The Pin Factory Blog

According to a six-month review carried out by the Police Federation, detectives are being taken off serious cases to clear up minor crimes so that government targets can be met. Members of the public are being advised to report missing items as 'lost' rather than 'stolen' in order to keep theft figures low. Police are forced to focus on 'easily solvable' crimes rather than serving the public interest.

Why am I not surprised?

Whenever a public service is controlled by politicians, it will be run for political purposes – to provide good headlines and statistics for the government to show off about. As long as the service remains under political control there is no way around that – it's the nature of politics.

What's the answer? Since policing cannot easily be privatized, the best option is to make the police directly accountable to the communities they serve. Directly elect police commissioners in each constabulary and give them control of the police budget, directing operations and setting priorities.  

With accountability at such a local level, the police would quickly stop persecuting motorists and start focusing on the crimes people really care about. The Conservatives' police reform commission, to their credit, proposed just such a scheme earlier this year.

Another problem highlighted by the police federation is the amount of paperwork with which the police are burdened. Much of it can surely be eliminated but why not employ civilian staff to do what remains? It seems ridiculous to have untrained special constables patrolling the streets while real police officers sit inside doing paperwork.

On the train this weekend, I was sitting accross the aisle from a lady reading George Monbiot's new book.

Every few minutes, she put the book down and loudly pontificated on global warming. We should all stop flying, of course, and carbon emissions should be set at a world level (!) with everyone given the same individual ration (never mind the economics or enforceability of that one...).

I was sorely tempted to point out the error of her ways, when her husband stepped in and did the job for me. Eager to get on with reading his own book, he said: "You know darling, there would be a lot less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if people would just shut up!"

Quite.

I was at a Liberty Fund colloquium in Edinburgh over the weekend, discussing the life and works of Richard Cobden, the legendary 19th Century promoter of peace and free trade. Although I was already familiar with Cobden's ideas and achievements, I had not read any of his original writings before.

The thing that struck me most was the extent to which Cobden was an activist and campaigner, rather than merely a theorist. His speeches as leader of the Anti-Corn Law League were exceptional, displaying a rare ability to communicate liberal ideas in a way that would appeal to and motivate the audiences he was addressing. More than that, he realized the importance of using the political process to effect change – the League produced a newspaper, corresponded with voters, encouraged people to join the electoral register, stood candidates and lobbied politicians. With such commitment, it's no wonder his campaign to have the corn laws repealed was a success.

Too often today's classical liberals (or libertarians) have such disdain for government that they are not prepared to engage in politics. Could this be why liberty seems to be doing so badly at the moment? Perhaps we should all take a leaf out of Cobden's book and start fighting a little harder for our ideals.

The other thing that surprised me is how relevant Cobden remains today, whether on foreign policy (where he believed in peaceful non-intervention), labour laws (which he opposed) or a whole host of other issues. He criticized stealth taxes, for instance, arguing that a tax should be as visible and closely linked with the service for which it is required as possible, in order to increase accountability. He also realized, long before Laffer drew his curve, that lowering taxes could boost enterprise and raise revenue. Gordon Brown take note.

You can read more about Cobden on the Globalisation Institute's website – where it is also possible to download The Life of Richard Cobden by Viscount John Morley.

It transpires that HM Revenue and Customs has "lost" the details of 25 million child benefit recipients in the post. The records included the names and addresses of parents and their children, dates of birth, child benefit and national insurance numbers, and – in seven million cases – bank and building society records. The data was contained on two discs, which were sent to the National Audit Office by unrecorded delivery. No one knows where they ended up.

To his credit Paul Gray, the chairman of HMRC, has already resigned. But this incident should raise much wider questions about the extent to which we are prepared to trust government with our personal information. Surely this sort of thing provides the single greatest argument against ID cards and the central ID database the scheme would entail?

Factor in civil liberties concerns and spiralling costs, and the case against ID cards looks pretty conclusive. Of course, the government tells us we can trust them, that they have our best interests at heart, and that ID cards will make the world a safer place. I'm sure they believe it. But does anyone believe them?

