Police try and intimidate the House of Commons (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The Lib Dems have called shadow immigration minister Damian Green's arrest a "mayday warning" for democracy amid cross-party anger over the move.
Mr Green was arrested, held for nine hours and had his two homes and offices searched by police investigating alleged leaks from the Home Office.
Tory leader David Cameron called the police operation "alarming" and said the government had questions to answer.
But the Home Office said ministers were not informed until after the arrest.
...
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told the BBC that he was "really shocked" by Mr Green's arrest.
...
"This is something you might expect from a tin-pot dictatorship, not in a modern democracy," he said.Given the culture of "extraordinary secrecy" in Whitehall, it was getting harder to hold the government to account and opposition MPs had a constitutional duty to keep "ministers on their toes", he added.
He called on Gordon Brown to "rule out any further use of anti-terrorism powers in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism," although the Metropolitan Police stressed the arrest was made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and not anti-terror legislation.
The Met said some counter-terrorism officers were involved because they were the most "appropriate" to carry out such an operation.
But David Cameron attacked the "heavy-handed" way in which it took nine officers to make the arrest and search the premises.
For once Nick Clegg is correct. He just forgot to mention the phrase "police state". It is unbelievable that the police have acted in this way, and using counter-terrorism officers as well. Was this a final despicable act by Ian Blair? Or are there lots of other rogue elements inside the police force or elsewhere? Whatever, hopefully heads will roll over this one. Britain should not be allowed to become a country where the police can arrest someone for political reasons. The really interesting question is whether Gordon Brown or Peter Mandleson were involved. It's hard to believe they would be so stupid, but if so, the government is toast.
Religious leaders say everyone else should cut their carbon emissions (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Leaders from the world's religious traditions have signed a manifesto urging tough action on climate change.
Around 1,000 delegates are meeting at the Interfaith Climate Summit in Uppsala, Sweden, at the invitation of the Swedish church.
The manifesto, signed by 30 religious leaders, calls for "rapid and large emission cuts in the rich world".
It argues in favour of a reduction in carbon emissions of at least 40% by the year 2020.
Another example of "do as I say, not as I do". They probably could have cut their own emissions for 2008 by 10% by not flying across the world to attend this meeting. It's not as if they even have an excuse to attend this meeting, since they have zero scientific expertise. Of course we expect religious leaders to be utter hypocrites.
Should cabinet's Iraq war decision records be released? (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Releasing records of the cabinet's Iraq war meetings would do "serious harm" to war planning, says a government lawyer.
Cabinet Office counsel Jonathan Swift told a tribunal that minutes from March 2003 should be kept secret or ministers may become "more cautious" in cabinet.
But the Information Commissioner argued in favour of the minutes' release.
He said they were "highly material" to whether legal advice on the eve of war had been properly considered. A decision is expected in January.
Addressing the final day of a three-day Information Tribunal hearing in south London, the Cabinet Office's counsel Jonathan Swift appealed for minutes from cabinet meetings on 13 March and 17 March 2003 not to be disclosed to the public.
The two meetings were the only two full cabinet discussions on the then Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith's advice that it was legal to go to war in Iraq.
The cabinet took the decision to go to war at the 17 March meeting, a day before the parliamentary debate took place and three days before British troops were in action in Iraq.
Mr Swift told the hearing that the issue of disclosure was one of "substance" and referred to "knowledge of who said what and who said how much about what on what occasion".
He believed more than adequate public scrutiny had been afforded to the issue and outlined the damage he thought disclosure would bring.
On the one hand it is a bit ridiculous releasing these records so quickly. Thatcher's decisions about the Falklands have received no such airing. On the other hand, Blair was clearly up to no good and was going to go to war whether or not anyone deemed it to be illegal. So this decision in particular needs some scrutiny, if only because it might deter future cabinets from making such blatantly dishonest decisions against the public interest.
People of the world allegedly want to make sacrifices because of climate change (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
An opinion poll in 11 countries has produced what organisers term a "global mandate" for action on climate change.
About half of the respondents wanted governments to play a major role in curbing emissions, but only a quarter said their leaders were doing enough.
In developing countries, a majority of people were prepared to make "lifestyle changes" to reduce climate change.
The survey was commissioned by the HSBC Climate Partnership, which includes business and environmental groups.
