As a book it has its flaws – it does not pay enough heed to the role of Web 2.0 media – but in the light of recent events about politicians’ use of taxpayers’ money, Peter Oborne’s study of UK politics reads better than ever.
A question worth asking, in the light of all this, is whether a less corrupt political class would be better, or worse, at reining in public spending? In the 18th Century, for instance, the UK parliamentary system was deeply corrupt; there was a vast network of jobs and sinecures doled out to enforce political loyalty. And yet despite the drawbacks, the UK managed to forge an Industrial Revolution, build a large and effective navy and help to defeat Bonaparte and all those supposedly more efficient Frenchmen. The central point that needs to be remembered is that the corruption and venality of the UK political class of today coincides with a point in our history when about 80 per cent of the laws and regulations affecting we great unwashed are not written in Westminster, but in the EU; and further, that the state exerts a vastly greater degree of control over our lives now than was the case in the era of Pitt, Burke and Fox. So this stuff is both a sign of the unseriousness of our political class on the one hand, and also a sign of how much more the state and its functionaries matter, on the other. Cleaning up politics will not address the central problem that the state plays far too big a role in our lives in the first place. Take away the jam, and the flies will not be such a pest.
Strongly agree. Italy is a country rife with political corruption and also a “byzantine” bureaucracy and despite the scandals of “tangentopoli” around 20 years ago and “operation Mani Pulite (Clean Hands)” in which the whole political spectrum was subject to great changes and reforms, it now has Berlusconi as Prime Minister (a name not at all synonymous with honesty for many around the world). The reason for this seeming contradiction is probably to do with the country’s relation to the State which is the polar opposite of a “liberal” State. This may also explain why the British Parliament’s expenses claims are still relatively “small beer” compared to what has always been the case in Italy.
Most if not all of the problems we’ve had in Britain over the last century – a very large dose of so called progressive policies at home and abroad – were made so much worse because the state was seen as a moral force, an uncorrupted force for good. Not only were the policies seen as good, moral and just but so were the rulers, the political classes – good, decent honest men doing the decent thing for the good of the country (on both right and left). Even the agents of the state, the cops and the taxmen were regarded as being squeaky clean. Of course this wasn’t true but such seem to have been the perception.
I’d far rather have a government that’s regarded as a criminal farce rather than a force for good. Anything that damages their legitimacy in the eyes of the public is a good as far as I’m concerned. The more they are seen as venal hypocrites, liars and outright thieves the less likely they’re to get away with claiming some random act of looting or oppression is driven by pure motives and altruism.
My nightmare vision is a politics based on the tyranny of the majority given a new legitimacy – Good, honest men and women doing “More with Less” and a shining sense of virtue on all sides. I’d rather have gangsters; much less dangerous.
I wish one could edit comments.
David: Using my god-like powers, I have corrected a typo in your first comment. Is that what you were referring to?
Depends on what kind of criminal farce. The type in Italy, perhaps, but it is still a country where many honest people get murdered merely for being honest people. How about Argentina as an alternative? Criminal farces of various kinds for the last 60 years, and at their worst truly hideous criminal farces that committed mass murder. And even the less hideous farces there have done things like constantly inflate the currency and steal people’s savings. And come to think of it Italian governments have a bad record on that score too, because (to be blunt about it) messing around with the currency is one of the easier and more complete ways for a government to rob its population. Perhaps what you want is a situation with a criminal farce in charge that has no control of the country’s money. Italy has that, now, and may be better for it, although the price they have paid for this is monetary policy that has been set for France and (principally) Germany rather than Italy.
This is of course an argument for free banking. Not sure quite how I got here.
I don’t think 80 percent of our laws and regulations are made in Brussels. Open Europe wrote a good paper about this issue recently:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/outofcontrol.pdf
They conclude that although the EU’s contribution to our laws is growing all the time, it amounts to about 50 percent of the regulations in this country, but about 72 percent of the cost.
This figure is, of course, growing all the time.
But you are talking about the era just after the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which was the culmination of the disagreement between the monarchy and Parliament over the right of the King to rule according to his whim and the rule of law. The rule of law won of course, and at that time politicians could steal freely from foreigners, so the British people were closest to a state of liberty than at any time since. Charles 1 only had 2,000 civil servants. Can you imagine the freedom?
