Some People Have Pure Custard Between Their Ears

When it comes to climate change, I consider myself to be pretty agnostic.  I personally believe that there is insufficient data to draw an accurate conclusion as to whether mankind is actually destroying the environment or that we are possibly in an unknown period following the last ice age (20,000 or so years ago), or indeed a myriad of other reasons.

Despite this, I think neither side has acquitted themselves well.  There has been Climategate (although subsequent reviews have since found that although the methodology was flawed, the findings were correct - eh?) and the ignoring of data that did not support the climate change theories, but all of this pales to insignificance with the latest actions from the skeptics.   Heartland (an organisation in the US that I refuse to link to) ran advertising campaign in Chicago that beggared belief.  Rather than apologise for this disgrace, they claimed it a success. The global campaign group, Avaaz are now running a campaign to encourage their corporate sponsors to abandon them - hopefully this will be successful.

One Mighty White Elephant

Reading the paper this morning, I saw this article about an airborne laser "gun" designed to kill tanks from 10 miles (15kms) away. Pretty impressive considering that tank armour can be 300mm thick and beyond.

Whilst a great idea in theory, and obviously big-shiny technology always looks impressive (which is why billions are spent on high-tech planes rather than making them cheaper and in greater quantities), I do feel that this plane is going to be rather limited as it is totally reliant on air superiority.

Currently it is mounted on a converted 747, with plans to later fit in to the venerable Hercules. Certainly on my travels, I have not considered the 747 to be the most agile of craft and while 10 miles sounds like a considerable distance, it is not that deep for a battlefield as they can stretch to several miles by the time reserves are taken into consideration. As such, its use is going to be limited to insurgent situations and the flight crew will have to hope like hell that they don't possess any cheap anti-aircraft missiles, which the US government would have in no way supplied to them. And if you believe what's in store for the future, it's not going to be of much use.

Even assuming that the future is not so bleak, the limits of the laser means that at maximum range the laser is going to be degraded substantially by atmospheric conditions (smoke and dust from the battlefield, water vapour in the atmosphere), which will causing "blooming" and reduce the effectiveness of the beam. Still, with a skilled controller they should be able to beam "USA! USA! USA!" into the clouds.

The return of centralised Government?

Having announced that the ailing Northern Rock will now be nationalised due to the massive amounts of taxpayers money dropped into it, it is possible that the Politburo has got it sights on an even bigger target.

Although nothing has officially been announced, the stripping of the rail operators licence would easily allow the government to nationalise First Great Western, setting a precedent for all the other rail franchises that are failing to deliver. The rights and wrongs of privatised rail services vs. nationalised services can be debated, however the fact remains that a time when government bank balances are written exclusively in red (thanks to the previous Chancellor, now Prime Minister), increasing the public debt to fulfil an ideological desire is at best, foolish.

Hopefully, the Government will see sense and realise that nationalisation failed the country in the 60s & 70s and therefore does not need a repeat performance.

What will he have to say for himself?

The Telegraph is giving readers the opportunity to pose questions to David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party. Reading through the questions posted so far, there seems to be a pretty common theme: immigration, EU and crime.

After gaining some good momentum while Blur ran the country into the ground, Cameron has lost it all and is allowing Brown to take the upper hand. There seems to be a genuine fear in the Tory ranks of "lurching to the Right", which is complete nonsense. The simple fact is that the UK's resources in all areas are stretched way beyond capacity, and a firm line must be taken. Brown produces the rhetoric and is lauded for it, Cameron does it and is accused of being Right wing (as if it is a crime). It's something Nick Robinson of the BBC has also observed.

In my opinion, Cameron has to stop being Blur-lite and make some definitive policy statements on some of the harder issues to tackle. At least that way, people can either get on board or jump ship. The lack of anything of substance is going to be damaging as nobody will not what he or the Tories stand for. The incumbent government have many areas where they are prime for attacking: violent crime is rising, unions seem to be getting their edge back (a new winter of discontent?) and the Health service is failing with more administrators than there is capacity to treat patients. Sadly, Cameron and the Tories are failing to voice these - they must do if they want to be a credible opposition.

