It is tempting, writing on New Year's eve when the West is mired in the fourth year of a persistent slow-down to be pessimistic about the future. But I am not a pessimistic about the future. The reasons are many, but here are a few.
Monday, 31 December 2012
It is tempting, writing on New Year's eve when the West is mired in the fourth year of a persistent slow-down to be pessimistic about the future. But I am not a pessimistic about the future. The reasons are many, but here are a few.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
So... Chanel 4's report on plebgate is devastating. None of the allegations made against Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell stood up. Not at the Gates of Downing Street, and not in any of the meetings he had subsequently with the police federation. It appears Andrew Mitchell's account is more believable than that cooked up by police subsequently. He has been near-completely exonerated.
Furthermore, it's apparent that senior ranks were in on the conspiracy.
The police lied, and conspired. And they thought they could get away with doing so, not against some kind of 'usual suspect' on the 'swamp estate' but against a Cabinet Minister. I can only surmise that the police federation saw an opportunity to discredit the Government as they implemented cuts to police numbers.
Think about that for a minute.
The police conspired to discredit a Government as they sought to implement policy.
This isn't just about the police. The public sector, as a whole grew fat and complacent under Labour, and when the money ran out they thought it appropriate to lie to maintain their fat headcounts, salaries and pensions. This Government isn't a "shambles" because it has the wrong policies, but because the public sector is actively resisting implementation of policies. This isn't just a copper lying. It's corruption bordering on treason.
My attitude to the police is ambiguous. I know several, some of whom I count as friends. They know my views. I have never trusted the police. But I do trust, by and large, individual police officers. The problem is that power corrupts, and the police have simply been given too much power. They are able to fabricate evidence in pocket-books in the expectation they'll be believed. The proliferation of (effectively) strict-liability offences like Section 5 of the Public Order Act, means the Police will be believed, and Joe-citizen won't be. The abandonment of the concept of an "arrestable offence" means you can be arrested merely for swearing at or near the police. The police log recorded "several members of the public nearby looked visibly shocked and alarmed". This is just a standard trope, trotted out to justify an arrest under Section 5. It's usually a lie, given to justify the police unnecessarily arresting someone who's being uncooperative. It's just too easy to arrest someone who irritates you for being lippy. The servant thus becomes the master, and the UK becomes a police state.
This 'section 5 lie' is used to arrest young men up and down the country every day. As the police deliberately wind them up, they can usually be persuaded to do something more serious. This incident is just the tip of the iceberg of casual lies the police use every day, for their convenience.
The vast majority of police, especially the older ones, seem genuinely willing help in a crisis. But there's an arrogance, an unbecoming swagger about some of the younger officers I've met. They expect not just obedience, but deference, and threaten arrest for mere disagreement. They feel confident that the allegation of "swearing" justifies arrest under section 5. And without proof, who do you believe. Perhaps everyone should now take my lead and record every single conversation you ever have with the police. The police are not your friend. Though they remain, for now, trustworthy in a crisis and brave in the service of the public, they need to be brought down to earth.
Mitchell is right. The police do need to relearn their place.
Monday, 17 December 2012
Read this excellent post. Ewan Hoyle is a Liberal Democrat from North of the Border, likely an endangered species. But at their best, the Liberal Democrats are prepared to say what they think, hoping in vain that being right somehow correlates with being electable, which in the main, it doesn't. In doing so, he asks one pertinent question:
The passage up the lower slopes of the political mountain is getting increasingly smoother, as can be seen in the substance of the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was published last Monday. But when the arguments reach the political pinnacle, they are met with the usual intransigence and a gentle nudge off the nearest cliff-edgeThe reason is of course the cost-benefit analysis. The UK is a signatory to the UN conventions on Narcotics. Much of the Popular press is extremely hostile, as is the majority of the (voting) public. As soon as something other than the simplistic 'war on drugs' is suggested, Leah Bett's parents will make damn sure that which ever politician introducing the changes will be Personally associated with front pages like this.
Never mind that the Rachel Whitear was killed in an environment where the strictest penalties are enforced for supplying heroin, and that it seems likely that while there may be more users (and in a liberal drug environment, I doubt even that), there is a simplistic cause/effect narrative that will be played upon HARD by opponents of reform. Ewan argues passionately in his post that a new narrative is needed and that confronting the political class with the need to admit failure is the stumbling block.
To take an extreme example: The German people collectively admitted guilt after WWII, and now they are model Global citizens, dominating others only with the excellence of their engineering the hardness of their work-ethic, economic prudence, and environmental concern. The drug warriors need to be demobilised, just as completely as the Wermacht in 1945 because they are WRONG, and nearly as murderous, destabilising entire continents in a utterly futile attempt to stop people self-medicating.
So why don't I think there would be more Rachel Whitears in an environment of legal and readily available supply? Because she died because of an overdose due to an unusually pure dose of street smack. This isn't going to a problem with a legal supply chain producing medical-grade products of known and predictable strength. But won't there be more people tempted to experiment? Ask yourself this: If you could get cocaine or opium, why would you experiment with injecting yourself with Heroin, something that is associated with catastrophic social outcomes? Very few people want to become junkies. Ultimately the reason there are 330,000 problem heroin addicts in the UK is the highly efficient criminal supply-chain which sees mid-level users recruiting new addicts in order to fund their own use. There weren't this number before the misuse of drugs act. If you cut out the criminal supply-chain, remove the profits and the incentive to recruit new users, we would go back to Heroin being an addiction of a small number of people, most of whom in pre-prohibition days became addicted in Hospital. Opiate addiction used to be known as 'the soldiers disease' for this reason.
Where Hoyle skillfully deploys libertarian arguments, I agree wholeheartedly with him.
The 21st century war on drugs should instead take inspiration from ancient history and adopt a distinctly Roman style of capture and enslavement. It should be defined by the goal that drugs can be be our slaves but never our mastersYes. Why do people share a bottle of Chilean Merlot after work. Because the alcohol is a relaxant. A bit of alcohol in the blood feels nice. Funnily enough, that's why people smoke pot too.
And that goes for all drugs. When a hard-working citizen returns from work on a Friday night and demands a soothing head massage from their servant drug, who are we to dictate whether that drug be a glass of red wine or a cannabis joint. The state has a role in educating on how a drug best be handled, and if a drug looks like it has ambitions to become a citizen's master, the state and citizen need to be able to work together to put that drug back in its placeHowever where I part company with Holye is where he takes the prohibitionists "research" at face value. The link between cannabis and psychosis is a correlation for example. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Are people prone to psychosis drawn to cannabis? Certainly people get psychotic without regular cannabis use, and many smoke daily without significant harm. However everyone who smokes cannabis who gets psychosis, you KNOW his family will be sure to blame the drug, because it's easier to believe than the other options. Cannabis use starts in adolescence, as do many mental health issues. Without research which isn't funded by governments desperate to prove that the war on Drugs is justified we'll never know if correlation implies causation.
Likewise, the evidence that "skunk" is uniquely wicked and is not the "mild stuff"your parents smoked is extraordinarily weak. Well maybe, but that's as likely due to freshness of domestic supply rather than the imported, dried and...old stuff our parents smoked. The figure of 33 times stronger, oft cited, doesn't bear scrutiny. The fact is, without research we won't know. But accepting the prohibitionsts lies and exaggerations without question makes it unlikely we'll ever get answers, until we change the environment in which research is conducted.
