CentreRight

Desperately weak stuff from Nick Clegg this weekend:

"So the choice before people is the choice between fake, phoney change from David Cameron's Conservatives, and real change the Liberal Democrats offer."

Well, there's certainly been some change on offer from the Lib Dems: They've changed their line on spending to what the Conservatives were saying when it wasn't easy to do so. So, in making a comparison between a cheap copy and the original item, Nick Clegg might want to consider who's the "fake" here.

Of course, there's not much that Lib Dems can do to change anything. But one option that is open to them is to shift the balance of forces across the political spectrum. For instance, when, under Paddy Ashdown, they abandoned their policy of 'equidistance' to side with New Labour against the Conservatives, they did bring about a small but significant realignment of British politics. Their reward was to advance deep into Conservative territory, with at least twenty Westminster seats moving from the blue to the yellow column.

Rather than grab a historic opportunity to challenge Labour's dominant position on the centre-left, Clegg's strategy is almost entirely defensive, a desperate attempt to hold on to the Ashdown inheritance. It is a cowardly, unimaginative and hypocritical approach; an indictment of a party unwilling to stand up for its centre-left convictions. 

I genuinely believe that the reform-minded Lib Dems would make for a more constructive set of opponents than the socialist-reactionary Labour Party. Having had bad experiences with the Lib Dems at a local level, I can understand why many Conservatives would disagree with me. What I don't understand, however, is why the Lib Dems should demonstrate so faith in themselves.

Have they no self-respect?

Some might think this entirely unsurprising given the Conservative resurgence under David Cameron. However, I’m not talking about the overall political battleground, but the fight on the centre-left of British politics. Among that part of the British electorate that would never vote Conservative, it is clear that Labour is still the leading party.

If you were to ask most lefties what were the two worst things to happen to this country in the last decade, most of them would surely answer Iraq and the credit crunch (quite a lot of rightwingers would give the same answer, but that’s another story). However much they might want to blame these two disasters on George W Bush and the bankers, they can hardly deny what is, at the very least, the supporting role played by the Labour Government in both cases. Nor could they deny that, in each instance, the Lib Dems took a position that was distinctly opposed to that of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

So given the gravity of both of these issues, why do centre-left voters continue to back Labour by such a substantial margin? What else does Labour have to do to lose this zombie vote? Invade Cuba? Ban the trade unions? Bring back capital punishment (for shoplifting)?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is the author of The Black Swan, the bestseller that not only predicted the banking crisis, but also explains why the mainstream economists and financial experts failed to do so.

His ideas revolve around the amply supported observation that conventional economics cannot cope with what Taleb describes as 'black swan' events:

"What is a Black Swan? It is a low-probability, high-impact event that, because of its rarity and the instability of the environment, cannot be scientifically evaluated in terms of risk and return. Although Black Swans are rarely predicted, they are retrospectively seen as having been anticipated, which makes us overestimate our abilities to see them coming. Black Swans can emerge as a result of our intellectual arrogance and our ignorance of our limitations. Some elements of the future are simply beyond our grasp."

In this week's Observer he writes an open letter to David Cameron, which begins with quite an endorsement:

"Dear David (if I may),

"You and your party may be the only hope we have for a resilient society insulated from negative Black Swans and in which everyone has the opportunity to benefit from positive Black Swans."

But then comes a warning:

"For I despair of the Obama administration's ability to fix this financial crisis and prevent future ones. I am appalled by the dangers it has been creating and its takeover by the same economic establishment responsible for this crisis."

Taleb is no kneejerk Obamaphobe, indeed he says that he had "high hopes" for the new President. Among the various policies he urges Cameron to adopt, the need to reduce debt is top of the list:

"We have known since Babylonian times that debt is treacherous and allows no room for mistakes: felix qui nihil debet goes the Roman proverb ("happy is he who owes nothing"). The combination of debt levels swollen from two decades of over-confidence with modern finance's complex derivatives has been disastrous."

There are those who blithely assume that the only alternative to the asset bubble economics of the pre-crunch era are the post-crunch policies of Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. What Taleb shows is that these aren't alternatives at all, but all of a piece. Furthermore, he sets out a genuine alternative which doesn't easily fit in with lazy preconceptions of 'left' and 'right', but which can be recognised as being deeply conservative.

Anyway, read the whole thing.

For further reading, Bryan Appleyard's interview with Nasim Nicholas Taleb is also well worth a look.

When people like Iain Duncan Smith and Jill Kirby call for greater incentives for marriage in the tax and benefit systems, they are mocked by those on the liberal left who say that a bit of extra money each week can't possibly influence such an important decision.

