Cllr. Gavin Ayling

I’ve written before about Mrs Alibhai Brown (search above), but she’s at it again and deserves to be taken down a few more pegs.

A colleague disagreed with me about the tone of Yasmin’s piece. What follows are some extracts from my responses:

The colour of someone’s skin has absolutely nothing to do with their attitude to anything, any more than people with size nine feet all think the same or act the same, or make the same decisions.

There are stereotypes, of course, which is why one of my friends calls himself a ‘coconut’ and their half-Philipino friend once called himself a ‘banana’, but the same may be true of people with big noses. They’re likely to have a chip on their shoulder, no?

Yasmin has every right to say what she thinks, but that doesn’t change whether she’s wrong or not. And she is wrong: morally and when it comes down to whether something is true or not.

Race becomes an issue because people place so much emphasis on it — aside from some facial features its even more meaningless than skin colour. Compare, for example, Colin Powell’s skin hue with that of George Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell is actually as pale as George Bush. Now lets suppose skin colour was somehow relevant to someone’s attitude or political outlook, how should Colin Powell behave? White or black?

And while she’s making these sweeping generalisations, are black people more left-wing or more right-wing? Is strong family a policy of the right or the left? I would say right, but how much stronger is the family unit in Italian, Hindu and Muslim families, those supposed Boris-haters? Is positive discrimination a sop to their guilt-ridden white population or is it a genuine attempt to help those people who are not given as many chances because of racism in the white-dominated management structures? I’ve yet to meet someone who has thought carefully about the situation who would benefit from positive discrimination (a non-white in other words) who supports it. But positive discrimination is a policy of the left (and Ken) and not of Mr Johnson. And what about homophobia? Mr Livingstone (and other left-wing extremists) welcome Islamic preachers who spout homophobic diatribe, while the right (and Boris) condemn them. Yasmin would claim this is a race issue, but I would argue that it is just bad manners: if you invite and welcome someone with openly hateful views without publicly criticising those views, you are implying support for them. It is not racist to condemn preachers of hate (and no-one outside the BNP to my knowledge has condemned Islamic preachers without referring to those among them who preach hate) but it is homophobic to embrace them.

So back to my point, is it left-wing or right-wing to be non-white? Is it reasonable to suggest that a particular colour would vote for Boris? And is it acceptable to label people that you are criticising by their skin colour?

I watched Michael Moore’s Sicko the other day. It’s a fantastic film; not completely free of Moore’s inevitable bias, but there’s so much less bending of the truth this time because, ultimately, there’s little controversy in what he is saying.

But loads of people have seen this film — what can I possibly add that will be interesting?

Well, I just had a cup of tea from my office’s coffee shop and, on the side of the paper cup, there is a ‘Rainforest Alliance’ logo. This logo “guarantees that the farms meet demanding, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE standards” (capitalisation as in original). It continues “workers are… given access to education and medical care…”

So the Rainforest Alliance requirements are more demanding than the social conscience of the world’s richest and, apparently, good country?

Quel surprise.

The NHS isn’t perfect, but it’s infinitely more humane than the US system. Infinitely. And any reform of the NHS must maintain that fundamental requirement that is fairness (and especially free at the point of use).

I have noticed a lot of things change about me recently. A friend tells me, for example, that our tastebuds and so our tastes change every seven years. Whether or not this is true — and if it is whether it is definitely seven years for everyone — my tastes have definitely changed recently.

Last year I started to like apples. Earlier (maybe two years ago) I started to like cabbage and this Christmas, for the first time ever, I liked brussel sprouts.

And it’s not just food, last week I slept much less than normal (and didn’t feel tired). Come Thursday I decided I must just not be noticing the tiredness and so went to bed early. The result? I woke up at 4am on Friday morning feeling fully refreshed!

It’s also extended to politics and religion. On this site in the past I have been strongly against religion. I continue to be frightened by people who will do things in the name of God that I hope normal people would not do in the absence of His influence. But I can also feel sympathy for those people who do believe. I can feel what Dawkins has described — a feeling that God exists — which can be explained by biological means.

So, like all things, religion is not black and white. There are fundamentalist nutters at one extreme, a violent version of Richard Dawkins at the other and myself sitting nearer Richard Dawkins than Bin Laden, closer to the Dalai Lama than the Archbishop of Canterbury and closer to a vicar than a priest.

Why am I telling you this? Well, at almost regular intervals (perhaps the seven-year thing), I have come to see another aspect of life as grey rather than black, or as grey rather than white.

It’s a shame, with these newly discovered shades of grey, that we no longer have the diversity of political parties we once had. SDP, Liberals, Whigs, Radicals, Tories and Independents have now been replaced, to all intents and purposes by the Conservatives and Labour. And neither of these parties, for all their minor differences, reflects the opinion of more than (at a guess) 5% of the population. The so-called centre-ground, is actually the swing vote — a part of the population which has a particular opinion but has not bothered to make a firm decision about whether people should be taxed a lot or a little, and whether people should work hard or have a ‘right’ to the dole.

There’s another problem with the party system. I know Libertarians who would never vote UKIP or Tory even though they ought to be their natural home; and I know socialists who could never vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats because of other policies.

