Full employment?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today announced that he is targetting ‘full employment’.
This illicited the response “What on earth is it?” from Jeremy Paxman, and for those of you who are not familiar with the term here is the definition the economist gives:

Jobs for all that want them. This does not mean zero unemployment because at any point in time some people do not want to work. Also, because some people are always between jobs, there will usually be some frictional unemployment. Full employment means that everyone who wants work and is willing to work at the market wage is in work. Most governments aim to achieve full employment, although nowadays they rarely try to lower unemployment below the nairu: the lowest jobless rate consistent with stable, low inflation.

 

This is a classic example of a politician talking about a valence issue (something that everyone agrees on) without in any meaningful way addressing the issue. After all what exactly has Osborne said? He wants to target full empoloyment? (emphasis on target) Well wonderful! Would all those who oppose please step forward?

In reality this statement has been made in order to remind the electorate that the policies being implemented by the Conservative’s are there to improve the economy and the implication is that if you vote conservative again then eventually there will be full employment. 

Naturally what actually amounts to full employment isn’t exactly clear; a popular view amongst economists is around 5/6%, however since the second world war unemployment has been as low as 1% (1955) and as high as 14% (1982) and currently unemployment is 7.2%. What rate does the chancellor think full employment is? Well he’s declined to comment- though he does say that he’d like to have the highest employment rate in the G7.
Perhaps Osborne’s plan is to will people into employment.

Fortunately for Osborne; he is not the only member of his party who doesn’t actually understand what his policy is, however. On Newsnight Nicky Morgan (the Economic Secretary to the Treasury) said that she did not know if there had ever been full employment, let alone what constituted as full employment. Then later echoing Osborne’s message: well you do want more people to be working don’t you?

Admittedly Osborne still has time to elaborate on his speech and perhaps all will become clear with time; currently however this appears to be early electioneering on a valence issue.

Next week David Cameron is due to say that it is “wrong that people are starving” and that “this Conservative government hopes that less people will be starving in the future”. Ed Milliband is expected to ask why the government hasn’t done more to stop starving now and follow up with a promise that a Labour government actually would stop people starving far better than the Tories would.

 

-Horan out

 

Thoughts on Foriegn Policy & Democracy

I am a great believer in democracy and civil liberties; however I have noticed some contradictions between my ideology and how the world actually operates.
Ideologically speaking I believe that people have a right to decide who governs them and deserve protection from the state and the masses in law a la the Bill of Rights, ECHR, UDHR etc.
From my position as a Westerner (and perhaps an ideologue) I find it hard to understand why everyone does not share my outlook.

However I feel that I’m beginning to gain some perspective on this, so let me treat you to some thoughts with regard to democracy outside the west…

Currently I am of the opinion that by and large the layman (specifically in the developing world) cares mainly about whether there is food on the table and enough money to last him the week. This is not to say that there aren’t those that have a passion for democracy, however by in large the solely political activists- I would say- are a minority.

 

A good example in recent memory would be the Arab Spring. Seen by many to be the youth of the arab world rising up against their totalitarian regimes in an effort to oust the despots, introduce democracy and begin to adopt a more western culture- admittedly an oversimplification (and a slight exaggeration) on my part- though in essence it was/is what many believed. In reality the Arab Spring was primarily about the state of the economy.

Take Egypt, the economy had been slowly deteriorating under Mubarak. This reached a point when the people could no longer accept how badly mismanaged the economy and thus rebelled. The poor economy and high unemployment triggered social unrest which then became politicised and culminated in Mubarak’s resignation.
Almost the exact same thing happened to his successor Mohammed Morsi.
And as a result of the economic despair many Egyptians accepted the un-democratic military deposal of Morsi as they believed that it would improve their economic prospects.
Of course there was also the ideological factor of the Muslim Brotherhood vs. Secularists, and most likely a myriad of other factors that I’m omitting, nevertheless the economy was the most significant factor.

