Polly On Europe


No other bills will go through in this time. The place will be a morgue, with only a clutch of the living dead on their feet for hour after hour. A daily three-line whip will fray MPs\’ tempers, but any amendment means the whole treaty falls – here, and right across Europe.

So, err, The Mother of Parliaments gets to discuss, but not change by even one comma, a bill….and it\’s a good thing that they cannot change it?

Many Tories talk up a new, looser relationship, free-trading like Norway in the European economic area. But Norway pays dearly as a big net contributor, getting no grants in return and no seat to share in EU decision-making.

Does Norway make a higher or lower net contribution than the UK?

In all 26 member states, the Tories\’ only allies are Greek communists, Dutch animal rights and Sinn Féin.

And, as the polls show, a substantial portion of the British public (those stating that they would vote no in a referendum). That\’s an important thing to miss out really.

Out of fear and populism, Labour never sold voters the value of the EU –

Indeed, we are still waiting for someone to show us the cost benefit analysis. Like to try Polly?

Meanwhile, it leaves the Tories with an impossible policy that leads only to the EU exit door.

Oh well, if that\’s the outcome, bring it on then!

Status and Income Redistribution

This description of the practical, private, daily consequences of living with low status in a stratified society was a sharp illustration of theoretical studies of inequality. Research by academics such as Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot has exposed the statistical connections between status and health, and status and life expectancy. What they have shown is that even small differences in status have a significant effect on longevity and wellbeing. The man in the bulletin showed how social injuries are experienced, and how they might accumulate.

This is true.

But that experience isn\’t leading, as one might expect, to a generalised support for greater equality.

People in these positions bemoan the growth in inequality. They all agree that there should be greater redistribution from the rich to the poor.

Ah, now we\’re talking about income inequality, not status inequality. The two are not in fact the same thing and it\’s most unlikely that we\’ll solve one by altering the other.

As an example, Polly T is rumoured to earn £140k a year from The Guardian. That\’s third or fourth year earnings for a middling hedgie these days. Does that hedgie have a higher or lower social status than Polly T (I mean in general, not amongst us hateful right wing bloggers, where her status is something lower than whale shit)? Gordon Brown has climbed to the very top of the political greasy pole. His income is a percentage point or two of the incomes of those at the top of the banking tree. Who has the higher social status?

Further, what if we did in fact make incomes vastly more equal? Given that human beings are status seekers (sorry, but this is an essential part of what makes us human, there\’s no getting around that) then we\’d just invent a new method of denoting status. We\’ve done it before, we\’ve allocated high status to those good at hacking peasants with a broadsword, we\’ve allocated it to those who pray harder than others, we\’ve allocated it to those born to those good at either. We\’ve even allocated it to those good at sports, even if unfortunately we\’ve done it too little to those with the brains to improve the human condition.

It\’s a fundamental mistake to look at the consequences of inequality of social status and claim that equality of income will solve them. What really surprises me about said mistake is that this is done in England, a place which for centuries had a class, and thus social status, system which was not based on money at all.

Sea Shepherd

I\’m a little confused here:

For two days now, two crew members of a Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel have been held on a Japanese whaling ship, which they boarded in the Southern Ocean. They were delivering a letter informing the captain that his ship was in violation of both Australian and international conservation law.

Using violence to board a ship on the high seas. Don\’t we have a name for that?


Glorious, Glorious!

A corrupt civil servant behind one of the biggest frauds in Whitehall history has managed to avoid paying anything towards a £1.5m confiscation order because the Crown Prosecution Service delayed enforcing it for 11 years, the Guardian has learned.

Gordon Foxley, who was head of defence procurement at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1984, was given a four-year jail sentence in 1994 for taking bribes from foreign arms manufacturers. The trial judge ordered him to hand back £1.5m that had been used to buy his family eight properties. But the high court has now struck out a legal attempt by the CPS to enforce the order because the judge ruled a fair trial of the issues was impossible after such a long delay.

So someone actually convicted of a crime does not pay the money back, while those who have never been convicted of a crime can be forced to pay under new laws.

How excellent a system they\’ve built for us.

Subsidies, Subsidies

Always the same, eh?

When a litre costs 0.7p, and filling the tank of a 4×4 costs 42p, it is a fair question. Petrol is so cheap here – reputedly the cheapest in the world – as to be almost free. Even under the artificially overvalued official exchange rate, petrol is 45 times cheaper than in Britain.

Some economists call the subsidy "Hood Robin", because it steals from the poor and gives to the rich by favouring relatively wealthy car owners above the poor who rely on public transport.

Subsidies most often don\’t actually benefit those they\’re aimed at initially.

I\’ve got this half-formed thought rolling around. I\’m not quite sure whether I\’m onto something or whether it\’s actually a very silly idea, so your thoughts would be appreciated.

