The Lesser of Two Evils?

My parents wanted me to be responsible for myself, to do my best and to respect other people — it’s the way they tried to live their lives and it’s the way I still try to live my own life. Their ethics was rooted in Anglican Christianity (‘do unto others’ and the parable of the Good Samaritan), policed by an all-seeing God who pricked your conscience when you strayed from the straight and narrow. Although I share their moral code — completely — I have learned that it springs from a consideration of human rights, not from any religious doctrine.

So, I would like, I would like passionately, everyone to enjoy better and more fulfilling lives. I would like everyone to be able to enjoy improving standards of living, better healthcare and education, better access to the arts and to technology. I am a humanist and I believe the world will be a better place if we work for the great principles of the Enlightenment - ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Achieving these goals requires resources, so the great moral question is: What is the best way to produce the resources required to eliminate poverty? Looking for the answer to this question cuts through all the political hype and gives me a pointer about how to vote in May 7th’s General Election. See what you think.

Using the metaphor that resources are a cake, everyone would like more. There are two fundamentally different approaches - either get a larger slice of the cake as it is, or make a bigger cake. Some people think everyone should have the same sized slice of cake, so they work for ‘redistribution’. Those who understand where the cake came from in the first place think that a larger cake would mean more to go round, so they set out to make a bigger cake.

In practice ‘redistribution’ is always done by someone and when deciding on ‘fair shares’ someone has to decide what ‘fair’ means. That requires a ‘top-down’ approach — someone in charge dictating who gets what. The ‘larger cake’ approach means individual creative people having the freedom to follow up their ideas, establish viable businesses and produce the profits that are the metaphorical cake. That is a ‘bottom-up’ approach; it recognises that talented individuals are the creative element of society and only when such people are allowed the freedom to work will resources be produced that allow the enhancement of individual and social wellbeing.

Left of Centre politics is the politics of redistribution; it sounds like a nice idea but in practice always runs into the problem that there is only so much cake to go round. Right of Centre politics is the politics of greater productivity; it may appear harsh but it produces a bigger cake. I conclude therefore, because I try to follow humanitarian principles, that I must vote for a party that believes in individual freedom, acceptance of responsibility for one’s own actions and equality of opportunity.

In practice only either Ed Miliband or David Cameron is likely to be the next Prime Minister. In my opinion David Cameron is massively mistaken in many of his policies, some of which are more socialist than entrepreneurial, but he is less mistaken than Ed Miliband. Miliband is on the side of redistribution, Cameron on the side of wanting a bigger cake. Although I would like a right of centre government I may not support Cameron (because, as explained elsewhere on this blog, my vote will make no practical difference). But my sense of fairness means I cannot support Miliband.

Now all I want is the media to have a sensible discussion about the issues. Sadly, it isn't likely to happen!

The Inevitable Drift to the Left

We're coming up to a General Election. In any society, most people earn less than average pay, so when we ask all those who would like a pay rise to put up their hands, most people are inclined to do so. They will vote for redistribution of wealth. Some, who earn less than average income and who are ambitious, may keep their hands down, and some who are happy to live off what they earn may do likewise. Some will not bother to put their hand up at all. But human nature will see more hands go up than stay down. And who can blame people for voting for a pay rise? The world is a tough place and it’s dog eat dog, survival of the fittest and all that, isn’t it? Most of those who have money probably got it dishonestly anyway, especially the bankers, didn’t they?

I’m not moralising. What I’m doing is simply pointing out the inevitable drift to the left, over a period of decades or generations, of a reasonably freely functioning democracy. We’d all like a little more, please, and the one-man one-vote system gives us a way of achieving that, over time, without the need for protests or violence. Even the rich in liberal Western democracies have concluded that one-person one-vote is preferable to off-with-their-heads! Enlightened self-interest!

