Basement Cat

We have moved.

2010-07-21T13:03:00.003+01:00

Yaaaas... you can now find me at ruaric.wordpress.com, wittering on about cocktails and the Edinburgh drinks scene. Please enjoy reading about my Misadventures in a Cocktail Glass!

Political Bias rears its head again at the Beeb...

2009-10-22T18:02:00.003+01:00

I shall be brief, as I have to go be all bartendery shortly.

The BBC repeatedly refers to the BNP as Right Wing. It equates fascism with the political Right. This is a fallacy. The Nazis, similarly are confused with the Right. This is incorrect. The Nazis were (wait for it) The National Socialist party. Socialist. Anyone get that last word there?

Yeah?

Okay.

So. The BNP have very similar economic, political, and dare I say it, social policies to those of the now defunct National Socialist Party of Germany circa 1933-1945. The Nazis were actually not that far from the Communists in economic terms - really, Stalin and Hitler would have agreed on quite a lot were it not for their racial loathing of each other - particularly from old Adolf's point of view.

Both were left wing. The BNP, who espouse the same nationalist, protectionist and exclusionist policies of the fascist Nazi party (as well as other loathesome policies formed around a general dislike for anything other than Caucasian Heterosexual Men and their doting stay-at-home Women) are also left-wing. They are Left-Wing Authoritarians.

Will someone in the BBCs political editorial department PLEASE take note of this?

That is all.

CPC '09 - 05/10

2009-10-05T21:22:00.003+01:00

All in all it looked like a good day for the Conservatives at the Manchester party conference. Tomorrow bears watching, though, after Alastair Darling pulled a fast one announcing a Government demand for public sector pay cuts (top earners only, of course) the very night before George Osborne was expected to speak on *exactly* that topic. Funny that.

What undermines this move is that this conflicts with the pay deal that Labour had agreed with the Civil Service pay review boards (such as the First Division Association). Best move George could make tomorrow is to make that very point. Labour are so desperate for ideas that they steal from the Conservatives at every opportunity, even when it means reneging on the deals they had already struck. They are a Government which cannot be trusted to uphold their agreements (Lisbon referendum, anyone?) and resort to cheap tricks to attempt to undercut their opponents. They fight without honour.

Let's see how George fights back against this breach of political trust.

Quote-tastic

2009-10-05T15:24:00.002+01:00

If Labour's charge is against youth, energy and enthusiasm, then do you know what? I plead Guilty."
-David Cameron, 5 Oct, CPC 2009 Manchester

Cameron gave one of his rallying cries today, one of the few things I was able to catch given Sky News is about the only channel I can get from out here in Lagos that is actually covering anything. Worse yet the t'interweb keeps dropping out, which is less than ideal! Sounds like Boris had a few words of direction for Osborne and Cameron as well, hopefully a sign of the things to come.

Anyway, I'm out visiting my Dad in Lagos for the week, flew out on the 1st so that I could take part in the Badagary Creek boat race on the 3rd and 4th - a two day sail up from Lagos to Badagary and back. It was until a few years ago in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest inland race - now surpassed by something in the UK, I believe - and I will post some of the highlights from the Log I kept once I've typed them all up. OR I'll get lazy and post the whole thing. Undecided yet.

Hoping that the internet connection in the compound will keep steady for the next few days - I have to take a numerical reasoning test for a graduate application I'm working on and it would suck sucky things if it dropped while halfway through...

When games blur with reality...

2009-08-04T16:45:00.004+01:00

I may have mentioned on here before, but I play Warcraft. I used to be a little bit shy of mentioning this, since it is essentially an RPG, and RPGs, classically, are for the geeks in the basement with some dice, a compendium or two, square glasses two inches thick and hair that would fit right on to one of the orcs or elves that they dream about.

Of course, that's the stereotype that the mainstream media has always portrayed and, scarily enough, as someone who in his younger years collected and played a lot of Warhammer, I can vouch for some of that stereotype. Fortunately, not everyone is like that. These pocketbook geeks come in many shapes and sizes, and tend to be very creative, intelligent people who really enjoy the chance to exercise their imaginations together. Added to that, these are the sorts of people who have a mind for strategy. The modern computer game counterparts are much the same.

I hear that parents often berate their children for sitting indoors at their computer screens playing these MMOs, or Massively Multiplayer Online games (some of them have the MMORPG moniker, such as Everquest, Warcraft, Age of Conan and so on and so forth). Why don't you go and make some real friends, they complain. They have failed, I fear, to grasp and understand how the internet has revolutionised social interaction. Some of these people they play with, whom they have never met, are as real friends as those at school or at work. Through all their online trials and tribulations together, they can come to trust one another enough to confide in and to seek advice for 'real life' troubles and share 'real life' successes.

It can't, of course, replace real world social interaction, but it is not without merit. In Warcraft, I play on Draenor (EU) and am a member of a guild known as Elite Addicts. We haven't made the most progression overall in terms of content, nor do we have the most members. We're not looking to achieve either, either. (On a tangential note, I love that the English language allows you to do that!) Elite Addicts are a Social Raiding guild, which means we raid the high-end content, but we're don't have strict attendance rules like some of the full-on raiding guilds. That may not mean much to anyone who doesn't play WoW, but I say this to paint a little picture of what this group of individuals are all about.

The Social and Raiding aspects extend to the Ventrillo server (an online chat server) that we use to communicate during raids, and also just for a chat when we're in the mood. As such we've had a lot more than typed conversations, and some of us have got to know each other pretty well.

As it happens, we have something pretty unique about us, which is that some of the core raiders actually know each other in the real world. In fact, they live in York. This led to someone suggesting offhand that it might be a nice idea for us to get together one weekend and meet up - a real world Guild Meet.

So we are.

About 15 computer game playing self confessed geeks shall be descending on York this weekend coming to put faces to names, have a bit of a party and *not* play the game for the entire time we're there. Which is kind of the point. Booze may be involved, but not for Shezelle, he's only 16. Some are driving up from the South East and are co-ordinating a lift so they can travel up together. We've got people coming not just from the UK, but from the Continent as well. They're literally flying/eurotunnelling in just for it. It's going to be quite the get-together.

You might be wondering why I'm blogging about this. In part, it's because I know my parents read this blog from time to time and I know they still have their preconceptions of computer games, so I want to illustrate something to them. In part it's because I'm really bloody excited about it.

The only weird part is that we tend to refer to each other by the names of our main character in the game, so we may need name badges, otherwise they're going to be calling me 'Kael' all the time...

"...I swear those girls are gonna kill me."

2009-07-18T13:08:00.003+01:00

Reasons that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a good film adaptation:

Good character development. You get a real sense of the bonds forming between our protagonists.
Draco Malfoy has finally stopped looking like he is suffering from a wasting disease and puts in a strong performance, much less 'generic weasel' and more 'tormented soul'.
Crams a very big book into a good movie story. If you don't know the book, you won't be left wondering what it's all about.
Manages to cram in humour and emotion.
Definite sense that our heroes have grown into themselves and are much less whiny kids.
Maggie Smith now has shoulderpads. This should not be underestimated.
Cloaks Snape in ambiguity, just as it should.
Permenant shroud of darkness clouding Hogwarts, lending an ominous feel of impending disaster hovering above everyone's heads as life goes on.
Excellent sountrack underscores the film brilliantly, holding to the motifs we have come to know and love.
Helena. Bonham. Carter.

Reasons why Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is not a good film adaptation:

Misses a magical meleé through the halls of Hogwarts as is described in the novel, although this does serve a dramatic purpose in showing the vulnerability of all within its walls.
Despite being called 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince', Harry seems remarkably unconcerned with finding out who the Half-Blood Prince is, so when it is revealed at the end, it's somewhat anti-climactic. In fact, by that point most of the audience had probably forgotten about it.
They have tried to cram a lot in to the story, but as such never really develop any of the threads fully, so while not leaving anything incomplete, nothing is really explored either.
Really needed to see the full depth of Harry's rage - he's meant to be trying to cast unforgiveable curses at the aforementioned Prince as he chases him down, instead he just throws Sectum Sempra at him. Again, this is sort of understandable given that it provides a context for the Prince to reveal his identity, but c'mon!

Most of this is quibbling. I really enjoyed the film on first showing, and I'll be going back for a second viewing to help make up my mind. More than anything else, however, it sets up well for the next in the series.

And Cormac McClaggen is hot.

Up, down, left, right A + Start

2009-07-16T19:53:00.004+01:00

We often hear that those of advanced years (old-folk, to you and I) reminisce about the past. Things were better back then, we respected our elders. Cars were made to last, and they knew how to mix a proper bloody martini.

All of it is bollocks of course, the past isn't just viewed with 20-20 vision, it's viewed through a lovely pair of prescription sunglasses with rose-tinted lenses and sparkly glitter on the rims. We all wax nostalgic. Past times are an untouchable refuge from all the things in the present that we don't like or approve of. Back in the day you boys would have been shot for touching each other like that. Really? Well make mine a shot of tequila, thanks.

Our obsession for our younger years is why NOW! compilations from the 60s/70s/80s/90s/00s (delete as appropriate) sell so well. Or used to back in the day when people actually went to a shop to buy music. Ahh, those were the days, when you actually got some service rather than all this one-click-buy nonsense... wait... now... where was I?

It seems a little ironic that many of the people who obsess over the latest iPhone and digital widgets are often the same people who obsess over their childhood music, television and games. For all the latest gadgets and zhuzhy graphics in the latest computer games, we all remember the first ones we played. Often they are enshrined above all others not for their amazing looks, but for the core upon which they were built in lieu of pretty graphics - wit, storyline, or insane object puzzles. Ehm... sorry, as Rincewind once said: Clever lateral thinking exercises. And you needed to play Discworld 2 to get that one.

Simple as games were, we loved them for all those things. As times and platforms have changed, so have the games we play on them. Point and click adventures (such as Sam & Max Hit the Road, Monkey Island, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle, etc. etc.) have passed into legend (which is odd, since my 286 didn't have a mouse, so I can't see why the interface isn't really easy to translate to console), and the days of the awesome space simulator games (think X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Freespace 2 and the ilk) have no modern equivalents. We hunger for the games of the past but we very rarely go back to play them because we know that ultimately the 8-bit graphics are going to disappoint us, no matter how clever the games were.

I don't think I could tell you with a straight face that the old games were better than those that we play today. Oh, they were good. They were better than good, some of them were groundbreaking and downright amazing. Frontier: Elite II was without par. X-Wing was story-driven space combat in a FUCKING X-WING. The sequel, TIE Fighter had an even better story and the chance to fly for the Empire. Mostly, I admit, against Imperial splinter groups (perhaps blowing up too many of Wedge's buddies was against the LucasArts moral code), but still. Dark Forces was late in its genre but Jedi Knight was amazing. Alone in the Dark was scary as hell. Any point and click adventure from LucasArts (with the possible exception of Full Throttle) was a sock-blowingly hilarious and enjoyable immersion in a world of puzzle-solving genius. The original Civilization. Theme Park. System Shock. Freespace 2. These games set precedents.

Much of what we nostalgic gamers really want is those games back again, updated and shiny so we can play them again with today's technology, or better yet, a continued storyline. We... okay, fuck it, I admit it, I want Freespace 3. I want more Monkey Island. I want more X-Wing.

Fortunately, on one of those points, things are looking up.

LucasArts are apparently more benevolent gods than I had previously assumed. While I doubt I shall ever see another space combat simulation that will grab me so thoroughly as X-Wing, Freespace 1 & 2 and TIE Fighter did, I've been hoping that I would get to see another point and click from LucasArts. My prayers to the Dark Gods of Gaming were answered this month.

Engaging with a company called Telltale Games, LucasArts have released the first installment of a new Monkey Island game: Tales from Monkey Island. Split into five chapters to be released monthly and downloadable through Steam, this is an exciting turn of events for those with fond memories of Guybrush Threepwood, the pirate whose sole talent is that he can hold his breath for ten minutes.

So a new game with old favourites. Nostalgia is indulged, but not sated. As if reading my deepest darkest wishes, the creators of Monkey Island thought: Hey, you know what, we're releasing a new game, but the first one was amazing. Do you think we could make that accessible to a new gaming generation?

The first game in the series, The Secret of Monkey Island, was released way back in 1990. I played it on my 286 - my parents refused to buy me a console, and instead would only buy me clever games where I had to solve insane object puzzles. Sorry, clever lateral thinking exercises. Monkey Island and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis were the first two computer games I played (excepting a demo of Secret Sam or whatever that 8-bit spy-based Platform game was). Monkey Island is cult. LucasArts have re-made it with hand drawn art, new voiceovers, and a good dash of nostalgic love. You can even flick between the original 8-bit graphics and the new hand-drawn one at the touch of a button. It's the same game, but pretty (and cheekily ham-fisted) enough to appeal to the old-school gamer and newcomer alike. Plus it cost me less than £7 from Steam.

We, (well, I) would like more of that, please.

Now excuse me, you fight like a dairy farmer.

Whew...

2009-06-23T23:17:00.002+01:00

Gosh... you can almost hear the tumbleweed rolling across the face of this blog. A desolate strip of packed earth and sand with not a single green shoot poking its head tentatively above the soil. No fresh loam, but coarse and barren land.

I have, for various reasons, been otherwise occupied. Ironically I've had all the time in the world, however for a rationale best understood only by myself, I have neglected my little corner of the world.

Given the past few weeks there is no shortage of ammunition for me to base a few posts on, but if I'm brutally honest, the current affairs of the UK have been somewhat depressing of late. The election of the new speaker, for example, has been a bit of a let-down. A red tory (forgiveable) whose expenses track record hardly screams reformist (unforgiveable) has replaced a grumpy old lefty whose expenses track record was 'take what you can, give nothing back'. Wow. Well, that is a breath of fresh air.

Terribly disappointed that Richard Shepherd didn't get the job - his speech was curt and damning, but then again, perhaps given that it is little wonder.

So, anyway, just a quick one (hello, yes, still alive thanks).

Ehmm... lolwut?

2009-06-08T02:10:00.002+01:00

Yorkshire.

Seriously.

You what?

I mean... really?

Well you won't see me anywhere near Betty's Tea Rooms now.

Purnell turns on his master

2009-06-05T08:52:00.003+01:00

I hope you all did your bit for democracy yesterday. I heard a few comments going around that abstention was the only way to register your protest with the system, with politicians, and while I understand their frustrations, I disagree entirely. Not voting, in my view, dishonours the sacrifices that went before you to allow you the ability to vote. Fair enough that you can argue those people fought and campaigned just as much for your right not to vote as your right to vote, but I think in those circumstances, with all the parties available to you, there must be at least one that represents your views enough for you to tick next to their name?

In most things I am somewhat libertarian in my views. Freedom is the highest and most sacred right of all, but sometimes, I think the Australians have got it right, making it a legal requirement to turn up to vote, even if you then choose to abstain. Of course, I disagree on general principle, but the idea holds a certain appeal!

Overshadowing the elections last night, however, was the resignation of James Purnell. I seem to recall a few favourable comments from some of the Labour crowd a few days ago, including some from LGBTLabour on twitter. I bet they're seething now... David Cameron carpe'd the diem with this:

Some post-match analysis

2009-06-03T13:59:00.003+01:00

Overall impression of PMQs was one of disbelief. Cameron had plenty ammunition but seemed on first viewing to lack the stomach to use it. Nick Clegg fired off some good shots, but got laughed down by Labour's backbenchers. I smell some Hubris coming their way. I think Cameron is playing a tactical game here, and from an electoral perspective I can understand why.

