Saturday, 31 January 2009

Gordon Brown: "All Britain Needs is Confidence in Itself"

Well, oh damp trousered one, I have confidence in myself, but I certainly DO NOT have confidence in YOU, Gordon Brown, Town Clerk of Britain.

Oh, and as for your phone going off in Davos, that is what I describe as a Statesmanship FAIL.

Why are the Ratings Agencies getting away with it?

It might be because so many commentators cannot see the wood for the trees and/or do not understand the basics.*

As far as I can tell, and in my opinion, the biggest issue/factor in the downturn was the obscuring of risk. Those to blame? The rating agencies. 

If you had a security such as an SIV (bundled mortgage contracts with various cascades in case of payment and/or default) AAA rated with £143m assets yielding 5.5%, you might buy it at face if other asset-backed securities of AAA were yielding similar or lower returns. 

If the security was rated C, however, with the same £143m assets also yielding 5.5%, you would certainly buy it at a heavy discount.**  

This is what should have happened to the "toxic debt" right out the gate - sold on at a discount from the original lender. Had that actually happened at the very beginning, the assets would not have had to fall anywhere as far. Those holding them would not have such a hit in selling them on or, if they held on to them, damage to their balance sheets and Capital Adequacy. 

This did not happen. Rating agencies rated assets at AAA when they did not fully understand the risks. If they did not, they should have rated them as "junk" until they did understand. Why did they not do so? Fees paid by the seller of the assets. When you buy a house do you accept a survey on a house written by a surveyor paid by the owner of the house? No.**** 

We would have had a re-run of the "junk bond" event, for sure, but the impact would not have been anything quite as large or catastrophic (e.g. the cross-insurance issues***). Why are the rating agencies getting away with this? 

* It might also be that I have totally misunderstood those very basics!

** in addition, the insuring against default would have been far higher, so giving a buffer to the insurers to build up contingencies and caution to the purchaser.

*** Bank A sells SIV to Bank B, insured against default by Bank C. Bank C sells another SIV to Bank A, who insures it at Bank B. When the market goes down, all might want to claim, but all are paying out. FAIL.

**** This is why the whole HIP issue was a total waste of time if you took it at face value, i.e. in terms of sincerity. I do not, btw, I see it as a means to sneak in EU regulations about Energy Efficiency without appearing to do so.

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Al Gore a lump of ice.

All I have to say is "Trotsky". Sorted.

Gordon Brown: "No savers will lose money"

In PMQs today.

Depends on what you mean by "money". The £ is falling and the printing presses are being dabbed with ink as we speak, which will reduce the value of each £ in those savings accounts.

Brown is being disingenuous. Again. And again. And again.

And people are comfortable with voting Labour? What planet are they on?

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Obama: 2 Vital Objectives

Barak O'Bama proposed two keynotes to his administration: Transparency and the Rule of Law.

If he delivers that, IMHO, he need not deliver anything else.

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

Obama: The US Declaration of Independence Affirmed

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thus opens the US Declaration of Independence and on the 20th of January 2008 we see the first non-Caucasian President of the United States of America. Although he is labelled such, Obama is not strictly "African American", IMHO, to do so is to unwittingly perpetuate the racist notion that anyone not 100% white was "coloured". Obama is half Kenyan and half Irish American*. He is as much Irish American as African American. The idea that one can only cling to and validate via an African lineage occurs in the UK too, where anyone with any trace of African blood labels themselves "Black". I am deeply curious as to why this happens. Is it cultivated? Does it ensure separateness? Does it foster victimhood? It might be because it is just plain cool. I, however, am suspicious and have every reason to be so when the Fabian stalks the earth in pursuit of fragmentation, passivity, victimhood and on the hunt for self-reliance and spontaneous unity. I think the term "Latte" should be used - special because of the blend of milk and coffee.

The BBC seem intent to hide the facts of Obama, talking about his Kenyan Father and his mother "from Kansas", but what else do we expect from that shower.

However, this is not the main thrust of this post, for there are countless posts on Obama (or, given the masturbatory way the BBC are behaving, I am surprised they don't call him "Onana"). No, this is to highlight a passage in that same US Declaration of Independence which is relevant to us today in the UK, faced as we are with a treasonous Administration and an Authoritarian Superstate "over the water".

