The SNP: timely as ever

One might almost believe that the SNP were eagerly monitoring the Kitchen, alert for any sign of the guidance that your humble Devil (as a former resident) might offer these benighted politicians.

Just a few hours ago, I pointed out that the Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to test the Scots' social conscience by means of access to their wallets...

The supposed driver for this is that Scotland is a "more socialist" country, willing to pay more tax in order to stave off the tyranny of austerity. This narrative is, of course, bollocks: were it not, the SNP (also the dominant party in Holyrood) would already have used the tax-raising powers that the Parliament has—up to 3p in the pound extra in income tax, if I recall correctly.

And now, in the face of further cuts from Westminster, it seems that the SNP—now dominant in both Westminster and Holyrood—are flinging up their kilts and showing everyone what big balls they have.

John Swinney has admitted he is “considering” increasing income tax in Scotland next year to fill the gap in public spending from cuts by the Tory UK government.
...

ollowing a summit in Whitehall with Chancellor George Osborne, the deputy first minister said that he could be prepared to use powers handed to Holyrood from the 2012 Scotland Bill to set a Scottish income tax rate above that of the rest of the UK.

An increase of 1p in income tax north of the Border would, according to the Scotland Office, raise £330 million for the Scottish Government.

How exciting—let us see how keen the Scots are, indeed, to show how they are different to the UK. Oh, wait...

The move has echoes of the SNP’s “penny for Scotland” in the first Holyrood election in 1999, where they lost heavily to Labour after proposing to raise income tax.

Not so keen then.

But, given their earlier failure, what has driven the SNP to contemplate this dreadful message (apart from the fact that, politically, they have the people of Scotland in a double headlock)?

[Swinney] went on: “The cut of £107m is substantially lower than the UK government’s original estimate but is still too bitter a pill to swallow.

“This comes on top of an overall budget cut of 9 per cent since 2010, including a 25 per cent cut to the capital budget.

“It is completely unacceptable for reductions to be imposed in this financial year to the budget that has already been agreed by the Scottish Parliament.”

Ah, no: this is what happens when you have relied on an overly generous relative for many years—and that relative runs out of money. It doesn't matter what plans you may have made: said relative simply cannot pay for them.

So, unless you are going to get off your fat arse and fund those plans yourself, you must alter said plans.

Mr Swinney also made it clear he told Mr Osborne that he “does not have a mandate in Scotland”, with the Conservatives winning just one seat and suffering the lowest proportion of votes since 1865.

Yes, Mr Swinney: but, equally, that means that Mr Osborne has precisely nothing to lose by slashing Scotland's budget to ribbons, and sending the savings to places where the Tories might actually win more voters, e.g. almost anywhere in England (or even Wales or Ireland).

But the threat of an increase in tax was condemned by the Scottish Conservatives, whose leader Ruth Davidson has made a pledge that her party would try to block tax rises in the next parliament after the Holyrood elections.

A spokesman for Ms Davidson said: “The new tax powers for the Scottish Parliament should not mean higher taxes for the Scottish people.

Why not? If the Scots want increased public services and less austerity, why should they not pay for it?

“The Scottish Conservatives have pledged to ensure that taxes will not be higher as a result of the devolution of these powers.

“There is no reason why John Swinney should not be able to issue the same assurance to families and businesses in Scotland.”

Well, apart from him actually being in power—and having to make some derisory effort to balance the books. Apart from that, Ruth.

But what about the oil, eh? Well, as chokkablog points out, this is not really going to help that much.

Three times in the last 15 years the oil tide has risen high enough to submerge the underlying £1,700 per capita deficit difference and give Scotland a lower deficit than the rest of the UK. When the oil tide flows out we can see more of that underlying £1,700/person deficit difference, we see more of the £9.1bn.

So let's take a closer look at the oil figures.

For Scotland to cover the underlying £9.1bn deficit gap we need total North Sea oil revenues of £10.1bn (because c.90% of North Sea oil revenues are attributable to Scotland).

And the projections for the next few years are nothing like £10.1bn: in fact, for 2015–16 oil is likely to raise just £600 million—short by £9.5 billion. That's rather more than 10% of Scotland's GDP.
John Swinney must be pretty desperate to even consider increasing income tax in Scotland.

If the SNP do get full fiscal economy, the man will probably shit himself.

And with good reason...

Pollbomb

nicked from bella gerens

All right, all you readers out there. Time for a pollbomb.

At publicservice.co.uk (Public Sector & Government News), they're running a weekly poll in which the question is:

Should public sector workers have to pay more to maintain the value of their pensions?

You won't be surprised to hear that the 'No' votes are winning.

Can we round up enough 'Yes' votes to make them think pubic sector workers are all in favour of paying higher pension contributions? It would save the rest of us money, after all. And they deserve our spiteful little tricks.

Join me! Vote for higher pension pay-ins for pubic sector workers. The poll is on the home page, in the right-hand sidebar.

Unions: a clarification

Some commenters have been astonished—nay, horrified—at my call to destroy the unions. Long-time readers will not have been so surprised, for a rampant dislike of the unions as they currently exist has been a theme at The Kitchen ever since its inception.

However, for those who are rather more recent visitors, I feel that a slight clarification is in order—and the key to it is contained in the sentence above, i.e. the unions as they currently exist.

The trades unions were formed to solve a specific problem...

Originating in Europe, Labour unions became popular in many countries during the Industrial Revolution, when the lack of skill necessary to perform the jobs shifted employment bargaining power almost completely to the employers' side, causing many workers to be mistreated and underpaid.

... and they were a good balance in these circumstances. This balance of power is, of course, entirely A Good Thing—as a libertarian, your humble Devil is against the use of force or fraud against people and it is usually when one particular group has far more power than another that this can happen.

Further, of course, I do believe in free association, etc. and would therefore not ban trade unions. Not to mention the fact that many trade unions also acted as Friendly Societies
which, as you will know, I am heartily in favour of.

However, the trade unions of today bear very little resemblance to those of the Industrial Revolution. The exploitation that they then sought to redress has largely been resolved, e.g.

• The development of the British economy has largely switched from a dependence on unskilled jobs to highly skilled ones (compared to screwing on the same nut onto the same mudguard 83,000,000 times a day, even a call-centre job requires more aptitude—if only an ability to read and write.


• This trend has led to a shift in the balance of power from the eeeeevil exploitative boss to the worker.


• Workers' rights are now enshrined in law, especially (and I hate to say it) as regards to health and safety, etc.

As such, the formerly minor political ambitions of trade unions shifted into overdrive and, in the Seventies, brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy.

Worse than that, however, in many cases the trade unions essentially ceased to be voluntary organisations. In many companies, the unions ran a "closed shop": in other words, if you refused to become a member of the union, then you lost your job, e.g. Reuters (and many other journalistic organisations) in the Seventies and early Eighties. Indeed, you could lose your job for belonging to the wrong union.

At that point, as far as I am concerned, the unions stopped being a voluntary organisation and also lost their legitimacy from a libertarian point of view.

Further, in the same way that I heartily loathe the attempts by corporations to bribe or bully democratic governments for advantage, I also despise the unions who do the same. Why, for instance, has the Labour government handed over more than £10 million of our money to the unions for "restructuring"?

As far as I am concerned, if the unions can afford to pay their bosses salaries of the order of £100,000 per year, then they can bloody well pay for their own "restructuring". Instead, they steal money off the taxpayer—which is also very far from being a voluntary exchange.

Perhaps I was a little harsh in my post: after all, no one denies that unions fundamentally exist to serve their members—although one can argue that, in many points throughout history, the actions of the union leaders have served their members very badly. I think, particularly, of the miners' strikes which destroyed the livelihoods of their members in the short term, i.e. they weren't getting paid whilst on strike, and in the long term, e.g. the unions had not only jacked up the wage bills to a point at which British mining was unprofitable, but also the constant striking ensured that no one would take on such an unpredictable workforce.

But it is the fact that the unions try to pretend that they are, in some way, working for us—the general public and general consumers—that so enrages me. They. Do. Not.

If you care about the education of your child, then the union will not fight for better teaching: they will fight for more money from the taxpayer but not for school books, or better teaching or better schools—they will fight for that money to pay their members higher salaries.

Which is why this particular pronouncement from Mrs Chris Keates...

"We put teachers first so we can get the terms and conditions that allow us to do the best for the children."

