Polly Today
Can anyone find Mr. E\’s perfect (if disgusting) piece about Polly\’s disappointment with Gordon\’s performance?
Seems appropriate to run that again today really.
Can anyone find Mr. E\’s perfect (if disgusting) piece about Polly\’s disappointment with Gordon\’s performance?
Seems appropriate to run that again today really.
Bit of a shock this morning, finding myself agreeing with Lawson on anything at all. Still:
Last Thursday\’s byelection result was not a victory for nationalism, but for social democracy. What makes it easy for ex-Labour voters in the east end of Glasgow to switch to the SNP is that the SNP\’s symbolic policies chime with the social-democratic values of the Scots. The Scandinavian counties, to which Alex Salmond so often refers, are not nationalist success stories; they are social-democratic success stories.
I agree that the Scots and the Scands do seem to be in favour of social democratic policies.
There, I\’ve agreed wih him. Shudder.
However, I think that\’s rather tightly tied into nationalism rather than being in opposition to it. The thing about the Scands (and Scotland) is that they are small nations. 4-10 million range the lot of them. I\’m inclined to the belief (with pretty much no proof, that\’s why I call it a belief) that social democracy, this we\’re all in it together so we should take care of each other collectively through the State, only gains great support when it is indeed done on such scales. What works in groups of say 5 million people doesn\’t work for 50 million or one hundred million. for the sense of belonging to the group (tribe, nation, what you will) and the responsibility to it is too weak for people to be willing to bear the tax burdens.
We can use the counter examples of Germany or France….but that\’s to miss quite how much of the power there is at a much more local level. In Germany it\’s the Lander, looming rather larger in the lives of the people than the Federal Govt. In France the prefecture and the commune have vastly more power than any level of local government does in the UK. And even in the Scands things like the health service are paid for and organised on county grounds, precisely to bring them closer to the actual people who both pay for and use them.
It\’s for this reason that I\’ve always been rather amused by American liberals who are arguing for something close to Scand type social democracy. But they argue for it through the Federal Govt, when it\’s actually the States that make much more natural units for it….
Here in the UK I can see that Wales or Scotland might be quite happy with a Scand style tax and spending regime. I can\’t see that England would be. Too big and too centralised. Those regions proposed are similarly not going to do it (Cornwall being run from Bristol won\’t gain any more support than it being run from London): it might work at a county level, but then those who do argue for Scand style social democracy never do argue for true power to be devolved to, say, the counties (that "postcode lottery" argument).
In short, I don\’t think you can have a well functioning social democracy if it\’s centralised over a large population. Which leaves those who propose it something of a problem. If social democracy really is what they want then they\’ve got to give up any hope of they themselves running it from the centre: but perhaps the desire to be running it is greater than the desire for social democracy?
It would be easier for me to lose weight than it would for Labour to lose Gordon, and I will bet anyone £100 that I can lose a stone – and tip the scales at less than 15 stone – before Gordon Brown ceases to be PM.
You know, if enough people took him up on that (say, 50,000-100,000) and he failed, he could be made bankrupt if he didn\’t lose the weight.
Then again, given that incentives matter, the risk of doing so probably would make him lose the weight. So, umm, the more people who did sign up to try and make him bankrupt, the less likelihood there would be of it happening.
"Even little tree shrews do it,
Let\’s all get drunk."
I\’ve been thinking about this a little:
Those who could show they were responding to a "fear of serious violence" would be punished for manslaughter and escape a mandatory life sentence, under the plans. Proof of having acted spontaneously would not be required.
The reforms, to be unveiled by the Ministry of Justice, would also allow a defence for someone who could show they killed in response to an exceptional case of abusive "words and conduct" over a long period.
This would not include the discovery of infidelity, meaning the "crime of passion" defence would be scrapped, and husbands who kill their partner because they have been unfaithful or are nagging would no longer be able to plead the partial defence of provocation.
The \’provocation\’ defence will, however, also be available to those driven to kill in other extreme circumstances – such as during a confrontation with a rapist or paedophile.
According to the Ministry of Justice the reforms are an attempt to redress a centuries-old disparity in how the laws impact on men and women. They say it is currently too easy for men to defend killing an unfaithful female partner, and too difficult for women with violent male partners to mount a similar defence.
I started out with outrage that such a transparent attempt to favour one group over another would be made with the law.The actual basic definition of murder is being changed: that premeditated part, which has always been the distinction between murder and manslaughter, will go. But only women (at least that\’s the intention) will be not charged with murder when their actions were indeed premeditated.
I rather calmed down (I still think it\’s political grandstanding of the worst sort) and think that in fact it won\’t make much difference at all.
For the actual sentence served for manslaughter can be as long (and perhaps even longer) than the "life sentence" served for murder. This is what we have judges for of course. They impose the actual sentence….and while a life sentence does mean the possibility of life behind bars, it\’s actually largely determined by the recommended minimum, with release upon licence (note, not parole, theoretically they can be recalled to serve life at any time) following.
That minimum, just like the sentence for manslaughter, is determined by the only impartial person who has heard all the evidence: the judge. That won\’t change, so while a group of virulent sexists ("women just can\’t be held responsible for their actions in the same way men can") will get their way in the headlines, maybe not all that much will change in actual sentencing.
I\’m alerted to this lovely piece of logic from Richard Murphy.
Commenting upon the tax credits computer system screw ups.
Yes it\’s an HMRC cock up, but let\’s be clear, the system was written by the private sector. Most people who comment will ignore that.
??!!?
For as long as soaring food prices last, supermarkets should be required to provide hampers of good-quality food for pensioners and others on benefit at cost price or below. A social tariff should be fixed for pensioners and low-income families so that they can purchase gas and oil at below-market price that they can afford.