Specifically the following:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.[1]
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.[2]
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.[3]
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:[4]
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences[5]
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
[1] = QANGOs, Regional Development Angencies &c.
[2] = PCSOs, Bailiffs and other prod-nosed Local Council "officers", ACPO.
[3] = European Armed Forces attempts to usurp those of Britain and be the overall commander.
[4] = The EU writ large, with most of the sub clauses being relevant but in particular
[5] = Consenting to extraterritorality of Nation State courts, automatic extradition with limited evidence within Europe and the disgraceful consent to the extradition of British Citizens to the United States of America for crimes not committed by US Citizens, not on US entities, not on US soil (Nat West 3).

The EU is acting like King George III. We are having our English Common Law dismantled and bypassed for the convenience of the State and a SuperState that wishes to rule over us.

There is no point looking to Europe for those responsible, for they are a nest of Communists and other Authoritarians. The real responsibility lies in those whose very purpose is to resist utterly the attempts by such. Labour is bang-to-right on this. The Liberal Democrats are chock full of Federasts and spineless appeasers. The Tories look like they are in fear of the EU so are conforming to the rules necessary to avoid their being an outlaw party in a few years time (i.e. when only pan-European Parties or parties in a pan-European Grouping can stand for Election). Cameron is interested in winning the next election, which is not bad per se, but is when the term "at any cost" is attached, which, as far as I can tell, it is. He just wants to win a 5 year soap powder contract that is binding on us but non-binding on him. He will promise whatever, he will, if you pardon the phrase, sell the shit out of his soap just to land the deal. Maybe I am wrong, but I await evidence to the contrary.

*So, being 1/8th Irish, I can be proud that another Irishman has made it to the White House!

Thursday, 15 January 2009

Labour MP sets aside Mace in Protest

John McDonnell is upset about a lack of a vote over Heathrow.

He shouts that it is a disgrace to Democracy. 

Not arguing with that. 

John does not have an unblemished voting record but he is against the Lisbon Treaty, terrorism bills and some resistance to ID cards and smoking bans, but against trident, hunting and for climate change. A Curate's Egg.

The pompous lickspittle Geoff "buff" Hoon deserves to be humiliated and his actions exposed.

Follow-up to Polly Fetishising

I really have to say a bit more about Polly's statements in her latest article. My goodness, what a mess she is in.

Before I touch on specifics, Polly is irrational. We know this, yes, but what I am saying is Polly is YET AGAIN irrational and here is another example. 

When is she going to realise that the Middle Class is basically the Working Class who have entered the professions or made money or, dare I say the term "bettered themselves" which is what most want to do or did want to do before the entropic influences of the Welfare State and the inverted snobbery leeched into them by the Champagne Socialists and Fabian Fifth Column to "keep them in their place". 

It is Sisyphean task, for as soon as you have moved "working class" people in, they cease to be "working class". Seeing as there are more working class than middle class and very few jobs in the professions overall, you will end up pushing OUT those who have made it before they retire to make way for the next batch of "working class" based on utterly bankrupt, dysfunctional, wrong-headed but oh-so-predictable quota targets beloved of this administration.

This is before we get to the crux that the State cannot "give" opportunities. Opportunities, by definition, are not "given" but "seized". Scholarships are an example of an opportunity seized. The poor-but-bright kid has solid proof of their worth vs. their richer peers who might have got in more by inertia than talent, though to generalise is to also be moronic - many children of Middle Class families are exceptional human beings and have every right to be at the top.

Just as the State cannot "give" opportunities, it cannot "empower" by positive action. Empowerment is, basically, NOT oppressing, micro-managing, second-guessing or interfering. Not controlling, in fact. The State is UESLESS at not controlling areas it is involved in. It is usless at stopping itself controlling more things as it is, let alone being sensible about areas it IS involved in! It is about letting the individual have authority and responsibility over their own future. That is empowerment. That is something the State can only hope to grow by LEAVING PEOPLE ALONE and GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY. It would be appreciated.

Not sure if I want to pick apart Polly's blatherings now, but I will just touch on a few points, one or two of jaw-dropping inanity. And she is PAID to write this? Oh, forgot - The Guardian is subsidised by all those Public Sector jobs...and this policy by Harman is likely to spawn a whole rash of new "equality advisors" and "empowerment czars". "'Polly publishes puff piece' - probe".

First, she says: 
Harman's law is Labour's biggest idea for 11 years
Which basically says the last 11 years were filled with something worse than total hogwash, spite, second-rate class-war obsession and disingenuous blather. Polly has said a truth.

