Time to ask ‘why’

Reading Comment is free today I was struck by this article by Dan Hancox, who believes Cameron, and the coalition more broadly, has succeeded in bringing Britain into some great state of uniformity against his politics.

For one thing, Hancox is clearly wrong. While support for the Lib Dems has clearly ebbed (to put it mildly) the Tory vote has held up fairly nicely. According to ukpollingreport.co.uk it currently sits around 36%. Not a stunning achievement, but roughly similar to what they achieved in the election. So there.

However, what is more interesting is what it reveals about political thinking on both right and left, a category I hope Mr Hancox won’t mind me putting him in (I am, after all, a lowly blogger on my own website, while he’s on the Guardian, so he can dismiss me as a nutter if he wants to…).

Too often, commentators view those who fail to see things from their point of view as tragically stupid, and this accounts for the hatred-filled vitriol of people like Melanie Phillips and the patronising intellectual arrogance of Johann Hari.

Debate is too often lowered to simple assumptions. A great number of people like that the coalition is shaking up the school system, reforming welfare and trimming the deficit. Yet to many, it is impossible to understand why otherwise sensible people could support shambolic plans to release schools from central supervision and rigour, rob people of benefits and deliberately crash the economic recovery.

Rather than assuming that those on the other side of the political are simply wrong, and dismissing them from the political narrative, as Hancox appears to do in his article (if you support the coalition, you’re clearly in a tiny minority, he infers), more people need to ask why. Why do over a third of people in the UK still support Cameron? And why do slightly more support Ed Miliband?

It is refreshing to see that more and more are coming to this more nuanced opinion, expressed most frequently by Philip Blond, the ‘red Tory’. But as long as articles appear like today’s in Comment is free, political debate will continue to be dominated by those shouting from across an empty hall, rather than engaging in the delicate dance of policy-making.

The Sunday Review

Welcome to a new feature here at Plain Thinking – a new weekly review looking back over the events of the past week, as well as who’s up, who’s down, and who’s just lost the plot, not to mention a glance at events in history in the week just gone. So grab a quick cuppa, treat yourself to a chocolate hobnob, and enjoy…

In short…

It’s been a big week. Across the Middle East people have been busy rising up against dictators and absolute monarchs, with tragic consequences today in Libya.  As I wrote this week, we should all stand absolutely behind these people fighting – and dying – for the same rights we are often so complacent about.

In Westminster it has been an altogether lighter week. As I predicted, Caroline Spelman demonstrated that she was a lady who was for turning, bringing a dramatic close to the plans to sell-off Britain’s publicly-owned forests. Meanwhile Iain Duncan Smith revealed his plans to reform welfare, and, considering the scope of what he had proposed, received a surprisingly calm reception.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg made a rare show of their differences by making speeches backing different sides on the AV debate, with the referendum finally agreed for May 5. Good to know that with the Middle East ablaze, and Britain facing the biggest change in the welfare state since its inception, the PM and his Deputy are focusing on the big issues…

Up, up and away…

Larry the cat. Hopefully settling in nicely now, Downing Street’s newest resident should look forward to a brighter future at the heart of government than he had in Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Although he quickly became a victim of the cuts, as it was announced Downing Street staff would be expected to pay up for his upkeep. Better make friends quickly Larry…

Down and out…

Caroline Spelman. Who else? She made her cancellation of the consultation on forest sales and her apology an eloquent display of listening to the people. However, many thought, she could have listened a bit earlier and saved everyone a lot of bother, and money.

Looking back:

St. Valentine’s Day is the best-known date this week, but it’s also seen some pretty important other events in the past. In 1969 Lulu married Bee Gee Maurice Gibb, in 1959 Fidel Castro was sworn in as PM in Cuba.

Here at home in 1971, this was the week that saw the introduction of the decimal system. The changeover was applauded by Lord Fiske, Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board, who commented: “the smooth and efficient changeover so many people have worked for is now in fact being achieved”.

What the…?

While Caroline Spelman was dainty in her u-turn, Ken Clarke was the victim of an altogether more painful misstep in Westminster this week. Tripping on leaving his car, the Justice Secretary was left with a bleeding forehead and a black eye.

