Article eight only applies to public bodies so, for the most part, the media are not affected. However, to tackle the more general point – celebrity, by its nature requires some surrender of privacy; presumably those who would sign such a register would still want the ‘good’ publicity but want approval over the ‘bad’ stuff. Once you start giving anyone copy approval over a supposedly free press, you might as shut it down. It has simply ceased to be free at that point.


Making editor’s think twice  A paparazzo’s shot of a second or third rate celeb doing something stupid, or something perfectly sensible but just not in makeup – or clothes – makes for an easy page lead. Anything that makes editors pause and consider whether they have something that might actually pass for news might do a great deal to pull large chunks of the British media – along with the readers they claim to serve – out of the gutter.  In recent decades anything with ‘celebrity’ associations has been considered news as a sought of kneejerk reaction by editors. Even in the ‘quality’ press there’s still plenty of coverage of vacuous, self-absorbed, talentless individuals who are famous, mostly, for being famous.  The defence of many editors is that these individuals deliberately court the attention they receive, which is, no doubt, true. However, whether it’s a good idea to give it to them is something that ought to give editors pause for thought given the deforming impact it has on young people’s sense of ambition [i] . Anything that means that such a productive golden goose is just one signature away from being killed, might be enough to make them ask whether it is really worth it.  Nobody is suggesting that this will transform the media overnight but readers moving away from publications that focussed exclusively on celebrity gossip to publications that, while containing some, also have much more news and analysis of real world events and issues certainly couldn’t hurt levels of social and political engagement. The best way to encourage engagement is through education, which the media can provide.  [i] The Telegraph. Lucy Cockcroft. “Cult of Celebrity ‘is harming children”. 14 March 2008.


It would seem to be entirely up to the media if they chose to seek an interview with a celebrity about their latest movie – that is, after all, part of most actors’ job descriptions and part of the media’s duty to inform. That hardly seems relevant to whether it’s possible to publish a picture of them shouting at their kids.


The response as simple as the point: Leveson wasn’t asked to create a regulatory framework for the Internet. The web is the papers’ problem, not Leveson’s.


It would allow for an entirely false image to be created  If celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections [i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics?  Equally, they expect coverage – and to be taken seriously – when announcing that the latest movie, or book or album is a masterpiece despite the panning it’s receiving from the critics.  It’s also questionable as to whether pop singer or movie star would count as quite the right career choice for someone looking for a quiet life [ii] .  It would be interesting to see how many would sign-up to Leveson’s proposed list if it was a blanket ban on publicity. No coverage of charity events that happened to get a celeb along, no interviews with actors on economics or pop musicians on ethics.  [i] The Independent. Matilda Battersby and Thomas Mendelsohn. A who’s who of celebrity political endorsements.” 4 May 2010.  [ii] The Guardian. Owen Bowcott. “Media interest in celebrities’ lives is legitimate, European court rules.” 7 February 2012.


It sets a very dangerous precedent for controlling the output of the media – who is a celebrity?  What and who else should the media not be allowed to cover. By the same logic as banning the coverage of the private lives of those celebs that make a living out of publicity, why not the financial lives of those bankers who make their living out of money? There’s no doubt that it caused embarrassment and inconvenience to those concerned and the collapse of banks could have been reported perfectly well without mentioning the tens of millions made by their directors and traders.  When does someone become a celebrity and when do they cease to be. If a politician appears on “I’m a celebrity…” or “Celebrity Big Brother”, do they cease to be a politician?  Are the Hamiltons public figures or celebrities? Is Portillo? Is Galloway? Nadine Dorries is the latest sitting member of Parliament to take part in a reality TV show; in this case I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. [i] When actors become members of parliament is their previous life covered.  Perhaps most obviously if a comedian like Jimmy Carr whose material is often political turns out not to be paying his taxes what happens? [ii]  There are several differences between telling newspapers what they can and can’t cover in advance and establishing a regulatory framework for when they overstep the mark. An important one of those differences is that Leveson was asked to investigate the latter and not the former.  [i] Mulholland, Hélène, ‘Nadine Dorries to go ahead with TV show after learning of Tory suspension’, guardian.co.uk, 9 November 2012,   [ii] The Guardian. Rupert Sawyer. “Poor Jimmy Carr. Being a celebrity shouldn’t be taxing.” 22 June 2012.


It simply won’t work in an internet age  Whatever one thinks about the morality of this idea – and Opposition believes it is an attack on free expression – the simple and compelling fact is that it won’t work. The super-injunctions [i] fiasco demonstrated that keeping information silent in an internet age is simply impossible when there is a keen public interest.  Whether Prop likes it or not, the public is interested in celebrity news, requiring newspapers to ignore what is happening in the blogosphere is asking them not to do their job. It would mean that the only people on the planet who couldn’t tweet celebrity gossip would be those hired to do so.  This is important because it’s effectively impossible to sue a blog or a twitter account so they can publish any old nonsense. The press by contrast are subject to the law and, as a result, rumours remain the stuff of fantasy until they appear in the media. Without that arbiter between truth and fantasy, a curious public might as well believe what some fantasist has posted on their website.  [i] Useful background on super-injunctions as the history leading up to them is here on the BBC site.