Lord Nicholas Stern, who led the 2006 Stern Review into the economics of climate change and now works as a special advisor to the HSBC partnership, said this amounted to a global mandate for stronger action.
"It does show that people in the world expect their governments to take strong action as as matter of responsibility, and hope they will work with other governments to take action," he told BBC News.
"It is not a story which says 'I will do something only if others do'."
There are many problems with this survey. First of all, you can get any result you want from a survey by slanting the questions. Indeed, hardly any surveys of this sort do not suffer from this kind of bias.
Secondly, the so-called HSBC Climate Partnership is a front for four so-called environmental organisations: Climate Group, Earthwatch, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and WWF, who have somehow convinced HSBC to throw 100 million dollars at them. These organisations just happen to like the results of the opinion poll, or at least the bits they have released. It is always suspicious when the results of a survey just happen to back the policies of the organisation that funds the survey (leading back to the first point, that the survey was probably biased).
And on the HSBC Climate Partnership website there is no detailed information to support this survey, indeed, the survey is not even mentioned (but the website is rather shallow). So we do not know what the survey questions were, and we do not have the detailed results so that we can filter them independently of the HSBC Climate Partnership bias.
Even if the survey was unbiased, and even if the results published by the BBC happen to accurately reflect the entire results, and not just represent a cherry-picked corner, the results would still be fairly meaningless. People are always happy to claim to third parties that they are greatly concerned about the world. Meanwhile back in the real world that is not the case.And on that point, what Stern is reported to have said is particularly laughable. It is not a story which says anything in particular. It certainly does not say that "I will do something even if others do not", which is what Stern is bizarrely claiming. And has Stern himself decided to "do something even if others do not"? Somehow one doubts it. No doubt he still flies all over the world at a moment's notice. No doubt he still lives in an expensive house (or two or three or four). No doubt he still commands a huge salary and/or pension. Stern consumes far more than the average British citizen, never mind the average citizen of the world. Stern, and people like him, are a big part of the problem. Let him unilaterally reduce his wealth to that of an average citizen before he expects ordinary people to "make lifestyle changes".
It is quite amazing that the BBC can publish a story like this with a straight face.
BBC claims that British people are keen to have "pay-as-you-throw" (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Controversial pay-as-you-throw schemes could be an acceptable answer to Britain's 15 million tonne mountain of household waste according to a survey for BBC News.
From January English councils will be able to bid for pilot schemes to incentivise people for recycling more and deter them from throwing stuff away.
Previous pay-as-you-throw pilots were abandoned, but the survey showed 79% of women and 70% of men saying they should be rewarded financially if they create less waste and recycle more.
A much narrower majority - 55% of women and 50% of men - said it was only fair they should pay more if they throw away more.
The poll of 1,000 people by NOP offers some encouragement to the British government, which is encouraging councillors to try pay-as-you-throw pilots. Europe is running out of landfill sites and all nations face targets to increase the amount they recycle into new materials.
Needless to say, you can get any answer you want in a survey, just by posing questions in a certain way. The BBC has not released the questions asked in the survey, not to mention the full data set, so there is no way to see if there is any bias in the way the survey was conducted or analysed. Further, what people say in a survey like this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Surprise, people will tell interviewers that they are good citizens. (It's just everyone else who is not.)
And the real problem with this article is that the BBC, like most of the academic middle class, is convinced that landfill is somehow inherently evil, and recycling is somehow inherently holy. Neither statement is correct. All waste disposal, whether by landfill or recycling or incineration, comes at a cost. So all waste should carry a cost. Whether it is sensible (i.e. practical) to do "pay-as-you-throw" instead of a fixed charge as now is another question. The BBC didn't bother to investigate that either, instead sticking with the usual simplistic academic middle class view of the world.
Supermarkets bow and scrape to MPs about plastic bag use (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Four of the UK's leading supermarkets say they are confident that by next Easter they will have halved the number of plastic bags handed to customers.
They were speaking after Waitrose and Asda told MPs they had already achieved 30% cuts by moving bags under counters so shoppers had to ask for them.
Supermarkets agreed to voluntary annual 25% cuts in bag use last year - heading off the option of plastic bag charges.
UK retailers hand out an estimated 13 billion free plastic bags every year.
Use of the bags, which take about 1,000 years to decay, is being examined as part of an inquiry by the Commons environment and rural affairs select committee into waste management in England.
