Tom Hatton

Ivory Coast and liberal intervention

2011-04-06T05:23:00.000-07:00

In today's Times a British-Ghanaian businessman suggested that the reason the West has been reluctant to respond to the ensuing civil war in the Ivory Coast is because 'it seems that the old stereotype of Africa - the poverty-stricken, corrupt, incompetent, violent Dark Continent - has reasserted itself as an excuse for inaction'. In many respects the writer, Tutu Agyare, is right. However, there is a more fundamental reason why the West responded so readily to Libya and almost not at all to the Ivory Coast; and that reason is public exposure to the issue and the subsequent public appetite for action. The former feeds the latter and the latter forces the West to take action.

Many people will dismiss what I have said above as wrong because isn't Libya and Iraq all about oil? Indeed, the reticence of the West to get involved in Rwanda in 1994 suggests that backwaters in the Dark Continent are irrelevant to the West but oil rich Arab nations are. That's nonsense for several reasons, notably, that our oil situation has worsened as a result of out interventions in the Middle East not improved. Nevertheless, something about the Middle East and South-East Asia (tsunami 2004), East Asia (Japanese Earthquake 2011), i.e., the world other than Africa, consistently captures our nation's attention.

So, if it's not self-interest in oil why doesn't the West treat the Ivory Coast the same as Libya: people are being killed on a scale greater than Libya and the conflict is much bloodier than the Libyan incident currently. Unfortunately, I suspect Mr Agyare is right - the West is so used to seeing poor, starving, dead Africans that it is no longer scandalous. Take the annual BBC circus that is Comic Relief for example: every year we see some the biggest egos in music, showbiz and politics make fools of themselves to raise money to help people in places like Africa. Each year it raises more and more money. It breaks more and more records. But the poverty of Africa goes on and on. The videos of crying celebrities and malnutritioned children come back and haunt us year after year. In other words, the failure of Africa to be seen to be improving (which it is) neutralises the public appetite for liberal intervention in those areas. It is expected that Africa is nasy, brutish and life is short. Although I commend charity like Comic Relief I also believe that it is giving Africa the wrong type of publicity. The pictures and film clips on the news are no longer shocking. The poverty is no longer heart-wrenching. The status quo is accepted and no longer challenged. As such, the public appetite (or lack of it) for the lost cause that is Africa has killed any impulse to action on the part of Western governments.

For many liberal interventionists, they would love to see the West intervening in every humanitarian disaster in the world, but unfortunately public opinion doesn't allow it. Public opinion allows only for a patchy, inconsistent and fundamentally cruel response to the plight of our fellow humans in Africa. When people on Question Time ask the panelists 'why are we not in country x if we're in country y?' the answer is because the person asking the question won't let us. The argument that because we can only act inconsistently, irrationally and discriminatory in which global flashpoints we intervene doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene at all. It shows us that to intervene more we need to prove that Africa has a future which can be improved; it is not destined to play the key actor on our television screens every year on Comic Relief to allow us to go through a trivial cathartic back-slapping moments of charity and make us feel good because we've given a fiver over the phone. The task of think-tanks, Churches, charities and the BBC is to show that the world is improving and that intervention works. Only then will the right kind of media attention fuel the right kind of public appetite for the right kind of liberal intervention.

The return of the Etonians

2011-01-24T11:38:00.000-08:00

This blog post is inspired by an article I read in the Telegraph today by Harry Mount which chronicles the resurgence of public school boys in the upper echelons of politics. The central thesis of his piece is that the decline in grammar schools has led to a vacuum of talent in politics and this vacuum has subsequently been filled by males educated at Britain's top public schools; Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Balls and up to a third of both the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet pertain to such a trend.

The fact is of course - and Mount points this out - that the traditional public school types like Cameron had never actually disappeared; they were merely complimented and in some cases dominated by the often more talented grammar school people. To illustrate that statement one only needs to look at one startling fact: from 1964-1997 all British prime ministers were grammar school kids. Yet, in the 21st century, we have a country 'run by public school boys' (Davis, 2009). As Davis points out in that article, public school kids run the media and even our rock bands (Kaiser Chiefs, McFly et al - can you call them 'rock'?).

