We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
This Sunday Essay at Coffee House, entitled How cutting corporate tax rates raises revenue, written by Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers’ Alliance is a reminder that however well libertarianism, free marketism, classical liberalism, whatever, may be doing – in the sense of increasing the number of individual libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals, whateverists – public opinion about taxation, out there beyond the battles of the mere ideologists, seems to remain stubbornly unaltered. Taxes should be as high as we can afford, but no higher than we can afford. That’s what public opinion still seems to believe, and people like Matthew Sinclair cannot afford to challenge this opinion. The Taxpayers’ Alliance is, you could say, built on not challenging it. It is an alliance between those who want taxes cut, and cut, and cut, until they scarcely exist, and those who believe that, just for now, taxes are too high, and that public spending should be done better, so that public spending can be boosted rather than the very idea of it discredited.
Sinclair justifies lower tax rates, at any rate in this piece, entirely by pointing out that lower corporate tax rates will yield higher tax revenues. As they will. But could the same not be said for other taxes? By talking about lowering corporate taxes, Sinclair confirms the prejudice that tax cuts are only for a certain sort of person and a certain sort of institution. The libertarian political nearly-nirvana – a world in which politicians agree that taxes must be cut and cut and cut (see above) to the point where tax revenue, having done its predictable surge upwards, then starts instead to surge downwards again – but quarrel about exactly whose taxes should be cut first, and exactly whose benefits should be cut first and exactly which tyrannical bureaucracy should be shut first and exactly which costly laws and regulations should be repealed first, even as total tax revenue continues to go down, seems as far away as ever.
I still want to believe that under the radar – under the Laffer Curve, you might say – the change I really want may actually be happening. I want to believe, and I do actually think it makes some sense to believe, that the majority that favours high (as I would call it) taxes and high spending (just not too high) may be diminishing, and that the minority that wants taxes and spending both to be cut radically may be increasing. I also believe that the Taxpayers’ Alliance is doing more good than harm on this front. But Sinclair’s piece tells me little about that, one way or the other.
The Chief Executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Matthew Elliott, is giving the after dinner speech on the Saturday of the Libertarian Alliance’s annual conference in October. He speech will be entitled “Reasons to be Optimistic: Why we are winning the battle for lower taxes”. Lower rather than low is the point there, I think.
Once the financial markets have hopefully calmed down, this development is likely to gain much greater significance:
Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
What has been predicted has come to pass. As I discussed on a previous post while attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and a senior UK judge on the matter, this move undermines the core principle of a free society, namely, that all are equal under the rule of law, and that a polycentric legl code, while fine in theory, tends to be unacceptable in practice if some people, such as Muslim women, are at risk of being coerced by their families into submitting to such courts. Given that in matrimonial disputes, men are favoured over women under Muslim law, this development is bad for women. Now, where is the chorus of complaint from feminists?
The article continues:
Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours. It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
In tandem?
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
That has to be the crucial point, but the worry must be that women, for example, will face considerable pressure in marital disputes to submit – that is what Islam means – to sharia law. The whole point about everyone being under the same legal code is that pressure is at least lessened somewhat.
This comment was telling:
In a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
Well, exactly. Now that the Tories are miles ahead in the opinion polls, it would not be too much to ask for a future Tory administration to shut these courts down if it can be shown that parties to a dispute had been under any duress to accept them in the first place. Also, where children are involved and therefore the child is clearly not able to consent, such rulings should be declared inadmissable, period. The same point would apply to any other network of courts or arbitrators from any other religion, for that matter. For example, as far as I understand it, Jewish courts do not have binding powers if they are at odds with the existing UK ones.
At the very least, this development plays straight into the hands of bigots of all stripes, including the Far Right, of course. Equality before the law may sometimes be an empty phrase, but it touches on a vital principle in jurispudence in a free society.
Peter Tatchell, selling Green policy under the guise of giving advice to the PM, has a number of suggestions. One of them fully restores the Green Party’s reputation for plain weirdness:
Raise tax-free personal allowances from £6,035 to £8,000 for people earning under £20,000 a year and to £7,000 for those earning £20,000 to £25,000, which would be funded by a rise in tax on incomes over £80,000 and which would assist the lower-paid at a time of rocketing food prices.