Bye, bye Blur

Well, our illustrious/lame-duck Prime Minister has left office, Downing Street and if rumours are to be believed, will be leaving Parliament to take up a "foreign envoy" position (so he can still travel First Class, no doubt). At the end of his tenure, it is probably a good idea to reflect on his many achievements while in office:

• 900,000 civilians killed in a non-UN sanctioned war in Iraq.
• spiralling juvenile crime, fuelled by ASBO "badges of honour" (an oxymoronic term).
• devaluing of the peerage system, so that anyone with a bit of loose change for the Labour coffers (OK, several thousands) can nab themselves a gong.

• Interesting aside: my first realisation of things were amiss with the Honours system was when Alex Ferguson of Manchester United became Sir Alex Ferguson immediately before or after (I forget which) appearing on a Labour party Election broadcast.

• Sleaze, scandal and cover-ups ranging from philandering Cabinet ministers (fair enough really), children of Cabinet ministers being sent to selective schools (a bit hypocritical) and the "sexing up" of the WMD document & its fallout.
• A truly classless society, as epitomised by this nugget.

Will Brown do a better job? He certainly lacks the weaselly demeanour, which can only help his profile however a hard shift to the left may not be in his best interests. The recent defection of some MP from the Tories to Labour will make him feel confident; he would be wise not replace that with complacency.

Here's hoping for some improvement...

Who can I abuse now?

Well, after much procrastinating our wonderful Prime Minister has thrown in the towel and is going to leave office in June. Obviously this is not too soon for the country as it is being dragged further and further down by his vain-glorious policies designed to leave a "legacy". One of the most expensive has been the imposition of a major IT programme that is not only is way over budget, but is also failing to meet the key targets. Not too great a legacy...

But what about peace in Northern Ireland? I'm sorry but if a group of power-mad Islamic terrorists had not started trying to pick fights with the US, there would likely be no power-sharing, NORAID will still provide funding to the republican terrorists and sectarian killings would likely be happening. Blair thinking that he has a special touch and can apply that to bring peace to the Middle East is just delusional.

Maybe if he hadn't been so quick to follow GW down the road to war could he have been taken seriously...

Have they thought about the root cause?

It appears that someone has a grudge against Government bodies responsible for the various aspects of car ownership in the UK. Targets have included the DVLA and the mob managing Ken Livingstone's pride: the Congestion Charge. The obvious culprit for this mentioned by the press is a disgruntled motorist (d'uh), however who is to say that it is one person? I propose that it may in fact it may be a newly-formed militant wing of the RAC.

Joking aside, the Government must look at themselves to a certain degree. While I don't condone violence, the fact is that the under the incumbent mob, the costs associated with motoring have risen manyfold, leaving more and more people out of pocket. The Government (local and national) have attempted to spin the fact that they are forcing a green agenda, but the facts do not back this up. The Congestion Charge gives Livingstone more money to spend on Cuban "fact finding missions" and duty on fuel and licence fees gives Brown more to pay for a greater number of administrators in the NHS.

As long as the government continues to penalise those that are easy targets, more and more people will become disgruntled. A change of Government is long overdue...

(not that things will probably change much)

Drugs are bad!

Heather and I were visiting a friend who publishes a free paper aimed at the clubbing crowd and got in to an interesting chat about illegal drugs. I have never touched an illegal drug in my life, I have been offered but have refused everytime out of choice. That is not to say I have not been wasted a lot, I just do that with alcohol. :)

I am however realistic. People choose to do drugs, whether to party harder, to escape the futility of their existence or whatever. Just as prohibition in the US during the 30s failed to work, so is drug control not working. I am very much in favour of legalising soft drugs.

Current TV advertising warns about the increasingly stronger strains of cannabis hitting the streets and how it should be avoided. Here's an alternative suggestion: legalise it and regulate how strong it can be, just like alcohol. By doing that, dealers will no longer be the preferred means of obtaining, as it would still be an offence to supply cannabis without a licence. This also means that dealers will no longer be able to lace cannabis with heroin to get smokers addicted.