There is a clear and demonstrable difference between the public right to know that their savings have been lost but the person who lost them walked off with £40m and seeing a picture that suggests an actress has put on five pounds. The first actually affects the real lives of real people, the second really doesn’t. As for blurred definitions, the NUJ’s own definition of a journalist would seem to work – wherever the person receives the majority of their earnings.


Their song may have gone on to discuss political themes but its basis was an appeal to Mary to rid Russia of Putin. All the rest was trappings after that initial statement – a sort of protracted “because”. It is quite routine for prayers to start with an appeal to diving authority before addressing secular themes just as this did; it was a mockery of a prayer and, therefore, profane.


The focus of their song was one of political dissent rather than religion  Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out. [i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion.  The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church.  Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists.  [i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012


It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press. [i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel.  [i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012


The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin  There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism [i] , uses force to crush unsanctioned protests, [ii] and locks up potential opponents. [iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law." [iv]  Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process. [v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.  [i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012  [ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012  [iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010  [iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012  [v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012


What is extraordinary is that despite the liberal outrage of much of the Western press, the Russian court system has delivered an appropriate verdict. There can be little doubt that their actions showed a fantastic level of disrespect for the Church, this is the closest relevant charge. Rulings may be convenient or not for leaders of all political persuasions – neither proves bias within the courts.


History of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state  The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism. [i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.  The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned. [ii] The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts.  [i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003  [ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008


It’s a parody of a prayer; nobody has ever denied that. If that’s the form of protest to be used, where better than a church? No property was damaged although some feathers may have been ruffled – but fair enough. Protesting the increasingly totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most powerful nations would seem to justify a fairly minor disturbance on a Sunday morning.


Firstly protesting in a Church clearly has served to draw maximum attention to the issue and so they appear to have been proven right to have done so. Secondly, it is the severity of the sentence that is the issue here, Tatchell’s actions were described by the magistrate as “a minor public order offence” and he was given a fine of under £20.


Intention  Perhaps more damning than the fact that the protest did cause offence or the fact that it was always likely to was the fact that it was clearly intended to do. At no point can the members of Pussy Riot been under the illusion that no offence would be caused; quite the reverse, they were counting on it. Counting not only on the outcry in the domestic media but also on the impact that would have on the international media in an effort to give themselves some cover.  While the charge of ‘hooliganism’ might seem laughable this does meet the Russian definition “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.” [i] It is clear they did this in terms of their intrusion to areas reserved for priests, by manifestly contradicting common church rules, expressing their disrespect and using swear words, [ii] it is clear that profanity is a much greater offence within a church than outside even if it is a word used in ‘everyday speech’. [iii]  It is important to be clear that this is not Solzhenitsyn, because of the way this was staged it was intended from the outset to do nothing more than grab headlines. There is no denying that there are real political divisions in Moscow and that there are many people with very real issues with Putin’s style of leadership, it is difficult to see how this publicity grabbing stunt does anything to help that cause.  [i] Taylor, Adam, ‘Why Russian Punks Pussy Riot Aren't Heroes’, Business Insider, 16 August 2012  [ii] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012  [iii] Fraser, Giles, ‘Pussy Riot's crime was violating the sacred. That's what got Jesus in court’, The Guardian, 10 August 2010


Why use the form of a prayer and mention the Virgin in a political protest?  The members of Pussy Riot themselves seem to admit that the protest was at least in part religious, Sparrow, one of the members told the Guardian "It was just a prayer. A very special prayer”. [i] When combined with the setting in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour shows the intent. It would, in theory, be possible to imagine a protest in such a setting that did not cause offence – or at least sought to minimise it. However, the religious overtones and references seem designed purely to inflame it. They served no purpose in making the case about Putin’s policies but seem calculated to offend the congregation and clergy and, given the setting, the Orthodox Church as a whole.  However, a quiet and dignified protest, while making the political point more powerfully and without offence would not have served the main purpose here; publicity through maximizing offence as a result of deliberate blasphemy.  To intend blasphemy, to commit blasphemy, in the full and wilful knowledge that it is blasphemous and then claim it is political dissent is offensive not only to the religious but to those who have genuinely suffered as a result of their political dissent [ii] .  [i] Cadwalladr, Carole, ‘Pussy Riot: will Vladimir Putin regret taking on Russia's cool women punks?’, The Observer, 29 July 2012  [ii] Daily Mail. Mark Dooley. “Am I the only person who thinks that pussy riot should have been jailed?” 24 August 2012.


If it was a purely political statement, then why stage it in a church?  There is no shortage of possible venues to stage a protest such as this one. A busy supermarket, a train station, a park, the middle of the street – all of them would have fulfilled the requirement for lots of people with attentions to be attracted. Since it was dubbed not a live concert the location would have been totally interchangeable. [i] Holding it in a church – in front of the high alter during mass – was calculated to cause maximum effect, maximum shock and maximum publicity. Causing intended offence during a religious ceremony is about as close to the definition of blasphemy as it would be possible to get.  Vladimir Putin has shrugged off challenges from much more serious critics than an attention-seeking group of musicians. This very act was calculated to cause the greatest possible offence to people of faith. Such a protest in St Peter’s in the same situation would have caused great offence even if the protest had been about Berlusconi. When British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter service some years ago, he was widely thought of as having done his cause more harm than good because it offended so many and was subsequently convicted [ii] . This is no different, it was blasphemous and, under Russian law, there are punishments for blasphemy.  [i] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012  [ii] BBC News Website. Tatchell fined £18.60 for pulpit protest.


