My attention has been brought, recently, to my own state of mind. I suppose it has been towards the back of my mind for a while that there is something not very healthy about the state of my mind at the moment. A combination of dissatisfaction at work and life in general has been growing over the last few years.
The behaviour of our eldest daughter, which, although not abysmal, was cause for some concern, prompted my wife to borrow a book by Tanya Byron, the child psychologist, from the library. There is nothing in the book that I was not already aware of from her programmes (House of Tiny Tearaways and Little Angels), but it was useful to be reminded of her approach; in particular, the need to examine ones own psychology. As she says, children are little barometers of our own mental health.
What I am most concerned about is the constant level of anxiety that I suffer. It is not a strong anxiety such as some suffer, leading to panic attacks. However, it needs examining. I have been interested in Cognitive Behavioural Therapies since I read a paper someone lent me at university to help me with depression. Previous to university, I borrowed a book from the library in Hull called "Self-help with Your Anxiety". This taught me some very useful relaxation techniques and transformed my life, for a little while, until the depression of my university years kicked in.
Depression isn't such a problem for me any more. Somehow, I have learned to spot the signs early on and modify my thoughts accordingly. I haven't been able to modify my thoughts at all with this general, low-level anxiety, however.
I have, therefore, bought a book from Amazon called "The Anxiety and Phobia Workbook". It has some pretty good reviews. It takes a practical approach, which is obviously what I need.
I suppose I am hoping it will do two things:
1. Provide me with a greater sense of peace. Someone, a very long time ago, once said that I should give my soul a rest. I feel like I need to take that advice, at last.
2. That I will gain some clarity on what I would like to do in life. My dissatisfaction with work may just be an illusion; or it may be that I need to do something radically different; or, maybe I just need to change job! I am hoping, however, that I will decide that I want to write a children's book in my spare time. Not that I have any spare time!
You see, I feel as though there are so many things I would like to do with may non-existent spare time: practice my piano more, learn JavaFX, learn Scala, write an application for monitoring personal finances, write an application to help with examining data sets; but I cannot do any one of these very well or quickly. If I can gain some clarity of thought and a little more peace of mind, I might be able to decide on one thing.
And behind it all is a desire to make money so that we are not poor in our old age.
My blog entry Can humanity be redeemed describes how I have lost belief that humanity can be, in balance, a force for good. Maybe that belief is a prerequisite for good mental health.
I am lucky in that I have a life partner whom I can talk to about these things. How awful it must be for people who have to hide their innermost selves from those closest to them.
Friday, 25 June 2010
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Markets' unrealistic expectations
According to the FT, the markets are gambling on a Tory victory.
Is that really true? It seems to me that either markets are unbelievably stupid or they really aren't that affected by the outcome of the election.
All three major parties want to reduce the deficit. The question is only one of timing. I think that those who work in the financial markets who are commenting are just politicking rather than making a true statement about market sentiment.
Seeing the UK as a save haven is only sensible given the huge problems the Eurozone faces.
Is that really true? It seems to me that either markets are unbelievably stupid or they really aren't that affected by the outcome of the election.
All three major parties want to reduce the deficit. The question is only one of timing. I think that those who work in the financial markets who are commenting are just politicking rather than making a true statement about market sentiment.
Seeing the UK as a save haven is only sensible given the huge problems the Eurozone faces.
Monday, 15 March 2010
Thoughts on The God Delusion
I can honestly say that The God Delusion is a wonderful book; well-written, and full of clear, logical thinking. Since I am myself an atheist, it is not surprising that I should make such a positive statement. However, there is something about Dawkins's book that I feel somewhat dissatisfied with. Dawkins is an anti-postmodernist. He dismisses relativist thinking and what I might call liberal culturalism.
Firstly, let me make clear what I mean by 'relativist thinking', since this is the most important part of my argument. I am a sort of amateurist Nietzschean. That is to say, I find Nietzsche's writings amazingly powerful, but could not say that I really understand them in any depth. Frankly, I do not have the time to study them in detail (unfortunately). What I have got from the Nietzsche I have read is a sense that meaning (and morality) is not fixed. We gain our ideas of morality from our culture, our upbringing, and that cultural heritage lends us a moral compass. In that sense, Christianity is seen as a cultural phenomenon rather than a Truth (note the capital 'T', it is very important). Nietzsche sees mathematics and science in the same light. Even logic. There is a difference, of course: Nietzsche, I am sure, would not argue that scientific discovery is the same as religious faith; what I think Nietzsche is saying is that the value we place on logic is not fixed. In that sense, although the observations of science cannot be counter-argued, the value we place on those observations can go up as well as down.