Spectator has a pretty good breakdown, which I think makes good sense. What I think they're missing is that Cameron doesn't want a mortally wounded Brown, just a grazed one. I suspect we just saw a calculated salvo aimed not to kill. If Brown has confidence he'll stay in No. 10, and that means a much surer chance of victory for the Conservatives at the next General Election. A new leader means facing Labour in a honeymoon period of sorts, and that might be enough to rescue a few seats.

The fact Brown won't be called on an election shows he still thinks he can turn things around and improve on the polls. He'll hold out as long as he can in the hope his political currency can rise. Cameron wants an election now because that would mean facing Brown, not a new Labour leader. For him, the longer Brown holds out, the greater risk someone in Labour will grow the cojones to challenge him.

Wordle Cloud

2009-06-03T13:14:00.001+01:00

A wordle cloud of the last couple of posts on this blog. Pretty clear what's been on my mind, then!

David Cameron: Why we need a referendum on Lisbon

2009-06-03T11:30:00.004+01:00

All the more reason to vote Conservative in the European Elections. UKIP aren't the answer (or WE-KIP, as Jury Team have dubbed them), Libertas seem pretty lightweight, and Labour as we all know don't think you deserve a choice in the matter. Let's not even mention the crazy neo-fascist left wing nationalist party. The signals coming from Hague and Cameron at the moment are the best I've heard with regards to Europe for some time now. Finally, some sense.

Bleary eye'd, but bushy tailed?

2009-06-03T10:50:00.004+01:00

So that's it, Hazel 'Chipmunk' Blears has announced her resignation after Gorgon described her claims as 'unacceptable'. Hardly a shocker that he should do so, the man has been looking for an excuse ever since her 'youtube if you want to' moment. Our (vain)Glorious Leader does not take criticism, implied or otherwise, well.

The BBC alludes to her timing as suspect, perhaps an attempt to further destabilise Brown in the wake of Jacqui Smith and Tom Watson's announcements yesterday. Her statement is absolutely loaded. On the face of it, she is simply saying that she feels that she should return to focus on her constituents and their needs, but her wording is nothing short of devastating.

"The role of a progressive Government should be to pass power to the people. I've never sought high office for the sake of it, or for what I can gain, but for what I can achieve for the people I represent and serve."

Her implication is clear. The Government has clearly failed in that role (although as I've indicated before, left wingers never really want to give power to the people, since they know better than the people), and her colleagues who shall remain nameless have sought power for the sake of power. Perhaps a reference to the Son of the Manse? Who can say?

Only hours before an already awkward PMQs, Hazel retreats to the backbenches. I'm sure Iain Dale will be pleased to see his favourite feisty little chipmunk still has some fire. This can only intensify the infighting, and when it comes, it will make it clearer than ever that it is time for a new Government. One with an elected Prime Minister, would be nice.

Belshazzar was SLAIN!

2009-06-03T08:39:00.004+01:00

You'll have to excuse the Biblical reference, but it is the Son of the Manse, that great scion of Presbyterian conscience and moral authority, to whom I refer.

Gordon Brown's refusal to confirm whether or not Darling or Blears have a future in the Cabinet was telling. It was the closest he had yet come to announcing that a cabinet reshuffle was indeed on the cards, and while you might perhaps forgive him for letting Blears drift, Darling has been a loyal chancellor - so loyal that he has gained the unenviable caricature of being his sock-puppet. Yet even Darling has on occasion 'overstepped' his master's authority with comments that diverged from the Prime Minister's chosen tune. Perhaps it is not so surprising that past loyalty is no protection when your master is backed into a corner fearing for his political life.

Ultimately, though, the suspense was broken by Jacqui Smith when she announced she would be standing down at the next reshuffle. Admittedly, she failed to fall on her sword as thoroughly as we would have liked by resigning as an MP entirely. With her slender majority of just over two-thousand, however, my suspicion is that she hopes to save her seat by showing some penitence. Smith's resignation could not come too soon, in my eyes. In her two years in the job as Home Secretary she has seen the Government's plans for increased terrorist detention defeated and has presided over massively unpopular plans for authoritarian DNA databases and ID cards. The Liberal Democrat's Chris Huhne branded her a failure even on her own terms. Throw in her expenses, her attempts to make prostitution even more open to abuse (a total lack of appreciation for the law of unintended consequences) and husband's predilection for charging his porn films to the taxpayer, and her position really was untenable.

Her attempt at damage limitation is, as ever, too little too late. What it has served to do is put the writing on the wall for Gordon Brown. If more nails were required for the proverbial coffin, Tom Watson added another with his resignation, and now the SNP are teaming up with Plaid Cymru to use their time next week to force a debate on the dissolution of Parliament . Nick Clegg has thrown his support to the debate, and William Hague has called the SNP's bluff by announcing on Sky News that if dissolution were debated, the Conservatives would be in favour. Should it come to this, Dan Hannan and Iain Martin have both postulated that the Queen might need to exercise her unwritten constitutional right to dissolve parliament. This may yet come to pass.

For all Parties involved, this could be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. The expenses debacle has battered Parliament, and the European Elections will be a litmus test for voter's intentions. While I doubt strongly that fringe parties would stand to gain much in a General Election, I have found it difficult to divine whether anger is directed equally at all MPs, or if the ire is concentrated on the Government. My suspcion is the latter, if only because the Conservative's reaction to the 'revelations' has been far more decisive, and with the greatest of respect, no one really cares too much about the Liberal Democrats anyway. They are, if anything, Labour-Lite.

From what I have gathered from those I have spoken to, people distrust Cameron simply for being a Tory. They fear he is just another Blair, but blue. Yet if you ask people to take Iraq out of the equation, you'll find a grudging admission that they really liked Tony, at least to begin with. Blair had energy, authority, and anger. He wanted to change things. Watching Cameron, you can see that same passion, and you can sense the barely contained fury as he watches a Labour majority do untold damage to Parliamentary democracy and worse, to the population of Great Britain. In that, at least, he captures the spirit of the nation.

My Labour-minded friends tend to be blinkered in their devotion, it is that classic tribalism which leads them to hold fast to their course even as their ship sails off the edge of the world. Slavish devotion to their party can only be tolerated so long as the party has the best interests of the nation, and of the individual, at heart. As soon as it begins to believe it knows better than its electorate, it deserves no longer to form a Government. That is a lesson Cameron would do well to remember. He speaks now of returning power to the people, a truly libertarian sentiment (ironically, Socialists often claim the same, however what they mean is power to the establishment, because they're smarter than you), and I sincerely hope he means it.

The European Elections will be the opinion polls to end all opinion polls for this Government. Even taking the anti-political contingent out of the equation, I suspect strongly that Labour are going to be pummelled.

As with Belshazzar, Gordon's days are numbered. The writing on the wall is the same now as then, and come election time, this unelected Prime Minister will be told as much: "Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting."

Le quote du jour

2009-05-26T10:28:00.002+01:00

"Your ministers have failed you, Ma'am: send for better ones."

- Dan Hannan MEP, The Telegraph

Dan Hannan has suggested, respectfully, in his blog that it is time for the Queen to step in and exercise her constitutional role on behalf of the people of Great Britain by dissolving Parliament and calling for an election. He is right, to my knowledge, that this is one of the few constitutional powers she still has. In a case whereby the population have lost faith in their government and recent economic events have rendered the manifestos on which they were elected obsolete, this would seem to be the appropriate opportunity.

Crock of Brown

2009-05-20T09:04:00.006+01:00

I'm not going to say too much on this, and I try and avoid using this blog to rant, but Gordon Brown is really taking the piss over this expenses debacle.

'Gentlemen's Club'? Oh, fine, play your little class-war game. It's nothing like a gentlemen's club, because guess what? They contain gentlemen, who behave as such and seek not to exploit the club and are generally more concerned with fair play and the spirit of the rules rather than their letter. What you're thinking of, Gordon, is a Trade Union, where people seek to get as much as they possibly can at the expense of other areas of the business, and are generally advised to take whatever they can get.

No wonder Michael Martin was so comfortable there.

The only leader who sounds out of touch on this issue is you, Gordon, because you're playing class and party politics. At least Nick and Dave are playing moral politics. You wouldn't have the first clue about those, since your Moral Compass seems to do nothing but spin.

Go to hell, you sanctimonious, misguided, arrogant, fool. Get out of Downing Street before we throw you out.

Maybe it's a sign of the times, but every time you open your mouth I can see his poorly concealed Machiavellian plots to weaken his internal rivals and strengthen his position. I even feel a little guilty calling them Machiavellian, since I think the author of The Prince would approve of his intention but be appalled at his execution. Divide and conquer, sow discord and fear...

Anyway, crowbarring back onto track, an external committee or regulator is not the answer. External regulation destroys the concept of the spirit of the rules, making it all the more about 'what can I get away with'. Creative accounting will become even more the norm, just as it does with tax. Any private businessman with a few beans to his name uses an accountant to maximise his earnings and get away with as much as he feasibly can. Do you really want to encourage that in Parliament?

Of course you do. It makes it look like you're taking action.

Primus inter podex.

Okay, rant over.

Shhhh....

2009-05-19T10:36:00.001+01:00

Yes yes, I realise I've been a bit quiet lately. Been locked away studying.

I'll be back in a bit, promise...

Quote of the day

2009-05-12T09:16:00.002+01:00

"Gordon Brown has been tested and found in want of almost every attribute a leader needs. Squalid dealings by his poisonous inner circle were exposed to the light of day; yet at the same time he lacks a leader's necessary political cunning. Many hoped that the end of the rivalry with Blair would see Brown cast off his myrmidons. He didn't. In the tussle between his better and his worse selves, too often the lesser man won."

-Polly Toynbee, The Grauniad.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called irony.

Some perspective

2009-05-12T08:14:00.003+01:00

Maybe I'm just a little numb to the whole MPs expenses furore, but this little interviewette with Stephen Fry is the most sense I've heard all week.

Don't let it stop you voting. In fact, your vote matters more than ever.

...Where no one has gone before.

2009-05-11T10:29:00.001+01:00

It's brilliant, and you all need to go see it. Now.

That is all.

To Boldly Go...

2009-05-08T10:25:00.005+01:00

I'm obscenely excited. The last time I saw a Star Trek movie in the cinema was First Contact, at the Guildford Odeon many moons ago. I still remember watching the opening credits and hearing the entire cinema go 'Who?!' when helmsman Ensign Expendable's credit appeared. Sure enough, he was expended.

Tomorrow is going to top all that. My mate Tom and I are making a day of it and leaving the craggy glamour of Edinburgh to journey to Glasgow, there to experience the new Trek movie at the Glasgow IMAX. I'm not sure if it's the IMAX or Star Trek part that thrills me more. I haven't been in one before, so either way it will be an experience.

Following Trek lore, this film should be one of the 'disappointing' ones. It follows as an odd-numbered movie in the pantheon, even if it is a 'prequel'. The odd-numbers have historically been the 'less good' films, where the even ones have been the really good ones. Take Wrath of Khan against Search for Spock. Khan good, Spock bad. Generations vs. First Contact; Generations is viewed as being a bit iffy, First Contact is viewed as being a bit awesome. I happen to disagree on Insurrection and Nemesis, as I think they were both good, but the Trek community at large thought both were the series equivalent of a cinematic warp core breach.

There are a number of signs that this will buck the trend. Primarily because it is being directed by J.J Abrahms, creator of Lost and Fringe. With that pedigree, the only person who could possibly do it any better would be Joss Whedon or possibly Bryan Singer, and I think Whedon is better suited to comic-book style shows than Star Trek, but I'd gladly be proven wrong. To be fair, a screenplay written by Whedon and directed by Singer would pretty much be the equivalent of a cinematic orgasm for me, but I digress.

I have very deliberately avoided all mention of the story and possible spoilers. In fact, I've watched the trailers, and that's about it. When Phantom Menace came out I bought the graphic novel and kept it in a box, looking only at the front cover and resolutely refusing to read it until I had seen the movie. With an extraordinary, superhuman and some would say Jedi-like force of will, I succeeded and refrained from devouring it until after I'd seen the film. At which point I ran right back to the cinema to see it again, because I didn't remember Darth Maul getting cut in two and falling in pieces down the shaft. I even spotted a little mist of red bloody haze, cauterised on the Lightsaber's blade. How I missed that the first time I'll never know.

So, I go tomorrow blissfully unaware of the plot and knowing only that it's going to have some awesome special effects and the guy playing Kirk is clearly going for an 'I am James (Dean) Tiberius Kirk' look. And it has Romulans in it. We may get to see Romulans in a vicious 'what Vulcans would be like without restraint' light, which has always been sorely missing from the series. Any time Spock or Tuvok went a little schitzo, we got an insight into the mind of a being with terrible power, a rage incandescent the restraint of which showed the strength of their character. Romulans were supposed to be Vulcans who embraced their emotions, yet we never saw that rage, passion or fury, just another humanoid race with pointy ears who didn't like the Federation much.

Still, I remain convinced that I'll be screaming at Kirk to watch out, it's Sylar and he wants your brains.

Timmy, you just made my day

2009-05-01T15:21:00.003+01:00

A big thanks to Tim Worstall for saying it so very well:

"You see, because if companies don’t pay their taxes then the money just disappears. There’s no such thing as an opportunity cost in lefty world.

Now then, out in the real world what does happen when the capitalist bastards manage to dodge taxes? One of two things.

1) The company has a higher retained profit which it then uses to reinvest in the business. More jobs, higher wages, economic growth, Hurrah!

2) The company pays it out to their fat cat shareholders who simply engorge themselves on the lucre extracted from the sweat and blood of the poor. And investments in companies working in poor countries are seen to be paying higher returns. Which leads to more capital being invested in companies working in poor countries so more jobs, higher wages and economic growth, Hurrah!

It is of course possible to argue that direct spending by governments will do more for the chances of the poor than more foreign direct investment. But to argue that if the money is not paid in taxes then it simply disappears as far as the poor are concerned is simply nonsense."

The reason capitalism works is because it is about generating wealth, and to generate wealth one invests the wealth one has made into making more, which means more jobs, profits, better pay, economic growth and happiness all around for those who endeavour to sieze the opportunity. Hand up, not a hand out - but then we can't even deal with that culture at home, can we?

Petition Watch

2009-05-01T11:14:00.002+01:00

From the Number 10 Website, we bring you the 5 most popular petitions to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland. Good causes, mostly. Except for the last one:

Five most popular open petitions

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to…

resign. (38302 signatures)
Protect the RNLI from paying licence fees for using Maritime radio frequencies. (28561 signatures)
mandate savings account providers to include the current interest rates on every statement (27994 signatures)
Not reduce the national speed limit to 50mph (27444 signatures)
prevent plans for Universities to be able to charge increased tuition fees (26921 signatures)

Nuff said.

Aporkalypse Now

2009-05-01T09:30:00.002+01:00

Dr John Crippen has an article in todays Grauniad. It is one of those rare occasions that the publication speaks sense (this is, after all, the newspaper who gave us such delights as Polly Toynbee and ran a campaign against legitimate tax avoidance whilst simultaneously legitimately avoiding said tax itself).

Essentially, he puts this swine-flu pandemic in withering perspective with this:

"We met at lunchtime, not to talk of heart attacks and Lego, but of flu. There have been deaths in Mexico. There has been one in the US. Our Indian partner said: "There were 2,000 deaths, mainly children in Africa and Asia, yesterday."

Our medical student looked shocked: "I didn't know swine flu had reached that part of the world." "It hasn't," said our partner. "I'm talking of deaths from malaria. But that isn't news, is it?"

We were silent for a while. Time to get things in proportion."

