The Bewilderness

Stumbleupon Mandelson

Let us examine some comments of Mandelson, made in the context of criticising the erratic economic policy of the Tories. Mandelson has stated that the public utterances of the Tories are “unpatriotic”, a grave accusation.

Lord Mandelson said it was ''disgraceful'' the way the Conservative leadership had been talking about the economy.

''It is talking Britain down when David Cameron compares Britain ludicrously in everyone's eyes to Greece, and when George Osborne describes Britain as an exhausted runner at the back of a long marathon race unable to summon the strength to build our economy,'' he told The Politics show.

''That is disgraceful, it is irresponsible. It's also unpatriotic.''

This is not new. Figures within Labour have referred, at various occasions, to David Cameron and George Osborne talking Britain down. This allows two meanings: first, that the economy is better under Labour and secondly, that the Tories are not to be trusted because they put party interest above the country. These are strong accusations and the accusation 'disgraceful' if unfounded.

Is there any basis to the comparison between Britain and Greece? Could we be at risk of a sovereign default? If we view that epithet, Rejkjavik on the Thames, and various credit rating agencies throwing cold light on unsustainable finances, then comparisons to Greece are far less “ludicrous” than Mandelson is prepared to admit.

There is some truth to the Tory statements and this leads one to consider Mandelson's accusations in a more sceptical light. What are his motives? There is the concern that discussing disastrous economic scenarios can become self-fulfilling prophecies with the markets. Is this what Mandelson was warning? If so, a sensible statement on this issue did not form part of the narrative. The blame was couched on party political lines: apportioning blame and raising heat in the debate. This emotive accusation does not aid debate; it closes down discussion.

If one were to stop listing this detail and state the obvious: Mandelson's ploy was to spread the manure as it hits the fan: to try and make sure that those in power are not held responsible. His favoured method: a debasement of discourse and the impugning of his opposition.

Put those bloody hands up for Chilcot...

The inquiries into the Iraq War have thrown up many shortcomings in process, misleading intentions on many of the participants and a cavalier attitude to law. But no conspiracy, more cock-up: the legacy of 'sofa government', so far. Steve Richards sums up the difficulties that Blair faced in that time:

Evidently Blair regarded Saddam Hussein as a threat and had come to regard the removal of dictators as one of his causes. I doubt if he was as evangelical about this as his public performances suggest, but when a leader of a middling power signs up to the agenda of a much bigger one he has made the only decision in the sequence over which he has some control. After that Blair was largely in the hands of a divided, incompetent US administration and had no choice but to follow its timetable while pretending to be in command.

I wish he had felt strong enough to turn away but I do not underestimate what would have happened if he had done so. Those condemning him would have included many of his current tormentors in the media: "Blair turns his back on Bush as US removes evil dictator". The intensity would have quadrupled if he had withdrawn support later in the face of opposition here.

There is a selective amnesia from Blair's critics that wash their hands of blood by drenching his instead. It is an unedifying sight.

Pay your taxes to pass Labour's loyalty test

Jack Straw has stated that you should be a full UK taxpayer before you can sit in Parliament and represent UK citizens. Does this not invert the value: “No taxation without representation!”

The move to outlaw non-doms from positions in parliament follows a protracted debate within government amid criticisms of the Conservative donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft, who will not say whether he is a UK taxpayer.

Straw said: "It is absolutely right that the people who make laws in this country should be full UK taxpayers."

Through this move, Straw will actually be disenfranchising UK taxpayers, and discriminating against a particular class. If you don't pay any tax at all, will you also be disenfranchised? That would be ironic: Labour prevents the poorest from sitting in Parliament.

This has a number of odious consequences. Through a false appeal to a collective body politic, Straw demands payment of tax as a loyalty test. Those who don't are now consigned to second class citizenship, and rendered unequal before the law. And at a practical level, this is a protectionist measure to defend 646 mediocrities from more deserving candidates who earned their wealth and took steps to keep it.

An all round fail!

"Let us groom together!" Family values, Darwin style!

"Just ask Carol" is a flawed agony aunt column that the Grauniad runs, applying the lessons of evolutionary psychology to specific problems. That is the byline, but her first question derived most of its answer from studies of other species. Call me a spoilsport but, to me, family life is more complex than a simple comparison with chimpanzees reveals.