Yet, here's an interesting story in today's Telegraph that suggests that relatively small amounts of money can influence an even bigger decision than marriage: i.e. having a baby. According to research published by the Institute for Fiscal studies increased welfare payments for the poorest families can be linked to an increase in the birthrate of 15%.

Given that the Telegraph article is illustrated with a picture of Karen Matthews we can assume that the IFS study will launch a thousand 'welfare scrounger' stories. The reality, of course, will not be as simple as that. But liberal complacency over the impact of welfare on family structures is equally simplistic and, in the long run, a great deal more damaging.

If George Osborne's comments on the exchange rate really do pose such a threat to the Pound, then why has the Labour spin machine spent the entire weekend making sure they get the maximum possible coverage?

Various newspapers report delays to Gordon Brown's planned reshuffle. It seems that the sticking point is that a number of Cabinet ministers have said they'd rather resign than be moved. But what about Ruth Kelly, who's already announced her intention to resign?

If the Transport Secretary is still in post by the time MPs return to Westminster, both she and the Government are going to look ridiculous. For that reason, I don't see the reshuffle being delayed for long, even if it is just to get her successor in place.

But if that's just about all that the reshuffle amounts to, then Gordon Brown's authority will take another hefty blow.

Iain Dale had a similar thought here.

I hesitate to comment on the world of international finance, because I don't know much about it. For instance, when I heard about all the trouble being caused by short sellers, I immediately phoned the London Stock Exchange and suggested they only let tall people onto the trading floor. A nice man in the public affairs department told me they don't really have a trading floor anymore and that it's all done on computers. But then that's the problem, isn't it? You can't stop short people using computers. And let's face it, the little guys have always got something to prove, haven't they? No wonder they overreach themselves.

I later learned what short selling actually was. My goodness! Luckily, there were plenty of folk on the internet to explain that it was alright really and that short sellers only target companies that ordinary shareholders have already lost confidence in. Phew!

Only there's something that still bothers me... I'm sure I'm just being silly, but I'd always thought that what investors lose confidence in isn't so much the company as the company shareprice. So, if there's a bunch of short sellers around who might try to drive down the price a lot further and faster than it would have gone otherwise, then other investors might anticipate this... with obvious consequences.

In otherwords the relationship between the wider market and the short sellers is circular, not linear. But, as I say, this isn't really my area. Best leave things to the experts. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

As noted in the comboxes, thirty is proving to be an unlucky number for Nick Clegg.

Bearing this in mind, here are a couple of other questions interviewers might like to put to the Lib Dem leader:

At roughly what percentage did Lib Dem poll ratings peak during the last parliament?

According to your own party members, roughly how many Lib Dem seats are at risk to the Conservatives?

UPDATE

Here's another question:

According to Ipsos Mori what, roughly, is the Conservative Party's percentage lead over Labour?

How to be a good president, on BBC4 last night, told us a lot more about the BBC than the US Presidency. The programme, presented by Jonathan Freedland, asked eleven expert commentators to select one President of the 20th Century and draw out the lessons of their tenure. At the end each was asked to name who they considered to be the greatest President of modern times.

So who were these eleven experts? Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Harold Evans, Bonnie Greer, Simon Hoggart, Douglas Hurd, Peter Jay, James Naughtie, Christina Odone, Malcolm Rifkind, Robert Holmes Tuttle (the US Ambassador to Britain) and Shirley Williams.

In other words, the left-liberal presenter was joined by at least six other left-liberal commentators – eight if you include  Evans and Hoggart. The only political variety was provided by Hurd and Rifkind, neither of them likely to frighten the left-liberal horses, and the officially-neutral US ambassador.

The result was that there wasn't even one clear conservative voice to balance the loudly expressed liberalism of so many of the contributors. Thus when it came to nominations for the greatest President, most went to FDR and none at all to Ronald Reagan.

Is it really beyond the ability of BBC4 to represent a wider range of opinion?

If you’re reading this it means that the Large Hadron Collider didn’t accidently create a blackhole that destroyed the world earlier today. Still, never mind, here’s a selection of what would have been an exciting day’s coverage on the blogosphere:

From CentreRight.com

Jim McConalogue: Black hole threatens to drag Britain into Europe

Matt Sinclair: Environmentalists exaggerate costs as Earth-devouring black hole leaves galaxy largely unaffected

Iain Murray: I told you not to worry about global warming

Graeme Archer: A dark day for Hackney

Andrew Lilico: Inadequate grasp of economics to blame

Tim Montgomerie: Only tax cuts can save us now

Peter Franklin: Whither organic farming?