The inertia that led to Nick Clegg being slapped down for calling for a Royal Commission on drugs, is the total buy-in of a medical-regulatory complex and total capture of of the debate by law-enforcement; people who simply don't see the need to examine the evidence. Drugs are a social evil in their view, and must be fought. All "experts" have until recently been drawn from this community. Even Professor David Nutt, who's said some sensible things on drugs, often seems more intent on banning Alcohol. Where I really disagree with Hoyle is the trust of the state, and the mistrust of private enterprise.
the problems that might arise if there were companies who would profit from the artificial promotion of cannabis, or particular strains. It might therefore be wise for commercial interests to be excluded from the market altogether. The best way to prevent advertising and marketing encouraging consumers to make decisions against their interests and those of society is to as far as possible ensure that nobody's wealth would be dependent upon continued use of the drug or of particular forms of the drug. It is quite possible a state monopoly is the only model that can demonstrate to the voters that legalisation is a process we are embarking upon with appropriate care, with the highest regard for the health and happiness of the nation.I simply don't trust the state to set the price appropriately, supply efficiently, and conveniently enough to deny a market to the criminal enterprises which will seek to maintain their market. It is unlikely a state supply of MDMA would be available where it's wanted: civil servants don't attend nightclubs on a Saturday night. Dealers do. By all means tightly regulate the market in terms of quality, and supply to minors. But let the market do its work. Trust people to make decisions based on what they want. What they want, often isn't the alcohol which is the cause of much blood and vomit on a Friday night. They also don't want to become junkies. So I agree the state has a role in education, research into effects and quality control, and the provision of addiction services, but leave the supply to people who might actually make it more convenient than the illegal supply-chain.
Until there's a mature debate around why people take drugs from Cannabis to Cocaine - because they're fun - and can play a part in a productive life, people will continue to die unnecessarily from dirty drugs of unknown quality and strength. Skunk treated with fungicides without regulation may even be the cause of some of the psychosis. Who knows?
Drug policy reform is not about liberating drugs. It's about liberating people from ignorance, persecution and the drugs that have power over them. Can we please finally declare a war on drugs so that we can capture and enslave them and put them to work easing our pains and helping us smile. Without a proper war on drugs with sensible, realistic goals, too many people will be left to fight and lose their own personal battles without the knowledge, help - and in some cases drugs - that they need to triumph.Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, and countries like Portugal with successful decriminalisation experiments, drug legalisation is now firmly on the agenda. It will be a hard push. But first we must persuade people who read the Daily Mail that it's the Drug war that's killing kids, not drugs. And we won't do that by accepting lies told by people who're totally invested in the status-quo and who believe they're doing God's work. Ultimately, decriminalisation is an utterly unsatisfactory half-way house, because it will leave the supply-chain in criminal hands, and THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. Decriminalisation should be resisted, lest it discredit what might actually work. And let's not beat about the bush: The war on drugs has failed, and the collateral damage isn't worth the outcome. Let's put the blame for the tens of thousands of deaths worldwide where they belong.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Those who loved Sir Peter Jackson's adaptation of JRR Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy will love this movie. Those who didn't, won't. It's as simple as that.
Ranted by Jackart at 12/16/2012 02:56:00 pm
Friday, 14 December 2012
The RAC with Fair Fuel Tax have released a report this morning about the effect of high fuel taxes in the UK. Basically, taxes hurt, because they take money which could be used for other things. People have to make choices over how to spend their time and money. This is presented as a shattering observation. Bizarrely, this was most fully reported in the Canberra times.
Motorists in the UK are so desperate to avoid paying for fuel, they have resorted to sleeping in their cars, a report has found. The study, conducted by automotive services company RAC in conjunction with fuel price lobby group FairFuelUK, found that one in 16 (or 6 per cent) regular commuters in the UK had resorted to spending a night in their car to save money on fuel costs.6 per cent you say? Well, if that's slept in their car ever, you can include me... As it is, I've no sympathy for people with 60-mile commutes. If you have to drive that far to work every day, move, or get another job, you stupid, masochistic dick-head. There is nothing short of bereavement or divorce quite as stress-inducing and misery-making as a long-commute. This has long been known.
Further to that, one in 32 motorists (3 per cent) had admitted to camping close to work to avoid the drive home.That's the same number of people who cycle to work, and we get absolutely no help from the Government, so... fuck 'em.
The report also found that 75 per cent of the 9000 motorists surveyed had used their car less in the past year because of rising fuel costs.Yes, that's the point of high fuel taxes, demand slopes downward. This isn't an earth-shattering observation. So people drive less on our congested roads. Without high fuel taxes, no-one would get anywhere. This is a good thing.
The survey also found that in the UK there are 2.9 million “ghost cars” that are used less than once a week.They say that like it's a bad thing. If you want to have a multi-thousand pound piece of depreciating metal you use once a week, that's up to you. How many of these are hobbyists cars, classics or sports cars for use at the weekend? How many of those are owned by people who walk, cycle or use public transport to get to work, yet want to see their old mum at the weekend? This stat tells us nothing.
Quentin Willson, national spokesman for FairFuelUK, said the findings showed that the UK government needed to tackle the cost of fuel by lowering fuel duty. “As a society we've never seen this sort of financial pressure put on personal mobility,” Willson said.It shows no such thing. Why should "society" subsidise a habit as sub-optimal as daily car use? The school run clogs roads, yet because of cars, it's too dangerous to get kids to school any other way. Kids remain molly-coddled for longer being driven to work by anxious parents. Parents remain taxi-services until the 17th birthday, and kids don't have the independence that Dutch children do of getting to the school or friends themselves.
Cars make us fat, miserable. Cars lead to soulless communities without local amenities. Cars kill the local pub. There is almost no social problem to which widespread sole-use car infrastructure has not contributed. Motorists should pay their way.
The fuel duty raised by the government amounted to £26.8 billion ($41b) in the past financial year, down on the £27.2 raised in 2010/11. The drop, said RAC technical director David Bizley, showed just how much less people were willing to spend on fuel.Good. Motorists ARE paying their way. And in doing so, people are finding other ways to get about or are taking fewer journeys. This is a good thing. People deciding to walk to the local shop rather than drive to Tesco's makes the local environment better.
"People are also telling us that they are facing tough choices about their careers with some now weighing up whether it is actually affordable to commute to work,” Bizley said.That's economics: the study of the use of scarce resources, like road-space at 8-30 am. I've always moved to be close to work, because commuting long distances is for fucking idiots.
“And we had a significant number of pensioners telling us that with a fixed income there was nothing they can do but simply cut out social and non-essential trips altogether and even stop doing voluntary work.”Of course, without the universal, sole-use car-infrastructure, we'd know our neighbors local amenities would be within walking distance, and the loss of the ability to drive (which happens to all pensioners as they age) wouldn't be the isolating disaster it is now. All this last paragraph shows is how dependent we are as a society on the car. This is something high fuel taxes are meant to address.
If Quentin Wilson gets his way, journey times will increase, daily gridlock will be inevitable, and he'll be banging on about the need to build more roads. More roads, more demand and greater congestion at the choke-points (mainly near destinations) lead to greater congestion.
No. We've passed 'peak car'. Society is moving on from the 70-year experiment of organising itself around a single means of transport. Young people are driving less. Company cars are being issued less. Motoring enthusiasts will wail and scream. A few chavs will continue to define themselves by the car they can afford. The rest of us will see the private motor car for what it is: a useful, but increasingly anachronistic tool for getting about, one of many, each one appropriate for different journeys.
This sort of report is the last great wail of a still-healthy industry which knows it's nearly finished. The great car economy is coming to an end. My guess is the collapse is nigh, and will be occasioned by driverless cars. Once cars drive themselves, I suspect the incentive to own them will disappear. Fleets of autonomous taxis will circulate, to be summoned by mobile phone in a couple of minutes. You could specify the nearest, or if you needed a large vehicle to cope with objects and pay appropriately. As cars are currently in use less than 10% of the time, this would represent a far more efficient use of resources. Algorithms could ensure maximum occupancy, reducing bills for those willing to share. Vehicles, freed from the needs of human reaction time, could communicate allowing bumper-to-bumper travel on motorways, increasing capacity and reducing fuel use. Junctions will be safer, as the risk of motorists not seeing each other during saccades is eliminated. Cars, communicating with each other would be able to move into smaller gaps in the traffic, increasing capacity. Stop-start would be eliminated.
