"Arbeit macht frei"—May doubles down on the fascist state

I see that Mrs May is determined to double down on the fascist inclinations she displayed so shamelessly in the Home Office...

The Conservatives will use the power of government to "restore fairness" in Britain and spread prosperity more widely, Theresa May has said.

Well, that doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster at all, eh? Higher taxes and more interference in business all round then. And note the use of the word "power" here.

The prime minister told the party's conference the UK must change after the "quiet revolution" of the Brexit vote, urging people to "seize the day".

Labour were now seen as the "nasty party" and only the Tories would "stand up for the weak... up to the powerful".

It seems to me, Mrs May, that the entity that is most "powerful" is the state—it certainly has the monopoly on violence.

So, Mrs May, who is going to stand up to you and your ilk, I wonder...?

The state should be a "force for good" to help working people, she argued.

Fucking hellski.

The Glorious Leader goes on...

"If you're one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or—and I know a lot of people don't like to admit this—someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn't seem fair."

Hmmmm. What about if you are—and I know a lot of people don't like to admit this—someone who finds themselves out of work because of the National Minimum Wage (or National Living Wage, or whatever the hell it's called these days), Mrs May?

You know, the kind of person whose human capital is so low, that they will never get a job? Like, I don't know, a young person with few qualifications?

How will you use the "power of the state" to "restore fairness" in the face of this particular piece of government stupidity? Will your government stand against the power of your government...?

What's next—compulsory National Service for all citizens?

She stressed the importance of the role of the state, the need for government to be a force for good. She promised a new industrial strategy and enhanced workers rights. It was a very different message from that of previous Tory leaders who have sought to reduce state intervention and roll back the size of government.

So, if I think that reducing state intervention and rolling back the size of government is a good idea, who the fuck do I vote for?

Political choice in this country just became even narrower.

UPDATE: the ASI peeps have responded rather more coherently...

"If only Theresa May was serious about ditching ideology in favour of pragmatism and evidence – she’d have to abandon most of her main policy planks.

"Take energy price caps. We have evidence that these will lead to lower investment [PDF], lower production and more brownouts or even blackouts. Eventually, these policies may lead to electricity rationing [PDF] and nationalisation. High energy prices are mostly caused by high wholesale prices, and energy firms are not generally more profitable than other large firms.

"Or look at the employee representation on company boards – which is better described as union representation. Here, the evidence is that giving unions this sort of power can turn boards toxic, as happened to Volkswagen, and these rules have reduced the value of German firms by 26%. Other academic evidence suggests that board representation is just about the only bad way of giving workers more say in how their firms are run. So why on earth is this the policy that supposedly-pragmatic May is proposing?"

[...]

Ah yes—I had forgotten about May's lunatic idea for energy price caps. Once again, a government wants to intervene and disrupt the market—in order to fix a problem that the government has created. For fuck's sake...

I can only assume that Mrs May is planning to "restore fairness" in the Venezuelan way—by making everyone equally poor and deprived.

The motto of Mrs May's government must surely be Forwards to Fascism!

Democracy is a bummer, eh?

Richard Murphy has woken up to idea that party politics might not be all that great. [Emphasis mine—DK]

But that means we need a political system that reflects the reality of division within the country. The politics we have can longer support the uniformity of opinion that first part the post demands.

Why, oh why, can’t we now liberate debate with a proportional representation system?

Because we held a referendum on a version of PR in 2011, and the British people overwhelmingly rejected it.

Isn't democracy a bastard, eh, Richard?

Labour's fixed that for you

According to the Daily Wail, George Osborne (amongst others) lobbied hard against the Tories' EU referendum pledge.

George Osborne pleaded with David Cameron not to hold an in/out referendum on the European Union, it emerged last night.
Senior Tory sources revealed the Chancellor had repeatedly warned against the move in the run-up to the Prime Minister’s referendum pledge in 2013.

He is said to have warned Mr Cameron that a referendum would not resolve the tensions within the Tory party over the issue, and risked an accidental British exit from the EU.

If we exit the EU, Georgie-boy, it won't be "accidental": it will be the quite deliberate will of the British people—a people who would rather make their own laws and articulate their own priorities (for better or for worse).

But why, George? Why would you do this thing: why campaign against an EU referendum...?

[Osborne] also warned that holding an in/out vote risked putting the Conservatives on the wrong side of mainstream business opinion…

Well, if by "mainstream business" you mean big corporates, yes: if, on the other hand, you mean "the vast majority of British businesses that have to implement a bunch of regulations even though they don't actually trade abroad"—the ones that make up 80% of our trade and commerce—then not so much.

But Georgie is a sneaky little tyke: surely he can just be cuddling up to businesses? Is there, perhaps, some kind of political side to this?

... handing a political gift to Labour.

Ah. I did wonder.

Still, that shouldn't be a problem after September 12.

The Tories will have to worry far less about the opinion of businesses (or, indeed, voters) when the main opposition party is about to elect a terrorist-appeasing Communist, pushing a generally fascist manifesto—the financials of which are cobbled together by an economic illiterate.

George & Co. must be delighted.

Three strikes

I enjoy reading JuliaM but, since she appears to be the unofficial record-keeper of the underclass, it is sometimes rather depressing. One of the most irritating things is the number of people who come before the court who have tens and tens of convictions for burglary, violence, etc.

Your humble Devil is now of the opinion that we should adopt something similar to the USA's "three strikes" rule. It would go a little like this:

1. Three convictions for any unexpended crime automatically means prison.


2. Three custodial convictions—suspended or otherwise—means life imprisonment. By which I mean that you will be eligible for parole after 25 years, but released on licence for the rest of your life: another conviction puts you straight back in the cells.

Any objections?

UPDATE: In the comments, Richard quite rightly points out that...

The problem is that you can get a suspended sentence for relatively minor offences.

Your immediate response to this might well be "so what?" And this would, I think, be quite reasonable. After all, the mugger might think that punching someone in the street and stealing their phone is a pretty minor thing really, but the victim doesn't.

But you might also think, as Richard does, that the whole thing is rather disproportionate.

