Queen's Speech 2008 Part III - schizophrenia

Our government is chronically schizophrenic. We have seen this most vividly in recent weeks in its approach to banks and economic policy generally. It vilified the banks for getting themselves into trouble by lending too much money to people who were a bad risk then insisted they continue lending at 2007 levels - levels which can only be reached if you lend to bad risks. It told us that its ownership or part-ownership of banks would be at arms' length, then at the first sign of the banks doing something the government didn't like it said they must come to heel because they are beholden to the government for bailing them out. It said we must all save more money then sought to dampen the recession by encouraging us all to spend. And that particular piece of double-think turned into triple-think because their main measure to encourage spending was something which would not generally reduce prices.

In the Queen's Speech were three measures showing just how deep and dangerous governmental schizophrenia has become. They cover business, the role of Parliament and (the real corker) welfare.

"My Government is committed to helping ... businesses through difficult times." Fine words, so what is it that the government proposes to help businesses. You have to search for this but there is a plan to help the cash flow of construction companies. The details do not seem to have been published yet, so it is impossible to say whether it might work. As far as I can tell that is the only thing in all the proposed new legislation aimed at making life easier for businesses. And to show how much they understand business, they propose to allow local authorities to raise supplementary taxes on businesses. Brilliant. Helping businesses through difficult times by taxing them more. Why didn't we all think of that?

"My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament ..." I sometimes think the Queen must be embarrassed by having to use meaningless terms like "constitutional renewal", she knows better than anyone that the constitution does not need renewal because it is not about to expire, it's not like a parking permit. Or is it? Many of us believe that the current government has done more damage to the flexible and pragmatic British constitution than any in modern times. Perhaps that is why they made her say "renewal", perhaps they realise the damage they have done by supplanting cabinet government and parliamentary scrutiny in favour of a small coterie of insiders who answer to no one. Somehow I doubt it.

At a time when the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary knows nothing and wants to know even less, national business strategy is in the hands of a sleazy spindoctor with little on his CV other than two forced resignations for being unfit to hold office, the impending closure of much of our capacity to generate electricity is answered with the pixie dust of windmills, the government stands four-square behind a partisan and incompetent Speaker of the House and the Opposition cannot oppose without fear of arrest, are we really expected to believe that the role of Parliament will be strengthened? How can they make the Queen say these things and still sleep at night?

And then there is welfare. Their proposals here are so contradictory it is almost laughable. On the one hand they say they are going to impose sanctions against those drawing benefits who refuse to try to find work. On the other hand they are going to make it the law of the land that so-called "child poverty" will be abolished by 2020. Let's cut through the weasel words. "Child poverty" means children growing up in families whose income is less than 60% of median earnings. Median earnings are currently around £26,000 a year before income tax, so 60% is about £15,600, equivalent to something around £300 a week. So they say no child will be in a family with a weekly income of less than about £300. A fine sentiment, I support it entirely as a jolly nice thing - if it can be achieved. So everyone is to be guaranteed an income of £300 a week from work or benefits or a combination of both? Ah, no, because those who don't want to work will have their current income reduced, in many cases to well below £300 a week. You simply cannot have a minimum guaranteed income (so as to meet the poverty target) if you also have a system of financial punishment for the indolent and feckless. You can't. You might want to, but you can't do it, the two cannot exist together.

I hear you say: "don't be such a silly fat bigot, Mr FatBigot, of course it can be achieved by imposing financial penalties only on benefit income above £300 a week", but that is not their policy and nor could it be because current benefit payments are well below that level in many instances. And then I hear you say: "or they could preside over a massive recession/depression so that median income falls far below current levels". Let's hope that is not what they expect and it certainly is not their policy. For all that I complain about their incompetence and their fiscal incontinence, I have no doubt that the government genuinely wants the people of this country to get richer. It's just that they show no sign at all of knowing how to achieve that. In any event, if incomes do fall substantially so will rents which, in turn will mean the amount paid in housing benefit will fall thereby making it even more difficult for those on welfare to hit the £300 a week mark.

There are other aspects of the measure in the Queen's Speech which can also be criticised as the product of governmental schizophrenia. These three caught my eye in particular. On a more general point, the biggest problem hitting much of the economy at the moment is a lack of confidence. A government with a clear plan and an unambiguous strategy to ease and then overcome recession can do a lot to restore confidence. That is one reason the country recovered so well from the recession in the early 1990s. After the disaster of the Exchange Rate Mechanism there was a significant change of approach, presented in a clear and consistent way by a plain speaking Prime Minister and even plainer speaking Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no double-talk, no muddle of policies pulling in all directions at once. At the moment no one can tell what the government really wants or how it aims to achieve it.

Queen's Speech 2008 Part I - integration

An aspect of life in Britain today is that there is increasingly only one "approved" way to live. Going fast are the days of "it takes all sorts", "each to his own" and "there's nowt as queer as folk". We are badgered not just by government but also by quangoes, charities and self-appointed pressure groups about what we eat, how we dress, how much exercise we take, how we travel, how we heat our homes and countless other things which used to be matters for adults to choose for themselves.

Part of the problem is that quangoes and pressure groups never disband voluntarily and charities now feel they have to promote a cause to justify their existence and, in particular, their government funding. They suffer from "mission creep" by which a modest and laudable task morphs into a wide-ranging campaign requiring more and more compulsion for it to be adopted by a sceptical public.