Country pubs will face a surge in business as driverless cars (with wipe-clean seats, probably) will pour you home, full of beer with no need to organize a dedicated driver.
It's not just people: Reliable point to point courier services could be set up, facilitating a further refinement of just-in-time production. Deliveries, freed from the needs of people's working capacity and the tachymetre could be arranged around the clock, at your convenience. And all this cheaper than the depreciation and fuel we waste now. This extra efficiency of use in transport infrastructure is where the next wave of economic growth is going to come from.
Soon we'll be able to sleep in our cars while they're moving. And you thought I was going to rant about bicycles, didn't you?
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Baroso is on record as saying "an independent Scotland would have to negotiate entry into the European Union". Finland's negotiations took three years. The SNP counter with "but of course they would let us in, why wouldn't they?" and that negotiations would take just 18 months. The answer to that is simple. Several countries in the Union have regions with significant secessionist movements: Spain (Catalonia, the Basque country), France (the Basque country), Italy (South Tyroll). Spain have already indicated they would have serious issues with Scotland being let in without at a fight, lest it encourage the Catalans who're voting soon in a non-binding referendum.
It shouldn't matter, but it does. The Scots are therefore probably about to have a referendum on continued EU membership, and they're the most Euro-enthusiast nation of the UK. There's no reason why a small country can't prosper outside the EU, like Norway one of the Richest countries in the world, so why is the SNP's line so patently dishonest?
Can someone with better knowledge of Scots politics tell me why the normally competent Alec Salmond has let himself be caught in such an obvious bear-trap?
Cocaine grows wild in South America, and has been cultivated for the stimulating properties of its (highly nutritious, by leaf standards) leaves for centuries.
A comparison of coca with other major food sources has shown that it is an excellent source of vitamins B1, B2, C and E, and in particular of mineral elements such as calcium, potassium and phosphorus.It's also excellent for warding off altitude sickness, and so coca cultivation is allowed in Bolivia, where Yields of 1.3-5 tonnes of Sun-dried leaves per hectare are common and prices on the illicit market (Peru, 2003) are around $2.50 per kg.
So, coca can be bought for a few dollars a bushel, and one kilo of sun-dried leaf yields between 2.5g and 4.5g of pure cocaine hydrochloride. The costs of the sodium carbonate (or cement powder) sulphuric acid, petrol and caustic soda used in the production process are negligible amounting to a few dollars. It is unlikely to be $200 to buy and process 50kg of leaves, if you're doing it in bulk.
50kg of coca leaf will yield 125g of pure cocaine hydrochloride. On the street in Europe, where street purity would be around 10-30% (assuming 25% to keep the maths simple) and the drug retails for £40-50 (assume $72) a gram, your 50kg of leaf and chemicals bought for $200 generating $36,000 (£22,500) of retail sales. The input costs are negligible, and the difference is profit shared entirely by an illegal supply-chain. Narco-lords, mules, warehousers and distributors and street dealers. The majority of the risk is run by the street dealers, mules (or more accurately, those who direct and orgainse them) and narco-lords so this is where I expect the majority of profits to flow.
With such an economic pull, is it any wonder people do things like this?
Spanish authorities have arrested a Panamanian woman who arrived at Barcelona airport with 1.38kg of cocaine concealed in her breast implants.That's 1,380g of cocaine worth (on the calculations above) nearly $100,000. Even if the mule captures just 20% of this, and this is probably an underestimate: getting the drug from Bolivia to a European city is the difficult bit; it is simply impossible to prevent a resource from rolling down so steep an economic slope.
The only sane response: just legalise it, and take that mark-up as better wages for Andean farmers and generate a lot of tax. More money for Government coffers, while generating many fewer bodies as it would be companies competing over taxable profits, not criminal gangs fighting for untaxed ones. Finally Governments such as the US would not need to spend the $7bn on fighting the drug war. To put this in perspective, the US spends just the gross profits from 2,800 hectares of Coca, or about 10% of the Bolivian crop alone.
We cannot stop the flow of cocaine from South America any more than Canute could order the tide to retreat. The laws of economics are stronger than the UN Convention on the illegal trade in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1988.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
While I sort of agree with them about Europe, in common with most of the electorate, I just don't think it's that big a deal, and we're probably going to get what we want - a 2 speed Europe - anyway. I simply don't know to what practical problem "pull out of the EU" is a solution. There is a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU of course, and I would like a bit more parliamentary sovereignty But UKIP seem to imagine EU membership is without benefits and leaving is without cost. Most of what makes the UK a shitty place to live is home-grown. Our politicians have (alas) not been as effective at protecting our basic liberties as the European courts.
Points 1 & 2 in "what we stand for" deal almost entirely with Europe as if it's a mill-stone round our necks, preventing democracy and prosperity. If they get their way, and I hope one day they do, there are going to be a lot of disappointed UKIPpers who are going to have to find another boogeyman to blame for their inadequacies.
They claim to want to cut the deficit but make spending commitments in areas of defence, law and order, and offer tax-cuts all round, paid for, it seems by a local sales-tax to replace VAT (this is a EU-mandated tax, you see...) and the benefits of leaving the EU. This is, obviously laughable.
I cannot live with their immigration policy which is pure demagoguery allied to 'lump of labour' fallacy idiocy.
Their law and order policy looks like an expensive and unjust march towards a police state and mass incarceration along red-state US lines. I cannot support this.
They plan to re-introduce Grammar schools. This has long been on the Tory activist wish-list. I am not sure separating the sheep from the goats at 11 is just, or that it will appeal to the majority who know, in their heart of hearts that little Johnny will be a goat. The only reason the Tory 'free schools' policy isn't supported is that it can't be sold to golf-club bores as a return to a better yesterday.
"Our way of life" is a bit more than smoking in pubs and fox-hunting. And for a 'libertarian' party, there seem to be a fair few dog-whistles about 'multiculturalism' and 'immigration'. Yes, yes, yes. I know it is possible to debate the meaning of the word, and abhor the "seperate but equal" apartheid for which it stands. But that's not how the white working class electorate see it: in the North UKIP are competing with the BNP for ex-Labour voters. The party may not be racist, but they are certainly gunning for racists' votes.
UKIP have a thin veneer of libertarianism, masking an unpleasant demagoguery. In common with most small parties, they can afford to have uncosted and simple policies, as they will never be called upon to implement them. At heart they're mere Poujadistes, anti-intellectual protest-votes for people hankering for an imagined past. People who feel the Tory party, competing in the centre-ground for votes, has abandoned them, or never represented them, in all their resentful, chippy glory. I'm just disappointed so many clearly intelligent correspondents seem taken in. Farage aside - he at least has wit and energy - the party is rather unpleasant.
My prediction: the Party's current polling is an ephemera which will last until the next round of Euro Elections. Nadine Dorries will defect to UKIP, and sit as their MP until the next election. You're welcome to her. They may even come first in the popular-vote at the Euro elections but this seems unlikely and this is a measure of the public's contempt for the institution. They will then come fourth, behind the Liberal Democrats in the general election, and win no seats.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
The greatest lie in politics is that economic growth is in the Chancellor's gift.
Because the economy is usually growing, it pays for chancellors to claim credit for it, but this is just Game Theory. As soon as it starts shrinking, the opposition start shouting about how the "chancellor's failed". They're both lying to you (and probably themselves too). Chancellors do influence the economy, but more subtly than the simple -/+ve GDP growth number.
I did not credit Brown for the boom, which was global, I did not blame him for the recession, which was global. I do blame Brown for the deficit, or at least that part of it which isn't automatic stabilisers and bank-bail-outs, but that is NOT the same thing as the recession. I do not blame Brown for the boom and bust because in the main, I don't think the business cycle is particularly amenable to manipulation by chancellors. And insofar as they are able to influence GDP growth, I don't think this is the Chancellor's main role.
