Were the supply-siders right?

A short report by the Centre for Policy Studies, Keith Marsden’s “Big, not Better?”, published in April this year claims to provide evidence from 20 countries that slim governments work better. It’s a conclusion I like to hear. Unfortunately the evidence is less than solid.

The report compares 20 industrialised economies and classes their governments as big or slim depending on which side of a 40% of GDP threshold their government revenue and expenditure lie. Slimmer governments are shown to have lower top rates of tax, higher average growth figures and lower debt and deficit burdens on average.

Marsden then goes on to argue that

German Socialist Eurocrat warns of Eco-totalitarianism

“I am increasingly worried by all kinds of legislation regulating peoples’ private lives. We are approaching a situation which I would call lifestyle-regulation. I don’t want a society in which people are told how to live in the privacy of their own homes. We must not deprive our citizens of the right to make independent decisions.” (source)

These are the words of Günther Verheugen,

Some Thoughts on Road Pricing and Tory Views on Transport

Remember, when over one Million people signed a petition against a national road pricing scheme? Since then, road pricing plans have not enjoyed a high profile, but they have never been dropped. Traffic regulation anyway makes regular appearances in the news, so this monthly rant will look at two policy documents: a recent one from Conservative Way Forward and a more dated monograph on road pricing by the institute of economic affairs.

Labour Proposes anti-white male quotas

Labour’s Hariet Harman has proposed the introduction of quotas that would discriminate by race or sex to establish a politically preferred sex and ethnicity composition of the work force in a particular firm. (source) Many readers commenting on this telegraph article have argued that this move would be illegal under European rules. It probably wouldn’t be: the European Court of Justice already ruled in 1997 that sexist discrimination can be acceptable when it is undertaken with an egalitarian political motive.

Simon Heffer on Drugs and the NHS

In a recent telegraph column, Simon Heffer argued that heroin addicts should be made for to pay for their NHS treatment. He further argued that making users of illegal drugs pay for their treatment is justified because these drugs are illegal, even though some legal drugs may also give rise to expensive health problems. Making drug users pay for the health costs of their drug habit is not implausible in principle. The problems lie in the details of Heffer’s argument and they matter in practice.

Legal and illegal drugs

The argument that illegal drug consumption deserves a harsher treatment simply because it is illegal

Did Paxman really mean this?

In his recent MacTaggart lecture, Jeremy Paxman raised a highly pertinent question:

“The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950’s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?” (source)

That almost sounds like a rejection of the license fee racket. Did Paxman mean it?

Those Recycling Schemes Again

The BBC reports that a majority of respondents to a survey supports ‘pay as you throw’ rubbish charging schemes. If there is a compensating decrease in Council Tax –as suggested in the survey—then this might not be such a bad idea. Landfill space is limited after all.

On a more general note, we should never forget that you can get public support for just about anything if you design your survey accordingly. We should never forget this, because there are some highly entertaining examples to prove the point:

- Penn and Teller famously mustered public support for a ban on water!

- … and then there is this wonderful petition to end women’s suffrage.

Irwin Stelzer on UK Immigration

The Hudson Institute’s Irwin Stelzer comments on Immigration in today’s telegraph and while he raises some valid issues, he ignores others and seems oblivious to the contradictions and omissions in his argument.

No referendum needed?

The BBC tells us that Blair set out four criteria which, in his opinion, would make a referendum on the thinly disguised re-launch of the EU constitution unnecessary:

“First, we will not accept a treaty that allows the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way.

“Second, we will not agree to something that replaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister.

“Thirdly, we will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system.

“And fourthly, we will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefit system. We must have the right in those circumstances to determine it by unanimity.

He added: “If we achieve those four objectives I defy people to say what it is that is so [sic] supposed to be so fundamental that could [sic] require a referendum.” (source)

1. “First, we will not accept a treaty that allows the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way.” At least this is concrete, although it is worth noting that there could still be far reaching implications for the way law can be interpreted. Indeed, if this was not so, there would be no point in such a charter.

2. “…something that replaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister” would still allow for something that complements Britain’s foreign policy. All that is needed for an eventual replacement is an initial claim that the EU foreign minister complements national foreign policies followed by a gradual widening of EU competences.

3. In a very similar way, not giving up the “ability to control our common law and judicial and police system.” is general enough to leave room for institutions that are complementary at first and don’t interfere enough to amount to a loss of control. Then, gradually, they can evolve into replacements of national systems or impose gradually tightening constraints on them.

4. Reference to “a big say in our own tax and benefit system” immediately implies that something which gives the EU a small say could well be acceptable. The only question then is: who is responsible for measuring and defining the ‘size of a say’ and by what standard.

Blair is obviously trying to rescue the pretence that the current treaty negotiations will not lead to the gradual absorption of the UK into a European federal state. From the onset, there have been efforts to present the constitution as a minor treaty not worthy of much public attention. Just in case anyone might have forgotten this, the BBC also informs us that “…he also revealed that he did not believe there had been a need for a referendum on the constitution in its original form.”

Merkel knows best?

We all heard about female intuition. The Economist may have discovered a new phenomenon: European intuition, although they attribute it to superior hearing. Europe’s superhuman Führers know what ordinary citizens want and ordinary citizens want the EU Constitution –under a new name and without referendum:

“Europe’s leaders are united around two incompatible beliefs. The first is that their citizens want them to press ahead with reviving most or all of the constitution. The second is that it is wisest to avoid testing this thesis by asking those citizens directly in new referendums.” (source)