Ha ha

From the "Awkward Ed Miliband Moments" blog:

An awkward silence fell on the conversation after Ed asked ‘did you ever find those WMDs?’.

Short Memories

Remember this?

Leadership in the international community
A new Labour government will use Britain's permanent seat on the Security Council to press for substantial reform of the United Nations, including an early resolution of its funding crisis, and a more effective role in peacekeeping, conflict prevention, the protection of human rights and safeguarding the global environment.

Or this?

Human rights
Labour wants Britain to be respected in the world for the integrity with which it conducts its foreign relations. We will make the protection and promotion of human rights a central part of our foreign policy. We will work for the creation of a permanent international criminal court to investigate genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Both from the 1997 Labour Manifesto.

Remember this?

Lock Me Up And Throw Away The Key

Right now.  For I am a criminal.  (Or am I?)

Misanthrope Girl has blogged on the sacking of three nurses after the three nurses who, dismissed from their jobs because the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) deemed them to be unsuitable after they failed its checks. Go read it - she argues the point well, based on a Telegraph report of the precedent set when the High Court overturned their sackings.

Apparently, their heinous crimes included:

One of the nurses broke the law by leaving her 11-year-old son at home alone while she went shopping. Another was cautioned because while he was at work, his wife left the couple’s children alone for a short period. The third kissed a colleague without permission.

Master Patently is 11. He is regularly left alone, perfectly safely.  The nurse apparently "broke the law" by leaving his son alone.  Exactly which law would that be, then?

Also, while I am at work, Mrs Patently sometimes leaves him on his own.  She may do many other things while I am not there - who knows?  Am I liable to be cautioned for whatever she does?  Is she my chattel, suddenly?  Is anyone brave enough to tell her that?

And as regards the third offence, I'm not specifically aware that I have done this, but I don't make a habit of seeking explicit permission before kissing people.

I seem therefore to be a multiple offender on several counts, so I shall await the 6am alarm call.  But no, wait - none of these "offences" were deemed worthy of prosecution.  None were deemed serious enough to justify taking the offenders to a Court, judging them in line with the principles of justice, and exacting a punishment as prescribed by law.  Yet that decision can be reversed by the ISA in its infinite wisdom, who can decide that these people are unworthy and must be sacked, their livelihoods removed.  This is, of course, a far, far worse punishment than any fine that could have been imposed by the Court for their "offences".

Remember; we are paying for this quango to prevent perfectly good nurses, whose training we have paid for, from working in our hospitals where their skills may be of some use.  We are then paying (no doubt) for lawyers to represent the nurses in the High Court, while a Judge (who we are paying for) listens to the arguments of the Government lawyers (who we are paying for) while they unsuccessfully try to argue that we should not pay compensation for ruining these people's lives.  We then pay for the compensation claims, of course.  Remember that next time Mr Balls tells us there is no scope for cuts.

Please help me on this one

As Dizzy notes, the.... delivery.... is... quite.... awkward.  I kind of find it hard to believe that this is a real, natural human delivery.

However, if it is not, that would suggest that someone has trained him to do this, which is equally laughable.

Clearly, there must be a third explanation.  But what??

Let's blow them all sky high

Dungeekin, on the subject of the Twitter Joke Trial:

I believe, in fact, that the people I'd like to blow sky-high the most right now are in the Crown Prosecution Service. I'd also like to set fire to the humourless fuckwits in Greater Manchester Police who even put a file forward to the CPS, and I have special plans involving boiling oil and a half-dozen rabid weasels for the moron so-called Judge who upheld the 'conviction' today.

Damn right. I am so angry.  So this is the result of Labour's anti-terror laws, put in place to protect us?  Dangerous terrorists have to be let out of jail, Abu Hamza has to stay here and cannot be deported, but Paul Chambers is guilty?

Hypothetical Question

If you looked like this, would you call an opponent a "ginger rodent"?



No, I wouldn't either. Harriet would, though.

Harriet, the former equalities minister.  Harriet, who wanted to criminalise people who discriminated on any basis, such as, err, being ginger for example.

Hypocrites.  Utter hypocrites.

Introduction to Socialist Business Methods, Part 1

Call me callous, but I find this just hilarious:

Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM), the so-called "bad bank" part of the old Northern Rock business, has reported a return to profit.

NRAM holds most of the rescued bank's old mortgages and unsecured loans.

Pre-tax profit came in at £349.7m for the first six months of the year, compared with a loss of £724.2m in the same period last year.