For all the black humour doing the rounds (and highly amusing references to Pooh and Piglet), the aporkalypse is not going to kill us all any more than Avian flu did. As Dr Crippen rightly points out, there are many, many more deaths every day from far nastier diseases, but the western world is protected against malaria. We don't get it here in Britain. Why should we care?

As cynical as my views are on Comic Relief and the pantheon of Entertainment Fundraisers, this year an good amount of time was spent discussing Malaria. So for one night only, we cared enough to donate more money than we ever had before, hurrah, because every year we do. And then it was forgotten. Noses off, a few pub discussions about those hilarious sketches, but were we talking about malaria? Or AIDS? No, of course not.

We might catch the flu though, and what then? I've read the advice I received in my office from the Department of Health. It tells me nothing I didn't already know about normal flu. At risk groups are the young and the elderly, and it's the secondary infections that will put people at most risk. You are at greater risk of catching it than you would be of normal influenza, but death is not the only possible outcome. In fact, if you treat swine flu the same way you would treat a little old lady with 'normal' flu, guess what! You'll be fine. I do not wish to belittle the Mexicans who have died, nor the Texan child. Loss of life is tragic, especially in the young, but your memories are being abused by the political classes.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at all the fuss. The media exists to sell the news, and big stories make big sales. Governments can use their 'initiatives' to combat it to distract from the real, day-to-day issues that actually matter. Brown and The Golden One must be basking in their relief, a crisis they can use to show themselves caring men of action.

Enough. Do what you need to do, send some of our Tamiflu stockpiles to Mexico if you must - goodness knows their medical standards almost make the NHS look bearable - but please drop the pretense that you are somehow acting to protect us from this hamdemic.

Moar signatures pl0x

2009-04-28T16:01:00.003+01:00

At present counting there are now 23,276 signatures on the Number 10 petition for Gordon Brown to resign.

That's just over a signature for every £1 of debt we owe as our share of the national debt.

Add your paw prints here.

Think he'll take the hint?

Pigs in blankets

2009-04-27T14:39:00.003+01:00

Pig Flu, eh? Well that's a swine and no mistake. Ugh. Can't believe I a) just typed that and b) have decided not to delete it on grounds of good taste. Although pig does taste good, and now I want a bacon sandwich.

TB has it right, it's 28 Days Later all over again - in the words of a very scared guy: "ohmygodohmygodohmygodwe'reallgonnadie..."

It's funny (funny weird rather than funny 'haha', obviously) because not so long ago I seem to remember we were all supposed to be dead by now of HN-51 (Bird Flu), and about ten years or so ago we were all at considerable risk of CJD (Also known as Denny Crane Syndrome, or Mad Cow). I wonder which animal disease we'll have next?

Rat Flu, perchance? (Oh, wait, we've done rats. Black Death). Maybe Dog Flu. Bee Flu? Don't see nearly as many bees around these days, maybe they've been killed by a virulent strain of bee flu. Cat Flu? Or Fish Flu - mum always said to keep warm and dry or I'd catch something, Fish do neither. Prime candidates, I'd say.

Anyway, since it's clearly very serious, I'd best stop off at Sainsbury's on the way home and stock up on water and tinned goods. With a mask on, you know, there's other people there and one of them might be from Mexico. When the epidemic strikes I don't want to be caught out, and it must be serious, the guy on the radio said so.

UPDATE: James Delingpole says it brilliantly. Oink.

Extrordinary Measures

2009-04-26T12:46:00.004+01:00

A friend of mine posted an article on Facebook containing the assertion that a large number of Americans were not opposed to torture, or at least that opinion was split. His comments were that supporting the use of torture made these people idiots. We had a few comments back and forth on the issue, because my gut stance is that in certain circumstances (i.e. the 'ticking bomb' scenario), use of torture can be justified. Unenlightened Commentary has posted on this before; the US application of torture was unjustified because it was:

"[to]... confirm the Bush administration's preconceived notions of Iraqi - Al Qaeda links, which is both a retarded way to interrogate anyone and renders arguments over whether that the ends can justify the means rather moot, as there were no credible ends in the first place."

They were not used for the prevention of an imminent attack, they were used to confirm a rather spurious supposed 'connection' to justify a war. In that regard, it was a despicable act. What if, though, we have serious reason to believe that someone has information regarding an act which could result in the deaths of thousands?

"When it comes to coercive interrogation techniques like water boarding, regardless of whether it is torture or not, there is a legitimate discussion to be had about whether it is justified in a ticking bomb scenario. It is unpleasant but not seriously harmful so whether that outweighs the potential mass slaughter that may be prevented by water boarding someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a dilemma."

I think dilemma is the right word. I have said before that I believe in the basic freedom to conduct your life as you wish, so long as you do not cause harm to another. That's fine and fair, but what about if you actively seek to harm others? Does that then render your right to be free from harm invalid? That in itself is a conundrum, since whoever then caused harm to you would alienate their right to be free from harm.

Putting that aside, however, there is something more germane to be dealt with. My friend asserted that torture does not work, as the information you extract under duress will never, he claimed, be reliable. Unenlightened Commentary refuted that by pointing to this story, where a kidnapper successfully 'tortured' bank details out of his victim. The argument against is that people will say anything under pressure, therefore it is not a reliable tool, ergo it should not be used. A religious ideologue, he argued, was perfectly prepared to die, therefore would not give up his plan to torture.

The point of torture, however, is not to kill. Faith, no matter how strong, cannot stand up against the natural survival instinct forever. Push someone to the very brink of their mental endurance and they will break. I can surmise that the reason the kidnapped woman gave her real bank details is because she knew giving false information would result in further torture, further pain or mental strain. Waterboarding, as much as the public decry it, is non-lethal and causes no lasting damage. It forces the brain to panic, thinking death is but a heartbeat away. In normal circumstances, using that sort of technique to extract information is unthinkable, but what if thousands of lives hang in the balance?

My friend again argued that no such situation would ever occur. His precise words were that:

"The ticking time bomb is a red herring. First it would never happen. Second if it did happen, American security procedures and policy have already failed. Third, torture NEVER gives you reliable info so it is, as it always is, a waste of time. Besides, a religious ideologue who would be involved in such a thing would cave? I think not. And in torture he would say ANYTHING to end the pain. Thus the STUPIDITY of it all."

My counter was that you can't possibly say that a ticking bomb would never happen. It's an illustration, meaning simply that an atrocity or attack is imminent, and that you have someone in your custody who knows about it and refuses to tell you. First, it could happen. In fact, it has happened and I'll come to that in a minute. If security procedures had failed, does that mean that you should just stop, roll over, and let people, thousands, millions, however many, die? We have already shown that accurate information can be extracted under torture, and even if not, would you risk the lives of thousands by not taking that chance?

Is the ticking bomb really a red herring, though? Is my theoretical scenario truly so impossible that it renders any further thought on the subject invalid? After all, those things do not happen outside of Hollywood, right? People don't plant nuclear devices in cities, of course, except in Hollywood. They don't fly planes into skyscrapers except in Hollywood... oh... wait...

Fact is that the 'ticking bomb' is, as I said above, a metaphor for an imminent attack which will cause catastrophic loss of life. The events of the 11th September bear that out. If the US Government had heard about the plot and had captured a ringleader who knew about it, but had chosen not to torture him, the planes had crashed and it then transpired that they had failed to use every measure at their disposal to prevent it, what do you think the public would have said? Oh, jolly good, you sacrificed thousands for your morals. Bravo.

I thoroughly dislike the idea of torture. The use of waterboarding or any similar coercive interrogation techniques is, I believe, amoral and wrong. As much as I loathe the practice, however, I cannot accept that it is worse than allowing potentially thousands of people to die if there is a chance, however small, that it could prevent it. The old argument that 'it makes you as bad as them' I don't think holds any water - you can't compare the torture of an individual to save many more to mass murder.

Still, dilemma is very much the right word.

Time to put democracy back in action

2009-04-25T08:07:00.004+01:00

Just getting ready to head out and unseat Alistair Darling, campaigning in Edinburgh South-West and spreading the good word with some of the Scottish CF crowd. In the meantime, I thought I'd draw your attention to this petition, to request that Gordon Brown leave office.

Guido, Iain Dale and Dr Crippen have posted on this, and Guido seems to think that this could have a lot of potential. So, if you're tired of ZaNuLiebour's authoritarian, thieving and generally disgraceful behaviour under the captaincy of the Prime Mentalist, I urge you to take a minute, head over, and sign the petition.

Right. Now I'm off to rally the troops in the fight against Badger Brows (and his) Baleful, Barmy, Bad Budget.

Far too much alliteration for a Saturday morning...

Time for gin

2009-04-22T15:05:00.003+01:00

I have just read through the Budget (again) in the hope that maybe I was in a quantum temporal time loop singularity thing and in fact it was April the 1st all over again.

Sadly not.

So. 50% Tax on people earning over £150k, a raid on their pensions, more Government borrowing, etc etc, a lot of overly optimistic projections and a budget so very political and so very uneconomical.

I had planned for this eventuality. The bottle of Gin on my desk at home is primed, my boston shaker iced and my glasses chilled. I shall drown my sorrows in Martinis (Dry as a bone, ofc). Good job I bought it before midnight tonight, eh?

In the meantime, I refer you to David Cameron, who prepared for this eventuality with a withering critique.

There is a solution

2009-04-22T11:27:00.003+01:00

Via Dizzy, Gordon Brown goes into advertising:

Hilarity. :)

Happy B'day HMTQ!

2009-04-21T14:30:00.002+01:00

Best birthday wishes to Her Majesty The Queen. Hope you're having a tip-top day!

The Doctor is a libertarian

2009-04-21T10:55:00.001+01:00

This Sunday gone I indulged in a bit of a duvet-evening watching my way through Season One and Two of Doctor Who. The Doctor is one of my geeky pleasures; one of many. It’s classic BBC science-fiction at its very best: just a little bit crap but absolutely enthralling for it. David Tennant remains brilliant and I’ll be sad to see him go at the end of the year. He’ll be a rather tough nut to follow, I’d wager.

Anyway, to cut to the point, two lines uttered by The Doctor – one as Eccleston, one as Tennant, suggested that the BBC is projecting its leftie tendencies on to the travelling Time Lord in his little blue box. I point you to season one, ‘The Empty Child’ and season two, ‘Tooth and Claw’. Both are pretty incidental, but they did set me thinking.

In ‘The Empty Child’, the Doctor introduces himself to a group of vagrant children living in the blitz. Following an elder girl who acts as a ringleader and mother figure to the kids, he cheerfully declares their household invasions to feed themselves as ‘Marxism in action’. So, a ragtag group of individuals heroically take from another group of individuals in order to feed themselves. The scriptwriters justify this action by painting the aggrieved party (the bourgeois family) as morally depraved. The father is having a secret affair with the butcher to get extra rations, therefore getting more than his due. I suppose I can kind of see where the scriptwriters were coming from, but it basically boils down to ‘rob from the rich, give to the poor’.

Was the State telling them to do this? Well, clearly not. It was a bunch of kids stealing to survive. That’s not Marxism. It made for a nice line, but a Robin Hood gag would have been more appropriate.

Ooh, hang on... does that mean Robin Hood was a Marxist?

I’d say these kids were instead capitalising on an opportunity in a very enterprising fashion.

So, on to the second leftie moment. ‘Tooth and Claw’. The TARDIS has landed in what The Doctor and Rose believe is 1979. As he rattles off a list of great things that happened in 1979, he says ‘Thatcher’, catches himself, and shivers.

Oh, frak right off.

The Beeb just LOVES to demonise her. Even Doctor Who doesn’t like her, apparently. Because she only saved and rebuilt the British Economy after Labour trashed it and led us into the Winter of Discontent. Yes, the Government wasn’t perfect, yes, they were a bit on the authoritarian side (but not nearly as much as ZaNuLab), but please. It’s always plucky working-class types and evil corporations.

Still, however much the scriptwriters try to make The Doctor an extension of their leftie agenda, they have created a paradox in so doing. You see, The Doctor is an optimist. He doesn’t have much truck with authority, he also loves humans; our idiosyncrasies, our drive, our spirit, our enterprise. He believes in our innate good and our boundless sense of invention and adventure.

In short, The Doctor is a libertarian. He might even be a little left-wing, believing that the poor should be protected by the rich and helped, but he would never think it right that anyone could force you to do it. He believes in freedom and liberty, in peace, and protecting others, but allowing everyone to choose for themselves.

To my rather rudimentary understanding, the libertarian, especially the right-wing libertarian, is an optimist who believes in human endeavour and enterprise. Helping each other through trade and hard work, free to profit, but also free to choose to spend that money on helping those who have less – be it through employing them, or through philanthropy. The point is that he who has much will choose to help he who has less, but no one can or will force him to do so. The libertarian capitalist is the ultimate optimist, believing in the good of everyone and that ultimately we will want to help others, because others will want to improve themselves.

So to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent and pretend it’s really modus ponens: The Doctor believes in the ultimate good of humanity and in liberty. A right-wing libertarian believes in the ultimate good of humanity and in liberty. Therefore, Doctor Who is a right-wing libertarian.

Discuss.

Funniest thing I've read all day...

2009-04-20T13:57:00.001+01:00

Oh oh oh... but this did make me giggle. This one is going on my blogroll...

Fizzle be interesting

2009-04-17T15:25:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of the BBC I learned today that one innovative French vinyard, Duval-Leroy, will be introducing metal closures on one of their Champagnes to 'test market reaction.' They plan to debut their prototype bottle at this year's London International Wine Fair in May.

Those that know me are well aware that I view the Stelvin Closure as one of the best things to happen to wine since the invention of the grape. Anyone who whinges about the authenticity of a bottle of wine without that little 'pop' from the cork can be silenced simply by pointing out that eliminates the chance for cork taint due to TCA (2,4,6-trichloroanisole) in the bottle. This means you will never have to worry if the wine has gone off prematurely, so long as it has been stored correctly. As the closure has only been in widespread use since the 1990s (it was rejected by punters in New Zealand and Australia in the 1980s only to be re-introduced), it is very difficult to do much more than theorise that the complete seal on the bottle (thus preventing any oxygen from tainting the wine) will aid in the ageing process. Oxygen does play a part in the aging of the wine, this is true, but Stelvin Closure should allow for longer aging. This could be either a good or a bad thing, depending on how soon you want to drink it, I suppose.

Nevertheless, what the BBC have failed to explain is how this metal closure will work on a bottle of Champagne, or whether the risk of taint will be removed. The chief reason the TCA taints the wine is because the cork is ill-fitting and too much oxygen gets to the wine. In a bottle of Champagne, this is borderline impossible. Whereas in a normal bottle of wine, the cork is simply squeezed into place and has no force acting on it other than the bottle's neck, a Champagne cork is under a great amount of pressure. Champagne was nicknamed 'the Devil's wine' back in the late 1600s because it often caused the bottle to explode from the pressure. Over the years the glass was thickened to contain the vivatious liquid, and a modern day champagne bottle exerts around 90 pounds per square inch (psi), or 620kPa, which is roughly equivalent to three times the pressure in your car tyres. That is a hell of a lot of pressure on the bottom of the cork, and explains both the effectiveness of the rather glamorous Sabrage method of opening a bottle, and why it makes a hell of a mess when they shake up the bottle on the podium.

I have, therefore, two reservations. One, how they will create a detatchable metal closure that won't be dangerous, and two, why the BBC claims that Champagne suffers a risk of cork taint. That may well be the case, but bearing in mind that an 'ill-fitting' cork wouldn't stay on the bottle for long, right? Well I'm not so sure. A cork that failed to seal the bottle by a hairsbredth might allow the slow escape of gas (and pressure), and therefore let oxygen in to help kill the now, rather flat, sugary contents. All in all, a bit of a disaster.