Ecstacy could be sold over the counter by pharmacies, with a limit of one per person per week or something. By making them legal, the government can regulate their contents and prevent rat poison and all manner of junk being put into them. The result is less risk to clubbers from taking a spiked pill.

When legalising these drugs, it also gives the government opportunity to tax them, money that is currently spent but not seen by the government. This money could be injected back into the Health system, and given the volume of drugs consumed it should amount to a sizable fortune. Better this than spending money on policing something that is becoming ever more difficult with the the constantly limited resources the police have.

While they're at it, they should legalise the oldest profession in the world. The five girls killed before Christmas could have been protected if they weren't having to ply their trade on the streets. A properly regulated setup would also help to stem the flow of human trafficking - proper proof would be required from the "job applicant" that they are doing it:

1. of their own free will
2. have a right to work in the UK
3. are willing to undergo six monthly checkups to check for STDs, etc.

May be I am too liberal to be conservative. Personally, I just like to think I am good at seeing money-making opportunities for governments. Beats Brown's "environment taxes" that will not achieve any improvements.

Happy New Year!

Another week, another post. I should get more regular with this. I've been having a relatively hectic week at work with year-end and various things going wrong. Anyway, I thought I would proffer my opinions on the Saddam Hussein Execution.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing by the Bush and Blair about how he should not be executed. It's kind of ironic that Bush is adverse to this, given his track record. That being said, one thing that is bugging me is the constant need by Western countries to impose their morals and values on to another country, which has opposing views.

Taking the example of China, they are a totalitariean state that supresses individual human rights. However, they are also in a position where their economy is one of the fastest growing and they are slowly giving more rights to the individual. Contrast this with the changes that took place with the fall of the Communism, which resulted in bloody conflicts and massive corruption at the same time that Western values and a Capitalist economy was adopted. I really believe that it is better to allow countries to progress at their own speed, rather than to force upon them foreign values.

Anyway, time for me to go party :)

Junk food advertising

It was announced today that Ofcom (the regulator of the communication companies) has announced measure to prevent the screening of junk food advertisements during times when children would most likely be watching. Specifically, these are:

• All pre-school children's programmes
• All programmes on mainstream channels aimed at children
• All cable and satellite children's channels
• Programmes aimed at young people, such as music shows
• General entertainment programmes which would appeal to a "higher than average" number of under-16s.

Like my comments about increasing the duty on alcopops, this will not make any difference. Kids will still want their Big Mucks when they are out with their parents on a Saturday afternoon, gaudiness of the "restaurants" are designed to attract the impressionable mind. Likewise, crisps and soft drinks are still going to be consumed at school break times, they are convenience foods and kids are too keen to be doing other things than eating.

In moderation, all these foods are fine and it is better that the message is spread by the junk food companies that moderation and exercise are necessary. An example junk food ad might be:

At the moment, there is no incentive for the companies to clean up their message. Ofcom had the opportunity to make a difference, but instead took the easy way out by the blanket banning. Government agencies, policy makers, etc have to realise that people will continue to do those things that are bad for them. Telling them not to do something is a sure enough way of making people want to do it. Be realistic and educate people, its the best option for improvement.

While Ofcom are at it, could they create an index for how moronic advertisements are? An advertisement with a high index rating (for example the Phones4U campaign) should be automatically banned, the video tapes destroyed by incineration and the person that thought of it sterilised to prevent them from infecting the gene pool any further.

Can the man not think for himself?

After the Republicans suffered probably their worst defeat in twelve years, old GW decided that may be things in Iraq were not actually going to plan and it was time to think about new options.

In a totally unsuprising move, our Ovine Prime Minister has come out a few days later and said the very same thing. This is just under a month after he stated that troops were there indefinetly. However, because George Bush has changed his mind, so must Blair.

In a show of some originality, Blair did entertain the idea of Iran and Syria. However as these are the very countries that form part of Bush's famed "Axis of Evil", I think the chances of this ever happening are slim to non-existent. And not solely for that reason.

