Posts filed under 'Politics'
How to be a politician
I have a suspicion that politicians, some of them at least, well, a few – there must be a few – actually do some good in the world. Watching, reading and listening to the news media and the appalling bollocks that politicians spew forth gives pause for thought though. Also, having worked with people who interact with these politicians day-to-day, hearing there firsthand accounts of how astonishingly dysfunctional many of the politicians are, how wholly unsuited to their assigned office they are, how astonishingly ill-informed they are on matters pertaining to their portfolio, I despair.
Don’t get me wrong, every once in a while one sees or hears of a politician actually doing something constructive and even more rarely one who actually knows what they are talking about (regardless of one’s political inclination it is difficult to not acknowledge Vince Cable’s almost prescient comments regarding the financial crises that have befallen the UK over the past couple of years – it’s just unfortunate that he then supports ill considered ideas such as a super-tax on freeholders on properties valued over one million pounds).
The latest offence by a politician is Cameron’s execrable comments on the UK’s “Broken Society”. Dave, Dave, Dave, society is always broken in some respect of other and using the tragic events of Edlington for political advantage is both shallow and reprehensible. Using a tragic, and thankfully rare, crime to promote your own insipid agenda is beneath even the low standards of modern political life.
The problem is not entirely of the politicians making. The media must take much of the blame, as must the public who demand increasing simpler solutions to increasingly complex problems. The sound bite is the staple of the news media. In the words of PR wonks everywhere sound bites like ‘Labour’s broken society’ play well with the masses and the media love them because they fit neatly into a sixty second summary of a bulletin.
Simplistic statements like ‘broken society’ make it sound like something that can be readily fixed when the truth is that societies are never perfect for all its members. There are always groups who see society as broken and no amount of political posturing will change this.
So, if you want to be a media friendly politician I suggest you acquire no skills other than those required to smile on cue. I suggest you prepare a handbook of trite clichéd phrases that can be trotted out whenever a camera points in your direction. When asked about a complex issue, simply reference your handbook of stock phrases and, if at all possible, blame the incumbent government (or, if you are the incumbent government, point out that the opposition have no realistic plan to address the issue, or how they made a mess of things the last time they had power – there is not statute of limitation on this either, even if you have been on power for over a decade it’s still fair game to suggest you are struggling to deal with the legacy of the previous party’s incompetence).
Of course, you may be one of those rare creatures, a politician who actually wants to make a difference. I’m afraid if this is the case you will never rise to high office and will therefore not have an opportunity to actually make a difference.
Add comment January 23, 2010
Old IT or over complex taxation system?
The British government’s Public Account committee (bless ‘em) are blaming old IT systems for their failure to collect all taxes due (£11.2bn apparently).
But while the Department is working to improve its debt recovery, its efforts are constrained by outdated systems and it has deferred plans to invest in them due to lack of funding. Better systems would help the Department improve tax recovery and reduce losses.
p. 3, “Summary” HM Revenue and Customs: Improving the Processing and Collection of Tax: Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Tax Credits – Second Report of Session 2009–10
The argument is that existing IT systems are outdated and insufficiently connected so it is impossible for tax collectors to show all tax owed by individuals or companies in one consolidated report. This apparently makes collection of tax more difficult.
The solution? Spend more money updating the IT systems.
Regardless the government’s less than stellar record when it comes to managing large-scale IT projects or my own vested interest in increased IT spending (I work in IT), surely a better solution would be to simplify the tax system? Simplify the tax system and you save time and effort in calculating the tax owing. Simplify the tax system and you make it more transparent and consequently more difficult to manipulate. Simplify the tax system and you do not then need Deep Thought to figure out who owes what.
Add comment December 10, 2009
BNP on TV
The British National Party (BNP) are to appear this evening on a BBC broadcast of the popular Question Time programme and this has cause something of a storm in the media. This issue at hand is whether a political part that expresses views objectionable to many should be permitted such a public platform.