With all that in mind, I'm deeply curious. I freely admit that there's something very glamorous about the pop of a champagne cork, and a really old wine uncorked is much more emotive than a really old wine unscrewed. Emotive only lasts til you sniff the cork and realise the potentially fabulous vintage you just opened has been tainted owing to a foul cork, something that a screwcap entirely avoids. Plus, you never have to worry about a corkscrew. I've been treated to some fantastic wines in screw caps, and it's not just cheap-seats suppliers who use them now. New World wines are now leading the way in Stelvin Closures, and I defy you to drink a bottle of Pegasus Chardonnay and claim it would have been better with a cork.

Still, I remain very interested. Let's see if this idea goes off with a bang.

Sleepy Cat

2009-04-14T08:15:00.002+01:00

Blogging will be light if slightly non-existant for a few days while some slight glitches are worked out of my PC.

For those who are so minded, I started crashing out of some applications - it started with Windows Live and Firefox, then spread to some of my other apps (and games). To begin with it was just the applications, then Vista started giving me BSOD. Eventually, I realised a complete clean reinstall was the most efficient way forward, which led to me deleting and recreating my RAID array and encountering an exceptionally irritating CLI/MOM failure when installing my graphics drivers. I have an ATI 4870 X2, but apparently this is a fairly common error. Should anyone else be having this issue, there are two strands of official advice: the first is to use a legacy driver (which is the path I took, ultimately), the other I just discovered this morning and is strikingly frustrating in its simplicity, just right click the driver file and select 'Run as Administrator'. This hadn't occurred since my account *is* the Admin one, but I'll be trying it with the most up to date driver when I get home...

Anyway, I'll be concentrating on fixing that in all my spare time, so if I'm quiet, that's why!

When the mind wanders to tax and economics

2009-04-08T16:24:00.001+01:00

Having a curious little thought about tax and the economy, so bear with me.

This little thought comes from a very important question: given all the waste in the public sector, where is all this money going?

Here’s a hypothetical. I’m directing a big IT project at the HMRC. Let’s say a nice, civil liberty infringing database, something perhaps to do with ID cards. These things seem to be all the rage these days anyway. I appoint some Programme Managers and Project Managers, but since we have very little in-house experience, we’re going to need contractors. So we tender the project and appoint a consultancy. Let’s call them Capcenture, for arguments sake.

Capcenture come in, look at our hastily drawn requirements and make some suggestions, the requirements are changed and we then go out to hire a load more contractors to help us develop it – coincidentally, most of these people are one-man-band ‘consultancy’ companies going through an Agency, taking advantage (barely legally) of IR35 to pay as little tax as possible (and who can blame them?). Already the bill is looking pretty swollen, but the project is underway.

Then, someone goes back to the original specifications and decides that there’s more functionality they need out of it. Development has already started, so this means more modifications, and the timetable slips. The budget doesn’t cover for that kind of slippage, so they revaluate the project and go back to the purse holders talking about sunk costs and the importance of this government approved initiative.

More contractors are hired at £500 per day to help with the development. The Consultancy is called back in with their specialists each at £1500 per day. The bill goes ever higher, and the project will run for ever longer. All this money gushing from the purse of the public; but where is it going to?

The Government is giving it to private sector companies, whose tax receipts will funnel some of it back to the Government. The rest they will invest in staff, or save, or spend as is their wont. The shareholders off all these companies will reap the dividends. The consultancies all know this. That’s why there are armies of ‘Public Sector Account Managers’ and specialists. An entire business stream has built up on selling to the public sector, because it is the ultimate cash cow – and they always pay their bills. If it sounds a lot like stealing from Peter to pay Paul, you’d be right.

Where has the money gone? Into the private sector; waste or not, you can’t deny that people have profited from it, even if it is the few rather than the many. Hold up a second there. Did we just say the few rather than the many? Isn’t the point of socialism and social democracy the many rather than the few? Isn’t it about redistribution of wealth and all that stuff? Our taxes have gone to pay for a project that lines the pockets of the evil capitalist piggy things! By extension, the Government has stolen from the many to give to the rich few.

Yikes. Who’d have seen that flaw in their logic?

Anyway, it seems to be something of a merry-go-round of money. I think of it as being that there is ultimately a finite source of cash in the economy. This can occasionally be increased in terms of numerical amounts, but the ultimate value of the cash pool cannot change. In my very simple understanding, this is why we get inflation – you can print as much of the stuff as you want, but that only devalues what you have. 100% split into thousandths is still 100% when you add it all up. Growth, and an increase in the base value of the money pool, can only occur when new products are created or resources made/discovered.

The only difference is who determines where that money goes. Is it me, or is it the Government?

The Devil’s Kitchen has for a while now been hunting down, naming and shaming what he identifies as Fake Charities. These are pressure groups and lobbyists that receive significant funding (more than 10% or at least £1m, I understand) from HM Gov. Notwithstanding that I find the principle of the Government choosing to pay my taxes to a ‘charitable’ pressure or lobby group with whom I disagree to be a total affront, the funding for these groups should come from those who support them, not the body politic.

I do not agree with what the Anti-Drinking/Alcohol lobby say, therefore I am appalled that my taxes are going to fund them. I may sympathise with the Anti-Tobacco lobby insofar as I like not having smoke in my face, but the fact they push to actively remove the rights of others to do to their bodies as they please means that I would never willingly give them money. As you can imagine, I’m not best pleased that the Government does on my behalf. Even for charities of which I approve, such as Stonewall, I do not agree with the Government funding them, or indeed any public sector body. Public money should not fund a pressure or lobby group, however admirable their aim.

The Government has decided that it knows best where to spend our money and to whom to donate, therefore these ‘charities’ receive money to advance their arguments to the Government. Right or wrong their arguments may be, the decision of who to support should be mine. On no grounds, be it health, social welfare or civil liberty, should taxpayers cash go towards a pressure group. Unfortunately, it does.

Charity should be private and personal. Charities and political lobbying groups can lobby me for my cash all they like. They certainly should receive none from the treasury.

The State colossus, Big Government, our massive and bloated Public Sector, are the manifestation of that denial of choice. They are testament to a belief that our leaders know best how to spend our money. Which, given the way they throw it around, shows a complete lack of respect for the people from whom they take it on threat of imprisonment. I apologise if that all seems melodramatic, but New Labour scare me and I don’t trust them with my money. Imagine if the Government let failing industries fall. What do you think would happen? My belief is that if there is no market for goods, the companies are on borrowed time anyway. If their departure creates an opportunity, someone with savvy will fill it.

At the heart of all this is one basic difference. One approach assumes that the populace is too selfish or too stupid to spend its money, the other believes in the intelligence and natural altruism of the human spirit. If you like, socialism is the ultimate form of political pessimism. Libertarianism, and to a degree, Conservatism, believes in the ultimate good of humanity and in our ability to decide for ourselves.

Draper is draped. Again.

2009-04-03T14:04:00.003+01:00

Courtesy of John Redwood, Derek Draper makes himself (and his party) look silly. Again. This time over the economy. I really wonder how New Labour have achieved the level of self delusion over their handling of the economy while they have been in Government.

As an aside, I noticed that Gordon Brown said at PMQs on Wednesday that the Tories would cut pensions. At least I think that's what he said. I was a bit too busy spluttering my coffee to be sure. Excuse me for having a woolly memory, but something about a change in the tax structure in 1997, something about raiding private sector pensions... Wasn't that you?

Setting cats on a pidgeon

2009-04-01T12:28:00.001+01:00

From the sound of it, Brown has been savaged in PMQs... Can't wait to get home and watch the replay online.

You almost had me...

2009-04-01T12:05:00.002+01:00

Capitalists@Work have, I suspect, just played an almost believable one.

It is the 1st of April, right?

Up to my eyeballs...

2009-03-31T09:34:00.002+01:00

I'm steeped deeply in contract law at the moment. Blogging services are on the back burner.

Watching the Jacqui Smith car-crash and expenses fiasco that seems to be spreading like a bush-fire in the dry season is quite amusing, though...

Might I humbly suggest the application of an expenses litmus test for MPs: if you think you might get fired for doing it in the private sector, don't bloody claim it. Stop giving Parliament a bad name, you'll destroy all credibility in the system.

Blowing the budgets

2009-03-27T12:21:00.001Z

Iain Martin’s blogpost over at the Telegraph this morning discusses how the latest poll results suggest that voters are broadly in favour of cuts to public spending, though not at the expense of core services. It is a bit woolly to think that you can simply cut administrative costs or jobs and all will be well – many of the support roles are critical to front-line delivery – however this does take the somewhat naive view that the boys and girls on the front-line are all doing sterling jobs. I don’t doubt that many are, but I also suspect that the threat of some cuts there would work wonders for productivity.

I eschewed my normal bike ride to work in favour of my car today. It’s the first time I’ve driven to work this year, and thinking about it, the first time in about nine months. As a result, I had the delights of Wogan for fifteen amusing minutes this morning. Nearing my office, the traffic report finished and Wogan jested that there will be lots of roads being dug up, because March is nearly over and all the Councils will be looking to spend all their budgets before the end of the tax year, lest the Government reduce their budget for the next year.

I’ve come across this before. It is something of a universally-accepted fact of the Public Sector that if you don’t spend your budget, next year’s will be cut back, and nobody wants that. When I worked for a recruitment company, we discovered all sorts of projects suddenly kicking off in Feb/March as IT managers suddenly needed extra hands to roll out new desktops and so on. It was a theme repeated year-on-year, as my manager explained, and was a great little boost to business.

That was a discovery I found despairing. Even at the time, I had a little shiver, and wondered why on earth people entrusted with public money could be so utterly irresponsible as to spend it for the sake of not getting as much next year. Profligate spending like that is an utter disgrace, and that is one of the reasons public sector spending is so out of control – they have a use it or lose it mentality, and rather than thinking of how they can make a little go a long way, the public sector seems determined to spend it lest they get a smaller budget for the next year.

One of my contractors had once worked on a few assignments at North Yorkshire County Council, based in Northallerton. He told me about their IT stores room, where they apparently had a stash of unused laptops. These were the sort which were meant for heavy duty activity; water-resistant, shock-resistant, hard-wearing. It transpired they had been purchased a few years ago, and had never been used, but that hadn’t stopped them ordering more. Someone clearly thought it would be nice to have some, so spent some of my taxes and their council tax levies on some IT Hardware which would gather dust, unused.

I remember my manager being delighted, because one of his NHS accounts had actually signed off budget from 2007 and paid us in advance of any actual requirement just to get rid of it before the year end, with the view of using it when the next project came live. That might seem efficient enough, but he wasn’t doing it for efficiency, he was doing it to ensure he got as big a budget next year as the year past.

David Cameron, should he win the next general election, is going to have a lot on his plate. The public sector needs a cull, and it needs a change in mentality. Somehow it needs to be reminded that taxpayers money is something you have to be responsible with, and blowing through a budget for the sake of spending is a poor show indeed.

On Gilts, PMQs, and a good old-fashioned roasting

2009-03-25T16:06:00.001Z

Is the end nigh?

Gordon's Gilt sale has failed to find any buyers out on the market. It can't have been helped by Mervyn King challenging further spending by the reckless Brown, plus the UK isn't the only Government issuing debt, but this ought to be scaring the bejeezus out of the Treasury. I don't see Gordon getting too worried, he is after all, off playing Superman, and will probably think of some excuse to console himself.

Meanwhile, Hattie was demolished by a laconic Hague and Cable in PMQs today. Shame that Hague didn't stick the knife in and twist with is usually rapier wit, even if he did score a few points. More telling was Hattie banging on about "do nothing Tories" and a "millionaire's manifesto". Though the informed (or remotely intelligent) will see through them as the utter fabrications that they are, the lowest common denominator has an uncanny knack for buying in to cheap soundbites. It worked for Tony long enough.

Speaking of demolishing people, Dan Hannan 1 - Gordon Brown 0. After his speech at the EU Parliament, the PM was skewered, basted and roasted in the space of three sweet and incisive minutes. I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, having been covered elsewhere, but if you fancy seeing an intelligent man dismantle a deluded one, click here.

The Thought Police score again

2009-03-25T09:13:00.004Z

This is a disgrace.

If you need to ask why, then there really is no hope left...

Free speech includes the right to criticise, to offend, to question, to debate... for heaven's sake, this is stifling. Incitement to hatred? That may not be desirable, but it is a *right*. Do I just believe too much in innate human decency?

One by one, new Labour's thought police are taking away our freedom to express ourselves, whatever our views. It's unacceptable, undemocratic, and it scares the hell out of me.

I've got a bad feeling about this

2009-03-25T09:08:00.002Z

Anyone else have a suspicion that Jacqui Smith might be about to lay one on us?

All this talk of dirty bombs is making me nervous, and not because of terrorists... that woman has form.

Leave it out

2009-03-23T15:04:00.000Z

Just for the record.

She is not Princess Diana. She did no great charitable works. Even if she did, I wouldn’t get it. Her story is no more tragic than the soldiers who died fighting for us in Afghanistan; actually, it’s less tragic. Three mothers lost their sons on Mother’s day, and we devote a whole host of column inches to a woman who made her money from being a bit thick on the television.

Why is it sad? Because a young woman died, leaving behind a family. Oh, but guess what, it happens all over the world, every day. People die young, long before their time. She doesn’t matter any more, or less, than they do.

If anything, we see the hypocrisy of the media circus, who damned her, loved her, damned her then loved her as soon as they heard she was going to shuffle off this mortal coil. Give over, please, and get some perspective.

The politicians chiming in should be ashamed for using this as a nice vehicle for showing they are connected with the people. Were you personal friends? No. Then you have nothing to say. Any Doctor will tell you a smear test on a late teen or early twentysomething is more likely to give a false positive than a definitive, so don’t go punting that line.

When Diana died, in the media storm that followed we almost missed the deaths of Mother Theresa and Sir George Solti. I dread to think what we will be distracted from now.

Her death is tragic, but it is a tragedy for her family. Just try and remember what you thought of her before you knew she was dying – be it good or ill – and don’t kid yourself.

Jack is back

2009-03-23T10:44:00.000Z

First time I’ve had a chance to blog since returning from France. Events of note – faceplanting at Formigal (hilarious), Vin Chaud at Gourette (sticky sweet delicious) and Bloc du Foie Gras de Canard with a succulent Jurancon Doux (so wrong but so right) in front of a roaring fire. Great snow, glorious sunshine, good time had by all. Up until the day of departure, that is.

Attempting to fly back on Thursday 13th March presented a small problem. The entirety of the French Public Services were on strike. Including Air Traffic Control. Which was pesky, as I was meant to be meeting a good friend at Edinburgh Airport on Friday morning.

What followed was a marathon relay drive where brothercat and daddycat took turns with basementcat to hurtle up the Autoroutes of France and the Motorways of Britain (give me French roads any day). Departing Pau at 12.45pm on Thursday, we arrived in Edinburgh at 06.00am on Friday, a rather impressive time, if somewhat exhausting.

For the record, the Frogs were on strike because they wanted higher public sector pay, and wanted the Government to raise taxes in order to achieve this. I think we all know what my feelings on that would be...

Gone Skiing

2009-03-14T14:59:00.002Z

The basementcat has jumped on a flight for France for a week of fantastic wine, artisanal cheese, and most importantly, a couple of days on the piste attempting to kill himself. Hopefully without success, but you never know...

Gross injustice

2009-03-12T15:14:00.003Z

Released after 15 days in the clanger after an appeal?

Are we forgetting that he KILLED someone? Accidental or not, he was driving dangerously, crashed and committed manslaughter.