First, it needs to be pointed out that those who are convicted of a crime need to go through quite a few safeguards: first they must actually be caught (odds against, there), then they must be actually convicted. And this must happen three times. One of the fuckers referred to in JuliaM's story had 145 convictions—that is not bad luck, that is a criminal lifestyle.

And every one of those 145 convictions represents a little more misery introduced to someone else's life; and, on the balance of probability, every one of those 145 convictions masks a myriad others for which he was not caught or convicted.

Second, whilst one might get a suspended sentence for relatively minor offences, I found out (about a year ago) that offending whilst on a suspended sentence does not mean that you go to prison. Yes, really.

When I was done for drink-driving, I was in the court for the case before me. The gentleman concerned was under two orders—a Community Payback and Supervision—and a suspended sentence. Plus he had been convicted two weeks before of theft, and had a sentence pending. And what actually happened?

All sentences were quashed and rolled up into one Supervision Order.

Despite all of the above, the gentleman who had been convicted of three thefts in the space of two months (including one whilst under a suspended sentence) got a lesser punishment than myself (who, whilst drunk, damaged nothing and killed no one).

I don't dispute my sentence—it was within the guidelines—but I do question his.

Third, the whole point of incredibly harsh sentences is to give you the opportunity not to commit crime. Because, here's the rub: I don't want more criminals to be caught. Nor do I want harsher sentences.

No, much as for Peel's police, the aim is "the absence of crime and disorder", not the more effective capturing and punishment of those who do it.

Unfortunately, the chances of being caught—let alone convicted—are pretty low: as such, you need to make the punishments extremely high in order to ensure that people think twice before they commit the crime in the first place.

"OK," says the potential criminal. "The chances of my being caught burgling this property is pretty low. On the other hand, if I am caught, I am going to be severely fucked. In the showers. By a huge man called Bubba."

Finally, I am willing to concede that there are a massive number of intrusive, unnecessary and unpleasant laws around: how many new offences did NuLabour create every year—thousands, wasn't it?

So, I shall make a compromise: the Three Strikes proposal above will apply, initially, only to those criminals who initiate force or fraud against someone's life, liberty or property. In other words, if you are caught with drugs, it won't apply: if you beat someone to a pulp or burgle their house, it will.

Does that seem fairer?

Huhne resigns (and gets charged)

So, Chris Huhne is to be charged with perverting the course of justice, and has now resigned as Minister for Energy and Climate Change: Guido has the exchange of letters.

Your humble Devil would just like to say, for the record...

Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! Aaaaaahahahaha! Aha! Ha ha! Ha.

*pause for breath*

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Aahahahahaha! etc.

UPDATE: whilst Guido and Neo-Guido might have more cause for celebration than many, inspired by their celebration the wife and I shall, nevertheless, be buying a bottle of bubbly and toasting Huhne's resignation tonight. Your humble Devil will post a picture later...

Should any readers wish to send similar piccies, to be posted here out of pure spite, please feel free to post them in the comments or fire 'em over by email...

Chris Keates: still an evil old baggage

Chris Keates: still looking like a Roald Dahl villian, drawn by Quentin Blake...

Some years ago, Chris Keates—or, rather, what I wrote about her (this is an edited version)—got me into some trouble with Andrew "Brillo Pad" Neill.

The essence of my point—crudely made but, I think, getting the point across—was that her defence of her union members was actually destroying (or "fucking") the life chances of the children that her members pretend to teach.

Your humble Devil has discussed (and, yes, caveats acknowledged) just how well the Free Schools and Academies are going in educating children—usually in very poor areas (such as those in which I live).

Despite these results—via Prodicus—it is hardly surprising that Chris Keates is now attacking the Academies (and other state independent schools) on behalf of her members (I use that word in a number of different senses).

But the NASUWT general secretary Chris Keates attacked his education policy as being motivated by "ideological fervour".

She said the coalition government's education plans were "driven more by the desire to create a free market and lining the pockets of business than ensuring that all children have the highest standards of education".

Who gives a fuck who delivers education, as long as it is the best possible education that we, as a society, can afford to give these children? Because—and I've said this a million times—if you give a child a good education, they have the tools to succeed in life. True, this isn't always enough—but if you fuck up children's education, then you almost always fuck up their lives.

The teachers' union also announced that it would be holding a strike ballot of members between 4 to 17 November - under the campaign of Standing up for Standards.

"Standing up for Standards?" What kind of standards? Oh, yes, these kinds of standards...

Government-funded research claims 20% of 16- to 19-year-olds lack basic skills

Around a fifth of pupils leave school functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate, despite average achievement in the three Rs improving over the past decade, a new Government-funded study has found.
...

Teaching union the NUT said the study, funded by the Government’s Skills for Life strategy unit, confirmed the “long tail of underachievement” already highlighted by the Pisa international comparative study.

The Sheffield report—The levels of attainment in literacy and numeracy of 13- to 19-year-olds in England, 1948-2009—says the latest evidence shows that 22 per cent of 16– to 19–year-olds are functionally innumerate. Professor Greg Brooks, one of the study’s authors, said this had remained at around the same level for at least 20 years.

His report says this means people have “very basic competence in maths, mainly limited to arithmetical computations and some ability to comprehend and use other forms of mathematical information”.

“While this is valuable, it is clearly not enough to deal confidently with many of the mathematical challenges of contemporary life,” the report adds.

Levels of functional innumeracy are higher still among older age groups and even the 22 per cent is “higher than in many other industrialised countries”.

Ah, those kinds of standards.

Look, teachers: I can understand why you might support truly evil people like Chris Keates—because she gets you pay rises, and pensions and all those other perks.

That's fine.

But don't you ever—EVER—try to tell us that you have the kiddies' interests at heart. You don't.

You and your unions—led by Chris Keates and her highly paid colleagues—are interested only in what you can get for yourselves, and screw the kids that you are supposed to teach.

But what makes the whole situation truly unforgivable is that you are willing to destroy the life chances of many thousands of pupils because your pension is more important than the jobs, and the children, that you profess to care about.

Y'know, it's the hypocrisy and cant that I cannot stand.

