Lazy Irrational European Socialist Dictators

Lazy Irrational European Socialist Dictators

Socialists are what I call “Anti” people, always against something: anti-work, anti-money, anti-property, anti-freedom, anti-business, anti-individual responsibility, and ultimately anti-human, despite crying crocodile tears of concern for the poor and unfortunates of the world. They are also the biggest obsessive control-freaks that you will ever come across - with taxes, bans, legislation and government force forming the essential tactics of any socialist campaign and the socialist answers to every political question. To this end they are also anti-reason - caring not for persuading people, merely for forcing them into doing what socialists want. It is such considerations as these that lead me to describe socialism as a form of mental retardation, and a very dangerous form at that.

Last week we had yet another view of socialism in all of its ugly glory as the socialist and trade union sympathisers of the European Parliament voted to remove our right to work more than 48 hours a week, and thus to force us to live according to their view of a proper “work-life balance.” The European Working Time Directive requires all EU countries to ensure that no employee works longer than a 48 hour week. Although this piece of corrupt legislation has been in place for over a decade Britain had always allowed its employees to opt-out, (they could sign agreements if they were prepared to exceed this arbitrary limit), a policy which 3.5 million Britons currently take advantage of. But now socialists from all over Europe have flexed their muscles to yet again interfere with the lives of millions of people in a different country.

The vote came on the back of trade union complaints that the opt-out system was open to abuse by companies who could use it to force their employees to work longer hours. The underpinning “logic” that they are using in a vain attempt to make this bitter socialist pill easier to swallow is that it’s a “health and safety” measure to protect employees, (conveniently, making it a "health and safety" issue is one of the few ways to get around the British veto). The only hope for Britain in rejecting this is if we can get enough support from other countries of the EU to block the move when it comes before a group of employment ministers next month. Fortunately only a large minority is required to do so, since the European Parliament is so dominated by socialist dictators that we’d have a squirrels chance in a forest fire of defeating it with a majority vote.

If the measures make it through it will be an administrative nightmare for British businesses. Businesses would be forced to keep time sheets for all employees listing the number of hours worked, including hours worked at home (only top executives will be exempt), and have these records readily available in the event of an instant inspection by whatever busy-body quango that would have to be set up to police the measures. Bizarrely, the 48 working hours a week for emergency service personnel would include all “on call” time - even if the employees are asleep. The socialist dream: sleeping counts as work. In days in which hospitals are already suffering an acute shortage of staff I’m not sure how socialist opposition to the opt-out squares with their love affair with the National Health Service.

Regrettably, Labour MEPs voted against their own people, their own country’s businesses, and their own party and government in their undying support for their European socialist brethren. Gary Titley, the leader of Labour’s MEP team stated that they supported the measures in order to “achieve a good work-life balance for families.” How sweet. How considerate. I’m almost bowled over by this wanton display of leftist compassion. Well, let me tell you something Mr Titley, it is not for you, nor any other band of sneaky, devious, interfering little viruses completely removed from the lives of millions of individuals, to dictate the hours according to which we can work and play. If an employee would like to work longer hours, perhaps to pay for holidays, houses, hatchbacks or hookers, then that is a matter for them and no one else, certainly not for someone who doesn’t know their individual situation, needs and wants. Only an obsessive control-freak would support such draconian measures. Only fools would support such draconian measures. Only socialists support these draconian measures.

John Monks, the head of the European Trade Union Confederation, has complained that if Britain keeps the opt-out then other countries will follow suit. He refers to the opt-out as a “disease eating away at the heart of the directive.” If this is a disease I certainly hope the whole of Europe becomes infected. Tony Woodley, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, who would have fit quite neatly into the government of the Soviet Union, explains this opposition to the opt-out by claiming that Britain’s “long hours culture” harms the health and safety, family life and productivity of workers: “The UK has the longest working hours of any EU country and it’s time those in a position to affect legislation took a stand. The government should support this.” Maybe British business and employees really should be thankful to have someone as caring as Mr Woodley, and others of his ilk, looking out for them and making sure they succeed AND have time for fun. Or perhaps he should keep his interfering nose out of our lives and allow us, the employees, to decide how many hours we wish to work and how many hours we wish to spend with our families, at the cinema, in the pub, or at the beach. I certainly wish he would spend more time with his family at the beach, since this might stop him poking his grubby little fingers into all kinds of pies, as is his custom. Business leaders are in a far better position to know what is good for productivity. If something is good for business then the owners and administrators of that business are not going to need legislation to force them to it. What’s good for one business might not be good for another. Likewise, what’s good for one employee might not be good for another. This is why such decisions about working hours are best left to individual employees and businesses to decide for themselves.

