The Spectator

Originally following a link from Tim Worstall about my potential MP Stanley Kohnson to this article inThe Spectator:

"The best rejoinder I have heard was from my father (Tory candidate for Teignbridge, in case I forgot to mention it) who said to some pesky questioner: ‘This immigration business is a (pause, cough) tricky one. It is very important not to exaggerate the (cough) problem, but it is certainly real. Here in Devon we have to cope with people who come from as far afield as (cough) Somerset and even Wiltshire. I am having some difficulty living down the fact that I was born in Cornwall.’ Collapse of questioner."

There was also another nice story about the errosion of power to Brussels

If you are a Christian Aider worried that free trade is worse than slavery, where should you put your X? What if you are a workaholic wanting to preserve the right to put in as many hours of overtime as you want? What if you are an art dealer angered at being compelled to give a percentage to the undeserving descendants of dead painters every time a picture is sold? Should you vote Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat?

Actually, for all the say your MP will have on these policies, you might as well vote Monster Raving Loony party. Once, in my naive cynicism, I believed the golden rule of politics was that the main aim of all institutions was to accrue power. And then I moved to Brussels. It is not the EU institutions that shy away from the Darwinian struggle for power, of course. From Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, one can only watch in admiration the deft and determined way Eurocrats talk about, plan and succeed in taking power from national parliaments in their campaign for the ‘construction of Europe’.

The House of Commons and our humble MPs, on the other hand, have apparently given up the will to legislate. Like teenagers terrified of responsibility, most MPs actively support giving away their power: they support more Europe, which inevitably means less Westminster.

This last sentiment, while true, is bizaar considering that within this country they are power mad and constantly trying to suck power out o the hands of local democracy, and individuals, and into their own hands. It is like they think, "we could do so much better than them, lets take power away from them and do it all ourselves. Then things will be great!", then when they have sucked powers away from people they think "argh! we've got to do something now, and we might be held responcible. Better give it all to brussels, everybody hates them anyway." and hence

Today, the Mother of Parliaments has lost half its power, with Brussels making half of British laws. In some areas — such as environmental and consumer protection — Brussels makes the overwhelming majority. In other areas, it makes all of them. The European constitution confirms that ‘the Union shall have exclusive competence’ in customs, including trade; cross-border competition policy; and conservation of ‘marine biological resources’ — that’s fish. It is actually illegal — a breach of treaty punishable by the European Court of Justice — for Westminster MPs to pass laws on these issues.

[snip]

According to the Cabinet Office’s regulatory impact unit, ‘around half of all new legislation with a significant impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector now emanates from the EU’.

[snip]

When the Commission legislation factory recently announced a bonfire of red tape, the only law it said it could do without was harmonisation of the size of packets of chicory coffee.

Then he finally gets to the nub. It is not that they are afraid of the power, they are afraid of the accountablity and actually having to explain their polices. By using the EU any moonbat proposal can get pushed through behind closed doors without them having to tell anyone why, as nobody will know until it is too late and another chunk of power is ripped away.

It is easy to see why the government agrees to transfer decision-making to Brussels. It means that it can avoid the legislative gauntlet of disgruntled MPs on one side and stroppy lobbyists and media on the other. Instead, ministers just decide a policy with their clubbable EU counterparts behind closed doors in the pink granite Council of Ministers, and then announce it in a press statement to Brussels correspondents and hand it to Westminster to rubber-stamp. With minimal public scrutiny, passing laws in Brussels is so easy that, as with the fridge mountain fiasco, the government sometimes has little idea what legislation it is agreeing to. The Labour government has recently signed up to four separate EU laws that set minimum standards for asylum, enabling them to avoid the annual catfight of forcing through immensely problematic asylum laws in the full glare of Westminster.

ALL NEW! 2005 General Election Estimation Quiz

ALL NEW! 2005 General Election Estimation Quiz, general knowlede about the level of various things.

my score is...

+41.2
That means that you're...

* better informed than 66% of people who've already taken the quiz
* better informed than 63% of Labour supporters who've already taken the quiz
* better informed than 57% of Conservative supporters who've already taken the quiz
* better informed than 65% of Liberal Democrat supporters who've already taken the quiz

Now going from the relative results notice how the Conservative supporters (which as of writing I am, but I may change to Lib Dem) are much better informed than either Labour or Lib Dem supporters. Perhaps this is somethign to do with if you are interested in the news then you cannot possibly have missed the way that Labour is systematically trying to destroy the basic freedoms enjoyed by this country and so want to vote against them.

I don't have voter apathy, I just have voter rage

I don't have voter apathy, I just have voter rage - Comment - Times Online

Every single election since I have been entitled to vote, I have thought hard about whether to do so. I think about the nature of democracy and, even more painfully, about the suffragettes of my great-grandmothers’ generation, who fought so hard to win me the right to vote. And then I think about the value of that hard-won vote, and the way in which, if I use it, it endorses the party for whom I cast it. And it seems to me that refusing to cast it for anyone is the most powerful statement I can possibly make. It isn’t voter apathy that prevents me from voting. it is voter rage.

And no PR is not the answer, all that leads to is a group of untouchable career politicians that are impossible to get rid of. Working yur way up the Party hieracrcy becomes a much more effective way of remaining in your very lucrative job than actually doing what you are paid for and serving the interests of you constituents. She also says "I see the effectiveness of direct action, when a celebrity such as Jamie Oliver or Bob Geldof embraces a cause with passion." This is unfortuantly true. Since true local democracy has basically been stamped out, initially started by Thatcher to get her economic reforms across, and then continued by Blair because of his iinstinctive hatred of Democracy. celebraty power is everything, without it your cannot get onto the national media, and without the national media you are simply not on the radar screens of the top level politicians who are the only people with any power to do anything having stripped it from everybody else.