The whole point of this article, however, is not to take a pop at public school kids; they are products of a very effective education system and deserve to take a full and fullfilling role in British life. However, for me the return of the Etonians illustrates a worrying trend in British education which happened ever since Thatcher failed to support grammars and selective education in the 1980s: that comprehensive education and this 'nobody-fails-let's-do-easy-GCSEs' culture has betrayed a whole generation of talent. The point isn't that public schools have advantages over state schools - they don't, on the whole; it's that the social democratic model of comprehensive education has proved to be a failure.

That said, I look forward to seeing how Michael Gove's free schools will correct the great social democratic betrayal of Britain's young people.

Fox hunting and why it’s important

2010-06-21T16:27:00.000-07:00

The coalition government has committed itself to holding a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 which banned fox hunting and hare coursing in England & Wales. Inevitably, the opposition Labour Party will make a huge issue out of it and attempt, as they have done locally in Tameside, to characterise the issue as one of Rich Toffs versus Poor People. It’s class war. One only needs to read Cllr John Taylor’s eloquent (for those of you who don’t know John Taylor, I use the word liberally) letters to the Tameside Advertiser to see how Labour will fight the issue.

So effective has Labour been in making Conservatives ashamed of the policy of a free vote that many at the election were reticent about offering their own support for Fox Hunting. Indeed, some Tories have suggested that vocally pro-hunting activists (such as me) are merely playing Labour’s game and rising to the bait. The purpose of this note therefore is twofold: to present the case for the repeal of the Ban and to encourage other Conservatives to actively embrace the cause.

Before I begin I would like to stress that I have never hunted foxes on a horse and have no financial/family interest in fox hunting. Generally I have better things to do on a Saturday morning such as sleeping. Nonetheless, my interest in the countryside and agriculture is a significant one and I am Chairman of Romiley Young Farmers Club and have had some experience of the behind-the-scenes work of a local drag hunt and therefore feel I am in a position to talk about the issue holistically, i.e., outside of the narrow view that fox hunting is about posh people killing cute furry foxes for fun. I believe that you are probably not naive enough to agree with that description and appreciate the wider implications and inter-relating issues involved in fox hunting.

Firstly, the general argument for the ban is that (a) it sees the cruel torture of an animal; (b), there are more humane forms of killing a fox; and (c) it is a relic of an old aristocratic tradition. I shall very briefly deconstruct each argument in turn.

I am not going to patronise you by saying the fox when it is caught (as nine times out of every ten hunts it is not) suffers a marvellously pain free death. On the contrary it is chased for a prolonged period of time and killed by a hound with a swift bite to the neck. According to the Labour Government’s official inquiry into the issue the fox suffers death within about 20 seconds. My argument here is that it is an unpleasant death but not a cruel one. For example, if we accept the premise that foxes have to be killed because they’re pests (cf. Two incidents of foxes attacking children and foxes attacking livestock) there are only three options to kill a fox: to trap it, shoot it or hunt it. The first one can be rebutted rather swiftly; it’s illegal and leads to an agonising death over a period of several days and of course is non-discriminatory as to who it traps – a fisherman walking through the woods? A child playing? Or even a protected species such as a badger?

Shooting the fox seems like the most attractive option; what can be better than a quick, clean bullet to the head? Well, the fact that the average farmer or even professional shooter can not depend on a ‘quick’ or ‘clean’ shot is a sticking point. Foxes are incredibly swift and quick (hence their cunning characterisation in culture) and this makes a clean kill near-impossible for a reasonable marksman. Currently, the fox population is kept under control by these amateur marksmen and often the fox gets clipped by a couple of pellets of shot or a rifle bullet and can spend days in agony before it dies. Hardly humane. Can you see how a 20 minutes chase and 10 seconds death can seem the most humane method of dispatching a fox despite it being the most gruesome sounding?

