Yesterday Guido tweeted that he “Would bet that the majority of the homes of those looting youths are fatherless”. Andrew Neil chimed in pointing out that “Surveys suggest that in areas like Tottenham as many as 80% families have absent/no fathers. Similar to worst ghettoes in US… Pointing out most underclass families are fatherless [is] different from blaming single mothers”. The progressive twittersphere went spare, as if this observation was somehow controversial.  

It is self-evident that the welfare state has fundamentally undermined the family, enabling and actually encouraging fatherless families to become commonplace. This is a social disaster. Welfare incentives are powerful nudges in a negative direction. Downing Street wonks should understand that “nudge theory” works two ways, not always in a positive direction.

The scale of the problem is immense, in a generation since the sixties the percentage of births outside marriage has risen from 5% to 40%. Some of those are in co-habiting couples – which unfortunately are more fragile than traditional marriages – however the majority are brought up in fatherless households. A Civitas study found that children living without their biological fathers are more likely to get into trouble at school, to have adjustment problems and eventually go to jail. Iain Duncan Smith can’t solve deep social problems with welfare reform alone. Society needs to reverse decades of failed “progressive” thinking about the family and social norms. A culture which makes no value judgements about how we raise our children is creating tomorrow’s looters and rioters.

Couple of  jokes in Dave’s Policy Exchange speech, the best of which was:

Cameron @ PX summer party "Historic day with Queen and Prince Philip visiting Downing Street, Steve Hilton wore a suit AND shoes".—
Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) June 21, 2011

Dave also cracked a joke at Clegg’s expense, saying this was the first time he had seen the deputy-PM’s school (the party was in the grounds behind Westminster). Though it was surely not the first time Sir Michael White (in attendance) has seen the school to which he sent his kids. In the spirit of coalition, Miriam Clegg’s law firm, DLA Piper, sponsored the drinks. Muchas gracias.

Outgoing chairman Charles Moore, having slipped the surly bonds of of wonkery, passes the chairmanship to Danny Finkelstein, who is not giving up his secret day-job behind the Times paywall to lead the think-tank closest to Downing Street. Fink is a former head of the Social Market Foundation, so he knows the Westminster wonk world well. At PX he will be able to continue his ideological mission…

Charles Moore is going to concentrate, he says, on his Thatcher opus. Unfortunately Guido didn’t attend the night’s competing party launching the Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre opus, “Ed“, the biography of the Labour leader. Oh well…

Summer Party season is upon us. So Guido was shocked and, to be honest, a little hurt when he was told on the phone that he wasn’t to come along to tonight’s book launch for James Macintyre and Mehdi Hasan’s “Ed”.  What did they think Guido was going to do, take the mick? 

The publishers have subsequently emailed to say Guido can come, if he behaves, and doesn’t upset James Macintyre. Unfortunately we have a prior appointment.

Guido is off to the Policy Exchange party to drink Pimms in the sunshine, with the Prime Minister…

Guido likes Matthew Taylor, he is a smart operator, shares Guido’s view of Gordon Brown and now runs the Royal Society of Arts. He is unfortunately turning this august institution into a third-way “progressive” think tank. He shouldn’t, hard as it might be for Tony Blair’s former Chief Adviser on Political Strategy and a former director of the IPPR to depoliticise himself, he really ought to separate his personal agenda from the RSA’s mission.

The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce has a mission to “embolden enterprise, enlarge science, refine art, improve our manufactures and extend our commerce”. Past members have included Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, William Hogarth, Charles Dickens and Guglielmo Marconi. That is a great heritage.

Last year ahead of the AGM one Fellow, Angus Stewart, challenged the RSA, claiming that

“The real problem with the RSA is its management. It’s a political body. The title should go and it should be hived off to be a consultancy firm. The same thing happened to The Industrial Society. There is no validity here, everyone is uncomfortable, and management are uncomfortable as they know they are not liked or admired by the ordinary Fellows. In terms of quality thinking this society has no standing anymore.”

Will Hutton notoriously ran the Industrial Society into bankruptcy, the RSA is financially solid, however it is becoming intellectually bankrupt, an ideologically narrowed think-tank reflecting only Taylor’s hobby horses. Matthew will no doubt cite the invitations to George Osborne to speak and the chairmanship of right-leaning Luke Johnson. It doesn’t really deflect the central charge.

Another Fellow, Kevin Cahill, Chair of the South West Region, also challenged Taylor, arguing

“We have a perfect mandate and a simple mission, there is nothing in our mandate about reforming society or changing humanity, those are the wild utopian missions of the person in charge.“

Last Thursday Taylor gave his annual keynote speech to the RSA. It was an attack on the profit motive and Milton Friedman in particular. Taylor will no doubt argue that this is perfectly in tune with the RSA mission – he has argued this before to Guido face-to-face. The Charity Commission may take a different view if he is going to turn the RSA into the IPPR Mark II. More importantly the Fellows of the RSA may not stand for it much longer. Many of them are closer in their thinking to former members the free marketeers Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith, than to Taylor’s “twenty first century progressivism”.

See also: Matthew Taylor is Ruining the RSA, February, 2009

Steve Hilton’s cipher-wonk Phillip Blond is often a good gauge of what is going on at the no shoes, blue skies end of the Downing Street operation.  There was the briefest point back in 2010 when it looked like some of the more “progressive” bunch might back “Yes to AV” and Phillip, in his position as pope of the Tory wets, set out the reasons that “Conservatives should not fear AV“ 

“AV or not the Tories will still be able to win that game gain a majority and govern from a position of strength” he declared, after furiously attacking First Past the Post.