That top limit of £25,000 implies he’s leaving personal allowances where they are for people earning over £25,000, so that they drop by £1,000, twice. Lots of people, including me, have suggested reshaping the tax system by raising allowances. But no-one I think has before suggested that it would be a vote-winner openly to treat very large numbers of people to marginal rates over 100% by clawing back an extra £200 when they cross an arbitrary threshold. Twice. At close to the median earnings level so the maximum numbers notice.
In fact, it was a disaster for Gordon Brown when he did it as a concealed one-time-only adjustment. Possibly it was the disaster for Gordon Brown, where he finally came unstuck. It’s probably not something he wants to try again once, Peter. Let alone twice.
The Tories have opened up an almost 30 percentage point lead over Labour in the latest opinion poll in the Daily Telegraph. The opposition party is now polling over the 50 per cent point, the highest it has been since the heyday of Margaret Thatcher. An interesting point, as no doubt the jaundiced readers and contributors to Samizdata point out, is that the Conservatives have achieved this on the basis of remarkably little actual policy detail of their own, apart from stuff about changes to inheritance tax. In the early years, Tory leader David Cameron spent most of the time aping the mushy centre-ground noises of Blairism, with a strong, and possibly even sincere, attachment to notions of environmentalism and socially responsible corporations, the latter stance being a socialistic, or possibly even fascistic doctrine that is at odds with the notion that businesses should be run to serve the interests of those that own and run them.
All that has changed, and changed utterly. For a start, we do not hear much these days about the environment from Mr Cameron. Worries about global warming, at a time of economic fear and after a run of crap UK summers, do not cut it any more. The fact that mean global temperatures have actually dropped over the past 10 years is proving a bit of an awkward one. And the Tories’ economic mistakes of the early 1990s – joining the European exchange rate mechanism – are now far enough in the memory to no longer be as toxic as they once were.
Brown’s reputation is in ruins; his massive spending, raiding of private sector pensions and hideously complex tax changes have come back to haunt him. His creation of a semi-independent central bank no longer looks so clever given that he shifted the Bank of England’s inflation target to a different, and easier to hit, measure a few years ago, hence arguably stoking credit growth by an additional degree. Yes, some of the global credit crunch is outside of his, or indeed Britain’s control. But Brown sought to claim much of the credit for the fat years, so he cannot complain about getting some of the stick for the lean years.
As a side observation, a lady whom I met recently and who knows Cameron told me that he was a total shit. He would feign interest in a subject for about five minutes and then lose all interest. Not a good sign.
Update: The Taxpayers’ Alliance has a good and brutal report on what has happened to the UK economy during the Brown years, which will be available tomorrow. The Tories, if they had any intellectual fire-power, should be producing such reports. The TPA has held the torch for the cause for small government during a period when the Conservatives seemed barely able to mention the words “tax cut” without immediately rushing to tell people that they had no desire to be so cruel and nasty as to actually cut the size of the State. The TPA puts that party to shame.
“It can’t go on for much longer,” says one Cabinet member who described yesterday’s meeting as “excruciating: an embarrassment”.
“It’s not just the country that’s not listening to Gordon any longer: the Cabinet isn’t listening to him. Something is going to give. There were people staring at their hands, some scribbling on their papers, someone else on their BlackBerry.” Anything rather than look their own leader in the eye.
Mr Brown told his Cabinet that issues about the direction of the party should not be raised until after the present economic turmoil.
The minister adds: “Gordon is now measuring his survival in two-week horizons. It’s humiliating for everyone.”
– Anne McElvoy – quoted here, and I should imagine, there and everywhere during the next few days
Here is a comment at Coffee House on this posting:
Brown will pull a rabbit out of his hat. He will declare that he will hold a referendum on the UK being IN or OUT of the EU! He will promise to accept the decision and make policy changes following the result!
SUCH a policy, such a move would instantly wipe the smiles off the Tories as we will have the spectacle of Cameron/Osborne etc in the IN camp and forever losing their eurosceptic labels!
Brown knows that being out of the EU will bring in massive investment and also save the country billions.
Expect this in late Autumn.
This is from “alan” and is comment number nine, at 8.09am. As a political prophecy I think it is barking moonbattery. But as a description of economic reality, does what alan says, suicide note capitals and all (“SUCH a policy”), perhaps have merit?