This is, unfortunately, something that we witness every day. Dawkins's own book has many accounts of people who fly in the face of logic and observed phenomena. For example, many (if not all) religious Christian fundamentalists believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by god to test our faith. Now, to my mind, this is an observed phenomenon. We know that many people do not value science highly, even though its methods have yielded wonderful truths about ourselves, the planet we live on and the universe at large. What relativism explains is this observed phenomenon. One might say that relativism is a fact rather than a political bias (although I don't like the word 'fact').
Dawkins, however, sees relativism as a problem. He seems to think (and many 'relativists' may agree with him) that relativism means that there is no way to value competing viewpoints: that world-from-god has equal value to world-from-existential-fact. Nietzsche would disagree with him. To value is human. We cannot help but value. The key is to state your prejudices - your "sine qua non" - the premises on which your judgements stand (belief in logic being one of your prejudices). For Nietzsche, 'saying yes' - being positive - being 'healthy' was his stated underlying principle for judgements - and being honest!
My argument here stems from the fundamental reason that atheism struck me as the only option as a teenager. The argument was put to me that being a Christian depends on being told about Christianity. For people who existed before Christ and for people geographically remote from the Christian world or for people with different, competing cultural identities, Christianity is not an option. To put it another way, had I been born in a remote Borneo village, I would not be a Christian: I would believe with equal force something else. The 'truth' I had been told about for most of my childhood seemed to have little value. It was dependent on chance.
Cultural relativism, then, led me to atheism. It seems to me a great shame that Dawkins does not see the value of it to support his arguments rather than weaken them. It does not seem absurd to me to state that the value of truth-through-scientific-methodology is greater than the value of truth-through-revelation and that this is not incompatible with notions of cultural relativism.
Indeed, embracing cultural relativism would strengthen Dawkins's arguments considerably.
Firstly, let me make clear what I mean by 'relativist thinking', since this is the most important part of my argument. I am a sort of amateurist Nietzschean. That is to say, I find Nietzsche's writings amazingly powerful, but could not say that I really understand them in any depth. Frankly, I do not have the time to study them in detail (unfortunately). What I have got from the Nietzsche I have read is a sense that meaning (and morality) is not fixed. We gain our ideas of morality from our culture, our upbringing, and that cultural heritage lends us a moral compass. In that sense, Christianity is seen as a cultural phenomenon rather than a Truth (note the capital 'T', it is very important). Nietzsche sees mathematics and science in the same light. Even logic. There is a difference, of course: Nietzsche, I am sure, would not argue that scientific discovery is the same as religious faith; what I think Nietzsche is saying is that the value we place on logic is not fixed. In that sense, although the observations of science cannot be counter-argued, the value we place on those observations can go up as well as down.
This is, unfortunately, something that we witness every day. Dawkins's own book has many accounts of people who fly in the face of logic and observed phenomena. For example, many (if not all) religious Christian fundamentalists believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by god to test our faith. Now, to my mind, this is an observed phenomenon. We know that many people do not value science highly, even though its methods have yielded wonderful truths about ourselves, the planet we live on and the universe at large. What relativism explains is this observed phenomenon. One might say that relativism is a fact rather than a political bias (although I don't like the word 'fact').
Dawkins, however, sees relativism as a problem. He seems to think (and many 'relativists' may agree with him) that relativism means that there is no way to value competing viewpoints: that world-from-god has equal value to world-from-existential-fact. Nietzsche would disagree with him. To value is human. We cannot help but value. The key is to state your prejudices - your "sine qua non" - the premises on which your judgements stand (belief in logic being one of your prejudices). For Nietzsche, 'saying yes' - being positive - being 'healthy' was his stated underlying principle for judgements - and being honest!
My argument here stems from the fundamental reason that atheism struck me as the only option as a teenager. The argument was put to me that being a Christian depends on being told about Christianity. For people who existed before Christ and for people geographically remote from the Christian world or for people with different, competing cultural identities, Christianity is not an option. To put it another way, had I been born in a remote Borneo village, I would not be a Christian: I would believe with equal force something else. The 'truth' I had been told about for most of my childhood seemed to have little value. It was dependent on chance.
Cultural relativism, then, led me to atheism. It seems to me a great shame that Dawkins does not see the value of it to support his arguments rather than weaken them. It does not seem absurd to me to state that the value of truth-through-scientific-methodology is greater than the value of truth-through-revelation and that this is not incompatible with notions of cultural relativism.