Seriously, teachers, you are almost as bad as doctors.

And Chris Keates is just about as bad as you can get...

Treat kids as money boxes...

Regular readers will know that some of the benefits that your humble Devil gets most angry about are those surrounding children.

There are two strands to this ire. The first is a simple indignation that I—a childless man whose lifestyle is not only unsubsidised but heavily taxed (and sometimes illegal!)—should be forced to subsidise the lifestyles of those who choose to have children.

The second is based not on petulance but on a real concern for the kind of mentality that child benefits induce. Let me elaborate...

This year, it was reported that some GCSE students were visited by Michelle Obama, and one of them found herself inspired.

... before meeting Mrs Obama, Talitha didn’t see the point in school. She hung out with kids who didn’t take work seriously and was ready to throw her life away—to become a "stereotypical baby-mum", as she told the Times.

Why? Why would you saddle yourself with an expensive, time-consuming, helpless human being? Yes, all your friends may be doing it—but why are they saddling themselves with an expensive, time-consuming, helpless human being?

Because they will be paid for doing so.

More importantly, why should a visit from a strong woman convince Talitha that her hitherto chosen route may not be, y'know, entirely fulfilling.

Because using another human being simply as a way to gain money and a council flat is a pretty low ambition. And not just "low" as in morally suspect, but "low" as in "a pathetic way to waste your potential".

No, I'm not doing down those who choose to be mothers because they want to care for a child: I am condemning those who want to have a child because they cannot think of any other way to fulfil themselves—or, in too many cases, to make a living.

And of course critics tell me that no one would actually have a child simply for the money—that would be awful. Well, yes—yes, it would.

The 36-year-old woman is accused of shaving her son’s head and eyebrows and forcing him to wear a bandana to school to make it look like he was receiving chemotherapy.
It is alleged she then swindled the authorities by claiming a carer’s allowance, tax exemptions and a disability allowance for the boy, who is now aged nine.
Gloucester magistrates’ court was told how the mother allegedly forged doctors’ notes and prevented the boy and his seven-year-old sister from taking part in school activities by leading them to believe they were too unwell.

Of course I object to the £100,000 scammed out of our taxes by this pathetic excuse for a human being. But more, I object to the way in which she treated her poor children—she made them suffer simply so that she could get more money.

But what do you expect when our entire benefits system is set up to encourage people to pimp their children?

Flatter is better

Yesterday Guido pointed out that the Baltic states still have very healthy growth, and that they all share a similar tax regime.

[LabourList's] graph showing Britain’s tragically anaemic growth while tragic has unintended consequences for the tax and spenders. Have a look at the three countries leading the growth figures:



We on this blog are huge fans of the Baltic model, but apart from pretty blonde girls, what do Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have in common? Well flat taxes of 24%, 25% and 33% respectively for one. Discuss…

There's not actually a lot to discuss—unless you are an accountant, flat taxes are better. Back in May, parlaying off Timmy's post at the ASI, I wrote a post about the fact that flat taxes are, pretty much, a free lunch in terms of tax raising; plus, of course, they ensure that companies and individuals have to spend considerably less on accountants just to work out how much tax they should be paying.

Those faithful (few) readers who have been perusing The Kitchen for many years might remember that it was over the issue of Flat Tax that Richard Murphy first came to our attention. Back in October 2006—when Timmy and I were reasonably involved in UKIP—I published an assessment of the party's Flat Tax policy. After doing so, I was solicited to write a letter on the topic for the Evening Standard (which was written in a rush, on a shared computer in Brighton, IIRC).

The letter that appeared above mine was submitted by one Richard Murphy of taxresearch.org.uk. Establishing the trend which he has so conspicuously continued to this day, Richard Murphy's missive was short on words and long on bollocks.

Flat taxes are not "simple". More than 83 per cent of people in Estonia, where they have flat taxes, submit a tax return; only 16 per cent do in the UK.

Well, you might be able to anticipate your humble Devil's reaction to that...

Erm...

What.

The.

Fuck?
...

Dear Richard—can I call you "Richard"? It's better than "dickhead" after all—has it occurred to you that many people in Britain do not submit tax returns because our tax regime is so complicated (as I said, the tax helper document is 56 pages long)? And that more people in Estonia do so because the taxes are... er... simpler? I mean, for fuck's sake, are you stupid or what?

Inevitably, Murphy talks yet more arse-wibble...

And while [flat taxes] might cut overall tax rates for the rich, all credible calculations show they increase them for middle-income earners.

Richard, I am trying to remain patient, really I am, but over the last six months I have drawn attention to several models of flat tax, many of which are credible, that demonstrate that they do not increase taxes for middle earners. For fuck's sake, man, who the hell are you trying to kid? Or is The Adam Smith Institute not credible enough for you? Or, of course, UKIP's Flat Tax policy document shows precisely how flat tax, coupled with a high PTA [dead link], does, in fact, make everyone better off.

The real point is that taxes should low and simple: then we really can have a free lunch.

Quote of the day...

... comes from MummyLongLegs on the whole Norwegian atrocity...

Whilst most Governments, most notably the UK, post 9/11, encouraged Islamaphobia and used the resulting fear of Muslims and terrorism in general as a way to terrorise their own people into giving up a lot of their rights whilst accepting legislation that severely limited what rights they had left. Norway did no such thing.

Do go and read the whole article (which I was tempted to quote in full, such is the quality of its blazing common sense).

In the meantime, I am fantastically busy...

Moron of the Week: Edward Leigh MP

Via Dick Puddlecote, I find this discussion on the proposed Employment Opportunities Bill in which we see Philip Davies MP questioning the wisdom of the National Minimum Wage*.

Surely one of the most outrageous interventions ever sees some fuckwit arsehole Conservative named Edward Leigh spouting the following offensive crap.

My hon. Friend is making an important contribution and it is important that we have this debate, but let me ask him a question as a critical friend. Let us forget the fact that there is a minimum wage at the moment. Why should a disabled person work for less than £5.93 an hour? It is not a lot of money, is it?