As for the argument that fox hunting is a relic of bygone times, perhaps it is. Hunting is absolutely an expensive sport requiring a lot of disposable income and a horse. But so what? These richer people with nothing better to do on a Saturday are providing a free service to society and farmers. It isn’t just killing foxes that is their service either; they regularly repair fences and pick up dead stock from farms thus ensuring our food chain is kept clean and not contaminated by farmers simply burying dead stock (as has happened in the past). If we move the activity of culling foxes away from financially self-sufficient clubs then the burden will fall upon the state to perform that duty. Another expense for the taxpayer.

I’m going to stop here because I could continue to talk about a mountain of other things such as the demographic make-up of hunts and the economic benefits of hunting to the rural economy, but this document from the Countryside Alliance can do that far more eloquently than I can: http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/case_repeal.pdf.

Finally, the debate about fox hunting is no where near over – it will be a huge issue when Caroline Spelman presents the free vote bill to Parliament. My message to the ‘antis’ (to use hunting slang) is that your mastery of the arguments is weak, shallow and disingenuous. My more fundamental message to Conservatives is to be proud to support the repeal of the Hunting Act which would see the return of a compassionate and sensible tradition to our countryside.

TH

Notes on Democracy

2010-05-17T10:35:00.000-07:00

'Government by the people or their elected representatives' is the dictionary definition (Collins) of the political concept that is democracy. Pioneered by the ancient Athenians, democracy has become the accepted form of government in the Western world; indeed, the most developed nations on earth - the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada et al.- are all democracies and they are all wealthier and healthier because of it.

For some time now there has been a debate in the British body politic about political reform. This debate has become particularly pertinent since the ridiculous and surreal development of a Liberal becoming Deputy Prime Minister. No longer can the Tories and the socialist Labour party dismiss the arguments for PR, constitutional reform and further integration in the EU as the domain of fringe lefties - they are now at the heart of British government.

I'm not going to launch into a passionate defence of the First Past the Post system (that will come later). However, I will outline my own thoughts on democracy and what I believe it is. Because fundamentally, the debate around PR and political reform hinges not on the pros and cons of our present system but on subtle yet significantly different interpretations of the role of democracy within government.

The Liberals and a great many of the British electorate believe that parliamentary seats should be allocated according to the proportionate percentage of votes so that in a purely PR system a party with 33% of the popular vote would get 33% of the seats. Fine. That makes sense. However, I challenge the assertion that this in some way improves our democracy because the seats are more fairly distributed.

On the contrary, it dilutes our democracy and reduces it to a talking shop due to the endless skulduggery and deal making involved in coalition governments. In Germany, which has PR, the election result almost always ends up with a coalition government and the last time this happened the country was in limbo for 40 days. What's democratic about having no government? Clement Attlee, the most effective Labour PM ever, recognised the need for decisive government when he remarked that 'democracy means government by discussion but it is only effective if you can stop people talking'.

There are two parts to democracy: (1) ascertaining the general direction which the electorate want the government to go in and then (2) putting that 'general direction' into action. PR fails on both counts. If you would excuse my slightly ludicrous statement that democracy isn't about representation, I would argue that pure PR trivialises representation to the point that it becomes ineffective, i.e., one cannot ascertain the 'general direction' the electorate want. Without that direction, that guiding force, that democratic instruction, government of the country descends into endless and unproductive discussion and waffling.

It was Churchill who eloquently pointed out that democracy isn't the best form of government but it's the best one we have. The debate that the electorate and our politicians should start having is not about the petty issue of voting reform but about the type of democracy we want in Britain. We can choose a fairly represented one of compromise, indecisiveness and indelivery; or we can choose a system which recognises the two mutually integral parts to democracy - 'general direction' (not pure representation) which results in a majority government able to effect significant change.

In Defence of Politics....

2010-03-20T07:05:00.000-07:00

"Tory/Labour/Lib Dem crooks and thieves go away": a sign on the door of one disgruntled voter while I was out canvasing this morning. The feeling from voters and non-voters alike is that politicians are 'in it for themselves', 'to line their own pockets' and 'to claim the perks'.

