How did we manage this?

We have the honour of running the world's most important sporting event. We've managed to make it into something that now seems more like a quadrennial party for police, security guards and lawyers in which they get to run free without any restraints imposed by reason or common sense. How did that happen?

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?’.

I admit it

OK, OK, you were all right. Cameron is not the messiah. He's just an ordinary politician.



But he's still better than Brown was, would have been, and (indeed) ever could have been.

But yes, I'm disappointed. Anyone want to help form a new party? Like UKIP, only sane. And popular.

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.

I may be stupid, but they're utterly mad

Gosh I'm daft.

After we finally got rid of Brown, I put up a post wondering what I ought to blog about now that the evil Statist was gone. I was so pleased to be rid of the little platoon of nasty Statists camped at the end of my driveway that I completely forgot about the entire army of Statists sitting at the end of the road, grinning.

Well, they've reminded me of their presence today, alright. Oh yes. Bigtime. Oh, Brussels, how could I have possibly forgotten eu?

A network of national funds should be introduced so the cost of bank failures are not met by the taxpayer, the EU internal market commissioner has said.

Are you sure that we should not just implement better regulation and rely on the rule of law and market competition, M. Barnier? No, it seems that:

banks should be asked to contribute to a fund designed to manage bank failure, protect financial stability and limit contagion

Surprise surprise, the Statist organisation to end all Statist organisations proposes that we increase taxes in order to pile up a huge wad of cash which the State will use to rescue us all when the world ends because of our own silliness.

Now, like all Statist plans this is flawed. We know that, of course, just from the fact that it is a Statist plan. There are (after all) only two sorts of Statist plan, first those with obvious undesirable side-effects, and second those with undesirable side-effects that we haven't worked out yet. So where are the flaws in this plan, then?

Well, I was wondering what will happen to the money? The idea, as I understand it, is that the money will be kept, waiting around for a bank failure, at which point the men in grey suits will rush in holding great wads of cash and use it to bail out the bank in question run the bank down in an orderly fashion. But what will happen to the money until then?

Will Governments put it in a bank account? I hope not - if the money is waiting until the banking system collapses and banks can't pay out the deposits they hold, it's going to be embarassing when M. Barnier turns up with his chequebook and ask them to cash a cheque for him on the account they never thought they'd have to pay out from. Ooops.

Is it going to be invested? Again, where? In the financial system that it will have to be used to rescue? In an instrument that we can sell to someone else to raise the cash, just as soon as they can withdraw the cash to pay for it from their bank...?

No, the money will have to be held as cash. By a government. Now, let's assume that they keep it as cash and don't spend it on a pet project. No, it's possible. Really - there are some honest politicians around who... oh. OK, there's the first problem; we are going to give this huge pile of cash to a government and say "Look, we might need this later; keep it safe. Don't use it for something else, no matter how certain it is". We just know that one day the banks will teeter, the grey men will knock at the door and ask for the cash, and then we'll go back to the politicians and shout "What do you mean, it fell at the first fence??".

Assuming that we somehow overcome this problem (stop laughing, please), there is still a deeper problem here. We have worked out, by a process of elimination, that the money needs to be taken from the banks and put in a huge dungeon somewhere, safe from the politicians, where it will be ready to spring into action at the first sign of a crisis. In order words, in a very real sense and completely unlike the sense in which Mr Brown used the phrase, we are going to take all of this money out of the economy. That was a bad idea a few weeks ago. Apparently, it's a good idea now.

This money will not be there for banks to lend to citizens and businesses. It will not be there to invest in new and promising companies. It will not even keep pace with inflation. That will mean fewer new businesses, less growth in existing businesses, fewer new jobs, and higher interest rates. And all of that means less tax income for governments and less wealth in the economy. How certain is M. Barnier that the growth this money could create if it is left in the economy would not better equip us to deal with a banking crisis?

In other words, if the problem is that Governments don't have enough money to bail out the banking system when it does something daft, this solution could make that problem even worse.

Surely, the solution must be to stop the banks doing daft things? Surely?

This is, it seems, a classic Statist solution. But on the brighter side, it looks like my blogging inspiration is far from exhausted.

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.

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.

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.

Thought for the Day

A Warm Welcome Will Be Extended....

Gordon has a cunning plan. He is going visit voters in their homes, sit on their sofas and have cups of tea with them.

Obo is keen. So am I. Enjoy your tea, Gordon. No, that taste is normal, it's just the water here. Smile for the cameras. Have you tried this book? I'd really recommend it. Keep smiling, Gordon. What's the gold price these days?

