Apparently because last month's public borrowing requirement which had been predicted to be the worst on record turned out merely to be the worst on record Mr Marr has concluded that Alistair Darling has some "extra money in his back pocket".
Interesting. I thought I was £1000 in debt. Turns out I'm only £700 in debt. Presumably I can go out and buy a new laptop with no increase in my liability.
Mr Darling has just said: "The public are (sic) not stupid". He must hope he is wrong.
Sunday 21 March 2010
Saturday 20 March 2010
Scruton on the virtues of drink...
A tricky one this. I've been invited by Continuum Books to review Roger Scruton's I Drink Therefore I Am for my blog on The Philosophy Magazine Online. How to do this effectively as an "enforced teetotaller"?
On second thoughts there might not be a problem. One of Scruton's theses is that you can visit a place non-geographically but "in the glass". If you can visit a place without travelling there then presumably you can review a book on wine withouit drinking??
Also: I once taught a fairly successful course on the philosophy of humour despite not having a sense of humour of my own.
So no problem. I'll crack on with the review.
On second thoughts there might not be a problem. One of Scruton's theses is that you can visit a place non-geographically but "in the glass". If you can visit a place without travelling there then presumably you can review a book on wine withouit drinking??
Also: I once taught a fairly successful course on the philosophy of humour despite not having a sense of humour of my own.
So no problem. I'll crack on with the review.
Tuesday 2 March 2010
The Public Funding of Political Parties
In order for democracy to be healthy -we are told- it is essential that political parties be allowed to flourish. In order that political parties be able to flourish it is essential that they exist. In order to exist it is essential that they are funded. Since therefore the citizen (or subject) has an interest in a healthy democracy it is in her interest to fund political parties; and since she might not be able to discern her own interest with the clarity of the political classes it is best all round that the funding be non-voluntary and via the usual mechanism of confiscatory taxation. This, or something like it, seems to be the argument in favour of the "state" funding of political parties: an argument that erupts intermittently within the United Kingdom chattering classes.
The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist. Of course it might be the case that democracy requires the existence of some political parties. But why these political parties? Political parties are human institutions, and like all human institutions they evolve and die - to be replaced by other institutions. If the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party, is unable to finance itself without reaching unbidden into my pay packet then tough. Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share (I already do that once with the BBC)? It is surely absurd that a political party should offer itself as custodian of the nation's finances without being able to manage its own.
There is, in the UK, a "consensus" between the major parties that some form of public funding might be desirable. Well there would be wouldn't there? It is a very felicitous consensus that includes those who would benefit from the policy and yet excludes those who would pay for it.
Is it, anyway, the case that a healthy democracy requires the constant existence of legislators? Would an interruption to the legislative process, for five years say, be such a disaster? It would for the legislators perhaps, but not for the rest of us. The rise of the professional politician has seen an unwelcome expansion in the powers of the state and how could it be otherwise? The only people who are fit to be sent to the House of Commons are those who really don't want to be there. There is much controversy here over whether MPs should have second jobs. But of course they should: the second job should be "being an MP".
The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist. Of course it might be the case that democracy requires the existence of some political parties. But why these political parties? Political parties are human institutions, and like all human institutions they evolve and die - to be replaced by other institutions. If the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party, is unable to finance itself without reaching unbidden into my pay packet then tough. Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share (I already do that once with the BBC)? It is surely absurd that a political party should offer itself as custodian of the nation's finances without being able to manage its own.
There is, in the UK, a "consensus" between the major parties that some form of public funding might be desirable. Well there would be wouldn't there? It is a very felicitous consensus that includes those who would benefit from the policy and yet excludes those who would pay for it.
Is it, anyway, the case that a healthy democracy requires the constant existence of legislators? Would an interruption to the legislative process, for five years say, be such a disaster? It would for the legislators perhaps, but not for the rest of us. The rise of the professional politician has seen an unwelcome expansion in the powers of the state and how could it be otherwise? The only people who are fit to be sent to the House of Commons are those who really don't want to be there. There is much controversy here over whether MPs should have second jobs. But of course they should: the second job should be "being an MP".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