Indeed, embracing cultural relativism would strengthen Dawkins's arguments considerably.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Alternative Vote is a smoke screen
It may sound positive that the government is planning to introduce legislation to force a referendum after the next general election. However, the Alternative Vote is no more than a sticking plaster for our broken electoral system.
To my mind, in a representative democracy, proportionality must be the keystone of the electoral system. Without proportionality it is arguable whether the system is either representative or democratic. The Alternative Vote does not produce proportionality.
I understand why MPs want to keep the notion of one MP representing one constituency; but this fails to meet the reality that most people vote for a party or a principle: it is only in a small minority of cases that personality plays a part. Yet it is this notion that stops MPs declaring in favour of the Single Transferable Vote, which has larger constituencies served by multiple MPs. However, even in such a system, it would be feasible to allocate a portion of the super-constituency to each of its MPs. This could even be done on a preference basis. Thus an MP would still be MP for Little-Piddling-in-the-Water, which [s]he represents, but h[er|is] electorate would be wider than this.
I suspect that the real reason that MPs from the Labour and Conservative benches do not favour proportionality is that it is not in their own interests. Proportionality would mean that there would seldom be a majority government made up of a single party. Critics argue that you never know what you are going to get with such systems since coalitions tend to be formed after the election. One answer to this is that parties should, by law, have to declare the parties that they would form a coalition with. Such a system works well in Ireland. What is more, there is not that much space between Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats - there has not been for a decade - especially with regard to the economy. What differences there are are implementational rather than theoretical.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that a government does not have a mandate from the people if it does not represent at least 50% of them. The Alternative Vote is a dangerous step because it gives the illusion that things have really changed and further reform may not happen for another 100 years.
To my mind, in a representative democracy, proportionality must be the keystone of the electoral system. Without proportionality it is arguable whether the system is either representative or democratic. The Alternative Vote does not produce proportionality.
I understand why MPs want to keep the notion of one MP representing one constituency; but this fails to meet the reality that most people vote for a party or a principle: it is only in a small minority of cases that personality plays a part. Yet it is this notion that stops MPs declaring in favour of the Single Transferable Vote, which has larger constituencies served by multiple MPs. However, even in such a system, it would be feasible to allocate a portion of the super-constituency to each of its MPs. This could even be done on a preference basis. Thus an MP would still be MP for Little-Piddling-in-the-Water, which [s]he represents, but h[er|is] electorate would be wider than this.
I suspect that the real reason that MPs from the Labour and Conservative benches do not favour proportionality is that it is not in their own interests. Proportionality would mean that there would seldom be a majority government made up of a single party. Critics argue that you never know what you are going to get with such systems since coalitions tend to be formed after the election. One answer to this is that parties should, by law, have to declare the parties that they would form a coalition with. Such a system works well in Ireland. What is more, there is not that much space between Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats - there has not been for a decade - especially with regard to the economy. What differences there are are implementational rather than theoretical.
The bottom line, it seems to me, is that a government does not have a mandate from the people if it does not represent at least 50% of them. The Alternative Vote is a dangerous step because it gives the illusion that things have really changed and further reform may not happen for another 100 years.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Maurice Saatchi is wrong
Okay, I'm no expert. I state that right at the beginning because although I have opinions, I don't pretend that they hold much weight.
The piece by Maurice Saatchi in the FT (here) needs to be answered; as I'm sure it will be by people with more knowledge and better arguments than me, but I'm going to add my two pennyworth anyway.
Let's start with the first sentence: 'Everyone wants to be immortal'. Well, not me. I'm quite looking forward to the grave - a bit of peace and quiet. What's more important, a good Christian like Margaret Thatcher would not doubt realise that wanting fame is the worst way to get into heaven. Me? I'm a good old-fashioned atheist, so I have no fear of death and none of the absurd prejudices that Christians carry around with them. What an arrogant way for Saatchi to begin an article! - by assuming he knows the minds of every person who has ever and will ever exist!
So, Thatcher's values are timeless and eternal! Anyone can give a clear idea of what she stood for? Well, yes: greed. That just about sums it up! Greed and not caring about others. Not very Christian, is it? Okay, so Thatcher cares for others - let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. But let's be clear about something else: when the Tory era came to an end in the 90's, Britain was not a fair society. People did not consider themselves 'free'. People did not mostly consider themselves well off.
