I’ve posted about education before – proposing the idea of Teach Last as has fellow poster Ian Robertson when he wrote perceptively about Class Sizes.
This post over at Freakonomics about measuring Teacher Effectiveness is very interesting and well worth a look.
RCM
Little can cause a liberal more outrage than this story.
The Dubai police seem to have been more interested in the actions of the woman that may have ‘encouraged’ the act rather than investigate the rape itself.
Inevitably it is when things like this happen to Western ex-pats that our attention is drawn to it and we get understandably exercised. We musn’t forget that such laws apply to native Saudi women – see here for an even more horrendous example.
There must be a better way to confront this than our government simply saying they are ‘horrified’ or in the USA’s case not really saying much at all. You don’t need to be a believer in human rights to figure that this plain wrong.
What in the name of all that is holy is this all about?
What if it was accidentally detonated? What if this was retrospectively detected by the security services mid-flight – could we have seen a repeat of Jean Charles de Menezes? Is it normal for governments to do this?
Crazy…
There are several examples of people being rewarded for ‘good’ behaviour (see this and this) that I can think of. This seems to be related to RCM’s beloved nudge principle – try and use people’s psychological propensities to achieve policy. In these cases you’re rewarding behaviour with money or merchandise, providing a tangible and quick reward for exhibiting certain behaviours. My big problem with ‘nudging’ is related to my distrust of all forms of government control – who decides what the ‘positive’ outcomes are? Where does nudging stop – are we going to be nudged into thinking that life would be much easier if everyone submitted to police stop and searches on a constable’s whim a la Prevention of Terrorism Act?
Anyway - this news story made me think about this issue from a different angle. Would it be right to reward people who made conscious decisions relating to their health, consumption, pollution etc by cutting their taxes? In a sense we already do this with Road Tax (tax less polluting cars less) so why not tax people who are less of a burden on the state less? If you keep your BMI below a certain level, don’t smoke, don’t drink excessively, excercise heaps etc etc then why should you pay as much tax as somebody who exhibits all of these ‘polluting’ and costly activities? In the USA where, depending on your definition of liberal, the most liberal healthcare system (and many, me included, would argue unfair…) exists this is reflected in lower insurance premiums for people with ‘healthier’ lifestyles (and in the UK – here).
Is this liberal? I think there are arguments on both sides. On the one hand the state increases your liberty by reducing your tax burden (similar to the Easyjet council model we’ve heard so much about – here). On the other, like the nudging objections, someone has to decide what the ‘good behaviour’ is. Another obvious objection is the inequality that would be created between healthy people who find it easy to lose weight, keep fit etc and those who for whatever reasons find it more challenging. Also would it be a breach of the universal coverage the NHS provides?
I’d be interested to hear peoples’ opinions.
From time to time, I intend to post ‘interesting links’. See the last one here.
1) From the Guardian, a few days ago. Silicon Valley bigwigs are calling for new immigration laws to allow more skilled immigrants to move to Silicon Valley.
2) The Baby Market – an excellent piece in The New York Times’s equally excellent Room for Debate about The Baby Market.
3) How to stick to your New Year’s Resolution over at Nudge.
4) …. and how not to over at Freakonomics.
5) Iain Dale highlights the story of Rory Stewart walking all over the constituency he would like to win for the Tories. Stewart is an interesting character, a fine writer and, from everything I’ve read, a bright and brilliant candidate. As does Alex Massie.
6) Jeff over at SNP Tactical Voting gives us his predictions for the Year.
7) Matthew Yglesias debates torture.
8 ) John Stokes over at Spectator Coffee House puts forward ideas how to overcome America’s intelligence woes.
9) And Scotland’s geekiest sports blogger has upped his output . (What?! You can’t blame a boy for trying!).
Enjoy!
RCM
Alec Salmond said when Jack McConnell stood down as Labour Leader in Scotland:
‘He (Jack McConnell) once said that the job of each First Minister was to leave Scotland better than they found it. With the smoking ban and his work in Malawi he has certainly done that’
Now, we can all quibble about the liberality of banning smoking in pubs, but few would argue that Scotland’s link with Malawi was a bad thing. Indeed, most of us would say that this is one of the things that the Scottish Parliament can be justifiably proud. More can be found here at the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Development Programme.
This news from Malawi then is troubling. Now, Malawi is an independent country and, therefore, can make decisions people in Scotland disagree with – of course, this sentence barely needs writing. However, I’d be interested to know what the Scottish Government (and, indeed, Scottish Parliament) thought of this. Western governments have given money to far more despicable regimes than the multi-party democracy in Malawi but that doesn’t mean that as a friend of Malawi, Scotland shouldn’t make a public stand when they disagree with policies or actions undertaken by the Malawian government.
Indeed, The Scotsman makes a similar point. So far, Alex Salmond hasn’t made a statement. This really isn’t supposed to be a party political point (I’m not in a party for starters!). Rather as the First Minister of Scotland, he is the right and proper person to make such a statement – even if it means saying some tough things to a country with which we have strong ties.
RCM
Firstly, all of us at Liberal Scotland wish you, dear reader, a very Happy New Year – we hope that 2010 is a peaceful and prosperous year for you.
A few days back, I wrote a piece about David Cameron’s big idea – the post-bureaucratic age.