NuclearSpace: Opening the Next Frontier pt. 10

a fasinating extended essay on how to build a nuclear space ship.

Blair Lied and Admitted it to Paxman on Live TV

Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy: Blair Lied and Admitted it to Paxman on Live TV

The Public Whip - How They Voted 2005

Another electoral poll thing, this one by The Public Whip, this one compares you with your current MP and the major parties. I wish that it had more questions, but it seems like I share so much with my current MP, Richard Younger-Ross, that I should vote for him again. However I have been attracted to Stanley Johnson his conservative opponent, mainly to return a major opposition party to parliment and get rid of the Tyrant Blair's massive majority. Guess it's time for more research.

Tory Policy Generator

Tory Policy Generator, scarily accurate ;)

No2ID Hustings Guide

No2ID have put out a guide for questions to ask at a political Hustings to try and get to the truth about candidates position on ID cards (while pointing out what a bad idea they are). It is a PDF, but the link on their home page does not work so here is one that does: HustingsGuide.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Update:
They have fixed the link on the home page.

Grammar schools where good

A good education leads to higher social mobility, shock.

Judges reveal anger over curbs on power

The guardian has an article about the anger of Judges about governemtn interferance with justice. The things that the article point (to which a cliassical liberal like myself would add many more) out are:

• the recently implemented Criminal Justice Act 2003, which imposes mandatory and minimum sentences, reducing the judges' discretion to fit the punishment to the individual case;
• the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which allows the home secretary to restrict individuals' liberty on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities, with minimal oversight by the judges;
• the Inquiries Act 2005, which restricts the independence of judges appointed to chair inquiries, allowing ministers to decide what evidence is given in public and to block the disclosure of evidence.

This last one they claim is because of the costs of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which is false. Had that been the problem then they could have introduced the legislation any time in their second term as for all of that time the the never ending Saville inquiry has been running, with obvious great expence. Not the Hutton inquiry is a much more likely cause as it did cause real embarrasment for New Labour as it gathered evidence by bringing to the surface the real reasons that we had gone to war, and the lies that the Tyrant Blair used to cover them up. It was only the tightly limited terms of reference, which basically stated that all the blame must be put on the BBC, that saved them. The Inquires act of 2005 is there to make sure close shaves like Hutton do not happen again, if the judge starts to investigate the 'wrong' things (e.g. stuff that is embarrassing to Tony Blair), then they just change the terms of reference to stop him. If the judge looks like coming to the 'wrong' conclusion (e.g. one embarrassing to Tony Blair) they shut him down before he can report.

Proposed EU taxes

Following a link from The Village Hampden I found this document on proposed direct EU taxation. I've tried to summarise and analyse it below, but would be interested in anyone else's views on it. Particularly the detailed economic implications.

"Tradition has it that any serious discussion on the financial perspectives of the European Union (EU) also leads to heated debates on the EU's need to decide on its own resources. This is not surprising since the power to raise taxes is often seen as a central element of state sovereignty"[page 6]

the EU plans to become a sovereign state, strait from the horses mouth. It also explicitly states that Tax Harmonisation is already happening

"illustrated by the failure to complete harmonisation for the VAT in the Community despite decades of efforts."

They give Eight criteria to judge any EU tax proposal

1. Would the revenues of the EU tax be sufficient to cover the expenditures of the EU in the long run?
2. Would the EU tax bring about stable revenues for the EU budget?
3. Would the EU tax be visible to the EU citizens?
4. Would the EU tax be simple to administer and involve low compliance costs?
5. Would the EU tax lead to an efficient allocation of resources in the EU?
6. Would the EU tax involve income redistribution?
7. Would the EU tax have an equal impact on equivalent taxpayers across the EU?
8. Would the EU tax raise revenues from the Member States in line with their economic strength?

point 7 being in direct conflict with the combined effects of 6 and 8. The whole bundle of 6, 7, and 8 being in conflict with 5. Point 1 being impossible until we actually know what the EU spends, something that has not really been known for the last 10 years since the EU accounts last added up enough for them to be signed off by the EU's auditors.

They then go on to describe the various taxes based on the criteria that I have at the top of my post.

tax	Sufficiency	Stability	Visibility	Low operating costs	Efficient allocation of resources	Horizontal equality	vertical equality	Fair contributions
Modulated VAT	+	+	+	+	~	+	~	~
EU CORPORATE INCOME TAX	~	-	~	~	+	+	~	~
ENERGY TAXATION	+	+	~	+	+	+	+	~
EXCISE DUTIES ON TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL	~	+	~	~	~	+	-	-
TRANSFER OF SEIGNIORAGE REVENUE	-	~	-	+	+	+	~	~
COMMUNICATION TAXATION	-	~	~	~	-	+	+	+
PERSONAL INCOME TAX	+	+	+	+/- *	~	-/+ *	~	+
TAX ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS	-	-	-	+	-	~	+	~
CLIMATE CHARGE ON AVIATION	-	-	~	+	+	+	+	+

*depending on system of collection

The reasons that they give for direct EU taxation are not exactly great

"Creating an EU tax may increase transparency of EU financing and thereby foster the involvement of the Parliament in budgetary matters. This in turn could have positive consequences in terms of efficiency. Indeed, as taxpayers tend to question the use and the amount of the taxes they pay, they also force the tax authorities to better justify the use of their resources and to make the best use of them. Increased transparency may thus impact on the accountability of a government and on overall efficiency. "[page 9]

By vastly increasing the size of the tough it may be harder for Eurocrats to get their snouts in. Or tax payers don't like endemic corruption and waste, so by increasing the amount of money thrown away in this manner the uproar might be enough to force some reforms. However this requires democratic accountability, something in almost as short supply amoungst teh Eurocrats as disliking graft. Personally I would prefer the EU to reform itself before taking any more of my money.

