As Matt says, a spectacular missing of the point.
It\’s always possible that the man is merely being comical in some leaden economist fashion.
Err, yes, that is a possibility.
At the ASI. A plan to make me rich and bankrupt Polly Toynbee.
Sir, You say that anything more than administrative changes in the EU treaty “must require a referendum and therefore a referendum is required” (“Cold Calculations”, leading article, Oct 23), and the Tories taunt the Prime Minister with the accusation that his reason for refusing a referendum is his fear of losing it.
In fact, that’s one, although not the only, perfectly rational and honourable reason for not holding a referendum. Not only the Tories but much of the Europhobic press would exploit the worst kinds of anti-European xenophobic prejudice to secure a “no” vote, not out of any genuine opposition to specific provisions of a treaty whose main purposes you yourself admit are necessary after EU expansion, but in the unacknowledged hope of bringing about Britain’s eventual exit from the EU.
If that is their aim, they should come clean about it: a referendum on British membership, as now advocated by the Lib Dems, could be a healthy way to lance the boil.
But for the UK, probably alone of all EU member states, to reject a treaty regarded by every single EU government as sound and necessary would make us the pariahs of the union, and may well result in our expulsion from it, an outcome that only a minority of the electorate seems to want.
HM Diplomatic Service, 1965-94
Now I don\’t just want the UK to leave the EU: I want the EU to not exist. Certainly, that makes mine an extreme opinion. But what would, despite it coming from such an acknowledged extremist such as myself, make the federast case a great deal stronger would be a proper cost benefit analysis of the UK\’s membership.
Like, perhaps, this one done by Patrick Minford?
Ah, sorry, my mistake. The reason that a cost benefit analysis is not done by said federasts is that it wouldn\’t support their case: the costs are vastly higher than the benefits. Thus we should leave, whatever else the Continentals want to get up to. If they wish to impoverish themselves then it\’s a free world, isn\’t it? No good reason that we should follow them down the plughole though.
An interesting little note for those worried about immigration.
There\’s really only four types of immigration.
1) From other EU countries. In law, we can do nothing to change this, as all EU citizens have an absolute right to live in any EU country.
2) Asylum seekers. Not a lot we can do as asylum is governed by UN measures.
3) Family reconciliation. This we can change if we should so wish. It would be instantly decried as racist (on pretty good grounds as well).
4) Primary migration from outside the EU. This is currently something which the UK does control. It\’s pretty small as compared to 1 and 3 but it is something which the UK Govt controls.
For the moment:
A single European work visa, to be known as a Blue Card, will be introduced alongside a global advertising campaign to attract thousands of “highly skilled” migrants, EU officials announced yesterday.
The visas, coloured blue to match the EU flag, are intended to rival the American Green Card by offering permanent residency anywhere in Europe after five years’ work.
The card will be targeted at qualified migrants who will be able to bring their families with them after a 90-day application period as part of a programme to meet an estimated short-fall of 20 million skilled and non-skilled workers by 2030.
“We will have a shortage of labour in the future and this is already true of some sectors,” said José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, announcing details in Strasbourg yesterday. Plans for a common EU approach to non-skilled workers are also in the pipeline to combat illegal immigration.
Of course, the Govt says that it has an opt out from this: one that actually means nothing as once someone is in the EU and legally so for two years then they can move anywhere else in the EU.
I\’ve no worries about the actual meat of the program: it\’s a points based one just as Canada or Australia run. Rather this is a heads up to all of those who do worry about immigration. If you actually want to be able to do anything about it, you have to understand that the only way that anything can be done is by leaving the EU.
OK, so subsidies were cut in Denmark leading to a drop in planting, leading to a shortage in this country of Christmas trees. OK, fine. So prices here should go up. Which they are.
Although Nordmann firs are grown on plantations in Britain there are not enough to meet the annual demand. The British Christmas Tree Growers Association is advising its members to limit price increases to 20 per cent. The extra cost will be passed on to customers at garden centres and markets this Christmas.
Err, hang on a minute. A central trade body offering recommended price rises? Isn\’t that, err, a cartel? As in illegal collusion to screw the consumer?
Why aren\’t they being prosecuted?
Yes, they are all corrupt:
The culture of self-interested denial is rooted in Labour\’s success in characterising John Major\’s government as being sleazy. New Labour\’s victory, leading ultimately to a third term, was not just associating all Conservatives with the dishonesty of Neil Hamilton (linked to the "cash for questions" affair in 1994) and Jonathan Aitken (imprisoned for perjury in 1999), but also in exploiting Lord Scott\’s critical inquiry into the government\’s approval of sales of weapons to Iraq as a manifestation of Tory deceit.