So what are chancellors for? Even Gordon Brown knew this: to balance the budget (or nearly so) over the business cycle. This was his "Golden Rule" (remember that?). In this, he failed, spectacularly. This is not about the bank bail outs - that bit of the deficit from 2008/9 is fine. While I disagree with Brown's policy to bail the banks out, but I don't regard the policy as idiotic: it's certainly one of a number of possible solutions to a genuine problem. My problem is with the growth in state spending from 35% of the economy to 50% in 13 years, the over-complex tax-code (which is giving so much wiggle-room to "avoiders" right now) and the borrowing during the boom to fund a worthless army of state apparatchiks, which is causing so much pain now. In running a structural deficit to fund a massive expansion of state employment, Brown weakened the economy, removed the room for manoeuvre when the inevitable bust came, and arguably made the inevitable recession deeper when it did, and the resultant recovery slower.
So Chancellors do have an effect on the economy, but it's far more subtle than "is the economy growing?".
The longer the boom, the more painful the bust, and the UK enjoyed 16 years of economic growth (which started under the Tories...). Some of Brown's policies may have prolonged the boom - the UK version of the Greenspan Put certainly contributed to financial recklessness, but it was an approach shared by the USA and elsewhere. I doubt a Tory chancellor would have done much different. Ever cheaper money certainly contributed to the housing price bubble which has arguably not yet deflated. Even with all that cheap money, the biggest boom was in the state sector, where almost all the net new jobs of 13 years of Labour rule were created.
It is this army of state apparatchiks which kept the boom going, giving the impression of growth, where the private-sector had stagnated long before 2008.. Cheap money and diversity outreach-coordinators can only manipulate the GDP numbers for so long. And it it this Army of state apparatchiks being culled en-masse which forms the biggest component of "austerity". Yes it hurts for the PCS and UNITE to lose so many members, but those UNITE members are handing in their membership cards and joining the growing Private sector. Even during a slump, which Labour will tell you is the worst since the war, as soon as the Public sector stopped hiring, the private sector started. It's almost as if there was something in this "crowding out" theory. True many of these new capitalist running-dogs are "under-employed" self-employed or part-time workers, but these are the seed-corn of the next generation of small businesses.
So. Gordon Brown can arguably have made the current recession worse with his policies. And George Osborne's austerity might at once be slowing growth in the short term, and also be necessary. Just because sacking civil servants depresses GDP, it does not follow that not sacking them is the right thing to do. GDP growth does NOT generate lower deficits when that GDP growth is simply deficit financed spending on worthless, return-free state prod-noses.
In the parts of the economy where the state is dominant, the recession is brutal. Jobs are non-existent. In London and the South-East where the state is relatively small, people are saying "what recession?". Just as Labour's boom was an illusion created by a chancellor gaming (deliberately or accidentally) the GDP number by splurging money at the public sector, this "double dip" is the result of a chancellor (in my view) doing the right thing in attempting to balance the books and reign in a state-sector which had been growing over-mighty. When winds of austerity stop blowing through the public sector, we will be left with an economy carrying a much, much smaller burden of state jobsworths, with a lot of under-employed people in the private sector. This sounds like a recipe for growth to me.
The other lie politicians tell is the deliberate confusion (by both sides, when it suits), of debt (the size of the mortgage, if you like) and the deficit (the amount extra borrowed each year to cover income shortfalls). The deficit is falling, yes, slower than expected or desired, but it is falling from nearly 12% in 2010, to 6% now. This doesn't look to me like "failure" on reigning in the debt. However thanks to Ed Balls' former master, we still have a deficit therefore the debt is rising. Pointing out that the UK is borrowing more now than it did 5 years ago is just dishonest. It is obscene chutzpah from Balls to blame Osborne for failing to deal with what was, and remains the biggest deficit in the western world in just two years,when the biggest part of the extra borrowing is ... wait for it... debt interest. The solution to this growing part of Government expenditure is not Ed Balls' solution of "investment" (by which he means 'spending'). It involves driving interest rates down, and hoping inflation does the work for you.
The point is the boom pre-2008 wasn't as good, and the bust post 2010 isn't as bad, as the politicians or the GDP numbers would have you believe. GDP numbers are a lousy way to judge a chancellor's performance.
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
In my last post, I thought I had dealt with all the boring Tropes about cycling. But no. Apparently not content with looking for red-lights to run and achieving the miraculous feat of being simultaneously "in the middle of the road" and "on the pavement" we also all delight in wearing dark clothing and never have lights.
On this I have some sympathy with the motorist. I drive, and I am hyper aware of cyclists. However when I see one in dark clothing, at dusk (it's worse at dusk and dawn than in the dead of night) without lights, I think it's barely sporting to not give the motorist a chance to see you. Most cyclists, however want to survive their commute to work, and so deck themselves in blinking lights, high viz & reflective rucksack covers, Tabards, Sam-Brownes, Rucksack and Helmet covers, stickers, projecting lasers and so forth.
There is a whole sub-industry of bicycle accessories which are designed to make sure you're seen. A set of effective lights can cost less than a tenner. You need to spend more if you want to see where you're going without street lights, but a tenner will get you seen by an approaching motorist.
For my part, my bag is reflective and apparently lights up like a Christmas tree in the headlights. I always have a seatpost blinker, one further on my bag, and one attached to my helmet. I pump out 300 lumens front. I never go out without my lights. Of course, it is one of the few things the police can stop a cyclist for. And in my experience, they do, quite reasonably stop cyclists without lights.
Let's also deal with cyclists being "in the way". I was told to "get out the way" this morning. See the video below.
This also deals with the "red light jump", which is a simple non-issue. I agree, blowing red lights at speed is dangerous. Rolling through them, after the pedestrians have gone just gets you out of the way of the traffic behind, to everyone's benefit. Traffic lights are more about not allowing cars to block junctions, than they are about safety, and bicycles don't block junctions.
Monday, 3 December 2012
There are a number of Journalistic tropes trotted out when cyclists are mentioned in the press. There's the idiotic "They should pay road tax", when, of course, road-tax was abolished in 1937, and cyclists are more likely to own a car than the general population. Furthermore many cars are 0%-rated for VED, smart-cars, or many old vehicles for example. These don't pay "road-tax" either. Are these less entitled to the road than a Range-Rover.
There is the stupid idea that cyclists on the road should be compulsorily insured. Of course in an accident, the cost of wiping blood off a car is negligible. And in any case, cyclists are to blame for serious accidents in around only 7% of cases (where someone, almost exclusively the cyclist himself) is killed or seriously injured. The chances of a cyclist killing or seriously injuring a motorist, or damaging their vehicle, are so low that it really isn't worth the bother. Dragging a motorist out of its vehicle and beating it to death with your bare hands is covered by existing statute. Alas. Most regular cyclists are insured, for their own protection. The public liability cover is given away nearly free, as it is so rarely needed.
Licensing cyclists so they can be caught breaking the law is another silly idea given a regular airing by fuckwits in the press. This has never worked, anywhere, ever. Everywhere where it has been tried, it has been abandoned as a costly and intrusive failure. Red-light jumping by cyclists get wankers hot under the collar because they think as the mondeo-man is held up, everyone else should be too. If you find yourself whinging about red-light jumping cyclists, please repeat this phrase: "bicycles are not cars and cannot block junctions". Red lights are to keep the traffic moving through junctions, and are not about safety.
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets? All that does is reduce the number of cyclists. Of course some would hail that as a victory, but given one of the tightest correlations between a city's "livability" and quality of life is its bicycle modal share, this is idiotic. No-one wears a helmet for utility cycling in the Netherlands, because no-one needs to. Helmets and other individual protective equipment such as High-viz clothing is a sticking-plaster on the gunshot wound of unbelievably hostile roads.