Undoubtedly, some MPs have failed to live up to their 'honourable' epithet. But, the vast majority have.

I'll repeat that: the vast majority have!

I'm perhaps going to make myself the most unpopular person in the blogosphere now and say that I'm proud of our politicians and our prospective politicians of all hues and parties. I'm proud of them because they are willing to do one of the most stressful, detested and despised jobs in Britain.

Roosevelt once said 'that it's not the critic that counts...but the man who is actually in the arena...who spends himself for a worthy cause'. I don't know about those disgruntled voters but I see public service as a worthwhile cause. If the apathetic people who lambast politicians on their doorsteps really want to criticise then why don't they put themselves forward as alternatives?

It's true that most voters don't understand what our politicians do or what they are there for. To be honest, it's not the politicians' job to do that for them; electors must seek out their politicians as much as our politicians seek out their voters.

When it comes to solving our political crisis, it's fundamentally about solving the politics of ignorance. And the answer to that lies in the voters' court - not the politcian's.

Working Class Britain

2009-08-30T04:47:00.000-07:00

In an article on the BBC website, a journalist recounts his fond memories of going to his working-class friend's house for tea. He writes with some kind of romantic attachment to a lifestyle (he calls it a culture) he never knew.

The comment below was made by a reader of that very same article and I think any middle class people out there who believe in the romantic, quaint notion of working class tranquility should read it - and take note.

"I am "working class", at least I used to be. Grew up in a council house on a rough estate that's been pulled down now, and thank god for that. It's very easy to see the romance in a life style that you are not required to take part in, unless you want to. Of course there is a "culture" but it is not always a good one. Working class environments can be choiceless, hopeless and dark, with few ways out.

I would like to know what happened to Jim? Did he go to college? Get to debate cultural and bourgeois issues? I was lucky enough to pass the 11+ and work my way out of a lifestyle that none of my family willingly stayed within, once they had a choice. Choice is the key, and being "middle class", with all the baggage the term carries with it, gave more choice than a traditional working class life. I think its funny that so many people carry on about how wonderful the old working class lifestyle was, but so very few people want to live it."
Lyn, Maidstone, UK

Gypsies are not the State's problem

2009-08-01T09:22:00.001-07:00

This question was posed on the BBC website:

"Gypsy dilemma

Where should councils place travellers?"

It's indicative of the problem with many British people nowadays. People - not just gypsies - such as single parents, criminals, the unemployed and the young expect their problems to be sorted out by the state at the taxpayers' expense.

Let me illustrate this with an example. One teenager who I know recently said to me: 'I can't get a f****** job anywhere - Gordon Brown's a c**t'. While I agree with the latter point, I disagree with the general thrust of the statement: it is NOT Mr Brown's problem that the teenager is too lazy to look for a job. It's his problem.

As a nation, I think we need to break free from the expectation that there can be an omnipotent, omniscient state that can provide for our every need. There can never be a state like that; it's a dangerous ideal and one which we should be careful from slipping into.

Tories Apologise to the North? No Way!

2009-06-29T14:08:00.001-07:00

ConservativeHome, the leading grass roots Conservative website, has an interesting post today:

Should the Conservative Party apologise to the North?

It's interesting that Michael Gove and Alan Duncan believe that we should say 'sorry for the pain that was caused' to the North due to Thatcher's economic policies.

As a Northern Tory activist I welcome most Conservative Party efforts to make headway in the North, but this suggestion by ConservativeHome and the Southern MPs mentioned above is patronising and absurd. Thatcher turned the North from a state-dependent, inefficient industrial area into a shining beacon of redevelopment. And, I mean that; Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, York and Newcastle are all world-class cities; centres of business and culture. That was the result of Thatcher's economic policies in the North - not some left-wing babble summed up in Billy Elliot. Yes, the mining communities suffered high unemployment and social problems, but it's time to understand that those effects were necessary in order to make way for today's prosperity (they were, of course, exacerbated by the Unions themselves).