First, no, £5.93 per hour is not a lot of money—so why the bloody hell does your government tax those earning that small amount of cash?

Second, someone has to create that job for that person—disabled or otherwise. And that "employer" (as we call them, Edward), actually has to pay 13.8% on top of the £5.93, bringing the rate of pay up to £6.75 (plus, of course, sundry other costs—most of which carry other large taxes).

Third, who the hell are you to decide what wage someone is willing to work for? If a disabled person wishes to work for less than the minimum wage (because the alternative is no work at all) then why the fuck should you be able to intervene in a mutually-agreed, private contract?

And, fourth, the real point is that a great many disabled people—and, indeed, a great many non-disabled people—do not work because of that minimum wage, and they never will.

Why?

Because their labour is worth less than £6.75 per hour: and these people will never, ever get a job (not, I'll grant you, that someone of your background will appreciate). And, as Jackart so rightly points out (in a detailed post on this subject), that means that they will never get the training or the experience that might lead to them ever earning more than a pittance.

So, with all due respect**, Edward (and with reference to your attitude on gays), why don't you take your "question as a critical friend" and shove it up your arse?

* It's national. That makes it completely fucking stupid before we even consider its other iniquities.

** Inevitably, none.

How appropriate

According to Hugh Muir at The Guardian, the reason that Santre Sanchez Gayle agreed to shoot a woman he'd never met for £200 was because he lived in poverty.

Riiiight.

To make his case, Muir drafts in some professional bleeding heart... [Emphasis mine.]

The core problem is poverty, says India, chair of the charity Leap, which works to help people out of poverty. "These are two disadvantaged, vulnerable groups, one leveraging the other. But the issue is deprivation. That £200 to him was same as £2m to someone else."

Which is a coincidence, really, because people appear to value their own lives at roughly £2 million.

Gayle, on the other hand, viewed other people's lives as being worth a mere £200.

It seems to me that the "core problem" is that Santre "Riot"* Gayle is an unpleasant little bastard who—in valuing the lives of others so low—reveals that he is a severe danger to society and should never be let out of prison.

So, you know what?

Fuck him.

* You would have thought that his nickname might have given people a clue here...

Are state-run services better than private ones?

Tom Paine has one of my favourite quotes on this...

Even after [socialists'] ideology was tested to destruction on more than half of humanity in the 20th Century; killing millions and impoverishing hundreds of millions, there are still idiots who believe in the intrinsic moral superiority of state-run services. Even, can you believe, in a part of the world where childrens homes were run for twenty years by local authority-employed paedophiles (as I have posted before)? The social workers in question were not motivated by profit, so presumably that's all right then?

Yes, indeed: why not ask Margaret "I cannot hear my employees fucking the kids" Hodge—once, disgustingly (and in a general "fuck you" to the British public, courtesy of Tony Blair), Minister for Children...

These people make me want to vomit.

It's funny 'cos it's true

Found at Sim-O's Posterous site...



... and originally (a long time ago) from Finnbar at b3ta. I'm very late with this but it is very funny...

Right on cue...

... given my last post, up pops Clegg to tell us all that the Coalition cannot do much about economic growth because... Well, you can guess, can't you?

Nick Clegg has defended the government against accusations that it does not have a plan for boosting the economy.

In a speech, he said the government could not pull a lever to generate growth, and was in the process of unwinding a "toxic legacy" of debt.

Oh, what a surprise.

However, it is always worth reminding ourselves of the awfulness of the alternatives...

But Labour leader Ed Miliband said spending cuts would make it harder for the next generation to stay in school, go to university or own their own home.

No, Ed: what has made it harder is your generation's and your government's reckless disregard for financial probity—or even financial sanity.

The reason that the next generation will find it harder to "stay in school, go to university or own their own home" is because your government—the one in which you actively participated, which you were a key member of—has racked up massive and unsustainable debts.

It is because your government spent vastly more than its income for ten years, and now we are all paying the price.

So why don't you grow a sense of shame and shut the fuck up?

Drugged, again

As regular readers will know, your humble Devil has taken quite substantial amounts of drugs—of almost every type other than heroin. Your humble Devil also knows a number of people—the vast majority of my friends, in fact—who have regularly taken all classes of drugs.

And, generally speaking, the outcome has been hours and hours of fun, laughter, warming visions and a sense of connection. I will assert, with confidence, that the vast majority of those who take drugs have a great time. I do not know of anyone who has lost a job or a girlfriend through drug-use, nor of anyone who has harmed anyone else through drug use (other than alcohol, of course).

I will also say, from experience, that many drugs are self-limiting. Take Ecstasy regularly, for instance, and the beneficial effects reduce in intensity quite steeply—to the point that it becomes pointless.

However, the human desire to get out of one's tree occasionally is always there: in other words, demand is not going to go away. Although many people assert that the very illegality of drugs creates extra demand through the forbidden fruit factor.

On the flip side, I do know that the illegality of drugs means that the supply is entirely controlled by criminals. This criminal control leads to turf wars, shooting, robberies, and other low- and high-level violence.

Further, the criminals cut the drugs with adulterants, in order to make further profits. These adulterants cause injury to drug consumers in two ways: first, the adulterants can be actively harmful, e.g. heroin is often cut with brick dust, thus clogging capillaries in intravenous users and leading to gangrene and limb amputation.

Second, the level of adulterants in the drug vary; one of the most common causes of the occasional spates of heroin user deaths is through overdose caused by a batch of unusually pure drug on the market.

Finally, there is the economic cost of the war on drugs—which is running at something like £20 billion per annum. And that does not include the cost of criminalising and imprisoning thousands of people who have harmed no one but themselves.

So, in the context of the points made above, I find myself in the awful position of having to agree with that idiot, Bob Ainsworth.

An ex-minister who had responsibility for drugs policy has called for all drugs to be legally available.

Bob Ainsworth, a Home Office minister under Tony Blair, said successive governments' approaches had failed, leaving criminal gangs in control.

The Coventry North East MP wants to see a system of strict legal regulation, with different drugs either prescribed by doctors or sold under licence.