Blair is missing one of the fundemental precepts that is causing the problems in Iraq: the Balkan war happened fundementally because the stabilising force (Tito) was no longer in power (actually he was dead) and Communism in the area was taking it's last breaths. The tribes were therefore free to start causing mayhem by extracting revenge on each other after years of oppression. Fast-forward a few years, and you have a similar situation to how it was in the Balkan states now in Iraq. The violence in Iraq is predominantly sectarian (Shi'a muslim vs. Sunni muslim), even though the numbers of security force personnel injured seems to be rising daily.

Finally, factor in that Syria is 75% Sunni muslim (like Saddam is) and Iran is about 85% Shi'a muslim, I don't think that Iraq will be peaceful anytime soon.

The tide's turning...

But will things change?

Well, the results of the US mid-term are just about in, and it looks as if GW and his party have suffered a bit of a bloody nose. The loss of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years, along with the anticipated change in the Senate, means that the Republicans are on the back foot and at first analysis it looks as if things are going to improve, however a brief look at the facts here can dispel that notion.

Quite surprisingly for the Telegraph, they have a blog posting "revealing" media bias during the mid-term's campaigning, as if it was an untoward occurrence. Wake up and smell the roses! All media companies have an agenda, normally instigated by their Chairman or equivalent, to paint a picture that matches their own colour on the political spectrum. Although the BBC often gets a lot of abusive from the right for its bias, the real issue is the News International brand of newspapers as whomever the Sun has backed to win the UK general election has ultimately won. This shows the power that the media can have over parts of the population.

In the ideal world, all media would be like Switzerland - neutral and good at making chocolate.

My political leanings

I will be honest, I have been worried about some of the political thoughts that I have been having recently. They were quite novel for me, what with environmentalism and what-not filling it. I therefore decided to checkout the Political Compass to see where I stood.

This site poses a series of statements to which you then have to say how strongly you agree or disagree. To prevent fence-sitters, there is no neutral box so you are forced to have an opinion either way. The results are then plotted on an x-y graph, where the x-axis is how left- or right-leaning your economic views are. The vertical axis represents how authoritarian you are, the higher up the scale, the more of a bossy boots you are.

Two examples cited on the website are Maggie Thatcher who was quite far to the economic right and quite authoritative (based on her assumed scores) and Adolf Hitler, who was naturally nearly through the roof when it comes to authority, but was way to the economic left. Anyone with an understanding of pre-WW2 Germany, will agree that is a true assessment.

So without further waffling, my results:

As I expected, I am slightly to the economic right - after all a free market means free people*. What was suprising though, was that I was totally neutral. I had expected me to be tending towards the authoritative side. A bit of a revelation.

* Except in China, where the free market has not meant the people are freed, however in reality the markets there are not truly free, so the mantra sticks.

Green tax or just more tax?

Well, it looks as if my cynicism regarding the government's environmental policy was not entirely misplaced. While I agree with some of the statement the article makes, I do have some issues: specifically, the fact that Britain only contributes 2% of the global Carbon Dioxide emissions, and anything that it is done must be done globally. While this in itself is true, if the majority of countries acted in isolation, then the overall result will be the same. There is the issue of increased economic cost, but this government has not shown itself averse to increasing taxes at all.

I did find the accompanying article interesting reading. It sort of flies in the face of Capitalism being seen as the root cause of the environmental issues. It does beg the question why Greenies are almost without exception Socialist, though.

Let's get cynical, cynical!

(With apologies to Olivia Newton John).
An article in today's Mail on Sunday has a copy of a "secret memo"* sent by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This memo lists a number of measures that the government should consider introducing in order to make the general population more environmentally conscious. Let's take a look at some of these proposals and run them through the cynic's filter, shall we?