In France, as I was discussing with a colleague the other day, the president must be elected, eventually, by more than 50% of the population through run-offs resulting in just two candidates. But why couldn’t this work when electing a parliament too? It would guarantee a working majority for a particular party (which I believe is important) while not disenfranchising the 66%-ish who do not vote for the eventual winner in most English elections (assuming the FPTP system we currently have provides a reasonable impression of the intentions of the electorate; which is doesn’t).

Like most people I try to avoid public transport wherever possible. Not only is a car normally, cheaper, but it’s more comfortable and quicker too.

But to be fair to the services available, I had not yet tried the journey from my new home to my old work. My new home is only a two minute walk from the railway station and Legal & General in Hove is a pacy fifteen minutes walk. So the combined journey time, with the fifteen minutes on the train itself, is about half an hour. This compares very favourably with the rush hour journey time by car (because, of course, of the lack of public investment in viable roads from Shoreham past Chichester).

So, in future, if it weren’t for the frankly bizarre prohibitive cost, I would be more than keen on using this alternative. Actually, I’ll have to again tomorrow as my car remains at the garage.

On the cost, I still need to have it explained to me. How can it possibly cost more to transport many passengers than to transport one? And if you can share your car not only is the cost halved instantly, but it also becomes even more competitive. The do-gooder socialist environmentalists wish to correct this imbalance by charging car drivers more for the privilege of moving about their own country by private means (where do-gooder socialist environmentalists could, without too much squinting, be replaced with the single word “facists”).

As a short exercise, here is a comparison of the costs:

1. Private car: 13 pence per mile (if through town) or 10 pence per mile (if using the A27 trunk road which I do). This is a total of £1.20 for the 9.2 mile journey.
2. Train: £3.10 in each direction (ignoring spurious discounts if you choose to use the train every day)

Even if we add the 48 pence per day of road tax (which presumably exceeds expenditure on roads these days) the car remains a cheaper option. And if we removed the imbalance caused by fuel duty the car would be nearly a half cheaper again.

But why? How do economies of scale not come into play here? The train was full and the train in front of it was full too (I had to watch it pass as it does not stop here in Lancing) so the passengers on the train were not subsidising empty seats. The train uses electricity which everyone knows is created relatively efficiently (much more efficiently than burning a small amount of petroleum under the bonnet of several hundred vehicles) and, to cap it all, the train companies are largely subsidised by Her Majesty’s wealth-suppressor (sorry, the tax man).

So, someone, tell me why!

I have a frequent debate with one particular person about large companies. Her argument is that where they behave in an unethical way or in a way which, were it an individual, would be illegal, they should be rebuked somehow (our discussions never extend to what form that rebuke should take).

And now the Trade Unions, having failed at ruining domestic businesses thanks mostly to Mrs Thatcher (for all her social-engineering faults) are going to try to destroy multinationals instead in a new form of traditional socialism: TUC on multinational businesses.

But I remain confused by this attitude. The trade unions, even now domestically, believe that in private companies where there is genuine competition (and not oligopolies) direct action is a reasonable response to poor behaviour by companies. Surely, actually, companies are the greatest examples of genuine free democracy? Information about publicly listed companies is available to all and, just like Acts of Parliament or decisions made at local government, the people do not read them — they have better things to be doing. But they have access.

So, when people choose to shop at Evil Corp. plc, they are choosing to support exactly what that company is doing. When people boycotted Nestle in the mid-90s, they were reacting, democratically, to what they considered unacceptable behaviour by that company. I am proud to admit I joined in with that boycott and evangelised too.

Trying to react, from within, and unilaterally against a company (as Trade Unions might) is to defeat the general will of the buying public who are exercising their democractic beliefs. Much like terrorism or violent protest (as opposed to civil disobedience, voting and peaceful protest) trade union action is a disproportionate response against what the majority want. And, hopefully, the tyranny of the majority will be avoided by the twin impactors of minor intervention by the State (regulation) and the empathy of that majority acting in the interests of all.

I was appalled, incidentally, to read in Scientific American a while ago (and it came back to me as I wrote today) an article which stated as fact that pure libertarianism was an outdated and simply wrong ideology. I intend to tell you not only why it is not wrong, but also what impact it has on speed limits, in a future post. Please keep comments related to speed limits for that post.

What did I say about socialists not caring (yesterday)?

Well today, Ken exploits and supports poor socialists. Buying fuel from a democracy ought to be a good thing, but all economists agree that a stable developing economy needs a strong principled stance on the absolute that is, and should be, property ownership.

Gah! Anyone watching BBC Breakfast this morning cannot help to have been annoyed by the bend-over-backwards-until-your-country-is-overrun-with-murderers lefty do-gooders on the sofa… I only saw five minutes to be fair, before I left for work, but why on Earth are we subjected to so much “the status quo is perfectly acceptable” or “we should be more left-wing” nonsense, and no “we should be more right-wing”? When I say right-wing, of course, I mean the right-wing I espouse on this site: more freedom from taxes, more freedom from oppressive laws, more freedom from the State and more freedom.

And now a new Socialism is rearing its head. So far there have been three: Socialism, Communism and Environmentalist-Socialism. Now there is a fourth: International-Anti-trade-Environmentalist-Socialism! I’ve never really believed that post-Victorian socialists had the interests of the poor or the ‘worker’ at heart but this must be the final, unequivocal evidence?