However, Northern Rock PLC, the "good bank" holding savers' deposits and new loans, made a pre-tax loss of £142.6m.

Right, let's get this clear. New Labour split the Rock into a good bit and a bad bit. The good bit is the viable part of the business, which can operate safely and will be attractive to investors. The bad bit is full of all those dodgy loans, and would stay with the Government who would bravely shoulder the burden for all of us and do other good things that only The State can do because The State is a wonderful and bountiful thing that will save us all from ever having to make a decision or take a risk. Or something.

So now, the bad bit is making thumping great profits and the good bit is making a whopping loss. It strikes me that there are two possible explanations.

The first explanation is that New Labour really do have no idea whatsoever as to what makes a good business. They seem to have decided that a business which holds lots of depositor's money on which it has to pay interest, but has very few loans on which it can earn interest, is a viable and tempting investment and will make a profit. Robert Peston calls this a "paradox", which tells us all we need to know about at least one of his economic skills and his political leanings. This leads us to the conclusion that New Labour believe that economic safety lies in having lots of spending liabilities and no clear & sufficient source of income. This is, it has to be admitted, rather in line with other evidence.

However, there is another explanation. This one is simpler, and Occam's Razor suggests that we should therefore prefer it. It is that New Labour are a bunch of incompetent idiots who couldn't organise an (ahem) party in a brewery.

Chose whichever one you like. Or both. I don't mind.

Bye bye, Child Trust Funds....

One element of Osborne's cuts stood out to me - the discontinuance of Child Trust Funds.

These always annoyed me, for purely selfish reasons. You see, Gordon (remember him?) not only introduced them just after both my children arrived, he also introduced them just before his arrived. That hurt. That felt (quite irrationally) personal.

They're also indiscriminate, pointless, and directive, but they're not the reasons why I'm glad to see the back of them. Good riddance.

Smoke, Fish, and Football

I don't like smoking.

No, I'll rephrase that. I really detest smoking. It is, to my mind, a disgusting habit. The act itself produces a noxious smoke that (literally) turns my stomach. The after-effects of the act leave a pall over wherever it is done. The walls are left greasy, sticky, and brown, the air is left fetid, and many of the smokers are left yellow in tooth and claw, prone to belching out yet more of their malodorous effluent on the thankfully rare occasions on which they manage to summon the lung capacity necessary to breathe deeply. I can hardly believe that they enjoy it. I simply cannot understand why they pursue this habit.

So, obviously, I am wholly and utterly opposed to the smoking ban.

No, you read that right. I am opposed to the ban. The reason is quite simple; I have my own very excellent means of protecting myself from the (alleged) effects of second-hand smoke. I keep this means with me at all times. Indeed, you could say that it and I are joined at the hip.

Literally, joined at the hip; it consists of a pair of legs. Light up next to me, and I walk off. I leave. I take myself somewhere that the air is clear. I use my own personal freedom in order to allow others their own personal freedom. I have no more right to dictate their behaviour in public than they do mine. So no thanks, Nanny, I neither need nor want your protection from their smoke.

Why? The alert amongst you will have seen the reason already: I do not understand why they pursue this habit. Therefore, they must know something that I do not. It is quite possible that I am wrong and that they are right. Given that they are causing me no harm that I cannot reasonably avoid, it is wrong that I and others should prevent them.

Then, there are the inevitable side-effects of the ban, most of which you find being discussed over at Leg-Iron's place. Like all legal measures that are at heart wrong, the smoking ban needs a range of intrusive rules and has a range of undesirable consequences. As an example of the rules, take my office. It is non-smoking; it always has been. If anyone in the office were to light up, they would find themselves being ejected in short order. It therefore has an elegant brass sign on the front entrance; it bears the usual no-smoking sign, and is fitted neatly into the door frame. It is accompanied by a second no-smoking sign mandated by the legislation; large, white, obvious, and as ugly as it is unnecessary, I hate it. There because our old sign is slightly too small to comply with Nanny's rules, it stands there as a reminder to me that our own efforts do not count; they are are of no consequence. Only Nanny in Whitehall knows what sort of sign is adequate to stop people from smoking in my office.

Then, the side-effects. So many Brits go to the pub for a drink and a smoke. Now, they cannot. Did New Labour really think that they would obediently go the the pub for just a drink? If so, why? Everyone else knew that they would buy a drink from the off-licence and drink at home. So the pubs have shut. Well done, Nanny; you have been very effective in protecting me and the bar staff from second-hand smoke - I cannot go to the pub and they no longer have a job. Nice one.

