a look at what the Green Party is offering London.

Here are a few of the policy ideas straight from Berry’s website:

• “I would use the Mayor's planning powers to require all new large business developments to provide affordable premises for small enterprises, amounting to at least 50% of the total trading space.”
• “As Mayor, I would ensure all public employers pay their workers a living wage of £7.20 an hour and roll this out to cover companies who want to get contracts with public bodies as well. And then I'd shame any private employer who refused to follow suit.”
• “Closing London City Airport and using the land as a new Green Industries Park to encourage new enterprise in the growing environmental sector, especially manufacturing.”
• “As Mayor, I will have solar panels up and running on 100,000 roofs by 2015. And I will give free loans to householders, community groups and businesses to make use of new, clean energy technology.”
• “A 20 mph city-wide speed limit on all but a small number of major routes, will bring a dramatic improvement in road safety and help smooth traffic flow.”
• “Demand the write-off of housing debt so London can get building social housing again.”

It is essentially a dummy’s guide on how to financially cripple the capital and by consequence the country. Scary stuff.

Many people seem to have misunderstood the Conservatives' approach to public service reform. All their announcements are so carefully couched in compassionate, centrist rhetoric that people often miss the radical ideas at their core. Their recent green paper on the penal system is a good example. The headlines were all about rehabilitation: had the Tories had 'gone soft'?

In reality, the proposals were exciting ones. Public sector prisons would be made independent 'Prison and Rehabilitation Trusts', with a single governor responsible for prisoners, both during incarceration and after release. These trusts would be paid by results, with a premium awarded if the prisoner is not reconvicted within two years. Similarly, drug rehabilitation would be contracted out to the private and third sector (again, with payment-by-results). This is an excellent example of how market incentives and private-sector discipline can be introduced into government activities, unleashing powerful forces to drive improvement.

With these green papers, clear themes are beginning to emerge in the Tory approach to public services, from crime and welfare to health and education. The first is autonomy and accountability. So schools and hospitals would be freed from government control, and full responsibility vested in head teachers and hospital chiefs. The second theme is payment-by-results: these newly-independent hospitals (or prisons or benefit agencies) would be paid according to outcomes, giving them an incentive to get the best possible success rates at the lowest possible cost.

The third theme is a much greater role for the private sector. The proposed 'supply-side revolution' in education would allow the private and voluntary sector to set up new schools and receive per-pupil state funding. Private sector healthcare companies would compete freely with NHS providers on the same payments tariff. The delivery of welfare-to-work schemes would be contracted out. The fourth theme is addressing the asymmetries of information that exist in public services. Thus, for instance, the Tories would introduce 'crime-mapping' so that residents had a clear picture of crime in their area, and could really hold police chiefs to account.

So – autonomy and accountability, payment-by-results, private sector competition, and greater transparency. They seem like good principles to me. 

I see that 150,000 actually turned out to vote in the mini-referendum on the EU Constitution. (Sorry – minor amending treaty that's not really worth troubling people about.) And of those, over 133,000 voted that yes, they would actually quite like a proper referendum on the subject. For a private vote (in just ten of the UK's 650-odd election constituencies, and without any of the media frenzy and taxpayer-funded TV advertisements that we have in general elections), that's a pretty impressive turnout.

You can see all the details here.

More than that, they the voters indicated that if given the chance, they'd vote no. They were asked two questions:

Should the UK hold a national referendum on the EU's Treaty?
88% voted yes and 12% voted no. Less than 1% did not answer.

Should the UK approve the EU's Treaty?
89% voted against the Treaty and 8% voted in favour. 3% did not answer.

In eight of the ten seats a greater proportion of people voted for a referendum than voted for the sitting MP. ( On average the sitting MPs won 27.5% of the available vote. But of those balloted in this campaign, 31.2% voted for a national referendum.)

Still, the fact that when asked, the general public do come out and do vote against the Constitution (oops, there I go again) will not make a jot of difference in Westminster. Most MPs, with a few honourable exceptions, will stick with their party lines and deny the public their promised say. Mind you, thanks to iwantareferendum.com they might at least feel guilty about it.

