There\’s two things to be said about this idea:
Aromatherapy, homoeopathy and other popular complementary therapies are to be regulated for the first time under a government-backed scheme to be established this year.
Is the regulation going to be evidence backed? If so, does that mean we\’ll see Deepak Chopra struck off (ooooh, we can hope, can\’t we?)?
If it\’s not going to be evidence backed, if effectiveness is not tested, what is the point?
Which leads to the second thing, the actual point. Those who are regulated will be able to charge higher fees than those who are not. As Adam Smith pointed out, businessmen seldom gather together except to engage in a conspiracy against the public. It\’s professional protectionism.
The Bank of England has been sidelined in a proposed shake-up of Britain\’s banking system that will hand greater powers to its regulatory partners, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority.
Chancellor Alistair Darling has limited the Bank\’s contribution in the event of another Northern Rock to an advisory role while giving the FSA new powers of intervention.
Let\’s take regulation of the banking system away from bankers and give it to people who don\’t know what they\’re doing. What a clever idea!
They\’ll be harmonising the legal systems soon enough and this is the sort of thing which will happen:
An Italian teenager suspected of killing his mother – a well known author of a guide to the Harry Potter books – will remain in prison for a year while the investigation continues, a judge has ruled.
Note that this is not on remand, awaiting trial.
After two hours of interrogation, the judge decided that there is enough evidence to hold him in custody pending formal charges.
It\’s a year in jail before formal charges are laid down. A year before he even knows what he will be charged with, a year before he has any possibility of attempting to refute the charges, a year before he can even start to prove his innocence (not that I think he is going to be able to do that but that\’s another matter).
This is what is at the heart of the seemingly arcane matter of being able to continue to interrogate (which we do not currently allow) after charging.
It\’s in direct contravention of the basics of the current legal system, that you can only be held (with a few day\’s grace that is) once you\’ve been charged.
No, I don\’t look forward to the English courts adopting this system, but I fear that it will either be forced upon us….or that the current shower will continue taking us down the road to it.
No, really, she isn\’t:
The Tory leader will also propose a "screening" regime to identify fraudulent claimants of invalidity benefit, cutting benefits to people who refuse to make themselves available for work and forcing lone parents to seek employment once their youngest child reaches the age of four.
In a Green Paper on welfare reform, to be launched in Brixton, south London, on Tuesday, he is also expected to say that he has not ruled out controversial plans to place time limits on some benefits.
All of this is similar to the so-called "Wisconsin" reforms. Which themselves are a part of Bill Clinton\’s change of welfare from a hand out to a hand up.
What amuses me greatly is that when, a few weeks back, Polly last railed against this I emailed her to point out that she might want to discuss all of this with Richard Layard, someone I was sure that she both knew (they were both SDP and now Labour, for example) and also respected. She did indeed know him but she refused to believe the other part of what I told her…..that Layard has been proposing such measures at least since the mid-80s (or at least, something very similar).
Now, what would be extremely amusing is if someone can find a copy of the textbook that Layard wrote in the 80s (the one he used to teach us undergrads his ideas) so that we can check off the current propsals against his ideas then. My memory isn\’t what it was, but I\’m sure there were proposals for the time limitation of benefits, for loss of them unless actively seeking work.
Anyone, for example, got access to the LSE library?
At the ASI. I don\’t like the Fair Tax.
I don\’t normally point to all of the bits and pieces I do elsewhere as some of it is terribly boring and wouldn\’t interest you at all.
However, sometimes I get to use nice stories.
Well, not quite so fast there buster:
On Wednesday, Richard Arens decided to celebrate the new year by having a bit of fun. He\’s a "local" who trades for his own account on the floor of the Nymex, and he bought exactly one crude oil contract at exactly $100 per barrel, a level roughly 50 cents higher than the prevailing price, for an immediate mark-to-market loss of something over $500. Here\’s the FT\’s Javier Blas:
Stephen Schork, a former Nymex floor trader and editor of the oil-market Schork Report, commented: "A local trader just spent about $600 in a trading loss to buy the right to tell his grandchildren he was the one who did it. Probably he is framing right now the print reflecting the trade."
The result of this New Year\’s prank?…
It is, of course, the most absolutely fabulous prank. Damn I wish I\’d thought of that.
As if to follow up the publication of Oliver James’ new book ‘Selfish Capitalism’ (about which I wrote here), the FT has reported that:
More than half a million young Britons are officially too sick to work and claiming incapacity benefits, a higher tally than the number claiming unemployment benefit. The figure, which includes more than 300,000 young people claiming for “mental and behavioural disorders”, shows continuing high levels of worklessness among the young, in spite of 10 years of steady economic growth and a concerted attempt to move people off welfare and into work. It suggests that, far from the problem receding as former industrial workers reach pensionable age, the nation may be incubating a whole new generation of claimants.