I'm enraged. He's a peer, he should be setting an example. At the very least he should take his sentence with the solemnity it deserves, he took a life owing to his misjudgement and has the moral imperative to serve the full term. Instead, he gets his lawyers to wrangle him out.

Another disgraceful NuLiebour peer; he's not fit to hold any position in the parliamentary or legislative process.

Very good question...

2009-03-12T14:08:00.002Z

Why is nobody asking questions about this?

This could be a chance for the Tories to give Brown both barrels, yet they seem remarkably quiet on the issue. Load up your shotguns, boys, because there's a hell of a lot of ammunition to spare and a great fat target to hit.

Judgement by Video Conference

2009-03-10T21:14:00.002Z

Just an aside, but in a supplier meeting with Cable and Wireless today, I learned that they are providing a VC service for the Ministry of Justice down in Englandshire. Prisoners who are pleading guilty will no longer have to be shuttled from gaol to court to deliver their plea, but will simply be linked up by video conference - system they are using I think is Cisco Telepresence.

Saves on time, police effort, and reduces security risks. Now *that's* what I call efficient use of technology!

I want to emmigrate.

2009-03-09T14:50:00.003Z

I just caught the Wall Street Journal's interview with New Zealand's PM, John Key.

New Zealand has great wine, good skiing, amazing scenery, temperate weather, and apparently a free-market focused leader who favours small government. And they have Hobbits. What's not to like?

At least ONE Prime Minister in the world seems to know the right way to deal with the recession...

Chocolate Tax and Speed Limits. Give over...

2009-03-09T11:44:00.002Z

DK has already given this both barrels, and Dr. Crippen agrees with him.

Some Doctor in Lanarkshire has put his head above the parapet to deliver us his esteemed opinion. Apparently, since chocolate is unhealthy, we should tax it to fight obesity. I’d love to take this one apart, but the Devil already has, with far more vitriol than I can muster on a Monday.

Given that the SNP are talking about introducing a minimum price on alcohol, now a Scottish doctor is getting above himself and pressing for a chocolate tax, you might think that we’ve filled our quota for illiberal and misguided ideas for the month, but no, elsewhere, another Scot has come up with another way to infringe upon civil liberty.

The Times reports that Jim FitzPatrick, the roads minister, is supporting a plan to reduce the speed limit on roads from 60mph to 50mph. Obnoxio is not impressed. Neither am I.

Just what is it with Scotsmen acting like illiberal pillocks at the moment?

On all three counts, booze, chocolate and driving, we see the heavy hand of the state thinking that people can’t decide for themselves, so must be told. If you can’t see the problem here, then quite frankly I weep for the future of our children, for they will be brought up in an authoritarian, nanny state where choice and liberty are but a distant memory.

Englandshire rules the waves

2009-03-06T14:41:00.003Z

A fellow twitterer directed his followers to this article on the insidious and devious path by which the EU is attempting to dismantle the United Kingdom. Reading on through the comments, I stumbled upon this... well, essay, for wont of a better word:

Briefly, England is the greatest country that the world has ever seem. We are greater than the furthest expanse of the 1st Chinese Empire, more powerful than the Egyptians, more influential than the Greeks, and more organised than the Romans. We have proved this by first silencing our troublesome neighbours; Scotland, Wales & Ireland (to some extent) all of whom were and probably still are, jealous of our freedoms, our independence, our genius and our power.
We adpapt very quickly and this makes us almost unbeatable in war - unless we are fighting ourselves - of course! Since we have this indispensible capacity, we have been fortunate enough to use it wisely not only to ensure our survival, but the survival of our way of thinking, our generous attitude, our benevolence, our warmth and fairness, all of which are far far more important. This is our real culture and this what we will die for. For we know how to accept that which we cannot change and subdue that which attempts to change us.
Because since our establishment here in Britain ovr 1500 years ago, we English have turned the basic British way of life into an enigmatic novelty and we have imposed our language, our culture and our glorious traditions on these war-like elemetals who have been forced to accept us, mostly against their wills to begin with, and gradually, to accept us by tollerating the benefits they have received from us over the years.
Under the British flag, we the English, have led the peoples of this island to economic conquests and dominance all over the world, and we have forced all peoples to learn our ways of living and our ways of prospering over and above their own, and for their own good, which most, now accept with few provisos. The gun has been a big part of this, and without it, our culture would not be as dominant all over the world, as it is today, in every country and in every culture and in every continent: in fact, almost everywhere on planet Earth!
We are the people who have subdued and civilised and educated this whole planet into our way of thinking - but the work is not done. There is still some work to do - because our children, the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and others have been blinded by anti English propaganda which demonises us for creating riches where there were none, organisation where there was chaos, a sense of jutice where there was only force and brutality, an aim of healing where there was only suffering, and healthy living where there was predominantly sickness and pain.
This is what it means to be English and this is the weight that every English person carries with them on their shoulders, not as a yoke (as our enemies would have it), but as a burden of responsibility which must not be released into the hands of others, or the world that WE have created will fall into a dark age, far darker than any dictatorship, far darker than any cowardly gutless obedience, far far darker than any state imposed unfair laws, and more obscure than any futile war of greed.
Criticisms of our desired way of life and our peaceful tolerant society, come from the enemies of our civilising influence and from those who would rather not have what we have given, but instead the nihilism and barbarism of the ignorant which must be anathema to ourselves and to our English people.
Without an England, the world must implode upon itself and be subdued by the land of darkness which hangs over us like shadow of the re-introduction of the wolf into our peaceful forests, the dismantling of our Hadrians wall which has kept us safe for centuries. It currently lies almost abandoned and can’t keep wolves out for too much longer. Lets start to re-man that wall - and keep an eye our for those blood-thirsty wolves!
They are there, and they are coming; and they will take what is yours unless you stand up and do something. Now.
Adrian Thurston| 12.21.08 @ 9:32AM

Smashing stuff, what? I wasn't sure if this might have been a superb work of irony in the truest, English vein, but as I reached the end I swear I was almost humming Rule Britannia. The man is completely without hinges, but full marks for effort!

Mandelson's Ghostbusters Moment

2009-03-06T11:14:00.002Z

Part of me (the part that wants Nu Liebour put in the stocks and pelted with rotten veg) was amused to hear about Mandelson getting slimed.

Unfortunately, I find such displays to be tantamount to assault - the acts of the raving lunatic lefties for whom decorum and debate are as alien as soap once was. Except that the environmental protestors these days are as likely to be called Sloaney as they are Swampy, and will have a bottle of Corton Charlemagne in their hamper next to the smoked salmon sandwiches. Just look at the students at Edinburgh University, who arranged their anti-Israeli love-in complete with MacBooks and Blackberries. If I were Edinburgh, I'd just have cut power to the building and shut off the WAP...

By lowering herself to this level, Leila Deen may have gained herself a few column inches and amused smiles, but it hardly gives the green lobby any credibility. Plane Stupid? Couldn't have thought of a more apt name for the lot of them.

Oh, and Mandy? Send her your dry cleaning bill; actions have consequences, after all. Maybe it's time she learned that.

Guardianistas to Hug-A-Tory

2009-03-04T15:53:00.002Z

After reading this on ConHome the other day I was brewing up a post, but Iain Martin over at the Telegraph has done such a fantastic job that anything I were to add would seem superfluous. Some of the comments make for interesting reading too...

Nail. Head. Hit.

Jonah Meets the Messiah

2009-03-04T15:44:00.002Z

Commentary on Brown’s visit to the US has chewed up the column inches in the MSM as well as the blogosphere these last few days, even The Economist’s Bagehot felt compelled to comment on what has been widely perceived as a snub to the British PM. In his eyes, this was no snub and Downing Street should be pleased with the outcome. Whether or not that is the case, Britain at large thinks otherwise.

One reader on Conservative Home yesterday left a comment to the effect that he may be an idiot, but he’s our idiot, and this was no way to treat the Prime Minister. You salute the rank, not the man, after all. Tim Montgomerie tweeted to the same effect today – whatever glee Brown’s opponents may be enjoying at seeing Jonah Brown embarrassed, we must remember that he is there as a representative of Britain; how he is treated might very well be interpreted as a manifestation of the Obama administration’s attitude towards Britain.

Iain Martin of the Telegraph takes this perspective – that he’s the Prime Minister of the nation with whom the US have a so-called ‘special relationship’. That relationship has been the subject of much analysis lately. Just how ‘special’ is it? Do we presume we are equal partners? I suspect that we’ve always been aware that we are the lesser player and are occasionally treated as such, but that does not mean that we expect our PM to be sidelined on a state visit.

Brown, however, has done little to engender warm feelings towards him from the White House, let alone the US as a whole. His grandstanding leaves one thinking of an empty vessel, and surely his repeated mantra (this is not a British problem, it started in America) has not gone unnoticed. His determination to pin his flickering bulb to Obama’s popular rising star has made him appear desperate.

Perhaps it is simply because Obama knows that Brown is unpopular at home, and doesn’t expect to have to put up with him for long. Perhaps he is trying to distance himself from all the Presidents before him who embraced the ‘special relationship’. Perhaps he had no desire to listen to a failure dictate economic policy. Whatever the reasons, I hope the next time a Prime Minister of Great Britain gets on a flight to Washington, he is received with the respect that should be accorded to one of the only nations who has stuck by the US when few others would. We share a history, and the Obama administration would do well to remember that.

That won’t stop me chuckling quietly; it may be rude, but Gordon Brown deserved no less. While I may take perverse enjoyment out of knowing Downing St had to beg for time with Obama, I am disappointed; the Prime Minister deserved more.

Sniggers...

2009-03-04T10:17:00.003Z

Heh.

The prime minister added: "I was making some very insightful points about Fred Goodwin's pension, but he just kept looking at that watch and I'm thinking, 'gosh, it must be a really good one'.

Funny. Oh how he must be seething inside - Bliar got all the bells and whistles, Jonah brings the wind and snow. Then gets a quick chat before he's shoved out the door.

I say this not in Brown's defence, but Obama really isn't the messiah. He is not the panacea to the world's ills. He is, however, the President of the USA, and this whole sorry affair makes Brown look far more like the poodle we thought Bliar was.

As much as it galls me...

2009-03-03T14:28:00.006Z

While I normally have very little patience for the Daily Mail and its offensive school of journalism, for once (and perhaps this is because I'm severely peeved at some jobsworthian witch for reasons that I have tweeted elsewhere), yes, for once I agree with Littlejohn.

If Harriet is so keen on the 'court of public opinion' all of a sudden, let her and her cohorts be hoisted by their own petard.

Nanny stating my booze

2009-03-02T15:14:00.003Z

Via the Scotland on Sunday (the Hootsmon's sabbath-day edition), it transpires that the SNPs are planning on engaging in a little bit more nanny-statism, clearly taking the lead from their ZaNu Lab counterparts in England. As if the Smoking Ban wasn't enough, apparently we have a drinking problem - and they think that the problem is that booze is too cheap.

'MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.'

Hold up a second, why? We already pay a daft amount of tax on a bottle of wine (as I have blogged before) - now you want to make it even *more* expensive?

'The measures are set to spark a furious legal battle with the retail trade and alcohol industry, which claims the laws will hit customers' pockets, damage the industry, and do little to stop problem drinking.

If minimum pricing is introduced and promotional offers are banned, many of the offers at supermarkets and off-licences would be outlawed immediately.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5. Multi-packs of beer – which are regularly discounted – would also rise in price.

The moves are being pushed through despite concerns within the SNP that the Government should not seek to increase the financial burden on consumers and retailers during an economic downturn.'

Oh holy mother of Dorothy. Where to begin? Now, I can’t remember the last time I spent less than £5 on a bottle of wine anyway, but if a two litre bottle of cider is suddenly going to cost £7.50, how much is a bottle of vodka going to jump up to? Well if Smirnoff is your poison, at 37.5% that equates to just shy of 30 units, therefore about £15, so at worst that’s going to cost you two or three quid more.

Scotland on Sunday neglect to mention who these health campaigners are, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were Alcohol Concern, which DK has identified as a fake charity - funded primarily by the Government (and therefore, indirectly, you and me). If it is indeed Alcohol Concern (or one if their ilk), we’re talking about a ‘charitable’ lobbying group funded by the Government to lobby the Government. Everyone see the problem there? Yes? Good.

‘...Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

Such a tactic would enable SNP ministers to push the reforms through more quickly, but it would also prompt accusations that they were deliberately dodging debate. One retail source said last night: "If they use the Licensing Act, it would be simply about rail-roading these plans in a bid to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. It suggests that Kenny MacAskill knows how unpopular it is to push up prices in this economic environment."’

Actually I’d say that’s exactly what it means. Worse yet, it’s enacting a Nanny-state agenda avoiding the parliamentary process along the way. Hardly democratic. Besides, pushing up the price of alcohol is not going to help solve the problem. It’s going to hurt people financially, but again, root causes people! Why do Scots have a drinking ‘problem’? Is it because booze is cheaper here than anywhere else in the country? I think you’ll find the answer is no, it isn’t. It’s no less expensive here than anywhere else. Is making it more expensive going to fix what is clearly a cultural issue? Again, clearly not.

In the meantime, as our Southern cousins do the booze cruise to Calais, we'll just have to start a cruise to the Tescos in Berwick-Upon-Tweed.

I won't, of course, since I long ago worked out that given the daft amount of duty on a bottle of wine, if I spent less than about £6 on the bottle, after costs I would be getting the cheapest quality of wine the producer could crank out, but that's another matter entirely...

Brown Gobbles his Degook

2009-02-27T14:48:00.002Z

Over on Iain Dale...

"We set up the Financial Services Authority to, you know before we came into power there was a sort of self regulatory system so you know they more or less regulated themselves. We brought in a statutory regulatory system, supervisory system, but of course we couldn't know exactly what was going on in every individual bank and it's only in the last few days to be honest that what has happened over this pension has come to light."
Gordon Brown on Radio Oxford today.

Seriously, WTF? I mean, aside from the blatant buck-passing deluded lies... Before the FSA, the banks did not 'self-regulate' (and if they did, they did a better job than the FSA), they were regulated by that age-old establishment, the Bank of England. And, newsflash, it did a good job of it too. Brown decided more layers of Government were needed (whee! more taxpayer's money up the spout!), and so split the responsibilites without telling anyone what their responsibilities really were.

Bored now. Go fuck someone else's economy up, you authoritarian, illiberal, lying and devious fool.

Nailed. On. The. Head.

2009-02-27T11:49:00.001Z

Daily Mash is teh pwnz0r.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hypocritical, lying, arrogant, devious son-of-a...

Basementcat's February Obsessions

2009-02-27T11:36:00.002Z

Via the delights of Wordle, here's what's been on my mind the most this month...

Click to see the full size version. If I can figure out how to get a proper screen-grab I will...

No obligation for Fred to shred

2009-02-27T10:22:00.001Z

Some people seem to think it’s disgraceful, others obscene, but Sir Fred Goodwin has no intention of surrendering any part of his £693,000-a-year pension, despite requests from Brown, Badger-Brows and Lord Myners to do so. Nor should he. The Government has no right to interfere in pensions, and even less in the Rule of Law.

Sir Fred has become something of a focus for the public ire, a figure to vilify who is an exemplar of all that was wrong with the banking industry – it has earned him the unenviable soubriquet of ‘the world’s worst banker’. His purchase of ABN-Amro has been viewed as a reckless business decision, one that left RBS overexposed to the market crash; it was always a high-risk strategy, but it was not reckless. The rewards were potentially high, and had the collapse in the sub-prime market not destroyed confidence in the sector, triggering the crash and freeze on the credit markets, I suspect he would still be viewed as one of the best. After all, he pulled it off beautifully when RBS bought over Natwest. This was not necessarily the wrong purchase, but it was the wrong time.