Next, Polly goes on to say: 
A public-sector duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has
Er, dismally? Since when is the Public Sector a tool of social engineering? Oh, yes, we are discussing Socialists here, where EVERYTHING is a "legitimate" tool of social engineering. The public sector is paid to do a specific functional job, not push ideology. The duty of the Public Sector is to deliver the services to the taxpayer, not spend time internally faffing about trying to bend reality into unreality.

Inequality is the root cause of social immobility.
Utter claptrap. Social immobility is caused by many things. With no inequality, social immobility would be universal. Without a difference, mobility is not possible! Inequality is the starting point FOR mobility. How can you rise if you are prevented from being above anyone else? In this is the basis for the utter unreason at the centre of Socialism and why it ends up levelling down and not levelling up. Social immobility occurs when it is not a meritocracy. Period. Race, gender, religion, politics, geography, perceived extant income can all stifle social mobility and this occurs in both directions, as discrimination is what we are talking about here. By preventing someone from the South East getting on even if they have the ability because the quota for the NE has not been reached is a hindrance to Social Mobility. Quotas will NOT help. "Positive" discrimination is still discrimination.

However, politicians of all parties are happiest talking about "opportunity", pulling the ablest up the ladders - without too many questions asked about why the ladders are so steep, and why the distance is so great from bottom to top. It is a great deal less controversial than talk of narrowing the gap itself.
Well, the first sentence is nonsense as I have said above. The issue is to not police the ladders, but let those who can climb them, climb them. The ladders need to be as steep and as long as necessary so those who reach the top are capable for the roles that exist there. They are that long for a reason. Now, some suggest that some can join the ladder half way up because of good education and family environment. Do you think it is better to not try and fix the education and family environment and somehow guess who would have made it up the lower section? How can that possibly be determined. The best way is to remove negative influences on the family environment - Welfarism being one massive example - and fix the educational system by, you guessed it, getting the dead hand of the State out of the way. No, it is not "perfect" by a long way, but it is the least bad way of doing things and the most sustainable. It is also the simplest and cheapest. Fix the causes, not try and mitigate the symptoms.

Labour gets round this by promising to increase the demand for top jobs

I include this as an example of the dysfunctional control-freakery and delusion of Socialists that they can actually sustainably change things in this way. Companies will increase demand for top jobs. The only way the State can is to create non-jobs in the Bureaucracy and QANGOcracy. Note they will then have to "do" something, which will be to interfere in the lives of the population. Pure Fabianism. Ghastly. Damnable. Authoritarianism on the road to Totalitarianism.

The entire premise is wrong-headed. It is stupid in the extreme. It is typical of Harriet Harman, who cannot see beyond her own prejudices and addled thinking. You cannot have the working class making up an equal ratio of the top jobs unless you constantly churn people into and out of the Middle Classes, and thrust those in already down again. It is just a reality. Frankly, I can see this as being a nice way to make sure people only remain in post if they "behave" and are "good little Fabians". It makes everyone beholden to the fickle whim of the State. It is a Fencepost. A way to ensure people can be removed not because they are bad - they can be very good - but because they do not behave. The White Paper provides an easily justified but centrally managed excuse - "make way for the poor".

So let us outline the Fencepost. It is to implant a totally unrealistic and unachievable target/metric that is centrally controlled as an arbiter to the right of employment. First the public sector, then spreading to the entire economy. Of course the system will not work in the public sector, but the excuse will be that it is "just" the public sector and so "must" be widened as all those nasty private sector companies are undermining the "good work". This fencepost will be lined up neatly with another which covers the right to the Public Sector to only give out contracts to companies who conform to their employment or other criteria, which is either in place or on the way as I blog. This other Fencepost lines up with the moves for the State to get involved in more and more aspects of the commercial sector or be an arbiter on greater an greater areas of commercial activity because of its distorting influence and asymmetrical legal power. It is, basically, the new generation of Enclosures, the State being, in effect, Nationalised Feudalism. The Harman plans are like a Feudal Lord dispossessing Yeoman to make way for landless peasants just because the Yeoman has grown from a landless peasant. It is, indeed, "Socialism in one clause" - it is entropic, levelling down...unless you are a good little lickspittle, for the decision criteria is made by the party, not by a huge plurality of independent companies.

It is another Fabian wet dream.