... so absolutely pissed me off. This is just an outright fucking lie.

As regular readers will know, education is one of your humble Devil's bug-bears: screw up a child's education and you screw up their life. Education is absolutely fucking crucial to individuals being able to realise their potential and it really annoys the hell out of me that so many people in this country (about 50%) still leave school with incredibly low levels of literacy.

There is a reason, of course, that the state services are still so riddled with trade unions—because they are basically monopolies. Since the education service is an effective monopoly, it is very difficult to face down any concerted action from trade unions and, as such, they perpetuate in such industries when, in more nimble modern companies, trade unions are all but extinct.

The unions now largely exist to extort more money from you and me, on behalf of their members, through our taxes—subs that you and I must pay involuntarily. These subs are then used to enforce collective bargaining so that you and I, despite suffering from a massive recession, must pay out ever more to a public sector that delivers less and less.

Furthermore, of course, such collective bargaining diminishes the quality of the workers in that industry—it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad at your job, you will still get the same pay. It is a system that rewards mediocrity at the expense of skill and dedication—thus calling into question whether the unions actually serve the best interests of their members. After all, if a bad teacher must get the same pay rise as a good one, then the good teacher's pay rise is less than it might have been.

In a near-monopoly such as the education system—especially since education is compulsory—all of this means that the general public have no option but to pay the higher (and often undeserved) wages, and reward failure; not only this, but their children's education is then screwed up and these young people's lives irreparably harmed.

It's a disgrace.

There are a number of other reasons that I could throw into the mix, but the upshot of all of this is that I heartily dislike the trade unions as they currently exist—which is, more or less, where we came in.

So, yes, I would like to see these dinosaurs destroyed. But I am not advocating banning them, or using the law against them in any way. No.

What I do advocate is opening up the industries in which they have a stranglehold: the prospect of the eradication of unions within education is just one reason why I support a voucher system and Swedish-style "free schools" (the main reason that I support them, of course, is that the educational outcomes are so much better).

And yes, I also excoriate teachers who—like their medical counterparts—are often painted as veritable angels, noble public servants whose primary aim is the education of the nation's children not their own narrow self-interest. This, too, is a lie.

Or, if it is not a lie, these teachers can leave the union—a body that doesn't give two shits about the kiddies, for all of Mrs Chris Keates' weasel words—and thus destroy it. No subs: no union (except, of course, for the constant stream of stolen money provided by the Labour government—also due to stop soon).

So yes, I would like to see the unions die: they serve both their members and the general public very badly.

Some hypotheticals and taxation philosophy

Your humble Devil did compose this as a reply to Peter's comment on theis taxation of the poor post; however, the screed that I wrote is a little long and, I think, raises some interesting points for people to consider—as such, I decided to move it into a full post. Even so, this is more a loosely strung together musings than a totally coherent post.

Anyway, Peter's original comment painted a couple of scenarios...

While I agree personal rates should be high enough to slim down the tax base by several million low earners this does not address the benefits issue.

Person a) is eighteen, lives with his parents, earns £15,000 per annum and gets by tolerably well.

Person b) is a single mother of two also earning £15k but has to meet rent, commuting, utilities and childcare costs. Why should she not get child benefit when she / her children clearly need some help? (Arguments about life style choices are a separate issue here - maybe she was widowed or something).

Working tax credits had the germ of a good idea but its implementation was poor.

Er... I'm not quite sure that I understand the point. In this scenario,

• Person A is not entitled to any benefits.


• Person B is entitled to Child Benefit (£18 for first child, £16 for second, pw), Child Tax Credit (around £50 pw), and Housing Benefit (depends entirely where she lives, but let's call it £150 pw).

So, despite working as hard as Person A, Person B actually takes home an extra £12,168 (tax free).

There are other issues: let us say that,

• Person A does not wish to live with his parents (perhaps they're abusive), but cannot afford to move out.


• Person B, on the other hand, cannot afford to live independently but refuses to move in with her parents (who have offered).

Why should everyone else have to pay for Person B's preferences? Why, in fact, should Person A not be entitled to benefits so that he can move out of his parents' home?

Anyway, I think that your question is phrased entirely wrongly: the question shouldn't be "why should this person not get benefits"; it should be "why should this person get benefits"?

Let us assume that no one gets benefits by default; let us imagine that each person must, in fact, plead their individual case in order to get benefits.

Now, let us imagine that they must plead their case to a body whose mission is to help those who cannot get by on their own; a local body that understands the needs of the person, and the environment in which they live.

This body might be called... oh... let's call it a "charity". This "charity" might have a special tax status, granted by the government, in recognition of the good that it does, etc.

This "charity", within the limits of its funds, would be able to help those who really need it. Instead of entitlement based on spurious circumstances, help would be dispensed based on individual needs and cases.

This charity would be able to help Person A get away from his abusive parents, and it would help Person B with her bills.

It would be able to do this by choosing not to fund the fags, beer and Playstation lifestyle of feckless Person C, who just cannot be bothered to get off his fat arse.

Of course, the husband of Person B might have taken out a life insurance policy which would allow her to live without receiving benefits; in an alternative society, the husband might even have bought such a policy through his local Friendly Society—this could, of course, be the same "charity" that the mother appeals to for extra help.

Should either Person A or Person B be entitled to pick the pockets of other people as a matter of course? No.

Does Person B's impoverished state give her the right to impoverish others? No: or not, at least, in any just society.

"Ah," you might say. "But we aren't impoverishing anybody: we are only going to tax the rich in order to pay for these benefits."

First, of course, in making that argument, you are agreeing with Lord Tebbit—you are agreeing that we shouldn't tax the poor, only the rich.

The second problem though, is who are you or I—or the state—to decide who is "rich" and who is not? On both a practical and moral level, who are we to decide who deserves to be taxed, and who does not?

This gets even more difficult when you start to factor in regional variations: £15,000 would be enough to get along with in Yorkshire, but not in London.

Given this, is it not totally unfair that we set taxes at a national level: why do we not raise tax at a local level? This would make local politicians more responsive to local people too, and would lead to fairer levels of taxation.

But to come back to the main point of the article: someone earning £15,000 (which is not an awful lot in this day and age) pays £1,705.00 in tax and £1,021.35 in NI—total deductions of £2,726.35 (just over 18%). And that's before we even mention the £1,188.48 paid in Employer's NICs which might—might—go to slightly increasing our wage slave's pay packet.

To put it even more starkly, let us assume someone on the National Minimum Wage of £5.83 (I think?). Working full-time at 40 hours per week, they earn £12,126.40 per year: they then lose £1,835.53 in tax and NI (roughly 15% of their wage).

This is insanity: we, as a society, have said that the NMW is the minimum that people need to get by—and then we steal 15% of this mimimum wage off them again.

"Ah," but we decide that the NMW is the minimum that they should earn after tax. Well, we might but perhaps someone should tell the government that: where is the guarantee that the state will set the level of taxation to be responsive to the requirements of these Minimum Wagers? And if you think that the government is so responsive, perhaps you should ask yourself what the effect of abolishing the 10p tax rate was on those earning only the NMW.

An employer pays our National Minimum Wage Slave (NMWS) to do a job; then the NMWS pays someone to collect his tax; then, if he's lucky, society pays someone else to assess whether NMWS is entitled to get some of his money back.

All of this is not only morally wrong, it is completely nuts in practical terms.

So, stop taxing the poor because it is a colossal waste of everybody's money.

However, what this means, of course, is that the government is running a bit short of cash. Raising the Personal Tax Threshold to just over £12,000 (so our NMWS pays no tax) would cost something in the region of £30 billion (if anyone has a more precise figure, please let me know).

SO, all other things being equal, the government's tax take this year—with that one alteration—would be about £450 billion. Servicing the National Debt is currently running at about £35 billion, which leaves us with £420 billion.

So, assuming that we make no effort to pay down the debt capital but we are also not going to borrow any more either, what would you do with the £420 billion per year?

As a indication, here are some extremely rough costings for you to consider:

• NHS: £120 billion


• Social Security: £180 billion


• Education: £80 billion


• Defence: £35 billion


• Total: £415 billion

Now remember: there's to be no borrowing...

Quote of the day...

... comes from the evidently eminently quotable Charlotte Gore and her post (which is well worth reading in full) inspired by Hayek's Road To Serfdom.