The human element is supplied by a shared hobby. And as to the suggestion that...

You could encourage big brother to be involved in the grooming of little brother, perhaps with hair washing and skin moisturising, and in time the youngest should reciprocate.

That may prove a singular failure given the number of cultural norms that it could transgress. Sentences least likely to manifest bonding include: “Let us moisturise together” or “May I groom you?”.

Has Carol started any fights yet?

Solution to the Taliban: a workfare state

The conference on Afghanistan can be marked as the signal of the end, a signal of surrender. The creation of a jobs fund is predicated on a 'materialist' interpretation of Taleban recruitment:

Officials believe that many young Afghan men in the south and east of the country join the Taleban because they have little else to do. They hope that the fund, which will be managed by President Karzai, will be used to offer them jobs as guards and in agriculture. They do not expect the money to be used for cash payments.

“The overwhelming majority of these people are not ideological supporters of Mullah Omar [the fugitive Taleban leader] and al-Qaeda,” Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said. “Based on interviews with prisoners, returnees, experts, there must be at least 70 per cent of these people who are not fighting for anything to do with those causes.”

We hand over funds to the man who rigged the Afghani election and presided over one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Karzai will fritter the money away and the Taleban will remain as big a problem in two years as they do now. And one wonders why we find that this doesn't work for the 'boys from the estate'. We may as well offer them passports.

Talks on political inclusion may sound like the way forward, but how does the acceptance of an Islamic state with the same people who fostered Al-Qaeda advance our cause. Their brand of nationalist tinged fundamentalism will remain more attractive than short-term 'jobs' as guards.

Time to leave Afghanistan, as the Western forces have proved themselves incapable of the flexibility and thinking required to defeat the enemy.

Goldsmith's fudged figleaf

Lord Goldsmith appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry today and presented more questions than answers. The resulting headlines are odd, very odd. Goldsmith explained that the armed forces required clarity on the legality of the war. You know the sort of thing: lawyers puzzling over Hitler's invasion of Poland and pondering whether Britain's guarantee of its territorial integrity could be defined as a war of aggression. Goldsmith provided clarity to 'protect' the armed forces.

The whole affair revolves around his change of mind, and wholesale ambiguity. After meeting Jack Straw and US armtwisters, Goldsmith finally 'understood':

He changed his mind in February 2003 after compelling evidence from senior US officials and advisors - including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Will Taft IV, a senior State Department legal official. Lord Goldsmith said their description of the negotiations that lead to the Security Council resolution helped convince him that a second resolution was not required.

The whole episode reeks of fudge. It is an unedifying sight when a war was launched on semantics. Goldsmith's arguments for legality hinged upon a contingent interpretation of UN Resolution 1441 and the balance of motives on the part of the great powers.

War requires moral, legal and political clarity followed by the use of overwhelming force. None of these were obtained and former officials and politicians play hardscrabble with semantics. None cover themselves in glory. But if Goldsmith wished to 'protect' soldiers, then surely rejecting any possibility of legal action was better than the fudged figleaf that he presented to Blair.

The Tories and the Chilcot Inquiry

Here is a conceit worthy of further consideration by the Chilcot Inquiry.

The reality is that Iraq was hotly debated in Whitehall, Westminster and far beyond. Up to a million people marched in protest; the cabinet backed war; and, after a tempestuous debate, the House of Commons voted for the invasion.

That majority depended on the Conservatives. Mr Blair’s warnings about WMD were almost modest against those of some senior Tories. William Hague, now the shadow foreign secretary, spoke of scores of hidden nuclear sites. The Liberal Democrats opposed the invasion, but still signed up to the conventional wisdom that Saddam had unconventional weapons.

The Tories were not hoodwinked by Mr Blair. They had their own briefings from intelligence chiefs. So it seems at best strange that an investigation into whether Mr Blair exaggerated the threat excludes questions about why the opposition made the same mistake.

The role of the official Opposition deserves greater scrutiny from the Chilcot Inquiry. Did their political statements match up with the intelligence they were briefed? Was that intelligence briefing the same as that given to Blair and did the same errors creep in to its presentation? There is scope for further examination here.