The protest was certainly intended to be noticed – there’s little point in protesting something if it isn’t. The very fact that they were willing to risk imprisonment suggests that this was something more than a media stunt. It’s also difficult to see how this is different from earlier generations of artists who have protested tyranny – the only significant difference seems to be that this tyrant gets on rather better with leaders of the West.


This is an excellent reason why as much information as possible should be publically and internationally available [i] . China’s entry into the Korean war was justified on grounds of national security at the time and that line has been doggedly followed since. Truman thought it was “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN” [ii] at the time and the opinion of many has not changed since. The US and Korea have had to face some of their demons about the war since; why not China? It is also difficult to see what this has to do with the foundational myths of the Chinese state, which go back thousands of years, or even the Communist party which come from the long march and the second world war. And if indeed it is a ‘myth’ then is there not a duty to show that this historical record is wrong? National identity should be built on the basis of facts not manufactured mythologies.  [i] Eurozine. Danuta Glondys, Arne Ruth. Breaking the Bonds of National Mythology. 14 March 2011.  [ii] China intervenes (October – December 1950). Korean War. Wikipedia.


Foundational Myths  Nations come from somewhere, or at least we tend to believe they do [i] . The fact that these foundational myths are usually either partially or completely untrue is mostly irrelevant. These myths – be they of glorious revolutions or long histories reaching back into antiquity are projections of the modern nation. However, they are only the most obvious example of national mythologies, we project our current-day identities onto all sorts of more recent histories as well. To take one fairly flippant example of this, ask a national of any country involved on the victorious side in WWII and ask them who won the war.  States have an interest in perpetuating these myths, not for particular or personal motives but because they add to a sense of national identity and the homogeneity of the whole. To that extent they are, quite literally, a matter of national security they confer and justify the notion of the nation as an entity or the concept of the nation state as a possibility. As national historian Spyridon Lambros said “next to military power, the pen of the historian is the most powerful weapon of national ambitions.” [ii]  [i] Tambini, D. Ethnic and Racial studies, Vol 24 No. 2 March 2001 pp. 195 – 217. Post-national citizenship.  [ii] Berger, Stefan, ‘History and national identity: why they should remain divorced’, History & Policy, December 2007


In such instances, clearly nations will pursue their national interest but, just to take Prop’s example, the ICJ [i] spends most of its time dealing with disputes about maritime law, mostly ownership issues. They work on the basis of investigation and fact. Suppressing information would clearly only be an attempt to reduce the information available so as to prevent an unbiased judgement. To take the Senkaku/Daioyu example yes the China’s may have some documents conceding Japanese sovereignty but that does not end the dispute. Nor would losing the case in such a dispute be a real threat to the national security of either side; the territory and resources would be nice to have but are not vital for either’s economy or security. So Proposition has yet to give an example of where there would be a clear issue of national security – or even national interest in hiding history.  [i] International Criminal Court of Justice website. Contentious Cases


Protecting the past  There is a simple case of natural justice in protecting the decisions and reputations of those who have served the state and can no longer speak for themselves [i] . The same applies to events, for better or worse political or military disputes that were settled fifty or a hundred years ago are best left like that, settled.  All nations have moments in their histories that are unlikely to reflect that country at its best but we judge our own nations and others on a balance of the broad sweep of history rather than the grubby minutiae of particular events.  By its nature the historical record will always be incomplete – silent on motivations of those involved or the particularities of individual decisions as we can never know everything and not all decision making processes are recorded. We already know the overall outcomes of, for example, wars or elections. It would be impossible to change those results by discovering that they were not handled as one might have wished. Neither is their much to be gained in despoiling the characters of those involved – national psyches need their heroes and villains, making either of them more human in both senses of the phrase adds little and could distract much. For example do we really need to know that Churchill opposed the Nuremburg trials instead favouring execution without trial for senior Nazi leaders? Does it diminish Churchill’s greatness or undermine the results of the Nuremburg trials? No. [ii]  [i] BBC News Website. Secret papers face faster release. 29 January 2009.  [ii] Cobain, Ian, ‘Britain favoured execution over Nuremberg trials for Nazi leaders’, The Guardian, 26 October 2012


There is rarely anything to do with protecting the past in these decisions. It is all to do with the present and either manufacturing an image of a previous decision or covering up corruption or incompetence on the part of the party, faction or individual that happens to be in charge at the time. What Proposition so cheerily describes as ‘grubby minutiae’ would be more generally referred to as ‘facts’, proposition seems to think that history shouldn’t let these ‘grubby minutiae’ get in the way of a good story. If proposition is correct in its view that “It would be impossible to change those results” then there is no reason why historians should not be free to investigate and reinterpret the record as to how these results were arrived at.