It may be that the socialists are the most vocal anti-racists, but it is they who’ve created the economic conditions in which racism thrives. It’s they who’ve created a country with a growing obsession with stopping “foreigners” taking advantage of our welfare state, and it’s they who’ve spent the last 100 years telling everyone that Free Trade (which includes free movement of people) is a bad and terrible thing, it’s they who’ve told everyone that the job of the state is to pick sides and pick winners…. and they’re acting surprised, shocked and outraged when people who see themselves as losers in the current system want to use the state for their own purposes?

What exactly did they think would happen? I mean, really? The only way to stop National Socialism in the UK is to stop socialism.

This is a point that I have made many times myself—although less eloquently—over the years. It is not only that socialism is a creed based on violence and extortion but also, as Charlotte points out, it creates a "them" and "us" mentality amongst the population, and leads to misery.

Further, I have often written about how the Welfare State is the reason why we have a "broken society" and the more that I talk about it, the more I realise just how right I am. It creates a them and us mentality even amongst the "indigenous" population because some are state losers—those who pay for it—and some are state winners—those who contribute nothing and who are encouraged to continue contributing nothing by the state's largesse.

Until people start to realise all of this and stop worshipping this "social democracy" as some sort of quasi-religion, our society is going to continue going down the fucking panhole.

More on the railways, and thoughts on the privatisation of services

Further to your humble Devil's criticism of rail privatisation—they aren't really private at all—the Adam Smith Institute blog has covered the renationalisation of the East Coast Line; and Eamonn Butler's piece raises some issues that I failed to notice.

This is, of course, exactly how rail franchising is supposed to work. Services are put out to tender, and are run by private companies, but if one of them comes a cropper, the government steps in until another provider can be found. The only trouble is that the government has been stepping in rather a lot lately. Not because the private sector is inherently flaky, but for a couple of other reasons. First, the government screwed the operators down too hard on price. Many of them already had made considerable investment in the rail industry and were not prepared simply to write it off. So they paid over the odds. Then boom turned to bust (thanks, Gordon) and their figures started to look a bit sick. Second, the government drew up its franchise agreement so ineptly that when the chips are down, it is far cheaper for an operator to fold than continue operating a service. Step forward, the taxpayer. Frankly, it's no way to run a railroad.

The thing is that the "privatisation" of the railways is, in effect, simply one of the private finance initiative (PFI) and public-private partnerships (PPP) idea that both the Tory and Labour governments latched onto in the nineties.

The idea, very broadly, was that the private sector—in return for the potential to make large profits from monopolies—would pile huge amounts of capital into these public services. The quid pro quo was that they would run them in a way that the state dictated.

The private companies make massive, easy profits off a captive customer base, and the government get to look good by improving services (or at least modernising them) but—and this is absolutely crucial—it also keeps the capital expenditure off the government books.

I believe, however, that both the Tory and Labour governments had an even more subtle agenda: the privatisation of public services by the back door.

No, bear with me here! Although, I'll admit that the following is purely speculation...

As I intimated in a comment on my Friendly Societies piece, many people in the apparatus of the state (although Brown is possibly not one of them) have started to realise that current levels of government spending are utterly unsustainable. Not only that, but the huge increases in cash simply haven't produced the rise in service quality that was hoped for.

What to do? The government is already spending billions more than it is getting in tax revenue—nearly £200 billion more this year alone. Yes, this year is particularly bad for the public finances, but even in the good years the government has borrowed ten of billions.

This simply isn't sustainable: even the British government will reach a point at which they can no longer get credit (although they are likely to reach a point where it is simply too expensive for them to borrow more). That point obviously hasn't been reached yet, but should the state stick to the projected spending rises, it won't be too many years before they do.

Think about it: not only is the government not paying down its debt, it is actively increasing it—by about 40% of total spending—every single year. This is not prudence, that's for sure.

At the same time, having splurged on public sector appointments and then increased salaries (and, in far too many cases, having to up the pension payments), the government now finds itself in a bind: if it starts sacking thousands of public servants, not only will the unemployment figures rocket upwards but they will also have lost a good number of voters. Besides, the politicos know as well as we do that "efficiency savings" simply don't happen, c.f. the Gershon Report savings, which have been largely illusory.

Not only that, but the NuLabour government is further hamstrung by the fact that the Party is now almost entirely funded by the unions—the bulk of whose members are in the public sector. And the unions are already starting to cut up rough.

Government-sponsored cuts are going to be hard enough for the Tories: they are impossible for Labour.

So, it's time to turn to the private sector—those evil companies sack people all the time, right? And the unions don't have nearly such a strong hold there either. And the government can deny all responsibility as far as job losses go, too.

But the British love their public services—the NHS is the wonder of the world, our education system churns out A grade after A grade, and the oldies are thrilled with the state pension.

So how to make this transition? Now, were I in this situation (and not so damn impatient), I would carry out the exercise in three parts.

1. The first part would be the transfer of the assets to the private sector, whilst maintaining government control.


2. The second part would be the transfer of the administration to private entities, whilst maintaining some control through full or partial government funding.


3. The third part would be the handing over of complete control of the service to the private entity and, crucially, the privatisation of the funding.

The first part has, in many cases, come to pass; many of the schools and hospitals built under PFI remain within the control of the private company even at the end of the contract. The company often runs some of the repair and maintenance services, or other facilities, throughout the life of the contract too.

The second part is also coming to pass. Think about the Tories' plans to make some schools effectively independent along the Swedish "free school" model—not to mention NuLabour's Academies.

In the NHS, more hospitals are applying for—and being granted—Foundation Status, giving them far more control over the administration and budgets (and they are no longer run directly by the Strategic Health Authority but by an "independent regulator" called Monitor).

The Primary Care Trusts, too, are being split—separating their commissioning and providing arms into what are, nominally at least, entities independent of each other. Moves like this suggest to me that the so-called internal market is being set up to become a proper market of competing companies.

For the moment, the third part—the independent funding—has not yet been implemented, although there have been rumblings and rumours of the NHS being a paid-for service, as well as compulsory medical insurance to cover your old age care. The government has most certainly suggested that everyone should be forced to contribute to a private pension.

Now, as I freely admitted, the above is all total speculation on my part—but I'm willing to take a long bet that I am not totally wide of the mark. Even if the privatisation of public services is not on the current government's agenda, all of the foundations for doing so are in place—it just needs someone to start pulling the levers...

Education spending

Now, as we all know, if you don't spend lots and lots of money—increasing amounts, in fact—on public services, then they just won't get any better. And, by extension, if you cut spending then public services will get worse, right?

But the question is always—better or worse for whom? NuLabour has splurged vast amounts of cash on education, the NHS, etc. and yet there is very little indication that the quality of the outcomes has changed.

Sure, the people employed in those sectors have got handsome pay rises but then I don't see why the rest of us should be impoverished because the state is a shit employer—or because people were willing to work for less money than they might.

Whilst all nurses are angels and every teacher is a positive saint, but public services do not—in theory—exist for the benefit of teachers or nurses. No, the justification for the state's extortion is that these are public benefits—that the outcomes are a public good. These services are run for the education of children or the healing of the sick—the staff who work within these professions are entirely incidental and are absolutely fucking not the reason why such servives exist.

So, does increased spending increase the outcomes? Has, for instance, the massive growth of spending on state schools in the US—known there as "public schools"—increased the quality of the education?

Well, via the toothy clown, your humble Devil finds this interesting graph from the Cato Institute.

I blogged this morning that the research shows higher public school spending slows the economy, and explained that this is because spending more on public schools doesn’t increase students’ academic performance. Some readers no doubt find that hard to accept. With them in mind, I present the following chart:


If public schools had merely maintained the level of productivity they exhibited in 1970, Americans would enjoy a permanent $300 billion annual tax cut. Now THAT would stimulate economic growth.

So, in the US, a massive increase in education spending has not increased the quality of outcome. We cannot necessarily say that without the spending the outcomes would not have dropped—it may be that this huge wodge of cash was required simply to keep the outcomes roughly even. For what it's worth though, I severely fucking doubt it.

So, can we expect lots of public service cuts here—when the Tories get in, perhaps?

I wouldn't bet on it.

Quote of the Day...

... comes from Miss Snuffleupagus, who has been on a fact-finding trip to India and, inevitably, has been comparing the life and aspirations of the children there with those of the "students" here.