The reason is simple: what Torries gave with one hand, they took away with the other. Now, I'm too young to remember the politics and economics of the 70's - or much about the 80's in any depth. But I did go to school with people whose fathers were out of work due to closing collieries. They were not free. They were not better off. They were mostly confused and depressed. Thatcher did nothing for these people. Now, I'm not a socialist. I don't think that people should be paid to do nothing or to produce something that isn't worth the effort. But there is good coal in those mines. They would have been cost-effective but for the stubbornness of the unions on one hand and the government on the other. The polarisation that the Torries effected was as much to blame as the pig-headedness of the NUM. This wouldn't matter a jot if it weren't that there were real people involved. Ruined societies. Ruined lives. Ruined families.
'Britain can be great again'. Again, let me be clear: if there is one prejudice I despise above all others it is nationalism. That vainglorious trumpeting and banging of a hollow drum. Trying to pretend that British people are 'better' than any other people is sickening and is, in my book, a misdemeanour against humanity.
Lower taxes. Not low taxes: lower taxes. In other words a tax system which aims always at lowering taxes. Think about that: schools, hospitals, police, fire service always getting less money. Okay, the right argue that due to wealth creation the government will get more money in anyway. Well, that can work up to a point, but it is foolish to think that the economy will always grow and tax revenues will always increase. They appeared to do so during the Thatcher period for the simple reason that they destroyed manufacturing and so made many people unemployed and at the same time reduced government spending so that teachers and nurses (in particular) were underpaid. Of course, they paid the police well, because they needed the police on the government's side. As the economy recovered after the destruction of many core industries, tax revenues increased. But let's be clear: tax revenues increased because unemployment was falling - unemployment that the Torries had created. A better approach would have been to reduce over-employment in these industries over many years - an evolution rather than a revolution. But the Torries only cared about cold figures and assumed that their economic theories were sound.
This, for me, is the coup de grace for Thatcherism: that as the wealthy get wealthier, the poorer get wealthier too, albeit not at the same rate. The 'trickle-down' effect - that wealth will trickle down from the rich to the poor. This inevitably means a widening gap between rich and poor. This doesn't in itself worry me. I don't care that rich people are rich. I always feel very uncomfortable around rich people, but I'm not jealous of them - I don't want to be in their shoes. For me, I don't find happiness in comparing myself financially or materialistically with others. What does matter is how the general population behaves with a widening wealth gap. The only point to free-market Thatcherism is that people should be happier. But they are not. Happiness in the UK is very low. People were much happier in the 70's than they are now. The key to this seems to be that people are aspirational when it comes to material things, but not when it comes to what they give back. Free market philosophies encourages people think about their own self-interest, and makes them compare what they have with people they can never catch up with.
And so, in the City, we hear people complaining about the 50% tax rate. It's for people who earn over £150,000 per year. Remember: these are the people who got us into this financial mess. The City was allowed to do what it does because it was supposed it knew what it was doing. The huge salaries were justified on the basis that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Well, it seems we got very high earning monkeys: they messed things up good and proper; then they complain that they have to pay! They say they'll all go abroad. Good! Let someone else give them their gold-plated bananas. This country needs to concentrate on creating wealth with the majority of its population, not a privileged minority.
Lower taxes are good 'for moral reasons'. What complete rubbish! The idea that having a bit more money gives you more choice! Well, let me be frank: if you're lucky enough never to need the help of the state, then you may be able to buy a bigger car or a new kitchen or a plasma-screen television. But if you happen to lose your job, your house, your car - in fact everything - then you'll find very little morality in Thatcher's small state. A widening wealth gap is not a moral vision: it is a sickening prospect that does no favours for the children of the wealthy nor for the children of the poor. Not being poor does bring obvious benefits, but it does not follow that the richer you are, the freer you are.
It's really amazing how many stupid prejudices lie in people's morality! What is quite clear is that having wealth as a goal is not a route to happiness.
"But today, those principles of capitalism are under question." Saatchi is making a case for the moral weight of Thatcherism. The problem is, there is no moral weight. It seems to me that the lone thing that Thatcherism brought to this country was a realisation that we cannot ignore economic certainties. You cannot fight inflation by generating money. You cannot ignore government debt. In other words, ignoring the obvious will not get you out of a hole. Let's be clear, though: the free market capitalism of which Saatchi is so proud should be in question, because they themselves ignore quite obvious facts. Firstly, the free market is an ideal, not a fact. It is a concept - markets are never free: they are always influenced by governments, large corporations, national protectionism - remember, even George W Bush was protective of the US steel industry. The free market does not exist. Secondly, inequitable societies are unhappy societies and Thatcherism inevitably creates inequitable societies. As the wealth gap increases, as it must do if you want to generate wealth from the rich, the poor compare themselves not with how they were 10 years earlier, but with the unattainable levels of wealth they see others have. Thatcherites like to think that they support people getting what they deserve - if you work hard, you will get your financial reward. However, the children of those who are wealthy have not worked hard. Those who inherited wealth have done absolutely nothing to earn their wealth. This creates the complete opposite of what Thatcherites seem to intend. What's more, the poor are even poorer in comparison with the rich.