It\’s pretty much a basic assumption at that interface between economics and politics that efficiency and equity often are in conflict. We might say that the market distribution of incomes is efficient, but that it is inequitable. Thus we should redistribute through taxation.

Or we might say that the market pricing of petrol is inequitable, it being too high for the poor, so we should subsidise it. Or, closer to home, that heating is too expensive for pensioners so we should send them al £200 a year to increase equity, at the expense of the efficiency of the heating market and the wider economy (for all taxes have deadweight costs).

My half-formed thought is that equity and efficiency are not in quite as much conflict as many think.  An inefficient system, by definition, either uses more resources to get to a specific outcome or, gets to a  worse outcome with the same resources, than an efficient one. This in itself is inequitable, as in order to get to our (possibly) desired equitable position, the reason we\’re actually fostering this inefficiency, we leave everyone worse off in aggregate than they would have been.

Writing this out I think I\’m actually reinventing a wheel that\’s been around a long time. The answer usually given might be to do with the decreasing returns stuff: the 99th pound you have is worth less to you than the first, so taking that 99th and giving it to someone as their first might increase aggregate well being.

But I still think that there\’s less conflict between equity and efficiency than many think: that an inefficient system by and of itself is inequitable, despite that decreasing returns stuff. The question then becomes whether the increase in equity from the redistribution overcomes the decrease in it from total resources.

Yes, this is reinventing a wheel, isn\’t it?

OK, I\’m left with the statement that we need to look more closely at the claims of increased equity as against efficiency in each specific case. As there are two effects it\’s an empirical question as to which predominates in each case.

No, not knew then, just another reason to be casting the gimlet eye over claims on either side each and every time perhaps?



One effect of the proposed CGT changes:

If his proposal to increase the tax rate from 10pc to 18pc is left unchanged, Brewin Dolphin fears a flood of share sales before the start of the new tax year on April 5 that will artificially reduce prices.

A spokesman said: "If he confirms the changes, there will be a massive sell-off. AIM is illiquid and we feel there is a danger that this will concertina up into a very short period. It would be creating a false market as people sell out purely for tax reasons."

Brewin Dolphin, the largest private client adviser in the UK, has reviewed the 63 AIM companies for which it is corporate adviser, and found that "50pc of the shares are held by individuals who could be affected by the loss of taper relief". If the new CGT rules are confirmed, those investors would be "under pressure to crystallise gains this tax year".

Now there used to be a solution to this sort of thing, called "bed and breakfasting". You sold your stock to your broker in hte afternoon and bought it back at a pre-arranged price the next morning. You might pay a penny margin to him for the privilege. You thus crystalised your gains and or losses for CGT reasons.

I\’m a long way away in both time and distance from the details of the markets these days but I\’ve got the impression that you\’re not in fact allowed to do this these days. You can only crystalise such CGT positions by undertaking arms length transactions perhaps?

As I say, I\’m not sure about this, it\’s only an impression at the back of the brain somewhere. Bu if true it would be an interesting example of how one change has consequences further down the line.

Two Stories on Education

Much burbling about "fairness", "equity":

In a key test case, Brighton will become the first city in England this year to employ the system as a tie-breaker at all of its over-subscribed secondaries. It is believed other areas may be encouraged to follow suit in an attempt to bring greater transparency to the admissions system.

The new admissions code bans schools from interviewing children and parents, or asking for extra information designed to weed out pupils from poorer homes who may be more difficult to teach.

Jim Knight, the schools minister, warned it was "unacceptable that children may be missing out on school places" 12 months after the new rules were imposed.

And elsewhere:

Failure to teach children the three Rs at a young age is damaging the British economy, according to a report published by Cambridge University today.

Productivity lags as much as 25 per cent behind economic competitors such as Germany, France and the United States because workers lack basic reading, writing and numeracy skills, it is claimed.

Those productivity numbers I\’m sure are wrong but leave that aside.

I can\’t help thinking that if less effort was expended on the "fairness" side of things rather more might be on the "teaching" side. It isn\’t the most difficult thing in the world, to teach the basics of readin\’, \’ritin\’ and \’rithmetic, given that the ankle biters are there for five years on a compulsory basis.

The Problem With the Police

They appear to be run by aliens, ones with only the most tenuous knowledge of the English language:

Peter Fahy, head of race and diversity, said: "Having listened to the British Association for Women in Policing it was clear many forces wanted to produce a better uniform themselves. It is at that level that the proposals need to be trialled."


Incentives Matter!

Half of all marriages in Britain are unhappy, but the millions of men and women trapped in matrimonial misery will not walk away for fear of financial and emotional hardship, according to a new survey.

Heathrow Plane Crash

After his engines cut out at 400 feet and he glided (glid?) the plane down to a belly flop landing at Heathrow:

Capt Burkill, one of BA\’s most experienced pilots with almost 20 years service, was described as looking "very pale" as the plane was evacuated. The incident was so sudden he did not even have time to send out a mayday distress call.

"Very pale" is somehow so English.