That’s the price we pay for a sick society where we choose to leave some behind, and tell them that this is their fault by continually reinforcing their sense of failure by forcing advertising upon them that says that material consumption is the cure for all ills.
But making the VAT charged on advertising irrecoverable would be a first step to redressing this issue.
You what? Advertising causes people to go on incapacity benefits?
It\’s not, perhaps, a function of the fact that incapacity benefits are higher than unemployment pay?
At the Business.
The Diana Fountain and Teenage Slangs and the origin of the word "chav".
Portuguese smokers have been confined to the pavements since January 1, when new legislation banned smoking in many pubs and public places; so they were outraged to see a photograph of the man who had sponsored the legislation lighting up a cigar in a casino in the early hours of New Year’s Day.
António Nunes, the head of the Portuguese Food Standards Agency, who is charged with enforcing the new regulations, said that he had not realised they also applied to casinos.
They\’ve actually been very sensible here. If a bar wants to allow smoking they may: but they must have decent ventilation, proper extraction fans. Our local installed one a few days back, the man from the Ministry came around on New Year\’s Eve to sign off on it. They also have a sign in the window stating that they allow smoking, so those who do not wish to experience passive smoking know that they should look elsewhere.
Excellent in fact: the people have a choice.
In the essay, I argued that what is to be expected of a Conservative party, as a non-Conservative sees it, is a politics of national self-repair; the protection of a free society from itself; leadership; something more than the threadbare value system of the market; the setting of limits to corporate and financial-sector licence; the reinforcement of the ethic of citizen duty (not responsibility); crying a halt to the dismantling of public institutions; and a squaring-up to the advance of Islam.
So you\’re not a conservative, but you want to define what the conservative party should be about? And when that party, of whch you are not a member and do not support, doesn\’t act in the manner you think it ought to, you then say that party has failed you?
Aren\’t you supposed to be arguing for the policies you want in a party you do support? Or supporting a party that avows the policies you want?
Take the productive ward scheme. The ward manager, a nurse, has reorganised everything so that colleagues spend 40% more time nursing – no longer interrupted on average 115 times a shift, with less form-filling and no more hunting for supplies.
Having a matron who is in charge of the ward. What an amazing innovation, eh? I wonder who thought of it?
The rest of it is simply how much better the NHS is than it was. Which is of course true. But nowhere does she get the point that the NHS is not as good as it could be: as evidenced by the fact that every other European nation of similar wealth has a better system because none of them use the insane centralisation of the NHS.
This really isn\’t a surprise. People like David Pimental have been saying it for at least a decade.
Using biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels, according to experts. Although the fuels themselves emit fewer greenhouse gases, they all have higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.
The problems of climate change and the rising cost of oil have led to a race to develop environmentally-friendly biofuels, such as palm oil or ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane. The EU has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transport should come from biofuels by 2020 and the emerging global market is expected to be worth billions of dollars a year.
And, as noted, the idiot politicians (the US Congress is in fact worse than the EU here, if such a thing can be believed) are insisting that such biofuels, which are worse for the environment than fossil fuels, must be used in order to protect us from the environmental effects of fossil fuels.
If you think that the politicians are going to protect us from climate change then you\’ve obviously not been paying attention.
Parents could be required to provide their children with high-speed internet access under plans being drawn up by ministers in partnership with some of the country\’s leading IT firms.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, said he is in talks with companies such as Microsoft, BT, Sky, Virgin and RM to help close the widening achievement gap between pupils from the richest and poorest families. More than one million children have no access to a computer at home.
Let\’s start from the premise that this actually is a good idea. OK, what\’s the best way of getting universal access to the web for all schoolchildren?
In an interview with the Guardian, Knight signalled that the government was putting pressure on IT firms to bring down the cost of equipment if internet connections are in effect made compulsory for nearly six million children.
Erm, no, that\’s probably not it.
I\’m rather out of date but I think you can get access for £10 a month or so? Great, add £2.50 to the child credit for every first child (we already have different amounts for first and further children, don\’t we?) and tell parents that they\’ve got to have said net access. Problem solved.
The only problem with this is that while it might be cheaper, more sensible and more efficient, it doesn\’t allow ministers to look good while sticking it to the capitalists: it also makes clear, because it has to be paid for from taxation, what the real cost is. Can\’t have that now, can we? People actually knowing what the cost of something is?
Andrey Illarionov, a market reformer and Putin\’s economic advisor until his resignation two years ago, alleged that the Russian government\’s £75 billion Stabilisation Fund, created in 2004 to cushion the budget from a fall in oil prices, was being exploited by members of the ruling elite for their personal benefit.
He gave no details of how this allegedly occurred.
"The Stabilisation Fund, in the form in which it was created in which monies were accumulated, has ceased to exist. It has died. This is now a fund for increasing the personal wealth of specific individuals," he claimed in a radio interview.
Now that is a surprise! Politicians get to control $ hundreds of billions and some lines their pockets?
Slap me down with a wet kipper.