Those cartoons, published in Egypt

It turns out that those cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper in October 2005, during Ramadan. A defence of that blog is here.

I find the arguments of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie compelling. Ali writes

There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.

and Namazie

I must admit, those of us who have fled the Islamic Republic of Iran are very familiar with this outlook on things. Cultural relativism's equal opportunity for all values and beliefs has often been shoved down our throats by many of the very same politicians, publishers and editors, telling us time and time again to respect 'our' culture and religion though it has been imposed by sheer force.

Now this racism of lower standards and relative rights regarding Islam is being applied to the European press as well! Beware!

This is the old chestnut of cultural imperialism versus the racism of low expectations. We can't win. But we can support people who have high expectations of their own cultures.

Tags: Jyllands-Posten cartoons

Voting for Ming

This has been a very difficult decision for me, but I will be giving Ming my first preference. Simon and Chris, I feel are both activists' candidates. Simon appeals to the left of the party, and Chris to radical liberals. (The right, if it exists, must keep quiet, as usual, for shame). So Chris appeals to me, very much. He could be the son I never had, had I no son already, and were I 40 years older. But I see in Chris some of the things that would make me a less than ideal leader of the party - such as giving the impression of focussing on the issues rather than the audience while speaking.

Ming's appeal is not to activists in any particular wing of the party, but to the country. This is the issue. Not who said or did what about Charles Kennedy, or how big somebody's majority is, or what leader might come next and when. Such things are the fluff of leadership contests, brought out by people who have already made their minds up for other reasons.

It is unfair to Chris. He has shown balls by standing and set the agenda of the campaign on policy. But this isn't about policy. And of course part of the reason it is so ballsy and so impressive is that he isn't the best candidate. The British love of the underdog is at work here. But life is unfair, and politics doubly so. If you look like a movie bad-guy and sound like a bank manager, it is unfair these should count against you. But they do.

It has been asked on the blogs whether the public are tired of conviction politicians like Blair, Bush and Clinton and are now ready to be led by policy wonks who will talk about the issues more. I'm afraid this is wishful thinking among us policy wonks. Policy is not what people look for, but a feeling of shared values. Chris simply doesn't connect with people well enough, save for us few freaks who intellectualise politics. He explains policy brilliantly and will be a great asset to the party. But that is not the leader's job.

And in focussing on policy Chris has sent a particular message: he cares about the things we care about - the environment, civil liberties, localism - more than the big issues for the general public: the economy, health, education and crime. To raise its game, this party must be consistent in its message and priorities and not focus too much on the sort of policies that get our activists excited. Chris is right in our comfort zone, and that is not what we need. I would like him to be the right choice, but that doesn't make it so.

Moving on to the other parties: Gordon Brown is the wonk to Blair's values and he will suffer for it. If we elect another wonk, the danger is that Brown and Huhne will send the public to sleep talking policy leaving Cameron to clean up. It is essential that we contrast with Brown as well as Cameron, and Ming is the man to do this. To be clear: Ming contrasts better with both Brown and Cameron than Chris does.

Not policy, but values, conviction, gravitas, these are what matter. Because Ming doesn't reflect the interests of a section of the party's activists, he is the more uniting force. He shows the greater consistency of message, the better support and the more character. This is why it has to be Ming.

Let's live for ever

Start the week starred the well known somewhat cranky gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who predicts that some people alive today will live to the age of 1000 thanks to rejuvenation technology. I glanced at some of de Grey's writing about a year ago and concluded that he was exaggerating the potential somewhat.

However the most interesting response to de Grey is opposition. Other panellists responded "why should we want to live to 200", "what is wrong with frailty?" and talked about overpopulation. I think these responses - which I shared the first time I considered this issue - are not only missing the point but are frightening. All medical technologies could be similarly doubted, and it would be hideous to do so. What de Grey anticipates are medical technologies so effective they make our present technology seem like leeches and a hole in the head. We are largely resigned to dying in our first century, this is better than spending a life in fear of death. But it doesn't mean that death in the our first century is desirable.

If you don't want to live to 200, you can take the way out any time you choose. We find suicide terrible, but perhaps we should find natural death terrible, and respect the chosen death after a long life, celebrating the fact that nature did not intervene sooner.

But what about overpopulation? What about healthcare, including the costs of and access to longevity technology? What about pensions? These will be significant challenges, but not so significant I think that we should seek to kill everybody off at the age of 80 by suppressing the technology.

Longevity will harm annuity returns. People will have to work longer, and probably draw down their pension funds rather than buy annuities. This will happen anyway, it is just a matter of degree. But the drop in annuity returns will come before the technology because the market will see it coming.

Access to healthcare? Doubtless the treatments will be expensive. Again, this is a problem we have already. There is an insatiable demand for healthcare and a limited budget. However reformed and well funded a NHS is, there will always be good treatments it cannot afford. But generally the NHS can afford them eventually. So what is new?