Drawing lessons from that success, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown decided that they would never repeat John Major\’s mistake of appointing an intelligent, independent-minded lawyer like Scott to investigate their own conduct. Since 1997 every official inquiry into alleged government misconduct has been entrusted to loyalists, patsies and payroll wallahs. The parallel success has been to silence Tory criticism about Labour sleaze.
As the Devil says, Hang Them All.
I can see that this commentary career is going to have legs.
Roland Rat to present News at Ten.
The number of childminders has fallen by almost a third over the past decade. In 1997, there were 98,500 registered childminders in England. Today, according to the National Childminding Association, there are 69,925.
So, do we want more or fewer child minders?
Childminders are quitting in their thousands because of the bureaucratic "lunacy" governing their work.
Should the regulation be as it is or be relaxed? For it would appear that we can\’t have both the strict regulation and more child minders. Clearly, we\’d like to have both perfect regulation and the exactly right number of child minders but then we\’d all like a pony as well.
So which is it? Oh, and why is it that the bureaucrats seem incapable of realising that there is in fact a choice that has to be made, that regulations are not costless?
El Gordo shows he\’s not stopped the spin yet:
Gordon Brown will block moves today by his own business advisers to debate controversial Treasury plans to raise capital gains tax by up to 80 per cent.
The Prime Minister\’s high-level Business Council for Britain will meet for the first time this afternoon. But its high-powered members —including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar — will not be able to raise the proposed changes to capital gains tax (CGT), which it is feared will undermine British enterprise.
Instead, the meeting\’s agenda will focus on "high-level issues" including globalisation and climate change.
It is understood members of the council have been told that the meeting is not an "appropriate forum" to raise topics like tax policy.
Isn\’t that wonderful, he\’s "listening" to business. Just not about anything important.
Oh yes, most good:
The shocking preponderance of Blondes in key decision-making positions at half back and centre should leave an impartial observer in no doubt as to the fascist nature of team selection process. In a shocking echo of Philip Toynbee\’s observation, Mere dark-haired men of potentially un-aryan extraction are left to do the donkey-work in the tight five, leaving blonde-haired, blue-eyed men to garner the glory in key half-back and central positions. Indeed it is noticable they rarely pass the ball to the back 3 (two thirds BoEM) who are used as tackle fodder in defence. This is a shocking and unacceptable echo of the atrocities of the Third Reich, which used gypsies and Jews and other dark haired people as slave labour to further racially exclusive goals.
So, what\’s the ol\’ gel got for us today?
Great lies, bold, bare-faced and unapologetic, are relayed every day by every orifice of the media in ways that would make Kim Jong-il proud.
Which orifice is publishing your essays then Pol?
Badaboom tish. Yes, thank you, I\’ll be here all week and I recommend the fish special.
The latest crime figures suggest an opposite story: crime has plummeted since the mid-1990s in a way unknown for generations. We live in extraordinary times, with less theft and less violence.
Isn\’t the whole argument here over which crime figures we look at? Reported crimes or the annual population survey?
Regular viewers of the increasingly sensationalist BBC "flagship" news programme might not glean that firearms offences fell by more than 600 last year, or that serious injury from gun crime fell by 11%.
I\’ll admit I\’m no expert in these figures but didn\’t gun deaths rise? Ah, yes, they were up by 18% year on year.
A horrible spate of teen-on-teen slaughters needs reporting – but news editors prefer powerful anecdote to inconvenient contrary facts.
Columnists too it seems.
But these fairly self-evident complexities are not the problem: it is opposition politicians, their press and sensation-seeking news desks who cherry-pick and distort shamelessly. If the Press Complaints Commission were not the proprietors\’ patsy, it would proactively censor and fine misreporting of crime figures designed to deceive.
I beg your pardon? Fines for not offering the public the revealed truth? I\’m sorry, did a liberal columnist seriously just suggest that you should be fined for exercising your right to free speech? Put aside the fact that it would be our Polly who would be dragged up in front of such a body twivce a week and think rather of the enormity of the very suggestion. The free press of a free nation should be fined for what they say? Has she finally and entirely lost the plot?
The Office for National Statistics should forbid this deliberate abuse of official figures:
Will they do this for everyone who abuses ONS numbers? Like, perhaps, the writers and reporters for a certain left of centre newspaper who continually insist that women working part time earn 37% less per hour than men? When in fact it is that women working part time earn 37% less than men working full time….and 11% less than men working part time. Figures which come from the very same ONS tables that are used to calculate the first number? Or those who use such numbers and refuse to point out that there\’s an age distribution to the gender pay gap (in women\’s favour at the start, pretty much neutral until the prime child rearing years, then wide, then closing again)? You mean that sort of distortion of the numbers then Poll?