The thing is: asset prices are not fixed. If the wealth of the nation rises, then the cost of a house will rise. If the wealth of the nation rises inequitably, then the cost of larger houses will rise at a larger pace than smaller ones. What's more, some regions will have much higher house prices than others. We have reached the stage in this country where the average wage is woefully insufficient to buy an average priced house. People in the north cannot sell a house and buy one in the south. Therefore, moving from a poorer area to a richer one brings with it a fall in living standards - but that may be all someone can do in order to get a job. In principle, the free market should create jobs in poorer parts of Britain - and yet that seems not be happening. Job and wealth creation is continuing in the South East to the detriment of the rest of the country.
What is needed is not a 'left' and a 'right', but a pragmatic view. A small state is not a good goal in itself. The size of the state needs to be correct for what it wants to do. A large state, therefore, is also not a good goal since it consumes too many taxes. Smaller taxes is not a good goal: what is required is sufficient taxation to do the will of parliament and to fund whatever sized state is required. Wealth should not be a goal because wealth does not produce freedom or happiness as Thatcher stated. A better goal would be reducing poverty. Inequality is not a good goal: this does no-one any favours long-term: economic equality is a much better goal.
My humble conclusion is: don't listen to those who see Thatcher as bringing solutions. Similarly, don't imagine that a class war drives the politics and economics of this country. What people are talking about when they question the free market is a million miles away from the pre-Thatcher period. In fact, when anyone uses old, politically-motivated words to discuss where we are and where we should be, imagine that they are all wrong: we need new words and new ways of thinking - not ones that ignore the past, but ones that build on it to create a new capitalist future: one that is more equitable, more self-aware and more self-critical.
The piece by Maurice Saatchi in the FT (here) needs to be answered; as I'm sure it will be by people with more knowledge and better arguments than me, but I'm going to add my two pennyworth anyway.
Let's start with the first sentence: 'Everyone wants to be immortal'. Well, not me. I'm quite looking forward to the grave - a bit of peace and quiet. What's more important, a good Christian like Margaret Thatcher would not doubt realise that wanting fame is the worst way to get into heaven. Me? I'm a good old-fashioned atheist, so I have no fear of death and none of the absurd prejudices that Christians carry around with them. What an arrogant way for Saatchi to begin an article! - by assuming he knows the minds of every person who has ever and will ever exist!
So, Thatcher's values are timeless and eternal! Anyone can give a clear idea of what she stood for? Well, yes: greed. That just about sums it up! Greed and not caring about others. Not very Christian, is it? Okay, so Thatcher cares for others - let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. But let's be clear about something else: when the Tory era came to an end in the 90's, Britain was not a fair society. People did not consider themselves 'free'. People did not mostly consider themselves well off.
The reason is simple: what Torries gave with one hand, they took away with the other. Now, I'm too young to remember the politics and economics of the 70's - or much about the 80's in any depth. But I did go to school with people whose fathers were out of work due to closing collieries. They were not free. They were not better off. They were mostly confused and depressed. Thatcher did nothing for these people. Now, I'm not a socialist. I don't think that people should be paid to do nothing or to produce something that isn't worth the effort. But there is good coal in those mines. They would have been cost-effective but for the stubbornness of the unions on one hand and the government on the other. The polarisation that the Torries effected was as much to blame as the pig-headedness of the NUM. This wouldn't matter a jot if it weren't that there were real people involved. Ruined societies. Ruined lives. Ruined families.
'Britain can be great again'. Again, let me be clear: if there is one prejudice I despise above all others it is nationalism. That vainglorious trumpeting and banging of a hollow drum. Trying to pretend that British people are 'better' than any other people is sickening and is, in my book, a misdemeanour against humanity.
Lower taxes. Not low taxes: lower taxes. In other words a tax system which aims always at lowering taxes. Think about that: schools, hospitals, police, fire service always getting less money. Okay, the right argue that due to wealth creation the government will get more money in anyway. Well, that can work up to a point, but it is foolish to think that the economy will always grow and tax revenues will always increase. They appeared to do so during the Thatcher period for the simple reason that they destroyed manufacturing and so made many people unemployed and at the same time reduced government spending so that teachers and nurses (in particular) were underpaid. Of course, they paid the police well, because they needed the police on the government's side. As the economy recovered after the destruction of many core industries, tax revenues increased. But let's be clear: tax revenues increased because unemployment was falling - unemployment that the Torries had created. A better approach would have been to reduce over-employment in these industries over many years - an evolution rather than a revolution. But the Torries only cared about cold figures and assumed that their economic theories were sound.