It's amazing how hysterical the academic middle class are about plastic bags. So they have used emotional blackmail, with the threat of worse, in order to browbeat the supermarkets into curtailing plastic bag use. And by making it hard for customers to get hold of plastic bags, surprise the usage has gone down. But plastic bags are not even close to being the number one environmental problem in supermarkets. Top of that list must be the crazy amount of energy that is used because chilling units are kept open to the air. But nobody ever mentions that for some bizarre reason.
And this alleged "1000 years to decay" is just one of the many arbitrary figures that the anti-plastic-bag brigade throw around. But most modern plastic bags pretty much dissolve into dust within a decade or two, in normal conditions. Of course when buried in the ground, plastic bags, like a lot of rubbish (e.g. paper), doesn't decay very quickly. This is hardly an alarming fact.
Gordon Brown creates a huge financial black hole (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Chancellor Alistair Darling has cut VAT but taken borrowing to record levels in moves he says are needed to save the UK from a deep and long-lasting recession.
Top earners also face more tax and all National Insurance contributions will rise, he said in his pre-Budget report.
Alcohol, tobacco and petrol duty rises to offset the 17.5% to 15% VAT cut.
Mr Darling said "exceptional measures" were needed with the economy set to shrink next year - but the Tories said he had "mortgaged" Britain's future.
Shadow chancellor George Osborne, for the Conservatives, accused Mr Darling of "bringing this country to the verge of bankruptcy" by doubling the national debt, which is set to reach £118bn next year.
For once the Tories are correct. This is a staggering amount of debt. The debt to GDP ratio will increase from around 40% to around 60%. And the country will have very little to show for it, because the government is not increasing spending.
The main changes from the previous budget are as follows, summed over the four financial years 2008-2012. All figures are in billions of pounds, with negative numbers meaning the the government financial position is worse.
What is most important is that those changes are all to do with taxation, and nothing to do with spending. They have moved 3.8 billion pounds of spending from 2010-2011 to 2008-2010. But that is it. One consequence is that the next (most likely Tory) government is being asked to cut spending (possibly in its first year) even before it takes office.
Obviously the VAT change is the big gamble. First of all, many companies might not pass the savings onto their customers. Well, it means that companies would be more profitable, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But even if the savings are passed on, it's not clear that consumers will spend any of this money (or that from the tax changes) rather than just saving it. The real problem is that the UK (consumers, as well as the government) has too much debt, and consumers wisely might decide to try and reduce their debt a bit, rather than partake in more spending. Especially given that the threat of unemployment is there for everyone and anyone (except for the usual legion of jobs-for-life-no-matter-how-useless civil servants).
And the income tax and national insurance changes shown above mask a redistribution from the rich to the poor. So the government thinks it can soak the rich (so anyone who earns over 100k) to the tune of an extra 2.8 billion pounds over the four years. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. People who earn that much have accountants, and accountants are good at minimising tax.
Another consultancy produces another unoriginal anti-car and anti-aviation report (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
UK transport emissions could be cut by a quarter by 2020 if the government shifted its policies, a report claims.
The Campaign for Better Transport study urges ministers to focus on the biggest possible savings - by tackling lorries, vans, and long-distance commuters.
It also proposes an extra tax on air passengers, with proceeds redistributed among the entire population.
The government says it is moving freight off roads, and helping people make greener local travel choices.
The report says that by 2020, the government could achieve emissions cuts of 26% on 2006 figures.
This is broken down as:
However, the report says government attempts to make people who drive children to school feel bad about causing climate change have been misdirected.
- Reductions in passenger travel emissions of 32%
- Freight emissions reduced by up to 19%
- Cars 25% more fuel efficient
- Car traffic reduced by 15%
- Domestic aviation emissions down 30%
Using the government's own figures, it shows that the school run accounts for just 4% of the UK's passenger-transport carbon emissions.
Another terrible BBC article, which just reads like a press release for the so-called Campaign for Better Transport, one of the zillions of special interest pressure groups which plague the nation. Like most such special interest pressure groups, the name is misleading. In the same way that Transport 2000 should be called Transport 1950, here the Campaign for Better Transport should be called the Campaign for Worse Transport, or more fully, the Campaign that Hates Cars and Planes. But of course they are not unique in that respect, since most of the academic middle class, including most BBC journalists, hate cars and planes (except for their own use, of course, since they are important). It is not very surprising that articles like this pass muster on the BBC website.