Britain spends more per capita on criminal justice than any other nation worldwide.
We do? Looks like the US and Switzerland to me you know.
The prison population soared again last week to a new high of more than 81,000. And yet Home Office research shows that prison has a negligible impact on crime figures.
Gosh, lessee: prison numbers up and as Poll insists, crime numbers down. And, err, prison doesn\’t work?
Why is crime falling here and all across the west? Cars and homes are locked up better, but mainly it\’s the economy, with less youth unemployment. The Home Office watches economic growth figures more closely than police numbers for its predictions: it warns to expect flattening or rising crime over the next years of tighter spending and lower consumption.
Now that part is true. It\’s a very strong argument against one of Polly\’s bete noires: that increasing wealth, the growth of the economy does not make us happier. Actually, as she says, growth reduces unemployment (which very much does reduce unhappiness) and it also reduces crime (ditto). So, growth makes us happier.
Not really a great validation of the way he\’s acted over the past decade:
"Judging by the fiscal deficit trend, the UK is now in worse fiscal shape than almost any other major Western country. In the event of an economic downturn, the UK now has little leeway for stimulus," it said.
If we were to have followed Keynesian type management of the economy then, at the end of 15 years of uninterrupted growth, the public sector finances should be hugely in surplus, we should be payin back the debt, as Lawson was back in the late 80s. Clearly we haven\’t been doing that, we still have huge public sector deficits and if there is indeed a recession coming then we don\’t any longer, have the option of borrowing and spending our way out of it.
Quite simply Brown left the spending taps too open too long.
If that recession does indeed come in the next year or two (for there will be one sometime, no one really thinks we\’ve abolished the business cycle) then it really ain\’t gonna be pretty. Could even be that the next election is one that you want to lose, not win.
Well, this is a nice little earner fo ex-politicians I must say:
At a ceremony in London, a panel headed by Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary general, announced Mr Chissano as the first winner of the Mo Ibrahim Prize, funded by Mohammed Ibrahim, a Sudanese telecommunications billionaire, to promote good governance in Africa.
The former guerrilla, who fought the colonial Portuguese regime in Mozambique before becoming president in 1986, will receive annual instalments totalling $5 million (£2.5 million) over 10 years and then $200,000 per year for life.
While Mr Chissano\’s record in government was praised, Mr Annan made clear that the choice was just as much about the way he left office.
How did he leave office? Pursued by the anti-corruption furies, wasn\’t it?
So, the old method of cleaning windows is discouraged (read, near banned) because it involves people going up on ladders in clear breach of sensible elfnsafety rules.
Fine, so some bright sparks invent a new method of cleaning windows:
Window cleaners, under pressure from health and safety legislation which discourages the use of ladders, have been converting their businesses to water-fed poles.
The cleaners fill a tank in their van with mains water via a hosepipe.
The water is piped from the van to a brush on the end of the pole, allowing cleaners to wash windows up to 60ft high without ladders.
Most inventive and clearly a good thing. Except that, now, in certain circumstances, this method will also be bnned.
Weren\’t we promised joined up government?
Just a thought. There are special taxation rules if your pension pot goes over £1.3 million or so. You don\’t get tax relief is it?Or you pay more tax because of the relief you\’ve had? Something like that?
The last time I asked this question I was told that public sector pensions were subject to the same rules, some method was used to add up future payments and compare them to the sum required to purchase an equivalent annuity. This was then measured against the £1,3 million limit and the appropriate tax then levied (or not, as the case may be).
The civil servant who became infamous for declaring his department was doomed is to pick up the most generous public-sector pension ever awarded — worth a total of almost £2.7 million — when he retires this month.
Will his pension pot be caught by these rules?
At the ASI. Abolish the IMF!
Dawn Primarolo, the public health minister, conceded the report showed there was "a lot to do in tackling health inequalities".
"Whilst we have made good progress in stopping people smoking, I am determined to move further and faster to respond to all these challenges – with a cross Government drive to tackle obesity, improve diet and activity levels and promote safe and sensible drinking," she said.
The worry comes from the fact that the way they stopped people from smoking was by banning it in public places. Dealing with booze and food will therefore obviously mean banning those as well, in public places. All for your own good, of course.
I\’m just wondering what will be the point of going to the pub in this case?