His aggressive strategy left the company exposed at a critical moment and he must live with the shame of that legacy. He built RBS into a juggernaut, a banking colossus, only to over-extend his reach – but remember the profits the group made under his leadership. That is where he earned his pension. Yes, the salaries of the top brass were ‘obscene’, but so too was the amount of money their companies were making.

Quite aside from the fact that pensions are deferred payment (therefore we must consider his entire career, not simply his error in judgement towards the end), it is wrong for the Government to demand that he surrenders his pension. Legally, it would set a dangerous precedent were they to attempt to force him to. It would be remarkably short-sighted of them to do so, and if Sir Fred must forgo his due, should not also the Government ministers who oversaw this fiasco? The leaders of the FSA who failed to regulate? Where would it stop?

RBS is still a private limited company. The Government is a major shareholder, but it has not been fully nationalised. He is contractually entitled to it, and we now know from Sir Fred’s response that the Government had agreed to this award when it was confirmed in November last year. Their response is a political one, and it reflects poorly on them – the worst kind of Daily Mail politics. Brown, Darling & Co are merely attempting to cover their backsides and hide their incompetence.

Gordon has a damned cheek to talk about pensions, given his raid on the national pension and destruction of the Final Salary pension in the public sector. Glass bloody houses indeed, to accuse Sir Fred now.

Now, I think it would be fair to say that the contract is not a good one. It has allowed for a man who built and destroyed a bank, who presided over a policy of high-risk investments and ultimately failed his shareholders to be rewarded with a very generous pension. It is still a contract, as Tim Worstall puts it so concisely:

“Pensions are deferred compensation. This is part of the contract that he signed all those years ago.

It may not have been a very good contract, it might be that we or you or even they wish it had not been signed in the form it was, but it is indeed a contract.

And tearing up contracts, abandoning the rule of law, is really not an action or activity that is going to help us in the future.”

Someone posted a comment to Iain Dale’s blog entry yesterday containing an exchange between Sir Thomas More and William Roper, an exchange that encapsulates this affair. It explains precisely why the Government should tread carefully here:

“William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

I think that says it all, don’t you?

A stone in a glass house

2009-02-26T12:15:00.002Z

Sir Fred Goodwin is under pressure from Alistair Darling to ‘voluntarily’ reduce some of his pension, from a pot apparently worth in the region of £16m, which he will draw annually to a sum of £650,000.

I’d love some of that, thanks.

Now, aside from the usual socialist idea that they who have more should give to they who have less (laudable while voluntary, illiberal and despicable when enforced), I wonder what the law of unintended consequences would result in should Sir Fred agree to this.

If Fred forgoes a part of his pension, where will that money instead go? Will those funds make a significant impact on the day-to-day operation of RBS? What would Fred do with the money if he received it? Would he spend it or invest it, thus ‘stimulating’ the economy? Would he bury it under his bed? Would he save it in a bank (thus providing them with deposited capital)?

I am reminded of Frédéric Bastiat, the French economist, and his essay ‘What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen’. What is seen is that Sir Fred Goodwin takes a reduced pension; public anger is doused (maybe), and RBS has a few million Sterling more in its pension pot. This will reduce the deficit the pension fund faces, but I suspect not by a significant amount.

What is not seen is that Fred no longer buys that yacht from the manufacturing company down south, that entertainment suite from a specialist retailer, that brand new Jaguar or Aston Martin. He no longer chooses to invest in that promising start-up company, or donate to that charitable organisation. Those parts of the economy which might have seen growth from his spending may not now benefit from his money.

RBS is the broken window; is this not simply paying the glazier?

EDIT: Corrected typo. £16m, not £61m!

C U L8r, am in jail.

2009-02-25T11:34:00.003Z

Justice.

Lord Ahmed is to be thrown in the clanger after being convicted of dangerous driving, texting while travelling at speeds in excess of 60mph shortly before a fatal road crash.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

UPDATE: To my irritation, I note that he has been jailed for a mere 12 weeks, half of the 24 sentance. While he may not have been texting at the time of the crash, it is still manslaughter. Derisory.

With deepest sympathy

2009-02-25T09:45:00.003Z

Just heard that David Cameron's son Ivan has died. My deepest condolences to him and his family.

2009-02-24T11:54:00.001Z

Alex Salmond has been off pressing the flesh with Madame Clinton in Washington, and amidst his comments on growing the relationship between the US and Scotland (or North Englandshire), he managed to start rambling on about the economy. The most frightening part of his wittering was when he commented that:

“...and in particular I will make the case for Scotland to have the same ability to borrow as other nations... in order to do our bit to inject demand and confidence into the economy.”

To borrow from the esteemed Stephen Fry: O.M arse-mothering G. You wish to allow a bunch of jumped up local councillors the chance to put Scotland into debt? Good grief, these are the people who turned a £40m project into £400m! After the fiasco building the parliament building, you would expect us to trust you with borrowing... Give me strength...

While Wee Eck is possessed of a quick and witty mind, he is not rational. He believes Scotland can and should be independent – ipso facto he is not rational, because rational thought would lead to the conclusion that we benefit more from the Union than we lose. Fiscally, politically, internationally, socially, we benefit from being part of the United Kingdom.

I enjoyed a primary school education in Scotland and a secondary education in England. I have been brought up to feel a part of Britain. I am neither Scottish, nor English, but both – I am British. The idea of a separate Scotland does not sit well with me, and I don’t want to have to choose between the two.

In this case I can only say that I think it is a good thing that he is incredibly unlikely to get his way. Borrowing to boost demand is a short-term measure that fails to address the root cause of the problem – which (to be overly simplistic) was too much borrowing.

Get your SNP/Lib Dem coalition in Edinburgh Council to sort out the trams on budget and on schedule, then maybe we’ll sit down and have a chat, okay?

Ideological differences

2009-02-24T08:42:00.001Z

Here’s a question: Can romantic relationships work when the two people are of different politics?

I recall a certain ex-boyfriend who was a dyed-in-the-wool, son on a Union leader, very much a total Labourite. Towards the collapse of that particular relationship, I remember remarking that Boris Johnson would be a welcome change to Red Ken in the upcoming mayoral elections down in London. The force of rebuttal to that suggestion was so fierce that it threw us into a raging argument, with my integrity and judgement being called into question.

Up to that point, we’d got along just fine on the basis that I quite liked Tony because for all his faults, he wasn’t Old Labour, and played enough to the centre ground that it was hard to disagree too much with policy. The Conservatives were in a shambles anyway, and William Hague – the only promising leader they came up with – had ascended the shadow throne far too soon and made a bit of a hash of it.

I suspect in this case it was just another excuse for a fight – we’d been at it from day one, and I should have called time on it before it had got that far, but that’s another story for another day. What was missing in this case was the capability of at least one of us to hold a rational debate and accept the other party’s point of view as valid – whether or not it was agreed with. To me, this seems ridiculous, as I disagree with a number of my friends on a good many things, but that stimulates healthy debate, banter, and general conversational tomfoolery.

The difference is that those conversations are with friends, not lovers. What I want to know is whether it is possible to sustain a relationship when you both disagree on something as fundamental as your political ideals.

A change I can believe in

2009-02-23T15:13:00.001Z

I had for a while avoided the Facebook meme that had been doing the rounds; 25 things you probably didn’t know about me, or whatever it was being called. Eventually I caved, partly from boredom one afternoon, but chiefly because one or two friends of mine had produced some really entertaining ones. That left me a little bit of a challenge, so I took the bait.

Anyway, the upshot of this is that I’ve been taking a lot of flak from some of my friends who are die-hard NuLabourites , or at least anti-Tory. I make no secret of the fact I’m a bit of a Toryboy. While my ideology is a damn sight more libertarian than the Conservative party will ever be, I have faith that they are the best chance we as a nation have to take us forward.

At last year’s Pride event in Glasgow, I joined the LGBTory contingent to fly the flags – the Tree and the Rainbow. I suppose there’s some irony that the Tory emblem used to be a torch. Now, putting the Tories and the gays together is difficult enough, given the lingering memory of the deplorable Section 28 legislation. Putting the Tories and the gays together in Scotland is setting the cat loose amongst the pigeons, to put it mildly.

This is a horrific and sweeping generalisation, but the Scots by and large hold Thatcher (ergo the Tories) responsible for the Poll Tax debacle and a whole host of policies that they felt victimised them as second-class to England. Rightly or wrongly, the feeling persists. The amount of people walking up to our stall and commenting that we had brass for showing up was unnerving, but equally there were some who showed an interest in what we had to say for ourselves.

I should also point out that the SNP, Lib Dems and even the SSP all managed to muster an appearance at the event. Conspicuous by their absence were Scottish Labour. Insulting by their overtures were some of the SNPs, who suggested that they were really Conservatives, but were supporting the SNPs until they got independence. It appears the notion of One-Nation-Tory appeared to have slipped them by, not least that the SNP tend towards a more socialist agenda, but I digress.

The Tory party of today is a very different beast from the one that left office in 1997. The leadership has come to realise that outmoded social philosophies have no place in today’s political sphere. I will take no part in acting as an apologist for legislation that I believe did massive harm to an entire generation of young boys and girls struggling to come to terms with their sexuality within a system that was skewed against them. It was designed to protect, but it did precisely the reverse. It was ill-thought out and unforgiveable.

So, if it was unforgivable, why should I as a gay man consider voting for them, let alone actively support them at a Pride event? The answer is simple: because I recognise that the party has evolved. You can’t hold them to account for the sins of the father – we held them to account in 1992 when they were reduced to the most tenuous of majorities, and we destroyed them in 1997. We have given them our judgement, and they have spent over ten years in the wilderness as a result. It has given them a lot of time for soul-searching, and a lot of time to learn.

Which brings me back to the Facebook meme. One of my friends works for and was marching with Stonewall at Glasgow Pride last year. He is, and I suspect will forever be, a New Labour supporter, a point he made very clear in his ‘25 things’. It was one of his 25 though that I found incredibly insightful, intentional or not. Whether or not New Labour wins a fourth term, they have revolutionised the social agenda. Just as the Tories taught Tony about the economy (though Brown sadly failed to learn the lesson), Tony taught the Tories that society has evolved, and reminded them that they were once the party of liberty in society as well as in the economy.

As New Labour, no longer new and showing the strain, twists and regresses into a pseudo-authoritarian regime apparently determined to tell us that Big Brother Brown knows best, the Tories appear to have forged a new identity. I just hope that they follow Churchill’s example and restore the freedoms that a Labour government seem determined to deny us.

Back on my paws

2009-02-23T14:30:00.000Z

A slight bout of fever and an acute case of man-flu left the Basement Cat holed up in bed for most of last week. While still feeling rubbish, boredom prevailed and has dragged me in to the office where I can infect everyone else and share the love. Or spread the misery.

An article in the current (19 February) issue of Supply Management investigates a trend of procurement professionals and buyers moving from the private to the public sector; bucking the trend of job cuts, recruitment in public sector procurement is strong. While in part the purpose of the article seems to be to point out that aside from some legislative and procedural hurdles, the pressure and expectations are not all that different, it is endemic of a larger problem in the UK.

It’s no secret that the UK public sector, and the NHS in particular, is rife with non-jobs and ‘management’ roles that serve little purpose other than to consume resources and prop up job figures; mere sink-holes for the taxpayer’s money. Then there’s that delightful little paradox (and administrative expense) of taxing people whose income comes from the taxes they – and everyone else – are paying.

In fact, Procurement/Supply Chain is an aberration, the exception that proves the rule. As a function its primary purpose is to drive down costs, improve efficiency and thereby save time and money for the organisation in question. It is the one arena in which job cuts only make sense if the organisation has contracted to a point that they are superfluous to requirements. For that to happen in the public sector, a brave government is going to have to make some significant cuts.

...So I'm off to the west coast.

2009-02-13T12:38:00.002Z

Day off, heading through to Glasvegas for a bit of a pre-birthday debauchery. Blogging is highly unlikely as I shall probably be exceeding the recommended levels of alcohol intake by quite some considerable amount.

But I promise to have fun doing it.

All quiet on the eastern coast

2009-02-12T13:07:00.002Z

In a training course today, so not much chance for any blogging. Was greatly tempted to play the snow card this morning - seemed to work very well for the Londoners last week - but unfortunately, and despite being further North, the light dusting was sufficient only to make everything look pretty.

Care to wager that by the time I go home, it'll all be a big slushy mess?

Just what are you suggesting?

2009-02-11T14:06:00.002Z

BBC article on the whole 'Ecstasy should be class-B' thing:

Blah blah blah blah... heard it, nothing new here... etc. etc... oh... wait...

"Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said it called into question the government's choice of advisers."

I would dearly like to know if Mr Grayling is suggesting that you only pick advisors who tell you what you want to hear, rather than - oh, I don't know - the truth?

In this (apparently not-so-enlightened) age, you would think that people might be willing to weigh up the empirical evidence and listen to the opinions of those who have studied a subject in depth, rather than dismiss the issue out of hand simply because you don't like what they're saying.

Sadly, it seems Grayling is little different from Jacqui Smith on this matter - letting ill-informed opinion get in the way of a rational debate.

If you wanted sock-puppets, you should have said so.

Pour la France, les emplois

2009-02-11T12:13:00.002Z

As a comedian and acquaintance of mine once flourished: “...the people who hate the French government most, are the French!”

Given the emotional story he had been telling about his voyage across the English Channel in a Thomas Crapper bathtub, rowing, no less, this punchline was the end to a running theme of obstructions he had faced from the French Coastguard and government, who had even changed the law in order to prevent his brave/insane/ridiculous/British venture.

If anyone doubted the veracity of this statement, I could point you to the French propensity for striking. Rightly or wrongly, they are not afraid of creating merry havoc if they don’t like what is happening. Even if their actions are misinformed or counterproductive. In Tim’s case, the locals had broken in to a French coastal installation to cheer him on as he rowed those painful last strokes to arrive on French soil. Authority? Ça ne fait rien! Hurrah.

Personally, I rather like France. It is a beautiful country, produces some marvellous wines (and Brandy, Cognac, Calvados, Armagnac...), and like anywhere, has some fantastic people. Some less fantastic people too, but you will find that anywhere in the world.

On the other hand, they have a worrying propensity for protectionism, and Nicolas Sarkozy, who should know better, is not helping. As outgoing President of the EU, he should be conversant with the single market, and ought to at least pretend to represent it. In deciding to prop up Renault and Peugeot-Citroen with a €6bn loan, he’s jumping aboard a bandwagon whose engine should never have been started, but in that there’s nothing particularly unique. What is very disappointing is that he has brazenly instructed the companies that they must make no redundancies at their French plants – instead calling for them to close their Czech and Slovenian plants.

Bald, blatant, naked protectionism doesn’t even begin to cut it. The bailout packages for the automotive industry are bad enough, with governments terrified of allowing a proud national institution to fail, but history or not, no industry should become subsidised, and propping these companies up does not solve the underlying problem; demand for cars has fallen, and these companies were trading on a false economic boom.

Mind you, given how the French benefit from the deplorable CAP, should we be surprised?

That kind of growth is not going to come back before the bailouts run dry, and jobs will still be lost. Rather than bail these businesses out with taxpayer money, why not give that money back in the form of lower taxes? That’s the kind of stimulus we need.

Sarkozy, like Brown, is proposing a vote winner, cheating at the expense of the taxpayer. While I was amused by the way the French President savaged Brown over his handling of the economy, I think he was way off the mark. The VAT cut was a ridiculous waste of time and money, but cutting taxes is the answer, not spending more as Sarkozy intends. It is time for lean government and smart thinking. On that count, neither Brown nor Sarkozy show any proclivity for either.