It's quite touching that the report tells us not to worry about the school run, which accounts for "just 4%" of passenger-transport emissions. Yet we are supposed to get hysterical about domestic aviation, which accounts for about the same percentage. And of course you can slice the pie any way you want, and if you introduce enough categories, then nothing accounts for a great percentage of anything. And in the case at hand, domestic aviation serves some purpose. The school run serves no purpose. It would be far better for everyone if kids got to school by their own means (e.g. walking, cycling or by bus), just like in the "good old days". That would be an instant 4% savings on passenger-transport emissions, which is nothing to snear at.
And the problem that all of these kinds of anti-car and anti-aviation reports have is that driving is the only economic activity in the country which already pays completely (indeed, vastly over-pays) for its actual and environmental costs. And aviation is not far behind. It is train passengers, in particular London commuters, who have successfully externalised a huge chunk of cost onto the rest of society. And these reports always say (as this one does) that that subsidy should be increased even more. What a "sustainable" lifestyle that is.
In the case of cars, the report offers the usual panoply of academic middle class ideas. So they want to limit car parking in new developments, which works ok in academic middle class developments like BedZed (in south London), but meanwhile back in the real world most people want to have a car. Of course the academic middle class thinks that it knows best how people should get from A to B.
And they want a "slow down in road and runway capacity increases". Well this is a bit of a joke. The roads in Britain are barely fit for life in 1980, never mind life in 2008, and hardly any capacity is being added. And hardly any runway capacity has been added in decades (although perhaps by some miracle the extra runways at Heathrow and Stansted will eventually get built).
Of course the report does mention some carbon emission savings that are not just blatantly anti-car and anti-aviation. For example, cars will get more efficient (surprise) and "active traffic management" might make traffic flow better (although the example on the M25 stretch near Heathrow doesn't seem to work very well).
All in all this report, even in the few bits that make sense, has nothing original or innovative to say to the people of Britain.
UK politicians all want to cut taxes (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The Conservatives are dropping their pledge to match Labour's spending plans for 2010/11, leader David Cameron says.
The Tories had promised to match the totals for Labour's spending plans from 2008 to 2011 - subject to a review in 2009 of the 2010/11 spending total.
But Mr Cameron said he wanted to create a "low-tax, low-debt economy" and called on Gordon Brown to "deal with the situation he has given us".
Labour accused the Tories of "turning their back" on people needing help now.
Chancellor Alistair Darling said Mr Cameron was out of step with the rest of the world, with other nations also planning to pump money into their economies in a "fiscal stimulus" aimed at staving off a slump.
...
He said: "We need to be more efficient and we will be more efficient. We are already exceeding the targets we set ourselves for government spending, in making ourselves more efficient and cutting back on waste.
It is hard to know which side is more foolish. Gordon Brown seems intent on completely bankrupting the country on the off chance that enough people will be seduced by his throwing money at them that he will win the next election. In the midst of a deep recession what we really need is government spending (done wisely, which is not easy for this government in particular). We do not need tax cuts. So what the Tories are proposing is not really much better. Unfortunately Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems all seem keen on tax cuts. The Tories are at least correct that tax cuts now mean tax rises later, unless expenditure is slashed to match. But expenditure should not be slashed.
RSPB complains about killing of birds of prey in Scotland (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The number of birds of prey killed illegally in Scotland is "deeply troubling", a conservation group has said.
Crimes against the birds remain at "worryingly high" levels, according to the latest report from RSPB Scotland.
It comes days after it emerged that a white-tailed eagle was found poisoned near the Glenogil estate in Angus in May.
The charity said such crimes were damaging Scotland's raptor populations.
The Birds of Prey Persecution 2007 study showed that crimes against the birds had dropped since the previous year but remained high.
There were 69 allegations or reports of poisoning in 2007, compared with 98 in 2006.
Of these, 37 were confirmed as pesticide or poison abuse killing or threatening raptors, down on 42 the year before.
It was the worst year on record for red kite poisoning, with 12 birds dying.
...
Many of the raptors are killed by people trying to protect grouse populations on country estates, who perceive the birds as a threat.
The figures have dropped (perhaps that is just a stastical fluctuation) but the RSPB still has to send out an alarmist press release, which the BBC obligingly prints. And the figures do not seem particularly "worryingly high", but pretty much anything that happens to birds is considered "troubling" by the RSPB, because they are concerned more about birds than about people. And of course although the academic middle class people that make up the RSPB see benefit in having these birds around, it is equally obvious that estate owners might well "perceive the birds as a threat". Is the RSPB willing to compensate these owners for losses?