The importance of the economy can be seen in the Ukraine as well. In the west of Ukraine there is a great deal of popular sentiment for joining the EU because it is synonymous with political transparency, rule of law and liberty (perhaps the only place in the world where this is still the case). The reason there is demand for this is because the Ukrainian economy has not been going anywhere fast; people recognised that the endemic corruption was causing the economy to stagnate and hence the EU was seen to be the solution to the political problem.
In the East and the Crimea there was and is a similar problem economically, however the popular consensus there is that Russia holds the keys to economic growth and prosperity.
Of course in this particular instance the outlook is clearly based on social grounds- the East is historically and socially closer to Russia whilst the West is closer to Europe, nevertheless the reasoning is being made on economic grounds.

 

So given that people don’t (necessarily) innately desire democracy: how do countries become democracies?

Well to very vaguely describe the western experience: Countries become richer and slowly a middle class develops; this middle class will demand more of a say over how they are ruled; slowly but surely you develop into a democracy as suffrage is rolled out and reforms are grudgingly made.
There is no ‘path’ to democracy; for every step forward there is liable to be a step back, irrespective of this I believe that over time gradually democracy will develop. In order to succeed broader social change is required, as well as the state relinquishing power.

 

But even with this succinct (sic) opinion there are still difficulties. For example what do you do with totalitarian regimes such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran- in which despots rule with supreme authority and people do not have adequate legal protection. Should we treat them like equals? Should we invade and depose their governments? Or should we impose sanctions?
To coin an old cliche: there is no right answer.
Personally I believe that it’s a combination: trade and try to encourage a natural development where possible, if the regime is violating human rights on a considerable scale then sanctions are certainly appropriate and I believe that if a regime is endangering other sovereign nations, is aggressively expansionist and/or is conducting genocide there is an argument for military intervention- but only as a last resort.

That said many would say that it is not for us to intervene, equally what amounts to a ‘considerable scale’. No doubt some reading this will say “Aggressively expansionist? How about the USA? Have you heard of the British Empire?” I will respectfully disagree with those assertions and bid you farewell with the following:

Foreign policy will never be straightforward: life never is.

 

-Horan out

 

 

the device of demagogues and dictators

The events in Crimea once again illustrate how easily plebiscites can be used by authoritarian regimes to legitimise their actions. For those of you that are somehow unaware of what is going on in Crimea, here is a brief summary: after (then president) Viktor Yanukovych fled the Ukraine unmarked Russian troops appeared in the Crimea. They then broke into Crimea’s parliament and soon after a newly installed head of the Crimea then formally invited Mr Putin to come and protect the Crimea, lastly in the space of 10 days a referendum was engineered on whether or not the Crimea should seek to rejoin Russia.
Irrespective of your opinion on the Ukraine situation, the vote was clearly illegitimate.

Putin was not the first to do this, however. Hitler and Mussolini are two notable figures from the last century that used plebiscites as a means to justify and enforce their actions, historically it is correlated with reactionary politics and punishing minorities.
Despots use referenda in order to rubber stamp pre-ordained decisions and show how much the people agree. Invariably voters are subject to coercion, which varies from constant state propaganda to outright threats of violence.

A billboard preceeding a referendum in Italy (1934), Mussolini was seeking a yes vote fyi.

Very well, but here in the UK we are not subject to this. Surely in a liberal democracy a referendum can be conducted legitimately?

Well perhaps, but why? Referendums do not improve voter turnout, conversely we often see lower turnout resulting in decisions with less of a mandate. When voting on a national assembly on Cardiff only 50% of people voted, 50.3% of those who did voted in favour of a national assembly. In essence just over a quarter of people voted in favour and just under voted against, this does not make for a legitimate decision. Though this is an extreme example with regard to the margin of victory (turnout is often worse e.g. 34% for london mayoral vote); the legitimacy of the decision remains an issue even when there is a majority. In 1975 when UK citizens voted on whether to remain a part of what is now the European Union they voted 2 to 1 in favour of it, this clearly didn’t resolve the issue.