I have long believed that leaving the EU would be good for Britain’s economy, quite aside from such incidentals as the rule of law rather versus rule by the mere say-so of rulers, and in due course getting dragged into whatever European civil wars accompany the eventual break-up of the EU. But I have tended to assume that leaving the EU in the nearer future would inevitably involve a period of economic bad news, during which the associated dislocations – and the EU’s enraged punishments – would be immediate, but during which the clear eventual benefits to Britain’s economy would be somewhat slower to materialise.
However, would leaving the EU be a short-term fix for Britain’s present economic woes? Would it have the immediate benefits that alan claims for it? If so, that would be a meme worth getting behind.
UPDATE: Some interesting EUro-commentary from Guido.
Congress notes that the Government proposes to require workers in aviation to enrol in the National Identity Scheme in 2009. Congress has deep concerns about the implications of the National Identity Scheme in general and the coercion of aviation workers into the scheme in particular. Congress sees absolutely no value in the scheme or in improvements to security that might flow from this exercise and feels that aviation workers are being used as pawns in a politically led process which might lead to individuals being denied the right to work because they are not registered or chose not to register in the scheme.
Congress pledges to resist this scheme with all means at its disposal, including consideration of legal action to uphold civil liberties.
Overwhelmingly carried by the TUC. Coming not very long after the British Air Transport Association (the association of airlines and airports) expressed its “joint and determined opposition to the proposal” [pdf], this suggests the current scheduling of the UK National Identity Scheme may have some problems.
Expect yet another repositioning shortly. (My guess: it’ll be about “immigration control”.)
The other night I dined with Michael Jennings, and the question arose between us about how the political atmosphere of Britain now compared with the atmosphere of Britain in slightly earlier times, the most obvious comparison being between now and the time just before – and at the start of – the Thatcher era. Whether Michael himself asked about how 1979 and thenabouts compared to now I cannot recall. Probably not, because in 1979 he was a young boy living in Australia. But I found myself trying to answer this question, because I believe that the comparison is rather intriguing.
Economically, Britain then and Britain now are in a rather similar mess, created by similar policies. The government was then, and is now, spending more than it can comfortably raise from us in taxes. Then as now, international conditions had reduced what the government could comfortably spend, but the government found it hard to react rationally. So much, briefly, for the similarities. But the differences are huge. These differences are in the party politics of it all. → Continue reading: 1979 and now – similar economics but different politics
Freedom of movement is a simple principle and some countries are more attractive than others. Britain may have some 77 million by 2060, overtaking Germany as the most populous country in Europe . A happy result as this adds more energy to our mongrellous mix. Get rid of the welfare state and we may attract even more economic migrants, even more entrepreneurs and get even richer faster.
Still, good news brings out the illiberal. We have the Tories aping Labour, adding stasis to their statist hungers, with a po-faced limit on all immigration.
The Conservatives are demanding an annual limit on immigration, to take “into account its impact on the public service infrastructure” as well as a broader policy “to tackle other issues like family breakdown” and ageing.
The prize for chumpdom extends to greenery: with their wistful carry trade of ecocide and dreaming spires, with cyclists trading organic marrows between villages of happy farmers:
Rosamund McDougall, policy director at the Optimum Population Trust, has called “for stabilisation and gradual decrease to five million fewer people in Britain by 2050”.
“This population growth is absolutely unsustainable, in environmental terms, energy terms and food production. It will make life for British citizens significantly worse,” she said.
“Even if we comprehensively greened our lifestyles, the UK could only support 27 million people – less than half its present population – from its own resources.”
The green response to freedom of movement is illiberal restriction cast in a PC lexicon:
OPT supports immigration. We want to go on doing our share of protecting persecuted refugees as well as welcoming additional skills and cultures to our already rich mix of people. The problem is how many? Since we believe that our population density is now too great for our resources, we think that a just solution is to balance immigration with emigration to help reverse population growth. As around 350,000 people leave our shores each year, we suggest limiting immigration to similar numbers, to produce a neutral effect on our population growth. More asylum seekers could be accommodated if there is a corresponding reduction in the number of economic migrants.
This fundamental divide between liberals and greens has not been grasped by the general populace. If the greens are unable to attain the carrying capacity of the United Kingdom by voluntary means, where will they go in their quest for sustainability?
