Posts Tagged ‘Anthony Painter’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Is Batman really a conservative?

18/07/2012, 01:55:56 PM

by Anthony Painter

Robert Colville argues zestfully that Batman is a conservative in this morning’s Telegraph. My first reaction was that it’s a strange type of conservative that so flagrantly disregards the rule of law. The whole point of the vigilante, Batman, is that the law cannot protect itself. Therefore, it needs shadowy figures who operate outside of it to save society from itself. It trashes the whole notion of rule of law – it’s difficult to think of anything less conservative than that.

It might well be that Batman seeks conservative ends – order, hierarchy, defined social relations, rule by status. But the means are distinctly non-conservative.

In the Dark Knight he establishes a private panopticon in order to defeat the terrorist, the Joker. Sure, he hands over the access to this system to Lucius Fox, his wise and principled technologist. Access is given not to prevent its use but to facilitate its use – he just doesn’t entirely trust himself. Fox ultimately destroys the system but that’s not at Batman’s instruction.

There are definite signs in the same film that Batman aspires to conservative means as well as ends – he just can’t quite trust them. He wishes to get out of the game and hand over safeguarding of the city’s welfare to Harvey Dent, Gotham’s energetic District Attorney. We are not sure whether he’s thinking straight as this has the advantage of clearing the way to him re-opening his pursuit of Rachel Dawes (who refuses to countenance a marriage to Bruce Wayne while he is still playing at Batman.) Nonetheless, he enthusiastically embraces Dent as a figure who can restore the rule of law.

It all goes terribly wrong as Dent is turned by the Joker into the gruesome Two-Face. In a Michael Corleone fashion, just when he hoped he might be out, Batman is pulled back in. Dent is the greatest hope for the law being able to take care of itself. It fails and so the vigilante is needed once again. Upon, Dent’s death, Batman conspires with Commissioner Gordon to take the blame for murders perpetrated by Two-Face (Dent) as the people of Gotham would not be able to cope with the crimes of their latest saviour, Dent. Propaganda is not beyond our conservative super-hero.

So our Batman is a conservative who doesn’t believe in the rule of law. He is a protector of liberty who wants to turn every mobile phone into a recording, imaging and tracking device. He upholds a people’s values by manufacturing reality. If he is a conservative then it would appear that he’s a conservative in the George W Bush mould.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

The Sunday review:How democratic is the UK? The 2012 audit by Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Andrew Blick and Stephen Crone for Democratic Audit

08/07/2012, 07:00:40 AM

by Anthony Painter

In the time before everyone on the centre-left and beyond was talking about Amartya Sen, he wrote a book called Development as Freedom. The reason for bringing this up is that the book was a powerful reminder of why democracy is important –something we seem to have forgotten. In some parts of the world as well as in our own historical experience, it is a matter of life and death. Here is Sen on politics and famines:

“Famines have occurred in ancient kingdoms and contemporary authoritarian societies, in primitive tribal communities and in modern technocratic dictatorships, in colonial economies run by imperialists from the north and in newly independent countries of the south run by despotic national leaders or by intolerant single parties. But they have never materialized [sic] in any country that is independent, that goes to elections regularly, that has opposition parties to voice criticisms and that permits newspapers to report freely and question the wisdom of government policies without extensive censorship.”

For Sen, the reason for this is democracy is a basic human capability. It is part of being human in an enlightened sense, it enables us to press for our needs to be met and the process itself helps us to understand what we need and how we can cooperate or support collective provision to ensure that those needs are met.

Now, the UK is not despotic, no longer imperialistic and it is has a free press and democratic choice. No famine is on the way. Yet Sen’s perspective still should raise our alarm bells that, in its latest four yearly report, Democratic Audit comes to the conclusion that the UK’s representative democracy is “in long-term, terminal decline, but not no viable alternative model of democracy currently exists.”

Not only is our democracy faltering and floundering, our democratic reformers have, since Labour’s early reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely failed to find a convincing story of why that should concern us.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

The Sunday review: What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets by Michael J Sandel

24/06/2012, 07:00:18 AM

by Anthony Painter

A few years back I was on a college committee that was considering whether to offer an iPod as an incentive for students to enrol at our establishment. We looked at the costs and benefits extensively. In the end, we decided against the idea mainly on the grounds that we thought it would create perverse incentives – to attend but not necessarily succeed. The decision was taken and we moved on.

The reason I raise this is because this exact discussion is one of the central case studies presented by Michael J Sandel in What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. His basic argument is that we need to quarantine the market and limit its ability to corrupt public goods and things we hold sacred. Over the last thirty years, market forces have been injected into more and more areas of our lives. This has destroyed things of value and we now even seem incapable of engaging in moral discourse. There are sacred cows.