Removing free on-street parking is always criticised by local businesses, especially if a cycle lane is put in its place, because people routinely over-estimate the importance of driving on custom, often by orders of magnitiude. Even now, cycling and walking play a much greater part in the short shopping trips to town than most people realise. Pedestrianising streets and protected bike lanes increase footfall, in New York's case by up to 25%. Walkers and cyclists take up less space, stay longer, visit more shops more often.
Finally, there's the "I was almost knocked over". I have never met anyone who was actually knocked over by a cyclist, and in two decades of regular, urban cycling, I have never hit a pedestrian, nor seen one get hit by a cyclist. My guess is that "I was almost knocked over" actually means, "something fast-moving in my peripheral vision startled me, and I cannot tell the difference between an involuntary endocrine reaction and danger" As the number of cyclists increase, maybe pedestrians will start to look out for us, as they do currently, and without complaint, for the cars which do, far far more regularly ACTUALLY hit pedestrians. And of course the consequences of hitting a pedestrian on a bicycle are usually vastly less severe than doing so in a car. However special ire is reserved for cyclists.
If journalists are to be believed, all cyclists run red lights, get simultaneously in the way of motor vehicles, and ride on the pavement. They are all dangerous scofflaws while the saintly motorists obey the rules of the road. If a motorist makes a risky pass on a blind corner, this is justifiable in the face of provocation from "lycra louts" who deliberately get in the way. Did we mention that all motorists obey the rules of the road, well of course we meant apart from those silly rules about maximum speed and parking of course, which are part of the "war on the motorist". And if a cyclist ends up crushed by a motor vehicle driven by a near-blind illiterate who hasn't slept for 20 hours, then he's only got himself to blame for not wearing high-viz and a helmet and riding "in the way" not in the gutter where he belongs.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Let's take the BBC's coverage of the minimum pricing legislation debate. The headline went something like this:
"Doctors [respected] have welcomed the governments proposal to introduce minimum pricing, but industry bodies [Boo! Profiteers] have reacted angrily [ie not rationally] to the proposals saying they will hit ordinary drinkers."No one has seriously questioned the Sheffield university "report" which is basically assumptions, untested against evidence in a spreadsheet, reported with grotesque overconfidence and represents nothing more than policy-based evidence-making.
Anyone claiming to be a scientist, presenting this "data" on lives which will be saved by the policy, without pointing out the heroic assumptions (for example that heavy, problem alcoholics are MORE price sensitive, not less than the general population, something which flies in the face of evidence from other addictive drugs), is basically lying to you.
No-one questions the self-appointed experts who are basically a temperance movement dressed up in academic drag, on their evidence, which is taken at face value. The poor sap hauled up on the today program faced scrutiny of his opinions which was sorely lacking for the temperance witch on the other side of the desk. Once again, the BBC has come down in favour of MORE regulation by the state, more intrusion into the lives of ordinary people, not less. Once more supposedly skeptical journalists have have failed to question experts' assumptions with any rigour.
What are they for again?
Cameron seems to think a minimum unit price for alcohol is a good idea. It isn't of course, it's the worst type of New Labour nanny-state idiocy. You know that, I know that. What's important is who the enemies of liberty are, and how they use their positions in a conspiracy against the public.
The medical political complex has become dominated by a kind of purse-lipped puritan, who sees the maintenance of life as its sole aim. To these people, the poor especially must be bullied, for that is what it amounts to, into "healthy lifestyles". To this end, government must see to it that the poor especially must be prevented from doing harm to themselves. Especially by smoking, drinking and taking drugs.
The war on smoking is going well. The habit has been de-normalised in much of middle-class society, remaining widespread only in the working class. The ban on smoking in pubs has caused tens of thousands of pubs to shut down. Not, of course the nice gastro-pub in which the members of the medical/political complex might take their 21 units a week (a number for which, of course there is NO evidence), but the kind of local boozer in which a builder might enjoy a pint after work. Builders, who are more likely to smoke than public health professionals, have responded to the incentive provided by the smoking ban by going to the supermarket for lager, and watching the television at home, where they are (still, just) allowed to smoke, instead of socialising with their friends and work colleagues.
The public health professional is not now satisfied with the steady decline in smoking. They are now going after booze, in a big way. And they are fundamentally dishonest. The UK has relatively low consumption of alcohol. Consumption of alcohol is falling. Young people are drinking less than ever. Of course some people go out and get squiffy on a Friday night, but THEY ALWAYS HAVE and much of the vomit and blood on the street is down to insane licencing laws that see local pubs shut (no "entertainment" you see) and vertical drinking barns with bull-necked bouncers who delight in giving random kickings, stay open late. People are herded into noisy "venues" only to have all of them shut simultaneously, leading to fights in kebab queues and taxi ranks. Stressed, drunk people whose jackets are probably still in the cloakroom of the club they've been kicked out of, and by whose bouncers they've had kickings, are herded around by increasingly officious and aggressive people wearing high-viz, until the police arrive and add one more person to the crime & disorder statistics.
A free market in the night-time economy wouldn't look like that.
Sheffield university's Professor Petra Meier's MODEL-BASED APPRAISAL OF ALCOHOL MINIMUM PRICING is being widely touted as evidence that minimum pricing works. It's nothing of the sort, of course. It's a model. If you assume a policy works, and put those numbers into a spreadsheet, you can estimate by how much consumption will fall at different unit prices. All you need is a title - in this case two PhDs and a Professor - to be believed when you say "but the model shows that consumption by problem drinkers falls the most". But it is by no means evidence that the policy will work. It's a tarted-up guess. It's policy-based evidence making, and hoping no-one challenges you on the data.
In a word they're lying to you. But by repetition the lies become the accepted truth.
But it's not about whether an intervention into minimum pricing would work. To make the argument about that risks the medical/political complex actually finding it does work, within their parameters, and being encouraged to ban bacon. Is a drop in alcohol consumption a good thing? Why? We probably want to cut the blood and vomit on the street on a Friday night, but that isn't about booze, it's culture, law and licensing. Why fight on ground of the puritan's choosing?
The question should whether it's the state's role to intervene in pricing. Because once that rubicon's been crossed, you can bet we're back to fighting the cold war again as price-planners flood through the economy, and every decision gets scrutinised by your GP. We will see restrictions on fatty foods. And before long, no-doubt the nation will be forced (for the good of the NHS) to do their press-ups and sit-ups every morning, in the road, where you can be inspected. Minimum pricing therefore is about whether the state has a right to tell you and me what we do with our bodies.
I like a glass of wine now and again. Once in a while, and less often than I used to, I like to get squiffy with my friends. This is absolutely none of the government's business. And it's the poor who suffer most. Pubs in poor areas were already marginal businesses, and they've gone. So the low-waged have seen their social forum shut, increasing atomisation and alienation. And all because the temperance lobby don't like the sight of men with cigarettes and a pint. The poor have been driven to a WORSE health outcome by the smoking ban. And because their lives are a bit less social, the harmful drinkers may well drink more. Of course, if this is the case, there's no evidence, because there's no-one looking. The temperance lobby got their policy, and they've moved on.
This isn't about health. It's about a certain type of curtain-twitching middle-class puritan, drawn to careers in public health who see the poor not as people, but a problem to be tidied up. This is true of slum clearances which destroyed communities in the name of public health, and it's true of the modern-day temperance crusade.
My prediction: This policy will be declared illegal under European law as the Scottish experiment is shot down. Cameron will use that as a pretext to drop a policy in which he's invested, but on which the rest of the Cabinet is less less keen. He will use it, like the votes for prisoners, as something on which he will "stand up to Europe". We will still hear the confident assertions medical/political complex go unchallenged on the Today program.
Further reading on the subject: Heresy Corner's post is very good and Christopher Snowdon's blog is excellent on the litany of lies by public health professionals and the temperance industry. You should read it.