But with the winds of change, a new haircut, and a surge in the polls for the “No to AV” campaign, Phillip has spent the morning furiously backtracking and fighting AV all over Twitter. Guido didn’t see any “No I believe 1st preferences count more than 2nd or 3rd – and I fear government by 3rd preference” in the old report. The new haircut must have bought new sense.

In 2010 the left-wing think-tank IPPR was vociferously arguing against the Alternative Vote system, putting out pamphlet after pamphlet decrying AV. IPPR boast that it prides itself on “rigorous and innovative research… based on sound evidence”.

Their research conclusions were blunt: “IPPR does not believe AV is the right option for the UK.” AV they concluded was “significantly flawed” and would not “deliver results which are sufficiently proportional”.

“Simply put, AV would not remove the bias of the current system towards the largest party or parties and in some instances it would further reinforce the status quo”.

IPPR made a clear evidence based case against AV.

In 2011 the Yes campaign funders, the Joseph Rowntree group of organisations dominated by LibDems to such an extent that they bunged over £2 million pounds to the party before the last election, gave the cash-strapped IPPR £70,000.

Now, by coincidence, IPPR argues in an astonishing about turn that “AV will make elections more competitive.” “AV goes with the grain of contemporary British politics.”  They have even spent money on push-polling and, unusually for a supposedly apolitical charitable think-tank, they have thrown themselves fully behind the Yes campaign politically. Odd when only last year they claimed: “Changing to a system which could deliver even more distorted results than FPTP is surely not the answer for those looking for genuine reform.” Guido wonders what made them change their mind?

Oliver Letwin wants to prevent the common man enjoying his cheap holiday in Malaga and now Philip Blond, the so-called “Red Tory” wonk who markets himself as close to the Cameroons, wants to prevent common people buying olives. His thank-tank Respublica wants to tax larger shops more and subsidise smaller local shops. Guido sees a lot of red and very little Tory in his proposed tax on success.

Combine this nonsense with the Cameroon fetish for localism and you will raise the cost of groceries for everyone, fine if you are a Notting Hill trustafarian, for the squeezed middle-classes this will just add to the cost of the weekly shop. Local deli’s and organic butchers are all very well, but they are not cheap. Don’t forget Dave’s mate Zac and his eco-friends will have us all suffering from scurvy so long as we reduce our carbon footprint – there will be no imported fruit from Africa and the Caribbean if they have their way.

Imagine a Green-Red-Tory grocery store: Philip Blond behind the counter demonstrating natural goose fat hair creme, Zac offering samples of Dorset Strawberry Champagne, “sorry we have no bananas”, carbon footprint banned, ditto lemons. Handmade Melton Mowbray pies a plenty, no foreign exotica like peppers, or even pepper. Perhaps some celebrity cheese at £20-an-ounce, a home-baked loaf of artisan bread for £10 and a dozen local organic free-range eggs for a fiver. Nothing spicy or imported. This is the logical outcome if these out of touch Tory romantics get their way. Plenty of local cabbage and potatoes.

Food price inflation is bad enough as it is without Blond  trying to undermine the competitiveness of the supermarkets, who will inevitably just pass on increased costs to consumers. Blond and Zac are a danger to the affordability of basic needs to consumers with their attempts to foist a Tory form of autarky on us all. If Blond wants to open a grocery store good luck to him, no need to hobble the supermarkets in the process. Guido doubts he will do much business…

IPSA is under prolonged and heavy attack from MPs who are using every trick in the book to undermine and thwart it. It is fair to say that IPSA was a badly conceived idea produced in a panic during the dying days of the Brown tyranny, it wastes a lot of money itself and could in truth be better organised. Nevertheless one fact strikes Guido, the new expenses regime has saved £18 million. The fact that MPs hate the bureaucracy created might make them think about the quangos and regulations they inflict upon us. The political class has only itself to blame. Remember 52% of MPs had to repay fiddled expenses…

Back in 2009, before IPSA was set up, the Sunlight Centre produced recommendations which included a House of Commons debit card as the best way to regulate legitimate expenses. The transactions would as normal be electronically recorded and could thus be published online in real-time, the spending limits would be automatic and bureaucracy would be minimal. The idea was first proposed in Disinfecting Parliament, a report that recommended a number of measures based on best practice in the private sector that could easily be transferred to IPSA. Two years later IPSA has finally announced a plan to introduce debit cards…

One person who will have a closer than usual eye on the budget tomorrow is the Adam Smith Institute’s Madsen Pirie. Tobacco duty rising again is the last thing a blossoming cigar company needs. Putting his money where his mouth is, Pirie backed and remains a shareholder in Regius Cigars, who seem to have returned the favour with a nominally optimistic tribute:

 
Baron Fawkes or a cigar named after Guido. Tough call…

Left-wing bore and government advisor Will Hutton has reported back after being despatched to look into pay. His idea that public sector fat cats could have up to 20% of their pay docked for poor performance are welcome.  Though given the vast sums of money we are talking about, say £180,000, Guido was wondering what the criteria would be for the penalty to kick in..

Would failure to register your accounts qualify for a pay docking? Or how about having to surrender control of your insolvent organisation to a second-rate university in order to keep it alive? Better get your cheque book out Will…