Predicting and protecting the future nation  In a much more practical sense historical data may well breach national security. They may well be instances, such as in the case given in the introduction, where governments may even be unaware that there were issues of national security involved until they are brought to light. Data that was not significant fifty years ago may become of great significance later on.  To take a simple, hypothetical example. Laws relating to the ownership of the sea are relatively obscure and often based on ancient negotiations or treaties that are mostly about something else. They frequently involve custom and precedent and, for the most part, nobody really makes a fuss about the exact details. Until, of course, someone finds an oil field underneath that stretch of ocean or the fish supplies of a neighboring area become depleted [i] . At his point, the exact details of those negotiations and treaties become a source of great interest. Thus for example documents relating the Senkaku/Daioyu islets may have been uncontentious and irrelevant in the 1950 may now be of vital importance in an international dispute between China and Japan over the islands. [ii] [iii]  In a scenario such as this, there may well be vital national issues that were not predicted at the time of the negotiation or ratification of a treaty. Disputes of this nature – justifying industrial scale claims to mineral and fishing rights on the basis of historical claims are likely to boom over the next few years in relation to the poles as the icecaps recede [iv] .  [i] There are islands around the world under disputed ownership for this reason. Senkaku /Diaoyu (China/Japan) and Dokdo/Takeshima (Japan/Korea)are two obvious examples.  [ii] Lee, Joyman, ‘Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict’, History Today, Vol. 61 no.5, 2011  [iii] Gertz, Bill, ‘China-Japan tensions’, The Washington Times, 15 September 2010  [iv] Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Captain Paul Watson. The Birth of a New Manchuria. 25 January 2008.


By definition, we don’t know what is suppressed by governments; who knows, maybe there are aliens at Roswell, Presley is alive and well and Nixon shot Kennedy. However, unofficial leaks as well as official reclassifications of secret data always excite interest, so it seems reasonable to assume that there is some information that remains classified with good reason. However old information such as military ciphers, designs for armaments and discussions that suggests more than usual levels of incompetence of mendacity among the political classes, they are likely to remain secret – for the excellent reason that confidence in the entire system depends on it. For better or worse, that process tends to be called national security.


Opposition is living in a fantasy world. They forget that people do not always have rational responses to history, while the outcome of the event in question may not be changed revealing awkward truths could have unpleasant results, so for example if the Chinese government were to suddenly accept responsibility for the killing of millions during the great leap forward riots or even revolution could very well occur. Governments regularly suppress information on the basis of national security and their citizens accept that as a reality. Indeed most accept it as a benefit.  It seems likely that the only reason Dr Xu’s case has achieved notoriety is that he studied in the west (Oxford) for ten years. The same is true of Dr. Gao Zhan (Syracuese) and Dr. Li Shaomin (Princeton) – the other two high-profile academic detainees. It does rather suggest that the spotlight on their cases has less to do with a genuine concern with free speech and more to do with having friends in the West who don’t think their associates should be treated under the same rules as other Chinese citizens. Western nations have their own rules on secrecy which can be used to prosecute those who break them. [i] It is hypocrisy to deny China the right to do the same.  [i] ‘Official Secrets Act 1989’, legislation.gov.uk, 11 May 1989,


Popular history  Who owns a nation’s history? The current government? Those living today? Scholars?  There’s not really a satisfying answer as every group is interested in and uses different parts of history. It doesn’t sit happily into the usual structures, a defeated power may not get to write the history but it certainly has an interest in it. Within a relatively short period of time the nation that featured in historical events has ceased to exist regardless of what happens with borders and names. China may be the best example of all here; which nation is being protected. The China of the revolution? Of the Korean War? Of the Cultural Revolution? Of the Economic reforms of the seventies or the Economic super power of today? What about the Imperial China? Which dynasty? For any nation, the question can be asked, which class, which race, which generation, gender, political creed and so on have a claim to the collective history of the nation. [i]  History must therefore be in the open so that everyone can investigate it and can build their own historical narratives. Secrecy by the government is an attempt to claim ownership of shared events that cannot be owned. As history is an essential part of the creation of an identity government attempts at ownership are a direct attack on an individual’s right to decide their own identity.  [i] Berger, Stefan, ‘History and national identity: why they should remain divorced’, History & Policy, December 2007,


‘It will come out eventually’  Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. That does, of course, raise the issue of who writes the final draft. On the basis that historians still argue about the events of centuries and millennia ago, the notion of a final draft may be absurd; however conclusions will be drawn at some point. Politicians trying to hold back historical judgement is a little like trying to hold back the tide, even if the facts are not all available the void will be filled with speculation to explain the gap.  Ultimately information will emerge and will be assessed. The question seems to be when that should take place. Those states that make use of a ‘thirty year rule’ or something similar to protect particular documents such as cabinet minutes do so to allow the free exchange of ideas in the present. [i] Such a length of time seems sufficient to let politicians and civil servants operate without endlessly focussing on their legacies.  However, beyond that trying to control the assessment of history seems to be an exercise in futility. Even the deepest, darkest secrets tend to be extrapolated when they’re not demonstrated. Imprisoning historians and banning things only tends to confirm the view that they were right and there is something damning being hidden. Ultimately, it’s self-defeating.  [i] BBC News, ‘Secret papers face faster release’, 29 January 2009,


