He was also not a left winger

I rail on this site against right wingers quite a lot, but equally Jesus was not a left winger, and my intention is to try and keep this blog as neutral as possible, also to remove from some people I chat with the room for the accusation that I'm just playing party politics...

Here's an example of left wingers being deceptive in their arguments with maximal effect. There's a private provider of care homes for the elderly in the UK and it's looking like going bust. It's an example of bad management, full stop, period.

However, the linked article would suggest it's much, much more than that. It shows, proves, why we can never, ever trust the private sector with anything to do with healthcare. In what way does it do this? Well, it doesn't, so deception, scaremongering has to take the place of genuine arguments.

The writer doesn't even bother to recognise the fact that more competition would weed out the bad management like this, and a lower level of concentration in the industry amongst private providers would ensure that a failing provider wasn't "too big to fail", as people are suggesting this one is.

Now I say that not as someone advocating opening up the whole of healthcare to the private sector; other articles on here should have made it clear that there are economic efficiency arguments for government intervention in healthcare and that I base my position on that, fairly simple, economic theory. However, the form that that intervention would take would probably not be what most conventional Labour or Conservative voters (and certainly MPs) might propose.

I think most of these MPs, and also the writers of leftie pieces like the one linked above at Liberal Conspiracy, suffer either from a lack of knowledge of the tenets of very, very basic economics, or are seriously bent on deceiving the public. So as a result, lefties are just as bad as right wingers!

Is it Christian to Deceive?

My suspicion is that the answer to this question has to be "no". I don't think I even need delve into the Bible to get any appropriate verses either, it's that self-evident.

Yet there are many who would, it seems, ignore all the attempts at deception by political parties in order to maintain some belief that their party is the more Christian party.

At the last election, a number of people I spoke to would cite voting records of Labour and Conservative ministers, and would trot out the most recent story of some awful behaviour by a Labour minister as if that was evidence that the Conservatives must be more Christian, and hence we should vote for them.

Suffice to say, I said back at the time: Wait a year or two, and then we can compare. Then we can look at how the Conservative party behaves while in power. That'll help us judge whether it really is the more "Christian" party.

Certainly the imposter known as Archbishop Cranmer is still regularly trotting out examples of why the government, and Eric Pickles in particular, is so saint-like.

But do Christian ministers engage in disinformation campaigns that push "facts" that aren't facts? It would seem Eric Pickles does, and quite clearly Andrew Lansley is very good at it. This stance isn't even based on the duplicitous general election campaign run by the Conservatives which ran roughshod over any attempt at applying basic and sensible economics to the economic situation facing the economy. I haven't even mentioned the AV campaign...

The point isn't to paint out the Tories as any worse than Labour in this regard which is why I won't go on about the Tory election campaign or go on and on. My simple point is: Any party which sets itself up away from the centre will have to justify what it does, and almost always do so using lies and deception, as has been so brilliantly exemplified by the Conservatives recently. I know examples exist of where Labour has done that - I'm not defending them nor would I ever want to. The point is neither left nor right can claim to be "more Christian".

Confused

The anti-leftie/liberal rant machine that is Cranmer continues to function. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really go into too much detail on this post, but I have one question, as the author of a blog trying to counter right-wing slander.  Cranmer says, after detailing the cases of some whistle blowers in relation to the EU, "such tends to be the abuse of power exercised by all authoritarian socialist unions". What I take issue with here is the use of the term socialist in this little tirade. Why is repression of whistle blowers a left-wing, socialist thing? I'm fairly sure, I just don't have the time, that I could find a zillion and one abuses of whistle blowers and other people under authoritarian right-wing regimes (one in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s springs to mind). Why do people have to turn a perfectly reasonable article describing some recent trend into a tirade against lefties without any obvious justification for it?

 

 

Leftist Short Termism?

I'm a big fan of Chris Dillow and his blog Stumbling and Mumbling; it's usually a good source of slightly unconventional but well argued economic thought.

I'm a little unconvinced though by a recent post on road pricing. I think it's an example of where leftist thinking is not dynamic, and can be very short-termist - precisely what lefties often accuse the markets of being, funnily enough.

Dillow says that people are forced to use the roads at peak time as opposed to choosing to, and hence the shop floor assistant at Next will get a short shrift arguing to come in later as it'll cost less to use the roads later in the morning. But it is surely the case that current, standard, working hours are a consequence of free-at-the-point-of-use roads - because they are free, they do not affect marginal decisions - although of course, the possibility of traffic will influence marginal decisions where people attach a monetary value to sitting in an hour's traffic to do a 10 minute journey.