Elsewhere

Guido Fawkes: Jonah Brown visits Large Hadron Collider

Iain Dale: The top 100 global cataclysms

Peter Hitchens: Final destruction of the Conservative Party can only benefit Britain

Daily Kos: Incompetent Palin falls into black hole

Sarah Palin. Woman. Hillary-substitute.

That seems to be the general take on John McCain's bold decision to appoint the Alaskan Governor as his running mate, but I'm not so sure. Clearly, there's an element of gender politics involved, but I think the real reason for McCain's choice is altogether more worthy.

Palin's detractors say she has insufficient experience. Her supporters reply that she has more experience of executive office than McCain, Obama and Biden put together. More to the point, in my view, is that she has more experience than the others of cleaning up the political system, not just campaigning for 'change', but actually making it happen. A biographical piece in the Anchorage Daily News even describes her as The Joan of Arc of Alaska Politics.

My guess, or at least my hope, is that John McCain's purpose in choosing Sarah Palin is to trump Obama's rhetoric and to present the voters with a Republican ticket that promises change in action not words.

Some observations on today's TPA report, as highlighted by Matthew Sinclair below:

Firstly, almost all of the 'green tax burden' identified in the report is accounted for by Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty, which were significant taxes long before any serious government policy on climate change. In fact, since the Millennium, they have diminished as a proportion of the overall tax take.

Secondly, the revenues from Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty are not hypothecated for any environmental purpose, and are used to fund general expenditure. In other words the money would have to be found from elsewhere. One could, of course, cut expenditure in order to fund a cut in these so-called green taxes, but that would still be at the expense of reducing the tax burden in some other way.

Thirdly, it is worth noting that though the main point of the TPA argument is that the burden of environmental taxation is in excess of the environmental cost of the taxed activities, the only environmental costs taken in account in calculating the level of "excess green taxes" are those concerning greenhouse gas emissions. The costs of local pollution and traffic congestion are excluded.

Fourthly, and most importantly, the entire argument is based on a flawed premise, which is that the purpose of green taxation is  to make people pay for the environmental damage that they do: in other words, that for every £1 of damage there should be £1 of taxation. But surely the point of environmental taxation is to change behaviour – to encourage consumers to switch to less damaging patterns of consumption. Thus every £1 of tax needs to be compared not against the environmental cost of, say, the carbon emitted by the taxed activity, but what would have been the environmental cost of all the carbon not emitted due to the influence of the tax on consumer behaviour.

In other words, environmental taxes – if they are to be justified at all – should be about prevention not reparation.

So, Russia has recognised the independence of the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is more of a surprise than you might think, because despite their support for these rebel territories, the Russians had always been cautious when it came to questions of formal sovereignty.

An ethno-linguistic map of the Caucasus shows why: the Russian side of the border is dotted with territories that could have national aspirations of their own. The best known example is Chechnya, where separatist forces were suppressed in a series of bloody conflicts.

I wonder if the Russian government could explain why South Ossetia has the right to self-determination and not Chechnya or, for that matter, North Ossetia?

Unfortunately, I'm unable to share Louise Bagshawe's optimism that "Brown is gone". From a Labour perspective 'no change, no chance' is a strong argument; but it is counteracted by the growing realisation that, as the next election is probably lost anyway, there's no point in turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

The idea of foisting a second unelected Prime Minister on the nation is surely unthinkable without the promise of an early-ish general election; which would mean going to the country in 2009 rather 2010, thereby foregoing a whole year of Parliamentary and Ministerial salaries for at least one hundred Labour MPs. The unions bosses will also seek to keep an increasingly dependent Labour Party in power for as long as possible, not to mention the assorted beneficiaries of the Blair-Brown patronage state.

So, I'm afraid the low-minded politics of the matter indicate that Brown will remain in office until the bitter end. Of course, it could just be that Labourites will lose their minds altogether, self-destructing ahead of schedule. Moreover, there's always the truly insane prospect that they'll try and put Harriet Harman in Number 10 without signalling an early election... constitutional crisis, anyone?

I almost choked on my organic muesli this morning while listening to the Today programme's political correspondent explain Wisconsin-style welfare reform. It seems that lone parents are only allowed to claim benefits for two years, after which they are "literally pushed off a cliff."

Now, I'm all in favour of radical welfare reform, but I think this is taking things too far!

Here is the latest business statement for the House of Commons.

You'll notice the mysterious absence of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that had been due to return to the Commons next week, but now won't be coming back until the Autumn.

Theresa May thinks the delay is due to the Glasgow East by-election and Government fears that the Bill will alienate Catholic voters.