Banks say sorry...

2009-02-10T13:25:00.003Z

So Sir Fred and Co. have apologised for their part in the financial crash... but we're still waiting for an apology from the politicians (*cough* Gordon *cough*), the Bank of England and the FSA for utterly failing to do anything about a situation they - by the own admission - saw coming.

The banks are an easy target, but since you're all so keen on blethering on about the moral high ground, how about you admit your own culpability while you're at it?

There are times for a dignified silence

2009-02-10T10:50:00.004Z

You would have thought Jacqui Smith would be a little bit too busy preparing her excuses - sorry, reasons - for her expenses fiddle, but yesterday she still found time to comment on Professor Nutt's comments that ecstasy was no more dangerous than an addiction to equestrianism.

Now, far be it from me to make a scientific comment, but having had the numbers of deaths caused by ecstasy rammed down my throat (what was it, 30 last year?), compared to deaths involving horses (ah, wait, something like 100, yes?), I wonder if he might have a point.

Unity has made this point before over on the Ministry of Truth. The Drugs policy in this country is a shambles, despite all the evidence suggesting that prohibition doesn't work, the government continues to pursue it. I think most people fail to realise is that doctors prescribe drugs daily which have side-effects and can be fatal or damaging if taken in large doses. Paracetamol is available over the counter, for heaven's sake, knock back enough of them and you'll be getting your stomach pumped in no short order.

Would regulation and legalisation allow for the purity of a substance to be defined? Probably, yes. Would that make it safer? Undoubtedly. A big problem for heroin users, for example, is when the quality changes and suddenly they've taken twice as much as they're expecting. Make it legal and you can bloody tax it. Since cigarettes and alcohol are already such an earner, why not diversify?

So, I have to ask, why are drugs like tobacco and alcohol legal, substances such as oxycodone and diazepam available on prescription, yet a drug that literally does as it says on the tin - ecstasy - is illegal? The argument that it is dangerous doesn't hold any water, and when new studies keep suggesting that it is no more dangerous than alcohol (which is proven to cause long-term damage, unlike ecstasy), you start to wonder why the establishment is so keen to ban it. Don't they like people having a good time? When people have died, it's been as a result of dehydration or in some instances over-hydration. Most happy clubbers I've seen are smart enough to have a bottle of water in hand.

In the case of disco biscuits, the same counter-argument as for marajuana applies - we don't know the long-term implication because it hasn't been around for that long. Well, newsflash, we prescribe drugs daily where we *do* know there are long-term risks, some are pretty serious, yet we prescribe them anyway.

Fact is (oh, how I hate myself for saying that), there is a huge culture of drug-taking in Britain. There are kids out at the weekend on coke, speed, ecstasy, ketamine, a good few cooking up GHB (which *is* filthy fucking stuff), and there are a lot of them. I wouldn't even dare to put a finger in the wind guess on the real numbers, but how many of the clubbers at Fire in London do you think aren't on something? Ever been to The Arches in Glasgow on a Saturday night? And how many deaths are we hearing of every week?

Just because it wouldn't be a drugs-prohibition-related-rant without at least a mention of Holland. Hash legal. Are there hundreds of stoned Dutchmen on the streets? Err... no, actually. Plenty of stoned Brits over for the weekend, but it's pretty harmless. Back over this side of the stream, as Unity pointed out in his article, the police actually quite like (relatively speaking) dealing with people on pills, as for the most part they're too loved up with the world to be any hassle. It's the drunk ones that cause the issue.

Trying to crowbar myself back on track here, there was something Freebee Smith spewed in her denunciation of Professor Nutt that just irritated me:

"For me that makes light of a serious problem, trivialises the dangers of drugs, shows insensitivity to the families of victims of ecstasy and sends the wrong message to young people about the dangers of drugs."

Seriously. She erodes her own moral authority and thinks she can take the high ground? The serious problem in her eyes is that people take drugs. The serious problem as I see it is that we spend so much time telling people what not to do that we don't think that maybe, just maybe, the majority of people are smart enough to make their own decisions. It's just like tobacco, or the codeine your doctor is prescribing you. If you know the risks you can make an informed decision.

At the end it all boils down to one question. Why do people take drugs? To enhance the way they feel. But you don't like people feeling good, do you, Jacqui.

Educate and inform, don't command and control. Let us choose for ourselves.

Standing up for free markets, deregulation, choice and liberty

2009-02-09T15:31:00.004Z

Just a quick link to an excellent Q&A session from the Independent with Ken Clarke.

Very much worth a read, but one quote stood out for me that sums up why he is one of the more trustworthy and respected figures within Parliament. When asked about his affiliation with British American Tobacco and whether that left him in a moral bind, or that he was ashamed of his involvement, he replied:

"I am a strong believer in personal responsibility and freedom of choice. British American Tobacco is a responsible company, and I enjoyed working with them.
We only sold cigarettes to adults who were properly informed of the dangers and smoked cigarettes as part of their chosen lifestyle. I find it difficult to believe that there is any cigarette smoker who is not aware of the risks and has not decided that he is prepared to add those risks to the others that are associated with his chosen way of life."

Simply put, whether you agree with someone or not, you must act in a responsible manner, and above all, respect choice and freedom. Well said.

Bit of an oversight. Or not...

2009-02-09T14:02:00.004Z

Okay, so I know the splash on Clarkson's hilarious comment was at the tail of last week, but I do feel it is worth saying that I entirely agree with the sentiment.

He is after all: a) one eye'd, b) Scottish and c) an idiot.

Is it used to dig from the ground? Yes, you say? Then it is a spade.

His apology is understandable in the sense that perhaps mentioning the 'one eye'd' part in the same phrase as idiot could offend everyone else with a visual impairment (to be fair, more by association with Jonah than anything else), but he is very definitely Scottish. Jeremy, may I just offer that not all Scots were offended. We're embarrassed by him too.

Lord Foulkes reaction did amuse me greatly:

“Something should be done about Clarkson.
“He has insulted Gordon Brown three times over — accusing him of being a liar, having a go at him for having a physical handicap, and for his nationality.”

Clarkson didn't take the piss out of our premier for his disability or nationality. You would only be offended by those things if you thought that somehow those made you less of a person. Given Foulkes' history, I think he might perhaps want to engage brain before mouth; he who is without sin, and all that...

Added Bonus

2009-02-09T11:34:00.005Z

It was probably inevitable. Actually, it was inevitable. I've been waiting for it to happen, and I've not been disappointed. Northern Wreck were first in the firing line, and now the other banks are following suit and announcing this year's bonus payments for staff.

Since the collapse of the sub-prime market triggered, or contributed, to the worldwide recession we are now sliding deeper into, Politicians who should know better have taken easy potshots at overpaid bankers and their obscenely generous bonuses. It is this bonus culture that blinded them , in their greed, to the greater and more dangerous risks they were taking.

And maybe they're right, maybe the bonus award schemes that some of these high-flyers were on did encourage reckless behaviour. As such, perhaps the way these bonuses are constructed needs to be reviewed, but I think that perhaps it is a little rich of the Government - who sang the praises of our Financial Services industry - to condemn them so roundly.

The morning press seems to have split its attention between Jacqui Smith (who 'denies all wrongdoing' - journalist speak for 'guilty as sin') and her immoral (if maybe not illegal) expenses fiddle, and Brown taking a tough stance on bankers' bonuses. Yvette Cooper's performance on the Today Programme blunted what would otherwise have been a strong moral argument (not helped by Jacqboot's startlingly brazen abuse of public trust), on which Iain Dale has a few words to say.

In this instance, Cooper called for bankers to exercise their moral judgement and not accept their bonuses, even if contractually their employer was obliged to offer one. Perhaps a fair point, but who are these bankers? The once high-flying investment monkey, the one who 'caused' this mess (rememeber him?) and his massive six-figure-plus bonus, or the teller in the branch, with a much more modest bonus related to customer service and product sales?

Chances are, the tellers, Customer Advisers, Mortgage Advisers and so on and so forth, are on relatively modest wages as well - their bonus makes a big difference to them, and is a reward for good performance. Who is to say that these front-line staff don't deserve their bonus? They've worked hard, fulfilled their contractual obligations, and it's time for them to get their reward. Whether or not my taxes are propping up their business or not - and let me make this clear, the money that pays that bonus has nothing to do with the money from the Treasury, operational budgets will be covering those payments, not the capital liquidity provided to encourage lending.

Much more thorny are the executives who stood by, fingers in ears and eyes tight shut singing "La la la" and hoping that the disaster would never come and the good times would never end. Have they performed well? Have the investment monkeys who took the risks and rewards and drove us to the precipice performed well? Do they deserve their bonuses?

Here's where I agree with Cooper, but not wholly. I'm not sure it's fair to ask anyone to turn down their bonus if contractually, they were only doing what they were encouraged to do. If we look at their performance review and it turns out that whatever the consequences were or have been, they have ticked all the boxes for what they were supposed to do, it is manifestly unfair of us to then move the goalposts and say they shouldn't have it.

Instead, given the noise being created over this, I would suggest that the banks need to review their rewards schemes to ensure that bonus payments can reward high performance but not encourage irresponsible practice. This is one area I think the regulators should have been involved, not just in terms of how the banks operated, but how their pay and reward systems were structured.

It would be dangerous, though to tar everyone with the same brush. Most of the bonuses paid aren't for the fat cats - but they'll certainly see the largest slice. Just don't let that blind you to those who really do deserve it.

UPDATE - entry by Dr. Eamonn Butler on the Adam Smith Institute blog, makes my point but a lot more succinctly.

Quick one off the (Terror) Wrist

2009-02-06T10:15:00.005Z

So, you crack down on our liberty and give the police new powers to terrorise (sorry, protect) the population, and what do you have to show for it? These figures from ConservativeHome this morning.

"Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search people. In 2008:

Number of people stopped nationwide by British Transport Police using s 44: 160,000
Number of people stopped in London by the Metropolitan Police using s. 44: 200,000
Number of people amongst the 360,000 stopped under s. 44 and found to have any terrorist material or links: 0"

Draw your own conclusions.

Picture this...

2009-02-05T09:44:00.003Z

If there was any doubt remaining that our civil liberties are under threat from Jacqui/Jacqboot Smith, the BJP has this report:

"Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the
Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of
armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members
of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police
officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking
pictures in public places."

Now, I can sort of understand taking pictures of military installations, but of a policeman, or a civil servant? It's patently ridiculous, and is potentially far reaching law that will be wide open to abuse. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile. I thnk you'll agree that "...a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism..." is pretty woolly language and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I bet HMtQ (Her Majesty the Queen, in case you've not seen that one before) will be very pleased that all those louts taking photographs of the guards at Buckingham can now all be arrested and kept at her pleasure for the next ten years. Sound crazy? Not really, she's a pretty good terrorist target. Could be a potential suicide bomber planning his attack and taking photos to figure out a way past the guards. Who knows?

This is the kind of authoritarian law you expect in a banana republic or dictatorship, not in the 'free' world, in the oldest democracy in the world. We should be free to take pictures - and journalists especially - of the police, in action or not, if for no other reason than we must be able to hold them to account.

What is lacking here is any sign of principles. It's like the fuckwits who say: "Oh, I don't mind all the extra checks at the airport, because it's for my own safety." No it fucking isn't; it primes you for further abuses of your liberty. What makes an aircraft so special? You could carry a liquid bomb onto a commuter train to far greater effect, and I don't see security checks at the train station in the morning. What happened to trust? Innocent until proven guilty? This is guilty until proven innocent, and that is incongruous with the spirit of liberty, law and democracy.

We need our leaders to stand up for the principles of liberty and say: "Yes, there is a risk that a photo could be used in a terrorist act, but we cannot and must not erode the freedoms of the people, lest we become what that against which we fight." Okay, so I'm being a bit verbose there, but I think you get the idea. The price of freedom is that sometimes people will abuse that freedom. The law is there to ensure that when people do, they are punished. This law is wrong because it assumes guilt until proven otherwise.

Calling them ZanuLab has never been more appropriate.

Hat tip to DK and Bearwatch.

Canuckleheads?

2009-02-04T09:12:00.002Z

The Conservatives certainly have no shortage of ammunition to fire at New Labour - they've manifestly failed to deliver on education (a key pledge way back in 1997), stuck a broken bottle up the backside of the national economy by spending like an old dame in a casino, given even more of our sovereignty away to the EUSSR than I care to think about, increased Government spending beyond sustainable levels and inflated the public sector into a gargantuan mess. To name but a few.

Still, their latest billboard does raise a question - have they got something against Canadians, or do they have a rep for bad maths that I just don't know about?

Propellorheads feat. Dame Shirley Bassey

2009-02-03T14:58:00.001Z

Snow.

Strikes.

Labour Government.

Recession.

It’s all just a little bit of history repeating... *cue Shirley Bassey*

Protecting your own

2009-02-03T14:18:00.003Z

Barely did his feet settle under the table of the Oval Office than Barack Obama has had the EU hounding at his door. As much as I may despair at the bureaucracy in Brussels, when it comes to making statements about free markets and trade, the EU is usually on the money.

The ‘Buy American’ policy the USA is proposing in their massive recovery package seems to be attracting a lot of fire, and echoes with our current ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ palaver. It’s not just the EU - the Canadians are antsy about it too, along with the best part of the participants at Davos. America In the World have suggested that 70% of Britons will be less favourable to Obama if he implements a protectionist policy; we Brits have good reason for feeling that way. America is a world leader, promoter of capitalism and up ‘til now, a shining example of the free market (at least on the surface). If anything, America needs to be defending those principles and seeking to restore our faith.

The critics are dead right. A protectionist policy would do more to harm the US and slow the global recovery than it would protect American jobs. Sure, in the short term it might sound like a great idea, but free trade works on the principle of swings and roundabouts – you may lose on one thing but you gain on the other. It forces companies and entrepreneurs to be better than their competitors if they want to succeed. Protectionist leads to ‘jobs for the boys’ and suffocates competition, which in turn stifles innovation, so on and so forth.

It’s a crowd pleasing idea that makes it sound like you’re standing up for the masses, when the reality is that in the long-run, you’re going to make things worse for them.

Sourcing from local suppliers isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and you may have ample justification for doing so, but it needs to be on sound economic terms and you need to encourage competition for that business.

I’m pretty sure I heard rumblings about this even before the ballot boxes in the US had closed. Obama is playing a populist card with his stimulus package, and I wonder if he’s getting a bit too caught up in playing to his electorate rather than doing what is best for them in the long run. The global effect is likely to be marked as well, and it sets an awful example for other nations. Tit will inevitably follow tat, and governments would end up subsidising local businesses and products produced nationally. This would be an utter disaster for the global economy.

The US has a massive budget deficit inherited from the previous administration and it has to deal with this. Any incoming government in the UK is going to have the same problem, but the US has an advantage we lack – it is a major exporter. Protectionism isn’t the answer – John Redwood nails it when he says that borrowing less and exporting more is.

Of course, given that about the only thing we export these days is Whisky, I’m not sure how we’re going to solve that particular problem any time soon.

Maybe we can just get the rest of the world drunk?

Sunday Indy Echoes of the Revolution

2009-02-02T15:27:00.002Z

Just recalled the headline on yesterday's Independent on Sunday - "You can go and work in Europe, Mandelson tells strikers."

Anyone else think that sounds a lot like "Then let them eat cake"?

For the record, I actually agree with him. The whole point of a free market - and indeed the single market - is to ensure that provided you have the skills for the jobs, you can work anywhere there is an opportunity. In this case, the strikers may have a point - it seems very unusual in a project for all the labour to be sourced abroad, at least unskilled elements are usually sourced locally. While I don't think they're right to strike, I do think they deserve an answer. That Total have remained silent on this concerns me.