This, for me, is the coup de grace for Thatcherism: that as the wealthy get wealthier, the poorer get wealthier too, albeit not at the same rate. The 'trickle-down' effect - that wealth will trickle down from the rich to the poor. This inevitably means a widening gap between rich and poor. This doesn't in itself worry me. I don't care that rich people are rich. I always feel very uncomfortable around rich people, but I'm not jealous of them - I don't want to be in their shoes. For me, I don't find happiness in comparing myself financially or materialistically with others. What does matter is how the general population behaves with a widening wealth gap. The only point to free-market Thatcherism is that people should be happier. But they are not. Happiness in the UK is very low. People were much happier in the 70's than they are now. The key to this seems to be that people are aspirational when it comes to material things, but not when it comes to what they give back. Free market philosophies encourages people think about their own self-interest, and makes them compare what they have with people they can never catch up with.
And so, in the City, we hear people complaining about the 50% tax rate. It's for people who earn over £150,000 per year. Remember: these are the people who got us into this financial mess. The City was allowed to do what it does because it was supposed it knew what it was doing. The huge salaries were justified on the basis that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Well, it seems we got very high earning monkeys: they messed things up good and proper; then they complain that they have to pay! They say they'll all go abroad. Good! Let someone else give them their gold-plated bananas. This country needs to concentrate on creating wealth with the majority of its population, not a privileged minority.
Lower taxes are good 'for moral reasons'. What complete rubbish! The idea that having a bit more money gives you more choice! Well, let me be frank: if you're lucky enough never to need the help of the state, then you may be able to buy a bigger car or a new kitchen or a plasma-screen television. But if you happen to lose your job, your house, your car - in fact everything - then you'll find very little morality in Thatcher's small state. A widening wealth gap is not a moral vision: it is a sickening prospect that does no favours for the children of the wealthy nor for the children of the poor. Not being poor does bring obvious benefits, but it does not follow that the richer you are, the freer you are.
It's really amazing how many stupid prejudices lie in people's morality! What is quite clear is that having wealth as a goal is not a route to happiness.
"But today, those principles of capitalism are under question." Saatchi is making a case for the moral weight of Thatcherism. The problem is, there is no moral weight. It seems to me that the lone thing that Thatcherism brought to this country was a realisation that we cannot ignore economic certainties. You cannot fight inflation by generating money. You cannot ignore government debt. In other words, ignoring the obvious will not get you out of a hole. Let's be clear, though: the free market capitalism of which Saatchi is so proud should be in question, because they themselves ignore quite obvious facts. Firstly, the free market is an ideal, not a fact. It is a concept - markets are never free: they are always influenced by governments, large corporations, national protectionism - remember, even George W Bush was protective of the US steel industry. The free market does not exist. Secondly, inequitable societies are unhappy societies and Thatcherism inevitably creates inequitable societies. As the wealth gap increases, as it must do if you want to generate wealth from the rich, the poor compare themselves not with how they were 10 years earlier, but with the unattainable levels of wealth they see others have. Thatcherites like to think that they support people getting what they deserve - if you work hard, you will get your financial reward. However, the children of those who are wealthy have not worked hard. Those who inherited wealth have done absolutely nothing to earn their wealth. This creates the complete opposite of what Thatcherites seem to intend. What's more, the poor are even poorer in comparison with the rich.
The thing is: asset prices are not fixed. If the wealth of the nation rises, then the cost of a house will rise. If the wealth of the nation rises inequitably, then the cost of larger houses will rise at a larger pace than smaller ones. What's more, some regions will have much higher house prices than others. We have reached the stage in this country where the average wage is woefully insufficient to buy an average priced house. People in the north cannot sell a house and buy one in the south. Therefore, moving from a poorer area to a richer one brings with it a fall in living standards - but that may be all someone can do in order to get a job. In principle, the free market should create jobs in poorer parts of Britain - and yet that seems not be happening. Job and wealth creation is continuing in the South East to the detriment of the rest of the country.
