All power corrupts
In his excellent article, Tim Morgan put his finger on the nub of the problem facing exponents of free markets, capital and labour (true capitalism), as it has been all too easy for opponents to muddy the waters by confusing this philosophy with its 21st century descendent, corporatism (for want of a better term to describe entrenched oligarchies, wherever they arise). The Hannans and Carswells of this world have been highlighting this for years (though the latter has gone a little off message lately). Unfortunately, they have been doing so in such a reasoned manner, that they are in danger of being drowned out by the chattering hordes, consumed by their own righteousness, or cocooned in a comfort zone.
By using examples from the public sector (Westminster village), global institutions (FIFA, EU, UN), and the world of communications (BBC), pro-market defenders can demonstrate to the disingenuous that this is not just a problem of business and trans-national corporations, though it is endemic there, too.
They might also add, that, sometimes, the messenger does need shooting!
Jonathan Elms, Lisbon, Portugal
Technology vs. Productivity
In the article on June 2, 2015 entitled “Why tech isn’t improving productivity”, Caroline Baum argues that a majority of technology that is currently in production and application is targeted for social and not professional use and, therefore, only leads to loss of otherwise productive hours of the labour force. This is clearly an important view given the productivity debate that is currently raging in the British economy. I am in complete agreement with the article on the loss of productivity resulting from the burgeoning addiction to social media, and my agreement is only enhanced by disgust towards the end of a work day when I realize the need to work for an extra hour because a part of my afternoon was wasted on responding to inconsequential Facebook posts.
Yet, I am strongly of the belief that all is still not lost on the productive possibilities of technology. I have witnessed, first hand, the impact that technology continues to have on small and large enterprises in various corners of the nation: from marketing local products for online sale to investing on big data to understand the upcoming surge of consumer demand. While there is much investment on the next generation of cutting edge technology, even basic digital technology has not been applied completely even in the most advanced economies of the world. What is still required to tap the productive potential of technology in UK, is to ensure the availability of fast broadband for small and large enterprises across the nation and technological education of the ageing labour force.
One of the greatest examples of the impact of technology on arguable the least productive sectors across the world, i.e. the public sector, is provided in another article featured on CapX by Charles Brett:“Estonia’s ‘digital government’ in action”. The government has been an advocate and user of latest technologies and the country boasts of excellent 4G coverage. The burden of governmental paperwork has been abandoned and transformed to all things digital, definitely an example that Britain could learn from. Any type of public interaction with the government is via the internet, which reduces manifold the hours spent by citizens on erasing errors on paperwork and long queues. So, if we subtract the hours wasted on social media and add back the hours gained from reduced effort on government permits and taxes, I believe technology can roughly give me back one hour in my productive work day.
Ranjavati Banerji, Kolkata, India
Local Society
I agree with Tim Montgomerie’s article and much of what he writes is what I expected from David Cameron’s declarations of creating Big Society.
Generally humans are social animals but as the family has become geographically more widespread the bonds have been broken from traditional norms. Local communities might take the place of the family unit and there is a role for the government to assist in voluntary body creation e.g. neighbourhood watch, insurance provision for local events, facilitate team sport provision and so on.
A major problem is that housing is not available when and where it is required. The government could ease matters through the tax system for companies that provide housing for workers with matching tax incentives for employees. If need be these employee incentives could be limited to, say, five years as that gives sufficient time for the employee to integrate with the new community. Businesses could claim tax reliefs only for the period they retain the housing for the exclusive use of their workers present and past. I suspect such a policy would benefit rural areas rather than the urban and could even reverse urban migration.
Alan R MacKenzie, Highlands, Scotland
Right of response
Daniel Hannan asks in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights, “Were there habitual violations of civil freedoms before 1953 when the Convention entered into force? Were we deporting whole populations, expropriating our citizens without due process, throwing dissidents into internment camps?” The answer is “yes” not “no” as he suggests.
The UK (which had an empire then) was involved in all these activities before 1953. And has been since too. Consider internment in Malaya, in Northern Ireland, in Kenya (the UK Government have also recently accepted that prisoners during the Mau Mau uprising suffered torturn and ill treatment), and most recently our assistance to the USA in its “rendition” programme (i.e. a programme of kidnap and torture in which kidnap victims were taken through UK airports and torture carried out by US proxies to obtain answers sought by UK intelligence agencies). Consider also mass deportation of the population of Diego Garcia.
Across Europe, deportation of populations, expropriation of citizens and throwing dissidents into internment camps was widespread in 1953, and had been for a number of years before. There were not just Nazi and Communist atrocities, but the mass deportation of Germans, Hungarians, Turks among others. The idea was to set an international minimum standard – a standard the UK apparently can’t live by now even though we live in comparatively quieter times.
Robert Seaton, Edinburgh, Scotland
Is Daniel Hannan’s problem is with activist judges based overseas, rather than activists judges in the UK? If a judge in the UK wishes to change the Common law precedent, is that not easier in our system than in Strasbourg?
This is supposed to be about the case for leaving the ECHR, yet it doesn’t come through. What do we gain by leaving it? More freedom? To do what?
Surely the central idea of human rights is to protect the individual from society’s whims? Is that not quite a libertarian argument?
John Doyle, Glasgow, Scotland
Regulation overdrive
When considering the tax burden, remember that net national income should also account for national debt, and for the cost of regulation compliance. (Another huge cost is the mutation of economic effort due to regulations, but that is too difficult to calculate.) Over time high debt has a large negative effect on economic well-being. Regulations are a huge hidden cost, in the US probably about 50% as large as government spending; in Europe regulations are probably even higher than that.
Funny how the bigger and more powerful government becomes, the slower economic growth becomes, and it even creates the large danger of economic crisis and depression.
Thomas Sullivan, Florida, United States
Out of touch
It’s not about what David Cameron can do for Eurosceptics, but what he is willing to do which raises an interesting question.
So far nearly everything he has advanced as a concession he is negotiating for is to do with welfare reform and criminal justice – areas that are still mostly, as far as we know, competences of the national government.
This means that David Cameron is either announcing these policies in EU meetings to fool the electorate into thinking he is negotiating, or our level of integration is much deeper than previously thought, and he is in fact seeking the approval foreign officials and politicians who have never even stood for election in the United Kingdom, before he engages in some relatively modest changes to domestic policy.
It’s either a fraud of monumental proportions, or an admission that our democratically elected government no longer governs our country except in the most superficial ways.
Alex Rantwell, England, UK
I agree with Dan’s article, and I would also suggest that the “Out” campaign should alter the ground on which we are fighting so that the campaign can start effectively now. The “In” crowd will try to argue over the small print of whatever concessions David Cameron may win; we need to move the argument to where we would end up. It is 40 years since we last had such a vote, and the EU has changed immeasurably from what we thought we’d voted on. If we vote to stay in, then it needs to be on the recognition of where we may end up in future. Will we be forced into the Euro, to avoid entering a “slow lane” where Euro members can band together to push legislation onto us via Qualified Majority Voting? Or choose to go into the slow lane, and accept being second class? Let us start by setting the debate on a realistic basis, and begin campaigning now.
David Waring, Salisbury, UK