So would our debate have been enriched by conducting it along moral lines? We had a fairly utilitarian discussion of the costs and benefits based on the available evidence. Would we have been protecting the public interest to a greater extent had we started off by articulating that the corruption of education through the use of market incentives should be avoided as it is wrong?

Actually, such a discourse would have been a disaster. I imagine there would have been a pretty angry response to it being presented in moral terms. In fact, there may have been a reaction to such a discourse and a different decision may have been taken. In Sandel’s world-view Educational Maintenance Allowances are a moral bad. Despite presenting some evidence that some incentive structures can improve educational attainment, this is largely dismissed. Just how moral is it to ignore evidence of interventions that can improve attainment and performance?

At a very basic level, Sandel’s argument that markets have moral limits is of course correct. To pick an extreme illustration, do we really want elderly people being paid to die so that their organs can be transplanted? It’s disgusting and disgust is what morality responds to. Very quickly though, Sandel moves from the self-evident to the preposterous.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

Sunday Review: Ed Miliband on Englishness

10/06/2012, 07:00:33 AM

by Anthony Painter

The Labour party approaches the politics of Englishness rather as Perseus would have approached the Medusa – best avoided if at all possible and if it has to be encountered then no eye contact should be made at any cost. Last Thursday, Ed Miliband talked confidently about the Medusa but thought it best not to enter the cave.

Unfortunately, the Medusa still must be slain.

The speech had quite a nice pace to it and succeeded in many of its rhetorical flourishes. If in doubt, talk about common humanity, Morris, Ruskin and pulling together. This will always be safe ground for a Labour orator – and it does provide some significant crossover into English romanticism too.

No harm done – it can’t, as Miliband argued, be all pounds and pence. The romantics would have been distraught at the omission of shillings but time moves on. On the negative side, we can only hope that the phrase ‘progressive patriotism’ will never be uttered again. Overall though, I’m glad he made the speech – it needed to be done and was long overdue from a Labour leader.

Miliband skidded between the cultural and the political as if there was no distinction between them when it came to his analysis of Scottish nationalism. Unless I’ve misread modern Scottish nationalism I’m not sure if Alex Salmond is really in the business of forcing people to choose between their Scottishness and Britishness. That would certainly seem to sit rather oddly with the passage from his Hugo Young Lecture of early this year where he argued that there would always be a ‘social union’ based on ‘our shared economic interests, our cultural ties, our many friendships and family relationships’. He is asking Scotland to (with notable exceptions such as the currency and the monarchy) choose Scottish political institutions over the British state.

The speech was rather more definitive when it came to distinguishing English culture and political institutions. For Miliband, English cultural expression is “not about an English Parliament or an English Assembly.” So wave the flag of St.George like Bobby Moore was still captain of England but don’t get all political about it. We’ll have none of that.

In this argument was the speech’s central weakness. This would have been a good speech in 1996. Things have moved on considerably since. It is now clear that Scottish devolution was not only the culmination of one process – a creation of institutions to match a rejuvenated civic Scottishness – but the beginning of another process. The claim on ever greater powers for Scotland may or may not result in independence.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 8 Comments »

The Sunday review: The 2020 Tax Commission and the Beecroft report

27/05/2012, 07:00:02 AM

by Anthony Painter

I like mango. You may not be interested in that fact but I think you should be. It’s not just a taste or preference, it’s a potential public good. I’m not going to leave it at simply enjoying the odd glass of mango juice or a mango half now and again. I’m going to use my love of mango to transform our economy and society. Just you watch me.

First of all, I’m going to get together with other mango lovers and we are going to explore the ways in which mangoes can change the world together. We will talk about the health giving benefits of the fruit, the positive economic impact of expanding consumption and production, the moral benefit to be derived from its consumption and the civic advantages of building a real discourse around mangoes. We will then set up a Mango Commission and ask independent experts to come up with a plan to promote the mango through public policy.

This commission will show how mango consumption can replace international aid to poor mango-producing countries thereby reducing potential migrant flows and saving public cash. The public health benefits will be lauded and a massive mango subsidy will be advocated. Import duties on mangoes will be eliminated and that will increase economic growth as an entire new industry emerges around mango importation, processing, distribution and retail.

By the end of the 2020s, this industry will add 5% to GDP. It will expand employment. Mango growers, sellers and distributors love it and they know what they are talking about. We will live longer, fuller, richer, happier lives. With this new healthy and wealthy outlook, we will commit ourselves to public good works and civic renewal. We will be the virtuous society. We will be the virile society.