What is needed is not a 'left' and a 'right', but a pragmatic view. A small state is not a good goal in itself. The size of the state needs to be correct for what it wants to do. A large state, therefore, is also not a good goal since it consumes too many taxes. Smaller taxes is not a good goal: what is required is sufficient taxation to do the will of parliament and to fund whatever sized state is required. Wealth should not be a goal because wealth does not produce freedom or happiness as Thatcher stated. A better goal would be reducing poverty. Inequality is not a good goal: this does no-one any favours long-term: economic equality is a much better goal.
My humble conclusion is: don't listen to those who see Thatcher as bringing solutions. Similarly, don't imagine that a class war drives the politics and economics of this country. What people are talking about when they question the free market is a million miles away from the pre-Thatcher period. In fact, when anyone uses old, politically-motivated words to discuss where we are and where we should be, imagine that they are all wrong: we need new words and new ways of thinking - not ones that ignore the past, but ones that build on it to create a new capitalist future: one that is more equitable, more self-aware and more self-critical.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Feminist Wedding?
Here's a link to an article by a feminist who is getting married.
She seems very nice and sensible, but I have a couple of things that I'd like to say to her.
Firstly, I really hate the idea that deciding on how roles are split in a relationship is a 'feminist' idea. Okay, I can see how feminist thinking would need a different split in a relationship to the traditional one. But every relationship is different. Only relationships which aren't very deep are 'traditional'. My wife and I share the housework. I didn't expect her to do more than me. I don't think of this as 'feminist'. It's just how we do things. The point is: it doesn't need a label - it's just you. My wife does think of herself as a feminist. But really this just means that she doesn't want to be a bored housewife.
Secondly, that whole thing about weddings is a bit old-fashioned. It seems to me that the biggest problem you have is not with the notion of marriage but with the notion of a Christian marriage; the answer to which is simple: don't have a Christian wedding.
My wife and I had a humanist wedding. We got to decide exactly what we wanted in the ceremony. There was no 'giving away' of the bride. The structure of the wedding still had some of the traditional aspects: the bride dressed in white coming down the isle; readings, albeit secular ones; but that was what we wanted. We pillaged tradition for the things we liked.
You cannot ignore the fact that one of you is male and one female. To do so would represent an absurd blindness to a biological fact. Men and women are different. That's not to say that either is 'better' on the whole. Men tend to be stronger than women, women tend to be better at remembering and organising than men. It's not universal, but it's not imposed by culture either: it's biological.
What's more, you can never ignore the culture you were brought up in. Without culture, everything is meaningless. Your attitude to cultural aspects will help morph it into something new - and this is where it is important to have an attitude; but don't imagine that you will never be a cultural stereotype. All you can do is create your own idea of a stereotype
She seems very nice and sensible, but I have a couple of things that I'd like to say to her.
Firstly, I really hate the idea that deciding on how roles are split in a relationship is a 'feminist' idea. Okay, I can see how feminist thinking would need a different split in a relationship to the traditional one. But every relationship is different. Only relationships which aren't very deep are 'traditional'. My wife and I share the housework. I didn't expect her to do more than me. I don't think of this as 'feminist'. It's just how we do things. The point is: it doesn't need a label - it's just you. My wife does think of herself as a feminist. But really this just means that she doesn't want to be a bored housewife.
Secondly, that whole thing about weddings is a bit old-fashioned. It seems to me that the biggest problem you have is not with the notion of marriage but with the notion of a Christian marriage; the answer to which is simple: don't have a Christian wedding.
My wife and I had a humanist wedding. We got to decide exactly what we wanted in the ceremony. There was no 'giving away' of the bride. The structure of the wedding still had some of the traditional aspects: the bride dressed in white coming down the isle; readings, albeit secular ones; but that was what we wanted. We pillaged tradition for the things we liked.
You cannot ignore the fact that one of you is male and one female. To do so would represent an absurd blindness to a biological fact. Men and women are different. That's not to say that either is 'better' on the whole. Men tend to be stronger than women, women tend to be better at remembering and organising than men. It's not universal, but it's not imposed by culture either: it's biological.
What's more, you can never ignore the culture you were brought up in. Without culture, everything is meaningless. Your attitude to cultural aspects will help morph it into something new - and this is where it is important to have an attitude; but don't imagine that you will never be a cultural stereotype. All you can do is create your own idea of a stereotype
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Muck Spreading
This comment seems typical of the ones I've read today about the BBC's (and Robert Peston's in particular) response to the news that George Osbourne may have been more interested than he should have been in receiving donations for the Conservative Party from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
I am more than a little dismayed at the public's response. To me it seems important that all politicians are investigated for their probity, especially if they are seeking to become Chancellor of the Exchequor, as George Osbourne is. However, what dismays me most of all is the idea that the BBC is launching its own campaign to smear George Osbourne because they are naturally left-wing.
