Randomly Selected Article or Link

By complete happenstance yesterday, I have a surprise Santander sponsor's ticket for tomorrow's British Grand Prix at Silverstone. Apart from once or twice being dragged through the cold countryside when I was seven years old to watch the RAC rally stages in North Yorkshire I've never been to such an event so I thought I should probably try it once.

I do support motorsport in general as I do believe it is the way the industry creates more efficient vehicles and technologies that eventually feed through into production cars and I do watch all the F1 races on TV. Though all this Max Moseley bad business does sour it a little.

But who do I support? The ticket comes because of a relationship between Abbey/Santander and Oxford Brookes University that was originally established when Alonso won the title a couple of seasons ago - Alonso lives in Oxford and set up some sponsorship deals for Spanish students to come and study at our School of Technology. But obviously he's no longer in an Abbey/Santander sponsored car. I have a small natural bias towards the "English" boy, Hamilton, and he of course is in the same car.

But, just watching the qualifying a new possibility arises. Apparently Heikki Kovalainen lives in Oxford too and is in the right sponsor's car and is the front runner in qualifying. He describes Britain as his adopted country (I wouldn't if I hailed from Finland I suspect!). Whereas the British born one has adopted Switzerland allegedly because despite all his good luck and fantastic income he can't be bothered to contribute his dues to Britain.

It would be nice to see a "British" winner of the British Grand Prix and eventually the championship again. But I think the answer is clear for tomorrow, go Oxford! go Santander! go Kovalainen!

There seems to be a spate of group self-abuse going on with excitement at the prospects of a general election. I do not share this excitement. Indeed I look upon the prospect with dread and depression. I'm a democrat, right? So I should welcome the chance for the people to have their say, right? Wrong.

I'm with Winston when he said:

No!
Originally uploaded by Mig_R

"Look at all the power [Mr Attlee] is enjoying today. No Government in time of peace has ever had such arbitrary power over the lives and actions of the British people, and no Government has ever failed more completely to meet their daily practical needs. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are avid for more power."

Nobody currently vying for Mr Attlee's job today even remotely proposes sufficiently to reduce what Churchill went on to call "this idea of a group of supermen and super-planners, such as we see before us, “playing the angel,” as the French call it, and making the masses of the people do what they think is good for them, without any check or correction, [which] is a violation of democracy."

No!
Originally uploaded by Will...

The stakes are abhorrently high. That you and your coterie of friends and sycophants should have control over the better part of half of the entire nation's income. And with it the power to condone or more frequently condemn the personal choices of millions - more, probably, than lived under the Pax Augusta in Rome's entire empire.

I want a revolution. A revolution of devolution. I want power, the vast majority of it at least, held by people I can go and meet at my local civic centre. If there is anything that needs a joint decision between two or more civic centres let them agree on it mutually, and if, in the very last resort, something that has to be dealt with at a national level, let them send representatives to argue the case on an ad hoc basis if possible but with a minimum of permanent representatives - just enough to give every civic centre a voice - if necessary.

No! Not even you!
Originally uploaded by Ming Campbell

And I want to be able to elect some of them every year so that if they are not doing a good job we can make our views plain on a sort of a "1 year moving average" basis to which they will necessarily have to react by forming and reforming their power sharing agreements to reflect the true will of the electors.

I find it repugnant that anyone believes they are so much greater than any of the rest of us that they believe they can run the country and our lives better than the Almighty gave us the free will to do for ourselves. They should humble themselves to recall again what Churchill said:

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters."

We seem to be at the last roundabout on the road to Serfdom (probably courtesy of some new town super-planner). We must decide to go right round it and head back the way we came.

Coincidentally, overnight I've been pointed to this article by a fellow Georgist, Fred Folvary, on a similar issue on the other side of the pond.

The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services was published on 2nd December, 1942, in the depths of World War II. The committee, under its chair, the liberal economist Sir William Beveridge, had been established by the wartime government to plan ahead for the challenges of reconstruction of the national fabric after the war.

The report identified what it called the "Five giants on the road to reconstruction: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness". Each was to be enjoined in battle by a major plank of the post-war welfare state - social security, the NHS, expanded state education, the nationwide house building schemes that would produce "homes fit for heros" and Keynesian style economic stimulus programs to maintain high employment respectively. That National Health Service Act of 1946 brought into existence, sixty years ago last week on 5th July 1948, what has become Europe's largest employer, the NHS.

The Beveridge Report indeed made much of its wartime heritage. The war was a turning point in history that deserved revolutionary measures afterwards to ensure peaceful and equitable reconstruction. The battle ahead was couched in terms of a "war on want" (and the others of the "Five Giants"). But as my former university chancellor (as of Friday), news anchor Jon Snow, often says, you cannot win a "war on a noun".