The socialist one-size fits all blanket simply doesn’t fit, except around our necks, and even then is excruciatingly tight. There’s nothing worse than someone interfering with our lives supposedly with our own best interests at heart. To impose blanket measures such as these on the basis of “health and safety,” “business productivity” or “maintaining a good work-life balance” is more in character with Stalinist Russia than the modern dynamic economy that the EU is attempting in vain to become. C.S. Lewis was entirely correct when he said: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Any historical attempt at a socialist state bears testimony to the truth of this claim.

Thankfully opponents of this legislation are mobilising. The non-Labour British MEP’s are hoping to gain support from other countries such as Poland, Ireland and many of the new Eastern members who wish to take advantage of flexible labour markets and avoid what the Polish MEP Konrad Szymanski calls “the worst legacy of the French and German economies.” Unfortunately many of those in favour of the opt-out system have thus far failed to argue the fundamental reason why the Working Time Directive is grossly absurd. They have argued against the Directive on pragmatic grounds rather than on principle. Sir Digby Jones has complained that the recent vote will take Europe’s economy backwards: “The European Parliament has learned nothing about the challenge of globalisation. Presumably, these are the MEP’s who will complain about employers relocation to China and India in years to come.” In other words, Sir Digby Jones is in favour of the opt-out because without it business will be adversely affected and unemployment will greatly increase. Likewise, Liam Fox, the Conservative party foreign affairs spokesman, said that we need to resist the removal of the opt-out to ensure Britain will not be “saddled with yet more regulation that will cost British jobs.” Other commentators base their support for the opt-out on the grounds that if the EU continues to restrict labour market flexibility then Europe will fall further and further behind America, and eventually other growing economies such as India and China, thus making the EU’s goal of becoming “the most dynamic and knowledge based economy in the world” a bit of a sick joke. These arguments are not without use, and in fact are entirely true: this legislation IS job-destroying folly, WILL put a strain on British businesses, WILL reduce the earning potential of employees, and WILL make the EU less competitive. However, these arguments fail to get to the heart of the matter and imply that the legislation would be justified if it made business more successful and reduced unemployment. But, even if the legislation was employee and business friendly it would still be up to employers and employees to negotiate the terms of the employment contract, and it would remain the prerogative of employees to decide whether or not they want to work any available extra hours. No-one but an employee has the right to decide whether or not they are working too much.

No-one.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

When School Examinations Become Tomfoolery

Mum, I Got an A! Thank God the Goldfish Died!

I only managed a B, C & D in my A-levels - fairly disappointing results for a genius, eh? The fact of the matter is that I simply wasn’t unlucky enough. Had I gone through more grief, distress, misfortune, or divine disapproval, I could very well have hit dizzier heights with my marks. I’m sure most readers are rather puzzled by this statement, since your average Joe Bloggs would quite understandably assume that the exact opposite would be the case - namely, good results would more likely follow an increase in luck, comfort, and emotional stability. But, such is not the case.

The country’s leading GSCE & A-level boards have drawn up a new exam guide in which students can get extra marks if something bad happens to them on the day of their exam or in the period leading up to it. We’re not talking here only of the death of a parent or sibling, situations which would more likely lead to the missing of exams altogether and doing re-sits. A student can be awarded 2% extra marks if their beloved family cat or dog happens to die on the day of an examination (I wonder do they have to produce the body as evidence?). No. Seriously. You really couldn’t make this shit up, could you? If Garfield pops his clogs the day prior to an exam then you only get 1% extra marks, so it’s best to wait until after midnight before introducing him to the maniac bastard hound from Hell in the neighbour’s backyard or lacing his Whiskas kitty-milk with arsenic.

Such a policy is a horribly misguided attempt by the exam boards to quantify the possible emotional distress caused to a candidate by a doggy death, and thus to make exams “fairer.” Yup, there’s goes the much overused, grossly misunderstood, F-word. This wouldn’t be quite such a nonsense if it was little kiddies we were talking about here, who would understandably be completely distraught when a pet dies. But, we’re talking here of 16-18 year olds supposedly suffering enough emotional distress through the loss of the family fish that they suddenly forget how to punch buttons on a calculator or form coherent thoughts and sentences.