What will the Tories or Lib Dems do with this turd if they got into power? Tinker, I suspect.

The Libertarian Party will repeal this legislation at the first opportunity. 

Wednesday, 14 January 2009

Track Changes: Polly Fetishising Harman again.

I think that Harman's law is Labour's biggest idea for 11 years

A public-sector agenda duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has by dragging everyone - except your's truly of course - down to the same level.

Comments (248)
Polly Toynbee
The Guardian, Tuesday 13 January 2009

Here comes startling news to me. The social mobility white paper published today will propose legislation of extraordinary radicalism - simplistic, spiteful and exasperating simple, fundamental and profound. It should have been Labour's albatross guiding light for the last 11 years - but better late than never.

The government will create a new over-arching piece of legislation law (better call it that, so it sounds more legitimate) creating an obligation a duty on the whole public sector on the taxpayer to fund narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. This vague and immeasurable, utterly obfuscated single legal duty will stand as the main frame from which all other equality legislation curls out flows. Race, gender and disability injustices are all subsets of the one great obsession inequality - class. It trumps them all. The gap between rich and poor in Britain is greater than in almost all rich nations, putting the UK with the United States among the most unequal.

This new (new? I thought I implied it was always there...oh well, who cares, eh?) duty to narrow the gap would permeate every aspect of government policy and seep out into all the lives of the serfs. Its possible ramifications are mind-bogglingly immense - as expensive and unachievable astonishing as Tony Blair's promise to abolish child poverty: it will make that pledge no more achievable by 2020.

Harriet Harman, the head of the government's inequality office, is the architect of the new law (being a single simple law it is like being called an architect of a doorknob) and will outline its meaning and importance in a speech to the Fabian Fifth Columnist Society's annual conference on Saturday. Business secretary Peter Mandelson will speak at the Fabian event too, (insert some kiss-buttery here) which should be interesting. Harman fought a long and successful battle for cabinet support, with virtually all the nematode worms infesting that room agreeing with enthusiasm to its inclusion in today's white paper, though with some notable opposition probably from a GOAT who has had the temerity to grow a pair. The only bill it could be included in is the imminent equalities bill, making equality itself the prime objective. One cabinet member described it with relish as "socialism in one clause" (probably the one who objected to it...).

Harman's law will be considerably more significant than the new social mobility review chaired by the resurrected Alan Milburn because Harriet is female and Alan is a man and so knows nothing about these things. Trying to socially engineer get more people from Labour supporting poor backgrounds into the top professions is a reasonable endeavour for a Fabian Fifth Columnist: the army, medicine, the law, politics, media and most professions are dominated by the better privately educated. Finding ways to get bright pupils from poor families into internships and work experience to reach top occupations will no doubt help to slightly rebalance the odds for a few. Geoffrey Vos QC, former head of the Bar Association, who sits on the Milburn review, chairs the Social Mobility Foundation which helps high-flying pupils on free school meals into top-rank professions (Ed: what happened here, Polly? Is that a quote or something? Sort yourself out, deerie).

But the evidence, globally, is that little progress can be made until the country as a whole is more equal so the law changes the public sector, which we know IS the world, isn't it?. Welfarism (can't say that! Its true, but keep on message...)Inequality is the root cause of social immobility. However, politicians of all parties are happiest talking about "opportunity", pulling the ablest up the ladders - without too many questions asked about why the ladders are so steep, and why the distance is so great from bottom to top (Ed: the ladders won't reach otherwise, luv). It is a great deal less controversial than idealistic talk of narrowing the gap itself.

Even Milburn's modest review has excited the right's usual knee-jerk reaction, with accusations of "dumbing down" and "social engineering". Moves to make the privileges enjoyed by middle-class children (insert some vague ungrammatical cockwaffle statement here) more easily shared by others are always rebuffed with fury by potential losers. Politicians who say they want equal opportunities for all tend to sidestep the blindingly obvious fact that if more comprehensive school children go to Oxbridge, top law firms and medical schools, there will be fewer places for private school pupils. Room at the top is limited.

Labour gets round this by promising to expand the bureaucracy, create more laws, form more QANGOs and generally burden the economy with 100,000's more highly paid non-productive salaried unemployed increase the demand for top jobs - but entry level to the professions will always be a tight bottleneck. Social mobility means some must fall as others rise: naturally the middle classes will fight hard to hold their own. In more equal countries the falling hurts less when lifestyle, status and pay are less cruelly divided and penalities for failure less punishing i.e. when all those below my class are roughly earning the same whatever they do or however hard they work.