In other news:

The Prime Minister\’s motorcade was understood to be on the A30 perimeter road as the stricken aircraft came in to land at 12.42pm, with the convoy experiencing what witnesses described as a "narrow miss".

Damn. Close but no cigar.

TEBAF Wibbles Again!

Indeed, The Ever Blessed and Fragrant Margot Wallstrom tells us how the world works:

–  EU enlargement has been the most important factor to maintain peace and stability in Europe – a fact that is sometimes overlooked

This fact is sometimes overlooked because it is of course complete bollocks. The guarnator of peace and stability in Europe has been for a humber of decades NATO: something which, much as Federasts hate to admit it, includes the Americans, and worse for said federasts only has any power precisely because of the membership of the Americans.

– the EU has to use all its policies in a more coordinated way to enhance security globally : trade, environment, migration etc

Trade and environment have bugger all to do with security. Migration might….but do remember that the estimates of, say. climate change driven migration are for a couple of hundred million people. Over a large number of decades. This is about the same as current annual international migration. Yes, international, and the climate change migration will be intra as well as inter national. Oh, and when we count these numbers we count internal EU migration as intra national.  It just ain\’t gonna be a problem folks as we already deal with vastly more now.

– there is a gender issue when it comes to defining security : women are too often not consulted in conflict areas around the world

We don\’t actually want to "consult" women about security: nor do we want to consult men. What we want is someone willing to do voilence on our behalf so that we may sleep abed at night.

– today´s security threats include for example climate change and pandemics

These are not security threats. Climate change is best thought of as an economic problem. Let\’s start with the thought that we all agree with the IPCC. OK, now what we want to do is change people\’s behaviour. That\’s an economic problem, how to create the correct incentives for them to do so. Security? No, we\’re not going to solve climate change by hiring either more policemen nor more soldiers. Pandemics are a public health problem, not a security one.

– the EU budget has to be reformed in order to better reflect the political priorities

Indeed, the political priorities being that we should be in the EU, in fact, the EU shouldn\’t exist whether or not we are in it. The reform should therefore be its abolition.

So how did a woman so at odds with reality end up getting 225,000 € a year of our money?

Copyright and that Tom Cruise Book

I think I might be able to explain a little of this:

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian bookstores have been denied access to sell the book, not because of any government ban, but because the US distributor has decided that it will not sell the book outside the US or Canada. The distributor, Ingram International, will fulfill existing orders, but will not accept any more orders.

This is a very curious story. What is not said but is left implied is that the most controversial aspect of the Tom Cruise story is his adherence to the Church of Scientology. It seems that the Church came to some sort of legal arrangement with the distributor.

It\’s entirely possible that other of the explanations offered (like the differences in libel laws) are true. But what I suspect has happened here is a result of the way in which publication rights are handled.

For an English language book (other languages work in the same way, but with different regional distinctions. Thus a French book might distinguish between Quebec and Metropolitan France, a German one between Germany and Austria) the world is divided into various territories. What actually gets distinguished varies according to the popularity of the title: Harry Potter books will make finer grained territorial distinctions than will, say, Crap Towns in England.

But the publisher buys the rights to publish a title in a certain territory. The US say. Or Canada (usually separated because of the spelling differences in the language). Or the UK: sometimes Australia and New Zealand are lumped together, sometimes separated. Now, if you own the rights in one territory and no one else has bothered to buy the rights in those others, then Ingram (and Amazon etc) will happily ship copies of your version to those other territories.

But if someone has indeed bought, say, the Australian rights to that book then Ingram should not ship US copies to Australia (whether this is a Gentleman\’s Agreement or actually a legal requirement of copyright I\’m not sure. But it certainly happens with US and UK versions of books. Or rather it can, if the relevant publisher makes the purchase of those territory specific rights known to the distributor).

So if you were the Church of Scientology and you didn\’t want people in Austalia to read the book, the easiest way would be to go to the US publisher and negotiate to purchase the Australian subsidiary rights. Given that it\’s unlikely to be a great best-seller, a few thousand dollars would do the trick.

( As a not very relevant example of foreign rights pricing, I was once offered the Russian language rights to Hitchhikers\’ Guide to the Galaxy for $500, no further royalty.)

Quote of the Day II

"I\’ve found that people who are great at something are not so much convinced of their own greatness as mystified at why everyone else seems so incompetent."
        — Paul Graham

No, I certainly don\’t claim to be great at writing nor do I think that everyone else is incompetent. But some people are kind enough to think that I write well enough to pay me to do so (sometimes): what confuses me is that surely everyone is capable of this?

It\’s not like writing is something difficult is it, like playing a musical instrument well, or acting, or riding a bike, something that actually requires more than just basic literacy?


I would think that the biggest danger of going on strike (beyond the lost income) would be that no one notices you are not working.  This seems to be a real danger faced by the writers, and an important reason why you will never see Congress go on strike.