Saturday, 24 November 2012
UKIP is a Mainstream political party, whom David Cameron once described as
"Fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".And he's right. While the UKIP supporting Twittersphere are impeccably libertarian to Anarcho-capitalist, much of the rest of the party, those who infest the comments section of the Telegraph, are mostly dissafected Tories of the sort who think that any leader that isn't Saint Margaret of Thatcher is Europhile Blue Labour, and who will blame Europe for more-or-less anything. Having campaigned and canvassed in many, many elections, I can assure you that much of UKIPs support comes from people with a whiff of the golf-club about them.
But of course there are people with dubious views in all parties, and Labour should not be smug. The only people from whom I've heard really rancid racism in the pub are people who then proudly proclaim themselves "old Labour". There are of course racists in the Conservative party. The Lib dems are probably pretty free of racists, but they've got shit-eaters and violent paedophiles instead.
So. Cameron's light hearted dismissal of the opponents to the Conservatives right, is a problem because it is preventing Cameron really getting any political capital from the Rotheham Fosterins scandal. For those who don't know, it's story of a UKIP-supporting couple, who had foster children removed from them by an archly-right-on, common purpose-infested social services department of Rotherham council.
Rotherham, of course is about to have a by-election as the sitting MP turned out to be a thief. And UKIP following the scandal, are more likely to win the seat than the Tories as Rotherham's the sort of place where a donkey in red-rosette would win. What better way to lance a number of boils simultaneously? If Cameron offered a Referendum in the next parliament on continued membership of the EU, he could create a formal pact between UKIP and the Tories, perhaps even inviting them into the coalition, should they Manage to steal Rotherham from Labour.
Nigel Farage could not refuse a genuine offer of a referendum, backed by the Tory party. This would secure Cameron's hand against his own rebels, and would be popular in the right-wing press. If, as expected a red-rosette drone were to win the seat, the fact that the Tories formally backed the UKIP candidate would be long-forgotten, and hostilities could be resumed. However if the UKIP candidated was propelled to the seat by scandal, and the backing of Conservatives, then Ed Milliband's EU fox would be well and truly shot.
There are, as Paul Goodman explains, clearly risks to such a policy. A small party has to be less selective of its candidates, and a formal pact would mean the Tories would also own UKIP's nutty fringe. And there are of course risks to UKIP. A Tory party fully committed to an in-out referendum, and in a pact with UKIP would probably be UKIP's death. Farage may be pretty open in his willingness to come into the Tory fold, but much of UKIP hates the Tories with the scorn of a betrayed wife.
Which is why I don't think it will happen. Labour will win the Rotherham by election, UKIP will come second. And Social Services managers will continue to go to Common Purpose brainwashing sessions.
A couple, who by all reports were exemplary foster parents, had three children removed from their care because the council discovered after an anonymous tip-off that they were members of UKIP.
There is so much 'sinister' in that sentence, I don't know where to start. What's worse, rather than sacking the social worker in question, launching an immediate enquiry and issuing an immediate, grovelling apology, the Council's head of child services, Joyce Thacker suggested UKIP's desire to limit immigration and end multiculturalism meant that a placement of ethnic minority children with UKIP members was against their "long-term cultural needs". She went on to say
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."When in a hole, you should stop digging, but instead she went on to suggest that the Family would be able to foster white children in future. Urgh.
The Labour party nationally has distanced itself from the Labour-controlled Rotherham council. My prediction: Joyce Thacker will need to call a head-hunter on Monday morning.
The fact is, this demonstrates as if more proof were needed, of the left-wing 'long march through the institutions' is nearly complete. A Marxist cultural hegemony exists in some councils, and in much of state education, in which exists a contempt for the family, a loathing of anything like of traditional values, and a deep intolerance of political dissent . Anything outside the left-wing world view is deemed inappropriate. The Tories are suspect and UKIP beyond the pale. And the children are being indoctrinated.
The Joyce Thackers of the world hate you, and everything you stand for. They want to destroy the institution of the Family because they want to make everyone dependent on the state. Mass immigration is desirable BECAUSE it destabilises communities and offends the traditionalist white working class. Widespread welfare dependency is desirable, because dependence gives the state power over people. This is why the benefits system is so complicated and therefore so toxic to the maintenance of stable families. Never ascribe to malice that which can be put down to incompetence, but the 'problems' Iain Duncan-Smith's benefits reforms aim to resolve - the disincentives to parental co-habitation, for example do seem to be in line with Gramscian doctrine. For in their view, there can be no loyalties but to the state. The cold war isn't over, not while the Joyce Thackers of this world are in charge of children's lives.
Occasionally the mask slips, when they do something so grotesque, so offending to natural justice that people take a look at what is being done in their name. They won't like what they see. The people are not Marxist, you see, but no-doubt Joyce Thacker puts this down to false consciousness.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
On my local high-street, which leads up to a market square there is an independent coffee shop, Cafe Rouge, Thorntons, Greggs, Costa Coffee, and on the Market square there is an independent next door to Starbucks and another selling coffee from a trailer in the middle of the Square. All of these are within 300m of each other. All of them sell coffee, as do the 5 pubs and two other restaurants which you would pass were you to walk from one end of the high-street to the other. That's before you consider the 4 sandwich shops which also sell coffee to take away. At nearly half the premises in the high-street, you can buy a coffee.
Is anyone surprised that Starbucks is not making money in the UK?
The UK's corporation tax rate is 28%. Starbucks paid a rate of 31% globally. Surely they should be declaring profit here if they can?
Once again, the UK uncut crowd are simply wrong; but that didn't stop MPs jumping on the bandwagon. What must be especially galling for a company making little profit in a brutally competitive market-place is being hauled in to face questioning by a new-Labour parasite like Margaret Hodge. Hodge, herself a multi-millionaire whose family business, Stemcor also pays its tax globally, at a global rate of 41%, (which suggests they need a better accountant) but pays very little of that in the UK. Hodge may not be an expenses cheat, but that's probably because she was born into the fabulously wealthy Oppenheimer family and doesn't need to be.
What's really pissing me off is the reporting of tax as a proportion of revenues in order to give a low number. If your margins are low, as in food and beverage retail, you can have huge turnover, off which you're skimming a little profit, after wages, payroll taxes, overheads, materials, property and so on. Taxes as a percentage of revenues is an utterly meaningless number, yet this is becoming the dominant ratio in the idiot left and the mainstream media.
So here's a little guide. Revenues is the money you take from customers. Corporation Tax is NOT calculated on this number, Value Added Tax is, and no-one's suggesting VAT is being avoided. Then there's costs of sales, which represents all the things you do to make those sales such as employ people, buy materials and stock, rent or buy premises. You also include your central functions, such as HQ staff and buildings. Revenues less cost of sales is known as 'operating profit', or sometimes 'profit before tax' or 'pre-tax profit'. You then apply the tax-rate to that number.
Please don't report tax as a percentage of revenues and call it tax-dodging because that marks you out as an utter moron with shit for brains.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
I am currently riding My brother's Hard-tail, carbon fibre mountain bike to work, because driving to work was doing my head in. This is about as good as a trail-riding bike gets, and his pride and joy. However, it's my belief that mountain bikes are the work of the devil, and put the cause of utility cycling back a two decades.
Friday, 16 November 2012
Barclays have just produced their post RDR fee card for "managing" (if that's what banks do) peoples' investments.
For clients using its advisory investment service, the bank will now charge an annual fee of 0.75% for advice and custody on the first £1 million in assets, which then drops to 0.6% for the next £2 million, 0.5% on the next £4 million and 0.25% over £7 million.A local stockbroker's (me, for example) dealing commissions will be smaller for deals over around £10,000 too. Online execution-only brokers smaller still. A local stockbroker can offer One phone number, one point of contact, no bri-nylon school-leavers selling from a script which pops up on the screen when you call. Reviews can be conducted in a pub over a pie and a pint, club in London, or by e-mail and post.