They might start with the mission to educate people about the benefits of eating more fruit and veg. It starts with leaflets and a free nibble of melon from a display at the supermarket, the education campaign is successful because people then know that fruit is jolly good stuff. Consumption increases and one might think it is job done. But no. People being people, not everyone does eat more fruit and veg. The pressure groups' conclusion is that the campaign must be stepped up, targets must be set. Five portions of fruit and veg a day appears out of nowhere as the recommended intake for everyone. There is no science behind it, some need more to maintain a healthy balance in their diet and some need less because human bodies do not all absorb vitamins and minerals in the same way and different people process fibre at different rates. For the vast majority five portions a day is grossly in excess of what they need to provide themselves with all the vegetative goodness they need, but the slogan has taken on a life of its own and must be defended to the end. It becomes an "official" guideline, "at least" is added by some rabid raffia munching bully, it turns from a guideline into a government sanctioned minimum target which must be enforced in school canteens. Where once people were being informed that fruit and veg are good for them, they are now being told they must eat lots of both, it's not a recommendation but an order. There is only one healthy way to eat, it's official.

The same process applies to so many fringe issues so beloved of our current government. Take homosexuality for example. One of Mrs Thatcher's nuttier ideas was a formal embargo on local authorities "promoting" homosexuality. I have never known what that meant in practice and certainly saw no evidence of town halls handing out pink handbags to lorry drivers and denim dungarees to the ladies knitting circle. Applying one of the finest British traits, many people who previously never even thought of matters homosexual became quite angry that a minority group was being picked on by government. Tolerance of personal tastes and foibles is something we have always been rather good at as a country and many whose tolerance was previously unspoken or even unrecognised found themselves becoming pro-homosexual rather than ambivalent. The mood changed, partly through greater exposure to the overtly homosexual in fields other than entertainment and hairdressing and partly as a reaction to a bullying law.

The current government swiftly overturned Mrs Thatcher's folly and went one step further by outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. One might think that would be that. The wrong had been corrected and homosexuals were given an equal footing in law with everyone else. But no. It was not enough to be fair to homosexuals there was also thought a need to be intolerant of those who had a genuine moral problem in treating homosexual behaviour as acceptable. In real life we have to accept that many people adhere to moral codes different from our own, in fact I suspect we would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with us on every single issue of morality.

The scriptures on which Judaism, Christianity and Islam rely all condemn homosexuality as being contrary to their god's will. In a civilised society the adherents of those religions are required to accept and abide by the laws of the country in which they live but they are not generally obliged to abandon (or pretend to abandon) their beliefs. One would expect them to be able to speak out against homosexual practices and explain why they find them objectionable whilst abiding by the law and not discriminating against homosexuals. No doubt that is something the people concerned might find very hard to do because their beliefs are important to them, nonetheless it can be done and I have no doubt a great many manage to do so. When the law goes that one step too far and seeks to act against convictions of morality rather than just actions it risks being held in contempt.

In today's Queen's Speech an interesting measure was proposed about immigration and nationality. For the first time "integration" will be a requirement for those from overseas who seek British citizenship or the right to live permanently in this country. We will have to wait to see the text of the Bill to learn what is meant by "integration". To my mind any definition must involve behaviour because no one can integrate into anything unless they do so by their behaviour. I think I can guess what the government has in mind. It knows that it is at risk of leeching votes to the British National Party in a number of marginal Parliamentary constituencies, indeed the votes in those constituencies could be the difference between Labour being returned to power or exiled to opposition. What the government has in mind is dusky-skinned immigrants of the Islamic faith.

When the country took large numbers from Uganda and Bangladesh in the 1970s many of them continued to follow the practices of their homelands. The man went out to work, the wife stayed at home and looked after the children. In that there was little difference between those families and many pasty-faced whiteys of long British heritage. The difference was in how the wife dressed and acted. Gingham frocks and M&S trousers suits didn't feature; headscarves, veils and head-to-toe black smocks with a slit for the eyes were instead the attire of choice. They did not learn English unless they had to in order to be able to buy five pound of spuds and they did not involve themselves in cultural activities outside those arranged by their local mosque. In other words they did not integrate. This caused and still causes resentment among the very sorts of people who would choose between Labour and the BNP in the voting booth.

I first encountered Bangladeshi families who followed their old customs when I lived in the East End of London as a student and for a few years after starting work. Initially it was quite a shock to my system because I had simply not seen anything like it and my first reaction was to think ill of it. Then I got to know some of my neighbours and it was clear that they were just following the customs they grew up with and which they felt were mandated by their religion. A few years later I moved into FatBigot Towers in Islington. Quite close by is an area known as Stamford Hill in Stoke Newington. Stamford Hill has a large population of Hasidic Jews. Their culture is for the man to work and the wife to stay at home. They also have traditional style of dress. The women do not integrate with the non-Hasidic locals and many of them do not speak English. I am unaware of any move at any time to require them to "integrate" before they could be considered British. They are highly law-abiding people for whom their established religion and culture are of huge importance. In that they are no different from the Bangladeshis I encountered in the East End.

Forced "integration" as a prerequisite of permanent residence or citizenship steps into the same murky territory as seeking to outlaw the expression of religious opinions opposing homosexual practices. It goes beyond requiring people to comply with the law in their doings and impinges on their cultural and religious values in a way that attacks their thoughts rather than their actions. To my mind that is just as offensive as a homosexual person being refused a job because of his sexual orientation, a person of dark pigmentation being refused a job because of his colour or a person of Romany extraction being refused a job because of his race.