David Mundell MP – Conservative shadow Scottish Secretary – was our guest at a Power Lunch in Westminster this week, where the Highland Spring was flowing freely. Naturally, much of the discussion focused on the Scottish Parliament, whether Alex Salmond can continue to succeed so spectacularly while having only a minority of MSPs, what might happen in the event of a Conservative victory in Westminster, and other issues of great interest to politicos.

David reminded us that Alex Salmond – I was at university with him – is a politician of national skill and status, well versed in the workings of Westminster, and how the lobby system and national political reporting works. Many other MSPs have never been involved in politics outside Scotland. So Salmond's touch can be a lot surer on a number of key issues. Perhaps it is why he has been able to identify and play up a number of issues – like the future of the Lockerbie bombers – where Westminster has seemed to push ahead without apparently realizing that its actions can cause offence and resentment North of the border.

There's certainly a case that the Labour party, having spawned the Scottish Parliament as a way of entrenching Labour rule in Soctland for all time, is rather flummoxed now that it's not actually running things there. Some Labour stalwarts seem to be going off the whole idea of a Scottish Parliament, if the Scots are uncharitable enough to vote in another party to run it.

Still, the chance of policy changing much seems slim. Some 54% of the population get their living from the public sector, so why should they vote for lower spending? It needs a national debate on how money is raised, not just (as at present) how it is spent. If Scotland had financial autonomy, that debate might happen. It might even go down the low-tax route that did so well for Ireland two decades ago. But there's not much sign of it right now.

I agree with both Madsen Pirie and Nigel Evans. It's going to be May 2010 before there's an election. Here's my reasoning: Gordon Brown is a cautious man. He's not just one who plans long and carefully; that would be admirable. Instead he's one who goes into a tizzy when things don't go exactly to plan. His bottling out of an autumn election at the last minute was characteristic. It wasn't George Osborne on the death tax, it was a poll of the key marginals which frightened him.

As PM he gets to choose, barring accidents. He'll want a time when he has a sustainable lead in the polls, a long-term one that cannot be overturned in the heat of an election campaign. There isn't going to be such a lead. The economy has turned against him, and people are feeling poorer because of too many price increases. The reputation for economic competence foundered on the Northern Rock, and any remaining reputation for probity disappeared into the pockets of anonymous and third party Labour donors.

No lasting poll lead translates into no election until he hits the wire in spring 2010 and has to call one. Then he loses and David Cameron becomes prime minister. Simple, really. Pity it's all going to take so long.

The Potomac primaries made it eight in a row for Barack Obama. What must be very worrying to the Clinton camp is the breadth of support he showed in most constituencies. The BBC reported that:

Exit polls conducted for AP in Virginia suggested Mr Obama had won the support of two-thirds of men and almost six in 10 women. Mr Obama also made gains with women voters, who have been a core constituency for Mrs Clinton in past contests, and with white men and Latino voters.

These wins give Barack Obama a lead in delegates, enough to wipe out Hillary Clinton's lead among the 'super delegates,' the 796 establishment figures and party hacks whose votes are added to those of the elected delegates. Wisconsin next, but the Clinton hopes are that Ohio and Texas will halt the Obama bandwagon. Texas might not be as good for Hillary as she hopes, though. Delegate numbers per district are based on previous voter turnout, and Hispanics, her 'secret weapon,' had a low turnout last time.

It has been surprising to see her turn from a challenge into a rather faded establishment figure. Her manicured campaign, crafted to each teardrop, has wilted under the onslaught of the fresh-faced newcomer promising to bring real change. Senator Obama won't do that, of course. It will be high taxes and high federal spending, as it will under any of the main contenders. But at least his election will help to change the world's image of America.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has a real problem. Last week one of his MPs tabled a bill in Parliament to force pubs and bars to sell wine in small measures only, while one of his party's MEPs called for a ban on patio heaters.

Greg Mulholland, Lib-Dem health spokesman, wants to make it illegal for bars and pubs to sell wine in anything other than the little 125ml size popular over a decade ago. These were the tiny little glass bowls that didn't allow the wine's aromas to develop in the glass. His excuse is that "people don't realize how much they're drinking."

Meanwhile Fiona Hall, Liberal Democrat MEP for the North East, called for the EU Parliament to urge the Commission to ban patio heaters on the grounds that they contribute to global warming. Of course they have a negligible impact; it's just one of those gesture politics tricks to create whipping boys. The surge in the sale of them is probably down to the government's ill-conceived smoking ban anyway.

