Emily Thornberry

Guido asks the big question today...

Finally we of course must confront the wider philosophical question raised by the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s PMQs stint: namely whether or not she is the worst person in the known universe or if in fact there are others more worthy of the title.

No, there aren't—Emily Thornberry is the worst person in the known universe.

UPDATE: having said that, Anna the birthday girl would definitely give Emily a run for her money...

The bastards are still stealing from us

Another day, another tale of ordinary thieving folk...

Forty six MPs have claimed expenses for London rent or hotels despite owning a property in the capital, a Channel 4 News investigation has found.
...
Our investigation found many of the MPs bought their London properties with the help of the taxpayer when the previous expenses system allowed them to claim back mortgage payments.
But when those claims were banned following the expenses scandal they switched to letting out their properties, in some cases for up to £3,000 a month. They then started claiming expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.

The only thing that MPs learned from the expenses scandal was how to line their pockets, at our expense, in new and exciting ways.

The government we deserve

Whilst your humble Devil has never been shy of excoriating the government, I am one of the few bloggers that has consistently pointed out that, actually, the electorate are a bunch of fascist bastards too.

It's hard to imagine that this is the same public which proudly bosts of winning two world wars, isn't it? Limp, effete, and cowering like timid rabbits at a small cloud of water particles which float for a second before disappearing into history.

As V said, "if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."

Think about it. Understand it.

And change how you think and behave.

Stop trying to control people because you have been credulously sucked into the belief in any one of the fantasmagorical hobgoblins that the government and media have created in order to keep you stupid, scared and compliant.

In other words, stop being a cunt. Yes, you. Stop it.

Now.

A taste of their own medicine

After the expenses scandal a couple of years ago, the few actual convictions belied the fact that the entire body of our lords and masters were engaged in widespread fraud, in a scandalous conspiracy against the taxpayers who they are supposed to serve.

Further, all three major parties in this country have proposed spying on our every communication for no good reason at all, something that surely breaks the Data Protection Act's provision that all data held should not be excessive.

Given these two vignettes, it strikes me as being utterly hilarious that one of these corrupt bastards should complain about HSBC demanding that they hand over "sensitive information" in order to prove that they are not corrupt.

HSBC has targeted MPs with demands for sensitive private information as part of a crackdown by the bank on "politically exposed" customers. The move has left some feeling they will lose their banking facilities unless they comply.

A Labour MP who is a longstanding customer of HSBC contacted Guardian Money to say he had been asked by the bank to disclose information about his finances, including accounts he has with other banks, and his "sources of wealth".

At first he thought it may be a "phishing" scam, where fraudsters try to obtain people's private details by masquerading as their bank or an official body, but the letter was genuine, and was followed up earlier this month by a phone call. The MP, who declined to be named, says he explained to the bank that the information being sought was "inappropriate", and when he asked what would happen if he didn't co-operate, the suggestion was that his account may be closed.
...

The answer, it transpired, is that HSBC has decided the MP is in a category of high-risk customers known as "politically exposed persons", or Peps. Even though, according to HM Revenue & Customs, he definitely isn't one of those. And he hasn't been singled out for special (mis)treatment. It is understood that every MP who banks with HSBC is being quizzed – and, presumably, other public figures, too.

Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaa! Ahahaha. Ahaha. Ha!

How nice it is to see these thieving, snooping, authoritarian arseholes getting a taste of their own medicine!

But, of course, on a more serious note, you might be wondering what the fuss is about? After all, surely an MP is a politically exposed person—how could they not be?*

Luckily, retired international lawyer Tom Paine can supply us with the answer to that little conundrum.

When practising abroad as an international lawyer, I often had to raise with clients dealing with companies associated with local politicians the delicate issue of money laundering. You can imagine how the politicians concerned reacted when informed that English legislation required enquiries as to their past, and contractual provisions as to their possible future, misconduct. I rather tired of apologising for it. I can't quantify how much business was lost because of these laws, but let's face it, the counterparties had other, easier choices.

As I never had to deal with UK politicians, I did not realise until this morning that they had exempted themselves. Here is the HMRC guidance mentioned in The Guardian article (my emphasis);

In some situations you must carry out 'enhanced due diligence'. These situations are:

• When the customer isn't physically present when you carry out identification checks.
• When you enter into a business relationship with a 'politically exposed person'. Typically, a politically exposed person is an overseas member of parliament, a head of state or government or a government minister.
  Note that a UK politician isn't a politically exposed person.
• Any other situation where there's a higher risk of money laundering.

Yes, that's right: as with the tax on benefits in kind, our lords and masters have exempted themselves from the rules which apply to others.

Once again, that old saw of "one rule for us and a different one for them" seems utterly appropriate.

This must stop. An MP is quite obviously a politically exposed person: further, MPs have proved themselves to be a body of people who are entirely untrustworthy every respect—those who are not actively thieves or liars are criminally stupid.

So, when this anonymous Labour MP whinges that his "financial integrity" is being questioned, my response is "well, whose fault is that? Cry me a fucking river."

And, given their plans to spy on everything we do, when this same anonymous Labour MP then asks...