Furthermore, the 1997 referendum in Scotland on further devolution was supposed to “Kill nationalism stone dead” yet we are due to have a referendum later this year. Will this referendum be conclusive? Or will the yes/no lobby be continually calling for another referendum if they lose.

There is also the issue of the ‘never-endum’ which is “A series of referendums on the same issue held in an attempt to achieve an unpopular result.”-Wiktionary. This issue arises from the fact that a public vote is based on the general public opinion. Consequently when public opinion changes there is going to be demand for a new referendum ad infinitum.

As well as this plebiscites undermine our representative democracy. In the United Kingdom we have an elected chamber of representatives who have the power to make, unmake or amend any law. This is a principal of our constitution: parliamentary sovereignty. Removing the power of parliament on certain issues in order for the general public to decide adds nothing to the legislative process. All legislative decisions should undergo equal scrutiny and be subject to the same process. When making a law public opinion is a factor: if a government has a strong majority it is seen to have a popular mandate (consequently it is convention that the Lords does not block manifesto policies) to enact legislation in its manifesto, equally polls pertaining to the issue are an important factor in the making of decisions. However the decision should not lie with the public, alone. It should be left to politicians whose job it is to make and scrutinise legislation. In fact allowing the representatives that we pay to make decisions to cop out by ‘letting the public decide’ is shameful.

But then how exactly would the lay man be able to have a say on these issues?
Well, there’s the principle of regular general elections. In the United Kingdom once every 5 years you are given the opportunity to cast a ballot; admittedly the first-past-the-post system is not perfect, however it is the opportunity that the electorate are given to decide who governs them and influence legislation. This should remain the main involvement of the electorate as referendums are merely sacrifice parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency.

P.S. Plebiscite/referendum same thing: a popular vote on a single issue pitched to the electorate, typically yes/no.

-Horan out

Early Electioneering?

On the 15 september 2011 the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act received Royal Assent. Prior to this the government of the day decided the date of an election; this gave an advantage to the incumbent party as it allowed them to call an election when it best suited them. Ok, so what? I hear you ask. Well; now that we have fixed terms we know exactly when the next general election is, so do the politicians. The result of this is that we are seeing the beginnings of an election campaign in spite of the fact that the election isn’t until the 7 may next year. Nevertheless, until that date this blog shall  report on any particularly grievous examples of demagoguery and/or shameless electioneering. In future I will use more recent examples, however as I have your attention now and I am targetting a post a week, I shall comment on some slightly dated news.

Cameron says NO to coalition:

David Cameron has announced that in the event of a hung parliament he would run a minority government rather than re-entering coalition with the Liberal Democrats. This may please his backbenchers, however it would not make for good government. Coalition politics may lead to disputes and may not be popular, however it has been relatively successful in terms of governing the country- with respect to the fact that the Government hasn’t been dissolved, and the fact that parliament is running more or less as normal.

The fact of the matter is that government must be able to govern, otherwise it is no more than ‘first among equals’ in parliament, hence should Cameron face this decision next year a Coalition is his best bet.

What Ed said:

“We know surveys suggest one in five members of our armed forces suffer abuse or are refused access to restaurants, hotels and bars,”- Ed Milliband.

In order to remedy the situation, Ed Milliband has revealed that he plans to introduce legislation that harshly punishes those that discriminate against people in the armed services.

Though of course it is wrong that this discrimination occurs, it would seem to me that this is a cynical bid for the military vote. Ed Milliband is aware that he is not going to be able to distance Labour from the Conservatives by refusing to cut military spending and has concluded that this legislation is his best bet.

Perhaps it will result in the conviction of one or two bigoted bar owners a year, but it is difficult to see how this will make any tangible difference. It is just another populist policy on a valence issue in an effort to win votes.