The new enemy is salt

The new enemy is salt. Here is an interesting example at an early stage of how calls for legislation leap from study to implementation. A survey has looked at salt.

In the paper, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo and colleagues, from the University of California, San Francisco, USA, undertook a computer simulation showing the effects of population wide reductions of dietary salt intakes in all adults aged 35 to 85 years in the USA. Reducing dietary salt intake by 3 g per day (1200mg less sodium per day) could result in 60,000 to 120,000 fewer cases of heart disease , 32,000 to 66,000 fewer strokes and 54,000 to 100,000 fewer heart attacks.

Just one study and even then, dietary recommendations are notorious for lack of reliability. But the recommendation follows like day after night:

A reduction in dietary salt of 3g per day, the authors went on to say, would have approximately the same effect on reducing cardiac events as a 50 % reduction in tobacco use, a 5% reduction in body mass index among obese adults or the use of statins to treat people at low or intermediate risk for CHD events. Furthermore, reducing dietary salt intakes by 3g per day would save $10 billion to $ 24 billion in annual health care costs.

Precise, costed benefits that bear little resemblance to reality, but a comparison with the other devils of public health is utilised to define a 'collective benefit'. Thus the call for legislation by the European Society of Cardiology:

While individuals may use salt sparingly at home, around 75 % of the salt we eat is already in the food we buy. This, says the ESC, underlines the need for legislation to lay down guidelines. "The reality of international food production in Europe means that such public health initiatives need to be tackled on a European wide basis, rather than an individual country basis," said [Professor Frank] Ruschitzka.

Throw in a publicity week and the NGO for good measure:

Salt will again be on the agenda with World Salt Awareness Week 2010 , which runs from February 1- 7 (3). The week is being run by World Action on Salt and Health (WASH), a global group that works with governments to highlight the need for widespread introduction of population based salt reduction strategies.

Add salt!

Startling science from emergent powers

According to the Financial Times, Chinese scientific research will dominate by 2020, using the metric of peer reviewed articles. Will this herald a shift in the language of scientific discovery? It was an Anglo-German enterprise prior to the First World War and is currently dominated by the English language. Will the 21^st century demand a co-dominion with Mandarin?

The success of the vast growth in Chinese research is due to an education system geared towards science, huge funding in research and an efficient use of their diaspora. This compares favourably with other emerging powers:

In contrast to China, India and Russia, whose research strengths tend to be in the physical sciences, chemistry and engineering, Brazil stands out in health, life sciences, agriculture and environmental research. It is a world leader in using biofuels in auto and aero engines.

There is only one also-ran amongst the BRICs.

At the opposite extreme is Russia, which produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008.

Just 20 years ago, on the eve of the Soviet Union’s disintegration, Russia was a scientific superpower, carrying out more research than China, India and Brazil combined. Since then it has been left behind.

The Thomson Reuters figures show not only the “awe-inspiring” expansion of Chinese science but also a very powerful performance by Brazil, much slower growth in India and relative decline in Russia.

Scientific papers do not act as a predictor of future success, but the rise of the non-Western powers is startling.

A more libertarian Britain?

Looked at through the prism of politics and the headline that the British are more conservative could just about hold water. The new British Social Attitudes Survey has found that the British are less inclined to support redistribution or other forms of economic collectivism and are more tolerant of lifestyles considered deviant a generation ago.

Only two in five want more spending on public services such as health and education, the lowest level since 1984. The same proportion want greater redistribution of income from rich to poor compared with more than half of the public in 1994.

The survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research, found that sympathy towards the unemployed and other welfare claimants has also diminished. More people believe that benefits prevent people “standing on their own two feet”, with only one in four disagreeing. That compares with half the population disagreeing in the 1980s. There has also been an increase in those who feel that many on welfare do not deserve payments.

In terms that we understand the British have shifted towards a more liberal or libertarian mindset. Presented with the evidence of the New Labour years, they are far more sceptical of governmental action and far less forgiving of tax rises. There is no distinction between the orientation of their economic and social values except that imposed by political journalists.

The Tories will feel aggrieved that their socially liberal outlook, developing from the libertarian struggles of the 1980s, is not recognised; but optimistic that they are more 'in tune' with general attitudes.