And therein lies the devastating irony: the welfare state does save millions from a life of financial poverty, but in doing so, it necessarily subjects people to a life devoid of value.

Snuffy's India posts are all worth reading, as they point out—extraordinarily starkly—the difference between pecuniary and moral poverty.

1. Aberration
   

   My heart sinks. I want to disappear under my chair in embarrassment. Not all education in Britain is like this! I want to shout. Not all of us are morons! Not all of our children waste their precious learning time recording with their phones (a skill they all know backwards) and then posting evidence of their wasted lives on a social networking site on which they all spend several hours everyday. And most importantly, not all of us teachers believe in this stupidity.



2. Are We To Blame?
   

   All I’m thinking is, something doesn’t quite fit here. I mean, I know what Indian kids are like in England. And so do all my fellow teachers, but somehow for the simplicity of today’s argument, they’ve conveniently forgotten what they know to be FACT. And then I also know, as do all my colleagues, that all of the Indians we’ve met over the last few days, in shops, at organized events, in schools, have been remarkably polite and well-brought up. What this man is saying, simply doesn’t make sense.



3. Being Brainwashed
   

   Because this is precisely the nonsense that is shoved down our throats in British schools everyday. Why do our children misbehave? Because they are poor. Why do we have chaos in our classrooms? Because our teachers are not good enough. This is the mantra. This is what we are constantly told. And only teachers who are brave enough will question it.



4. The Necessity Of Poverty
   

   Without poverty, real poverty, there can be no fear, no climb, no fight for survival. And without that, there can be no appreciation. The question is which is better? A country with starving uneducated children who cannot make a living and others who are given the opportunity to make that living, or a country where everyone is able to make a living, but few, if any, really live?



5. Government Schools
   

   The man with the two sons at university in the UK pipes up.
   
   "Look, why would any critically-minded person want to work for the government unless they had to? It is the state! This means that everything has to be uniform across the country. All teachers must teach the same things in the same way. Mrs Green wants her freedom."



6. Having A Heart Of Stone
   

   As an Indian man told me today, when the rich man looks at the poor man, presumes he is unhappy in his poverty and cries for him, all he is doing is revealing his own unhappiness as he is in fact crying for himself.



7. Good vs. Evil
   

   For the first time my intellectual capacities are stretched by the curiosity of children in a school. In England, I have to think all of the time, but it is about how to overcome bad behaviour, how to engage children in lessons, how to inpsire other teachers, how to reject government policy, how to keep our school afloat. The children in England never make me use my brain through their curiosity to learn.



8. The Privilege Of Poverty
   

   I feel sorry for these boys. I feel sorry for them because they likely want to be footballers when they grow up. Their goals in life are likely to be utterly empty: to be rich, to have lots of gorgeous girlfriends, to be famous and to drive a very expensive car. I feel sorry for them because words like 'values', 'self-respect' and 'kindness' live in a foreign land, in a place they have never known.



9. A Rose By Any Other Name
   

   Isn't it funny that in a school where children are not only in control of their learning, but are desperate to learn, that they are called children, but in UK schools, where chaos reigns, where children utterly reject the privilege of having an education, we insist on calling them students?

One of the things that parents used to say was that we didn't realise how lucky we are in this country: it is true—we are lucky to be born into such a wealthy society. But all too many people take that luck for granted, and refuse to capitalise on it by actually, personally making an effort to make things even better—both for themselves and for others.

To a very great extent, this is down to the evil machinations of the politicos who now control such large swathes of our lives. The state does not provide us "cradle to grave" care, but "cradle to grave" oppression.

Nowhere is this more marketly evil than in the utter destruction of our education system. How dare any bastard politico wank on about how wonderful our education system is when a fifth of our pupils leave school—after nearly 12 years of formal state education—being unable to read or write?

How dare they harp on about the ever-increasing grades when we know—and they know—that children are leaving school more poorly educated than at any time in the last century? How dare they try to use the Charity Commission to destroy the last bastion of decent education in this country—to sacrifice the private schools on the altar of socialist dogma? How very dare they?

Schooling should not be about grades, or about politicos' egos: it should not be an achievement which some disgusting little cunt like Ed Balls can hang his tattered reputation off. It is about the children—about preparing them for life and giving them the ability to learn and the knowledge to know where to start.

All that we are equipping a huge number of these children for is a life of mental confusion and moral famine.

Those bastards in Westminster have the ruin of generations on their consciences—I hope that it is a weight that they can bear.

London Underground

Your humble Devil was little affected by the RMT strike that brought the Tube to a halt. However, there really is only one comment to make...


I doubt that I shall be the only person who posted this...

Immigration post

As some of you may have noticed, there was a post about immigration up here.

I have removed it for a couple of reasons: first, a certain amount of my anger was unjustifiably directed, as a sideswipe, against a certain university rather than it being concentrated on the real culprits, i.e. the bastard immigration officials in the bastard immigration agency.

Secondly, I want to be able to talk properly to the young lady concerned before I repost, as I wouldn't want to harm any further pleas.

However, the basic point is that—because the immigration agency gave my friend the wrong information (twice)—her application was rejected, without any right of appeal.

So, the stakes are quite high. If this plea is rejected, my American friend will lose the £820 administration fee and the new job that she was supposed to start in September; she will lose her friends and she will, essentially, lose the life that she has built up over the last four years.

And all because the people in the immigration agency can't be fucking arsed to find the right information. But why the fuck should they care—it's not their lives being ruined by a bunch of pig-ignorant jobsworths, eh?

Unless, of course, these wankers have been told to give the wrong information deliberately so that that fat-titted shitbag, Jacqui "thieving cunt" Smith, can achieve her unbelievably stupid aim of halving the number of skilled immigrants in this benighted country.

Your humble Devil is rather put out. To put it mildly.

UPDATE: from the comments, it seems that nobody who has had to deal with the immigration agency has anything good to say about it. Here's Anonymous on the theory that marrying the girl would help.

You really don't know what you're talking about. To marry my American wife (who has undertaken two degrees here at one of the best universities in the country, paying for both out of her own pocket), we had to spend in excess of £3,000 simply to get permission and a visa to allow her to stay on for one year when her student visa ran out.

We then had to go through quite the rigamarole and cost to get Indefinite Leave to Remain. I won't complain too loudly about that, though, because at least she *got* IDR, which is a lot more than most.

She has never claimed a day of benefits in her life (in fact, if she did so, it would be a breach of her visa and result in instant deportation). For tuition fees alone, she has put somewhere in the vicinity of £60,000 into this country, not to mention the money spent on rent, food and general living expenses which, all told, probably adds up to the same amount again. She has paid full income tax and NI on the pittance she received for working as a graduate tutor and admin worker at the university. To say she is a net contributor to the British economy is to understate things handsomely....and yet, at every stage, the government has done all it can to keep her the fuck out of this country.

I've always been reluctant to whine about immigration, simply for fear of lending credence to the BNP, but when I see hard-working contributors with many achievements, people who are qualified and intelligent and will add to our society, being spat upon while asylum-seeking scum get houses, benefits and free handjobs from the British taxpayer, I have to finally admit: the immigration system is not just fucked, it is actually racist. If your skin is white and you speak English, good luck trying to get into the country.

I won't go into detail about my friend from NZ who, despite British grandparents, a well-paying job in the UK, two degrees, a bank account in the high four figures and a British husband, was refused leave to remain in the UK on the grounds that she didn't have enough pictures of her honeymoon to convince the officious little cunt at the visa office that her marriage was genuine.

Nor will I point out that, in the seven plus years we've been dealing with the immigration office, there has been exactly one occasion on which we dealt with a person who had actually been born in this country, exactly one occasion on which an immigration-related letter was signed by someone with any approximating a British name. (Yes, yes, I'm obviously a racist - but you try playing with the Immigration "Service" for years at a time; see how much you like being milked for thousands upon thousands of pounds under threat that your wife can be exiled to another country on the whim of some Sri Lankan immigrant who barely speaks English and then lecture me on the struggle for racial equality.)

And here's NickM on the persecution of students (not quite on the level of the Chinese, but shaming nonetheless).

From my personal experience the IND are absolute bastards when it comes to Americans. They came very close to deporting a US girlfriend of mine during the middle of her MA. The bloody Vice-Chancellor had to write-in! Her Prof wasn't enough even though her Prof is top of the field and sometimes appears on telly!