It’s most difficult not to conclude that this is merely another attempt to mollycoddle young people by a culture that is increasingly unable to deal with or handle the many stresses and strains of life, a culture that so fears adversity and bad luck that it feels it necessary to wrap us all up in cotton wool to protect us from the Big Bad world where Big Bad things, such as goldfish deaths, are a regular occurrence. This is a culture that obviously doesn’t share my view that by the time any normal functioning person reaches their late teens they should be able to cope with any “emotional distress” that comes when Rover keels over. To offer older teenagers exam mark compensation for the death of Fluffy is an utterly absurd move. And where is such tom-foolery to end? Given such precedents it is not inconceivable that we will see the day when grades are bumped for any student who suffers the emotional upset of having a parent yell at them on the morning of the exam. Any number of so called “special circumstances” could be argued to have an affect on the performance of any given student. And the reverse might also be possible: perhaps marks could be dropped by a few percentage points if the student in question happens to have been lucky enough to come from a family where their education is well supported. Wouldn’t this also fit into the twisted understanding of fairness that has become commonplace? This concept of “fairness” is exactly what lies behind moves to pressure universities to accept more students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds, thus cutting back on the numbers of students from “advantaged” backgrounds, regardless of how good the students actually are and whether this policy leads to giving places to less able students. This unsightly situation is mirrored in the world of public sector employment, where white men have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting into certain sections of the police force, simply because “blacks are currently under-represented in our forces.” All in the name of “fairness.”

The intellectual wankery of exam compensation for bad luck clearly leads to all kinds of absurdities, to which we could add the problem of defining “family pet.” Would stick insects and gubbies count? Would their lives be worth the same % value as a dog, cat or horse? At least it’s quite amusing to watch the attempts to make, and justify, such quantifications. The Joint Council for General Qualifications, which represents the exam boards, has attempted to set the % compensation awards for all manner of mishap. You get 5% for a family death, or if a parent has a terminal illness - in other words barely double the value of a cat, dog or goldfish (if you have 3 cats that die would you get 6%?). If a distant relative dies then it isn’t deemed to take quite such a toll on your mental powers, and thus you get a mere 4% if your horrible Auntie Martha with the beard and the smelly cardigans floors it. Undergoing an exam with a broken limb is apparently as upsetting as the loss of Garfield, thus gaining the student a paltry 2%. “Domestic crisis” equals “organ disease” at 3%, as does “witnessing a distressing event” on the day of an exam, (presumably opening the exam paper at the beginning only to discover that you revised all the wrong stuff doesn’t count as “witnessing a distressing event”). Last, but by no means least, you can claim 1% for a headache - an illness that is completely and utterly unverifiable. It was also proposed that students should be compensated for “exam room disturbances” - such as the ringing of a mobile phone with that annoying Crazy Frog ring-tone - but it was decided that this would have been “a move too far.” Ha! I think that “move too far” happened many moves ago, around about the time someone floated the idea of extra exam points as a fitting way to mark the death of Mr Snuffles.

It seems that we are throwing more fuel on the fire of our compensation culture, and failing to teach people one of the most important lessons: life does not offer us a spectrum of compensation for the shite it gleefully flings in our general direction on an almost daily basis. If this is the shape of things to come then we will simply have to deal with a brand new generation of whingers who think the world owes them something for every little knock they take, be it suffering the death of a relative or the minor inconvenience of burning their toast in the morning. Unfortunately in life we must learn to live with the truth of Sods Law, and being able to deal with that fact is one of the best forms of education we can have.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

No Compulsion in Voting

Freedom to Vote Entails Freedom Not to

In the wake of another election we have once again to go through the process of lamentation at how low the turn-out was among the electorate. And, of course, such lamentation inevitably leads to cries for a system of compulsory voting. It would be great to finally put an end to this tedious debate and to silence those who consider such a system to have some great benefit beyond their own irrational urge to engage in control-freakery at every opportunity. Having wasted far too much time reading the musings of the compulsorists and not enough time actually enjoying my life I feel the need to respond to their poor excuses for compulsion.

