Search This Blog

Monday, 17 August 2020

Soon there won't be anyone left for this government to blame

As their troubles mount, bungling ministers will point the finger at minorities, migrants, teachers … anyone but themselves writes Nesrine Malik in The Guardian
 
 
‘A source “close to Gavin Williamson” has said that teachers were “not to be trusted on grading”.’ Students protest in London on Saturday. Photograph: Amer Ghazzal/Rex/Shutterstock


As a second peak of Covid-19 infections looms, one thing is certain: the Conservative party is dedicating itself to what it does best – crafting a narrative that blames everyone else for its mistakes.

Brace for it. After six months of catastrophic mismanagement, from delaying lockdown to the A-level marking fiasco, this autumn is sure to bring even more diversion, distraction and brazen victim-blaming.

Led by a shallow prime minister, populated by careerists and directed by a grandiose and sophomoric special adviser, the government at present is fashioned towards ruling – not governing. But it’s not lack of qualification alone that has produced its incompetence. The defining feature of today’s Conservative party is indifference to the outcomes of its failed policies – none of which it has been seriously punished for.

These aren’t new tactics. The poor were blamed for borrowing beyond their means in the wake of the financial crisis

The gutting of the state, the impoverishment and deaths caused by austerity, the chaos of Brexit and the global embarrassment that has been its pandemic response are failures that should have brought an end to its tenure. But the party has developed one skill: avoiding consequences by way of constructing false enemies – immigrants, welfare scroungers, the European Union. It has achieved this herd impunity with the help of a credulous and oftentimes knowingly complicit media.

When faced with the actual task of governing during a real crisis, not a confected one, the government has flailed, U-turned and contradicted itself. Throughout it has stuck competently and consistently to its one principle – never apologise, never explain, always blame someone else.

The political and cultural infrastructure that makes it so easy for the powerful to shift responsibility on to others while refusing to show humility or acknowledge mistakes encourages a limited range of public responses to political crises. When an issue arises, the government launches into dramatic displays of action for the benefit of the watching public, and the media follows its cue, inflating the scale of the problem. Any legitimate demands for rational analysis of a situation are trivialised as liberal hand-wringing. Calls for accountability are dismissed as a “politicising” of events, as Boris Johnson has repeatedly characterised Labour questions about its handling of the pandemic, or the result of media “agendas”, such as when journalists sought answers about Dominic Cummings defying lockdown rules.

When immigrants are spotted crossing the Channel, we are presented with the grossly disproportionate response of appointing a chillingly named “clandestine Channel threat commander”. The journalists ignoring the distress of a man in a dinghy bailing out water with a plastic bucket are likely not doing so out of a studied xenophobia, but this callous way of reporting is so entrenched that it’s become habit.

And everything is about to get worse. What lies ahead is the diversionary plan to make the British public accountable for the government’s failures. The seeds for this deception were planted during the pandemic’s first act. We were to “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”, and then later “stay alert, control the virus and save lives”. Cabinet ministers rolled out these staccato orders to us whenever they were cornered on the detail of their policies, as if the entire success or failure of the pandemic response hinged only on public observance and not the government’s decisions.

The seeds are flourishing. The Conservatives want us to believe that their efforts were thwarted by a mass exercise in national sabotage by irresponsible individuals, by black and ethnic minority communities allegedly not observing its rules, by badly run old people’s homes, even by the poor advice of its own scientists

At crucial junctures the Tories will anticipate public anger and earmark a convenient target to be subjected to public scrutiny. As A-level students saw their futures dissolve, a source “close to Gavin Williamson”, the education secretary, was mobilised to the Daily Telegraph to say that teachers were “not to be trusted on grading”, and it was they who gave students an unreasonable expectation of their results.

Round two of the fight between teachers’ unions and local governments is brewing, as they object to schools re-opening in September without a robust test, track and trace system. Perpetually locked in a fight with professional bodies and their own civil service, ministers bully people whose sense of vocational duty will not allow them to warp reality to suit government propaganda.

These aren’t new tactics. The poor were blamed for borrowing beyond their means in the wake of the financial crisis, and the bankers got away with it. Immigrants, not government austerity, were blamed for the shrinking of the welfare state. After a decade of gutting public services and growing its media patronage, the Conservative party has become very good at making people fight for the scraps of resources it leaves behind. Its efforts will add one more test to the trials facing the British public in the autumn – will we turn against the government, or each other?

Tuesday, 11 August 2020

Interview of Prashant Bhushan and the story of Dr. Kafeel Khan

 







Economics for Non Economists 5 – Inflation - Why is the government’s inflation rate lower than my personal experience?

By Girish Menon

Some of you would have realised that in the China virus season the supermarkets have raised prices and stopped offering discounts on many goods. As a result you would have experienced rising food bills which according to layman knowledge should translate into inflation*. At the same time, you may have read many economists predict a period of recession, deflation** and high levels of unemployment. So how is it that when you are experiencing inflation personally, economists predict the existence of deflation?

It all depends on the way the inflation rate is calculated.

The UK government uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to estimate the inflation rate in the British economy. It works like this:

1. Every year a few thousand families are asked to record their expenditure for a month. From this data the indexers estimate the types of goods and services bought by an average household and the quantity of their income spent on these goods.

2. With this information, surveyors are sent out each month to record prices for the above mix of goods. Prices are recorded in different areas of the country as well as in different types of retail outlets. These results are averaged out to find the average price of goods and this is converted into index numbers.