(For the benefit of those unaware of the BNPs views, they are a right wing party supported by bigots, racialists and xenophobes. Their main platform is the idea that Britain should be preserved for the British — their definition of ‘Britishness’ being entirely arbitrarily based largely on the parliamentary Nationality and Citizenship act of 1948 — and that most ills visited upon Britain are the result of a liberal immigration policy.)
Much of the ruckas is, of course, the media feeding upon itself; contention sells news. But there is a serious point about freedom to be made.
The BNP hold views that I find objectionable. They also express some views that I find sensible. It’s a mix. But we should bear in mind at all times that they have elected representatives and are a political party legally constituted and operating within the current British legal framework. To censor their views is to strike down a basic freedom enjoyed, until the government succeeds in its recent move to deny its citizens such freedom, by all British citizens; the freedom to express ourselves in the public forum.
The legitimate fear expressed by some is that allowing the BNP a platform will provide them with a means to propagate their bigotry to a wider audience, or more insidiously, to present a reasonable face to their bigotry. For the BNP to be seen by the populous as ‘reasonable’ is perhaps the most worrying thing for many. If the ubiquitous ‘man in the street’ sees the BNP as a reasonable alternative to the main political parties then he may be encouraged to vote for a BNP member of parliament. There is certainly some evidence to support this view. The BNP have gained ground in marginal constituencies by appealing to the baser instincts of the community, pointing to large immigrant populations and claiming that the economic problems of the area are due largely to this large immigrant population. This is, as any student of history will appreciate, an effective strategy and one employed to great effect by many nationalist leaders of the past (most infamously by Hitler).
None of this though should mean that any sector of society, let alone a legally constituted political party operating within the bounds of the law, should be denied freedom to express their views, no matter how objectionable those views might be.
Arguing that they are free to express their views, just not in a national broadcast, is to miss the point. If you find someone’s politics objectionable, then argue your case in the forum of public opinion. If your case has merit and theirs none then you will prevail. If their views pander to the constituent’s baser instincts then inform and educate people as to why these views are wrong. Glossing over the problem by denying your opponents a voice does nothing to address the problem; the ease with which people respond to such appeals. It is this ease with which people can be stirred to hatred that is the bigger concern and the more difficult issue to be addressed. Perhaps this is why it is easier to deny the BNP a platform than to address the real problem.
Add comment October 22, 2009
Government rejects recommended 10% cut in NHS workforce
The UK government has announced that it is rejecting a management review recommendation that the NHS workforce be cut by 10%.
Some have asked, ‘why commission a management review and then ignore the recommendations it makes?’ This should be obvious. We can expect, in the near future, announcements from the government that less money will be available to the NHS, changes to working practice, lower wage reviews, or a combination of these.
The public rejection of advice to make swinging cutbacks is preparation for the announcement of less severe cutbacks later. If the less severe cutbacks were announced without this precursor they would be roundly criticised. The hope is that by preparing the ground with this rejection of this more radical cutback the later, less severe, cutbacks seem comparatively more palatable. Any objection to the less severe cutbacks will be met with protestations that ‘we are doing what we can. It was recommended that a 10% cut was required. We rejected this in favour of this less severe programme.’
This is a very old management tactic and I’m rather surprised no one has raised it in any report I have seen so far.
Add comment September 3, 2009
‘Solving’ Global Warming
There is much to hate about the Global Warming movement, especially the politics involved. Any query is met with, ‘denialist!’, irrespective of the merit of the question. There is also a tendency to overstate the case.
A Newsnight episode back at the start of December 2009 invited an ex-scientific advisor to the UK government to present the case for global warming to the great unwashed public. Almost the first words out of his mouth were, ‘if all land ice melted the sea level would rise by 100 metres’. Now, this may be true but it is nothing, nothing, to do with the current debate. The IPCC present a worst case scenario for the next hundred years, in which it predicts… Prepare yourself… A rise in sea level of… 0.58 meters.