Would this be the same Bill that Gordon Brown thought was so important that he tried to force Catholic Ministers to vote for it against their consciences? Why, yes it would.

Obviously not so important now that it's his job on the line.

5pm: David Mundell has released a statement...

“There has to be a strong suspicion that the by-election has impacted upon this legislation.  It will be contentious with key voter groups in Glasgow and it is clear they are worried about the effect of a vote next week. This shows the Government is putting political considerations ahead of the progress of this bill.”

Simon Chapman calls the upcoming contest in Glasgow East the social justice by-election. However, one commenter, a Mr C U Jimmy, calls it the 'Rab C Nesbitt by-election', noting that Elaine C Smith, the actress who plays Mary Nesbitt, has been touted as the SNP candidate.

As it happens, the fictional Nesbitt family live in Govan, and in the second episode of Scotland's finest sitcom, find themselves embroiled in a by-election for the Glasgow Govan constituency. For reasons too complicated to go into here, Rab ends up voting Conservative, in the process accounting for 100% of the overall Conservative vote.

Hopefully we will do better in Glasgow East.

Tim Montgomerie links to the Standpoint debate between Nigel Lawson and Oliver Letwin on climate change.

Though I'm very much of the opinion that we need to de-carbonise our economy, I found interesting points to agree and disagree with on both sides of the Lawson-Letwin exchange. However, aside from the substantive issue, there was a clear divide between the debating style of each man.

While Oliver Letwin was polite to the point of graciousness, Lord Lawson was downright rude, at one point responding to his opponent's argument with the words "I have seldom heard such a farrago of wishful thinking and muddle."

What provoked such an outburst? Merely a series of perfectly respectable points on energy insecurity and efficiency that, while open to debate, are backed up by a great deal of evidence that cannot simply be dismissed with an insult or two.

Of course, there are plenty on the green side of the debate who also stoop to insults, but just as two wrongs don't make a right, two competing streams of abuse don't make a constructive discussion. I would have hoped that we could, within the Conservative Party, set a good example.

To the extent that a lowly blogger is capable of setting an example, I'm sure I've not always set the best one myself; but while I still believe in the concept of truth, I'm increasingly conscious of the inability of mere human beings to possess it in undiluted form.

Peter Whittle writes about 'the wisdom of crowds' in relation to climate change:

Conservativehome has already commented on The Observer's shock at a poll yesterday which showed that most people are sceptical about the real reasons for climate change.

What's heartening about this is the way in which public attitudes and instincts can still withstand the most determined onslaught from the political class and the liberal elites...

I'm concerned that the wisdom of crowds meme, like some crowds, is getting out of control. Obviously, anyone who believes in democracy has to have trust in his or her fellow citizens; but surely, as Conservatives, we should also expect a degree of trust in those who, by virtue of merit, can speak with authority in certain fields of human endeavour.

Such trust has to be earned, of course, and in many areas the intelligentsia has, thanks to its profound lack of wisdom, lost its authority – but not, I would contend, in the sciences. Whether or not climate change is happening and has an anthropogenic cause is a fundamentally scientific issue. How we respond to the phenomenon is a political judgement best left to democratic decision-making processes, but assessing the physical impact of greenhouse gas emissions is a matter of expert, peer reviewed measurement and analysis.

I was away for most of last week and managed to miss the editors' apology for the timing of their editorial on the 42 days issue. For the record, I'm a staunch civil libertarian and was unconvinced by their arguments, but there was really no need to apologise either for the editorial or its timing. If one sincerely believes that something is necessary for the good of the country, then one should only apologise for not speaking up at the crucial moment.

Yes, it's embarrassing that Gordon Brown quoted from the editorial in PMQs. Embarrassing, that is, that we have a Prime Minister who thinks that a political movement should be of one mind, right down to the last blogger. I get more creeped out by the man every time I listen to him.

There are very few issues where honourable arguments cannot be made on both sides. Certainly, I would not wish to trust my liberties to those who think otherwise. 

Never mind the David Davis by-election, I've got news that really will leave you dumbstruck. My fingers are trembling as I'm typing this, but here goes:

A journalist has used Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" quote in context! Not just any journalist, but a Guardian journalist! And not just any Guardian journalist, but a Society Guardian journalist!

The lady in question is Alison Benjamin and this is what she had to say on the Joe Public blog:

"There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state," Tory leader, David Cameron said today as he unveiled plans for charities to run more public services.

This may appear at first sight a U-turn on Margaret Thatcher's famous quote "there is no such thing as society." But if you look more closely at what the then Tory leader said back in 1987, have the Conservatives really changed their tune?

"There are individual men and women, and there are families," Thatcher told Woman's Own magazine. "And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour."