3. Changes in the price of some goods are considered more important than others based on the proportion of the income spent by the average household. This means that the above numbers have to be weighted before the final index is calculated. 

---Topics covered earlier


Quantitative Easing

What is a Free Market

---


Consider this example:

Assume that there are only two goods in the economy, food and cars. The average household spends 75% of their income on food and 25 % on cars. Suppose there is an increase in the price of food by 8% and of cars by 4% annually.

In a normal average calculation, the 8% and 4% would be added together and divided by 2 to arrive at an average inflation of 6%

However, this provides an inaccurate figure because spending on food is more important in the household than spending on cars. Food is given a weight of 75% and cars are given a weight of 25%. So the price increase of food is multiplied by ¾ (8*3/4 = 6) and added to the price increase of cars which is multiplied by ¼ (4*1/4 =1) which will result in an inflation of 7%.

Therefore if the inflation index was 100 at the start of the year then it will read 107 at the end of the year.

The accuracy of inflation calculations

As the example makes clear this calculation is based on an imagined average family’s spending patterns. There maybe only a few families in the UK that have the exact same spending patterns as imagined by the government.

Theoretically, different rates of inflation could be calculated within an economy by changing the consumption patterns or weightings in the index. This will explain why the inflation that you experience may be higher or lower than the government’s inflation rate.



* Inflation is an average increase in price level compared over a previous period.

** Deflation is an average decrease in price level compared over a previous period.
Disinflation means the inflation in the current period is lower than the earlier period.

Monday, 10 August 2020

The Supreme Court must remember: It is supreme because it’s final not because it’s infallible

Whilst justice is important, judges must not take themselves too seriously. Even if their amour propre is offended, it does not mean the institution has been questioned or justice brought into disrepute writes Karan Thapar in The Indian Express.


 

Are judges special or is justice special? It’s an interesting question and not because it’s a tricky one. Actually, it’s the issue at the heart of the debate around the Law of Contempt. It’s been discussed before but two cases of contempt against the human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan in the Supreme Court have brought it back into sharp focus.

The first contempt case, called the Tehelka case, dates back to 2009 and hasn’t been heard for the last eight years. Why in the middle of a COVID crisis, when the Supreme Court is only functioning virtually and many cases are rejected because there is “no extreme urgency”, has this case been given priority? When the Court cannot find time for the Citizenship Amendment Act or habeas corpus petitions from Jammu and Kashmir, are we to believe this case is more important?

Of course, the Court’s concerns are allegations regarding the judiciary and corruption, made by Prashant Bhushan and published by Tehelka. But if this has really scandalised the Court how come it didn’t act for 11 years? The second contempt case is mystifying. It arises out of one of Bhushan’s tweets commenting on a photograph of the present Chief Justice. The Court claims his tweet “brought the administration of justice in disrepute … undermining the dignity and authority of the institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular”.

These two cases have brought contempt of court back into focus and that’s the reason why the question I started with is important. As regards the cases themselves, they were heard on consecutive days last week (the 4th and 5th) and in both cases a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra reserved judgement. It’s expected in a week or 10 days. If good sense prevails he ought not to be sentenced. I now want to turn to what ought to constitute good sense in this matter. The answer to the question at the very start hinges upon it.

The concept of contempt is a centuries old British law abolished in 2013. At the time the British Law Commission said the purpose was not just “preventing the public from getting the wrong idea of judges … but where there are shortcomings it’s equally important to prevent the public from getting the right idea”. In other words, one intention was to hide judicial corruption. The concept, therefore, clashed with the need for transparency but also freedom of speech.

As far back as 1968, Lord Denning, Britain’s former Master of the Rolls, had this to say of the Law of Contempt: “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity … nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. It’s the right of every man, in parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest … we must rely on our own conduct itself to be its own vindication.”

In 1987, after the Spycatcher judgement, when the Daily Mirror called British Law Lords “You Old Fools” or, in 2016, after the Brexit ruling, when the Daily Mail called three judges “Enemies of the People” the British judiciary consciously and sensibly ignored the headlines and did not consider contempt prosecution. In fact, Lord Templeton’s comment on the Spycatcher headline is worth recalling: “I cannot deny that I am old; it’s the truth. Whether I am a fool or not is a matter of perception of someone else … there is no need to invoke the powers of contempt.”

A similar position was adopted in a 2008 lecture by Justice Markandey Katju: “If a person calls me a fool, whether inside court or outside it, I for one would not take action as it does not prevent me from functioning, and I would simply ignore the comment or else say that everyone is entitled to his opinion. After all words break no bones”.


More importantly, Justice Katju added: “The test to determine whether an act amounts to contempt of court or not is this: Does it make the functioning of judges impossible or extremely difficult? If it does not, then it does not amount to contempt of court even if it’s harsh criticism … the only situation where I would have to take some action was if my functioning as a judge was made impossible … after all I have to function if I wish to justify my salary.”

I think that answers the question I began with. Whilst justice is important, judges must not take themselves too seriously. Even if their amour propre is offended, it does not mean the institution has been questioned or justice brought into disrepute. Judges deliver justice, they do not embody it. They should never forget their Court is supreme because it’s final not because it’s infallible. When they lapse they can be criticised, but of course, politely and fairly.

I hope the Supreme Court will bear this in mind when it pronounces on Bhushan’s two cases.