This story will not help the blood pressure of our regular readership, I am sure:
A flagship database intended to protect every child in the country will be used by police to hunt for evidence of crime in a “shocking” extension of its original purpose.
How marvellous. Makes one’s heart swell with pride.
ContactPoint will include the names, ages and addresses of all 11 million under-18s in England as well as information on their parents, GPs, schools and support services such as social workers.
Tremendous. I almost want to sing “Land of Hope and Glory” (sarcasm alert).
The £224 million computer system was announced in the wake of the death of Victoria Climbié, who was abused and then murdered after a string of missed opportunities to intervene by the authorities, as a way to connect the different services dealing with children.
The death of this girl, like that of all children in the care of monstrous parents, is a terrible story but the creation of this database is not the answer. Punishment of the offenders surely is (I’ll leave it to the commentariat for what those punishments should be).
It has always been portrayed as a way for professionals to find out which other agencies are working with a particular child, to make their work easier and provide a better service for young people.
No doubt.
However, it has now emerged that police officers, council staff, head teachers, doctors and care workers will use the records to search for evidence of criminality and wrongdoing to help them launch prosecutions against those on the database – even long after they have reached adulthood.
And this, of course, is the nub of the issue. Governments down the ages, whether in the real world or in the dystopias of fiction writers, have sought to spot criminals ahead of their actually being criminals. I remember watching the Spielberg movie “Minority Report” – loosely based on the old Philip K. Dick novel – and wondered just how long it would take for NuLab or its equivalents to come up with an attempt to do stuff like this. Now it is becoming reality. But although the creators of such databases may like to kid themselves that they are protecting the little ones, in truth, they are placing dangerous power in the hands of state officials that can be used against people for the rest of their lives.
I am glad the Daily Telegraph is creating a stink about this. Question: will the Tories pledge to shut this database down? (Cough, nervous laughter).
Jeff Randall, writing about the excellent performance by Britons so far in the Olympics, reckons some people are getting all het up about the sort of folk who have been winning the gongs:
Unfortunately, no sooner had our rowers, cyclists and sailors collected their medals than the carping started – largely on account of their successes being clocked up in “posh” sports. That a disproportionately high number of these British champions went to fee-paying schools is regarded by some as a symptom of a divided society, evidence of a deep-rooted malaise.
In place of celebration, there is consternation: dark mumblings about the benefits of privilege. In the warped view of the Grumblies, middle-class successes are to be resented, as if, like those of drugs cheats, their places on the awards podium were the result of improper behaviour.
Britain’s middle classes are already in the dock for heinous crimes, such as seeking the best schools for their children, paying extra for private healthcare and determining the output of Radio Four. Now, it seems, they must endure being rubbished for having the audacity to produce results in a sporting arena that the nation expected to be dominated by foreigners.
He has a point, but I have not sensed much of this sort of snide carping. What I tend to notice from the coverage has been how pleasant and modest most of the sportsmen and women, of all backgrounds, appear to be. I watched as one guy with a thick Scouse accent was interviewed after he fought in a hard boxing bout against a chap from China, I think, and I remember thinking of how decent and philosophical the man was about his chances of success. The meritocracy of the whole event, and the way it has reached people of all classes, is what has shone through.
For all that I dislike the politicking and corruption that goes along with the Games – I dread the likely bill of the London Olympics, which I oppose – there can be no denying that the folk who have done well in th Games, from all nations, are, with the odd exception maybe, pretty admirable sportsmen and women and that bleatings about their class have not been much in evidence.
Randall continues:
But, for me, the finest moment was when the British men’s coxless fours rowed down the formidable Australians to snatch gold. Some will denigrate them as “posh boys”, largely because they can tell the difference between an adjective and an adverb, but that doesn’t make them substandard Olympians.
Quite. It is a pity, though, that something like accent or polish in a TV studio now is considered a measure of a sportsman or woman. After all, our Jeff speaks with the twang of London, so I am not sure what is going on there.
I could not help but be struck by the nice, polite, and almost friendly manner of the police officer making violence-backed threats in the video below (“If you refuse this [random] search, you will be arrested.”). It may not be news to you that the face of the police state is often a perfectly pleasant one, but I think it is worth spreading the word.
(Full disclosure: I work for Qik, and it was one of our users who live streamed the above video from his mobile phone to the web using our software.)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