Vote to defend democracy

With ordinary citizens in Tunisia and Egypt turning against dictatorial regimes, and spontaneous protests spreading across the Arab world, it’s time we in the west were a little prouder of our democratic traditions, and a little quicker to encourage others to adopt them.

I was a student of International Relations for four years, and I was struck and worried by the collective loss of faith I heard in class discussions and tutorials on the topic of democracy.

It emerged, quite understandably, from a number of sources. On the one hand, the unstoppable rise of authoritarian China seemed to reawaken the WWII-vintage thinking that democracies are incapable of competing with dynamic totalitarian states. I remember reading diaries from the 1930s thinking the same thing, and it didn’t work out that well for the Nazis…

On the other hand our loss of faith in democracy is marked by a profound disappointment in its functioning in our own countries, seemingly symbolised in the war in Iraq. The debacle seemed to suggest ‘popularly elected’ leaders could nonetheless ignore the wishes of their people.

At the time I was horrified at such a collective loss of faith. Both these ideas are flawed. Bush was supported by a majority of his electorate in pursuing Saddam, whatever the left chooses to believe now. Today neither the parties of Bush or Blair are in power.

And with parts of the world that had seemed until so recently lost to the democratic cause now erupting in a spontaneous attempt to throw off decades-old dictatorships and allow themselves to choose their leaders, this is a time for the west to get out the polish and burnish our democratic credentials. This is a historic opportunity to rebuild our relationships with a part of the world we have often treated appallingly, preferring ‘our’ dictators to the real people.

People across the Arab world are rising up to take hold of what we have become so complacent about. It’s time for the doubters to be a little less quick to condemn the billions still living under authoritarian rule, and time for us all to believe in the universal ‘good-ness’ of democratic values.

After all, when was the last time you saw a mass protest demanding the installation of a dictatorship?

Obesity? It’s a taxing question…

It’s the metaphorical ‘Big Society’ that has dominated most of today’s political headlines, with David Cameron and Ed Miliband engaging in newspaper warfare, both having written columns in the Observer and the Independent respectively. And they’re worth reading.

But I was drawn to the headline in the Express, the self-styled ‘World’s Greatest Newspaper’, who were worrying about a more literal Big Society.

In a typically understated headline, they warned that the “Obese will bankrupt [the] NHS”. The rest of the article continued in that somewhat hysterical vein, threatening that if obesity trends continue: “the NHS will no longer be able to treat all of its patients.”

Those trends are questionable; there is no analysis of whether the prevalence of obesity is increasing or slowing. However, in that obesity is a major issue, and one that is placing increasing strain on the NHS, there is little to argue with. And while they found much to worry about, they failed to propose one option that has often wanted for proponents.

A ‘fat tax’ levied on certain unhealthy food and beverage items with the proceeds directed to the NHS could help fill the shortfall. How would it work? Products with a saturated fat percentage above a certain level could be liable for a small percentage levy.

It’s a proportionate solution. As with alcohol, responsible consumers would pay only a small amount, while those placing the most strain on the NHS would have contributed the most. It probably wouldn’t be high enough to change customer behaviour, that would hit those moderate consumers, but it would help to fill some of the shortfall in NHS resources created by the sheer weight (sorry…) of the obesity crisis.

New taxes are controversial, it could be costly to implement, and the food lobby is one of the most powerful out there. But priced at the right level, a bold government could take a major step toward tackling the real problems of a big society.

We’re back!

Plain Thinking is back! After an enjoyable few months lending my services to Total Politics’ excellent blog, it’s time for me to come back home.

So look forward to more common-sense observations on matters political, and weekly reviews sure you keep you in the Westminster loop.

We’re now on Twitter too – follow@CalumBenson – and you’ll never miss an update.

Read, perhaps nod to yourself in agreement, maybe ‘tsk’ at my stupidity; either way, please comment, and keep coming back. See you soon!

Bow ties and blazers

The limousines have gone, the hotel rooms are empty, the banners will now come down and by tomorrow the good people of Birmingham will have Broad Street back. David Cameron has spoken and the Conservative conference, the last of the season, is over.