What scam they thought my ex was trying to pull is beyond me. I mean folks with phi-beta-kappa Ivy League degrees don't treat London University (for which she was paying beaucoup in fees) as a scam to get a job in a bloody kebab shop.

Like the accursed Ms Smith they combine ineptitude and outright malice in a perfect proportion.

Then there was an Indian lad I knew. BSc Computer Science, MBA, Indian public-school educated (better English than moi). He had job offers here. IND say nyet. Yet the likes of Abu Hamza could live high on the hog here for years on the basis of a bigamus marriage!

Best of luck DK and all my best to your friend. I think I have some idea what she must be going through.

The Home Orifice. Lock all the doors and windows and sarin it, then burn it down, then nuke it from orbit (the only way to make sure).

My hatred of government started entirely from incidents with the IND and their utter evil. Christ, when they were gonna deport my girlfriend me and her mates organised a round the clock phone campaign. Why? Because no bastard at the IND ever picked up and that was the number they'd given. This was an attempt to bombard them with calls saying don't deport her and yes she really is a student and no she isn't moon-lighting as a minicab driver. It was just trying to speak to someone, anyone.

Utter, utter cunts.

And finally, here's a comment from the lass herself...

Fuck the Home Office and Jacqui Smith (or whoever’s in charge of it now). Fuck this Labour Government, and the imminent Tory Government that will preserve this travesty of a points system. Fuck the Maastricht Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, Ted Heath, and all the other apparatus of the EU that means jobless benefit claimants are considered more deserving of residency in Britain than an employed taxpayer with a net contribution to the British economy. Fuck Brown, Cameron, Clegg, and any politician whose pusillanimous pandering to political correctness has resulted in the exclusion of every foreigner like me, and I’m sure there are many, who is willing to endure endless fees, paperwork, and inconvenience just to have the right to live and work in what I, for one, believed was a great nation.

Britain is the home of liberty, modern democracy, and free enterprise: what the hell has happened to this place? If you haven’t voted yet, go out and stick it to these bastards. I wish I could.

I'm afraid that young Bella misses out a crucial bunch of people to fuck: fuck the British people to whom the politicians are pandering—they are the biggest bunch of lazy, feckless cunts in this country.

Listen up people: there is plenty of space in this country, OK? And dear fucking hell, but we could do with importing some intelligence and innovation, rather than bigoted Bulgarian gangsters, OK?

A statement

Bella Gerens has posted a statement which, though written by an American, could equally apply here. As Bella points out, simply replace "American" with "British", etc. and replace "President" with "fucking useless, thieving bastard of a Prime Minister" and "Obama" with "that accursed, one-eyed, Scots cunt, Brown" and you have a succinct summing up of the situation in this country.

I feel I must explain, at least to the small audience that is available to me, that the naivete with which people are discussing the tea party protests is distracting everyone from the meaning of those protests.

The people who went to those protests were not there simply because they don’t like Obama and they don’t like paying their taxes. There is something much deeper behind their revulsion–a revulsion I share.

The point is this:
American citizens spend half of every year working simply to make their tax payments. That is to say, all taxes combined (US, state, county, city, etc.) are so burdensome to Americans that they must spend literally half of their income paying them. I don’t care what you say about the cost of running the government, protecting our shores, or helping the poor. This is wrong.

It is interesting to note that we consider ourselves free and self-determined yet we are subjected to such staggering regulation of our lives. You can point to our material wealth and say, “you’re wrong… we have it great,” but you’re fooling yourself if you think that. Being free and being rich are not the same thing. Essentially, we’re rich because we’ve managed to fool the world into thinking our money is actually worth something…this is another story. What is really going on here is that our government has become so monstrously plutocratic and tyrannical that they feel they can start wars, spy on us, and abscond with half our paychecks. We are told to shut up and stop whining.

Well, I’m tired of being told that I should put my “nation” before myself. That’s obviously not what this is about. People who say that mean, “put the government before yourself—you are their property.”

I don’t care who the president is (they all manage to find a new and unique way to be absolutely terrible) and I don’t care what they promise us. I think that the feelings of the people at the tea party protests and my own feelings can be quite succinctly expressed:

All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

I don’t suppose many people today would even recognize that text but be sure, were it written by someone today, its writer would be labeled an “extremist” or “domestic terrorist” and thrown into some dark prison. In its day, that text caused a war.

I urge anyone reading this (and believe me, I have no delusions that many are) to consider for a moment whether the life led by an American is a free life. Consider whether anyone can actually claim, under threat of force, half of all your labor. Can those people spy on you? Can force you to fight a war on the other side of the earth? Can they silence you? Can they imprison you? If not, can they stop you if you decide to rob them of their power? Can they stop a million like you? Can they stop 300 million belligerent Americans who know what freedom is and crave it?

I think not.

Having said that, I do not believe these tea party protests were at all effective. Sadly, a protest against the government and its atrocities is rendered impotent when the scoundrels who operate that government make speeches at the protest. Yes, I refer to the infamous Richard Burr who gave a less than stirring speech against Obama and his bailouts. Oddly enough, Mr. Burr voted for the original bailout. How disingenuous to oppose graft only when it’s politically expedient.

Thus, any effect the protest might have had was soundly negated. Especially since Fox News took it upon themselves to portray it as a partisan anti-Obama rally. I think they just like rattling our cages, to be honest.

Just remember, the struggle the United States face today is a lot simpler than economics, party politics, or monetary policy. It is simply a struggle for power between the People and the government. The only power you and I crave is power over ourselves but the government claims that power as well. I am not prepared to submit to them.

Remember, there is nothing patriotic about supporting the government. The United States government is not the United States themselves. We are. We are the country. Our homes and our neighbors are this country. Your choice is either loyalty to them or loyalty to the government. I know on what side I stand.

CARPE LIBERTATEM.

Unfortunately, all of this requires a population who gives a shit and, alas, the greater part of the population of both countries seem to be quite happy, thank you, to have their lives—their decisions and their course of living—underwritten by the money stolen off others: in the course of doing so, they seem more than happy to have their lives controlled by the state.

I wouldn't mind, were I allowed to opt out, but I cannot. Why? Why should I pay NICs, for instance, when I have covered myself privately (and for half the price)? I am not going to be a burden on the state: why should I have to pay? Why can I not opt out?

I don't see why I should pay for other people to have children—why should I be forced to subsidise the lifestyle choices of others through taxes when the loss of that money curtails my own lifestyle choices? How is stealing half of what I earn, at the point of a gun, to pay for things that I would not otherwise pay for in any way "fair" or "just"?

Because, of course, the people on the Left are not really interested in a "just" or "fair" society. What the socialists mean when they talk about "justice" and "fairness" is that those who do not share their concerns should, nevertheless, be forced to pay for them.

In other words, dear readers, what the Left demand is that you and I should pay for their precious morals: these socialists demand that you and I should be deprived of our hard-earned money in order that the consciences of these shits be salved.

Not only that but, in the opinion of your humble Devil, these Leftie cunts advocate that the state steals and redistributes our money to "the poor" because these statist bastards don't actually want to get their hands dirty.

You won't find Lefties actually going around sink estates actively helping these "poor"; oh no, that might be dangerous. Much better to hive such things off to the state's employees. Don't actually go and help someone yourself: just get the state to do it.

This has caused a fractured society, in which "helping someone" is redefined as "stealing money off someone else, by force, and giving it to someone anonymous in order that they should be employed to help the equally anonymous poor". And so our culture has led not to people thinking, "there is another human being in pain: how can I help?" but "why hasn't the state sorted that out?"

I am sick and tired of having to scrimp so that others can be feckless; I am sick and tired of fucking socialist hypocrisy; and I am sick and fucking tired of being forced to pay for the personal fucking morals of the sanctimonious Left.

NHS death rates

The NHS is going to be publishing hospital death rates on the internet...

The NHS is to make it easier to compare success and failure of English hospitals by publishing death rates and other tables on its own website.

The Department of Health will publish the Mortality Ratio on the NHS Choices site, allowing patients to compare death rates at their nearest hospitals.

The NHS says the move is part of a commitment to sharing more information.

It follows a damning report into failings at Stafford Hospital, triggered by its high mortality rates.