When a stockbroker's clients call, you are talking to the decision-maker, not a salesman, unlike a bank, whose "investment managers" use a top-down investment process. This grand-sounding magic is the method by which a committee sets the weightings in asset-classes, then another committee chooses which assets in each class should go into portfolios, then your investment manager is presented with a list and told to go and sell the trade-du-jour to his clients. It looks like science, but I won't work for any institution which insists on it. Analysts are remunerated for justifying trades, and "managers" are remunerated on successfully selling trades to clients.
How do I know this? I once watched a perfectly healthy stockbroker destroy itself by imposing an investment process.
Unlike a bank, I have worked out the easiest way to generate outperformance is to deal less often. If the market falls.Unlike a bank, I don't have a big legal department making take-the-piss charging for half-arsed portfolio advice (stick it in multi-manager fee-larded shit and forget about it till commission-time) compliant with the regulations. Because as we all know, regulations benefit the big business at the expense of the small.
And the effect of the regulations on customers? Well, you can see fees going up. Regulation isn't free.
I own shares in Barclays, but I wouldn't trust them with anything more complicated a current account and personal loan.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Nadine Dorries, Tory scourge of the Posh-Boys has become the second MP to take up the challenge of reality TV by going into the Jungle with 'I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here'. Her constituents are said to be not happy. Twitter is disparaging. The Conservative party has suspended her whip, and her constituency association have taken a dim view. But is she playing a long game?
Friday, 26 October 2012
If you're active politically, you'll probably get sent this article today, from The Huffington Post. Ramesh Patel describes himself as
Economist, worked in media and the financial sectorWhich means he studied economics at university and has worked in the financial sector. It doesn't mean he's got any understanding of macro-economics. His more detailed bio is as follows.
Ramesh Patel worked in finance from investments adviser with JMC Finacial Assets, to comodities brokers in metal and currencies with Capital Assets. As well as a CEO for Proactive Internet Marketing and Brown Pound Publishing. Current working on a book on the UK deficit Myth and the real agender from the right and left.*Agenda* *Commodities* *Financial*. 3 Spelling mistakes in his Huffington Post BIO! How embarrassing Which means he's barely literate, and I won't be buying his book. Anyway, enough of playing the man, let's get back to his article and play the ball. I'll fisk it so you don't have to. Basically it's a badly spelled rehash of Labour's claim that the UK public finances are OK because our stock of public debt is low by international standards.
CLAIM 1 The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world. After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Watch: Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story.No-one credible is claiming that. True, politicians do have an unfortunate tendency to use "debt" and "deficit" interchangably, when it suits their purposes. Ed Balls is at least as guilty as Cameron and Osborne. The UK's debt is fine. The problem is that we are accruing debt faster than any country in the developed world and will almost certainly overtake Germany and possibly France before the crisis is resolved.
Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?These figures are simply wrong, and completely ignore context. In 1997, debt was, yes 42% and FALLING FAST the UK having come out of the recession of the mid 90's, reaching 35% or so at which point Gordon Brown ABANDONED TORY SPENDING PLANS. IN 2008, the stock of debt was RISING despite there having been 16 years of uninterrupted growth.
CLAIM 2 Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending. Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2It's difficult to untangle the syntax, but I think he's talking about the structural deficit. Whatever, he clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The UK has the biggest deficit in the developed world. From 2000, Gordon brown embarked on the biggest peace-time rise in taxation in British History. Tax as a share of GDP went from (depending on which stats you uses) 35% to 42% of GDP. This enormous tax rise happened during a long period of expansion. And all this extra tax on a strongly growing economy wasn't enough. Gordon Brown STILL ran deficits. Government spending went from around 38% of GDP to over 50% in 13 years. So the idea that Labour didn't overspend is a simple, complete and absolute lie.The last Government was running a structural deficit. No question about that at all.
Claim 3 Our borrowing costs are low because the markets have confidence in George Osborne's austerity plan and without it the UK will end up like Greece. Yes, the markets have confidence in our austerity plan and that's why PIMCO the worlds largest bond holder have been warning against buying UK debt. The real reason why our borrowing costs have fallen and remained low since 2008 is because, savings have increased.This is a half-truth. Every politician will claim (when in power) that low interest rates are a sign of market confidence. And they are - at least insofar as the markets remain convinced the UK will repay. But ultra-low interest rates are also a sign of economic weakness, as investors seek safe assets over risky ones. Bill Gross at PIMCO has been warning against US debt too. Not as a comment on Bernanke or Osborne, but merely that the economy will pick up, and negative real returns on low-risk assets are unsustainable. Yields will rise, so developed market debt is not a great place to be long-term.
Secondly, the UK is considered a safe heaven because, investors are reassured the Bank of England will buy up bonds in an event of any sell off - which increases the price of bonds and reduces the effective rate. Note, how rates fell across the EU recently when the ECB announced its bond buying program. Thirdly, because, we are not in the Euro we can devalue our currency to increase exports. Moreover, UK bonds are attractive because, we haven't defaulted on its debt for over 300 yrs.Let's leave aside the mangling of the English tongue. The UK will not default because the Bank of England can print enough money to meet its needs. Trivially true. This does NOT mean the UK faces no limit on Government spending. Small truth, Ramesh, Big error.
David Cameron would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I.You and *ME*, Ramesh. All politicians use the household debt metaphor, to try to explain what is going on. Yes national debt is different to credit card debt. But most of the public will not understand why.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph GoebbelsYou mean like the lie that as National debt isn't like a credit card, there's no limit?
So what are the limits to national debt? Well there's the observation that debt burdens over 80% of GDP (Like Germany had for many years, and as France has now) seem to depress economic growth. When debt reaches 120% of GDP, which is where Italy is now, it seems to kill growth entirely. Japan when confronted with its asset bubble collapse, attempted to "stimulate" it's way out of stagnation. It failed, and growth has been negligible for 20 or more years, and she bears a debt burden of over 200% of GDP. The only reason this is sustainable at all is most of it is lent to Japanese citizens. For those countries whose debt is more likely to be held outside the country, like the UK, our ability to sustain debt is much lower.
Ramesh Patel doesn't mention the difference between internal and external debt. The UK has very, very high external debt. Nor does he mention the effect of debt burdens on growth. Nor does he put the snapshots he gives of the debt into context. He claims to not be a leftie but he's written pure Labour propaganda. His assertions amount to nothing more than a racist saying "some of my best friends...".
In short, there are plenty of good economic bloggers out there. Tim Worstall on the Right, Chris Dillow on the left. Ramesh Patel isn't one of them.
Update, I can confirm that No. Ramesh Patel did NOT get paid by Huffpo, who I think asked me to write a response. Not unless paid. I'm a vicious capitalist you see.
Saturday, 20 October 2012
This afternoon, I took my daughter, 3, to Danes Camp leisure centre in Northampton for a swim. She may be a toddler, but she's happy in the water, and can comfortably swim a length of a 25m pool. Her two great delights are sitting on my back "faster daddy, faster" and jumping into the water. Both of these are easier if the water is more than 2ft deep.
"She can swim, and I am keeping an eye on her"At this point, the life-guard went to fetch her manager. He repeated the allegation that my Daughter couldn't swim, ignoring the evidence of his own eyes as she splashed about happily, underneath signs warning of "danger" and listing things you're not allowed to do (have fun, mainly).
"You'll forgive me, if I pay more attention to my daughter than to you"She was at this point about 5m from me, in deep water.
"It's the rules. She has to be able to swim 50m"This is ridiculous. There are only a handful of 50m pools in the entire country.
"She can swim 50m, but not here, it's only 10m from one end to the other. You'd struggle to make her see the point of swimming 50m without getting out and jumping in, but she's more than capable of doing so"Logic failing, our brave defender of child safety attempted to further define his rules
"but it's doggy-paddle, not a recognised stroke"At this, ludicrous, desperate, surreal attempt by thwarted authority to re-assert itself in the face of someone saying "why?" and applying logic, I said
"we're finished. I am happy my Daughter is safe, and I shall ignore you from now on and enjoy my swim"At this he mentioned banning me, like I give a shit or want to "swim" in his chav piss-puddle again, and calling the police.