"Operating costs of taxation could particularly decrease in the case of taxes characterised by so-called Òregional arbitrarinessÓ that are transferred to the EU. Regional arbitrariness refers to situation where it is difficult to determine what the exact share is of a tax base that should be attributed to one or other Member State. In this case complex tax-sharing rules have to be defined, e.g. for corporate income taxation, which sometimes prove costly to both taxpayers and tax administrations. In these cases, it may be more efficient to assign the tax to the ÔhigherÕ level of authority, as is for instance the case for customs duties in the EU."[page 10]

There are cases, such as corporation taxes of multinationals, where it is hard to decide which country tax revenues should go to. So it will be easier settle these disputes if neither gets the revenue and it all gets syphoned into the accounts of the EU instead. This is quite clearly already beginning with the Cadbury and Marks & Spencer cases going through the ECJ at the moment, the judgments' from which will almost certainly lead to EU-wide corporation tax harmonisation.

"Taxes may modify the structure of prices in the economy. This may in turn affect the behaviour of economic agents. In some cases, a change of behaviour is precisely the objective underlying the creation of the tax. This is, in particular, the case where there exist market imperfections or externalities, such as in the environment field. In other cases, such a change of behaviour is not desirable and it can be a source of economic inefficiency. This is, for instance, the case when the tax treatment of a specific investment differs according to its location in the Internal Market. The ultimate location of the investment may then be determined by tax rather than by productivity concerns.

"Hence, an EU tax may facilitate the efficient allocation of resources on two grounds. First, it can potentially provide leverage for Community action and foster EU policies in fields where there are cross-border externalities and limited co-ordination of tax policies among Member States. Second, it can also lead to a harmonisation of some tax bases, with potential benefits for the Internal Market. An assessment of an EU tax should take into account these allocation effects."[page 10]

Central planning to facilitate the efficient allocation of resources, have these people ever read any economics? The command economy is back, and with it the EU plans to continue it's unparalleled economic success.

when it comes to assessing an EU tax proposal, the focus is only placed on the tax having an identical impact in the various Member States for a given taxpayer. At European level, this principle has an important symbolic value. Unequal tax treatment of equivalent EU taxpayers across the EU would probably be considered as discriminatory and against the ideals of the European construction.[page 11]

France isn't going to like this one, French people having to pay as much as the Anglo-Saxons? Don't they understand it is their role to be the milch-cow for subsidising the French way of life? It would be good if it where to happen, but the chances are very remote. Most likely taxes will simply rise to the harmonise at the highest level to accommodate bloated social welfare states. But with this in mind consider Excise Duties on Tobacco and Alcohol and the very low scored given to them. Europe á La Francais?

It is quite clear that the preferred method would be through Personal Income Tax. Everybody hates income tax so this will be a hard sell.
The next best 'Environmental' taxes (Energy tax and Aviation tax), these would also be the easiest to sell to the general public by claiming that they are their to help combat climate change, whilst not talking about the fact that the real purpose is to fund the EU. This one is especially likely as the document says

"Corporate income tax, energy taxation and a climate charge on aviation could have an impact on, and help foster EU policies."

After this there is VAT, minimum levels for which are already set by the EU, which is very similar to the current system of EU funding and could therefore be slipped in by the back door with the minimum of fuss of oversight by thoughts pesky national governments.

The document is also clear that the EU need not just limit itself to one tax,

"In principle, this problem of revenue insufficiency can be overcome by combining several resources, including contributions from the Member States, to make up for the needs of the EU budget."[page 37]

it could choose all of them. Which since the EU has never seen any of somebody else's money that it did not like it probably will over time. I think that we can expect VAT harmonisation through the ratchet mechanisms built into the current system, this will naturally lead to Modulated VAT as a basic extension of the current system of funding. Energy and Aviation taxes will also probably be coming out of Brussels in short order, disguised as a way to save the environment when they really have nothing to do with it. The ultimate goal must be EU levied Income Tax, but that is probably some time off, the EU works by stealthy assimilation and that is simply too 'visible'. It should also be noted that the ECJ is working at turning Corporate Income Tax into an EU tax, despite it being rather unsuitable by there own criteria, the only two points where they claim that it would be a good tax are Horizontal Equity, so everybody is stung by the same amount, and (the ironic) Efficient Allocation of Resources, so Old Europe Socialism in play there.

The most dangerous of the proposed taxes seems to be TRANSFER OF SEIGNIORAGE REVENUE, which going from the document seems to be simply allowing the ECB to print as much extra money as is required to run the EU. This is quite clearly very very dangerous, and worrying that the EU is even considering especially considering the ECB's record of (mis)managing the EU economy. We in the UK should not think that this will not be applied to us simply because we are outside the Eurozone,

an equivalent treatment would be applied to the Central Banks of Member States outside the euro area.

If I understand this correctly, and quite frankly I hope I don't, then should the EU ever take this power then it is time to get the hell away since it is about to collapse, and spectacularly, leaving a big smoking hole in the economic map of the world.