18th Century – A small state with corrupt politicians, unable to do much harm.
21st Century – A big state with corrupt politicians, unable to do much good.
Marta Andreasen’s ‘Brussels laid bare’ is worth a look:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5301009/A-look-in-the-EUs-unbalanced-books.html
I would say the tradeoff between corruption and exposure on the onehand and effictiveness and ability to fly under the radar on the other is one where it doesn’t matter which way you swing so much as that you don’t go to either extreme. A hypercorrupt state means no one can make rational predictions in business. A hypereffective state quickly becomes pervasive (see Sweden, Canada) to the point where you simply can’t do business without involving the government. What you want is a state silly enough that people can by appropriately cynical about it and unwilling to trust it too much, but effective enough that you can pretty much get down to working your trade without biting your nails off over what the rules will be tomorrow. For this reason, I’m cautiously optimistic about the future of the US, even though we’re clearly in for some dark times in the short run. All things considered, it seems to make the right tradeoff between corruption (of which there is plenty enough to keep people cynical) and effectiveness (which it is when it counts, but can be hopelessly incompetent when it counts too).
Another dimension to this is that you don’t want to attract too many of “the wrong people” into government. You do that when you err too far on one side of this tradeoff or another. If you err too far on the side of corruption, the government is simply staffed by criminals all the way down. Crime is effectively legal – and all unionized. Ugh. If you err too far on the side of effectiveness, all the competent people end up in government, and a huge talent sink goes into maintaining the bureaucracy (see, again, Canada/Sweden/Japan). All things in moderation – then. The government is truly the paradigmatic example of “necessary evil.” Gotta have it, unfortunately, which means it needs to stay sabotaged to some degree, ironically, to be effective in the way we want it to be.
One of the primary arguments for the Constitution in the US was that the limitations placed on the state would prevent the unscupulous from using the apparatus of state power to enrich themselves and oppress their fellow citizens.
It was a recognition of universal veniality in the presence of opportunity.
Today, the opportunities have multiplied like something out of “The Andromeda Strain”, and are every bit as deadly to liberty.
In a limited system in which the state is required to restrict its activities to public order and legal rationalism, men and women focused on those admirable goals are attracted to public service for some period of their lives, as some choose to serve as soldiers or paramedics, recognizing their duty to maintain in good order a community which attempts to protect and secure their rights and liberties.
In the current political/social environment, such people are repulsed and driven from those endeavors, as the descent into authoritarianism and corruption repels the just and honorable, and attracts and rewards the unscrupulous and unprincipled.
Our social structures are under attack, not from some evil genius or complex conspiracy, but from an infestation of moral termites and philosophical lice.
Only 50%? Whew! I was worried there for a minute… Thank God nobody’s interested in freedom, eh?
Marc, I am concerned. I want Britain out of the EU. I just feel that when making arguments for withdrawal, one has to be careful to make accurate claims.
In 18th century Britain most Members of the House of Commons did not get bribed (unlike today where everyone gets tax money in pay and perks).
We tend to ignore the “knights of the shire” type – but governments at the time could not afford to igore them.
If one became a minister one got money from the taxpayer – and some ordinary members of the House of Commons got straightforward bribes.
But rarely the majority of members.
If the knights of the shire types got really angry and turned up to vote (remember before Pitt the Younger’s “reforms” being an M.P. was often a very part time affair) then a government would fall.
So 18th century governments tended not to mess people (in Britain) about very much.
Hence people went on with building roads (via private turnpike trusts) building canals (without government help), building factories and so on.
If only there has been representation for the American colonies in the Parliament – then British governments would have been wary of messing them about as well.
However I agree that honest leftists (people who want the government to “do good”) are often worse than corrupt politicians.
Of course some people are both leftists (big government to “help the poor” and so on) and very corrupt – Peron and Obama spring to mind.
As for the E.U. – it is an extra layer of government, therefore all libertarians should oppose it and support Britain getting out of it.
I think there can be general agreement on this matter.