It seems to me that the BBC is quite right in pursuing the direction that they are. The BBC has shown that it is not adverse to making life difficult for the government. Many heavyweight Labour politicians have had to resign because of investigations by the press (Peter Mandelson twice); nor did the BBC show any favour towards the government over decisions to invade Iraq, much to its own cost.
And now, people are saying that the BBC is biased towards the government because it dares to suggest that George Osbourne has some very serious questions to answer.
It is important to recognise this as a sign that there may be something in these accusations after all. Rubbishing the reporter of a piece of news is a good way to suggest that the news has no substance without having to prove it. Hopefully the BBC will re-double its efforts to show one way or another whether George Osbourne has a serious case to answer.
Well, he does. At the very least, George Osbourne has shown a huge error of judgement. It is clear that he has seriously annoyed Nat Rothschild, who is not known as a supporter of New Labour and who, therefore, must have his own reasons for wanting to accuse George Osbourne. According to Robert Peston, it is because he feels that George Osbourne took advantage of his (Nat's) hospitality by encouraging newspaper reports that embarrass two other of Nat's friends, Oleg Deripaska and Peter Mandelson. In other words, George Osbourne has politicked amongst friends and has been rebuked in a very public forum.
Bizarrely, most people seem to blame Peter Mandelson for this. It seems that Peter can be blamed for everything.
It should be noted that George Osbourne is not immune from making unfounded accusations of his own.
Maybe George Osbourne has simply been naïve. The Tories maybe need to learn that they cannot continually throw mud at the government without two things happening: firstly, people will get fed up with the amount of mud that sticks to politicians - and not just Labour ones; and secondly, some of the mud will splatter themselves too. What's more, for those of us who are not affiliated with the right or the left, the Tories' constant barrage of some founded and some unfounded criticisms of Gordon Brown undermine the very good points that they do occasionally make, such as that the government borrowed too much when times were good; and that they allowed debt levels to get too high. (The one thing I do not believe is that the Tories would have been any different, since it was under Thatcherism that the seed of unregulated credit markets was sown, and further regulating markets is not a Tory policy).
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I am more than a little dismayed at the public's response. To me it seems important that all politicians are investigated for their probity, especially if they are seeking to become Chancellor of the Exchequor, as George Osbourne is. However, what dismays me most of all is the idea that the BBC is launching its own campaign to smear George Osbourne because they are naturally left-wing.
It seems to me that the BBC is quite right in pursuing the direction that they are. The BBC has shown that it is not adverse to making life difficult for the government. Many heavyweight Labour politicians have had to resign because of investigations by the press (Peter Mandelson twice); nor did the BBC show any favour towards the government over decisions to invade Iraq, much to its own cost.
And now, people are saying that the BBC is biased towards the government because it dares to suggest that George Osbourne has some very serious questions to answer.
It is important to recognise this as a sign that there may be something in these accusations after all. Rubbishing the reporter of a piece of news is a good way to suggest that the news has no substance without having to prove it. Hopefully the BBC will re-double its efforts to show one way or another whether George Osbourne has a serious case to answer.
Well, he does. At the very least, George Osbourne has shown a huge error of judgement. It is clear that he has seriously annoyed Nat Rothschild, who is not known as a supporter of New Labour and who, therefore, must have his own reasons for wanting to accuse George Osbourne. According to Robert Peston, it is because he feels that George Osbourne took advantage of his (Nat's) hospitality by encouraging newspaper reports that embarrass two other of Nat's friends, Oleg Deripaska and Peter Mandelson. In other words, George Osbourne has politicked amongst friends and has been rebuked in a very public forum.
Bizarrely, most people seem to blame Peter Mandelson for this. It seems that Peter can be blamed for everything.
It should be noted that George Osbourne is not immune from making unfounded accusations of his own.
Maybe George Osbourne has simply been naïve. The Tories maybe need to learn that they cannot continually throw mud at the government without two things happening: firstly, people will get fed up with the amount of mud that sticks to politicians - and not just Labour ones; and secondly, some of the mud will splatter themselves too. What's more, for those of us who are not affiliated with the right or the left, the Tories' constant barrage of some founded and some unfounded criticisms of Gordon Brown undermine the very good points that they do occasionally make, such as that the government borrowed too much when times were good; and that they allowed debt levels to get too high. (The one thing I do not believe is that the Tories would have been any different, since it was under Thatcherism that the seed of unregulated credit markets was sown, and further regulating markets is not a Tory policy).
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