Well, that is entirely sensible. In fact, I seem to remember a number of Tories—when in Opposition—pointing out that the war on drugs is failing and that it was time to look at different methods. And the response when back in power?

Mr Ainsworth is the most senior politician so far to publicly call for all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, to be in any way legalised.

He said he realised while he was a minister in the Home Office in charge of drugs policy that the so-called war on drugs could not be won.

The Labour backbencher said successive governments had been frightened to raise the issue because they feared a media backlash.

Which just goes to show that politicians are not heroes, bravely making those difficult decisions that will best benefit the people of this country, but simply grubby little snake-oil salesmen—hungry for adulation—who are only out for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

But he predicted in the end ministers would have no option but to adopt a different approach.

The simple fact is that the case for the legalisation and regulation of drugs is absolutely irrefutable, on both a practical and moral level. And it seems that Nick Clegg and, most pertinently, David Cameron recognised this fact and, when in Opposition, wanted to change it.

David Cameron, the Tory leadership contender, believes the UN should consider legalising drugs and wants hard-core addicts to be provided with legal "shooting galleries" and state-prescribed heroin.

He also supported calls for ecstasy to be downgraded from the class-A status it shares with cocaine and heroin and said it would be "disappointing" if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at.

Well, quite. Although, it was inevitable that some would object.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Home Office minister who is supporting Kenneth Clarke for the Tory leadership, criticised Mr Cameron's views and said that legalising drugs would only encourage use.

"This is a grossly misled view that will have very damaging consequences for society," she said. "Most Conservatives would make the case that legalisation is misguided. If you legalise hard drugs you would effectively be making the state give first-time users their first experience.

"It's just not an option. And the World Health Organisation is against it."

Well, generally, if the WHO is against it, I am going to argue for it vociferously.

And the puritanical Ann Widdecombe's assertion that legalising hard drugs "would effectively be making the state give first-time users their first experience" is so stupid an assertion that one wonders what on earth Widdecombe thought that she was saying. Mind you, much as I admire her honesty in respect of the expenses scandal (she was "clean"), Ann Widdecombe's personal judgement is very ropey—if it weren't, she would never have even dreamed of going on Strictly Come Dancing.

But, I digress: in 2005, Dave thought that the ludicrously expensive and ineffective war on drugs should be abandoned in favour of a more sensible policy—and the LibDems concurred in 2006. So, why—a mere five years later—has Dave and his cronies so ready to dismiss the recommendations of Ainsworth (OK, yes; but in this case the idiot's right)?

"David Cameron deserves our utmost respect and admiration for refusing the 'war on drugs' rhetoric in calling for a discussion of legalisation with the UN body that oversees global prohibition," said Danny Kushlick, the director of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. He added: "Too many politicians support the status quo because of careerism."

Ah, yes. Careerism.

I suspect that Kushlick's 2005 comment may well contain the truth about why Cameron is prepared to condemn hundreds of thousands of people to lives of misery and ill-health, to punish and condemn thousands of people who have harmed precisely nobody, and to continue to spend billions of pounds of our money on an ineffective "war" that merely promotes violent criminality—and which has had not the slightest material impact on the availability of drugs.

Unfortunately, the egregious James Brokenshire—a man whom we have met before, spouting illiberal horseshit about alcohol—has decided to take issue with Bob Ainsworth's entirely sensible (although suspiciously motivated) suggestion.

Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire said: "Drugs are harmful and ruin lives - legalisation is not the answer.

Yes, James: drugs do ruin a few lives even though they are illegal and have been (entirely) since 1971. So, if prohibition works, why are drugs still ruining lives?

And what, precisely, is your prescription—more of the same, is it? You moron.

"Decriminalisation is a simplistic solution that fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and ignores the serious harm drug taking poses to the individual.

It is not the state's job to tell me what I may or may not do with my own body, you authoritarian bastard! It is my body, not yours.

"Legalisation fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place or the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community."

But, as we have established above, it does address the issues of purity and crime, thus leading to far less misery than is currently the case.

I get tired of saying this—I continue to do so simply because people do not seem to have got the message—but there really is only one sensible solution and, as successful as Portugal's decriminalisation has been, legalisation is a far better option.

Why? Because, in Portugal, the supply of drugs is still in the hands of criminals (and of the criminals who grow the drugs in other countries), and so the problems of adulteration still exist. And, whilst the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than incarceration, one can still be criminalised for harming no one but yourself.

As I have said time and time again, the only sensible answer is education, legalisation and regulation. It's nice to see that Bob Ainsworth realises this—what a pity he didn't think to do anything about it when he had the power to do so.

In the meantime, despite their earlier rhetoric, it seems that the Tories and the LibDems are going to carry on the tradition—exemplified so well by NuLabour—of talking a good game in Opposition but toeing the same, pathetic, harmful and utterly discredited line in office.

No, our politicians are not heroes making the difficult decisions on our behalf—they are spineless toadies to media such as The Daily Hate, making decisions to further their own advantage and stuffing ordinary people for a few column inches.

Unions increase unemployment

Via Marginal Revolution, here is a highlight from a 2003 paper written by Christopher A Pissarides [PDF], one of yesterday's Nobel Laureates in Economics.

Unemployment in Britain has fallen from high European-style levels to US levels. I argue that the key reasons are first the reform of monetary policy, in 1993 with the adoption of inflation targeting and in 1997 with the establishment of the independent Monetary Policy Committee, and second the decline of trade union power. I interpret the reform of monetary policy as an institutional change that reduced inflationary expectations in the face of falling unemployment. The decline of trade union power contributed to the control of wage inflation. The major continental economies failed to match UK performance because of institutional rigidities, despite low inflation expectations.

Timmy provides us with a brief translation, for easy digestion.

Fewer trade unions, less unemployment. An interesting point, eh?

Indeed. And it is hardly a surprising conclusion, to be honest. Unions, in this day and age, exist to do only two things: inflate wages and protect their members' jobs (regardless of ability or need).

High wages reduce the number of jobs that are created—especially as technology becomes cheaper—and making it difficult to sack people not only means that jobs can be occupied by those who are not best suited to them, but also reduces the willingness of employers to take people on in the first place (thus reducing the available jobs).