1. Increase vehicle excise duty for gass guzzlers: hmm, ok I guess but there are some people (farmers, etc) that need such vehicles and why should they be penalised just because DINK1 and DINK2 each want an 4x4 drive to work? As well as raising the duty, why not make it claimable as an expense for those engaged in agricultural work, as long as it was under a certain age. This would give farmers a reason to upgrade to cleaner models, and penalise the urban off-roader (which is the true intent of the tax).
2. Exemption from stamp duty for zero-carbon homes: fantastic idea, however I would also like to see greater rebates for those wishing to upgrade their homes, such as additional double-glazing, windmills or solar panels.
3. Increased tax on aviation: no! economic growth in the airline industry can lead to greater uptake of newer models which are more efficient and less polluting. Just give airlines (and manufacturers) a reason to upgrade.
4. Pricing to reflect enviromental cost: a nice idea in a utopian society, but if the government wants to encourage economic growth, raising prices will not achieve this unless salaries rise correspondingly - something that the government will not want.
5. Public sector activities to be more environmentally conscious: nice idea, but I would have expected most sectors to be reasonably environmentally aware. The only exception would be the armed forces, and really there's not a lot that can be done without massive expensive.

All in all, there are some good ideas, a few not so well thought out ideas and a couple of mistakes. Putting my cynical head on, it is likely that the tax increases will adopted a lot quicker than anything that either provides rebates or increases public spending. One thing Gordon Brown is not averse to is putting his hand in the electorate's pocket.

* The classification of it is actually Restricted which is the lowest classified level for Government documents, but lets not get hung up on semantics here.

Of course, we wouldn't want them having fun would we?

I was watching the news today and the Health Secretary of our wonderful government is proposing to increase the tax on alcoholic drinks, particularly alcopops, to discourage teenage binge drinking. Of course, the BMA are ecstatic about it as well, as it will reduce the number of casualties on Friday and Saturday nights due to drinking.

Here's a thought for them: It will not work! Irrespective of how much the drinks cost, teenagers will find a way to get the money. It may be working longer hours at their part-time job as they try to fund themselves through University, beating up old ladies or whatever. They want the drink, and they will get it. Sadly the nanny state cannot allow anyone to think and make decisions for themselves and Gordon Brown does not need a second invitation to raise taxes further, so it's I guess it is pretty much certain that the change will go ahead.

If the government were genuinely interested in the health and welfare of young drinkers, rather than taxing them, it would be better to spend more money on proper prevention. An increased police presence on foot at night would do a lot to calm people down, and if special constables are used, their costs are substantially less. Better education of drinkers can do a lot to reduce the alcohol consumption and this should be done at schools, colleges and universities as well as on TV.

Finally, 24 hour licensing laws need to be relaxed. In Sydney, a large number of pubs are open 24 hours and it avoids the desire for everyone to drink as many beers/wines/alcopops as possible before closing time. People will drink slower and therefore there is less likelihood of fights occuring due to excessive drunkeness.

But no, it's easier to just to tax everyone.

Curbing the Chelsea Tractors

A recent article on today's news highlighted that the borough of Richmond in west London was introducing increasing the price of permits for 4x4 cars in the borough to £300 per year and free parking permits if you have an electric car.

On the surface, it looks like a good idea - cuts greenhouse emissions, penalises those bad drivers who say that they need it to protect their children, etc. However, the fact that the parking permit for a Nissan Micra driver has risen, just goes to show the real motive for this: raising revenue.

It's a pity that governments, whether they are local or national, use people's genuine environmental concerns in this cynical matter. The fact is that if local governments were genuinely interested in reducing emissions, they would tackle their fleet of diesel-spewing, often dilapidated buses and either improve them or replace them with genuine greener alternatives.

If national governments wanted to reduce emissions, then they could better invest their energies in developing an integrated transport policy that made greater use of the rail networks (which incidentally need to be cleaned up first) and removing the reliance on road haulage, where diesel-powered vehicles burn up and down the M1 when it should be transported en-masse.

If a government is going to espouse socialism and social conscious at least follow the Scandinavian model of socialism. It may cost a fortune, but the services delivered make up for it.
Still I don't think there is a full set of balls in the government at the moment.