So-called green taxes just being used as another stealth tax (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The UK Government is to auction carbon emissions permits to power firms in a sale projected to raise between 1.5 and 2bn euros over the next 5 years.
The Treasury is being warned that if it keeps the money, it risks fuelling public cynicism about green taxes.
A coalition of green groups and business leaders is demanding proceeds fund a green energy revolution.
In the first phase of the ETS, power firms were given most of the carbon permits they requested free of charge.
This was done in order to facilitate the carbon market.
If firms overshot their carbon allowance, they had to buy extra carbon permits from the market, in turn determining the EU price of carbon.
But many energy firms outsmarted politicians by acting as though they had been forced to buy all their permits, and then passing the cost on to electricity users.
This brought an increase in energy prices - and a huge windfall to the energy sector, which it said would be needed to invest in clean energy supplies. From this month, the windfall should be over in the UK, as the firms will have to buy 30% of their carbon permits - equivalent to the Treasury's estimate of the previous windfall.
The European Commission had hoped that proceeds from carbon auctioning would underwrite the vaunted transition to a low-carbon economy in Europe. The Netherlands, for instance, is using the revenue to shield low-volume energy consumers against the rise in electricity prices.
But the UK led a revolt against the Commission's plan and refuses to ring-fence the carbon dividend. A government spokesman said: "We are committed to reducing carbon emissions as our climate change legislation proves, but we do not hypothecate [specify the intended use of] revenues."
The Treasury is particularly nervous about the future of green taxation revenues because as cars become much more energy-efficient it will suffer a big drop in fuel taxes.
Surprise, "green" taxes are just a cynical ploy by government to raise yet more tax money, who would have thought it. To be fair to Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems are no different. And what is the BBC doing mentioning the Netherlands "using the revenue to shield low-volume energy consumers against the rise in electricity prices"? What in the world does that have to do with "the vaunted transition to a low-carbon economy"? (And if the BBC really means "low-volume" rather than "poor" then that is a doubly dumb statement, although of course there is a correlation between "low-volume" and "poor".)
The Tories hate people who are not married (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Pre-nuptial agreements would be legally binding and cohabiting couples refused the same rights as those who wed, under plans from a Tory think-thank.
The measures, aimed at strengthening marriage, would also improve access to children for fathers and grandparents.
The interim report is from Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice.
The former Tory leader said tackling "dysfunctional, broken family life" was critical if abuse like that suffered by Baby P was to be reduced.
The 17-month-old's death in Haringey, north London, after months of abuse has prompted several inquiries. His mother and two men have been convicted of involvement in his death.
It is unbelievably shameful to take the tragic death of some poor baby as justification for sticking two fingers up at cohabiting couples. The Tories are almost like George Bush and his tax cuts for the rich. No matter what the economic problem, Bush proclaims tax cuts for the rich are the solution. Here, no matter what the social problem, the Tories will claim that marriage is the solution. And if they have to use (abuse) a dead baby to further their goal, then such is life.
As with many such consultancies (that plague the nation), you can get at the real purpose of the so-called Centre for Social Justice by negating its name. So Duncan Smith's proposals are blatantly anti-social justice, since they are treating cohabiting couples as second class citizens. Duncan Smith does not even seem to understand that cohabiting couples currently have no rights. So he's not only proudly saying he's going to continue this inane policy, he's also going to rub peoples' noses in it.Married people already get away with outrageous tax breaks (e.g. on capital gains and inheritance tax). Presumably the Tories intend to give married people even more tax breaks. Hey, why not, married people are obviously outstanding citizens and cohabiting people are obviously scum, according to the Tories. To be fair to the Tories, the Labour government has not been much better on this score (indeed, they have recently made the married person inheritance tax break even more lucrative), but at least Labour does not try to rub peoples' noses in it.
Cambridge city council wants to spend 4.4 million pounds on Jesus Green (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge News says:
A hydro-electric power station could be part of a £4.4 million revamp of Jesus Green, it has emerged.
A new £63,000 entrance near the river boardwalk and a "play boat" for children are also on the cards as a detailed cost breakdown of the massive project can today be revealed by the News.