One typical argument in favour of compulsory voting is that it, apparently, ensures that government represents the will of the whole population, rather than merely the will of those who made their opinions and thoughts known through the ballot box. This, so the argument goes, ensures fairness and ensures that government can’t neglect sections of society that are politically disengaged.

This argument ignores what to me is a blatantly obvious and very important fact: the will of the people who do not vote is, simply, to not vote. Not voting is itself an expression of will. Many of those who do not vote are politically disinterested. They do not care who gets elected, and are thus, implicitly, giving their consent to any government that forms after an election. If they feel neglected and ignored then they should be sure to vote next time instead of whinging about their lot. It is up to all individuals to be responsible for themselves.

Many others who do not vote may indeed be politically clued-in but are protesting. To them there is no politician or party currently worth voting for. And, lets face it, there is more point in making a protest in this way than there is in making it by spoiling a ballot paper. Spoiling your ballet paper doesn’t really say much – it just looks like you haven’t a clue how to mark an ‘X’ on a ballot paper or too stupid to grasp the concept of ranking candidates in order of choice in PR elections. And thus at election time far more fuss is made about the low turn-out than is ever made over the number of spoiled ballots. When was the last time you heard anyone giving a political analysis of spoiled ballots? Exactly, you never do. Spoiled ballot = too stupid to follow basic instructions.

Interestingly, this first argument for compulsory voting could equally be an argument against spoiling one’s ballot paper. It is often pointed out by advocates of compulsory voting that the phrase “compulsory voting” is something of a misnomer. In countries that have compulsory systems it is merely attendance at the polling booth that is required – not the actual casting of a vote. If advocates of a compulsory system have something similar in mind then this first argument is of little worth to their case since mere attendance at a polling station is not tantamount to the expression of a political opinion. In order for this first argument to be effective you would actually have to make casting a vote compulsory – not just attendance at a polling station – and you might also have to come up with a way of preventing people from spoiling their ballots. Under a system of the secret ballot it would be impossible to do this.

Furthermore, even if everyone voted you could not say that the government represents the will of the population. A majority of people in any given country may not have even voted for those who get elected. Many may not even agree much with the politicians they did vote for, electing them simply because they were the best of a bad bunch. Politicians and parties stand under a multitude of policies, and most people will agree with some but rarely all of these. It is possible, and quite probable, for a party to have a massive majority and yet not represent the will of the majority of the population on any number of specific issues.

A second argument in favour of compulsory voting rests on the assertion that voting is a “civic duty,” similar to paying taxes, jury service, or compulsory education. Voting should therefore be made compulsory.

This argument sounds far more ingenious than it actually is. On closer inspection it is actually a circular argument, relying on an equivocation of the term “civic duty.” To say that paying taxes is a civic duty is very different from saying that it is a civic duty to vote. The only coherent notion of civic duty is that it is a legal obligation enforced on the citizens of any given country. Taxes are a legal obligation, and thus paying them is a civic duty (whether or not you accept the legitimacy of the idea of taxation). Voting is not a legal obligation and is therefore not a civic duty in this respect. What this argument actually boils down to is this: “voting should be made a civic duty because voting is a civic duty.” Of course, for many people, myself included, this argument fails simply because we hold that things such as taxation, education and jury service should not be compulsory either.

A third argument advanced for compulsory voting is that it allows parties to concentrate on the issues rather than spending time and money persuading people to vote.

This muddle-headed argument fails on several counts:

(1) It relies on the rather curious notion that citizens should be forced to do something that they may not want to do simply to make life less difficult for political parties. I don’t think I need to waste time refuting this idea, since it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that it’s truly ridiculous.

(2) It assumes that political parties are actually using up significant resources to simply encourage people to vote. This isn’t true at all. I have never once seen any ‘pro-voting campaign’ by any politician or political party. Such types are much more tactful than to simply seek to encourage people to vote. Instead they seek to expand their own vote by inspiring people with their policies. This brings me to,

(3) The argument seems to assume a separation between getting people to vote and concentrating on the issues. However, in political campaigns parties endeavour to show why they are worth voting for. To do this they must discuss what are to them the most important issues and they must also persuade the electorate not only that such issues are important but that the stance taken on these issues by the party or politician in question is the correct one.