Fast forward more than 20 years later and Cameron says of the Conservative party in 2008: "We believe in bottom-up social responsibility."

Its proposals for the role of voluntary and community groups in society are in a document entitled "A stronger society: voluntary action in the 21st century", with the emphasis on volunteering in communities (by people who are basically looking after their neighbours) and establishing volunteer-led organisations (again for volunteers read people) in areas where they don't exist.

Any suspicion that the Tories' love-in with the third sector is based on the idea of providing public services on the cheap, appears to be dismissed by the proposal, much-welcomed by the sector, to put it on the same footing as private companies by allowing them to be able to make "substantial" surpluses from running public services.

In an age of distorted journalism, it is heartening to see at least one member of the national press taking the trouble to report the truth and not just a story.

Regarding Tim's post on Barack Obama, I fear it is becoming as compulsory to love the Illinois senator as it is to hate George W Bush. Not in America, of course, where it's still looking close in the polls, but over here in the 51st state.

It's not that I hate Obama or even dislike him. It's just that as likeable as he is, I can't find anything in his record that's nearly so inspiring as his rhetoric. John McCain, however, not only has an awe-inspiring back story, but a Congressional record that marks him out as a true leader.

Not that any of that will sway the north London dinner party vote.

Both Iain Dale and Stephen Pollard have already commented on Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's extraordinarily offensive article in Monday's Independent.

If you haven't read the article yet then do so: it reveals the full bigotry of the Left, stripped bare and unashamed.

This is the worst paragraph:

Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks.

Messrs Dale and Pollard say what needs to be said about the use of the term 'Uncle Tom'. But note also the ironic quote marks around the word 'leaders' in what I take to be a reference to Ray Lewis, Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for young people – a man who has shown great courage and vision in doing something practical about disadvantage in his community. This is what true leadership is about, not spitting poison from the pages of the Independent.

One might also remark that while Ms Alibhai-Brown condemns black and Asian people who "make themselves known to the Tories", she's not above making herself known to the Tories, as she goes on to reveal:

For reasons I have yet to fathom, two weeks ago, I was invited to address a meeting at the House of Lords organised by the Conservative Muslim Forum. The room was full and the discussion on Muslim women lively.

So why is she allowed to associate with Conservatives, while others are not?

I will leave you with one last nugget of the lady's wisdom:

By the time our time comes around again, I will be pushing up the daisies or dancing half naked in some home for sufferers of senile dementia, a blessing perhaps, to be lost in irreversible lunacy and never again to care about what happens to politics.

Fill in your punch line here...

Sir Terry Wogan is threatening to quit the Eurovision Song Contest after another year of blatantly poltical voting left the halfway decent British entry in equal last place.

Personally I can't stand the music, but I usually watch the voting to see if I can predict which country will vote for which. The Nordic, Balkan and ex-Soviet voting blocks are now familiar features. As is the fact that Cyprus always awards Greece douze points. But there are some subtler points for geography and history buffs to pick up on. Why, for instance, would Moldova favour Romania? Well, because the ex-Soviet republic has an ethnic Romanian majority. And why the mutual backscratching between Turkey and another ex-Soviet republic, Azerbaijan? Both part of the Turkic lingusitic belt that stretches from Edirne to Urumqi, that's why!

With the exception of Ireland and Malta, which give us the odd point or two now and then, Britain has no cultural bosom-buddies in Europe, so there's not that much point us competing anymore. The same goes for the other nations of western Europe, apart from those fraternally-minded Scandinavians who stick together come what may (unless there's a war on).

I guess we should be thankful that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are voting for each other instead of killing each other; but, still, it's sad that something that's all peace and friendship on the surface is revealed to be a rather seedy tangle of mutually convenient, ethnically-based alliances.

Now, can you think of any other European institutions that might be a bit like that?

Record petrol prices have no doubt contributed to Labour's Crewe-miliation.

It does, of course, suit the Government to blame its unpopularity entirely on economic factors beyond its control.But the weakness of that excuse (apart from it being only partially true) is that even when factors are beyond its control, the job of a competent administration to anticipate and prepare. That's why I was shouting at the radio earlier this week when I heard Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, claim that no one had predicted the extraordinary spike in oil prices we've seen in recent days.

This is entirely untrue. A series of ever-more extreme price spikes is exactly what those who subscribe to the Peak Oil hypothesis have been predicting. The Peak Oil 'community' is a broad church encompassing everything from informed analysis to manic apocalypticism, but its basic proposition, that conventional oil production will soon peak (or has already) despite a sustained rise in demand, needs to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, this is not a serious government.