The mini hydro-electric generator on the River Cam weir, costing £292,000, would generate enough electricity a year for 16 homes and could power the green's toilets.
Other elements of the Jesus Green scheme, which is seeking lottery funding, include a £500,000 two-tier café outside the Jesus Green lido, a £120,000 adventure playground, a £100,000 toilets/kiosk building and an ecological garden featuring £10,000 worth of ponds.
But residents have warned Cambridge City Council that the scheme, which includes the felling of 59 trees, will be deeply unpopular.
...
The scheme was initially due to cost about £2 million, but more detailed plans show it will cost £4.4 million - with £1.1 million coming from city council funds. The rest of the money will come from the lottery, it is hoped.
...
Other costs involved in the scheme include £126,000 to train council staff, £123,000 for planting of two shrubland areas and a £216,000 piazza near the cycle bridge.
This is a classic case of what is wrong with government bureaucracy. Just a few weeks ago they said the scheme would cost 2 million pounds, and now suddenly it's doubled in price. And there's not really any need for any of the proposal. Jesus Green is pretty fine as it stands. Sure, it could do with the pavements being re-paved. And no doubt the pool could be spruced up a bit. But the city could perfectly well stump up the money for that if it wanted. It seems what we have here is a proposal driven by the need to impress the lottery funding supremos so that Cambridge will be thrown lots of money which it doesn't need. The mini hydro-electric generator in particular seems like a crackpot idea. Even assuming the claim about 16 homes is correct (extremely unlikely), that works out at a capital cost of almost 20k pounds each, and if maintenance is 10% of the capital cost (which would not be unusual) then that would work out at around 2k per annum per household. So not exactly a cheap source of eletricity. Presumably this is being thrown into the pot so they can claim the scheme is "green". Funny how being "green" involves spending huge amounts of money unnecessarily. Hopefully the other proposals before the lottery agency are more deserving.
Gordon Brown ignores advice of Organ Donation Taskforce (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Gordon Brown is not ruling out a change in the law on organ donation even though a panel of experts has rejected the idea of "presumed consent".
The UK Organ Donation Taskforce said assuming organs could be used unless people opted out was unlikely to boost donation rates.
A £4.5m public awareness campaign in England will be aimed at boosting voluntary donor numbers.
But the prime minister warned if it did not work a law change may follow.
The UK government does a very poor job at promoting organ donation. This 4.5 million pounds is a drop in the ocean. And that is even assuming the government ends up spending 4.5 million pounds (this government in particular is very unreliable with its spending claims). And what will they spend the money on? Probably some fancy and shocking TV ad, which everybody notices for ten seconds and then forgets about. The government instead needs to conduct a persistent and long-term grassroots campaign. Unfortunately government seems wholly incapable of doing any such thing. And Gordon Brown is unbelievably patronising about the issue. If the country doesn't do as he tells them, then he's going to treat the country like a bunch of naughty schoolboys.
The taskforce is probably wrong about boosting donation rates. But that is not the real issue. The real issue with all organ donation is that doctors and hospitals have an incentive to let people die just in order to get hold of their organs. With "presumed consent" the health profession would be saying they do not trust the people, so why should the people trust the health profession? (Some people still being naive enough to do so.)
For some reason, every political party claims it wants to cut tax (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
David Cameron has unveiled plans to reduce National Insurance payments for firms which employ people who have been unemployed for more than three months.
The Tory leader said it would be funded from unemployment benefit savings and would be "fiscally responsible".
It comes as Gordon Brown signalled he backed unfunded tax cuts as a "fiscal stimulus" to get the economy moving.
...
The Liberal Democrats have already pledged tax cuts for low and middle income earners and accuse both Labour and the Conservatives of "timidity" when what was needed, they say, are big income tax cuts.Outlining his policy Mr Cameron said it was "a mistake" to think the government could "borrow without limit" and he believed the government had rowed back on publicised plans for a Keynesian-style "spending splurge".
He believes the NI contributions plan would create 350,000 jobs and cut firms' tax burden by £2.6bn. In effect, the Tories say, companies would receive a proportion of the benefit payment in the form of a tax break.
The £2,500 NI credit would be paid in full for jobs of 30 hours a week or more or half that for part-time work of 16-30 hours. v It would be limited to a maximum of 20% of the workforce and would only be paid to those who had made no redundancies in the previous three, and subsequent three months.