Hooray! This is, as far as it goes, a good move by the government. However, the point of being able to view mortality rates—hopefully weighted by operation risk—is a reasonable first step. However, since you can, if I recall correctly, now only choose between three hospitals in your local area; as such, if all three of your local hospitals are totally shit, you're a bit screwed.

Besides, your humble Devil's first thought was: "I wonder how NuLabour will contrive to screw this one up."

Spineless and supine

Via Iain Dale, I come across a pertinent speech by Douglas Carswell on the affairs of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). I recommend reading his contribution in full, but this section stood out.

Once upon a time there was genuine scrutiny. Indeed, as some people may know, a war was once fought over the extent to which the House was able to vote to approve supply and Government moneys. However, this House has slowly but definitely lost its power to oversee how the Executive spend our money. The quango state, on which the PAC produces so many of its reports, is in effect beyond budgetary scrutiny. Retrospective audit on the PAC is pretty much all that is left.

Belying each PAC report and the National Audit Office reports on which we comment is a profound question: why is our legislature now so supine and spineless? Why is our legislature not able to do a better job of scrutinising how the Government spend money? Instead of conducting merely retrospective audit, why does this House not properly scrutinise forward spending proposals? The failure of this House to oversee Whitehall budgets properly makes the work of the PAC vital.

My second point concerns what I see as a pattern in those 14 reports. The PAC produces a vast number of reports. Each week, it seems, we produce a report. Sometimes, scarcely a day goes by when I do not switch on the radio to listen to the "Today" programme and hear my hon. Friend Mr. Leigh talking about one of the reports. It is great that we produce so many reports, but to what effect are they produced? We give permanent secretaries a hard time and we can huff and puff, but the waste and the catastrophically inept project management and public procurement continue.

As many will know, as far as the House of Commons etiquette is concerned, this is pretty strong stuff. But, as Douglas points out, few will have heard it (the Chamber is almost empty in the accompanying video and said video stops before Carswell's intervention).

Add up the smattering of MPs in the chamber, plus those listening to the debate, and I'd be surprised if a dozen clocked what I had to say.

Last time I made the same point via this blog about our "supine and spineless" Commons, I had several thousand read the article, and many dozen websites link to it.

Still blogging? You bet.

Quite.

Medicos: still not shutting the fuck up

To borrow a fine phrase from my colleague, The Filthy Smoker, there is still no cure for cancer—but it's still great to see that, nevertheless, the medical profession is not pissing about wasting our time and money.

Yep, once again the medical establishment comes together in order to fuck ordinary people up the ringpiece—and all in the name of science. Isn't that sweet?

CHOCOLATE should be taxed in the same way as alcohol to tackle the obesity crisis, Scottish doctors will be told next week.

Dr David Walker, a Lanarkshire GP, will warn many people eat their entire daily calorie requirement in chocolate, on top of their normal meals, raising rates of obesity and diabetes.

He said increasing the price of products containing chocolate would help reduce consumption and bring in more money which could be used by the NHS to deal with the health problems caused by obesity.

I'm really sorry, Crippen, but I am shortly going to join in the government's slating of your profession because they are all such fucking creeps.

The sooner we reduce the majority of GPs to begging in the streets—before their arses are hauled off to debtors' prison for non-payment of their ridiculously low medical school fees—the better, frankly.

In fact, the sooner that we privatise medicine and doctors realise that people are now free to take their money elsewhere, the sooner those GP cunts will stop pissing about in things that don't concern them and get back to doing some actual healing. Or they will starve: I don't mind which.

Hey, medicos! Shut the fuck up and get on with patching up patients. Oh, and just in case you didn't get it the first time—shut. The. Fuck. Up. You. Arrogant. Cunts.

What fresh Weedgie insanity is this?

Despite the fact that the private sector is being hit hard by the recession, it seems that—surprise, sur-fucking-prise—there are no such problems in the public sector.

Workers at Scotland's biggest local authority, Glasgow City Council, will be paid a new minimum wage of £7 an hour, in a drive to tackle low pay.

Council leader Steven Purcell said the move would boost the wage packets of the lowest paid staff by more than £1,100 a year.

He issued a challenge to other employers to do the same.

The £7 Glasgow rate will come into force on 1 April - ten years since the national minimum wage was introduced.

Glasgow has some of the poorest wards in the country; it has vast swathes of people on benefits. However, crucially, something like 70% of the population derive their primary income from the state—so they will benefit hugely.

Two questions have to be asked, of course. The first is, "where the fuck is the money going to come from, you dolts? You are going to have to jack up Council Tax, aren't you? So you are going to pay people more, and then rip it back from them, you evil cunts."

The second question is, "are there Council Elections coming up soon, perchance?" Since those on benefits will not, of course, be paying any Council Tax, they will have no disincentive to vote this bunch of shysters back in; so, the inevitable rise will only affect "the rich", i.e. those who actually work for a living and, more crucially, those who actually create wealth.

And, in Glasgow, such wealth creators are in the fucking minority.

Tell us something we don't know...

It seems that Lord Digby-Jones has been reporting back, to a committee of MPs, on his experiences as a junior minister.

The ex-CBI chief described being a junior minister as "one of the most dehumanising and depersonalising experiences" anyone could have.

Lord Jones spent a year as a minister as part of Gordon Brown's original "government of all the talents".

Lord Jones said he applauded the practice of bringing outside specialists into government by making them peers and called it "an excellent idea".

No shit. Nice to see that the magic of a peerage continues to ensure that the man is grateful.

He described the civil service as "honest, stuffed full of decent people who work hard".

Yes. And...?

But he added: "Frankly the job could be done with half as many, it could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer.

"I was amazed, quite frankly, at how many people deserved the sack and yet that was the one threat that they never ever worked under, because it doesn't exist."

Well, I think that we all knew that, frankly. Most of us know, or have known, people who work in the Civil Service and whilst (for the interesting posts) you have to be quite clever to get in, it is generally absolutely impossible to get sacked (unless you're a blogger, of course).

Furthermore, from the experience of friends that I have in the Service, they seem to spend so much time stabbing other people in the back whilst simultaneously attempting to avoid having a blade slipped between their own ribs that I am astonished that they manage to get any work done at all.

The Nameless Libertarian looks enviously on...

The threat of the sack doesn't exist. Sheesh. Proof, if any further proof was needed, that the public and private sector are not just worlds, but universes, apart. As so many people look down the barrel of a gun marked called "redundancy", I can't help but look at jobs in the public sector with a degree of envy. And the phrase "if you can't beat them, join them" is swimming through my mind.

Well, it isn't running through my mind: working for the Civil Service sounds like absolute hell. Not only are you spending most of your time playing internal politics, but you are also doing piss-all of any worth; and what substantial work you are doing is contributing to the erosion of the freedoms of your fellow countrymen.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'll stick with my small private company whilst putting forward all of my powers to ensure that it is as efficient as possible and that it survives through these difficult times.

In the meantime, I think that we have found the reason why government never seems to be able to cut state spending: you see, you actually have to sack people and concentrate the minds and resources of those who are left...

If you have nothing to hide...

... you have nothing to fear. Unless, of course, a corrupt copper has access to a database containing your information, in which case you need to fear extortion and blackmail.

A London policeman who attempted to blackmail sex offenders and drug dealers has been jailed for six years.

PC Amerdeep Singh Johal, 29, was arrested by anti-corruption cops from Scotland Yard in July 2007. Johal was employed in checking names and address on the police database, called Crimint, on behalf of beat cops.

He abused the role to contact 11 convicted offenders and threaten to spill the beans on their crimes unless he was given "hush money". Johal requested between £29,000 and £31,000 for his silence, threatening to tell work colleagues or neighbours of convicted sex offenders about their crimes. In one instance Johal demanded £89,000 as a "goodwill gesture".

Nice. And only six years? I tend to think that public servants who abuse their powers of access should be given double the normal sentence, at least. Actually, fuck it: lock them up and then throw away the key, pour encourager les autres.

These cases come around with frightening regularity and yet there are still morons who would be happy to see everyone in the country logged onto a database.

As Harry Haddock points out,

No database state. Elected police chiefs. Vote LPUK.

Or, of course, you can keep on repeating that mantra: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Hey, maybe one day, you'll believe it.

You fucking moron.

Fake charities

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

So they've gone and done it. Even the sight of cigarettes cannot be tolerated in Brown's Britain. Tobacco displays have been banned.