Open expression  If ever there were a situation where free expression should be assumed, this is surely it. Where no harm can come of knowing something (Prop appears to accept this by saying the outcome can’t be changed) what possible reason could there be suppressing the information? [i] The only possible reason would seem to be that it is more convenient for that small group of people, those currently both living and powerful, that the true details of past events not emerge.  If this is the case then the other arguments for free speech come into play, particularly its role in holding the powerful to account.  Either way, proposition loses; if it’s just the minutiae of bygone times, then why not release it, if it’s the stuff of modern day political discourse then the failure to publish it is tantamount to tyranny. To take oppositions own example will learning that Churchill wanted Hitler’s lieutenants executed without trial will this really affect people’s opinions of Churchill? It seems unlikely, many would have similar opinions in the same situation and will be able to understand Churchill’s position.  [i] This principle – that all things being equal there should be a presumption in favour of publication – has been argued in different ways in different countries. A useful example is the US Supreme Court Ruling in the matter of the New York Times vs The United States.


Ownership of the past, for the purposes of this debate, would seem all too evident. Governments determine what information is legitimate to publish both domestically and internationally and do so in the interests of the state. The recent outcry from Western governments about the Wikileaks publication of diplomatic cables dating back to the mid-sixties suggests that Western governments take a somewhat different attitude when it is their historical national security being broadcast. The ongoing detention of Bradley Manning in solitary confinement further suggests that they take a rather more supra-judicial approach than the Chinese [i] .  [i] One of many sites to notice this double standard between the West commenting on other nations’ dissidents and dealing with its own is: Lankaweb. Hameed Abdul Karim. If Bradley Manning were Chinese... 16 June 2012.


Raising taxes for individuals with income over $250,000 will have a hugely detrimental outcome. This is because a huge number of small businesses are legally taxed as individuals. Raising taxes may be manageable for wealthy individuals, but small firms will be crushed by such huge tax increases proposed by Obama. The effects of this will be hard felt across the country, since small firms employ half of all private sector employees in the USA. [1] These small companies will see their investing and spending power vastly reduced and will lead to thousands of redundancies that will ensure the American economy remains stagnant! Low taxes are the key to economic growth, not high taxes and government spending.  [1] US Small Business Administration, FAQs,  , accessed 8/10/2012


A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.  To pay for his government programs, Obama supports a progressive tax system, with higher taxes for the rich, and lower taxes for the middle class. The need for such a system of taxing the rich to pay for government services has grown since 1980, when income gains between the rich and the poor began to diverge at a faster pace. [1] Recent data shows this trend continuing: in 2011 the wealthiest Americans got richer while median income fell by 4%. [2] Despite these trends, the top marginal tax rate is at nearly an all-time low! [3]  Increasing tax on individuals who earn more than $250,000 and even more for multi-millionaires because the marginal utility of wealth is lower for the super-rich than it is for the poorer. In other words, a millionaire is not particularly worse off if he or she is worth $10 million instead of $15 million. $5 million when spent on welfare programs such as pensions, education, healthcare or housing produces vastly greater utility. We thus see how a progressive tax system ensures a more efficient management of wealth across the economy.  Obama proposes to rake in more government revenue by raising the top marginal tax rate and instituting the Buffet Rule (a stipulation in President Obama’s plan which would apply a minimum tax rate of 30% to individuals making over $1 million per year). Crucially, Obama plans to continue to cut taxes for the middle classes in order to increase their purchasing power and stimulate the economy. [5]  As the 2012 presidential election approaches, President Obama’s long-term focus has been primarily on decreasing the federal debt, estimated at about $15 trillion. Specifically, Obama’s plan, detailed on his website, targets tax loopholes for households with annual incomes over $250,000, via efforts such as the Buffet Rule, while simultaneously reducing taxes for middle-class families and small business owners. [6] In September, President Obama revealed a plan to reduce the deficit by about $3.2 trillion in the next ten years. [7] This will be achieved through an increase in taxation of the nation’s wealthiest, and cuts in spending to the armed forces – as Obama plans to end American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  [1] Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities: “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality”, March 5 2012,   [2] Nocera, Joe: “Romney and the Forbes 400”, The New York Times, September 24 2012,   [3] Tax Policy Centre,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [4] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Politifact: “Barack Obama said he’s cut taxes for ‘middle-class families, small businesses’”,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [6] Barack Obama Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [7] The White House,  , accessed 8/10/2012