Sadly Believable

I read the Daily Mash quite regularly. It takes a somewhat askance view of the day's news and "reports" one or more items in a very satirical manner. Some of you know of it already, but for those who don't, I'd strongly recommend it. Provided you don't mind rude words.

There is always a grain of truth in every report, though. Something that has actually been said or done, which then becomes the butt of the article's sarcastic satirisation. For example, when the Mash reported that the Government was considering compulsory insurance for owners of crocodiles, we all knew immediately that they were referring to the proposed amendment of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Or so I thought, until I read this article:

BROWN NOW DICKING ABOUT WITH FISH AND CHIPS

GORDON Brown last night added the size of chip shop chips to his list of things to dick about with.

As the government's healthy eating experts told chip shops to increase the size of their chips by 32.7%, across the country 58 million people said 'oh for the love of ******* Christ' in perfect unison.

The article goes on, and is well worth reading. It reduced me and a work colleague to tears of laughter. Here, though, I thought they were trying something new; satirise the kind of thing New Labour would do, not something that they actually had done. Take their known control-freak Nanny-state tendency and illustrate just where it could end up if the lunatics finally did take over the asylum and lost all sense of proportion and self-control. Very funny, I thought, but risky - how will I know in future whether there is a real basis for a Mash story or whether they are just off on another adventure?

Now I kind of wish that I still had that to worry about. In fact, the story is true:

Government demands thicker chips to help Britain's Obesity Crisis

Worse still, it is not even just "Daily Mail True". Others are reporting it:

Government health crackdown on British fish and chips

Searching at the Food Standards Agency will also reveal that they do, indeed, recommend that you ask Chip Shops to make sure that your chips are nice and thick. Now, I don't know where they live, but round my neck of the woods you have the chips you get. Or you leave, with the shop's staff and customers behind you laughing and pointing.

My colleague's reaction to discovering that the story was true was simple: "Unbelievable". Sadly, I think he's wrong. It is believable. Horribly believable.

As the Mash said,

"I'm so tired. Can I just have my dinner? I'm begging you. Can I just. Please. Have. My. Dinner?"

So What?

Apparently, there is some kind of fuss because Samantha Cameron once voted Labour. The Speccie does its best to explain why this is not an issue.

They miss the biggest reason, though. There are huge numbers of people who used to vote Labour but who are now thoroughly disgusted and disappointed with what they got, and won't be doing it again.

Samantha Cameron is far from alone.

Labour Do It Again

They really are creatures of habit, aren't they?

It was over a year ago that I wrote a long and discursive post about the nature of legal drafting, and Labour's habit of drafting laws that did indeed catch a naughty activity within their scope, but also caught a lot of other stuff.

Now, it seems, the Digital Economy Bill* is set to do the same. ZDNet reports that this will effectively outlaw open free WiFi. Now, there's usually quite a lot of meaning in the word "effectively", and this is no exception. However, the bill does place a requirement on anyone providing this to either declare themselves to be an ISP and therefore keep careful records of who uses their service in case any of them are naughty, or be a subscriber and hence liable for whatever anyone does on their network - with the potential threat of disconnection if someone fileshares. Whilst this is not actually the same as outlawing free open WiFi, it is (I think) close enough.

This is, therefore, a classic New Labour law on two counts. First, it is incompetently drafted because it has the effect of outlawing a whole host of perfectly acceptable activities. Second, it is drafted in the usual manner of "Catching the naughty person is hard, so we'll catch anyone who is standing near the scene of the naughtiness".

I'm going to quote in full one of the comments to that article, because it is just excellent:

Recent Government research has shown that practically all violent criminals, trrrrrsts, paedophiles, drug pushers and even MPs, were aided in their criminal activities by the use of clothes. It is therefore the opinion of this government that in order to hamper the efforts of these people that the use of clothes should outlawed. If anyone has an issue with this, just bear in mind that if only one child is saved from harm, it will have been worth it and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Seriously, though, this really is getting quite tedious. Can we have an election please?

-----------------------------

*Sorry - can't help the obvious joke. We used to have an analogue economy, which could grow and shrink. Labour are committed to converting this to a digital economy, which can be either on or off. Until they got their hands on it, it was on. Now that Gordon has been running it... :-)

Gordon's Message

Apparently Gordon is not planning to focus on his government's record in the forthcoming campaign (no surprise there). So Labour's message to its campaigners is:

DON'T MENTION THE RECORD: I DID, BUT I THINK I GOT AWAY WITH IT!

A Future Fail For All

Yes, that's Labour's actual campaign slogan (almost). But what should it really be? I had a few tries on Twitter last night:

"A Vague And Unverifiable Platitude for All".