In his most recent announcement on education, Conservative leader David Cameron pledged to provide of 220,000 new school places by allowing independent organisations to set up schools that would receive state funding on a per pupil basis. Under the Tory plans, a legal presumption that any "fit and proper persons" should be able to set up their own state-financed schools would be created, and planning rules would be shaken up to release more land for educational purposes.

All of which is excellent, and could make a real difference to our ailing education system. Supply side reform like this, which harnesses market forces to create good new school places, is vital if demand side reform (i.e. school choice) is going to be effective. Indeed, the proposals are very similar to those in our recent education report Open Access for UK Schools (which popped up again in the Guardian this week).

Unfortunately though, I worry the Tories still haven't quite 'got it'.

The whole point of establishing independent schools within the state-funded sector is that in return for greater accountability (the school sinks or swims on how many pupils it is able to attract) the schools are given operational independence. This is the surest way to raise standards. Yet the Conservatives seem unable to move beyond the idea that when public money is being spent, the government has to regulate. Thus these new 'independent' schools would have to stream pupils by ability and teach synthetic phonics, and so on. Of course, these requirements may be sensible ones, but surely such decisions are better left to parents and to teachers? As soon as you allow government to regulate, the rules start piling up and you're back where you started – city academies are a shining example of this.

All in all: good, but could do better.

When I was in Edinburgh last week, I went to have a look at the Scottish Parliament building. I had seen pictures of it, of course, but wanted to reserve judgement until I had viewed it myself. The question is, how well spent was the British taxpayer's £414.4 million (the original budget estimate was £10-40 million)?

In my opinion, not well at all. The Scottish Parliament is without doubt one of the most monstrous buildings I've seen – and I tend to like modern architecture. It may be pleasant on the inside, but the exterior looks like a misshapen concrete block with bits of bamboo randomly stuck on it. I'm told the design was based on up-turned ships, which explains a lot and is, perhaps, symbolic.

Anyway, the Scottish Parliament building got me thinking about town planning. One of the arguments commonly made in favour of our restrictive planning system is that without it, there would be a free for all, with ugly, poorly designed buildings popping up all over the place. But the Scottish Parliament wasn't just approved by government, it was built for government. And it's hideous.

Look at the rest of Edinburgh. New Town, a wonderful example of Georgian architecture at its best, was a privately planned development (street layout aside), just like the equally picturesque Bath. Developers made the buildings attractive because they wanted people to buy them. Compare that with the council estates that surround Edinburgh (and other great Northern cities). Built by the state after development rights were nationalised in 1947, little regard was given to the people who would be living in them, and they have been regretted ever since.

It's time we finally returned planning and development to the free market. There can be little doubt it does a better job than the state.

A few weeks ago Rachel wrote a blog suggesting that presidential hopeful Fred Thompson might be just the small-government type the Republicans need. We were immediately inundated with comments saying 'What about Ron Paul?' Well...

He is certainly the subject of much conversation in libertarian circles, and has even hit the headlines a few times recently. He managed to raise more money in a single day than any previous presidential primary candidate. His website is getting more traffic than all his Republican opponents combined, and significantly more than any of the Democrats. He even won a New York State Republican straw poll. Granted, only 61 people voted, but Paul deserves to be taken seriously.

He's got some good policies too. He wants to abolish most of the federal government along with the taxes that sustain it, and return to limited constitutional government. He wants to protect and strengthen property rights, and extend personal freedom by rolling back the Bush administration's more invasive and illiberal legislation.

I'm not 100 percent convinced by his platform, however. A more pragmatic US approach to foreign policy would be welcome, but Paul's isolationism is a step too far. His opposition to multilateral trade liberalization and immigration also worry me, since both are vital to the promotion of free trade and international development. As for a return to the gold standard, it's just not feasible – especially with a major economic downturn on the horizon.

The biggest problem with Ron Paul though is simply that he can't win. He will not win the Republican nomination, and if he stands as an independent he will only ensure a left-leaning presidency. It's a shame really – policy differences aside, a libertarian president would be a wonderful thing.

I have had enough.

