Are public sector pensions so easy to understand?

Last week disruption swept Britain as tens of thousands in the public sector went out on strike. The issue: reform to public sector pensions.

I remember commenting to someone that I had trouble fully understanding the public sector pensions debate. The response was a look of pity normally reserved only for Miss USA contestants when they try to sound intelligent. Am I alone? How many of us really do understand the pensions debate?

The art of politics is being able to present complex issues in a simple way. Pithy slogans are the bread and butter of the politician but they do little to enlighten us as to the real debate. To say the question is no more complex than the right to a fair pension seems ludicrous.

So what is the pensions debate really about?

With people living longer we have to work longer and pay more if our pensions are to remain affordable. These reforms are meant to bring this about. Public sector workers are faced with a later retirement, larger contributions and at the end of it a smaller payout for their troubles. This is all on top of a wage decrease in real terms. It's understandable they might be a bit upset.

Two key issues are at stake here: fairness and affordability.

The unions argue the current set-up is affordable. They cite the Hutton Report as evidence of this, but that report assumes changes will be made. So reform does have to take place.

So is the proposed reform fair? Those opposed to reform claim they are fighting for a 'fair pension'. They argue quite persuasively that just because private sector workers get poor pension provision doesn't mean public sector workers should. They believe it unfair that benefits they were promised are now being taken away. They provide services like the NHS and schooling that we all depend on. Often they do jobs that are not pleasant, such as refuse collection. Surely they deserve proper reward?

The response of the reformers is blunt but true: Life isn't fair. It's unfair that public sector workers must now accept a worse deal than they were promised. But why should a worker receive preferential treatment just because he's in the public sector? Private sector workers provide services just as essential as those provided by the state. They often do work just as distasteful as their public sector counterparts.  How then can it be justified that private sector workers should subsidise public sector benefits of which they can only dream?

Can I now say I understand public sector pensions? No, of course not. They still confuse me. Something so complex always will. I'm fine with the basic issues though, or at least I think I am. That's enough for me.

PMQs: Punch & Judy politics

A common criticism of British politics regards its adversarial nature. The ethos of the House of Commons Chamber is often derided as being more suited to a schoolroom of boys from St Custard's than the birthplace of modern Western democracy.

Described by the Economist as a 'gladiatorial spectacle' that 'reeks of conflict', the epitome of this exchange is Prime Minister's Questions. As each side cheers on its champion and jeers at his opponent, the cries of 'Order, Order!' from the Speaker are the only thing that can return the Chamber to, well, order. 

Last Wednesday's PMQs special of the Daily Politics saw Nick Robinson stress just how loud the roar of noise can get. Labour MP Chuka Umunna agreed, identifying it as a major source of disquiet amongst the public at a time of such economic uncertainty. Presumably he would prefer PMQs to be conducted more along the lines of America's Congress. Debates would be carried out with the genteel decorum that proper political discourse deserves.

Yet this is a system so prone to deadlock that it routinely hurts America's interests. Congress's inability to reach an agreement caused the Word's largest economy to lose its triple A credit rating earlier this year. Failure to deal with this intransigence means US politicians still can't agree how to deal with the America's deficit.

The British system might be unseemly but it works. When David Cameron first became Conservative Party leader he vowed to end Punch & Judy politics. He failed. I for one won't judge him too harshly for that.

Racism & freedom of speech: My Tram Experience

At the time of writing 800,000 people have seen a woman send a tirade of vile racist abuse at a tram full of people. Thankfully, the almost universal reaction has been one of abhorrence. A woman has subsequently been arrested in connection with the incident.

My initial reaction was dismay at such an authoritarian response. We find this woman so repulsive because the views she espouses are anathema to an open liberal democracy. If we cease to tolerate such minority viewpoints, however horrible, and abandon freedom of speech then surely we are abandoning the very value-system we are seeking to protect.

On further reflection I realised I was wrong. We place limits on our freedoms all of the time. People aren't allowed to have sex in the streets merely because we believe in sexual liberty. If we didn't have limits on our behaviour there would be anarchy.

Rousseau believed one should distinguish 'natural freedom, which is limited only by the strength of the individual, from civil freedom, which is limited by the general will.' If we are to have true 'moral liberty' we must look to civil freedom, 'for to be driven by our appetites alone is slavery, while to obey a law that we have imposed on ourselves is freedom.'1.

If we are to protect freedom we can't allow this woman freedom of speech.

1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762).

Starbucks democracy

I thought I'd take a quick break from my dissertation to write a short piece on the aftermath of yesterday's EU referendum vote. In that vote, 81 Conservative MPs rebelled against the Government. 

In true McCarthy style, the rebels were described by their supporters as 'patriots'. I'm not sure when it became un-British to want to stay in the EU but there it is.

Perhaps more interesting was the claim that a vote against a referendum was 'undemocratic'. This reflects the modern phenomenon described by the Economist as 'Starbucks politics'. In a world where people have become used to personalised treatment in other areas of life, they demand the right to pick and choose government policies.

We live in a parliamentary democracy. In the words of the Economist:

The basic deal of parliamentary democracy is, or used to be, that on polling day voters make an overall choice among the packages on offer. They can turf out the government at the next election, but until then they have to live with compromise, frequent disappointment and occasional coercion.

It is based on an acceptance that government, with all its conflicting priorities, cannot be done on a single-issue basis. That reasoning no longer seems to convince a large number of people. They want their say on individual issues and accuse any government which refuses them of being undemocratic.