One of the problems with PBA is that many people in the UK, whatever they say, are unwilling to take control of elements of their own lives (their children’s schooling etc).
A perfect example is from my own street. I am lucky enough to live in a nice area of Edinburgh – Stockbridge. It is a lovely bit of town. People take pride in their gardens, front doors are painted nicely etc.
Over the last week, the snow has turned to ice about 1 to 2 inches thick. It isn’t terribly treacherous but can be problematic for people (especially old people) to walk on. Only two houses on the two streets I walk to the shops on have cleared the ice away (mine was one and the other was an elderly gentleman around the corner). It took an hour or so but it wasn’t too hard.
I went to my old flat in Dalry and the ice was as bad on the pavements there. Indeed, all over town this seemed to be the way. Now, I understand, you’ll be asking ‘what the hell has this got to do with the post-bureaucratic age’?
My point is this. I’ve heard people in pubs, on trains etc complaining that the council hasn’t cleaned the ice off the pavements.
And this is where the link comes (this is smooth stuff – ed.). The problem, too often, is that when people could do something for themselves (like cleaning their steps and the area outside their steps) they expect the council to do it for them. If we all cleaned our steps and the little areas outside our houses everyone would be better off. A shame really – how have we got to the point where we expect the state to do such simple things for us and, when we could act, we sit and wait for the state to intervene? Sad stuff.
Anyway, a glum thought but let us hope that 2010 is a fantastic year !
RCM
An interesting piece on Human Rights here in The Washington Post. The Cato Institute responds here.
RCM
I haven’t read it (or indeed bought it and added it to my ‘pop Economics’ reading list). However, this is a great title for a book and an interesting concept. The ever-excellent Tim Harford blogs about it here.
Firstly, Scrooge has an unfair rep. People call misers ‘Scrooge’ but they forget the over-riding moral of the story. Having stood, and wept, over his cheap tombstone in an unkempt graveyard Scrooge repents and becomes a very model of generosity and kindness. As others mocked his about turn and laughed at him ‘he let them laugh and little heeded them. His own heart laughed and that was quite enough for him. And it was always said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well if any man alive possessed such knowledge‘. We could all learn from that Scrooge – charitable, kind, not caring for what other people thought, full of the joys of Christmas. Scrooge, therefore, should be a compliment rather than an insult.
Secondly, as numerous economists point out, the stereotypical Scrooge is useful too. As Hartford points out in Prospect, Schelling’s classic Micro-motives and Macrobehaviour, sets out the pointlessness of many of the Christmas cards sent. ‘People feel obliged to send cards to people from whom they expect to receive them, often knowing that they will receive them only because the senders expect to receive cards in return’. This is a little like mutually assured destruction by politeness.
Hartford also points out the uselessness of sending gift vouchers – many are unredeemed and many end up on ebay which seems like a strange way of giving relatives money. Why not just give them the cash – that way they get to buy whatever they like from wherever they like (and, furthermore, get to keep the change!).
Landsburg in his book (More Sex Is Safer Sex*) argues that the original Scrooge is actually the model citizen. Indeed, the pre-repentant Scrooge is far more socially good than the charitable Scrooge at the end of the book. He was a rich man who didn’t spend money on food, wine or clothes. He ate gruel because it was cheap. This meant, fairly obviously, that there was chicken for someone else to eat. He lived well within his means – we could probably all learn from that too, even if we might forget it for the next week or two.
The money he so carefully accrued and saved was bunged in a bank and gathered interest for him. This helped capitalise a bank but also helped drive down interest rates and, better still, could be utilised by the bank to offer credit to other businesses – either as start-ups or as businesses needing liquidity during tough times. Again, this is a social good – good on Scrooge – the more he didn’t spend (e.g. saved) the more credit was available for others in the economy. He was an accidental Dragon.
Of course, if we were all Scrooge’s, there would be a problem. No one would consume the chicken or wine or chocolate – we would eat lots of gruel but people would be unwilling to enter a market because they couldn’t foresee people buying up the goods they were producing. They’d need to lay people off (or not employ them). The credit would, essentially, be useless as no one would be willing to take it up. So we need some Scrooge’s – both pre-repentance and post-repentance but not too many…
Have a very Merry Christmas
* Try reading that one on a crowded train
It was inevitable that Alex Salmond would give us a hue and cry about the televised leaders’ debates and the absence of the SNP’s invitation.
I think I agree with the common sentiment that the SNP or Plaid Cymru don’t have a place in the debates, Alex Salmond isn’t even standing for Westminster in the next General Election. Although the fuss was inevitable it does raise a slight issue with the debates. What are the criteria for inclusion?
I haven’t read anything that outlines how this was agreed between the parties and the broadcasters. Have they set an arbitrary share of the national vote criteria? If they have set one – what is it? Is it a condition that a party needs to be standing in all parts of the United Kingdom? Was consideration given to a debate between other ministers and shadow ministers to better reflect the parliamentary nature of our democracy?
There are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out but I dont think this from the SNP:
“The SNP are seeking to have a substantial influence at Westminster by electing a block of 20 or more MPs, with obvious UK-wide political implications – not least given the perfectly possible outcome of a hung parliament and tight arithmetic.”
has sufficient merit.
© 2010 Liberal Scotland · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