If roads were priced for how much we use them, then this additional cost would be factored into decisions regarding jobs: will you take that job if it also costs that bit more to get there for the particular hours specified? It seems likely that such a move to road pricing would lead to more flexible work patterns and maybe an abandonment of the standard 9-5.

There's another bit of lefty-ness in Dillow's article too: the belief that self-interest of the right underpins such demands for road pricing. Maybe it does, but I sense this is a fear of the unknown thing as much as anything. Who uses roads the most? Well it's probably corporate users - the big trucks hurtling up and down the motorways, and the salesmen in their company cars. Why shouldn't these users pay proportionately more than the rest of us, especially given the mess of the roads that huge trucks make? If there is a set of free riders around here it must be haulage companies, perhaps the companies that moan the most about anything to do with taxes and the roads.

Finally though, Dillow takes a distinctly anti-market stance, suggesting that price signals would not be effective with roads, but it's not clear why that would necessarily be so. Economists have a number of grounds on which some kind of market intervention might be justified (and the current road system is a huge market intervention by government) on efficiency grounds, and roughly speaking they are:

1. Is there perfect competition, or a sufficiently competitive environment for providers to operate?
2. Are there externalities or missing markets such that the privately optimal outcome differs from the socially optimal one? Public goods come under this rough category.
3. How (im)perfect is information spread amongst market participants? Perhaps most important here is how costly are mistaken choices?

It strikes me that of these categories, (1) perhaps poses the most difficulties: Given the road network that already exists, how would/could this work as a market structure? Could roads be owned by particular companies who then charge a fee for each use? The concern would be where a road constitutes the only way of getting from A to B, since this might be seen as a monopoly - although of course it isn't necessarily. If it's the M40 between Oxford and Birmingham, well I can take the train, or I could even if the price was sufficiently high take alternative A roads. It would be in the best interest of the company that owned (or operated) the M40 to offer a sufficiently attractive service that I would be prepared to take the M40 on a regular basis to make that journey.

There are clearly other issues such as externalities (pollution) - but congestion is not a pure externality since it is caused by the current flat-rate (free, well road taxed) pricing system for the roads.

Of course, the reality is that it's highly unlikely anything would ever actually happen in this regard anyway, since too many powerful vested interests would be disadvantaged by it...

Morally Opposing the Rally Against Debt

Archbishop Cranmer (well, his imposter) suggests it is not possible to morally oppose the Rally Against Debt. It's hard to find exactly what this Rally stands for exactly, though it is easy to laugh at it. However, one should be a little less childish about it. There are more important things to say on this.

Before getting on to his blather about the moral case, Cranmer notes that:

The Rally against Debt is, in reality, a moral exhortation to people (and so the Government) to live within their means

Now clearly the Archbishop's imposter isn't really reading anything that doesn't support his prior prejudice. Like some basic economics for example. Basic economics says that when an economy enters into a recession, there will be strains on public finances, since people will lose jobs hence be unable to pay income tax, and will instead draw unemployment benefits. We all accept the principle of helping those out less fortunate than ourselves, I suspect, and I don't need to start drawing out biblical references for that, really. Now, if we look at the actual data, free from any political prejudice, over the last 31 years since 1980, we find a remarkable fact: Given the level of economic contraction in 2008-09, the deficit based simply on the need to pay benefits and the inability to collect taxes, should have been 10% larger than it was! I'm happy to provide the data I used for that (easily available from the OECD also), and tell you more about the methods (simple and standard econometrics) if anyone is interested. It's odd that I'm yet to hear anyone request that.

One good thing to say is that, on my reading, Cranmer has stopped making the false accusation that we pay more in debt interest than we do on health or education. He just now refers to numbers in an attempt to shock us. The most important question with regard the debt interest is: What was done with that money that was borrowed in the past? I'll come back to this.

What is the moral case for debt? Cranmer rather half-heartedly tries to make some theological case regarding debt, attempting to throw some biblical passages in to somehow make it clear that, of course, Jesus would have been at the Rally on Saturday. It's really a rather thinly veiled attempt to attack Labour. So where to start in response to this? Well, if we want to look at Labour's record with the public purse, we only need to look back at that linked blog above that actually looks at real data. The deficit should have been larger, given the size of the recession. That's not mismanagement - at least not in the way Cranmer is suggesting.

Living within one's means and good stewardship, two of Cranmer's central accusations that have some Biblical merit I'm happy to debate, are impossible to prove. How can one prove that the UK is living beyond its means? It is impossible, and as already mentioned the deficit given the size of the downturn should have been greater given the record of all governments since 1980. Is there any indication that the government is struggling to repay the debts it has incurred? Debts, remember, incurred in the main by falls in tax receipts and increases in benefits payments. The answer here is, of course, no.