I can get the idea that if we as a society think it wrong that people starve or freeze then we as a society should pony up the tax money to pay for those things they need.
But to insist that a private business should do that for us seems a little, well, like theft actually.
However, news reaches me that David Cameron\’s nearest neighbour on his relaxing Cornish holiday (and by that, I mean the next house round the cliff) is none other than UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
So, a new search engine launches called Cuil.com (pronounced "cool").
120 billion pages they claim to be covering.
So let\’s do a search, shall we? For the word "worstall" perhaps?
We didn’t find any results for “worstall”
Some reasons might be…
- a typo. Please check your spelling.
- your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute.
- too many search terms. Please try fewer terms.
Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.
Hmm. That\’s with safe search either on or off.
Google has 223,000 results for Worstall.
OK, I\’m probably the only person on the planet that might actually use that search, but no mentions at all out of 120 billion pages?
Is it too early to make this down as a fail*?
*Or am I doing something wrong?
Update:
We’ll be back soon…
Due to overwhelming interest, our Cuil servers are running a bit hot right now. The search engine is momentarily unavailable as we add more capacity.
Thanks for your patience.
Let Dr. Rant explain it to you.
With Carol Vorderman\’s departure from Countdown a sign that the bubble has burst, the BBC will presumably be telling its own presenters to take a 90 per cent pay cut or go searching for another job. That will mean Jonathan Ross\’s yearly earnings falling to £600,000 a year, Graham Norton\’s to £250,000 and Jeremy Paxman\’s to £100,000. By reducing its wage bill for presenters to £24.2 million, that will allow the BBC to save £218 million and so cut the cost of a TV licence by about £10.
After all, as Carol\’s departure from Countdown shows, the market rates are indeed falling.
Labour\’s choice should be made between sticking with Mr Brown until May 2010, which might be the wisest course, or switching to an early election under Harriet Harman – a high-risk strategy, but not unthinkable. It would make some sort of political sense.
It\’s not nice to tease the Labour Party so. Suggesting that Harry Harperson might prevent a complete electoral breakdown is a very good joke, but dressing it up as a serious column so that no one notices your tongue firmly in cheek is simply cruel.
Most serious, most serious indeed.
Alan Johnson, Britain\’s health secretary, got it right when he called for a national movement to tackle obesity in his Fabian Society speech. He\’s taken on board the sound advice offered to governments over many years now that to have any hope of stemming the tide of overweight and obesity, you need a societal approach that involves everyone in becoming part of the solution.
Hmm, OK.
There is ample evidence of what a complicated business it can be trying to deliver health messages. We know that what works usually has a sting in the tail – such as a penalty for not using a seat belt, or smoking in the wrong place – but we also know what doesn\’t really work.
Well, yes, if we\’re going to have to get all of society involved, we should indeed think about what all of society can actually do about this.
There must be a movement by companies, to make healthier choices over the products they make available. There needs to be a movement to tailor environments to favour people and public transport. Most of all there needs to be a movement to protect younger consumers, and that must not mean fudging the issue of health. We are all involved in becoming part of the solution, especially in grappling with the challenge of reducing childhood obesity. It takes a village, or nowadays the global village, to raise our children.
I\’m not sure Our Neville has actually thought this through properly. For we do know of a very powerful force which society as a whole can use: public shame.
If we simply insist that people should mock and jeer fatties whenever and wherever they encounter them then their noting the public contempt for them will get them dieting soon enough. This does hit all the correct contemprary buttons, doesn\’t it? Inclusive, check, societally based, check, communal action, check, both carrot and stick, check.
Heck, why not utilise one of the most powerful of human emotions, hatred of the out group?
So, who knows the words to "Who Ate All The Pies?"
A man was airlifted to hospital after he blew up his garage attempting to make biodiesel.
This new localism, the home production of any and everything, is bound to increase such events as ever more Heath Robinson machines are tried out. Will he go down in the health and safety statistics as a victim of greenery?
Hmm, interesting:
When the character Carrie Bradshaw read extracts from Love Letters of Great Men in the hit movie, booksellers were inundated with requests for a copy.
But there was no such book, until the British firm Macmillan spotted the gap in the market and decided to issue a new publication with the same title.
It contains intimate communiques from historical figures including Pliny, Henry VIII, Mozart, Napoleon, Prince Rainier III and Oscar Wilde.
It\’s not just Macmillan that had that idea of course. Several people have.
Including, erm, me.
But swimming with dolphins, or dolphin-assisted therapy (DAT) as it is scientifically known, may not actually have any mental or physical health benefits to human beings at all, according to new research.
Now there\’s a surprise, eh? Swimming with dolphins is definitely fun, but health benefits other than swimming or having fun? Who thought that one up?
In 2005, a University of Leicester team tested the effect of regular swimming sessions with dolphins on 15 depressed people in a study carried out in Honduras and published in the British Medical Journal.
The team found that symptoms improved more among this group than among another 15 who swam in the same area but did not interact with dolphins.
But did they test it against other forms of exercise and other forms of having fun?
At the ASI.
Comparing Estonia and Finland from 1939:1994. It\’s the markets folks.
On balance, consultation respondents were more likely to state that they were against a reclassification of cannabis from its current classification of ‘C’. Those not in favour felt that it should be either left as it is (278 respondents) or that if a legislative change were to take place, it should indeed be in the other direction, and that cannabis should be legalised (124 respondents).
No, I don\’t expect them to listen. Why, were you naive enough to think that they would?
*shrug* hey it worked for Wonkette. A couple dozen posts about anal sex and her career was made.
…
Ok. It worked for Andrew Sullivan too but seriously. Can we all agree to not go there?
But I do admire the ability with which the insult is made.