This isn't exactly rocket science, is it?

Meanwhile, is anyone surprised that Ed Miliband (who owes his leadership to the unions and is thus now their bitch) has appointed a talentless turd—mostly known for being a union man to the bitter fucking end—to the most powerful job in his Cabinet?

Really? Weird.

Sick, but not in that way

Via England Expects, I find this pile of utter arse.

Sicknote WPC: 'Hating the boss is a disability'

Some police officers on sick leave hate their bosses so much it should be considered a disability, an employment tribunal heard.

This is typical of the public sector mindset—and that of many British people.

Hating your boss is not a disability, and it is absolutely fucking insulting to truly disabled people to suggest that this WPC's inability to deal with her personal circumstances is in any way comparable to their challenges.

I sincerely hope that WPC Alison Doyle is laughed out of court, as it were. And loses all of her pension, as well as being sued for everything that she's got.

Which, after 9 years on "the sick" probably ain't much. But let's have it anyway.

Fuck your lifestyle

For fuck's sake...

Via Al-Jahom, I have stumbled upon this particularly irritating article—nonetheless, it proves a point. And, unlike Obo, I am not yet utterly tired of pointing out the same shit time and time again.

Apparently the woman pictured—one Hayley O'Neil—above has got tremendously offended because someone at the Dole Office pointed out that no one would hire someone with fuck-loads of tattoos and facial piercings. Fair enough, I'd say.

Apparently Hayley disagrees. [Emphasis mine.]

"The guy said: 'on first impressions do you think anyone would hire you?' He said: 'look at it this way if you were to stand behind a wall—or put a paper bag over your face do you think you would have a better chance?'

"He then backtracked and tried to say that he was sorry and hoped I wasn't offended but I was.

"He talked to me as though I was just going through a phase in my life, but this is my lifestyle choice, and this is who I am."

That's lovely, Hayley. I am happy that you have found yourself. But may I just ask the obvious question—how about you pay for your lifestyle yourself, you selfish fuck?

I work for my money and my lifestyle choices are curtailed to the tune of £600 a month—some of which goes to pay for you. So, could you tell me why the fuck my lifestyle choices should be curtailed to pay for yours?

I don't think that you should put a bag over your head, Hayley: I think that you should put a bag right over yourself, load it with a couple of bricks and get some nice, strong, working men to throw you in the bastard canal.

Or you can pay for your own lifestyle. Your choice.

UPDATE: in the comments, Leg-Iron opines that Hayley is, at least, trying to get a job.

She looks like a Cenobite but she is at least trying to get a job. there are many who aren't.

Hmmmm. Now, as readers will know, I'm a cynical bastard; as such, I would simply point out that, in order to get Job Seeker's Allowance you have to "prove" that you are actively seeking a job. Which is why the dole is doled out at a state outlet known as Job Centre Plus.

Another commenter, Furor Teutonicus, was astute enough to suggest that Hayley remove her facial piercings—that no one would notice they were there after a couple of days.

A big fucking clue arseholes, you can take a piercing out, and in two days you wont even know it had been there.

Unfortunately Hayley herself has shot this idea down.

''I said I could take the piercings out but they look a lot worse when they are out."

"Worse", Hayley? Don't you mean "less good"? Or is it that you understand why the Job Centre Plus chap said his piece?

Commenter fred was outraged at my body fascism...

my god... this is pretty rich stuff, you can't have freedom and then expect people to conform to what YOU personally think is an acceptable standard!

... and totally missed the point—a point that I considered putting in the post but didn't because I thought "it's unnecessary because no one will be stupid enough to think that I personally give a crap about what she looks like." Thank you, fred, for proving me wrong: evidence that such people exist is always a salutory lesson.

For clarity's sake, as well as fred's, I shall now amplify my point: employers usually expect a certain look from their employees, especially those who are in customer-facing roles. This is not always because employers are massively conservative, but because they understand that their patrons are.

As such, young Hayley is considerably reducing the chances of gaining employment because of the way that she looks. Which I wouldn't have any issue with were she not using money extorted from other, hard-working people in order to fund her lifestyle. (Plus, perhaps uncharitably, I also slightly wonder who has paid for her tattoos and her piercings...)

Basically, as with any other personal choice, I don't care what you do or look like as long as other people are not forced to pay for your choices.

You want personal choice? You want to adopt a particular lifestyle? Great: you pay for it.

Time to kill the unions

Bob Crow: thug.

As I have pointed out a number of times, there are no real cuts in prospect: in fact, spending will be some 9% higher in five years than it is now.

For those who don't understand, the Adam Smith Institute has published some handy figures, the textual highlights of which I reproduce below...

As this table shows, the government's proposed cuts are pretty small beer. In nominal terms, spending will rise every year. In real terms (assuming 2 percent a year price inflation) this equates to small cuts in 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, followed by small rises in 2014-15 and 2015-16. Compared to the c.60% real terms public spending rise that took place under the previous government, this is, frankly, insignificant.
...

Current spending meanwhile (and almost all 'vital, front-line public services' fall into this category) will rise every year between now and 2015-16, even in real terms...
...

Now, OK, these are not exactly big rises - but nor are they swingeing cuts that will (a) have any significant effect on the economy or (b) on the public services-using population at large. What the coalition's spending plans really amount to is a five-year, real terms freeze of current expenditure, combined with three years of significant falls in capital expenditure. The overall impact of that is a a very small, real terms drop in TME (roundabout 1.5%) between now and 2015-16.

Now, personally, I don't think that there is any real reason to be calm, since this doesn't solve the problem of our fucking enormous deficit: as the Cobden Centre points out, the government is already effectively insolvent.

Leaving that aside—for the problem is so big that it boggles my tiny mind—one cannot quite see why the unions are making such a fuss; regardless, the leaders of the trades unions are gearing up for some seriously militant action.

A ‘call to arms’ for workers across the country to go out on strike in protest at Government spending cuts will be issued by a senior trade union leader today.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, will also urge employees in both the public and private sectors to take part in civil disobedience during a wave of 1930s-style all-out general strikes.