We are not all born equal. We are born female or male, tall or short, blue- or brown-eyed. Some of you are good at music, I’m not. Some are good at maths, I struggle. Some have good manual skills, I don’t. You get the idea. Fortunately for me there are people who excel in skills and abilities at which I am hopeless, so for a modest outlay I can listen to wonderful music, buy an amazing computer and get someone to fix my central heating. That’s how society works. Each of us contributes our abilities, skills and experience to enable us to live more rewarding and comfortable lives. Some of those abilities and skills are in shorter supply and greater demand than others and the best way yet found to value those skills is the free market where a willing buyer and seller come together and agree on a price. Prices are decided by what individuals are prepared to pay or accept. It’s a bottom-up model of society, not a top-down one. It’s voluntary, not mandated by those in power. This is how I saw it in 2013.

Specialists Triolet ©

The hunter wants a spear and the smith wants meat,

If everyone’s a specialist, everybody thrives.

It’s work and trade and buy and sell and nobody must cheat,

The hunter wants a spear and the smith wants meat.

Rising productivity means all have more to eat,

And more to eat means happiness and more fulfilling lives.

The hunter gets a spear and the smith gets meat

When everyone’s a specialist, everybody thrives.

Evidently the ‘put-up-your-hand for a fairer distribution of income’ and a ‘willing-buyer-and-seller’ models of social organisation are in conflict. As Ayn Rand explained in ‘Atlas Shrugged’, you can only coerce those whose skills are in short supply to work to order up to a point. In effect the failed idea of Central Planning (practiced by many regimes, including the now defunct Soviet / Russian and other Communist regimes, Fascism and Syndicalism) stands testimony to the weakness of income redistribution, and Western free-trade and capitalism (recently aped by China) show how application of capital to raise the productivity of labour, and thereby allow rising living standards, stands testimony to the power of a society in which people cooperate voluntarily.

Our Flawed Electoral System

So much tedious election cover here in the UK media - and the election is not until 7th May! It seems that nearly all the cover is of the political parties making irresponsible claims or slagging each other off as they try to bribe taxpayers with their own money. They want those suddenly precious things, our Votes. The media, too, contribute to the unseemly spectacle with their own grab for headlines, making mountains out of molehills and sometimes, more tragically, vice versa.

We are told me ‘must vote’, that not to would be irresponsible. I don’t buy that. A considered choice not to vote is probably a better decision than voting for someone merely out of tradition, with no consideration of the issues involved. Here in the Grantham and Stamford constituency in the last General Election (2010) the Conservatives won with 50.3% of the votes cast - 26,552 votes. The next two parties together (Liberal Democrat and Labour), got 40.2% of the vote, the Liberals edging Labour into third place. As I’ll show later, my political opinion means I should be voting for the incumbent Conservative candidate, Nick Boles, but I will not do that. Mr. Boles is in danger of being overtaken by hubris, so safe is his seat, and I do not want him at risk of any more hubris than necessary. A smaller majority might make him pay more attention to his constituents.

So, in this safe Tory constituency I conclude my vote has no weight at all (whether I use it or not). It seems to me that the country suffers a huge democratic deficit, not only because of situations like the one I’ve just described, but also because of unequal sizes of constituencies across the country. According  to the Office for National Statistics website, a Member of Parliament in England represents 72,400 voters, whereas the figure in Scotland is 69,000 and in Wales only 56,800. In 2013 the Isle of Wight constituency had 111,800 voters and one in Scotland only 22,100. What's fair about that? 

Another dispiriting fact is that we have the ‘first past the post’ system. Look at what the consequences might easily be: If 80% of a 70,000 electorate vote in a particular constituency and 31% vote for Party A with 30% each voting for Parties B and C, and the 10% remainder favouring smaller parties, then the Member of Parliament will be elected based on only 17,360 favourable votes. That is less than 25% of the electorate. More than three quarters of voters do not get a Member of Parliament that they have voted for.

I am well aware that the system, for all its shortcomings, is not unreasonable, is clear, and has been honestly run, at least until the advent of the postal vote. Fraud has been detected in postal voting and I am sorry that in a patriarchal family an overbearing man will be able to control the votes of his household. Some parts of our society do not allow women to occupy their proper place. However, the greater concern is ignorance in terms of choice of who to vote for.

That’s enough for one blog entry - it’s getting close to lunch time. I’ll go into why my political opinions imply I ought to vote Conservative in a future post.