In Britain, birth is destiny for almost everyone especially talentless blatherers like me. Where you are born, is where most people stay. Family finance predicts what will happen to most children. Rags to riches celebrity stories dominate popular imagery, but the "it could be you" social lottery fantasy is mostly a convenient lie to keep everyone in their place but we want a law so you damn well stay there unless you lick Labour boots. (Insert some post hoc fallacy to support the nonsense) The countries where there is least match between a child's origins and its destiny are those with most equal distribution of wealth - the Nordics and Japan. The Liberal Democrat commission chaired by Barnardo's Martin Narey spelled out in its report yesterday how children on free schools meals have only half the average child's chance of getting five good GCSEs as if that proves anything. A previous silver bullet lauded by the likes of me Vastly increasing university places has done nothing to help: it has benefited better-off families, while only 3% more poor children have taken up the new places.

That's why Harman's law gets to the root of the question and to hell with bothering with the answers. Only by making the whole country fundamentally controled fairer will equal zero opportunities follow. What might it mean? All will depend on the legal detail so why have I been pontificating about what it will do?. Will it be an aspiration or will it have legal teeth? It will certainly mean every public authority will have to ensure that how it spends money and how it fixes its priorities sets a course towards narrowing the gap between rich and poor (Ed: Polly, my eyes are bleeding from your hatstand logic so I just cannot see to fix your typos). Poor children might need to have much more spent on their education per head than the better-off do or they might not. Sure Start toddlers might need more funds than older children or they might not. It might mean local lotteries to see that all children get equal access to the best schools so removing any advantage of being a good parent unless you can afford to go private like moi. Poor parts of a borough might attract more services to pull them up to the standards of richer areas which we will lower whilst taxing them more out of spite.

Imagine how this law might bite on central government - what might it require of the Treasury? Tax credits and benefits would rise to lift families over the poverty threshold. The Low Pay Commission would set the minimum wage at a level that narrowed the pay gap, instead of falling behind. Public sector pay would rise for the lowest grades, all the cleaners, carers, dinner ladies, porters and clerks earning less than a living wage. "It is our task in government to play our part in fashioning a new social order with fairness and equality at its heart," Harriet Harman will say on Saturday. "We want to do more than just abolish provide 'escape routes' out of poverty for a talented few. We want to tackle the class divide by dragging everyone down."

If not now, when? (Insert some pompous phrase here to delude the envious, misled cattle) Custodians of the citadels of wealth have wrecked the economy, their folly damaging the chances of poor school leavers - while their own offspring will be unscathed. There is no better time or no worse time to embark on Harman's "new social order".

Polly Toynbee is the receiver author, with David Walker, of Unjust Rewards

Friday, 9 January 2009

Extinct Economics to be Brought Back

Extinct Economics could be brought back to life thanks to advances in Disaster Politics

Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park film may have been pure science fiction - but extinct mindsets such as Communism to Keynes could soon be brought back to life thanks to advances in Disaster Politics.

Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park III: Extinct creatures such as Neanderthals to Sabre-toothed tigers could soon be brought back to life thanks to advances in DNA technology.
A scene from Jurassic Park III - maybe not too far from the truth

The idea of resurrecting extinct mindsets moved a step closer to reality last year when politicians knee-jerked their way forward to the past when they panicked over the Credit Crunch.

Now New Parasite magazine has named the 10 other beasts most likely to rise again, including Communism, the dodo and Neanderthal Keynes.

Moronities that died out years ago could be recreated using information retrieved from well-preserved dogma recovered from permafrost, dark caves or deep within academia.

There is no chance of bringing back laissez-faire because common sense is unlikely to survive more than a century in any Authoritarian environment.

But politicians have just announced they had "resurrected" a braincell from the Beast of Bolsover by implanting it in a mouse and examined its function - the first time such a feat had been achieved. The mouse died.

The mindsets of several extinct philosophies and economic models besides the woolly Marxist are already being sequenced.

To revive a long-dead models politicians would have to recover enough FUD from a well-preserved activist and find a suitable surrogate imbeciles similar to that of the extinct activist.

"It's hard to say that something will never ever be possible,"said Svante Pääbo of the Marx Ranck Institute for Devolutionary Economics in Leipzig, Germany, who is sequencing the Neanderthal Scargill.