An active, “big” federal government is best for the American people  President Obama believes in an activist government’s role in improving society. Without public intervention, private markets will not sufficiently address inequality or several other public needs, such as environmental preservation and public transportation. Financial returns from investments in such areas are often insufficient to incentivise private sector investment. However such schemes generate high levels of welfare benefits that are desirable from a societal perspective.  Obama’s economic policy draws on Keynesian economic theory, which is the belief that a mixed economy of public and private enterprise, bolstered by a strong welfare state, can jumpstart the economy. In order to create public enterprise, the government needs to spend, either by building a deficit or from tax revenue.[1] This is the policy he has pursued in his first term with a successful stimulus of $787 billion.[2]  Obama’s tax policy boils down to the empirical belief that taxing the rich will help the economy grow, because the revenue can be used on important government programs that can spur growth, and the philosophical argument that the American economy should be more equal and that the U.S. government can and should do more to directly address inequality. It should therefore not be a surprise that Obama wants the Bush era tax cuts for the richest reversed arguing "I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton."[3]  [1] Blinder, Alan S., “Keynesian Economics”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty,   [2] Grunwald, Michael, “Think Again: Obama’s New Deal”, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2012,   [3] Bendery, Jennifer, “Obama Calls For One-Year Extension Of Bush-Era Tax Cuts For First $250,000 Of Income”, Huffington Post, 9th July 2012,


Government spending of the level advocated by Obama will only lead to a handicapped economy riddled with inefficiencies.  The figures alone suggest that the Keynesian theory of increased spending stimulates growth and reduces unemployment is a myth. Despite trillions of dollars of spending from Obama, the US economy is stagnant and unemployment is higher than it was in 2008. [1] This happens for two reasons. First and foremost because high spending levels must be funded by high taxation levels that stifle individuals’ purchasing power and the private sector as a whole. Secondly, government spending generally causes higher inflation, meaning that the net effect of government spending in real terms is negligible, and only makes the system more inefficient! [2]  [1] Powell, Jim: “Why Government Spending Is Bad For Our Economy”, Forbes, 10/13/2011,   [2] ibid


The private sector has indeed been the source of much innovation that has led to improvements in standards of living. However the problem with relying solely on the private sector for social welfare, is that it can only improve the lives of those who can pay for it! It may well be the case that healthcare is better under the private sector, but if only the top 60% (say) of the country can afford it, there is a big problem! Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is often insufficient financial incentive for the private sector to invest in certain areas, like pharmaceutical development or green energy research. Here, the government must step in and in the interest of public welfare provide the investment needed.  High level-taxation on wealthy individuals may be hard on them, but ultimately is desirable. Ethically speaking, we need to balance the harm of a millionaire losing a small portion of his or her wealth, with the enormous social good that can arise if that wealth was spent on social welfare programs. An extent of “redistribution” of wealth is thus fair and just.


Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.  With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs.  Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2]  Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid.  The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit.  Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans.  [1] Google Public Data,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [2] Mitt Romney Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012


A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.  Romney believes the best way to improve society is not to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on inefficient government programs, but rather to tax citizens less and allow free-market innovation to improve the quality of life in America. Low taxes are necessary to stimulate innovation and the growth of business because people and businesses are self-interested; they will only invest when they believe they will get the profits from their investment and lowering taxes mean that they will get more of the profit from their investment.[1] At the same time government is a poor manager of the economy because small numbers of people cannot calculate all the effects of central planning and the impact it will have on individuals choices, essentially the market is simply too complex for the government to master so the best option is to reduce government interference as much as possible.[2] For this reason, Romney’s policy preference of lower taxes is coupled with a proposal to cut spending on a wide range of social programs.  Romney also outright rejects the idea of “redistribution” of wealth [3], believing it is unfair to those who have worked hard to build businesses and establish their own well-being. The protection of private property is central to the American political system, and taking from one group of citizens to give to another violates the right of private property. [4] In addition to being unfair, it is impractical, as it creates a disincentive for business people to further increase their wealth by working and investing in businesses that would grow the economy and create more jobs.[5]  [1] Thurow, Lester C., “Profits”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty,   [2] "Friedrich August Hayek." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed., 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty.   [3] Becker, Kyle: “Mitt Romney: We believe in free markets and free people, not wealth “redistribution””, Independent Journal Review, September 19 2012,   [4] Dorn, James A.: “Ending Tax Socialism” September 16 1996,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Li, Wenli & Satre, Pierre-Daniel: “Growth Effects of Progressive Taxes”, US Federal Reserve, November 2001,


Deregulating the market is precisely what is not required at the moment. The financial crisis of 2008 caused by irresponsible banking has shown that more than ever, regulation is necessary to ensure that corporations act responsibly and recognise the significance of social good, not just financial profit.  Cutting Medicare will lead to huge numbers of people no longer having access to affordable healthcare. Romney talks of this scenario as if a market without Medicare would be better because people would be able to choose one of the more competitive, more efficient private insurance companies for their health care. Once more however, this is only applicable for those who can afford such a choice! Not providing a safety net and preventing millions of people from attaining treatment for illnesses or chronic conditions is a huge failing from the part of the government.  Lastly, it is not true that cutting spending and taxes reduces the budget deficit. This was exactly the policy tried by George W. Bush and only led to a widening of the budget deficit and an increase of the total federal debt. By contrast, Obama’s plan of cutting inefficiencies and increasing tax on the country’s wealthiest has already been tried and tested under President Clinton and it resulted in a budget surplus.


