Waterloo: couldn't escape if we wanted to
In this bi-centenary year, much has been written about the contemporary applications of various aspects of the Battle of Waterloo. Indeed, Guy Sorman’s recent piece on Napoleonic economics is one such example.
The valour of the Grenadier Guards at Waterloo should set the tone in the run up to the impending referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. During the battle, the First Regiment of the Foot Guards’ defence of Hougoumont and their sturdiness against Napoleon’s final assault was instrumental to the British victory. So much so, the regiment adopted its official name, ‘First or Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards’, and the right to wear their magnificent bearskin caps, as a result of the defeat of the elite French Grenadier regiment.
In a few months, the United Kingdom will enter a period of EU renegotiation. However, David Cameron should not expect a bearskin cap if he cowers from the Eurocrats. In any case, we know full well that Britain can stand resolute and achieve its objectives in EU negotiations. For example in December 2011, Cameron successfully averted the Tobin tax by demanding an opt-out, before vetoing treaty change in the national interest. Nick Clegg was so appalled, he failed to turn up to the Commons the following day.
It may be two centuries since the Grenadiers came back victorious from Waterloo, and almost four years since Cameron was last hailed as a EU-conquering hero, but the looming task of renegotiation looks set to be an underwhelming affair if Britain does not set out across the channel in the spirit of its valiant past.
Ben Judge, London, UK | @benjamin_judge
Guy Sorman’s article completely misunderstands Say’s Law. It does not mean that new products create demand for themselves.
It means that the value of new production is equal to the demand it generates – because production is traded in the market, it represents both supply (of itself) and demand (of whatever it is traded for).
Essentially, it is an accounting identity: production equals consumption. Additional production / supply means more consumption / de
Matthew Moore, County Down, UK
CapX Editor Iain Martin | @iainmartin1
Thank you for clearing that up.
Childcare Challenge
Calling the plans to increasing free childcare a “subsidy” for working parents is spot on. However, Iain Martin’s article (Tory family policy makes no sense) missed one crucial point: the Tory government already offers a subsidy for stay-at-home parents. A married couple can claim £212 a year in tax credits whether they have children or not. This is clearly an old-fashioned, traditionalist policy, aimed at keeping married women at home, looking after the kids (never mind whether they actually have kids, they get the subsidy regardless). Let’s face it, it’s hardly ever men who end up giving up work so the government can support them raising their children (although I would like to see more of them giving it a go).
Cameron’s proposal, if it is actually a proposal and not just a vague suggestion, simply evens the score: state subsidy for parents who want to look after their own children, state subsidy for those that do not. Arguing over which outcome is better for children is paternalistic and unnecessary. £212 is also a pathetic amount to compensate someone who is looking after a child full time. But before we start accusing Cameron of taking a stab at stay-at-home parents, maybe we could end this truly ridiculous marriage subsidy that does nothing to keep families together, but rather shames those that don’t. And honestly, would we rather children grew up with parents who stayed together only because the government bribed them to do so?
Finally, this isn’t a “cheeky upper middle class subsidy”, it’s a subsidy primarily for single parents, who cannot afford childcare, but cannot afford not to work either. Do we want to end up with working mothers imprisoned for letting their children play in a park? I hope not.
Fiona Scott, Brighton, UK
Nothing Left?
Brad Lundgren, Alberta, Canada
When the left was successful it had a simple message. For the workers against the bosses, for the powerless against the establishment. But the days of the huge factories with an army of workers are gone. For many of us the Labour Party are now just a pressure group for the public sector. When they drone on about “their” NHS we suspect that their real concern is for NHS staff, not patients.
How about they recreate that “us against them” theme for the 21st century? The “us” could still be the ordinary worker – self employed courier, IT contractor, personal trainer, nail technician. That army of workers whose jobs didn’t exist 20 years ago and are not rich enough to be natural Conservatives.
The “them” are the crony capitalists, the quangocrats, the public sector drones and yes, the benefit junkies. Those who have a vested interest in the status quo. Change always beats “same old, same old”.
Simon Roguska, Nottingham, UK
Full fiscal freedom
Dan Hannan’s idea of giving Scotland full fiscal autonomy will solve many of the grievances highlighted by the Scottish people towards Westminster, it will also give SNP MP’s less opportunity to create resentment amongst the English towards the Scots. One thing I was particularly excited about is the prospect of offering Ireland (sort of) associate status within a federal parliament of the United Kingdom. Do you think they would accept such an offer?
Craig Thew, South East of England, UK
Power of the North
John Dodd, Harare, Zimbabwe