Overpopulation? It seems misanthropic even to ask the question. The population booms that have occurred in each country roughly around the time of industrialisation result not from the fact that people started breeding like rabbits - they always had - but from the fact that they stopped dying like flies. Birthrates would eventually adjust to restore balance. We are still dying like flies, just not as infants any more. We should expect significant longevity gains to result in another temporary population boom. Like industrialisation, a permanent benefit for a temporary cost.

And we see this misanthropy already when people talk about the 'problem' of there being a large number of pensioners. The correct word is 'triumph'.

These are significant challenges, for sure. But opposing the technology is the moral equivalent to shooting pensioners, or bombing the ballroom at Blackpool Tower. De Grey may be optimistic, but these questions will arise one day. Let's welcome them when they do.

Eco-taxes and ashes

So Chris Huhne's manifesto is out. I was waiting for this point to look at the issue of eco taxes in more detail and contrast Chris with Ming. I don't mean to suggest that policy is the main factor when choosing a leader - it isn't - so it is a little self-indulgent of me to focus on policy. On the other hand if there are signs of an ability to construct a compelling narrative that would be a big factor.

Unfortunately there isn't much detail that we haven't already seen. Chris argues that "the money raised should go back to those most in need, including the rural communities that rely on cars." This is very much the correct sentiment in my view, but there is a conflict here with the commitment to revenue-neutrality. For eco taxes to be revenue neutral, they must be matched by tax cuts not spent on compensation packages. How many of the "most in need" will be taxpayers? Which taxes, exactly, should be cut only in rural areas?

That this is only one part of a bigger manifesto, relatively unexpanded, suggests that Chris may realise that he has over egged this one. I think he has.

Chris said on Question Time yesterday that we can't tackle global warming without reducing our energy use. Well this isn't strictly true. We could generate as much carbon-free energy as we want, if we were willing to pay for it. If fossil fuel prices rise further and stay high we will probably do this anyway. But the likelihood is that they will not rise fast or far enough to make the economic case for investment in renewables and nuclear not just competitive, but compelling.

Chris's preferred argument against nuclear is the economic one. It is a good argument, but where is the joined up thinking? If we make fossils more expensive to combat global warming, that will change the economics of nuclear. What then?

So how about Ming? I largely agree with James Graham's analysis, although I would defend Ming on road user charging. Contrary to what James says, lack of public transport options is a serious urban problem in much of the country. Bus fares in Sheffield's private monopoly are out of control to the point that if there are 3 of you, take a taxi. "All road user charging does is make roads more economically efficient." All!?!?! That's a great thing. And it will improve urban air quality, which has an immediate impact on health and morbidity. Civil liberties are a concern with nationwide road user charging by satellite, but they will probably have all the speed cameras wired up to do the same job by then anyway so it won't make any difference. But "a case to consider the expansion" is not "charge for every inch of road with satellite monitoring".

On the other hand I don't agree with James and Ming on carbon accounts. There isn't a fixed amount of carbon to go round, and if there were rationing still wouldn't be efficient. What there is, is a relatively fixed environmental cost to emitting it. A simple tariff would correct this and save us the bureaucrat's wet dream of individual carbon accounts.

Anyway. Neither man is entirely convincing on the policy detail. (Meaning neither entirely agrees with me.) But more importantly, what is the story? Chris's story is the old doom 'n' gloom: talking about the Gulf stream and so on. This goes in the 'about fear' category. The fears may be justified, but I would prefer to be positive. Ming doesn't have a story to his environment policy. He rather sits on the fence. He equivocates, or recognises the nuances, depending on your perspective. The story is that Ming's story is about something else.

Sackcloth and eco-taxes

Simon Mollan has clarified his assertion that eco-taxes are "sackcloth".

Oddly, however, the arguments he goes on to make are about social justice, not prosperity in general. Yes, pensioners, students and unemployed people will be hit by fuel taxes. Perhaps there will be specifics in the Huhne manifesto as to whether all these groups will be compensated. Even so there will be winners and losers, but if that were going to stop us we would never change tax policy at all.

Simon also argues that "a certain amount fuel consumption is inelastic – both for business and people, and therefore increased taxation will not have the behaviour altering effects that Huhne thinks it will have." Yes, I agree. I have low expectations of eco taxes to change behaviour. They will a little, but lets not forget the good they do by raising revenue.

"In this scenario ... business will be less competitive..." Well obviously, if any particular tax is too high, there will be a cost to prosperity. (But not to overall competitiveness because exchanges rates will adjust.) But within a fairly wide range one tax can be substituted for another will little overall effect on prosperity. If we are already at the point where energy is so expensive compared to, say, labour or land, that economic choices are being grossly distorted, I would like to hear the case made before damning eco-taxes.

And although I am doubtful of the prospect of eco taxes changing individual behaviour an awful lot, they can change investment and lifestyle decisions in the long run, and investment in renewables is what we want.