So, politicians and parties are not interested in merely getting people to vote. They are spending their time and resources getting people to vote for them. To do this they must speak about the issues they hold dear. I suspect most politicians would be secretly delighted if those who normally vote for their opponents did not vote at all.

Other advocates of compulsory voting argue that it ensures that elected politicians and governments will be more legitimate under such a system. I’m not quite sure just what is being said here. Is it that the more people who vote overall, the more legitimacy those who are elected will have? I find it a rather curious notion to hang electoral legitimacy on the overall number of people who vote. A government or politician in some country or area is legitimate if more people voted for them than for anyone else. That’s all there is to electoral legitimacy. Moreover, a compulsory system would not actually guarantee what this argument says it will. Lets say 90% of the electorate votes. Lets say also that there are 10 parties, and that the winner of the election comes out with 10% of the vote, yet wins. In this case we end up with a government that 81% of the voting population did not want.

If any merit still remains in the case for compulsory voting then it is finally despatched by some fundamental considerations against it.

Compulsory voting would be incredibly bad for democracy. As I have already said, there are 2 major groups of people who do not vote: the politically uninterested, who do not know enough or care enough about the election, and the politically interested who do not consider any candidate worth voting for, and perhaps think that their political and social goals can be met through other forms of action besides voting. If the former group are pushed to the polling booth we end up with an increased number of random or ignorant votes, as estimates as to the educative effect of a compulsory system are grossly over-exaggerated. (There is already some evidence to suggest that candidates higher up the voting paper have a better chance of getting random votes than those further down, leaving “Bentham, Jeremy” in a better position that “Mill, John Stuart” - and such an alphabetic advantage is hardly in the interests of democracy.) If the latter group are pushed to the polls then we will just get more spoiled ballots, and a spoiled ballot is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. In any event what do we achieve for democracy through a compulsory voting system? What benefits are achieved for any individual or group? I can’t think of a single benefit, nor have the advocates of compulsory voting come even close to demonstrating any.

Sometimes voters get quite irate when people choose not to vote. In a childish little article for the Guardian AC Grayling goes off on a rant at how failure to vote is a cavalier and irresponsible disregard for the people who fought and died that we might be free to vote, going on, in petulant tones, to invite non-voters to move to China to “see how they like it.” However, compulsory voting is a violation of personal liberty of the kind that democracy – the very democracy fought and died for – is meant to uphold. There are many other rights that people fought and died for – such as the right to stand for election – that few of us exercise, and yet no one complains of dishonour. Rights are of the nature that we can waive them if we so choose. We can decide which rights we exercise and which we do not. This is the nature of a right. This is what people fought and died for: to give us the right to choose – they did not fight and die so as to compel us into another form of dictatorship.

And consider the enormous resources that would have to be directed at administering this kind of system. SOLACE points out just some of things that would be required: “It would be necessary to consider the sanctions, policing methods and enforcement agency for non-compliance. A significant number of dissenters might be expected, and, clearly, to ensure future compliance it would be necessary to fine such individuals. A streamlined protocol for presentation of evidence and a summary conviction and recovery procedure would be necessary.” More taxes anyone? And not only would considerable resources be required, but we must also face up to the fact that dissenters would have to be punished. Watson and Tami, writing for the Fabian Society, state that, “it is simply necessary to make the fine small (to avoid hard luck stories) and the enforcement mechanisms easy to administer (to avid CSA style cock-ups). Above all, no one should go to jail for refusing to vote. Martyrs to apathy would need to be avoided.”

The main problem here is that the government seems unable to make administration of anything relatively easy – hence the CSA style cock-ups. Making enforcement mechanisms easy to administer is not easy. Moreover, if the fine is too small then there is less incentive to vote, and if it gets too big then we risk causing increased alienation from the political process if 1000’s of people ended up being fined. In the face of such a problem, some have advocated a system whereby people are paid to vote rather than punished for not voting. But what use would this be? It would certainly not increase intelligent political participation or decrease political apathy. People would remain just as disinterested as ever and would turn up at the polling booth just to get a fiver. It’s hardly a cost-effective way of encouraging political engagement. And who is to provide all this cash? More taxes anyone?

When all is said and done voting must remain voluntary. If it is made compulsory then citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to act responsibly. Responsibility entails thinking about choices, and is mocked when people exercise their rights blindly as a result of compulsion.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)