"But it would require delusions so far removed from what we currently see in reality that I cannot imagine how it would be swallowed."

Assuming we will develop the necessary advanced technology, New Parasite has selected 10 extinct entities that might one day be resurrected.

The magazine said: "Our choice is based not just on infeasibility, but also on each mindset's 'megafaunal charisma' – just how exciting the prospect of resurrecting these barking mad throwbacks is.

"Of course, bringing extinct philosophies back to life raises a whole host of practical problems, such as where we will live and eat, but let's not spoil the fun..."

Thursday, 8 January 2009

More More: More Nonesense by Anatole

Anatole Kalensky at the Times calls for savers to be "punished" so they spend their money (on buying the Times, I suppose).

Has this guy lost his abacus beads or something?

Savers' cash is invested, Anatole. It is not stuffed into some great mattress in Threadneedle Street. Now, if people WANT to do that, that is fine, but they get no interest and would be charged for the service, and rghtly so. All this is part of Libertarian Party Monetary Policy, so is this actually what Anatole is asking for? True deposits charged for keeping money out of circulation?

Maybe he is, but given the fact that he does not seem to understand what happens to savings, it might be a case of "do us a favour...and stay off our side".

The last thing we need is for VAT to be cut and all the spare cash we have spent on imports, causing the £ to fall even further as importers sell those £ to buy other currencies.

Of course, up cranks the worlds most subsidised violin to the tune of adopt the Euro.

I want to keep Sterling so we still have a Treasury worthy of the name (or should I say so we can rebuild one...). If Brown wants my Sterling he must Μολὼν λάβε - come and take them.

To use a phrase of Chuck Heston - "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

More Econazism: Incandescent Light Bulbs

As many of you may know, the EU had previously slapped an import tariff on CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs). Anti dumping? Well, protecting German manufacturer Osram, more like.

So, they, the EU, are now banning the manufacture and sale of incandescent, i.e. "trad" lightbulbs at or above 100W, they say because of "green issues".

This is wrong on so many levels.

1) Alternatives are far from mature. 

take time to come on (when I turn a light on...I want it ON)
flicker, causing headaches
give off an ugly light
are often just not powerful enough.
they contain highly toxic mercury, so MUST be recycled. 

Apart from the above, if one shatters or breaks, you have to reach for your NBC suit...

The Government advice is:

• Vacate the room and ventilate it for at least 15 minutes.
• Do not use a vacuum cleaner.
• Clean up using rubber gloves and aim to avoid breathing in any dust.
• Sweep up all glass fragments and place in a plastic bag.
• Wipe the area with a damp cloth, add that to the bag and seal it.
• Don't put the bag in the bin. Take it a council amenity site or recycling centre where it can be handled as hazardous waste.

Nice. Just what I want around my home. 

Very expensive
Not powerful enough
Not dimmable in normal conditions*

2) The "replacement" is subject to protectionism, which means we, the consumer, have to pay more than the market rate to keep Osram execs in Mercedes Benz.

3) Traditional light bulbs give off heat. This is only a "waste" when outdoors and in summertime. Considering the ratio of lightbulb use in summer vs winter and the fact that most traditional bulbs are in domestic, interior settings, the "waste heat" is far less than people would initially deduce from a direct bulb-to-bulb comparisons.

4) The issue over CO2 is rapidly becoming a canard.

Damn them and damn the EU for forcing me to buy such hazardous products. Note the concept of force here. I am not being advised or encouraged via lower purchase prices and lower running costs - quite the reverse as the high up-front price of Corporate Welfare - but forced due to "legislation" (again, I will not tarnish the term "law" by using it here). The term "enviro-mental" rings ever more true.

I do believe that LEDs are the way, so it is half-cocked to go off banning the only viable alternative for human beings (unless your brain runs so slowly the 50Hz flicker is ok for you) until they are bright and cheap enough to take over.

This is another example of Authoritarianism, protectionism, Corporate Welfare and Eco Fascism from the EU.

It is not a case of "can we leave yet". I've never joined, so how do I make it legal so they stop pestering me?

* unlike EU ministers, who seem to come pre-dimmed.

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

Nick Clegg: Reality Cheque has bounced.

Via Tim Worstall "The Beast of Liberty", we hear that Nick the Clegg is suggesting even more "rights" for Fathers.