So I had the answer from the beginning. I then set about dragging together evidence to prove that my preference was in fact a wider public good. It wasn’t just my taste. There was a wider ethical, economic, political and scientific case.

This pretty much sums up the approach to the report of 2020 Tax Commission from the Institute of Directors/Taxpayers’ Alliance.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 16 Comments »

Sunday review: The election of Francois Hollande

13/05/2012, 07:00:53 AM

by Anthony Painter

Last Sunday, France elected a technocratic centrist. He tips slightly to the left of the centrist band but not far. He’ll shift the debate at the EU level about emphasising growth but expect incremental rather than seismic change. He’s really just a French version of Mario Monti only with a democratic mandate. The problem is that it is not at all clear that is who the French thought they were electing. They think they voted against austerity but they did anything but.

Hollande’s election slogan was ‘le change, c’est maintenant.’ More accurately, it will largely be a case of plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – domestically at least. Hollande’s fiscal consolidation plans track Sarkozy’s for the first year then deviate slightly, returning the French budget to fiscal balance a year later. The major flaw in his economic programme is the lack of any determination to reform France’s labour markets. It has some of the heaviest regulation and highest unit costs in the EU. The best performers in Europe on unemployment are those with moderate regulation (lightly regulated countries such as the UK perform less well than the moderate group). France’s regulation is a drag on growth and employment – as is that of Spain – but these are structural concerns whereas there is an immediate issue with demand.

Overall though, his plans are largely sensible. He plans to cut small business tax, enable the state to employ the young unemployed and create a national investment bank. He intends to decentralise the French state. Any European moderate will be completely relaxed about all of this – indeed, they would applaud it. The problem was not in the programme, it was in the rhetoric. On Sunday, Hollande declared:

“In all the capitals… there are people who, thanks to us, are hoping, are looking to us, and want to reject austerity.”

The simple fact is that austerity has become defined in a very broad manner across the EU. It now basically means public spending cuts and tax increases. The bar is set very low and this narrows room for political manoeuvre. Europe’s voters (including in the UK) are being told by political leaders on the left that the choice is either growth or austerity. Would you like to chew on mud or munch a tarte tatin? I’ll have the tarte tatin please.

The problem is that, unfortunately, in this convulsive and volatile world, someone has sprinkled the tarte tatin with mud. And we’re very hungry. What to do?

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 9 Comments »

The Sunday review: “Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty” by Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson

29/04/2012, 08:00:44 AM

by Anthony Painter

In 1978, workers at the Scania factory in Sao Paulo went on strike in protest at the Government manipulating the rate of inflation meaning they were worse off than they had thought. Strikes had been illegal in Brazil since 1964. The metalworker union’s president was called in to convince the workers to return to work. He refused. Brazil’s long march to economic and political freedom had begun. The president’s name? Luiz Inatio Lula da Silva – “Lula”.

Critical to Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty is the notion that these events in 1978 are connected to today’s Brazilian prosperity. Their central argument is that prosperity is generated through inclusive political and economic institutions. They reinforce each other. A pluralistic political system tends to support private property, encourages investment and innovation, creates a level-playing field and prevents elites from extracting too much wealth. As long as you have sufficient centralisation to enable the rule of law, these are the circumstances in which nations develop and poverty is diminished.

Lula was part of a broad civic movement for democracy and social justice. Over time this movement enhanced pluralism within Brazil’s political system and cracked open its economy. The first local administration to be run by the Workers’ Party, Porto Alegre, introduced ‘participatory budgeting’ which consulted residents about spending priorities. Inclusive political institutions promote inclusive economic institutions which unleash creative destruction against privilege and monopoly.

The great trust-buster, Teddy Roosevelt, confronted the ‘Robber barons’ in the early twentieth century. He was responding to popular concern with their market power. America’s institutions enabled this transmission from popular discontent to action. The same would be less likely to happen in Yemen.

Two things distinguish Why nations fail the simplicity of its argument and the sheer range and scope of historical references. Acemoglu and Robinson cover the Roman Empire, the history of Ethiopia, Congo, Bolivia, Peru, Japan, India, China, Austria and many more.

They devote considerable attention to a small European nation called England. Our divergent path came through the colonisation of north America which emboldened a merchant class to insist on political reform. It all came to a head in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Acemoglu and Robinson are particularly adept at comparing starkly diverging destinies of seemingly similar locations that have been taken in different institutional directions: Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora; North and South Korea; the Bushong and Lele of Kongo; north and south London. OK, they don’t include north and south London but you get the picture.