Now, call me a cynic but 100m is just a little different in its impact that less than 60cm.
Yes. The world is warming.
This warming may even be a direct consequence of human activity (the case for this is less than overwhelming). But even if it is the case that current warming trends are wholly attributable to human activity this in no way implies that the solution lies in some form of self flagellation, hand wringing, or even self denial.
The problem is that current climate models are akin to Ptolemaic models of the cosmos. Somewhat shaky in the ability to make predictions and subject to constant revisions in the light of new data (and there is nothing wrong with this providing we do not pretend any degree of certitude where none exists).
I say, continue the research, continue improving our understanding of the immensely complex relationships that affect the climate, but for heaven’s sake do not pretend that by cutting carbon emissions we will fix things or even make them substantially better in the future. Even the IPCC’s own report makes fairly conservative estimates of the difference such measures would make and even worst case predictions place almost all of human enterprise in a better position in 100 years than they are now, even if we do nothing.
Apart from the current inability to accurately forecast climate change, there is the more general problem of how we deal with the change when it comes (and the one thing of which we can be certain is that the climate will change in one way or another, it always has, and it always will).
So, do we succumb to the political promise of a globally concerted effort to change the climate, or do we unilaterally prepare for the worst while hoping for the best?
Let’s consider the global option first. This option assumes that all countries will agree to reducing carbon emissions for the greater good. Even if we assume such action will actually make a difference to the climate the chances of actually getting all countries of the world to agree and actually act on that agreement is so close to zero it might as well be zero.
The governments of the world cannot even agree on how best to control an entirely artificial system like the world banking system so what are the odds they will control something like the climate? What do you suppose the motivation is for rising industrial countries to curb their carbon emissions at the request of countries that have already accrued all the benefits from burning fossil fuels? And if countries like China and India do nothing, what will the response from the West be? Just sit back and lose competitive advantage? I doubt it.
So, there’s pretty much no chance of curbing the current carbon emissions in any serious way. Certainly not enough to actually change the climate significantly.
The alternative approach is to shovel money into dealing with the, pretty well inevitable, consequences of climate change. Figure out how to grow crops in arid conditions and obtaining greater crop yields, using genetic modification if necessary. Work on engineering projects to protect against flood or drought (according to need). Work on better utilisation of land for living to deal with denser populations. This is the approach mankind has always taken; use tools, make fire and clothing, in other words modify your immediate environment to suit yourself and protect against the vagaries of climate, weather and the external environment over which you have little control. It’s has been our evolutionary advantage for over 60,ooo years and I suspect it will continue to be into the foreseeable future.
In the meanwhile, work on alternative sources of energy. After all fossil fuels will eventually run out, even if they are not abandoned. Solar, wind, water are all eco-appealing and all of them are more or less uselessly inadequate to sustain the growing energy demands of the human race. Nuclear is the only realistic source of energy at the moment.
Although nuclear fission has done well, it is not very efficient and has that nasty tendency to produce byproducts that kill people. It is puzzling why governments are not investing more heavily in nuclear fusion research. (Well, actually it’s not puzzling when you look at tax revenue generated from fossil fuels and all the lobbying interests that accompany them.)
Nuclear fusion is safe (sustaining a reaction is so difficult that any accident at a fusion plant would almost instantly result in a failure of the reaction releasing little more than a bang and a cloud of water, hydrogen and helium) and the byproduct of, for example, hydrogen fusion is helium; neither of which pose a great risk in the small quantities required in a fusion reactor. Sadly, producing a sustained fusion reaction is still a few years away.
The really sad thing is that governments are not seriously finding fusion research, the one energy source that holds the promise of fulfilling the worlds energy requirements cleanly and cheaply. It’s more politic to keep talking about measures like carbon capture and carbon reduction. Measures that are easy to promise and almost impossible to deliver. Measures for which an easy promise will garner great headlines today, but with the promised (and far from certain) rewards decades away, politicians today will never be held accountable for their failure.
Add comment February 9, 2010