He wants support for Fathers. Well, there are plenty of other places to assist Fathers, and this is not the first place or even high up the list. Even if it were, it is salami-slicing the population. Special rights for this group, that group and t'othur. Better to stop hampering everyone, stop taxing everyone. That way Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, sons and daughters will benefit. That is the kind of "equality" one needs - equality before the law and state - no special favours.

Lower taxes, reduce red tape. This helps everyone, makes the UK more productive with less dead weight. More light and less friction. 

To do that you need to get the UK out of the EU, Nicholas. 

We have seen nematode worms stand up for the Referendum more than the LibDems, who slithered out of way when it counted, so I will not hold my breath.

The very fact that Nick comes up with this sort of suggestion shows he has no idea at all what it is like trying to start, run and build a business. An SME can be pole-axed by such "legislation" - I will not call it a law. Imagine having someone go AWOL but demand their old post back. You need to hire a temporary replacement who, apart from the months taken to get up to speed, will be working with the knowledge that both of you know it is unlikely to be permanent - even less likely than if it were replacing a woman, who might reconsider and decide to stay looking after her kids (wise move, if you ask me - as soon as I can earn enough, Mrs Thorny will want to do just that). And when the parent returns there will be further months of reduced productivity as they settle back in.

Making such a suggestion shows the kind of world Nick the Clegg has inhabited - i.e. one far away from the true wealth creating sector of the UK economy!

Monday, 5 January 2009

Like a Kipper

Further to my post, below, about State intrusion, now that the Police can, without a paper trail, enter your hard drives, then surely anything that they find is inadmissible, seeing as it was not obtained with a warrant.

However, if they do subsequently get a warrant and enter the premises, there is no way of knowing if they, as in some other agency, did not plant any data "via the back door".

Who knows all the files on one's hard drive. A hidden file (very easy to do) can lurk on one's disk for months and then be 'discovered' by the Authorities. They can create supposedly old files and sneak them on at any time, giving the impression that the file has been around for ages.

One group could plant the evidence and then tip off the regular Plod who just come in, take away the machines and discover all manner of  material. As with the hapless chaps in Forest Gate, false, presumptive and self-serving leaks and rumours* can get out surprisingly fast - guilty until proven innocent.

Warrants were created for a very good reason. EUdenrats, Federasts and New Labour Lickspittles are clearly too arrogant and ignorant to realise how important they are. Forget the Boston Tea Party and taxation, the real unrest that spawned the American War of Independence was over the unwaranted (as in NO WARRANT) entry of private property by the King's Soldiers in search of documents not bearing the Stamp, and so the lack of the tax that goes with it. Sounds a bit like TV Licensing, if you ask me.

So, beware. A warrant is a vital part of property rights and thus Rule of Law. This has been tampered with. It is at their peril. They know not what they are doing, but think they do. Regardless, ignorance is no defence.

* they were "accused" of possessing child pr0n. It would be very easy to miss the retractions and corrections that dribbled out later, but by that time their names would be mud.

The Pathetic Cut

David Cameron is suggesting ending income tax on savings for basic rate payers.

Well, is it good? Yes, if it were part of the abolition of Income Tax, period, but it is not, so the if and only if rule applies. No, it is not really "good". DC thinks it might result in increased spending. Fat chance. If your savings grow faster, the temptation to leave them there is greater.

And look at the numbers trumpeted. Far from cutting, Dave is suggesting an additonal £25bln MORE spending instead of £30bln - a cut of £5bln, less than 1% of the entire budget.

Pathetic. It is like a family who cannot afford to go on holiday deciding to take the tube instead of driving to the airport. 

No, Mr Cameron, you have to realise the holiday is over for now.

DC did witter on about "green technology", and that is fine as far as it goes. Not sure I want to encourage rent-seeking, however.

What was even dafter was DC's idea of some kind of independent budget watchdog. What a joke. You can see that it will end up being stuffed with Fabians and other such numpties who will interfere in the budget process and try to dictate the priorities. I suppose this is Cameron's way of getting the departments and the public in general used to the idea that the Government of the day will have no real say over spending for when the EU takes over full Sovereignty. The real key is to have a BoE which has a responsibility to the currency and thus to all those who hold and are paid in that currency - the people - not to Government. The State will then have to cut its cloth accordingly.

A Convenient Lie

Via commenter Jones on a post by DK, we see a roll-back in the all-pervasive power of the Religion of AGW.