In a speech at the RMT annual conference in Aberdeen, he will say that “a sustained campaign of generalised strikes” was necessary due to the “fiscal fascism” being imposed by the Coalition Government.

So, the unions will go on strike and everyone will realise how much they don't need these people. If public transport is at a stand-still, people will drive to work (or wherever). If there is no other way to get to the office, the internet and access-anywhere applications will enable people to work from home.

The vast majority of people—especially those who are employed and productive—have very little interaction with the agents of the state services (which, of course, are rather more dominated by union members than private companies are).

The people who will be hit hardest will be those whom Bob and his fellow union buddies profess to be so very concerned about—the poor and the feckless.

Nice one, Bob.

What is doubly irritating, of course, is that we are paying for the unions' war against ourselves; and these chunks of cash are, as Mark Wallace points out, substantial.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has produced a crucial report on the Trade Unions today [PDF]—exposing the true scale to which unions are subsidised with taxpayers’ money.

As well as the Union Modernisation Fund, which lives on despite its growing notoriety, the TPA have uncovered 2,493 full time Union employees who are paid for by public sector bodies at a cost of £67.5 million a year.

This is crucial for two reasons. First, it means that key union overheads like recruitment and organising of branches are funded by the general public without their knowledge or approval. Even more importantly, it means that the levies raised from union members are freed up for campaigning war chests.

It is bad enough when politicians use our money to conspire against us, but what the Coalition is doing is insane.

Poilitically, and most importantly, what should be done about the Unions’ taxpayer-funding, and their political activities as a whole? It is telling that the payments to the union movement rose by 14% in Labour’s last year in office – they chose to buy union support (and donations) using taxpayers’ cash.

Some Conservatives may believe that by continuing these payments they will be able to keep the unions sweet. Far from it. The union movement as a whole is bitterly, eternally opposed to the essential spending cuts that must be carried out. They’ll merrily pocket cash from a Tory Government – but they certainly won’t change their tune just because the enemies they love to hate are foolish enough to appease them.

Continuing to make these payments would mean that the Coalition is actively subsidising groups who intend to apply political pressure against Coalition policies. Worse, when the inevitable strikes begin, those 2,493 paid officials will be manning the pickets, rallying the troops and helping to organise the disruption of public services. This is worse than appeasement – it’s helping to pay the wages of the opposing army.

Our New Coalition Overlords™ are effectively throwing our money at the unions, who then conspire to make our lives a misery—and to bring down the government which is authorising the payments.

Further, since union demands are almost always for shorter working hours and more pay, the government is paying these bastards large chunks of our money so that they can afford to lobby the government to be given even more of our hard-earned cash for doing even less work.

It is barking fucking insanity. And, frankly, it's deeply fucking insulting.

Still, it is time for the government to be libertarian: quite simply, the antiquated laws that prevent employers from sacking striking workers must be removed—as I proposed to Brendan O'Neill at the IEA debate.

In conversations afterwards, in the pub, I pointed this out to Brendan. I was consistent, I maintained, because—like him—I did not want the government propping up (and being lobbied by) business. But trades unions are just as much of a vested interest as the corporates. If one truly believes in libertarianism, then one should not support the laws against sacking strikers. In fact, there should be no government interference on either side.

The whole point of a trade union was to be able to motivate large numbers of workers so that, if an employer behaved unjustly, then they would have to negotiate because otherwise they couldn't carry out their business. This is far more true now—when most workers are skilled and require considerable training—than it was when the trades unions were first formed (when much of the work was repetitive manual labour).

In the end, Brendan appeared, at least, to agree with me that the state should be involved on neither side, although he still maintained the right to strike was one of the most fundamental. I countered that everyone has the right to strike, law or no law—they just don't have the right to remain employed if doing so.

I suspect that workers would be far less happy to vote for strikes if they were fully aware that there might be no job for them to return to. And all we would be doing is levelling the playing field.

As usual, I don't expect Our New Coalition Overlords™ to do anything so bold. However, I would hope that they would stop paying the union danegeld: history shows that giving into blackmail never works for long...

Taxing Richard Murphy

Most of us would like to minimise our tax burden and, indeed, the government actually provides a number of ways in which one can do so. One of the single best ways in which one can do so is to incorporate, i.e. to become a company.

How does that work?

Well, you can arrange your affairs in a number of ways but, broadly speaking, one of the best ways is as follows:

1. incorporate
2. pay yourself, as a director, a minimal salary (a little under £5,000),
3. at this level, you still accrue National Insurance credits, i.e. you get money put towards a state pension, but you don't actually have to pay any National Insurance Contributions,
4. pay your corporation tax
5. pay the rest of the money out as dividends to shareholders (yourself),
6. on which you will pay less tax than on ordinary income.

Well, that is the gist of the thing. Obviously, it's not so easy unless you have figures to illustrate the above.

Luckily, Richard Murphy wrote just such an article for The Observer, back in 2005 (so, obviously, the figures will have changed: your tax accountant (should you have one) will be able to update these).

The way that the saving is achieved is fairly straightforward. An individual in self- employment pays three taxes on profit. They are income tax, class 2 national insurance and class 4 national insurance. On £30,000 of profit the income tax is £5,354 this year, class 2 national insurance is £104 and class 4 national insurance is £1,777, a total of £7,235.

If a limited company makes the same profit it can pay its owner in one of two ways. If it paid out all £30,000 as a salary then there would again be three taxes, being income tax (£4,764), employer's national insurance (£2,679) and employee's national insurance (£2,271). That's a total of £9,714, which is £2,479 more than the self-employed pay.

But, if the company is run with strong discipline, and keeps good accounts, then dividends can be substituted for most of the salary paid in the previous example. Just enough salary is still paid to make sure that the director is credited with paying national insurance - currently £4,615 - although no national insurance (or tax) is actually paid on this. That leaves a profit of £25,385 in the company on which corporation tax of £3,654 is paid. This is low because the first £10,000 of profit generated by a small limited company is tax-free.