The vast majority of people respect convention of the military covenant which was codified in 2000 and states that people of the military “must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals”. Is further legislation really necessary?

-Horan out

Guilty until proven innocent

I’m sure you are all aware that Oscar Pistorius is on trial in South Africa for the murder of his partner Reeva Steenkamp. The case has made me think about the principle of ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and how different justice is for those that are ‘at the top’ of society.

The presumption of innocence- more commonly referred to as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ has been in use since Roman times. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 11) and in principle prevents people from being wrongfully imprisoned as the law requires it to be beyond any reasonable doubt that you are guilty. This law is in place to protect citizens from state persecution and mob persecution. (The latter illustrated visually here if you are dubious http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/innocent-till-proven-guilty.html ).

Though of course we all agree that someone should not be punished for something unless there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty; invariably there are complications. These complications arise in particularly sordid cases; such as murder and rape. The reason is that we empathize with the victim. When we ask ourselves why did they suffer? the television will present a particularly sinister mugshot of the accused, the colour will fade out and the presenter will relay a chilling description of the despicable act. The consequence of this is that we become prejudiced against the accused and have sympathy for the victim.

It is these controversial issues; however, for which it is arguably most important that we regard people with a presumption of innocence. When someone is accused of a heinous crime they become a social pariah. It can take years for such a case to be concluded and the damage to the individuals: mental health, friends and family can be profound.

Of course each case is different; for example there is no question as to whether or not Oscar Pistorius killed his partner. The only question is whether it was a tragic accident, or a cold blooded murder. All judges have the burden of assessing cases such as this on merit of the evidence and in accordance with a presumption of innocence. It is not a task that I envy.

Two other (brief) observations:

Firstly, representation is incredibly unfair in our judicial system. Only the richest can afford the best representation, and barring cases of principle they are typically the only ones to get it. Surely the size of your wallet should be irrelevant when it comes to justice.
In theory the state could pay for all representation, though realistically this would merely lead to a plethora of other difficulties. Invariably the pragmatist and the economist in me says that the current system is more efficient. But it is clear to see that it is unfair; does anyone have any suggestions on how the situation could be remedied? Or do we have the best bad option available? Sadly it would appear that the latter is the case.

Secondly, is it not interesting how enamoured the media is with high profile cases; the constant wall to wall coverage amounts to ‘crime porn’. You can even analyse a 3D model of the crime scene thanks to the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26417240 . Perhaps this level of detail is necessary for the public to have an informed opinion. Equally, many are drawn to the intrigue and drama of such a unique case.

That being said; there is the infamous example of O. J. Simpson, whose trial was covered in 2,237 seperate news segments between 1994 and 1997. Oscar Pistorious’ trial is attracting similar levels of attention and it does seem excessive.

That’s what I think, what do you think?

-Horan out

Humble beginnings

I am a 6th form student studying maths, history, economics and politics at AS level. My greatest passion is for current affairs and I will gladly debate or discuss almost any matter with anyone. The tenets of my political philosophy are that we (the UK, and all other countries frankly) should be a secular republic, it is time to end the war on drugs and in this day and age we should fight to oppose political isolationism and accept that we are global citizens.Though of course I have opinions on other matters, those opinions are less deeply held- to varying extents.

Politics isn’t my only interest, however.  I play both rugby and American football so anyone partisan has the right to call me a pansy! Being half Finnish I am of course an ice hockey fan also. My sporting allegiances are as follows: West Ham united, London Wasps, Pittsburgh Steelers, Helsinkin Jokerit and the Pittsburgh penguins.

As well as this I love music, literature, comedy, satire and all sorts of strange stuff- just like everyone else.

Please suggest any topic of discussion, hopefully I can say something inciteful or vaguely interesting and we can have a decent discussion!

-Horan out

P.S if you follow Question Time I had 5 seconds of glory on the last episode of the 2012/2013 season!