As we know, AGW is the Enviro-mentalists Mad Uncle and has been locked up in the attic for a while now. He was used to scare the kiddie-winkies into believing anything and was so effective, a proxy was introduced - Climate Change - which was just as good at scaring thanks to the memory of the Mad Uncle but was far more flexible and needed fewer excuses for when reality did not match the myth. Of course, we have had a changing climate throughout Human history, but such details do not get in the way of rabid religions intent on subjugation, power and control, and that is what Governments, NGOs and flat-earthers covet and crave. It is therefore no surprise that such bodies have seized upon the Mad Uncle and then the proxy with such relish*.

Al Gore is going to have to make the biggest apology in history. I also want to see all those talking heads, all those government ministers line up and apologise, too. No regret - that is a Japanese mumble-swerve face-saving technique to avoid taking responsibility and admitting an error - but an apology and resignation. I suspect that there is going to be an army of people who will soon realise they have been taken for a ride. Suckered in. They will look back on their public pronouncements and realise they have humiliated themselves. The problem is with this digital age, all those statements now exist and can never be eliminated. Youtube and other such sites will be a place where the blatherings can resurface to haunt.

What is worse is that the kids will cotton on and there will be blood. Will they ever believe adults again? I hope the learn that this is a lie caused by vested interests, by those wishing to forcibly collectivise. You should know who they are.

Do we need to prepare for Climate Change? Hell yes we do. Rivers and coastlines. Floods, water supplies, power, navigation, insulation and most of all food production. We need to determine what might well happen and use risk, timeframe and probability-weighting to prioritise our activities. This needs to be addressed first before we ponce about with trying to "reverse" it, which is, frankly, impossible until India and China (and probably Brazil too) adopts technology not even established. 

*If you notice, most if not all the attempts to "control" or "reverse" Climate Change involves forcing people to hand over money, freedom or regress to some antediluvian existence. Preferably all three. The amount of rent-seeking in the sector is colossal.

Sunday, 4 January 2009

The Mask slips still futher

At times the Government puts up a little effort to pretend to be our elected representatives.

I now hear that the UK Police will be asked/allowed/enabled/directed to enter your property, vis your computer hard drive without your permission, without notification, nor with a warrant. They will do so if the active agent is a "foreign" Police force, i.e. another EU force.

Therefore, "our"* Government is happy to see our Police be a proxy for an EU Member State force, bypassing our Courts and English Common Law.

The EU is not one for Rule of Law and the EU is the source of this outrage. I doubt the EU will see it as an outrage, for it probably makes it "easier" for them to perform their activities -NEVER a sufficient justification for reducing the rights of the individual.

This Labour Administration has shown it is now no more than an EU Gaulieter. The UK Police is clearly considered no more superior with regards to our liberties than any other EU force. We have seen how foreign courts can demand the UK Police jump and arrest someone, but again, I do believe that the UK Government no longer considers them "foreign", just as they do not appear to consider other EU forces as "foreign".

This is how it now appears - that the Labour Administration does not consider EU Member States as "foreign", nor the EU Parliament, nor the EU Commission, but views the UK as just a collection of Regions with no more or less sovereignty over us as any other EU Region.

Come on, you bunch of Fabian Fifth Columnist lickspittles. Admit it. Have the stones. Then we can begin your trial for Treason.

BTW, forget the Tory Administration, they are Centrists who are part of the problem. The LibDems are a nest of Fabians for sure. Any Libertarians therein have got to realise this now, especially after the horsetrading that is going on over some so-called "National Unity" Government. Anyone who thinks this will do anything other than swallow up and spit out the Lib Dems is naive. Not forgetting that UKIP has an historic membership of albatrosses who are united by one thing only - a hatred of all things EU, so the true Libertarians therein are also up the swanee.

Nope, the one party that stands for Rule of Law, yet sees the EU and a bloated State as a threat to it, is the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is the one party that will not stand in the way** of you to live your own private life as Tory or as Socialist as you want to be, as long as you do not try and coerce others to be also, or make them pay for it against their will. Set up your voluntary workers collective or go it alone and set yourself moral standards...for yourself, we will not stop you. Try and impose your dogma on others and you have another thing coming, mind.

* "our" as in a cockroach found in one's kitchen could be considered "one's cockroach".
** note the term "not stand in the way", as opposed to the language of the others, which talks of "allowing". Allow - who do they think they are!