...
There was a mixed response among businesses to the Tories' proposals. John Cridland, of the CBI, said they "would help some small businesses keep people in work" but the British Chambers of Commerce said firms were not in a position to start recruiting.There were also some concerns that it might put firms off recruiting people who had only just lost their jobs.
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said that, under their income tax policies, people earning £30,000 a year would get £1,000 extra in their pocket.
The party is proposing significant tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes funded by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, pension allowances for higher rate taxpayers and raising green taxes.
Mr Clegg said tax cuts had to be "big" to have any effect and accused Labour and the Conservatives of "tinkering and timidity" when what was needed was a dramatic lowering of basic rate income tax.
"What people need now, millions of ordinary British families who have been paying too much in tax for too long is a big tax break."
The Tory idea is interesting, but as they themselves obviously recognise, it is quite possible in practise that it will not have the intended consequence, so they have made the proposal so complicated that it will likely have no great effect, even if they could get it to work.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems are completely out of touch. For one thing, their proposal has been on the table for ages and seems to have nothing to do with the current economic crisis. For another thing, what you do not need in a recession / depression is a big income tax cut. People with jobs do perfectly well in an economic downturn. It is people who are unemployed who need the help, not people with jobs. What the government should be doing is increasing government expenditure on, say, transport, education and research and development. The country needs income tax cuts like a hole in the head.
It remains to be seen what proposal Labour comes up with, and of course that will be the only one that matters.
Hereford PCT drops attempt to force girl to have heart transplant (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
A terminally ill girl has won the right to refuse treatment after a hospital ended its bid to force her to have a heart transplant.
Herefordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) dropped a High Court case after a child protection officer said Hannah Jones was adamant she did not want surgery.
Hannah, 13, of Marden, near Hereford, said she wanted to die with dignity.
Her father Andrew said he and his wife supported her decision but they had been upset by the PCT's actions.
He said Hereford County Hospital's child protection team had contacted them in February threatening to remove Hannah from their care if they did not bring her to hospital for the operation.
Hannah, who has a hole in her heart, had been offered a transplant in July 2007 but said she did not want to go through with it after taking advice from doctors, Mr Jones said.
She said the operation might not work, and if it did work, it would be followed by constant medication.
Hannah was interviewed by the child protection officer after the trust applied for a court order in February to force the transplant.
She said she wanted to stop treatment and spend the rest of her life at home and the PCT subsequently withdrew its legal action.
Mr Jones said: "The threat that somebody could come and forcibly remove your daughter from you against her wishes, against our wishes, was quite upsetting really."
Shame on the dreadful people at Hereford County Hospital. What they threatened was tantamount to abuse, and in this case child abuse. It is typical of the control freak attitude which doctors in this country all too often have. They think they know best and what the patient wants is deemed to be irrelevant. Fortunately these dreadful people have now backed down. Hannah is evidently one brave girl, and should be allowed to die with dignity (as should everyone else).
Decision on Heathrow's third runway approaches (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Consultation over the need for a third runway at Heathrow has been a "complete sham", the Conservatives have claimed.
In a Commons debate on Heathrow expansion, shadow spokesman Theresa Villiers said the government had already made up its mind to go ahead.
But Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said any approval would be subject to "stringent" environmental criteria.
Airport owner BAA and its main customer British Airways say the runway is vital if the airport is to stay competitive.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems oppose the idea of a new runway, as do environmental groups, while some backbench Labour MPs are calling for a rethink.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said a final decision, due next month, would be taken after "full consideration" of the environmental implications highlighted in the recent public consultation.
In the Commons, Mr Hoon said it was right that a decision was taken soon to "bring this period of uncertainty to an end" for those living close to the airport and for the country as a whole.
He denied the decision had already been made, saying ministers backed the need for additional runway capacity in south east England in principle - but would only approve the project if strict guarantees on air quality and noise levels could be satisfied.
He acknowledged the issue "aroused strong feelings" but argued that Heathrow was already operating at full capacity.
If nothing was done to remedy this, he added, flights and jobs would be lost to airports on the continent, damaging the economy.
He accused the Tories of taking "easy, populist decisions" on the issue and challenged those who wanted to "sit on their hands" to explain what the alternatives to more airport capacity were.
For the Tories, Theresa Villiers said the government's "mind has been made up for a long time" on a third runway.