I recently sent a package to a friend of mine. I paid for first-class postage, even though I could have walked it to its destination in thirty minutes. It finally turned up two weeks later. Then, for the fourth or fifth week in a row, my Economist failed to arrive on time. It used to arrive on Friday mornings, but now I'm lucky if it turns up before the next issue comes out. These are not isolated incidents. They will be familiar to anyone who uses the UK’s postal system at the moment.

In any other industry, one would switch providers after receiving such shoddy service. An organisation that could not provide a basic quality of service to its paying customers would have to change or face going bust. That is the way a free economy is meant to work.

The trouble is, the Post Office does not really operate in a free economy. Its protected position means it does not face real competition, and unhappy customers do not have a realistic exit option. It is high time this changed. The Post Office is not a natural monopoly whose market is difficult to contest. It should be privatized and its market should be fully liberalized as soon as reasonably possible. Perhaps then there would be some chance our mail arriving on time.

The only thing standing in the way of doing this is the universal service obligation, which compels the Post Office to undertake unprofitable activities (delivering in sparsely populated areas for instance, at the standard price to the customer). People often raise this issue, saying that liberalization could not work since new competitors would take all the profitable areas, leaving the Post Office an irredeemably loss-making enterprise. But there are plenty of sensible ways around this problem, as Ian Senior showed in his ASI report Consigned to Oblivion (2002), and it must not be allowed prevent what is plainly a valid reform.

I have just finished reading Simon Jenkins' Thatcher & Sons,
and would thoroughly recommend it to readers of this blog. As a history
of the Thatcher and Post-Thatcher era it is fascinating: the writing is
superb and – for a political book – it's a real page-turner.

The book's strength lies in its political analysis. Jenkins identifies
not one, but two distinct Thatcher revolutions – one good, one bad –
both of which have been enthusiastically carried on by her successors,
Major, Blair, and Brown.

The first revolution is the one usually associated with the Iron Lady –
the liberation of the economy from the unions and the post-war
socialist consensus. This revolution saved Britain from being the "sick
man of Europe" and made the continued economic growth and prosperity
that followed possible.

But it was accompanied by a 'second revolution', which was altogether
more malign, consisting of the massive centralisation of power in
Whitehall, the destruction of local government, and the rapid
proliferation of quangos, regulations, and targets. As the first
revolution runs out of steam, the second continues to gain pace. As
Jenkins says, our everyday lives are now dictated by central government
to an extent that would be unthinkable in most other countries – even
'left-wing' ones.

The solution, Jenkins argues, lies in a 'third revolution' – the
massive decentralisation of power to local government, to the counties
and cities (and subordinate boroughs and parishes) to which people feel
a sense of allegiance. As 'bonfires of controls' were lit across the
country, the death of the quango would be upon us.

Compelling stuff. I've long been a keen localist, and Thatcher &
Sons leaves me more convinced than ever. You can buy it here, from the
ASI bookshop.

In his speech to the CBI yesterday, Gordon Brown signalled that he was planning to put welfare reform at the heart of political fightback, announcing an overhaul of the system to "move claimants from passive recipients of welfare benefit to active job and skill seekers." JobCentre Plus functions look set to be contracted out to the private sector and claimants may be compelled to take jobs that are offered to them or face losing their benefits.

Good. The Conservatives have already seized on this topic, and I am glad to see the government following suit. As our recent report Working Welfare makes clear , this is one of the key challenges facing the country. Aside from being a drain on the economy, worklessness breeds inter-generational dependency, health problems and crime and among other social ills. By actively deterring people from entering work, the welfare state is hurting the very people it was designed to help. Radical change is long overdue.

My worry, however, is that the government may not be willing to think radically enough, given their historic ties to the welfare state and their attachment to redistribution and 'social justice'. After all, Frank Field MP was once asked by Tony Blair to 'think the unthinkable' on welfare reform and was subsequently fought by Brown every step of the way.

Has the Prime Minister undergone a Damascene conversion? Is he prepared to cut taxes for low-income workers, simplify the tax credits scheme and make work absolutely central to the benefits system? Well, perhaps... but I won't be holding my breath.