EU Law Web Log

EU verses freedom of the press to report fraudEU 1 justice 0.

Porn swallows 20% of NZ police IT capacity

Porn swallows 20% of NZ police IT capacity, well my twisted sence of humour found it funny. Using porn at work, that must take balls.

EU has tax setting powers

Despite being a complete Euro anorak I had no idea about this before a very informative post by the Village Hampden, but the EU already sets minimum national tax rates. I had up till now believed that this was one area that the EU had kept it's grubby mitts off, despite recent attempts in the ECJ to change that. So it appears that Tony Blair’s 'red line' on tax was in fact a red herring, the EU already had limited tax setting powers. He could not stop them getting them, as they had already been given, and thanks to Aquis Communitaire can never be taken back.

The rest of the post is also interesting and is about how the EU is going to use these powers to force an increase in VAT on many things that currently do not. But it was the fact that the EU has tax setting powers that really blew me away. That is one thing about the EU's slow stealthy usurption of power, there are always new things to find out about.

Blimpish: on the Lib Dems

Blimpish: In politics: being negative might be wrong, but it is fun

democracy to be ignored on EU constitution

The EU has a back up plan if the deomcratic will of the people goes against it, if the a report in the Telegraph (dead tree edition on Saturday) is correct. It will ignore it. On the surface there is no basis on holding further referendums if the French vote No. The European union constitution must be ratified by all member states and a French No should effectively kill it.

However the EU was not built on letting details like No votes sway its founding fathers from their mission.This won't be the first time of course, Ireland and Denmark where told to vote again when they gave the 'wrong' answer over Maastricht, however this will be the first time that France will have been treated this way. But that is what Jean-Claude Juncke, Prime Minister of Luxembourg and current EU president, is quoted as saying,

"The French vote is important but I don't believe that it should stop the ratification process under way in other countries."

This is due to some obscure text tacked onto the end of the draft constitution that says, according to the Telegraph,

if, by December 2006, four fiths of the 25 states have ratified the treaty but "one[they where probaably thinking of the UK] or more of the member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification", then "the matter will be referred" to a summit of EU heads of state and government.

So it does not matter which way anyone votes it will simply be referred to the heads of state to ratify it anyway.

EU tax harmonisation continues

A follow on about the Marks and Spencer tax case going through the ECJ, and the EU's attempt to start tax harmonisation by stealth. This if from a most unlikely source, the Independent (dead tree edition on Saturday) which normally has a pro-EU editorial line.

Cadbury is bringing a test case against the Government over the way UK tax laws prevent multinational companies exploiting the different rates of business tax charged across the European Union.

Currently, the Inland Revenue does not allow multinationals to channel profits through subsidiaries in other EU countries where tax rates are lower.

So this is not the same as the Marks case, in fact it is it's flip side. In the marks case they where trying move losses around so that the total profit to be taxed would be lower. In this case they are moving profits around to wherever the tax rate is most favorable so as to pay the least tax.

Like the Marks and Spencer case we can expect this one to be ruled in favour of Cadbury Schweppes, and another step towards tax harmonisation taken.

Daniel P. Moloney on Benedict XVI

Theocon idiots don't understand moral reletavism, it is merely the name of the observable fact that societies attitudes change over time. Even the Catholic Church's attitudes change over time. So it is directly observable that societies moral requiresments are not absolute and unchanging. If you study history it quick shows that these changes, over time mean that there are no moral codes that do not change. (If anyone thinks otherwise just say in the comments, and I'll find you a counter example).

This fact that there are no absolute unchanging moral laws do not mean that there are no moral laws at all. Just because a society decides that one particular set of moral codes nolonger fit for it does not mean that it has no moral codes at all, just that they have changed.

The theocons cannot understand this. In there world there is only one set of morals, theirs, and everybody else is immoral or ammoral. This mental failure leads to such stupidity as thishaving fun is as bad as genocide (well genocide is endorsed by the bible, while fun isn't):

"In this regard, the consumerism and relativism of the West can be just as dangerous as the totalitarianism of the East: It’s just as easy to forget about God while dancing to an iPod as while marching in a Hitler Youth rally."

The difference is that nobody has ever attempted to exterminate an entire race due to their choice of personal MP3 player. There have been repeated attempts at exterminating races based on the rants of demagogues, and popes.

In western society this is an important difference, genocide being a big moral wrong. In the society of the theocons I guess they follow a different moral teaching. I acknowlege this, but it does not stop me from condeming them for it.

Mice put in 'suspended animation'

So hibernation like in Alien or 2001: A Space Odessy comes a little closer the only problem would be the horrible smell, I don't see many people going in for this unless they can be knocked out before being emersessed in a container that smells very strongly of rotting eggs.

Apple's Big Virus

A peice on The Register about MacOS X and how it's relative security, compared to Windows, plus ease of use and the iPod halo effect is having a dramatic effect of 43% growth in the number of macs sold. Good news.

Can't stop the wheels of Blairism rolling

Backing Blair may be disappointed but it appears that Tony has out smarted them. It does not matter if the New Labour majority is slashed in the new Parliment (which is unlikely any how) the Tyrant Blair does not actually need Parliment to carry out his manidesto pledges, and this is without even resorting to the Civil Contingences bill and declaring himself Prime Minister for Life. Most of the primary legislation to set up the various bodies he wants has already been passed, so it is now just a case of ramping up the numbers. Clever, despicable but clever.

Who Should You Vote For?