"If We Act Like An Election Is In Fact On, Can We Distract You Into Giving Us A Few More Months?"

"Don't Ask Why It's Still Unfair After 13 Years".

"A Future Fair for All Our Clients".

"Starting on Fairness for All After Only 13 Years".

Any other suggestions?

Of course, if we're going to have "A Future Fair for All", does that mean it's my turn to be Prime Minister now?

No! Not like that!

I've often called for reductions in tax. So one phrase in the BBC report that I linked to yesterday stood out:

Tax receipts dropped 11.8% compared with January last year

Can I just clarify, in case Gordon or Alistair are reading. When I said I wanted my tax bill to drop, I didn't intend you to do it that way.

Brace Yourselves

Because we are in for a bumpy ride. Both the BBC and Sky are reporting that the UK managed to increase its borrowing even further last month.

This is seriously frightening. January is not a normal month from the point of view of the public finances. It is a month when corporation tax is due and when most of the income tax due from anyone under self-assessment is due – in other words, all the taxpayers with the more substantial bills. Despite this, Brown and Darling still managed to spend more than their income. Not by a trivial amount, either – by £4.3bn. Granted, that is a “mere” £100 or so per taxpayer, but imagine what it would say about your personal finances if you spent more than your monthly income just on payday?

The reason for this disaster is simple. I’ve been sitting on this graph for a while, waiting for the right moment to post it. It originally came from the Spectator, a Fraser Nelson special, and it plots the changing levels of public spending and revenue over the recent years. Here it is:

Note the initial years of Gordon, when he kept to Conservative policies and prudence reigned. Note what happened in 1999 when his promise to keep to Conservative policies expired and he began to act like a Labour chancellor: Government spending took off immediately, and has outstripped revenue since 2001. Note (finally) that the previous rate of increase in taxation revenue started to weaken immediately.

This is a stark visual explanation of what Dave meant when he used to criticise Gordon's failure to fix the roof while the sun was shining. The simple fact is, Gordon has been accumulating debt since 2001. This means that when the bust came in 2008, we were already seriously in debt.

So whether you agree with increased public spending in recessions or not (and I admit that I can see the rationale for it), the fact remains that for this recession, we had already spent the money. So we started the recession weak, far weaker than we should have been. Gordon crippled us before we even went into the recession, and now we are seeing the effect of this.

I know I've posted this before, but take another look at George Osborne's response to Labour's plans, Tory Bear style:

Who looks wrong now?

And finally, we are told that everything will be OK, because Gordon and Alistair are going to halve the deficit in 4 years. Let's assume he does that. Let's assume he does it steadily, at the same rate of reduction each year. Let's assume that GDP remains steady and does not suffer a double dip. Let's (finally) assume that he continues after the deficit is zero, allowing him to pay off debt. Even if we make all these (favourable) assumptions, one fact remains. Starting (as we are) in 2010 with a deficit of 13% and a public debt of 60% of GDP, we reach a simple conclusion:

The UK Economy will look like Greece does today, in only 5 years.

That's all we have. 5 years.

You're not fooling anyone, Gordon

Go and have a read of the latest from the Diary of a Geek in Oxfordshire.

Always worth reading, this time Dungeekin has turned his attention to the somewhat unseemly display that is to be Gordon Brown's Valentine message to the voters. Whilst I, and others, accept that the emotions he displays in his Piers Morgan interview are without doubt genuine, and the cause of those emotions to be truly tragic, their sudden appearance just weeks before Gordon's first General Election needs to be called is, to put it midly, somewhat suspicious.

Dungeekin echoes my thoughts when he says:

This is one of the most sickening, revolting pieces of political posturing I have ever, ever seen. I simply can't find the words to express just how repugnant this is, and how contemptible a 'man' Brown has become in his desperate scrabble to maintain his position.

Watch and be amazed

Jim Devine:



Right then Jim, let me understand this. You knowingly presented a receipt for "stationery" that you had faked, which you knew related to staff costs not stationery. You thought this was ok because someone that you won't name in the Whip's office (not the Fees Office, of course) said it was ok. It didn't strike you as odd, at all?

And you expect us to swallow that story?

Good luck in Court. You'll need it.

(Hat Tip: Old Holborn, via Leg-Iron)

Bittersweet

Tory Outcast has kindly posted the video that preceded Cameron's speech to conference:

Powerful stuff, and well done. But...

...is it not sad that it was possible? Is is not sad that Labour have handed all that ammunition to the Tories?

Glad as I will be to see the back of Labour and, especially, Brown, it is deeply depressing that he has had to inflict such damage on the UK in order to make it so.