Meanwhile, the smokers are at home. With their children, if they have sufficient fertility left. Oooh, that was clever - the bar staff who had a choice are protected, but the children who do not have a choice are not.

More seriously, there are plenty of other things that I find irritating. Football, for instance. Why, really, does it matter whether eleven men who you have never met and who did not grow up near the place where you probably weren't born managed to kick a ball into a net more often than eleven other similar men. Why? Why does it excite such passion, such excitement, such willingness to pay over the odds for brightly-coloured shirts that were never going to fit someone as unfit and overweight as the person who is usually wearing it?

Or fishing. The opportunity to spend all day sitting by a river waiting to inflict pain on an innocent fish. Sitting there, outdoors, in a peaceful enclave of English countryside, away from nagging wives and rowdy children ... oh, ok, fishing I can understand, but you get my point. There are plenty of things that I do not want to do and which I find annoying, but that is no reason to ban them - even if they hurt the people that do them.

If you don't agree with me, then take a good hard look at yourself and what you enjoy. Is there no-one that finds some aspect of your life annoying? If you can honestly answer that question with a "yes", then you either need to learn a little more self-criticism, or you need to get out more.

Let's be careful out there

I'm not planning to say much about the Paul Chambers trial. Just:

(a) anything that we post on the internet, be it a tweet, a blogpost, or a comment to a blogpost, opens us to criminal prosecution if there is someone out there who feels threatened by it, even if you didn't mean them to be feel threatened - or even to read it. Take care, people.

(b) I told you something like this would happen. Now you all officially have something to fear, even if you have nothing to hide.

I shall leave the causal analysis to Al-Jahom, who sums it up perfectly:

• Bad law, drafted and passed into law by the Labour government.
• Target driven pursuit of prosecutions, under whatever laws may apply, bad or not.

So, if you support Paul Chambers and share my horror and disgust at his plight, but you voted Labour last week, you really need to stand back and re-evaluate what it was you voted for.

Get Them Out

Just get them out. Please. No more Labour.

How?? Why??

In the last 13 years, NHS spending has doubled. We know that, and some of us can see it in our tax returns.

So why has this happened? How can this have happened?

Fury of gran taken to Aylesbury after fall INSIDE Wycombe Hospital

GRANDMOTHER Angela Bignall [...] tripped over a chair leg while in for a routine blood test – but had to wait for 30 minutes for an ambulance and then endure a 16-mile journey to Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury.

Yes, you read that right. She tripped over while IN A HOSPITAL. You'd think, wouldn't you, that while you were IN A HOSPITAL would be the best place possible to fall over, if you were going to.

No, not in Brown's Britain. Or not in High Wycombe, at least. Because, you see, our local hospital no longer has an A&E unit. It can no longer treat anything like this. If you're actually hurt, then High Wycombe hospital is not a good place to be. In fact, you may as well be out in the street somewhere, as you still have to wait half an hour for an ambulance and then be driven all the way to Stoke Mandeville where (if memory serves me) you then wait for a few hours more.

Her reaction?

She said: “What in heaven’s name is happening to Wycombe Hospital?”

She might well wonder.

Labour Candidate Running Scared?

Well, there is still no reply from the Labour candidate for my constituency. If you recall, on 23 April I asked him:

Gordon Brown says that if David Cameron doesn't raise NI as Gordon plans to, that will mean that £6 billion will be "taken out of the economy". I'm confused. Where will it have gone? Won't it still be in our pockets for us to spend in the economy on what we would like to spend it on?

Less than 24 hours later, he replied:

Thanks for the email- the question surrounding taxation at the moment can be summed up by the paradox of thrift. Currently, the government through a variety of spending measures is maintaining the overall level of demand in the economy- in order to do this in a fiscally responsible way, it is necessary to raise this cash from somewhere. So of course, without the rise in NI money will still be in your pocket, but the collapse in private demand demonstrates that people are not spending it (hence the government needing to sustain demand). NI is being raised as it is a fair tax- noone on less than £20k will pay any more in NI contributions, and it requires employers to contribute as well. To put this last point in perspective, the bill for higher NI to M&S will be £10m- they've just given their new Chief Exec a £15 golden hello.

My immediate answer was:

Well, it answers my question in that you accept that the money will not be taken out of the economy, contrary to Gordon's claim.