There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.  However, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.  Trying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.  Equally local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.  The nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.  In addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.  If the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.  Ultimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.  Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.


Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business  Nobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.  Governments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.  In turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.  The simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.  The only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.  It requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.


The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.  Clearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.  In terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.  Instead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.  The most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.  Ultimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.


Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it  Government, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.  This is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.  In a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .  All of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.  Americans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .  [i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.  [ii] Jeffrey Sachs. "The Case for Bigger Government." Time. January 8th, 2009


No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.  It is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .  For average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .  There is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.  Typically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .  [i] "Big government: Stop!" The Economist. January 21st, 2010  [ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.  [iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.


Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years  Government expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.  There is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.  This only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.  So-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.  The military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.  Instead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.  As far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .  So called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.  [i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.


The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.  It is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.  It is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.


Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.  The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.  There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.  There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.  Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.  Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.


Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth  Government regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.  The effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.


Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.  Governments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.  Equally, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.


Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs  Government costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.  There is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.  There is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.  It’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.  Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.  [i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999


This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.  There are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.  The idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.  Equally start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.


It is nonsense to compare aid with the west’s actions during the nineteenth century. Yes the west with aid sometimes wants to encourage its own values but this is a long way from forcing those values on the other state. The IMF may demand certain changes and liberalisation but regardless of how much India needed the help it could have said no.


“White Man’s Burden”  Aid is simply a continuation of the “white man’s burden” and is therefore demeaning to the countries where it is meant to help. It implies that western countries have to provide money to those who are less ‘developed’ in order to develop them. This sounds very similar to westerners having to go out into the world in order to civilize the other countries and civilizations around the world. This similarity is made even closer when western aid has strings and institutions like the IMF impose ‘liberalisation’ of markets as it did for India at the end of the 1980s. [1] Far from providing help it is imposing western ideas and values on others.  [1] Weinraub, Bernard, ‘Economic Crisis Forcing Once Self-Reliant India to Seek Aid’, The New York Times, 29 June 1991


It is likely true that people on the ground sometimes see aid as ‘free money’. But the existence of corruption shows a need for greater accountability and more pressure from donors to ensure that occurs rather than less. Leaving a country because of corruption would simply show unwillingness to tackle one of the major issues that need to be tackled in order to ensure development.  Development aid is sometimes spent on implementing schemes that may be the result of a new idea that may not work that becomes a ‘fad’. But to object to this is to object to innovation; new ideas must be tried out on the ground before the development community knows for sure they won’t work. Development thinking is moving towards just handing out cash rather than subsidies; will this work? We don’t know, but won’t know for sure until it is tried more comprehensively than it has been so far. [1]  [1] See Helling, Alex, ‘This House would give cash to the poor to reduce poverty’, Debatabase, 24 January 2013


Too many strings  India is a booming economy with GDP growth of 7% over most of the last twenty years, and it is likely to overtake the UK economy within a decade. [1] As a result development aid today to India is small by comparison to what India itself can and does spend on its poorest citizens. The UK gives just £280 million per year, less than 0.04% of India’s GDP [2] and only enough to provide £1 per year for every one of India’s poorest.  This foreign aid is therefore not essential for poverty reduction in India. Indeed China has been the country most successful at reducing poverty and it has done it through economic growth not large amounts of development aid. [3] Aid money should therefore go to countries that really do need the money for development rather than those who are already succeeding at financing it themselves.  [1] Gilligan, Andrew, ‘India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2012  [2] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [3] Data and Research, ‘New Estimates Reveal Drop In Extreme Poverty 2005-2010’, The World Bank, 29 February 2012


The geography of poverty has changed; in 1990 94% of those in poverty lived in ‘low income countries’ today that is down to 28%. The rest live in ‘middle income countries’ that are often fast growing and able to provide much of their own poverty reduction funding. [1] Should all money go to those few countries that are still classed as ‘low income’? Instead it must be recognised that the impact of aid is on individuals not the nation as a whole. Aid that builds a school and provides for teachers will have little impact on the whole of the nation but a large impact on those who are able to attend school where they would not have had the chance before.  [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012


The west does not know best  It is clear that the donor countries do not know how best to spend the money they give as aid. Instead they want their money spent on the latest development fad whether this is the privatisation of basic services, microcredit, conditional cash, or particular infrastructure projects. [1]  Development can also be misspent as a result of corruption and a lack of oversight, for example the UK suspended its aid to Uganda as a result of indications it was being misused by the Ugandan government and not “going towards helping the poorest people lift themselves out of poverty”. [2] The Lords Economic Affairs select committee explained why this is the case; “aid is essentially seen by those entrusted with it as "free money", whose loss will go unnoticed by the giver and whose appropriation is nothing like as morally reprehensible as appropriating local tax revenue”. [3]  [1] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [2] Tran, Mark, and Ford, Liz, ‘UK suspends aid to Uganda as concern grows over misuse of funds’, The Guardian global development, 16 November 2012  [3] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012


Clearly it is good where aid makes a difference to someone’s life but we are not advocating ending aid. That aid would instead be spent in a poorer country that is more in need than India. The country that is more in need clearly needs more aid to provide that infrastructure that helps multiply the value of aid. It is therefore clearly the place where more funding should go.