And fuck me, if Terry Jones, our jumped up little leisure-centre gauleiter, wasn't as good as his word. Sure enough, when I left, there were two uniformed Police officers in the manager's office, looking like (short, young, slack-jawed) paramilitary gestapo in their assault vests and black shirts. To the officers' credit, they barely said a word and appeared rather embarrassed to be there.
The five-minute conversation is below.
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Wee Eck, in his personal life is a rather admirable man. He retired from front-line politics to look after his sick wife. He's reported to be amusing company, and has many friends amongst political opponents. He's a fearsome debater and a shrewd politician. However he is also an absolutely shameless operator. He knows he has one shot at an independence referendum, which will put the issue to bed for a generation. He knows that losing the referendum risks fracturing his party from those who will respect the result, from those who won't.
He is therefore seeking to rig the plebiscite First by asking a clearly leading question, second by setting the date (rather pathetically) to coincide with the anniversary of Bannockburn, and immediately after the commonwealth Games, in which, unlike the Olympics, Scotland will compete as a separate nation to England. He must be devastated that Sir Chris Hoy has retired, and remains a unionist. On each issue, the SNP has attempted to secure the maximum likelihood of a "yes" vote, without consideration for whether this is right, fair, or reasonable, and when called out on this, usually by the independent Electoral Commission, the SNP cry 'Foul', having the rather chippy attitude that anything other than their view is "English arrogance".
Finally, the SNP have decided that 16-year olds should be allowed to vote, on the basis that they are slightly more likely to agree with the SNP than the general population. There is no principle to this whatsoever. Indeed, Salmond openly considered raising the age at which scots can buy alcohol from 18 to 21, suggesting he thinks they're mature enough to vote, get married and have sex, but not mature enough to have a beer on the way to the marital bed or polling station. Either that, or it's rank hypocrisy. It's a nakedly partisan move, contrary to almost all countries around the world who enjoy universal suffrage. Only in Bosnia Herzegovina (if employed), Austria, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man can spotty 16-year olds vote. A handful of countries, including Indonesia and (hilariously) North Korea allow votes at 17. Everywhere else on earth has the voting age 18 or higher. The SNP should not be allowed to choose their electorate for party political advantage. To do so smacks of banana republic, not the nation of Adam Smith and David Hume.
Have you met any teenagers? They know nothing. They're swayed by emotional arguments and have no experience of life on which to base the tough decisions of politics. They do not read papers, preferring to sit in dark rooms, masturbating furiously and sleeping. If Alec Salmond wants Scottish independence because some spotty herberts saw 'Braveheart' once, great. I'm just disappointed the UK Government fell for it.
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
... Which could be a musing on the excellent essays by Isiah Berlin, but isn't. It's much more prosaic than that.
Twitter is asking me to sign a petition: @nomorepage3 by someone called Lucy Holmes (the world's greatest Kylie tribute artist, apparently. No... Me neither).
I am not going to sign this petition, mainly because Liberal free-market democracy requires a mindset that if you don't like something, broadly you don't have to do it. Furthermore, those that DO like to do something, watch Films by racists or bowing down before a God or looking at bare breasts in a newspaper, should be free to get on with whatever it is they want to do, unmolested by agents of the state, religion or busybodies. If we are to remain a Liberal, free market democracy, we must be as hard on the busybodies as we are supporters of minority pursuits. I disapprove of the desire to ban things far, far more than I do bare breasts in a paper.
Obviously the state proscribes some harmless activities for our own good: Enjoying a pint with a cigarette in a pub, for example. Or smoking Marijuana at any time. Though broadly speaking, in most grown-up liberal democracies, these things are possible if you're prepared to break a poorly enforced law. The police take things like murder really very seriously indeed. If you kill someone it's rather hard to get away with it. On the other hand, millions buy illegal drugs every weekend, unmolested by the police. Even when Homosexuality was illegal, laws against it were rarely enforced. This shows, broadly, that even where the law is an ass, society has it's head screwed on right.
Ultimately, I am a Libertarian, which means I believe your body is your own to do with what you will. If that means flashing secondary sexual characteristics for a photographer, and be handsomely paid to do so; or sticking cocaine up one orifice, and a cock up another; or for that matter, do something really stupid and dangerous like read the Bible or Marx, you should be free to do so being stopped only from hurting others through recklessness or aggression.
It's amazing how the arguments of people who would deny the us freedom always look the same. Let's look at the preamble to Lucy Holmes' petition to Dominic Mohan, the editor of Britain's best-selling daily Newspaper, the Sun.
We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.
We are asking very nicely.
No More Page 3.
George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?
Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, Dominic?
No, they don’t.
There would be an outcry.
And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.
Consider this a long overdue outcry.
Dominic, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.
Enough is enough.
If you're really offended, encourage others who share your views to not buy the Sun. The Sun, however is the UK's best-selling paper, with is rather a standing retort to your world view, and I suspect this is the real reason you want Page 3 banned. I am reasonably sure that anyone signing this petition has already voted, by not buying 'the Sun', so the signers of this petition are simply looking to impose their preferences on other people.
The idea that a semi-naked woman on Page 3 "encourages men to view women as sex-objects" is ridiculous, as I don't see ms Holmes objecting to the similarly attired David Beckham advertising versace smellies and smalls. This pathetic diatribe contains the logical inference, supplied without argument or evidence, that children seeing bared breasts (organs designed to feed children) will somehow damage them.
Cocaine was freely available, and widely used by middle-class dentists and psychatrists. Opiate addiction used to be known as the soldiers disease, for which Cocaine was prescribed! The British Royal family were high as kites at Balmoral at the turn of the century. Currently illegal drugs were only banned when the working classes started taking them. Not because the drugs are particularly harmful, but because middle class people don't like the poor and seek to tidy them up. They failed.
The people who are most keen on clearing "slums", temperance, drug prohibition, anti-smoking, anti-obesity, sure-start, parenting classes and means-tested welfare are the political left, who are also most keen on taxing the poor's few remaining pleasures. The left claim to act in the poor's interest, but they don't seem to much like the poor, and so wish to alter them "for their own good". This isn't about the working class's self-improvement, it's about power and class and brute, miserable prejudice of purse-lipped puritanism and middle-class hypocrisy. C.S Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Perhaps the libertarian solution is better: Make sure the poor have enough to survive, but otherwise apply benign neglect. Leave 'em alone for a bit, see what they come up with. Then leave that alone too. Some of "them" might "succeed" and join the middle-class at table; the routes to self-"betterment" must always be open. Otherwise, who are we to judge what they do? Many poor people are happy. The left, with its endless interference and fussbucktry seems intent on keeping the poor in their place (and so the fuss-buckets in jobs). I am not sure the interference helps the people it's meant to.
Were we are all free to make our own choices to both social AND economic spheres, the world would be a better place. It does not matter to me whether your drug of choice is a glass of Sherry after lunch, or speed-balling smack and cocaine whilst wearing a crotchless gimp suit. It makes no difference to me whether you spend or save, watch TV or go for a run. So much of people's desire to "help" the poor is simple distaste for what other people CHOOSE to do.
The only thing that's certain: everyone's more miserable when mere prejudice is turned into law.
WHY do you care what people you don't know do with their free time and spare cash? Why don't you focus on your own life a bit? Because many of these people you're trying to help don't WANT and HAVEN'T ASKED FOR your help. Listen Guardian readers: SUN READERS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION, so leave them be. They will probably be happier. And you, without an object of your pity and disapproval, might have to confront your own demons, whatever they are. The nanny-state fuss-buckets might be more miserable. Y'see 'freedom' means that some people do things of which you or I disapprove. I get that. Lucy Holmes doesn't. I'm happy to let Page 3 exist, she isn't. Not my problem either.