I just did the Who Should You Vote For? online test again. It appears that my views have changed since last time, when it was anyone but Labour. This time UKIP comes out top, with the Greens (who came out top last time) and Lib Dems lossing alot of ground. I wonder what has made such a dramatic difference as I don't think that my views have shifted that much, still dislike the EU, still hate New Labour, still believe in Liberty, still think Kyoto is a first step to dealing with climate change. Perhaps they changed the vote weightings.

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

UK Independence Party

Your actual outcome:

Labour -44
	Conservative 35
Liberal Democrat -8
	UK Independence Party 42
	Green 10

You should vote: UK Independence Party

UKIP's primary focus is on Europe, where the party is strongly against joining both the EU constitution and the Euro. UKIP is also firmly in favour of limiting immigration. The party does not take a clear line on some other policy issues, but supports scrapping university tuition fees; it is strongly against income tax rises and favour reducing fuel duty.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Mick Hume on Respect

Opinion - Mick Hume:

"Respect acts as a reminder of why I describe myself as “on the left, but not of it”. It has been accused of flirting with the Islamic lobby in its campaign against the Iraq war, and it is noticeable that its manifesto commitment to defending civil liberties against the Government makes no mention of defending free speech against new Labour’s incitement to religious hatred laws. But even worse than that is Respect’s embrace of today ’s fashionably backward Western prejudices, opposing everything from GM foods and nuclear power to more animal research and road building. As the Left turns into the enemy of progress and the embodiment of self-loathing, Respect sometimes sounds like the most conservative voice in this election — a pretty remarkable achievement, given who it is up against."

Fragrant Margot’s Freedom of Information

An interesting incite into the workings of oh so Democratic Euroland in figures originally prised out by Dutch MEP Jens-Peter Bonde and brought to my attention by the always interesting EU Serf 85% of all rules are adopted in 300 secret working groups under the Concil of Ministers. There are aparently 3000 such secret Quangos and not even MEP's are allowed to know who sits on htem other than the chairman, and would not even know that where it not for the work of Mr Jens-Peter Bonde. How is the democratic element of Euroland supposed to perform it's scrutinising function when it cannot even know what names, let alone what they are saying, of people discussing our future?

Mine landfill for renewable energy, EU says no

According to the Register you can product energy from burning rubbish enough to power two million homes, by 2020, according to a report from UK engineers and green-energy lobbyists. This would also stop this rotting down to methane, a far more potent green house gas than CO2. One small problem, this is against EU law, so we can't do it (hat tip to Tim Worstall for that last link).

So the EU wants people to be enviromentally friendly, reduce the amount of land fill used, reduce the amount of green house gases produced, and produce energy from renewable sources and yet when a scheme is proposed that will do all of these things it is apparently against EU law. Well that is consistent with policies to aid poor farmers by giving vast amounts of money to millionare land owners with the most land (CAP), and policies for preserving fish stocks and fishing jobs that have decimated both (CFP).

The Real Che: The Legacy of a Leftist Idol

For anyone that wants to know why Che and Pinochet are equivalent and worthy of a merge here is a nice exposition of the reasons.

ban bread now!

Wonderful satire on the evils of bread (found via Samizdat):

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

a very British insurgency: More education, another rant...

A rant on the state of the state education system bya very British insurgency, and the weird lefty view of it. What the lefties seem to singally ignore is that since the replacement of the Grammer Schools with Comprehensives the levels of social mobility dropped dramatically.

People have different abilities. Wagne Rooney will never hold a mathematics Chair at Cambridge, and likewise Steven Hawking will never play football for England. Both have gifts in their chosen fields, but trying to get them to the same standard in each others field is simply pointless. That is the problem with the comprehesive idea it assumes that everybody is the same, which is false. So it has to either go at the speed of the people with most difficulty in a subject, therefore leaving the people with more bored. Or challenge the people with more ability in any area so alienating the people who need more help as they continually seem to fail even if trying as hard as they can.

George Galloway

A transcript of the confrontation between Slam Pax and George Galloway, and how his views have changed in the last year by Tim Blair. Last year Galloway was saying that Britian must leave strait away and give Iraq up to the insurgents (so that a brutal dictatorship sould be installed),

"The people of Iraq are well able to decide the kind of government they want, free of the armed imposition of a quisling administration"

Now with democracy beginning to sprout in Iraq and the Iraqis actually able to decide what kind of government they want suddenly the tone changes:

"It’s not a matter for you - it’s a matter for us"

In Georges world you can have any kind of government you want, so long as it is a brutal dictatorship.

The Edge of England's Sword: Murray falls off chair in shock

The Edge of England's Sword: Murray falls off chair in shock. A copy of the main sections of an article in The Times about the one policy stratergy that all of the main parties are studiously avoiding and yet could be very beneficial, as has been shown in many european countries where it is used. No not socialism. It's called local Democracy (not the Tyrant Blair's favourite word), scary and radical eh? Politicans give up power to people to run their own lives, it could obviously never work here [you can put the thumb screws down now SAOC Agent Smith, I said what you wanted didn't I?].

Tim Worstall: Anyone Any Good With Photoshop?

Tim Worstall is fed up with the icon of Che Guevara, a brutal revolutionary that murderered, tortured and was intrumental in setting up with friend Fidel. So he has asked for a merge with that other well known Latin American tyrant Pinochet (extreme left meets extreme right kind of a Third way tyrant?). Well here is my effort.

Could be better but I don't really like staring at the face of that man too much.

So so I win my aeroplane ride and swimming lessons now?