Of course, if people choose of their own free will to repair their personal balance sheets by saving the money, but Labour choose to force them to give up the money so that it can be spent on their behalf, is that not strikingly illiberal and undemocratic?

If the money was left in people's own hands, they could choose to spend it or to save it - if they chose the latter, then we would not have had to inject such huge funds into the banking system. Our banks would then have funds to invest or to lend - can Labour prove that this (the route of free choice) would not be a more efficient way of allocating the money?

That was on the 25th April. The next day, as I had still not heard from him, I sent a reminder:

A little disappointed not to have heard from you in reply to my email. I look forward to hearing from you, though.

While I'm emailing you, I thought I'd pick you up on the little "politics of envy" moment at the end of your last reply. You seem to be suggesting that it is ok to place additional taxes on businesses, because they can afford it - is that the basis of Labour's tax policies? That anyone with a bit of cash can expect to have it confiscated? I fear that would be detrimental to the competitiveness of our private sector - do you not agree?

I also feel that the M&S award is more of an isolated example than a basis for policy. My firm, for instance, has seen its profits halved over Labour's term in office. That translates directly to a halving of my income and that of my partners. Talking to my clients and my suppliers, it seems that we are more representative than the M&S example you quote.

Despite this, we have managed to find the funds for a staff pay rise of roughly 1%. That means that if the NI rise were coming into effect now, we would have no choice but to tell our staff that there could be no pay rise because your payroll taxes were taking up the entire increase in our salary budget. Is that what you want me to tell them next year?

Still nothing the next day, so I sent a brief chaser which elicited a promise:

Sorry, I've been out campaiging and without email for the past two days. Will get around to replying asap...

...but sadly nothing has been forthcoming. So I sent another reminder last night:

No reply yet? :-(

(Did I come across as bigoted?)

Nothing yet, but I'll keep you posted...

UPDATE: 1425... A reply!

No, I don't think you're bigoted at all- in fact I'd rate you as a singular wit. The NI rise it not about the politics of envy, it's about rebalancing the public finances in a way that doesn't fall unfairly on people with low and modest incomes. We don't have a budget deficit because the government has been wildly profligate- the credit crunch reduced the government's tax take by a quarter. We could have either withdrawn support and slashed public spending to balance the books immediately or maintained spending to keep the economy ticking over until private demand recovered. I think that, whilst we are not out of the woods yet, all the indicators show that the government has been hugely vindicated in taking the steps it has.

Well, we see the usual tactic - mix up several questions so that you can answer none of them.

So, here is my reply:

Thanks.

I didn't say that the NI rise was an example of envy politics - that was a response to your use of the M&S example to justify higher taxes for everyone. Can you answer the point as to whether high taxes will be detrimental to business competitiveness?

I'd disagree strongly with your assertion that this government has not been wildly profligate (although your comment could be read as an acknowledgement that is has). Looking at this graph, courtesy of the Spectator, it is clear that the Labour government has been living beyond our means since the moment that Gordon's promise to stay within Tory spending limits expired:

It is striking that under Tory government, we saw what you are now describing - a temporary blip during and immediately after a recession. However, as soon as Gordon was free to operate as he wished, he ran a consistent deficit that has left us with no reserves. Then, when the recession hit - harder than that which we suffered in the 90s - the situation became catastrophic.

It does therefore seem that Gordon's mismanagement during the good years is the prime reason why we faced the impossible choice between withdrawing support to those who need it, and borrowing truly frightening amounts of money that will cause financial pain for years to come. I would not call it "vindication" when a government places itself in the position of having to choose between these two deeply unpleasant alternatives. Do you not agree that - once again - the truth is that Labour has simply run out of our money?

UPDATE: 04/05/10 20:04

No reply yet, so I've sent a chaser:

Look forward to hearing from you when you have a chance.

By the way, do you agree with Manish Sood?

It's Good To Talk

I've been sent a Labour election leaflet! Me! Someone is either very stupid or very optimistic, I think.

I'm actually quite pleased - you see, it has an email address. So I thought I'd contact the candidate to see if he could help me understand Labour's policies better. Here's my email:

Thanks for the leaflet

I have a quick question, though. I wonder if you could clarify something.

Gordon Brown says that if David Cameron doesn't raise NI as Gordon plans to, that will mean that £6 billion will be "taken out of the economy". I'm confused. Where will it have gone? Won't it still be in our pockets for us to spend in the economy on what we would like to spend it on?