The Tories, the Lib Dems and even fucking Peter Mandelson can see that this is a piece-of-shit policy which will shaft small businesses for no conceivable benefit. But what the hell, eh? It's not like there's a recession on.

James Lowman of The Association of Convenience Stores is one of many pissed-off people:

"We have explained that implementing a tobacco-display ban will cost our industry over £250 million and concessions on a longer lead-in period will not allay our grave concerns."

"This announcement makes a mockery of government claims to be the friend of small and local businesses."

After eleven years, they still don't get it, do they? James, they don't give two shits about "small and local businesses". They butt-fucked the publicans and they're going to butt-fuck your members, just like they did the rest of us. Deep, hard and with sand in the vaseline.

What was striking, however, was the comment from Health Secretary Alan Johnson:

He [Johnson] told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the "overwhelming evidence and support" in the government's consultation on smoking was for such a ban.

Having read the consultation document, I would say 'overwhelming' is a fair word to use. I haven't seen such a consensus this overwhelming since Saddam Hussein's last election.

"Almost 98 per cent of respondents...were in favour of plain packaging"

"There was over 99 per cent agreement by respondents to this question that there should be further restrictions."

"Approximately 90 per cent expressed a preference for option three (prohibit the sale of tobacco products from vending machines altogether)"

It's fair to say that you won't replicate these results if you ask the average man in the pub, let alone the average man outside the pub. The extraordinary support for the Department of Health (DOH)'s recommendations can only be explained by looking at the "stakeholders" who got involved. Of the 96,000 responses, only a handful came from private individuals. The rest came from block-voting by state-funded pressure groups and charities. And, as my gracious host has recently pointed out:

...whenever a so-called charity supports a government initiative, you can almost always find that they rely on substantial state funding.

Sure enough, SmokeFree NorthWest - with 49,507 votes - is entirely funded by the DoH. Direct Movement by the Youth Smokefree Team - with 10,757 votes - is entirely funded by SmokeFree Liverpool who are entirely funded by the DoH). SmokeFree NorthEast - with 8,128 votes - is entirely funded by...yes, the DoH.

Weighing in with a further 1,562 votes were SmokeFree Action. These were the cunts who masterminded the smoking ban. As they say on their website:

We came together initially to lobby for smokefree workplaces...

Now they've achieved that, do you reckon they're happy to leave it there - as they swore blind they would - or do you think the mythical slippery-slope worked its magic again?

...and are now committed to reducing the harm caused by tobacco more generally.

Of course you are, you dishonest set of bastards.

SmokeFree Action is headed up by the biggest fake charity of all: Action of Smoking and Health (ASH). ASH, like all the rest of the "stakeholders", were created by the government but try their best to pretend to be a grass-roots organisation. Since they are registered with the charities commission it makes it that bit easier to inspect their accounts:

Year ended 31st March 2007

Department of Health: £210,400

Wales Assembly Government: £110,000

Supporting charities: £185,228

Donations & legacies received: £11,143

Incidentally, take another look at that last figure. That is the full amount that was voluntarily given to this 'charity' in a whole year. To give you a frame of reference, the Cat's Protection League received over £30 million in private donations in the same year. The fucking Donkey Sanctuary was given over £20 million.

ASH - one of the most powerful charities in the UK - made eleven grand. If they were left to fend for themselves they wouldn't have the money to rent an office. They would be hard pushed to send out a solitary press release, let alone change the law of the fucking land every five minutes.

In case you're wondering, the "supporting charities" were the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research. These are real charities, no doubt, and we've all given to them in our time. Still, when I donated to Cancer Research I foolishly assumed that the money might go towards actual cancer research. Now I know it gets hived off to pay for the fat salaries of a bunch of hateful, lemon-sucking harridans I don't think I'll fucking bother in future.

This is what happens: The fake charities set up websites where vistors can support the cause by entering an e-mail address and pressing click. No one really knows what they're voting for, but it has got something to do with thinking of the children and it only takes a second. Then the fake charities send postage-paid postcards out to every address they can get their hands on, urging the clueless recipients to sign them and send them back. Again, it isn't clear what the postcard is supporting but if you don't send it back it means you want lovely little children to get cancer.

Dick Puddlecote explained exactly how the Department of Health's "public consultations" work back in September (in the comments to this post):

1) The DoH think up some looney proposal and have to pretend to ask the public in order to exhibit some semblance of democracy.

2) The public aren't actually told about it unless they are avid watchers of smokefree sites so therefore will have formed an opinion one way only anyway.

3) The smokefree sites are told of course seeing as they are paid for by the Labour Government

4) Labour pass the measures and can say in front of the cameras that X% of stakeholders are fully in agreement with them about this. No fiddling at all. Not in the slightest. Perfectly above board.

With eye-watering disingenuity, the DoH specifically asked for input from shopkeepers regarding the mooted tobacco display ban:

We are particularly interested in hearing from small retailers and in receiving information on the potential cost impact of further restrictions on display

But when it arrived, it found that:

"Among the 10,570 small retailers responding, virtually all are against the proposal."

"Ninety-five percent of specialist tobacconists and all non-specialist shops surveyed suggested that a display ban would lead to them being unable to carry on trading."

So obviously the DoH ignored these dirty capitalist interests and pressed on with what could easily be the most stupid piece of legislation of the year. If you're on the gravy train, you get a voice. If you're not, forget it. Not so much a public consultation as a public sector consulation.

And in case you're under any illusion that the government might lay off smokers for a while after this, you should remember that Labour wouldn't be turning to fruitcake anti-smoking policies if they hadn't committed themselves to cutting the smoking rate to 21% by 2010 (it's 22% at the moment).

In that context, the scariest (and unreported, natch) thing about the DoH's bullshit consultation is that it asked 'stakeholders' what the smoking rate should be in a few years time. Here's what they said:

Action on Smoking and Health: 15% by 2015 and 5% by 2030

British Medical Association: 11% by 2015 "with the aim of making the UK tobacco free by 2035"

Royal College of Physicians: 11% by 2015 and "the eradication of smoking between 2020 and 2030"

Oh Lordy. These cunts haven't even got into second gear yet.

The state is still spending our money like water

I saw Polly Toynbee talk a couple of weeks ago, and she pointed out that you are in the top ten percent of earners if you earn more than £40,000. Now, Polly is notorious for quoting dodgy figures but, if this is true, there are some very high earners in the public sector.

Yes, the Taxpayers' Alliance has produced its annual Public Sector Rich List [PDF], which documents those public sector employees who are earning more than £150,000 per year.

Here is a brief summary of their findings.

• Details of 387 public sector employees earning over £150,000


• 194 public sector employees earn more than the Prime Minister


• 4 people on the public payroll earned more than £1m last year


• Senior executives enjoyed an average remuneration increase of 10.9% from 2006–07 to 2007-08

How many of those working in the private sector got a near-11% increase last year, I wonder? Or this year?* Come to think of it, how many of the frontline staff in the public sector got 11%?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller...?

Now in its third edition, the TaxPayers' Alliance today publishes the Public Sector Rich List 2008, the definitive guide to all those in the public sector with remuneration packages over £150,000. Against a background of impending recession and at a time when the financial crisis is hitting ordinary families harder every day, this year's list is the biggest ever, exposing 387 public employees receiving City levels of remuneration from a record 140 public sector organisations. The report also details the top ten rewards for failure in the public sector, the 10 well-paid officials from the FSA, Treasury and Bank of England who oversaw the financial system and failed to prevent the financial crisis, and lists 24 executives who have received sizeable financial rewards despite presiding over embarrassing data loss scandals.

Topping the list at £1,244,000 is the head of Network Rail, Ian Coucher, while second and third place go to Adam Crozier at Royal Mail (£1,242,000) and Andy Duncan at Channel 4 (£1,211,000) respectively. Also in the top ten are employees of British Nuclear Fuels, the FSA, the BBC and Adam Applegarth, the controversial Chief Executive of Northern Rock.

Nice work if you can get it, eh?

• There are 387 people receiving remuneration packages of £150,000 or more a year across 140 government departments, quangos, other public bodies and public corporations, up from 300 people on the 2007 Public Sector Rich List. (Note that this excludes local government, who are published on their own TPA Rich List every March. The 2008 Town Hall Rich List identified 88 people earning over £150,000 a year.)