UPDATE:

a comment has asked if the original image can be used on anyone elses site, the answer is yes feel free to use it as you wish. Even make a t-shirt out of it! All I ask is a link and credit for doing it. I also decided that that one wasn't really in the style of the famous Che picture, so here is my second attempt.

Cabinet tears itself apart over EU

No not a headline from dieing day's of the Conservatism, this time it's across the other side of the channel. Chirac Cabinet tears itself apart over EU constitution

EU Corruption

The same story as before, but in more detail fromNew Europe

yet more EU corruption

after only being in the job a few months Barroso has already fallen into the ways of the institutionally corrupt EU taking a free holiday from a man he is supposed to be investigating.

Canadian Interim Privacy Commissioner questions merit of a national ID card

the Canadian Interim Privacy Commissioner questions merit of a national ID card:

"In my brief, I suggest that this Committee consider certain essential questions about a national identification system, because simply asking them brings out the enormous implications of such a scheme-the practical and technological challenges of creating and managing it, the need to develop comprehensive legal and policy frameworks, the implications for privacy. These questions include:

* Who would be issued an identification card? Everyone? Canadians at the age of majority only? If children are issued a card, at what age?
* Would participation in and identification by the system be voluntary or mandatory?
* What would be the scope of the data that would be gathered about individuals participating in the system?
* Who would be allowed to demand production of a card from card carriers for proof of identity?
* Who could contribute, view, or edit data in a national ID system?
* What types of uses of the card and its attendant system would be allowed?
* What legal structures would protect the system's integrity as well as the data subject's privacy and due process rights, and determine the government and other parties' liability for system misuse or failure?
* Who would bear the full weight of privacy rights accountability and responsibility for a national identity system?
* What are the alternatives to a national identity system?

My view is that the challenges of putting in place a national identification system that is effective, affordable, and respectful of privacy are enormous. A strong case for the benefits of a national identification system has not been made; to the extent that benefits would exist, they would be marginal at best.

Accordingly, my recommendation is that this Committee reject the idea of a national identity card as unworkable and unjustified.'"

In the case of the current proposed British ID sytem some of the questions are easily answered:
* Who would be issued an identification card? Everyone? Canadians at the age of majority only? If children are issued a card, at what age?
Everybody that has a Passport or Driving Licence, or just has money to burn, will have to buy one. So most people over the age of 18, but not children.

* Would participation in and identification by the system be voluntary or mandatory?
New Labour like to claim that it will be voluntary, but that will soon be changed to mandatory. It is simply useless without compulsion.

* What would be the scope of the data that would be gathered about individuals participating in the system?
Well within the card itself there will be biometrics. But this isn't really the important part of the question which is really about how the database will be used to log peoples actions. This hasn't been talked about, but a good guess that the monitoring will be extensive.

The most important of his questions are the civil liberties onew, the ones that New Labour has studiously avoided answering.
* Who would be allowed to demand production of a card from card carriers for proof of identity?
* Who could contribute, view, or edit data in a national ID system?
* What types of uses of the card and its attendant system would be allowed?
* What legal structures would protect the system's integrity as well as the data subject's privacy and due process rights, and determine the government and other parties' liability for system misuse or failure?
* Who would bear the full weight of privacy rights accountability and responsibility for a national identity system?
* What are the alternatives to a national identity system?

The only question that he doesn't ask, the fundimental one, is:
* Why do we need an ID card at all?
For which there is no good reason. We got along fine during previous waves of immigration without. We got along fine during real sustained terrorist attacks without, unlike the current sustained absence of terrorist attacks. The public services worked, in so much as they have or will ever work, without.

Gorgeous George goes a’wooing - Sunday Times - Times Online

Some wonderfull writing by A A Gill on everybodeis favourette fasist symperthiser Gorgeous George

“This used to be Gladstone’s house,” he tells me. “His slogan was, ‘With the masses against the classes’. You know, Adrian, you’d be surprised that a lot of my social beliefs are probably to the right of yours.” No shit. Someone who believes that Saddam Hussein is a brave and far-sighted beloved leader of his people is pretty much likely to be to the right of everyone.
...[snip]...
“We need manufacturing. What car did you drive here?” he barks at me while his minders smirk. “I bet it wasn’t made in Britain.”

Actually, now you ask, it was made in the Midlands by Manganese Bronze. It was a taxi. And what was that huge limo I noticed you parking? “That’s my Mercedes.”
...[snip]...
King wants to save the world one person at a time. For her, you get the feeling that politics is muscular social work. And if you live in a deprived inner city, with all its dreary problems, then there’s no question who would be the more effective MP.

But Oona has a problem. She supported the war in Iraq. She had been calling for someone to do something about Saddam long before Bush or Blair thought there might be a backhander in it for them. But even so, it doesn’t go down well on Brick Lane.

Political survey - My results

a new poll with wierdly labelled axis. Aparently I'm slightly pro-EU (ha ha) and very much for the war in Iraq.

While I have come over to thinking that there might be good things coming from the war it hardly justifies my position as an extreme war monger in this poll. This position was probably warped by my fairly radiacal free market views.

As for the pro-EU bit that was probably warped by the fact that despite being deeply sceptic I am not a hanging/flogging person (except between consenting adults) and my liberal views in that area got mixed up with somehow being in favour of an anti-democratic authoritarian state. I don't think this poll was designed with Classical Liberals in mind.