It does not make sense that India should receive aid simply because it still has poor people. Aid is used to help when the government cannot provide for its own people and India clearly already provides the vast majority of help for its own people and will provide more and more as the economy grows. The absolute numbers make very little difference because aid at current levels will never pull all 1.4 billion out of poverty at once. The government of India is improving he conditions of its poor so aid should be used somewhere where the government is less capable.


India cannot end poverty on its own  Clearly if India could end poverty within the country it would do so, however at the moment it cannot. If those in India who are not poor (considering this to mean earn more than $13 a day, the US poverty line) were to give 100% of their income above this level to those who live on less than $1.25 per day they would still not eliminate poverty in the country. “Indeed, appropriating all of the incomes of those living in India above the US poverty line would cover only a modest fraction of the country’s aggregate poverty gap.” So India does not yet have the domestic capacity to eliminate poverty on its own. [1]  [1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012


The money makes no difference  India is a booming economy with GDP growth of 7% over most of the last twenty years, and it is likely to overtake the UK economy within a decade. [1] As a result development aid today to India is small by comparison to what India itself can and does spend on its poorest citizens. The UK gives just £280 million per year, less than 0.04% of India’s GDP [2] and only enough to provide £1 per year for every one of India’s poorest.  This foreign aid is therefore not essential for poverty reduction in India. Indeed China has been the country most successful at reducing poverty and it has done it through economic growth not large amounts of development aid. [3] Aid money should therefore go to countries that really do need the money for development rather than those who are already succeeding at financing it themselves.  [1] Gilligan, Andrew, ‘India tells Britain: We don’t want your aid’, The Telegraph, 4 February 2012  [2] Ghosh, Jayati, ‘Yes: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.20  [3] Data and Research, ‘New Estimates Reveal Drop In Extreme Poverty 2005-2010’, The World Bank, 29 February 2012


Pressure from international donors is essential  Currently the culture of giving in India is not mature enough to enable India to fight poverty on its own. Aid to India therefore provides more than one role. It does not just provide the money and supplies that the poorest need, it also encourages India to do more. When aid is needed to put primary children into school as a result of the mere 3% of national income spent on education it encourages the Indian government and people to spend more on alleviating their own compatriot’s poverty. [1]  [1] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘India needs to do more for its people but cutting foreign aid now won’t help – Oxfam’, Alertnet, 13 November 2012


Development aid still makes a difference  Clearly someone earning $1 a day in India is as worthy of aid as someone earning the same amount in Burkina Faso. Equally the same amount of development aid can still make a similar amount of difference to the individuals it is targeted. It may potentially make even more of a difference in the richer country because that country has the infrastructure to ensure that the aid is sustainable and effective. [1] For example an aid program may help poor farmers to grow more food but that aid is much more sustainable and valuable if there is a road network so that they can sell some of their produce. In India UK aid has helped 1.2 million children go to school in the past 10 years [2] and this investment is potentially made more effective by India having universities these children could go on to attend if they wish.  [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Chapter 4: The Impact of Aid’, Parliament.uk, 2012  [2] Agrawal, Nisha, ‘No: Should rich countries stop sending development aid to India?’, BMJ, Vol.346, No. 7891, pp.1-42, p.21


India still has the most people in poverty  Aid should go to those who need it most around the world regardless of which country they live in. India still has the largest concentration of people in poverty in the world, according to the world bank there are “240 million rural poor and 72 million urban poor”. [1] So still almost a quarter of the world’s 1.4billion people in poverty. [2] With so many of the world’s poor people it is clear that India should be receiving a significant portion of the world’s development aid to end their poverty.  [1] Poverty Reduction & Equity, ‘India: Achievements and Challenges in Reducing Poverty’, The World Bank, 2011  [2] Poverty Reduction & Equity, ‘Overview’, The World Bank, August 2008


The opposite is true; aid results in less Indian spending on poverty not more. In a few rare cases there may be sufficient media coverage of an aid program to shame the government into action but most of the time if others are spending that simply means the Indian government will save its own money. This was the assessment of House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee when it said “British development aid to the poorest Indian states may provide a perverse incentive to the Indian government to use less of its own revenue to alleviate poverty.” [1]  [1] Economic Affairs Select Committee, ‘Abstract’, Parliament.uk, 2012


Clearly this is taking a double standard; India cannot immediately eliminate poverty using only its domestic capacity, but the aid from other nations at the current level cannot currently do this either. India can be reducing poverty and as the economy grows will eventually be able to eliminate poverty entirely.


The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides. [I1] In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance. [1]  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work. [2]  [1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   [2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.


Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector  The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government. [1]  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.  Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.  [1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011


Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.  Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority. [1]  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective Bargaining is Not a Right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]  [1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   [2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011


Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.  Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily. [1]  Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]  [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011


Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly. [1]  [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011


The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.  Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice. [1]  [1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College.


Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.  Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.  Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem. [1]  [1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390


Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies  Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.  In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike. [1]  [1] “Monopoly Power.”


Collective Bargaining is a Right.  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011