So how has the NHS, and the other key planks of the welfare state mentioned, fared in this "war"? It seems obvious that we have not, sixty years on, beaten any of those giants:

Want: we have a society in which the least well off are dependent on the state. If you believe such things matter, and I do, still a fifth of children grow up in relative poverty and the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is larger than ever. Not only that, but as as with "idleness" many are actually trapped in that dependency, facing the highest penalties if they actually manage to find themselves work that might remove them from that dependency in the form of punitive benefits withdrawals rates. None of the myriad benefits in the system are sufficient on their own to sustain life (particularly the pension, now in its hundredth year), so people are often on multiple benefit regimes.

Disease: whilst quite obviously the range of ailments that are now routinely cured or treated is a huge step on from 1948, there is still a six month waiting list for almost any kind of surgery, hundreds of people denied drugs even their own NHS doctors believe may help them, and the whole headless structure is running around trying to meet centrally set targets, which are fundamentally opposed to the founding principles of the NHS - that it should be responsive to particular local needs. In parts of Glasgow East constituency male life expectancy is lower than in some developing countries for example, which, whether it is an improvement on the state of play in 1948 or not is a pretty terrible indictment.

Ignorance: the state education system has become more comprehensive and more centralized. Students are of course now paying for tuition fees in tertiary education, and we see a constant stream of stories from universities and business leaders saying that many people leaving school are functionally illiterate. The most well off are still using private education and the least well off, as Nick Clegg has constantly complained about, seem condemned to inner city sink schools often with little aspiration planted in their heads.

Squalor: this one was primarily about housing. Sure, we had a post-war building boom but now that's looking quite hollow. In fifty years, the UK's housing has become smaller; the only developed nation on the planet where that is the case - elsewhere increased affluence has seen larger, more comfortable homes. If you are stuck on a sink estate, you probably have as much chance as in 1948 of escaping it. Even the right to buy has often failed to give people who were persuaded that buying their fifties built prefabricated type semi (such as the Orlits design currently being demolished all over Oxford) a meaningful asset. And we are in a situation where those who aspire to ownership currently have little hope of being able to afford it.

...and finally Idleness: it is very difficult for work to help the poorest when getting a job can mean lots of hassles with your various benefits and a punitive regime of clawing back those benefits such that you are often effectively earning very little indeed for all the effort of getting a job in the first place and going out to work once you have. And actually I would argue that we want more "idleness". I realize that in the report "idleness" is something either down to the laziness of the individual, or more likely a state enforced on one by lack of work opportunities in the economy. However as we get closer to the ideal of having many menial jobs and tasks done for us by machines, the idea that the only way of gaining purchasing power with which to participate in the complicated world economy is through work should be rethought in any case. It is nothing to crow about that people still have to remain wage slaves in order to achieve some measure of financial security.

So, on a purely cursory glance, these five "wars" are not going well sixty years on. Some battles have been won, and clearly some things are better in so many ways than it would have been at the end of World War II. But some of the problems are as intractable as ever, others are almost victims of their own successes; for example some of the problems of the NHS of course stem from them now being able to treat far more problems than previously and so creating more demand for itself. But I'd go one step further, and say that the weapons deployed in these various wars have in fact entrenched dependency, reduced choice, stifled innovation and competition. Not only that, but they are hugely expensive, now between them consuming not far off half of all our national income and may be suffering from the law of diminishing returns.

It is time we realized that the approach is itself wrong. That, as Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them".

...so, what can we do ...?

Just floating an idea prompted slightly by a throw-away comment at the Not-the-first-hustings on Saturday about the dark days of the dual leadership of the two Davids...

Why not have two leaders? Many people have commented that Chris is good on policy and strategy and Nick on presentation. On a personal level I find Chris has the sort of presence that would lend itself to armchair conversations persuading groups of our ideas (not unlike CK) and Nick the big platform speaker. We need both roles. And I still think that one weak area for Nick is economic/fiscal policy where Chris outshines most others and, whilst any new leader will be ably assisted in this area by Chris and Vince, fiscal policy in particular is going to be absolutely top of the agenda for a while to come so would benefit from being within the leadership.

Granita isn't quite the right analogy of course, as there it was about succession. But out of it came Gordon Brown the strategist and Tony Blair the front man. And, whether we like them or not, it was quite a successful double-act. Maybe we could have a double act too. I think the era of the two Davids was hampered by the fact that we weren't quite one party and they were still jostling for the upper hand. Now we are matured as a single party (and even attracting some like Michael Meadowcroft back into the fold) maybe we would have the ability to pull it off nowadays.

As James Graham and I note there is a big job of work to be done to bring the wider party into the policy making process and strategic direction of the party. One leader could specialize on that and the other on selling the results to the wider world.