She said the environmental costs outweighed the economic benefits of expansion and claimed the government "was deaf to the concerns of people about the environment".
There was a strong case for new high-speed rail lines as a "realistic and viable" alternative to the "thousands of flights clogging up Heathrow", she added.
If the bogus (and unnecessary and pointless) consultation is the only thing the Tories can argue about over Heathrow then they obviously have no real analysis to offer the country.
The Tories have long been the party of Little Englanders, and are classic NIMBYs to boot. But they also used to be the party of business, so supported Heathrow. Under Cameron they have become anti-business, so have gone completely anti-Heathrow (and anti-Stansted, etc.).
The high-speed rail lines they propose are not a "realistic and viable" alternative. For one thing, they would remove hardly any flights from Heathrow. For another, they are not really "viable" since they would require a huge taxpayer subsidy. For some reason, people who travel by plane and by car are required to pay for their journey, but people who travel by train and by bus are not.
Obama wins US election by a small landslide (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Democratic Senator Barack Obama has been elected the first black president of the United States, prompting celebrations across the country.
"It's been a long time coming, but tonight... change has come to America," the president-elect told a jubilant crowd at a victory rally in Chicago.
His rival John McCain accepted defeat, and called on his supporters to lend the next president their goodwill.
Obama should have said: "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over". But of course that's not his style. If McCain had run a campaign as gracious as he was in his speech last night, then the result might well have been different. But by choosing the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his VP candidate, by claiming that the jerk Joe the Plumber was some kind of role model, by running a completely negative campaign where his team claimed over and over that Obama was basically a Marxist terrorist, and by flip-flopping on the economic crisis almost every other day during the campaign, McCain forfeited any right to be president.
The result looks like a landslide but it is a bit misleading. Certainly the electoral college was a landslide. But the popular vote was only 52-46, which although a fairly big gap given recent presidential elections, is not that huge. And even more problematically, in some of the big states, e.g. Ohio and Virginia, which drove that big electoral college victory, Obama won by less than five percent. It would be quite easy for the Republicans to come back, dreadful as that might be. (And no matter how bad McCain was, the alternatives in the Republican Party were, and are, worse.)
Bush has left the country in a complete mess. Republicans always claim that government is no good, and Bush has gone above and beyond the call of duty to prove this. It's hard to believe that the Democrats can turn it around, but we'll have to see. Whatever, 20 January 2009 will indeed be seen as "the end of an error".
The BBC coverage of the campaign was woeful. It was far too full of the "he says, she says" coverage all too familiar in the American media, and so provided no real analysis. The only way to find out what was going on in the campaign was to read blogs, which is an indictment of the so-called mainstream media.
Some cosmetic products are allegedly risky because of using "nano" technology (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Cosmetics containing tiny "nano" particles are being used widely despite unresolved issues surrounding their safety, a consumer watchdog warns.
Many skin care products, including sunscreens and wrinkle creams, contain this technology to make them easier to apply and invisible on the skin.
But experts are concerned about their possible long-term effects on the body, Which? reports.
Which? wants more safety checks and tighter regulation of their use.
It says, at the moment, consumers cannot tell which products use nanomaterials as many fail to mention it.
...
The Which? report says all nanocosmetic products should have an independent safety assessment.The precautionary principle should be applied to products where there are potential risks but where it is not currently possible to assess their safety so that consumers are not put at risk, it says.
...
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, chairman of the Royal Society working group on nanotechnologies, said: "The Royal Society has been calling, for the last four years, for companies to make public the safety testing methods they have been using on their nanoproducts. We are disappointed at continuing lack of transparency in this area."More research does need to be done on the effects of manufactured nanoparticles on human health and the environment. This is important so that regulation can be built on a proper understanding of any risks."
Which? is an organisation run by and for the academic middle class, and as such reflects the usual academic middle class hatred of any technology that is not very, very old. (So they are just about reconciled with trains, but not yet with cars or planes.) The fact that they are willing to quote the "precautionary principle" shows they have no real argument to make, but just want to make the world stand still. If these companies are not following current legislation then they should be charged. If they are then the academic middle class should try and change the legislation if they think it's currently not good enough. Pretty much all new products released onto the world should have some kind of safety assessment. But it should be commensurate with the risk, and not overly egged on because of some academic middle class paranoia about the risk. These products are just as likely to have problems for non-nano, as for nano, reasons.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").