The result is that poor Nick Clegg has seen his party made to look stupid yet again. He needs to take a lesson from Peter Mandelson, who introduced tight controls over what initiatives individual Labour politicians might launch or pontificate about. It made him unpopular, but it made his party able to control its image. Nick Clegg will have to do something similar or risk seeing idiots and charlatans make his party a laughing stock week after week.

25. "Proportional representation is fairer than our present electoral system which can give power to minorities."

The argument for proportional representation is that it represents parties in the legislature in proportion to their support in the country, whereas a first-past-the-post system tends to squeeze out smaller parties and often results in a government which has less than 50 percent of popular support.

After listening to the theoretical arguments for proportional representation, look at the practical experience of it. It is under PR that minorities often achieve disproportionate power. PR tends to deny overall majorities, and to promote representation by smaller parties. Coalitions are the norm, with very small parties bargaining for their demands in return for support.

Proportional representation thus brings in the politics of what used to be called the smoke-filled room, of the deals struck in private between the political bosses. The first-past-the-post system may often bring to power parties with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. What it does not do is to give excessive power to very small parties. One has only to look at the disproportionate influence of the extreme orthodox parties in Israel. With only 2 or 3 seats they have exercised a major influence because their votes were needed to build coalitions. It's possible to have a 10 percent shift in opinion in Scandinavia, and see only some junior agriculture minister swapped for someone from another party.

A democracy should enable people to change their government. It is more about throwing out who they don't want than about electing the most popular. Proportional representation makes change difficult. Elections tend to bring small adjustments in the balance between the parties, and to result in coalitions of slightly different composition. There are times when a break from the status quo is needed. It happened in Britain in 1945 and in 1979, but it is doubtful that either would have happened under proportional representation.

And not a party in the traditional sense, but in the political. A recent addition to the political landscape (and to some extent a welcome one) is the UK Libertarian Party. It's so newborn that there’s little in the way of policy on their website, but we should be able to safely assume that it will be based on the idea of self-ownership and limited government, and most importantly: freedom! But does the creation of this party mean that the libertarians are moving towards becoming part of the establishment? Or is the establishment becoming more liberal, so that now is the correct time to expose the libertarian ideas to the public on a wider basis?

The most recent exploration of this theme came from the Libertarian Alliance, who've long been at the forefront of libertarianism in Britain. They recently asked the question in the inaugural Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize, "Does Britain need a Libertarian Party?" The winning entry can be read here and the author's answer is that there is no current need for a libertarian party. The author abhors the idea of libertarians becoming involved in the state machinery and argues that rather than squander time becoming part of the problem, libertarians should concentrate their efforts on spreading the ideas of liberty.

The arrival of Nick Clegg and David Cameron to the leadership positions of their respective parties has seen a sprouting of liberal (in its original meaning) ideas, albeit ones still couched in the language of the state. Perhaps a libertarian party can push them towards removing the state from people's everyday lives. It remains to be seen what can be achieved with a libertarian party, since as with any party it will be a mixture of all the creeds of libertarian thought. The problem is assembling policy that is truly libertarian, yet appealing to all within and without.

The surest way to make the state smaller is to explain and champion individual freedom and win the hearts and minds of the many. Hopefully a libertarian party will be able to help in that.

The arbitrariness of the Home Office work permit system is exposed by the decision to deny the footballer Nashat Akram the chance to play for Manchester City. The rejection came because Nashat is Iraqi, and Iraq is rated 72nd in the world rankings. Permits are only given to players from international teams in the top 70. This decision was made despite Nashat's remarkable performances in Iraq's surprise triumph in the Asia Cup, all the more remarkable given the disorder in his home country.

It is also not the first time the Home Office has been in the news over footballer's work permits. Jason Scotland (Trinidad and Tobago) and Mark González (Chile) were both denied permits, with latter being a deal worth £2.35 million. Perhaps the government is best left out of such decisions; at least until the mandarins at the Home Office can meet the fan's demand by scoring goals like Akram (see here and here).

As it would happen, Philippe Legrain, author of "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them" will be arguing along these lines tonight at the Adam Smith Institute. If you would like to come, please contact Steve at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or us call on 020 7222 4995.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

– Ronald Reagan