Image is everything, unfortunately

Robert Kilroy-Silk, whom where I polically correct I would call chromatically challenged, has set out the manefesto of his Party Image which includes an entire section on Civil Liberties according to Samizdat:

stand for and defend freedom of speech and thought, freedom of conscience and belief

restore and protect our constitutional freedoms, like trial by jury and habeas corpus, which are being threatened

refuse to introduce Identity Cards, which won't reduce crime, fraud, terrorism or illegal immigration, but will cost a fortune and give the state too many powers

repeal the draconian Civil Contingencies Act and the government's Control Orders, both of which give the government unprecedented powers

refuse to introduce a new crime of 'incitement to religious hatred'

end the nonsense of prosecuting traders for selling in pounds and ounces

free ourselves from the power of the notorious 'E.U. Arrest Warrant' - British citizens must never be extradited without a Court hearing

A politician that talks sense, what a strange accorance, he even wants a Flat Tax! I won't be able to vote for him but if I could I would. Not that the mainstream media will actually broadcast something as shocking and radical as actually defending ancient liberties. No they where more interested in trying to get him to say the word 'Muslim' so they could use the story that they had already decided would be the news about Veritas, namely that it is another name for the BNP which it quite clearly isn't. I guess they must be prejudiced because of his skin colour.

Civil Contingencies Bill

When this bill was going through the House I didn't really notice it, which goes to show the priorities of our media, so here is a summary of this little bit of horror from the Blair government Civil Contingencies Bill - Blair's 'Enabling Act', summary

the New Labour project

As the Tyrant Blair approaches his third term in office Peter Riddell of The Times attempts to compare is time to two Prime Ministers that can truly have said to have changed the country, Attlee and Thatcher, and he is not impressed. In his view most of the Blair changes have been small, managerial, just tweaks to keep the economic structure gifted him by Thatcher on track rather than attempts to radically alter it.

Everyone was quite clear what these governments were trying to do, at least within a year or two of winning office. But Mr Blair’s goals and record are less clear cut. That is revealed by the search for new overarching themes: first, the Third Way (unmentioned yesterday) and, now, the “progressive consensus”. At times, there has been the sense of looking for coherence.

The problem is he in looking in the wrong place, New Labour's project was very clear within the first few years however it was not economic, it was social.

Just like Thatcher and Atlee New Labour had shown it's project within the first coupl of years in office by dramatically altering the basis of British Law. It reversed the burden of proof. You where guilty until proven innocent. That is the New Labour project, they are at war with Civil Liberties.

Labour was Socialist, New Labour is Authoritarian.

The political spectrum between Right and Left is well known, it is what the present generation of journalists have grown up with and look for to characterise politicians. Right and Left are not the only political dimensions, as Hayek pointed out, there is also the difference between Authoritarian and Libertarian. This is difference is not in economics but the degree of personal freedom versus state power. Pinocet and Lenin where at opposite ends of the Right/Left spectrum but both where highly Authoritarian and opposed to personal freedom. Hippies and survivalists are also generally on opposite ends of the Right/Left spectrum, but both believe in a high degree of personal freedom. Blair however does not.

Big things like reversing the burden of proof are quite rare, but the small acts chipping away at personal freedom are legion, they even gained there own name 'the nanny state'. Which is the New Labour vision, the state knows better how you should lead your life than you do.

• It is under New Labour that the number of surveillance cameras has exploded.
• It is under New Labour that speed cameras have mushroomed along the road network, like giant grey toadstools, at an ever increasing rate.
• It is under New Labour that encryption has been banned, and assistance to wire tapping made a legal obligation.
• It is under New Labour that a person, for the first time, can be tried and tried again until the 'correct', that is guilty, verdict is finally established.
• It is under New Labour that the right to trial by jury has been systematically attacked.
• It is under New Labour that hearsay evidence has been made admissible in court, and anything 'unsocial' made an offense.
• It is under New Labour that the right to any trial at all has been removed.
• It is under New Labour that for the first time there is a separate police force that reports directly to the Home Secretary.
• It is under New Labour that the independence of Judicial Inquiries has been curtailed.
• It is under New Labour that the 90% of the people of the country, despite never even being considered to have committed any crime, will have their fingerprints taken to be stored for future reference simply for the privilege of leaving nanny's play pen.
• New Labour is also committed to fingerprinting everybody else simply for the privilege of existing under the guidance of Blair and his cohorts, creating a national identity card for the first time while the country is at peace.
• And a myriad of other smaller attacks on the simple right to live without constant interference from the state.

New Labour is Authoritarian, and possibly the most Authoritarian government that this country has suffered under for several hundred years. However, to lesser degree, so are all the other main political parties. There is no political voice that will stand against them and not just slow down the erosion but reverse it and restore the freedoms that have been lost. Until one emerges slowing erosion is the best that can be hoped for, so in that spirit I am going to vote Conservative, assuming my vote is not stolen in a New Labour vote factory, not because I like what they stand for. They are simply less bad than New Labour and the most likely to be able to reduce their massive majority.

Who Should You Vote For?

Who Should You Vote For?Green aparently, which is actually pretty good. They are pretty close to a true Libertarian party as we have got.

Who should I vote for?