As California shows, direct democracy is not such a great idea. It is not practical for each and every government decision to go to a plebiscite. It causes chaos as governments lose the ability to govern.  Referenda should be reserved for those rare occasions when they are truly necessary. Otherwise they undermine the very democracy they are meant to serve.

Rebellious Tories: What is it about Europe?

On Monday Parliament will vote on whether there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. Even though the motion is likely to fail, more than 60 Conservative MPs might vote against the thee-line whip imposed by the Government. This has caused me quite a bit of irritation.

Anyone who has talked with me probably knows that I am (relatively) pro-Europe. It wasn't always so, but I've now seen the light. I want Britain to be the driving force behind this unprecedented project in international co-operation, one which has brought democracy and prosperity to millions. There are aspects I'm not happy with (think CAP) but, overall, I think it's a good idea.

However, it's not for this reason I'm annoyed. I can cope with the fact that many people inexplicably believe you can remain a part of the Common Market without applying EU regulations. I don't understand them, but then again there's a lot in this World I don't understand.

No, what annoys me is the way the Conservative Party reacts when presented with the issue of Europe. Britain's most pragmatic party throws reason to the wind and goes into suicide mode. The issue tore apart John Major's government in 1997 whilst failure to deal with the issue resulted in pathetic electoral performances in 2001 and 2005.

Now in 2011, Britain's economic recovery is anaemic. Meanwhile, Europe's economy hangs on the brink of collapse whilst the Continent's leaders are locked in talks on how to bring it back. If there is a defining characteristic of the Conservative Party it should be economic competence. It is the issue which defines the Coalition Government, bringing the Lib Dems into an otherwise inconceivable pact with the Tories.  

It thus seems ludicrous that  over 60 Conservative MPs could even consider supporting such a diversion of time and energy whilst the key issue of the day remains unaddressed. You can repatriate powers any time. You can only prevent economic collapse once. The contempt they are showing Britain's economic travails risks serious damage to both the Coalition and the Conservative Party. Even if they don't worry about the Coalition, they should care about the Party.

I understand that you can't ignore the calls of 100,000 voters. To ignore the petition and not hold a vote would be undemocratic. Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between supporting a vote on a proposition and supporting the proposition itself.

David Cameron should impose a three-line whip. For those who ignore it, I hope he throws the book at them.

Why pictures of Gaddafi's corpse were necessary

Shortly after Muammar Gaddafi's death, images of his corpse were broadcast worldwide. The front page of the Sun was probably one of the most brutal. There were calls from some that such a grotesque practice was completely out of place in the twenty-first century. Suffice it to say, I wasn't one of them.

In the words of one prolific Twitterer: 'Sticking a photo of a bloodied corpse on the front page of every newspaper is the modern equivalent of sticking heads on spikes'. Is that such a bad thing? Through its very barbarity, that gruesome custom sought to deter others from following a similar path. Dictators otherwise happy to wage war against their own people will see what a humiliating fate awaits them on their fall. 

Bashar Assad should take note. Syria might not be the pariah state that was Gaddafi's Libya and he might be able to rely on the support of other regional powers. However, Egypt was very strongly connected internationally and Mubarak still fell. 

Not all the effects were so negative: broadcast of those images also brought transparency. The world now knows Gaddafi was executed extra-judicially. With no prospect of a cover-up, the National Transitional Council will now investigate his death. Under such close scrutiny, Libya's new ruling body will find itself held to the highest standards. This can only help the country move towards the liberal democracy for which its people fought so hard.

It's hard to feel sorry for Gaddafi. I'm not going to try. He had the blood of thousands on his hands. He sponsored terrorism and waged war against his own people. He should have stood trial for his crimes. Failing that, humiliation was the least he deserved.

Scottish Conservatism (it does exist)

Murdo Fraser is the frontrunner in the election for leader of the Scottish Conservatives. He has caused quite a stir by pledging, if he wins, to split from the UK Conservative Party. The new party would have its own identity and policies but still sit with the Tories in Westminster. The idea is to create a centre-right party which is 'much more attractive to ... people in Scotland'.

This idea isn't as revolutionary as it might sound. As Fraser points out, the Scottish party had a separate identity before 1965 as the Unionist Party. A similar set-up exists in Germany today. There, the centre-right CSU (Christian Social Union) acts as the Bavarian sister-party to the national CDU (Christian Democrat Union). This arrangement has existed since the War and has been so successful that the CSU has not lost power in Bavaria for half a century. 

The independent Unionists experienced similar (if not quite as total) success in the years before 1965. Indeed, there seems no reason to believe the Scottish are intrinsically left-wing. Nonetheless, the fortunes of the Scottish Conservative Party has inexorably declined over the past 50 years. By 1997, they had no MPs left in the Commons. Today, they have just one.

The Scottish Conservative Party has lost its connection with centre-right voters north of the border. That has not just been bad for the party. It has denied those voters a voice in Scottish politics. That is bad for democracy.

A drastic change is needed. The creation of a separate party, with its own identity and policies, seems the best hope yet for relaunching progressive right-wing politics in Scotland. In the absence of a credible alternative, it's at least worth a shot.

The Conservative Party has always been at its best when acting as the radical force of British politics. It is at its worst when defending a rotten status quo. It happened in 1997 and the Party was decimated. In Scotland it never recovered. Unless it grasps the nettle and makes itself relevant to a modern Scotland, it seems hard to see why it ever should.