The book is staggering, accessible but not without flaws. Its core thesis does become quite repetitive and this breaks its pace from time to time.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 6 Comments »

The Sunday review: “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt

15/04/2012, 08:00:19 AM

by Anthony Painter

The other day a bus passed by me adorned with an ad from the campaign group, Stonewall. On a bold red background, white writing declared: “Some people are gay. Get over it.” The “get over it” was in black lettering. I thought “uh-oh, that’s dumb”.

To understand why I thought that, you need to read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.

For many years, Haidt has deployed the tools and insights of psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and economic theory to understand the nature of human morality. He essentially breaks our moral instincts down into categories: harm; fairness (which is actually about reciprocity); respect for authority; commitment to an in-group; sanctity and purity which is associated with religious and tribal ceremony; and, for this book, he has added a sixth – liberty/oppression.

Those who believe in equality for homosexuals are generally motivated by reducing harm and liberty from oppression. Cards on the table – I happen to be one of the people with this instinctive moral sense. I am closer to a left-wing (liberal in Haidt’s terms) than a conservative morality. The problem is that there are different moral senses too. Those who are adamantly against homosexuality – a minority in recent years in our society – may feel that they threaten their group which may be a church, for example, or there is something impure about homosexuality. They may also feel that legal changes to advance equality oppress their liberty to reject homosexuality.

And this is why I felt discomfort at the “get over it” message. Presumably, the objective of a campaign is to persuade. This slogan almost seemed designed to mock, belittle and entrench positions against it. It seemed likely that there would be a reaction.

On Thursday, the reaction came. A group promoting “gay cure” therapies bought ad space and mimicking the original ad, deployed the slogan: “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!” The entire notion of “gay cure” is harmful and oppressive.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

Budget preview: an opportunity to change the nature of Labour’s political attack?

18/03/2012, 08:00:52 AM

by Anthony Painter

If the leaks turn out to be true, we are facing one the most radical Budgets in living memory. The abolition or reduction of the 50p rate, regionalisation of public sector pay, increasing the personal allowance, and the introduction of “tycoon tax” (ie: minimum tax rate for all) is a major package of reform. As soon as George Osborne stands up, the framing battle will commence. What should Labour’s line be?

I’ll put my personal allowance tax saving on the fact that the line will be “fairness”. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls will focus on the abolition or reduction of the 50p tax rate. They will say this proves we are not all in it together; one rule for the rich and one rule for the rest of us. They will follow with a flurry of numbers about how the average family has been hit by the Tory-led government’s tax and spending changes since 2010. Labour would tax banks, protect tax credits and reduce VAT. The Tories favour the rich over the rest.

When George Osborne announced the VAT increase, the reaction was pretty much the same. The party HQ printing presses went into overdrive even while the leadership election was on and off Labour went. People didn’t want VAT to increase and they don’t want the 50p tax rate abolished. So it’s a no-brainer, right?

The problem is that it didn’t work.

Labour cries “unfair” at every possible opportunity. People know that Labour thinks everything the government has done is “unfair”. A good portion of the population think it is unfair too. One problem is that they take “fairness” to mean a slightly different thing to Labour. They take it mean reciprocal fairness: you should receive in accordance with your contribution. Labour means distributional fairness: the poorer you are, the more you should get. That is why Labour’s cris de coeur about fairness slightly miss the mark.

There is another approach: attack the government’s fiscal and economic decisions. The package of measures which is rumoured undermines fiscal consolidation and economic growth.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 10 Comments »

Luis Suarez and football tribalism

12/02/2012, 07:00:28 AM

by Anthony Painter

Yesterday, Luis Suarez refused to shake the hand of Manchester United captain, Patrice Evra. It was idiotic and undignified. It also meant that for the third Liverpool versus Manchester United match running, the story was not going to be about the football.

At half time, there was a confrontation outside the team dressing rooms. And after the match, Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, called Luis Suarez a disgrace and said he should never play for Liverpool again. And so the pot is kept on the simmer.

Since the incidents that have led to this – when Luis Suarez used racially abusive language towards Patrice Evra in a league game in October last year – Liverpool FC has been living through a disaster of its own making. It did not need an FA independent regulatory commission to realise that Suarez was in the wrong. A cursory glance at the striker’s own evidence and the video footage would show, first,  that an offensive term was used and second that it was meant in a hostile manner.

That should have been enough for Liverpool FC to severely reprimand the player, fine him and suspend him of their own accord. Both club and player should have issued an apology. If Suarez refused, he should have been placed on the transfer list. When this did not happen, its American owners, more aware than most of brand value and propriety, should have stepped in. They failed to.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Posted in Uncut | 15 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »