Skip to content

2014

Schooling Owen Jones

So, the Greens have some electoral support and thus should get more media coverage:

“Green surge”: these are two words Green party supporters are beginning to say with no little relish. Britain’s old political model – a future miraculous revival notwithstanding – appears to be disintegrating in the face of a multi-pronged assault by the SNP, Ukip and, increasingly, the Greens.

The last of these really believes that its time has come. At the 2010 general election, despite the crusading Caroline Lucas pulling off a historic victory in the tight three-way marginal of Brighton Pavilion, the Greens did poorly. Barely registering a single percentage point, they actually chalked up a smaller proportion of the vote than they had in 2005. Now look at them: beating the Lib Dems in the European elections, usurping Nick Clegg’s party in two opinion polls, soaring party membership. The party’s leader, Natalie Bennett, cheerfully talks of a “peaceful revolution” in British politics – hyperbole, perhaps, but who knows?

The media treatment of the Greens is beginning to look painfully absurd. They had an elected MP years before Ukip appropriated Douglas Carswell from the Tory backbenches; they run a council; they’ve long boasted a presence in the European parliament. And yet the likes of the BBC all too often prefer to act as Ukip’s unofficial campaign team. Remarkable, perhaps, that the Greens are doing quite so well given the relative dearth of airtime.

So here’s how the specific BBC rules work. I was treated to an extensive education in this in the 2009 euro-elections, when working for Ukip. And I’m absolutely certain that everyone would agree that on that traditional goose and gander sense of fairness thing that we British congratulate ourselves upon, one insurgent political party should be treated the same way that the last insurgent political party was.

We do agree upon that at least, do we?

Good. So, the BBC says that the top three parties get equal coverage. In an election period, if the top three are LibDem, Tory and Socialist Idiot then you can’t have the idiot on a program without also including a LibDim and a Capitalist Bastard. That’s their definition of impartiality. If you start to have the fourth, fifth and so on on a show then, well, you don’t quite have to go all the way to the Monster Raving Miliband Party…..the cut off is standing some number of candidates. I think 50 for a GE.

However, it matters how you define who are the top three parties, obviously. And the BBC one is “defined by the results of the last election of this type“.

So, in the last euro-elections Ukip was one of the top three having come second in the one before. Next euro-elections Ukip will be in the top three having come top in the last one. Last GE Ukip was not in the top three as it was not in the top three in terms of seats won in the previous GE. And this time around it won’t be in the top three either for the same reason. And the LibDims will be in the top three for this coming GE as they were third in the results of the last GE. and they won’t be in the top three for the next euro-elections.

And that’s just the way it works. And, of course, we do all sign up to playing by the rules, don’t we? The Greens included: that British idea of fair play, that the coming insurgent party will be, is and should be treated in exactly the same manner the last insurgent party was?

I don’t think so Larry, no

But the problems went deeper. The Soviet Union came to grief because of a lack of trust. The economy delivered only for a small, privileged elite who had access to imported western goods. What started with the best of intentions in 1917 ended tarnished by corruption. The Soviet Union was eaten away from within.

If that were so then all of the different communist regimes would have had some variance in their outcomes, as they did not all suffer from the same levels of corruption. The fact that all of the communist regimes suffered the same fate, complete and total economic collapse, or the complete absence of anything that resembles an economy developing where they had not inherited an economy, tells us that there was something more fundamentally flawed about the plan.

Like, planning is a bad way to run an economy.

In which I agree with Bill Mckibben

If they put a serious price on carbon, we would move quickly out of the fossil fuel age and into the renewable future.

Quite, as Stern said: $80 a tonne on CO2-e and we’re done. And given that the UK already has emissions taxes of this sort of magnitude, even if not correctly distributed, all we’ve got to do is a little tinkering (lower petrol duties, higher on coal at coal fired plants sorta stuff) and we’re done.

The point being not that dealing with climate change is going to be horribly expensive. It’s that we’re already paying that price and if we pay it in the correct manner, not the current, then we will be done and dusted.

Oh, and that also means that we don’t have to do any of the other things that Bill McKibben recommends.

Oh, well done to the BBC here

So, they don’t actually pay corporation tax, they’re a non-profit, but they can claim corporation tax credits.

It has taken advantage of a decision by George Osborne in 2012 to allow cuts in corporation tax to high-cost British-made dramas, comedies and animation, in an attempt to increase filmmaking in the UK.

Independently-produced programmes, or those made by BBC Worldwide, which is the BBC’s commercial arm, would be eligible for the cuts, the Chancellor indicated.

But BBC shows produced in-house for public-service channels could not be claimed for, because the BBC is non-profit making and therefore does not pay corporation tax.

The BBC then created a commercial subsidiary for drama – Grafton House Productions – and a subsidiary for comedy – BBC Comedy Productions.

It is through Grafton House that £520,133 has been reclaimed as nominal corporation tax for two dramas: The Interceptor and One Child.

The BBC could receive more, as there is a total budget of £205million for tax relief to drama, and a further £60million for animations.

Well played that man, well played.

This won’t actually work I’m afraid

Griff Rhys Jones has said he is thinking about moving abroad if Labour wins the election and introduce a mansion tax.

The TV star described the idea of a levy on properties worth more than £2million as ‘fatuous’.

Under Labour’s proposals, owners of homes worth between £2million and £3million would pay £3,000 a year extra in tax.

Owners of homes worth more than £3million could pay as much as £30,000 extra per year.

Rhys Jones, 60, who made his name in shows such as Alas Smith and Jones alongside comedian Mel Smith, told the Daily Telegraph: ‘It would mean I’d be paying the most colossal tax, which is obviously aimed at foreigners who have apparently come in and bought up all the property in London.’

He added: ‘That sounds about as fatuous an idea as that immigrants are stealing all the jobs. I’d probably go and live abroad because I could get some massive palace which I could restore there.’

The presenter lives in a ‘gigantic’ house in Fitzrovia, central London, which he described as being a ‘slum’ when he bought it 15 years ago.

He said it has appreciated so significantly in value that he may move overseas if Labour wins next May’s election.

Because the new tax will be pretty immediately incorporated into the capital value of the place. Indeed, we’re seeing reports that even the idea of the tax is reducing top end house prices. That being so there’s no way to avoid it. You’ll either pay the tax year by year or get less money when selling. You’ll pay either way.

How very Soviet

There’s electoral bribery and then there’s electoral bribery:

There were no voter lists, no recognised observers, and only one real candidate. But for voters who turned out for Sunday’s rebel-organised elections in eastern Ukraine, there were plenty of cut-price root vegetables.

At polls in the self-declared “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk, stalls outside were selling beetroots, potatoes, onions and carrots for barely a few pence per sack.

Who was subsidising the election-cum-farmers’ market was not quite clear. But it was widely suspected to be an attempt by the region’s new leaders to maximise voter turnout – and give the polls a much-needed stamp of legitimacy.

How shittily run does a place have to be to make cheap beetroot an incentive to get out and vote? This is proof of almost Soviet levels of economic incompetence.

I suppose that’s one way to get out

Germany would be prepared to accept that Britain will have to leave the European Union if David Cameron insists on restricting the number of immigrants from the bloc who can live and work in the UK.

Mr Cameron’s bid to curb levels of migration from the EU is taking Britain to a “point of no return”, according to Der Spiegel.


It’s obviously true that an end to the internal free movement of people will mean having to leave. And whatever I think of the free movement of people or not leaving would be a good idea. So go on Call Me Dave, insist upon it and then we can leave.

Because it doesn’t matter: we left anyway, which is the important thing.

How convenient of the data protection act

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.

John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs’ expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded.

Members of the public who have written to Kathryn Hudson, the standards watchdog, to raise concerns about their MP’s claims have been told there can be no investigation due to lack of evidence.

Under the House of Commons “Authorised Records Disposal Practice, which is overseen by Mr Bercow’s committee, records of MPs’ expenses claims are destroyed after three years. The move is necessary to comply with data protection laws, a Commons spokesman said.

Sigh.

When’s that multiple member gallows going to be ready?

Something of a boob by the Fawcett Society

62p AN HOUR: What women sleeping 16 to a room get paid to make Ed and Harriet’s £45 ‘This Is What A Feminist Looks Like’ T-shirts

Feminist T-shirts worn by politicians are made in ‘sweatshop’ conditions
Migrant women in Mauritius are making the £45 tops for 62p an hour
They say: ‘We don’t feel like feminists. We don’t feel equal. We feel trapped’
Machinists sleep 16 to a room and earn less than average wage on island
T-shirt is sold in Whistles in aid of activism group The Fawcett Society
Deputy chief executive of the charity Dr Neitzert said they had originally been assured the garments would be produced ethically in the UK
When they received samples they noted they had been made in Mauritius
She added that if evidence emerges Whistles will have to withdraw range
Harriet Harman wore shirt on front bench of the Commons during PMQs

Quite snigger worthy really.

Do note that there’s nothing wrong at all with sweatshops, they’re a part of that route up out of poverty. But there is a joy in finding these holier than thous ethical types breaching their own posturings.

Yawn

The world is on course to experience “severe and pervasive” negative impacts from climate change unless it takes rapid action to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, a major UN report is expected to warn on Sunday.

Yes, we know, can we haz a carbon tax plze?

Sigh. They keep telling us this, we’re all to be boiled, and then they just will not listen to the next set of experts, the economists, about what to do next. It’s a carbon tax. It doesn’t mean economic disaster: the UK already has one of about the right size (even if not quite properly distributed). The UK is also wasting vast amounts on all of the regulatory and legislative tinkering that it’s doing: which is why we want to have a carbon tax instead of legislative and regulatory tinkering.

Just fucking get on with it would you?

On First Look and Matt Taibbi

Interesting stuff here.

And there’s a line from an old management book (Robert Townsend’s “Up the Organisation”). About how a great salesman gets promoted to being a sales manager and is left there in the central office not knowing what the fuck he’s doing. Great at charming the customers but not as a manager of those who do (akin to the lesson of that other great management book, The Peter Principle).

Taibbi can, on his day, produce prose of the most remarkable wonder. I still recall a piece of his in The Exile (in fact, I think it was the one before that, the one that went spectacularly bust) from the mid-90s where the central set up is Yeltsin waking up after a cocaine binge and wondering what the hell has happened to the Soviet Union?

His economics isn’t so hot but no one has everything.

But his ability to do that isn’t necessarily an indication of his ability to manage an organisation and a budget. Which is what seems to have happened here. The assumption was made that because he can write that he can manage.

Well, yes

Italy formally ends its search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean on Saturday amid fears that its EU-led replacement will lead to the deaths of thousands of migrants trying to reach Europe.


Pushing a task up from a national body to a supra-national one is always such a guarantee of increased efficiency in its performance, isn’t it?

Umm, but why?

Anyone who criticises Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.

Mrs May outlined the proposal in a speech at the Tory party conference in which she spoke about the threat from the so-called Islamic State – also known as Isis and Isil – and the Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram.

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.

He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.


If they’re not breaking the law then they’re not doing anything wrong, are they?

We’ve got robust laws about incitement to violence and the rest. And the thing about this free speech stuff is the “free” that’s in the phrase. I am and should be allowed to say “lock up the filthy homos” however stupid, impolite or hateful it would be for me to say this. Just as Abu Hookhand is at liberty to discuss the finer points of stoning them or pushing a wall over on them. What neither of us may say is let’s go stone that filthy homo over there.

That’s just what free speech means.

Ooooh, how lovely, I am being anonymously attacked!

Over here. Highlights include:

Quoting the opening line of a Jeremy Clarkson piece in the Sunday Times proves I’m a racist.

I attack Ritchie because he’s got more Twitter followers than I do.

My references to being the head of the shadowy international scandium oligopoly are taken seriously.

And so on. And this is cute too:

Questions, questions.

He may be just another angry ranter. I really don’t know. But I’d like to know a couple of things.

Question 1: is someone paying him to write his stuff? If so, who?

From an interview with Worstall back in 2006.

Normblog: What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job?

Worstall: Over the past couple of years, since I started blogging, I’ve been changing my profession, from vaguely unsuccessful businessman to vaguely unsuccessful writer. I’m still astonished that people wish to pay me to tap on a keyboard and I think I’ve found my ideal alternative.

If he’s changed his whole profession towards being a ‘writer’ then he sure won’t make enough from the likes of Forbes. His 3,500-odd Twitter followers – rather feeble, given the attention-seeking headlines – suggest not much potential for advertising revenues. His book rankings place him currently in 2.7 millionth place on Amazon for his climate change book Chasing Rainbows, and he’s at 1.2 millionth place for his more recent 20 Economic Fallacies.

That ain’t how he keeps himself afloat. If there are people paying him to write his outpourings, who are they, what do they get out of it, and what form does this payment take?

Our anonymong here doesn’t seem to know quite how much Forbes pays. I get paid by editors to write things for them: at Forbes, The Register, the ASI and so on. No grants, no secret payments, no salary, none of that and that freelance income amounts to three times the median UK wage or a bit above that. Yes, sorry about this, but I am successfully earning a good living as a freelance writer.

And, of course, I do also run that shadowy international scandium oligopoly.

Be fascinating to find out who it is that has spent time and effort piecing all of that together really.

The filthy capitalist bastard that is Russell Brand

Called Brand, it is co-produced by Mayfair Film Partnership, of which he is a director. Shares in the firm worth £973,000 were sold to 21 outside investors, including an executive with bank giant JPMorgan Chase.

The largest stake went to Sunderland defender Wes Brown.

The shares were bought under the Government’s Enterprise Investment Scheme, which provides tax incentives for people to invest in risky new businesses.

Tee hee.

Can you help support The Blog? If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against for independent journalism. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.