That aside, you can't say "British jobs for British workers", because that's discriminatory. What would be better said is "British jobs for the best skills". Now if the best skills aren't British, we really need to ask why. Maybe something to do with all those people who were sat on benefits instead of the Government spending the time and effort training them over the last ten years. Not that they're blameless, but the Government has helped to create this welfare culture, and in that they are culpable. For all their 'Education, education, education' spiel, New Labour have utterly failed to deliver.

Relax, there's probably no recession

2009-02-02T14:29:00.003Z

Devil's Kitchen has found the single most hilarious widget I've seen all day.

Check it out here.

Have a play, see what you can come up with... it's not like we're going to be short of ammunition.

Political Spectrometer Analysis. Sounds like something out of Star Trek...

2009-02-01T17:05:00.005Z

Saw this little quiz over on Tory Bear, and decided to give it a pop. Looks like I'm a right social libertarian... I can live with that.

My Political Views
I am a right social libertarian
Right: 4.85, Libertarian: 6.46

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: 3.46

My Culture War Stance
Score: -5.16

Didn't expect to be quite such a neo-con, but hey, there you go!

Have a go here if you're a bit bored.

Jonah the destroyer of hope

2009-01-30T15:29:00.003Z

A study from the Spectator Coffee House shows the predicted effect on GDP and employment figures over the next five years as a result of his economic 'stimulus' package based on the PBR, courtesy of Oxford Economics. Follow the link to see just how short-term Brown's thinking has become, and then pray for an election.

Fuck's sake...

Not quite so idyllic...

2009-01-30T11:08:00.004Z

The maddening lunacy of students who get on a bandwagon for a ‘cause’ almost always ends in some poor sap having to deal with the fallout. In the wake of Israel’s targeted action against Hamas in Gaza, the student fury over the Eden Springs water contract has roused itself from the doldrums where it belonged.

Basically, Eden Springs UK are a subsidiary of Danone Springs of Eden, a leading water supplier in Europe. No problem so far. The complication comes here: Mayanot Eden Ltd. is an Israeli mineral water producer which operates in Europe under the Eden Springs brand. It extracts water from the Golan Heights in Israel, and this is where Palestinian Solidarity groups have taken offence. Mayanot, they claim, oppress the Palestinians and steal their water, as the Golan Heights were illegally annexed. It’s the old ‘Israel the Villain’ argument, and guess what, it’s EUSA and the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Society who are peddling it.

Some students are really good at causes. They do their research, look at all angles of an argument, reason out the good from the ill and make their stand accordingly. Others, and probably most, jump on the nearest bandwagon for the nearest underdog and shout as loud as they can, whether or not their case actually has any validity.

Which brings me to this case: Eden Springs UK does not supply you with water from the Golan Heights. Their parent company is majority owned by Group Danone with a 58% stake, not Mayanot. If you really want to dig into it, Eden Springs UK is held by Danone Springs of Eden BV (a Dutch company) which is ultimately owned by Danone SA – a French company. None of these companies have been charged or convicted of a criminal offence. Eden Springs UK are in fact a Scottish operated group – so all that EUSA/SPSS are doing is promoting the boycott of a Scottish company. Well done there!

So the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son. In this case, whether any sin has been committed at all is a matter of perspective, but let’s leave that out of it. The Golan Heights have been Israeli territory since 1981. Why penalise a UK holding of a French company for something that one of the partner organisations may or may not have done wrong?

While this has been bubbling along for a while, the Gaza conflict has once again brought it to the fore. The result of the renewed interest has been that a lot of University contract teams are under pressure from students to cancel the contract. Legally, they are under no obligation to do so, as you must have an actual, valid reason to cancel a contract. In this case, a bunch of students in a tizzy does not constitute a valid reason. Criminal conviction, breach of contract, failure to supply and so on – those would be good reasons to review the contract. If there are break clauses they may be able to exploit these, but they’d really have to ask why the heck they’d want to rather than tell the students to go forth and multiply.

Epic Government Fail

2009-01-29T12:06:00.004Z

A friend of mine e-mailed me this picture this morning, raising a weary smile to my face...

So true.

So very, very true.

Unelected, unable to admit his mistakes, and let's face it, generally unappealing.

Iain Martin at the Telegraph has a good measure of the man's current state of mind. This is the man leading our country. We should all be very afraid...

EU Procurement law Vs. My taxes.

2009-01-27T12:20:00.004Z

I received today an e-mail inviting me to attend a seminar on EU Procurement law. There have been rather a lot of seminars on this subject lately, but this one was going for an attention-grabber:

“The EU procurement rules are fraught with difficulty.

You are required to navigate between the black letter of the law and the commercial reality of putting together a procurement.

To manage the risk effectively you need rock-solid advice on what you can and can't do.”

It went on to list a number of the hurdles and complicated rules that can make a public sector contracting exercise something of a minefield, from when you can and cannot speak to suppliers during the process, when a framework is anti-competitive and thus non-compliant, and so on and so forth.

Normally these things get the ‘delete’ treatment without any further ado; however this framed the problem faced by contracts teams within the Public Sector very succinctly. Basically, there are so many pitfalls, red tape and ridiculous levels of bureaucracy designed at making the process as ‘fair’, ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘non-discriminatory’, etc, etc. as possible that it becomes an uphill struggle before you even get started.

I’m not saying that any of these goals are a bad thing. On the contrary, they are wonderful principles of a free market. Public money should be accountable, and we should not be awarding the contract to someone who isn’t going to offer the best value for money.

It’s also fucking difficult to argue against the rules. They make irritating sense to a free-marketeer. If followed, they stop protectionist policies and are intended to prevent sharp practice, all good things. In fact, you can’t even say that a public body should be able to spend its money in the local economy, because the whole point of the rules is that the best response to your tender will win the business.

In other words, if local suppliers want to win the business, then they need to up their game and improve. It also means that there should be no barrier to those local suppliers winning business elsewhere in Europe, if they decide to do so. Great, in theory.

So, does that mean I’m happy that my tax money is going to line a German, or Spanish company’s offers? Well the flipside is that their tax money could well be lining those of a British company, so you could argue that it will all come out in the wash.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that the spirit of the EU Procurement rules is something I agree with. My issue is more whether or not the sheer cost of implementing the laws, enforcing them, and even writing the damned things is actually delivering us any value for money, or if in fact is costing governments – and therefore you and me as the taxpayer – a huge amount of money that could be better off back in my pocket.

It also means that the UK Government can’t say to contracting authorities (basically a body spending public cash) that they should source locally and support the British economy. It has no say over where that public money will end up. Of course I should be happy that the most economically advantageous tender will win, therefore saving the taxpayer money. It’s very easy to end up in a circular argument on this.

When the House of Commons commissioned the construction of new offices for MPs, what was to become Portcullis House, the contract for the windows went to a British firm. The problem was that a French-owned firm, Harmon, had submitted the most economically advantageous bid. Someone at the House had decided we should buy British. Harmon challenged this under a breach of the EU Procurement rules and were awarded damages in court for £1.85m. There were other aspects they could also sue for, however the House of Commons settled out of court for an unspecified fee. So the taxpayer paid for the windows twice over, maybe more. Now, can you spell colossal waste of my fucking money?

Fine, you say, live within the rules. I question not the spirit of the rules, let me re-iterate that. What I do believe in is choice. The same choice afforded to the private sector, which has far more freedom to make decisions on where it spends its money. What I question is why that accountability seems to lie with Europe, and not with the UK taxpayer. Why the fuck are some overpaid bunch of bureaucrats allowed to tell our public sector that it can’t support local businesses if it chooses to do so? It may not be the right choice, but the point is that the public sector in the UK should be responsible to the UK taxpayer, not to fucking eurocrats.

I fail to see why we need another layer of bureaucracy on top of our own, trying to tell us what we can and can’t do – private or public sector. Big government is not a good thing. More big government above a big government is worse. We have enough crap from our own politicians, we really don’t need to be subsidising eurocrats as well, and we really don’t need more layers of red tape, processes and procedures that cost the taxpayer even more money.

Editorial row? I'll wiki it.

2009-01-26T16:12:00.002Z

I’m sorry, but why in the name of fornication is this news? My BBC RSS feed has just informed me that Wikipedia is engulfed by an editorial row.

Engulfed. What an interesting word to use. Yes, I can see it now, swept asunder by editorial fury, drowned like Atlantis under the torrents of their rage...

The story goes that the unmoderated editing of Wikipedia entries is being reviewed after a number of wags changed certain pages – in this case those of Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy – to suggest the subjects in question were no longer amongst the living. This isn’t new, it has happened before. Lore has it that the Microsoft entry has on a number of occasions been edited humorously to be less than complimentary about dear old Bill.

The part of this I’m missing is why this matters. A group of people passionate about their product are reviewing one of the core principles on which their vision was founded. I would be much more surprised if there was laconic agreement to such a big shift. Of course there will be arguments and raised voices. Those who believe in a free interweb and information sharing tend to be evangelists for their principle, and if some amongst them are questioning that, the discussion is likely to be heated.

For what it’s worth, I would urge a little backbone amongst the doubters. Whilst Wikipedia has grown to be a respected and trustworthy source of information (due to what I like to think of as the Law of Anal Retentives), it has done so without official moderation. The truth generally outs. The principle of Wikipedia as being the encyclopaedic equivalent of open-source software should not be threatened simply because there are some irresponsible people out there who decided to have a bit of a chuckle.

My word to the editorial team: leave it as it is. It works, and don’t let the minority spoil something you have every right to be very proud of. Even if your founder does think it's okay to wear a kimono.

The boy who lied

2009-01-26T13:27:00.003Z

I heartily apologise for the total lack of blogging for the last week or so. My bad, etc.

So, quick recap - Obama got sworn in, Gordy B immediately tried to pin himself to the reflected glory, RBS became even more nationalised than it was already (oh, how the mighty have fallen) and I got thoroughly 'refreshed' at a Burns Dinner one night early. Because having Burns night on a Sunday - and therefore a school night - is just silly.

Anyway, on the notice board at work a co-worker had posted a piece of poetry singing the praises of GB for nationalising RBS in the name of every Scot, thus saving the world. This irritated me on a number of levels, not the least because it involved nationalising, a distinct lack of economic understanding, and because it smacked of nationalism. I therefore spent fifteen minutes of my lunchtime coming up with a suitably withering response, got a bit bored, and came up with this.

The Boy Who Lied
by teh basementcat

Economy in meltdown,
A currency in decline,
A leader who is frightful,
And apparently quite blind.

While mortgaging our future,
Haemorrhaging our cash,
He seems to think we’ll let him,
Spend our money like a rash.

The solution isn’t working,
Simply spending will not save,
When grassroots change is needed,
This man is just not brave.

He will not trust the public,
He curtails our liberty,
He wants their private data,
But he’ll lose it as you’ll see.

A rigid style of leading,
He bullies all his peers,
Decries opponents as ‘do nothing’,
When they are what he fears.

He claimed an end to boom-and-bust,
That he brought a golden age,
While flush he failed to fix the roof,
He’s clearly no great sage.

His work is self protection,
Delusion is his game,
Our fault to perpetrate it,
But, oh, what is his name?

His touch is not like Midas,
This misguided lying clown,
He curses all he touches,
His name is Jonah Brown.

Okay, so it's hardly Whitbred Prize-winning stuff, but it was a suitable outlet for my irritation.

Eurobarometer swings...

2009-01-16T09:34:00.003Z

... Exactly where you'd expect it to, actually.

Just to crunch the numbers for you:

14% of UK residents questioned were aware that European elections will be held in 2009.
34% of UK residents questioned are even interested in said elections.
64% are not.
18 % of us 'would definitely vote'
28% of Brits have recently heard/seen something about the European Parliament on TV/Internet/Newspaper (the lowest of all members polled).
19% of us think we're well informed about European Parliament.

Oh, and apparently we have a European Anthem.

Anyway, the upshot of this would seem to suggest that the UK at large doesn't have much interest in Europe. The Czech seem to have noticed this.

To quote DK: "Can we leave yet?"

Hat tip to The Croydonian.

Making a big splash

2009-01-16T09:21:00.004Z

Now that's what I call Plane Sailing.

Smoke and mirrors. And Sat-Navs, nannies, mortgages...

2009-01-16T08:31:00.002Z

Mr Eugenides has cross-posted on DK about a little smoke-and-mirrors at Westminster - namely, that the much awaited 'review' of MPs expenses, in a severely watered down format, was conveniently announced (without much ado) on the same day as the Heathrow runway debacle. John McDonnell's little performance served as a nice little headline grabber to draw attention to the fact that very little has changed.

The Times has the run-down here.

Independent has some independent thinking...

2009-01-13T11:03:00.003Z

Two very good articles on the Indy website today - one pointing out the spinelessness of politicians in their response to 'pakigate', the other a witty submission to the credit crisis and delusion of Flash Gordon's economic policy. Worth a read.

LabourList

2009-01-12T16:05:00.006Z

With the launch of LabourList, the left-wing blogosphere hopes to find its answer to the successful and much lauded ConservativeHome. Guido, Dizzy, DK, ConHome and many more of the right-wing bloggers have already taken the time to offer their advice, support and comments/criticisms in what has generally appeared a magnanimous display. I won't add to what they have said, but I did take the time to have a look at some of the entries, and the first blog by Peter Mandelson was too hard to resist.

He happens to mention that:

"I have blogged before, when I was a European Commissioner at the WTO Doha Ministerial
meeting in Geneva last July, and I enjoyed it. But in this, my first UK political blog, I want to say something about how we get our message out in these modern times."

Yes indeed, I'm sure you do Peter. Modern times indeed...

Of course, one wag couldn't resist that bait, which rather proved the case in point (emphasis added by me):

"Your claims to have blogged before and enjoyed it are a little inflated, surely? The realm of the blog, unlike simply having an article published in a newspaper, is that it is interactive. To do it right you need to engage with those who comment, and to be willing to support your initial argument or statements when they are questioned. I look forward to this, but suspect there's more chance of photographing pigs flying in formation.
The Ranting Penguin @ 8:01 am, Mon 12th Jan 2009

You couldn't be more wrong "Mr. Ranting Penguin"? I am enjoying reading the comments and once I have attended the government's job summit this morning I will be responding to them, even from those people with rather odd names...

Peter Mandelson @ 8:13 am, Mon 12th Jan 2009"

Are you sure you've blogged before, Mandy?

PC Brigade Strikes Again

2009-01-11T16:28:00.002Z

The sad thing about public life is that all it takes is for one little comment to be taken out of context, and before you know it, the PC Brigade are jumping all over you demanding an apology.

My comments somehow failed to make it on to the BBC website, but it looks like my opinion was mirrored by a good many others who made their voices heard.

On one hand, I can understand how an outsider might see Harry referring to a colleague as a 'paki' could be taken as racist, except that would mean by extention that calling him a 'brit' would also be offensive. I appreciate that the word has connotations, but who gave it that connotation? Isn't not using it perpetuating the negative connotation? I mean, the gay community reclaimed gay, why can't the pakistani community reclaim 'paki'?

In context, it was more than likely being used as a nickname - call a spade a spade, right? As for raghead... well our troops are being expected to go off and shoot Afghan terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Shooting is fine, calling them names is not, clearly.

Now if Harry meant it offensively or was bullying the lad, then I could understand the issue, however, I don't believe that in this instance he was. It's another example of the PC brigade jumping on an opportunity to get wound up over nothing and for the media to whip up a little frenzy.

Get. Over. It... and leave the poor lad alone.