Look forward to hearing from you.

If I get a reply, you'll be the second to know.

Update 25/04, 0900:

His reply:

Thanks for the email- the question surrounding taxation at the moment can be summed up by the paradox of thrift. Currently, the government through a variety of spending measures is maintaining the overall level of demand in the economy- in order to do this in a fiscally responsible way, it is necessary to raise this cash from somewhere. So of course, without the rise in NI money will still be in your pocket, but the collapse in private demand demonstrates that people are not spending it (hence the government needing to sustain demand). NI is being raised as it is a fair tax- noone on less than £20k will pay any more in NI contributions, and it requires employers to contribute as well. To put this last point in perspective, the bill for higher NI to M&S will be £10m- they've just given their new Chief Exec a £15 golden hello.

Nice bit of envy politics at the end, there. And I think he means either £15M or £15k, not £15 (which would probably be a bit of a disappointment). But I would never hold a typo agianst someoone.

My response:

Thank you, Andrew.

Well, it answers my question in that you accept that the money will not be taken out of the economy, contrary to Gordon's claim.

Of course, if people choose of their own free will to repair their personal balance sheets by saving the money, but Labour choose to force them to give up the money so that it can be spent on their behalf, is that not strikingly illiberal and undemocratic?

If the money was left in people's own hands, they could choose to spend it or to save it - if they chose the latter, then we would not have had to inject such huge funds into the banking system. Our banks would then have funds to invest or to lend - can Labour prove that this (the route of free choice) would not be a more efficient way of allocating the money?

By your friends shall ye be known...

The Conservatives have the support of successful business leaders.

Labour have the support of comedians and Lord Mandelson.

Hmmm.

Did I hear that right?

Did Eddie Izzard really whinge on behalf of the Labour party that the Conservatives had been given loads of money by business people, who would want something in return?

The Labour Party? The same Labour Party who gave £11,000,000 of our money to UNITE in the form of state support, who then gave it back to Labour as a donation?

Did I really hear that right?

Fuel Mirrors Life

So unleaded petrol has hit £1.20 a litre, not particularly because of rises in the oil price, but because of a fall in Sterling against the US dollar in which oil prices are denominated. The ever-increasing fuel duty also does its bit, of course.

Is this not a perfect reflection of the effect of socialism on all economic situations? We are being hit with higher fuel prices, partly because the tax we have to pay is rising, but also because incompetent management of the economy is having the effect of reducing our ability to pay for the commodity in question.

Squeezed between the two, it is us who lose out; the State never loses out and (true to form) Gordon and Alistair claim that now is not the time to eliminate the waste that they have identified. We should fund their wasteful spending through higher taxes instead. In the case of fuel, we are less able to pay for the oil because the money we take home is itself worth less. In other aspects of life we are seeing our incomes drop whilst the taxes we are called upon to pay are rising - both in real terms and also as a proportion of our reduced income.

This can't go on.

Quote of the Week

As reported by Marcus Povey (@mapkyca), possibly the perfect summary of Labour's business policy:

"If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it"

Has the mask slipped?

I want to look at a specific quote from Gordon Brown that has been brought to my attention by the FCA Blog. Their post is worth reading, and analyses the whole story from The Times in much more detail; I want to focus on one specific comment by Brown in respect of the Tory pledge not to proceed with Labour's NI rise. Apparently, Gordon:

says the Tory leader will take £6 billion out of the economy

In other words, not increasing taxes by £6,000,000,000.00 will take this money "out of the economy". The money will not be there any more. It will be gone. It will be no more. It will have passed on. It will have ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker. It will, in short, have gone to the great savings account in the sky. It will be ex-money.

Except, it won't. It will still be, it will reside in the pockets of the people who earned it. It will be available to them to spend on the high street or save in the banks (recapitalising them in the process). It will be working to secure the recovery - and it will do so in a way that is fair for all, spent by and for the person who earned it.

But that, of course, is reality - a concept that has deserted Gordon. In his little world, money only exists for him to take from us and spend on our behalf. That is the only way of extracting value from money. He and his minions are the only people who know how to spend it wisely. Any other money is, literally, lost.

So, in one short quote, we see right into Gordon's head. Right into the unreconstructed communist worldview that has ruined this country.

Could it hurt if Labour just stopped lying?

The Angry Teen blog is asking this question. Their analysis of Labour's economic policies is, I have to say, spot on.

Go and read it.... now.