Of course, the stewardship of God's resources debate. You'd think from the way right wingers blather on about how we're bestowing huge debts on to future generations without anything to show for it - well, are we? Let's think a little bit about it. Paying benefits to keep people from destitution when out of work - why is that poor stewardship? Investing in health and education - again, ensuring these two public services remain up to scratch. Again despite the blather from right wingers, the NHS has improved in the last 14 years on many, many measures (the King's Fund have made this point in many places). Future generations will benefit from this. Poor stewardship?

It is not poor stewardship, and nor is it somehow immoral for governments not to run a balanced budget at all times, especially times when the economy is depressed. Arguably, and I'm not making that point here, it's immoral not to. It's immoral not to pay benefits to people unemployed, immoral to destroy public institutions in the name of deficit reduction, destroy human capital right left and centre in some ideological pursuit of a balanced budget.

The Killing of Bin Laden

I have been left a little confused about this one: The wild celebrations in the US about the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Matt Yglesias has an interesting post about the reaction in Germany, where Angela Merkel has been criticised for celebrating the death of Bin Laden.  Yglesias admits he finds Christian teaching on forgiving enemies wierd and odd, but I think makes the more important point: That a nation that professes loudly to be Christian also so openly advocates violent methods.

My initial reaction to that is to question the Christianity that is being referred to, on the American right wing: How legitimate is the Christian that picks and chooses the bits of the bible that they uphold and ignores the uncomfortable bits? Is it just that these politicians embrace Christianity for political purposes?

However, that's a bit of an un-Christian response on my part; who am I to understand the delicate calculations that must go on inside the corridors of power, the various forces acting upon the Christian in that situation? Who am I, who as a sinner also picks and chooses from time to time the bits of the Bible I follow (when hitting 80mph on the motorway, when uttering an obscenity - often also while driving), and casts judgement on others - something the Bible says is for God to do alone?

Of course, the Bible does also say that Scripture is useful for training and rebuking, and hence it does not suggest the Christian response is to not mention things others are doing which do not promote the Gospel in a positive light - something many on the Christian Right in America most certainly don't do (epitomised probably best by George Bush). So on balance I think it's right to question those cheering the death of another. I heard someone from a bank who lost almost 700 employees in the 9/11 bombings, and he said that it's somewhat like when the verdict is announced in court: usually the victims aren't the ones leaping for joy, and he felt that.

Bin Laden was a terrible person and most certainly evil, and I have little doubt he isn't enjoying the eternal torment that is Hell currently. But that doesn't mean I'm cheering his death and nor do I think any Christian who is consciously trying to uphold the Bible and glorify Christ should either.

I'm voting for AV

And it's not just because this man is voting against it. My main reason is probably because I'm so unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the No camp, most of which are perpetuated and grossly distorted by Cranmer in his article. I sincerely hope Christians read his article and see it for what it is - full of prejudice, horribly distorted material, and often just plain wrong.

AV won't cost more (and anyway, why does that actually matter?), AV won't result in fringe parties getting in any more than the current one does - and that should never be an argument against a voting system - why is FPTP (first past the post) better because it ignores small parties and gives bigger parties huge mandates from a small proportion of the actual votes? FPTP allows established parties to effectively ignore the fringes and block them out, without ever actually countering the arguments they make, meaning that these parties continue to fester barely beneath the surface. A better system would force the main parties to actually address the issues that matter to the population - not necessarily to enact policies to support them since just because a lot of people think something doesn't mean its right - but addressing them.

And what's wrong with perpetual coalitions? It strikes me that other countries seem to do perfectly well with them, and the genuine discussion instead of mud-slinging it would encourage would have to be a good thing. And broken manifestos becoming more likely under AV? Don't make me laugh - find me a party in the last 30 years that hasn't broken a manifesto promise.

But there's another one given to me last weekend by a good friend. It enables you to not vote for a particular candidate for whatever reason, and not be forced to vote for a party you don't want to vote for just to keep them out. The classic example is Evan Davis, the fierce anti-Christian Lib Dem who was the MP for West Oxford and Abingdon until the last election. Had I been in that electoral ward, then to oppose Davis and to maximise the chance of getting rid of him, I'd have had to have voted Tory, despite my well known dislike for that party. However, with AV I could I have done what I wanted to do, vote Labour, but by putting every other party above the Lib Dems, my vote would still have counted against him.

The question is what exactly is un-Christian and undemocratic about AV? What is it that scares Tories and Cranmer so incredibly much that they write such vitriol? Is it because the simple fact is a lot of people would put the Conservatives as their least preferred party? I don't know, just thinking out loud. But their arguments are far from convincing and as a result, I'll be voting yes tomorrow. Join me!