• There are 4 people in the public sector who earn more than £1 million a year, up from 1 person earning above £1 million last year.


• There are 21 people in the public sector earning above £500,000 a year, up from 17 on last year's list.


• There are 88 people earning above £250,000 a year, up from 66 on last year's list.


• There are 194 people earning more than the Prime Minister, whose salary is £189,994, up from 142 on last year's list.


• The 387 people on our list had an average pay rise of 10.9 per cent between 2006-07 and 2007-08. This is three times average earnings growth (including bonuses) across the country, which is currently around 3.5 per cent.


• The average total remuneration of the 387 people on the list is almost £240,000 per annum. This works out at over £4,600 a week. Although many people on the list are likely to work longer, based on a 35-hour week, this is equal to over £130 an hour, or around £2.15 a minute.


• These remuneration packages can be compared with a soldier earning around £20,000, a nurse earning £23,000, the average Chief Executive of a small company earning £65,000, and the average Chief Executive of a medium-sized company earning £122,000.


• The 10 most highly paid people in the public sector earn almost £1 million on average, which is around 50 times the amount earned by someone starting out as a police officer, nurse or soldier.


• The report features a list of the top 10 rewards for failure, including highly paid officials from HMRC (which lost 25 million people's personal data); the Financial Services Authority (which presided over the worst financial crisis since 1930); Northern Rock; the QCA and other organisations which have failed the public.


• The report includes a list of 10 people working for the three bodies responsible for regulating the financial system – the FSA, the Treasury and the Bank of England - who have overseen the financial crisis.  Their remuneration packages average almost £400,000 per annum.


• A special list is also included of 24 executives who have presided over embarrassing losses of personal data over the past year.  Their average remuneration package was over £190,000 per annum.

Thank goodness that we have our noble Prime Minister to steer us through these choppy financial waters with his ethos of prudence, eh?

* Alright, I did; but I'm not earning anywhere near £150,000, I assure you. In fact, last month's pay rise ensures that, for the first time in my decade-long working life, I am now earning over the median wage. And believe me, I'm really working for it...

Lest we forget

My post on Baby P was slightly sketchy, so for my own reference as much as anything else, here is a summation of the facts surrounding the case, from Barry Beelzebub.

You would think that there would be so many levels of Turkey Army bureaucracy infesting our public services that mistakes would almost be impossible to make; that somewhere in the warren-like system, someone, somewhere would inevitably say “Hang on a minute—this isn’t right”.

After this week’s events involving Haringey Council at the Old Bailey, the answer has to be clearly not—although I suspect, with its £100 million a year budget, it’s through utter ineptitude rather than any laughable notion of under-staffing.

The case of 17-month-old Baby P, who despite being on the council’s at risk register, despite being seen 60 times by social workers in just eight months (that’s once every three days), and despite being the subject of two police investigations, was left to die in agony in a blood-stained cot with a broken back and multiple injuries after being tortured for months by his parents almost beggars belief. It has made me very sad and very, very angry. I actually couldn’t bring myself to read the long list of injuries published in the newspapers. The detail of how they were inflicted—“he was punched so hard in the mouth he swallowed a bottom tooth”—makes me feel faint.

And that’s where the anger overcomes the terrible sorrow, because Haringey Council has previous for this sort of thing, being the same social services department that was to blame for the death of little Victoria Climbie eight years ago. You would think that if any public authority had learned how to protect its children, it would be this one. But no.

We have the social worker who visited repeatedly and yet failed to spot the injuries caused by months of torture and, just four days before his death, was fooled by the boy’s mother smearing chocolate and nappy cream over his wounds.

We have the team leader who agreed that the baby should continually be returned to his home, despite two police investigations and the warnings of hospital staff.

We have the ‘chair’ of something called the Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board who has shifted the blame quicker than an incontinent puppy, claiming that “The council didn’t kill Baby P; his parents did.”

And we have the doctor, the paediatrician who examined Baby P two days before his death and failed to spot that he was paralysed with a broken spine and also had several broken ribs and multiple other injuries. (Read that sentence back again and consider what it means. I bet you’re shaking your head, aren’t you?) She blamed this gross negligence on being unable to carry out a full examination because Baby P was “miserable and cranky”. Yes, I bet he was.

Still, heads will roll, won’t they? The people who allowed this horrific abuse to continue unabated will be sacked, won’t they?

Err ... no. At the time of writing, three written warnings have been issued and it has been made very clear that no-one will lose their job and no-one will be resigning. (I suspect that may have changed by the time you read this.)

And then, to top it off, we have that aforementioned ‘chair’ turning up on the TV news telling us, in that patronising tone the Guardian-reading classes use when they’re talking down to the rest of us, that “Lessons will be learned”.

I tell you what. I never want to hear a public servant using the phrase “Lessons will be learned” ever again. Because they’re clearly not, are they?

The sad thing is that we have to get to a point where a small child has been deprived of what was, admittedly, a short, miserable life before they will even say "lessons will be learned", let alone act.

UPDATE: I think that it's worth flagging up this excellent comment by Ian B.

It's kind of surreal sitting here defending social workers and doctors, but here I go...

There's something of a confusion between the magnitude of an error and the magnitude of its consequences. For instance; a person nods off at the wheel and bumps their car into a tree, causing a bit of damage and a fright. Another person nods of at the wheel, the car goes down an embankment and onto a railway line and there is a massive train crash with horrendous loss of life. Each made the same mistake, but the consequences are orders of magnitude different. Did the second person commit a greater crime than the first? They both did exactly the same thing.

Doctors and social workers, the latter in partcular, work in a continual grey area. Their entire working lives are based upon exercising judgement. They are trying to find a middle ground between negligence and over-zealousness which is not, and cannot by any means, be defined objectively. It is thus practically impossible for them to "get it right" because there is no right to get it. Just opinion. That's why there is never going to be perfect child protection, so you have to decide whether you'd prefer innocent parents be persecuted by the over-zealous, or evil parents get away with it. You can't have your ideal. It doesn't exist. It is the same as asking for a court system that never frees the guilty or convicts the innocent. It can't be done. All you can do is decide whether you think it better to protect the innocent knowing some of the guilty will go free, or convict the guilty knowing some innocents will suffer. (Case in point, English common law traditionally has been based on the first premise).

So, we can roll the heads of these doctors and social workers, but it isn't going to really fix anything. There are doctors up and down the country making duff diagnoses every day, some of them leading to death or serious permannent damage. There are others prescribing treatments that are foolish and unnecessary (the manias for lowering cholesterol and salt intake, for instance). Medicine is inherently blurry and inexact. And there are social workers making bad judgements every day too- persecuting the harmless and neglecting the dangerous. It's inherent to the job.

So, we can decide to protect innocent parents from persecution and accept the occasional Baby P, or we can rigorously monitor children, snatch them away pre-emptively, and leave the bereft parents to cry alone in the night. And still get the occasional Baby P anyway. Because it's not science. It's judgement, by flawed human beings. It would be nice to do better than that, but we can't.

Your humble Devil, of course, thinks it "better to protect the innocent knowing some of the guilty will go free" although many statists would take the view that it is better to "convict the guilty knowing some innocents will suffer". Except, of course, that many statist, almost by definition, do not think that the innocents will suffer because the state is omniscient (although I've never understood why).

However, given the system that we currently have, I think that it is perfectly acceptable to flag up and rail against such egregious failings as we have in this instance simply so that the people involved might act differently the next time that this happens.

The case of Baby P highlights persistent and appalling failures of multiple agents—doctors, social workers, police and managers—not simply the misjudgement of one person. We might say that such things will occasionally happen—this case has caused so much outrage simply because it is so rare—but if one more innocent life is saved because, say, the next doctor examines the baby properly despite the child being "miserable and cranky", then I cannot see how that would be a bad thing.

UPDATE 2: the News of the World story is just appalling. It's the deliberate attempt to break the boy's spirit that I find particularly distasteful.

“And he lanced off the tops of the tot’s fingers with a Stanley knife like you would a boil. He said it made it easier for him to then use the pliers to grip onto the fingernails and rip them off. It makes me shudder.

“He made Baby P kneel in front of him, with blood oozing from the ends of his fingers, and hold out his hands for more punishment.

As I have said, I think that we will find that the main perpetrator will be spending his life in Broadmoor rather than Belmarsh. Although he should still be beaten to a pulp.