Labour -28
	Conservative 25
	Liberal Democrat 3
	UK Independence Party 38
	Green 43

You should vote: Green

The Green Party, which is of course strong on environmental issues, takes a strong position on welfare issues, but was firmly against the war in Iraq. Other key concerns are cannabis, where the party takes a liberal line, and foxhunting, which unsurprisingly the Greens are firmly against.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Clarke calls for ID cards after imagining huge poison terror ring | The Register

"Clarke calls for ID cards after imagining huge poison terror ring":

Savage Love by Dan Savage

Village Voice taking on the Papal Bull [shit] and hypocracy surrounding the Pope

What's maddening about this pope's signature gay bashing is this: When the pope—the dead one, the next one, the one after that—says something stupid about homosexuality, straight folks take it to heart. The church's efforts have helped defeat gay rights bills, led to the omission of gays and lesbians from hate-crime statutes, and helped to pass anti-gay-marriage amendments. But when a pope says something stupid about heterosexuality, straight Americans go deaf. And this pope had plenty to say about heterosexual sex—no contraceptives, no premarital sex, no blowjobs, no jerkin' off, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial insemination, no blowjobs, no three-ways, no swinging, no blowjobs, no anal. Did I mention no blowjobs? John Paul II had more "no's" for straight people than he did for gays. But when he tried to meddle in the private lives of straights, the same people who deferred to his delicate sensibilities where my rights were concerned suddenly blew the old asshole off. Gay blowjobs are expendable, it seems; straight ones are sacred.

Taming of the shrewd inquirer

The Tyrant Blair (moto "if it ain't broke, we'll soon change that") continues his war on Civil Liberties, this time attacking public inquiries, such as the Hutton Inquiry that coursed so much embarisment for revealing the truth. The Inquiries Act 2005 has given ministers the power to wind up any inquiry whenever they feel like it, for whatever reason they feel like (such as it is producing evidence that could be embarrasing for the Tyrant Blair), or change the terms of reference whenever they feel like if they do not sufficiently railroad the judge into giving whatever answer Blair has chosen.

They had time to do this, but not to do anything about the postal voting fraud that has turned our democracy into something that would disgrace a banana republic. Oh, but I forgot the possiblity of unlimited voting fraud by Labour Party members means that Blair will get in next time with the same massive majority so it is of course a good thing.

The ricin ring that never was

The Guardian has a story about the ricin poisoners of 2003 and how they have a greater connection to the survivalists of the USA than Al Qaida. Nor can this guy really be called a terrorist 'master-mind' as he was on the BBc last night, as his plan was apparently to spread his poison on door handles of random people in order to course mass panic. Small problem, this would have killed nobody. Ricin is only toxic if ingested or injected, simply touching it does nothing. So he appears to be not so much going for the Bin Ladin Terrorist of the Year Award as the Richard Ried Incompetent of the Year Award. The only people he paniced where the ones in whitehall. The murdering gimp should however never been in the country at all, he was an illegal immergrant who had been caught numerous times for stealing. It was known that he was an illegal immergrant when he was arrested for stealing, so why didn't they just deport him then? He was quite clearly not supposed to be here, or doing anything constructive whilst he was here, and if he'd been thrown back to the Middle East (with the Sharia law that he so loves) detective Stephen Oake would still be alive and we wouldn't have had any of this mess.

ID cards by the back door

Ignoring the fact that the ID card bill has been dropped before even getting to Parliment the government has decided to introduce ID cards anyway (how European) under the guise of an update to the way that passports are issued. The simple fact that this very expensive waste of time is not actually required by the Passport initive that they cite, which only requires that the photo that is already there be there in a digital form as well, appears to have completely missed them. As has the fact that fingerprint readers are extremely unreliable and can be fooled 80% of the time using common simple means.

Baroness Williams is former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords writes in the Guardian that:

The government invokes "security" to explain its actions. Enthusiastically assisted by some of the tabloids, it uses fear of terrorism and fear of crime to justify tougher sentences, more imprisonment in often disgusting conditions, more regulation and control over our daily lives. Yet other countries equally or more at risk, such as Spain and Germany, have seen no need to react in this way.

exactly, there is a terrorist organisation operating in this country. It is called the IRA. But the IRA is currently on truce so the security threat that we face is currently the lowest that it has been in probably 50 years. On human rights and freedom of speach so loved by New Labour (to get embarrasing thigns about their opposition that happened 10 years ago onto the front pages of the papers) she writes:

Failing to obey an order by a senior police officer during a demonstration within the so-called designated area around parliament, even on issues such as using a loudspeaker or waving too large a placard, can now carry a sentence of up to 51 weeks in jail. Not since Pitt the Younger have such draconian penalties been imposed where no violence is threatened.

Tim Worstall comments that:

What is sad of course is that when they start to tell us this will save us from foreign terrorists, no one will point out that foreigners do not, by definition, have British passports.

Just as ID cards cannot stop Labour Postal Vote fraud, as there is nobody (except that nice man from the Labour Party who has offered to take your ballot to the postbox for you) to check your ballot matches the ID on your card.

The No2ID campaigne are particually annoyed by this wholesale destruction of ancient civil liberties and the British constitution:

By using royal prerogative powers and without the chance for Parliamentary debate or recourse, the government has effectively ripped up the nearest the UK has to a constitutional rulebook – long established customs and practices – as also demonstrated by the announcement of the first 18 month Parliamentary session. The actions of the most autocratic government in recent history are making a fine argument for constitutional reform.

Why did the government do this? As the register article shows there was no need for this mass fingerprinting, it was not required by the excuse that they made. And why this way? Why not wait until Parliment had a chance to debate it? Royal Perogitive is normally only used in the most extreme cases, such as going to war, so what was so extreme and pressing about this? New Labour have after all reformed the House of Lords, it is therefore reformed and ready for the 21st century, the Tyrant Blair having explicitly rejected any elected element in it. So they cannot be that scared when it performs it's function and forces them to revise legislation should this legislation be faulty. Or perhaps the Tyrant Blair is simply getting bored with the whole idea of Parlimen