Meandering the streets of Birmingham over the last few days has brought one of the Conservatives’ most fundamental problems into sharp relief. While the champagne ban imposed by Eric Pickles on his party for the second year running has been well-reported, for example here by the Daily Telegraph, meaning Plain Thinking never got that glass of Perriet-Jouet we’d been hoping for, the party has still to break free from its biggest superficial problem.

It’s not one with an easy solution, unless Trinny and Susannah can be employed to inspect delegates on their way into the conference centre. For all their best attempts to place young people and people of diverse ethnic origins in good positions for the TV cameras, the Conservatives have an enormous problem with how their supporters look. Plain Thinking counted three bow ties over his three days in Birmingham. Be assured, these were not of the Matt Smith variety, rather of the bold-stripe-and-teamed-with-a-blazer variety.

And while the bow ties are emblematic of the problem, they are far from the end of it. Braying young men with slick hair asked questions at fringe events more to demonstrate their own smugness rather than to learn more, while pearl-wearing young women air-kissed each other at a quite remarkable rate.

Of course, it is not the case that the Conservatives are solely the party of the upper class. My own (relatively humble) family are solid Tories, but for them it was Margaret Thatcher’s promise to get the state out of their life, and comparison of the nation’s finances to that of the squeezed household that resonated and continue to do so. They do not have the time or money to attend conference.

So as with Labour and the Lib Dems the conference is surrendered to the die-hards. Sadly for the Tories their die-hards’ appearance speak of a time and a place, of easy affluence, private schools, the home counties and Volvos, that make the average swing voter feel distinctly queasy. And that’s one thing they can’t blame the champagne for.

Congratulations Ed

The saying goes that all good things must come to an end, and while one might be hard pressed to say its been riveting from start to finish, the Labour leadership battle has finally been settled. It’s tempting to offer congratulations to all five Labour leadership contenders for having made it.

But special plaudits to Ed Miliband for emerging victorious; he squeaked victory by the thinnest of margins, and the look on David’s face must have made the months of hard work worthwhile.

Plain Thinking hopes his election will galvanise Labour’s scrutiny of the Coalition’s policies, however we reserve our judgement until Ed has had the chance to tell us what his leadership will be all about, starting in his keynote speech to Conference on Tuesday.

Taxing questions

So Philip Green is to advise the government. His specialist subject: efficiency. The reaction, except for an article in today’s Comment is free by Catherine Bennett, which rather than questioning his ability to do the job is simply mean, has mostly focused on his tax affairs. His wife, in whose name much of the business is registered, lives in Monaco and is therefore beyond the reach of HMRC.

The press coverage of this, another example of how little else there is to get people excited at this time of year, is illustrative of something interesting. In business, and indeed in many fields, talent is sourced because of its quality, not its provenance. Marks & Spencer is now run by a Dutchman and an American was Transport for London’s first Commissioner. Why then in matters of government, do we retreat back inside our nationalist boxes?

In all honesty, what have the intricacies of the Green’s tax arrangements got to do with Sir Philip’s ability to root out government inefficiency? For far wiser predictions it is surely sensible to look at the record of businessmen drafted into public life. It’s not exactly a hall of champions, Sir Alan Sugar’s disastrous flirtation with Gordon Brown’s government ending with an outburst to a seemingly sensible question about the recession.

Being active in the political sphere brings attacks, and if Sir Philip thinks it’s bad now, just wait until his recommendations are published. For people more used to answering only to shareholders (if that in Green’s case) and driven only by monetary results, government is impossible. Bureaucratic and dependent on changeable public support, public policy calls for a different mindset to business, one that has a sense for presentation and spin, and not one that necessarily delivers millions in profit.

So by all means criticise the appointment of Philip Green as an efficiency advisor; he will probably fail. But please let’s not confuse this basic issue with where he lives or where he pays tax.

Welcome to Plain Thinking

Thanks for coming, make yourself at home amongst perspectives on recent British politics.

Its content aims to be anti-sensationalist, non-tribal, non-ideological and entirely independent. Everything posted aims to explain rather than to offend.

I hope you will find much to agree, and disagree, with. In both cases, please comment.