The greatest gift the Conservatives can give to the North now is not a feeble apology - but real conservatism. By that, I mean grammar schools, respect (for the police) and a wealth-inducing economy. The North has suffered for too long under the iron grip of socialism - it's time for the Conservatives to look back at their treatment of the North with pride. There should be no apology.

RMT and London Underground Strikes

2009-06-11T13:07:00.000-07:00

Generally speaking I have little sympathy with strikers; particularly, teachers and people who provide public services (such as the Royal Mail workers who refused to process BNP election leaflets). I have even less sympathy with the lazy, pathetic, selfish London Underground members of the RMT, led by the arch-militant Bob Crow, who have this week gone on strike.

I'm not fully aware of the reasons of the strike, so I apologise for my ignorance. But, I do know it only takes 6 weeks' training to become an Underground driver and you end up with a salary of £40,000 per annum! Ridiculous, especially compared with the wage of our soldiers, nurses and carers. For that reason, I see absolutely no moral basis for a strike from these over-paid train drivers in the middle of the nation's worst recession in over two decades!

They should all be sacked. Simple, and fair.

Devolution

2009-06-04T02:48:00.000-07:00

It's a historical fact that Scotland, and in some lesser respects Wales, has always been a little different to England. For example, ever since the Act of Union Scotland has retained its unique legal system and its own cultural distinction. However, under this Labour government the hideous idea of devolution has accelerated and this has proved to be a huge blow for the strength of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. In that sense, I object to devolution and Scottish and Welsh legislatures on a patriotic and sentimental ground.

However, as a conservative, I am more ideologically opposed to devolution. It's nothing more than an extra layer of bureaucracy . I believe in small government. Devolution is the antithesis to that sacred conservative belief. As such, I believe that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should be scrapped - the people of those nations are not different to the English; they are as British as someone from the Home Counties (to use a stereotype) and they should be governed by the British legislature - the Westminster Parliament.

Since the Euro elections are today, we have seen huge debates about whether or not we should be in Europe. The argument spouted by the Eurosceptics is that giving more power to the EU is a loss of parliamentary sovereignty and is undermining the British sense of identity. Why then, do many conservatives support the present system in the UK of multilayered, wasteful, inefficient government? It's sheer hypocrisy from conservatives and the whole issue needs to be confronted by the main representative body of UK conservatives - the Conservative Party. However, I predict they will bow to pressure for keeping the status quo.

Politicians and their Expenses

2009-05-13T09:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, the British public seems to have turned on its elected representatives. According to one Tory peer, Parliament has been 'dragged into the pits'. Much of this public anger has of course been fuelled by the Daily Telegraph's recent revelations about MPs' misuse of their parliamentary allowances. The British public have been provoked into writing strong letters to national and local papers, MPs have been reluctant to appear on television and being an MP has suddenly become far more dangerous than an out-and-proud homosexual in Iran.

I can't help but think, however, that this public ire has been bubbling away under the surface for some while and the Telegraph's 'Expenses Files' have just been the catalyst for an almighty explosion, of which we are going through now. The British it seems, just have absolutely no time for politics.

I just think that all of this has been blown a tad bit out of proportion. Yes, nobody thinks MPs should 'flip' their homes to make financial gain and of course, no taxpayer wants to pay for Douglas Hogg's moat to be cleaned. However, we must also accept that making a few dodgy expenses claims is not the most heinous of moral crimes. For example, Michael Gove 'flipped' his house quite legitimately, yet, the Daily Telegraph felt the need to parade his face on their front page and suggest him of some financial impropriety.

We should stop this nonsensical witch hunt immediately. We must recognise that the vast majority of MPs (including Labour ones) went into politics for the right reasons - to make this country better. Let's have none of this talk about being 'dragged into the pits' or the need for an 'immediate general election' because of it. Stephen Fry put it nicely when he said 'let's concentrate on what politicians get really wrong, like wars' - a reasonable voice in an unnecessary bout of public hysteria.