That means a dividend of £21,731 can then be paid. Because that level of dividend does not take the recipient into the higher rate bracket, he or she does not have to pay any additional income tax on the dividend. The only tax paid will be the company's corporation tax bill of £3,654, which is £3,581 less than the self-employed person pays.

All of this is perfectly legal, of course. And, personally, I'd go further—I'd describe it as perfectly laudable.

After all, arranging your affairs so that the government can steal as little of your money as possible not only leaves you with more cash (which you will spend far more wisely than the state) but also ensures that our lords and master have fewer resources with which to oppress the rest of us.

The trouble is, you see, that Richard Murphy would not agree with you.

Richard, apparently, thinks that you have a moral duty to pay as much tax as you can and that tax avoidance is just as bad as tax evasion.

And the operative word in that sentence is "you". Because, as Timmy reports, Richard Murphy does seem to believe in minimising his own tax payments.

So, what do we find from Companies House about the directorships of one R. Murphy?

Fulcrum Publishing Ltd:

“Publishes original written materials”, seems to have been his old vehicle for paid writing.

Jointly owned 50:50 by Ritchie and Jacqueline Murphy (same address, born 1963, presumably his wife).

Hasn’t traded since 2003, but when it was trading it paid out all of its profits as dividends. Incorporation and taking dividends from the company instead of a salary is a classic tax/NI avoidance strategy—as he set out in his Observer article.

I wonder how much of the company’s work his wife did, or whether giving her shares was just a device to save tax by transferring half of the income to her? Did “the rewards paid [to her] match the underlying economic substance” (Ritchie’s own test of whether incorporation is “abusive”)? It seems unlikely that she was generating 50% of the profits from his writing.

It’s difficult to see what legitimate non-tax reason he would have for incorporation, and (as he said in his reply to you) he regularly argues against incorporation—for other people.

(Via email, so no link).

Yes, yes: but this all stopped in 2003, didn't it. So the author of The Missing Billions [PDF]—a report on the tax gap authored on behalf of the Trades Union Congress—is definitely not doing any of this stuff now, eh?

What? What did you say...?

But wait, I hear the call. This all stopped in 2003 didn’t it?

Well, yes, with Fulcrum, yes, it did.

The Tax Gap Ltd (formerly Tax Research Ltd):

Carries out “social science research”. Shares owned 90% Ritchie, 10% Jacqueline.

Paid out small (£3-4k) directors’ salaries in 2005, 2006 & 2007 (another classic tax/NI avoidance strategy, keeping the salary under the personal allowance).

Paid out a £12,000 dividend in 2006 (classic NI avoidance strategy, to take money out as NI-exempt dividend rather than salary).

Profits of nearly £13,000 retained in the company (another classic tax avoidance strategy, to delay paying dividends until a year when your income is below the higher rate threshold).

Oh. If we are to continue our speculation about GPs and maternity pay, we might assume that income shifting is now not a useful strategy. For why shift income to someone who is already in the higher tax band? But we do note the other parts of the Observer technique. Low directorial salaries, enough that the director is credited with having paid NI (ie, that State pension accruals continue) without having to actually pay NI and then the rest of the profit being paid out as dividends.

And do note again, the tax free first £10k of profits was abolished in 2006, so at least in 2005 the first £10k of dividends would have been entirely free of either corporation tax or basic rate income tax.

Oh.

Now, one might think that all of this might reveal Richard Murphy to be a colossal hypocrite but, of course, you would be wrong—as darling Ritchie makes absolutely clear in his reply to the "torrents of abuse" [sic] that is Timmy's article.

I note the right wing blogosphere is seeking yet again to question my integrity...

Well, I think that it probably started out as just Timmy in this instance—although I am sure that others have joined in since then. Although, I am glad to add my voice to what is, quite literally, the entire "right wing blogosphere"—after all, I have regularly questioned Murphy's sanity and intelligence, since October 2006.

The substance of Ritchie's rebuttal is that he has changed his mind since those dark days when all he wanted to do was to keep his earnings out of the taxman's grip. Alas, he does not elaborate on what caused this Damascene conversion—although I suspect that it has less to do with a soft heart than it has to do with raking in the ackers.

The rest of his post is basically an ad hominem against the entire liberal blogosphere for "seeking to play the man".

First of all – as I’ve often said the issue is one of intimidation – they seek to propagate the message that if anyone stands up to their vicious form of capitalism they will seek to crush them. So much for a belief in liberty! It takes courage to stand up to such behaviour. They know that. They want to stop others entering the fray by behaving as they do.

Ah, yes: we occasionally use some bad behaviour. We do, also, expect people to practice what they preach—and we will tend to look at evidence as to whether they do or not. This is all very intimidating.

But here's the rub, Ritchie: it is central to our philosophy that you be able to do what the hell you want. Sure, we might lob some nasty names at you—for avoiding tax whilst trying to ensure that no one else can, for instance—and we may even point out that, if you think tax is so wonderful, you might like to donate some extra money to the state.

But what we do not do, Ritchie-poppet, is work to ensure that you are forced to do what we want. We don't attempt to influence the state to take more money from you; we don't spend our time lobbying and encouraging others to use force, violence and extortion in order to satisfy our personal philosophies.

Whereas you do, Ritchie—and that is why you are so very dangerous. And it isn't only that your philosophy is, at root, fundamentally evil: it is that you and your kind are pushing at an open door—money is power, and politicians do not need any excuses to give themselves more power.

You see yourself as some sort of crusader, eh? One of a small band of brave warriors making a stand against the evil liberals who would "crush our current democratic way of life in the UK, Europe and beyond".

You deluded fool.

The only things being crushed are the hopes and dreams of individual people who find that, try as they might, their lives are less and less theirs as the months go on: with every passing year, the liberty of individuals is removed as they find themselves more and more slaves of the state.

But I don't expect you to understand this, Murphy: I don't think that you have the intelligence to understand it. But more than that: I think that you are ideologically capable of understanding it.

Because, as far as I am concerned, people (like you) who venerate the will of the demos over the freedoms of the individual—those who believe that the tyranny of the majority always justifies the oppression of the few—are rather more than "flawed like the rest of us": they are evil bastards.