What next? The Corn Laws?

The Tories are resorting to protectionism again. No surprises there - their free trade credentials were always suspect. In his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, David Cameron has called for a “buy British” campaign and condemned the government for not measuring how much of the money it spends on food goes towards British produce.

He says that it is "completely wrong" that food "can be imported to Britain, processed here, and subsequently labelled in a way that suggests it's genuinely British". Perhaps, but it creates more wealth to import raw materials and package them here than either to generate the raw materials here or to buy already finished goods. That “value added” is why developed economies are rich and farming societies are not.

Neither is it a "scandal" that the government does not measure how much of its £1.8bn food budget is sourced locally. The most important thing is that the food is of high quality and represents value for money – buying more expensive produce will leave less money for school books, nurses or flak jackets. It would also cost money to draw up this useless statistic.

Rather than pandering to farmers, David Cameron should be promising to dismantle trade protection both at home and in Europe so that we can half the price of the average UK shopping bill and bring wealth to third world farmers. But that would be too much to hope from a party that is more interested in protecting landed interests than boosting the welfare of all.

The error of labelling

I have begun to realise that I made a tragic mistake this year. I took to criticising one of my friends for being too "left-wing".

(Those of you who have assumed that the use of "liberal" in this site is in the American tradition are probably feeling somewhat disabused at this point!)

Up until a few years ago, my friend had been one of those people who thought a newspaper was something that was used to wrap up fish and chips. Lest you think I'm being harsh, I should stress that he took a sort of nihilistic pride in not watching the news or concerning himself with current affairs.

All this changed in the last few years. He vocally opposed the war in Iraq, and began to voice opinions about Human Rights and Third World poverty. To be fair, some of this had been hidden away in there for some time (he has been a lifelong member of Amnesty International) but since Iraq (and I would hazard because of Iraq) he has begun to give vent to his opinions.

I took issue with some of his more radical views, notably what I perceived as anti-Americanism and anti-globalisaiton. Unfortunately, in looking for a short-hand to define his views, I fell to pigeon-holing him as a member of the loony-left. I think this has backfired. It certainly has not help dissuade him. Instead, it has given him a focus for his views. He has begun to identify himself with the very left-wing factions into whose orbit I was most worried that he would be drawn.

I shouldn't over-play my hand here; his views were already forming and he was already tapping into sources with a decidedly socialist agenda. But nonetheless I think that by pigeon-holing him, I have encouraged him to read all the mail in that pigeon-hole, not just that originally addressed to him. I fear that as a result he is likely to begin to link himself with opinions and views that perhaps he might otherwise have approached with a more open mind.

I hope I've learnt a lesson. By labelling him, I have driven him into the very camp I was criticising.