"Why should they want this information, unless there's some indication that there is something amiss?"

... my reply involves motes, beams and "how the fuck do you like them apples, you totalitarian piece of shit?"
So, bravo to HSBC for giving me an excellent belly laugh this morning.

And perhaps this anonymous Labour MP might take a lesson from this; perhaps this Labour MP will drop his anonymity and start campaigning vociferously against the Coalition's plans to monitor our communications?

Or, more likely, he will continue to complain in the Tea Room and quietly continue to use his expenses to steal money from his constituents.

Either way, I am thrilled that he has been insulted and inconvenienced—it is the very least that he deserves.

Healthy people are expensive

Anyone follows politics in even the most cursory manner (or, indeed, reads the letters page of the Metro) will, I assume, be thoroughly pissed off with self-righteous fucknuts bollocksing on about how drinkers, smokers and obese people should be taxed to buggery because they cost our brilliant NHS buckets of cash.

For many years, those of us who indulge ourselves in our pleasures have pointed out that we pay a fuck-load of tax for the pleasure of doing so—not just in the ludicrously high National Insurance payments, but also duty on the fags and booze. We pay far more in tax, in fact, than the cost to the NHS.

"Nonsense!" cry the prodnose temperance loons.

Well, now a nice little report has come out which points out that "healthy" people really do cost, as Timmy reports.

The question is, are the costs of treating the illnesses and deaths brought on by those three indulgences higher or lower than the costs of treating those who live healthily but still inevitably die? We could argue it either way: Alzheimer’s costs more to manage than lung cancer costs, the cracked hips of age related osteoporosis perhaps more or less than fried livers from excessive bourbon. What we need to do is actually go and tot up the figures. Fortunately, that has been done:

Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention.
….
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

There are excellent arguments in favour of taxing in order to reduce the occurrence of smoking, excessive boozing and obesity. We humans are subject to hyperbolic discounting, not taking full account of long distant future costs for current pleasures, sometimes those running the public health system really do know more than us, there are externalities associated with these behaviours (late night drunks, passive smoking and the visual pollution of someone 300 lbs overweight perhaps). But the argument we cannot use is that these behaviours increase the costs of health care.

The reason we cannot use this argument is that it simply isn’t true.

So all you health fascists can stick that in your pipe and I'll smoke it.

A stirring speech...

Can you guess who said this recently...?

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Good stuff, eh? I bet the answer will surprise you...

Total Politics Blog Awards 2011

I see that Total Politics is running the Blog Awards 2011.

Given that your humble Devil's output has been so low over the last year, I can hardly urge you to vote for me—however, I would encourage you to take part since it will be interesting to see how the landscape has changed in the last year or so (quite a bit, I suspect)...

Let's sue academics

When a private company makes a claim that cannot be proven, then we are allowed to censure them: where they make a claim that can be absolutely proven to be a lie, then we can sue the fuckers.

So, why can we not sue academics—and the institutions that sponsor them—when they needlessly scaremonger and, yes, lie like sons of bitches?

This question—found via Bishop Hill—is one that Professor Mike Kelly ponders in a letter to the Taranaki Daily News...

Can I plead for temperate language in this debate as trillions of dollars are at risk of being misinvested?

I am involved in another area of controversy, namely nanotechnology, and when you add in controversies in biomedicine, there is enough around to suggest that the scientific process is being corrupted, and is in need of reining in. You will see my views on this when the Royal Society publishes the evidence it receives in its study of ‘Science as a Public Enterprise‘.

Engineers take legal liability for their work, and can be sued if they are wrong. This should also apply more widely to those who pronounce in the public domain on matters of policy. This would then confine statements to a more measured and nuanced standard.

I would like to make this absolutely clear: I believe in the rule of law, and that means that the law applies to everyone—including academics. If they back certain public policy decisions that have a cost, they should be sued when those benefits do not arise.

Take, for instance, the BSE scare: scientists predicted death tolls in the tens—maybe hundreds—of thousands. The measures taken in respect of this advice cost the farmers of this country many millions of pounds.

The estimated deaths failed to materialise—unsurprisingly, since the consensus science had (and still has) the vector wrong—and so the farmers and everyone else harmed in any way from this scare should be able to sue the scientists involved.

The same thing applies to climate change academics: since we have now, apparently, gone beyond the tipping point, if the promised destruction fails to arrive, can we sue the living shit out of these lying cunts? I believe that we should be able to.

Indeed, can anyone tell me why we shouldn't?

Would anyone like to join in a "class-action" suit against the scientists who promised a BSE* armageddon? And then, once we have won that, to wage war against the lying bastards perpetuating the CACC scam?

I believe that this would bring a whole new dynamic to our scientific and political lives: one of honesty. Or, to put it in the words of Professor Kelly, scientists might "confine statements to a more measured and nuanced standard".

At the very least, it would confine scientists to science, rather than making political prognostications that they bear no harm for when once they are found out. The politicians (sometimes) bear the blame when the public realises that they have been sold a pup (through the joke that is the ballot box): the evil scientists themselves simply carry on—as they increasingly so—using the media to scare us into the politicians giving scientists money.

These fuckers are charlatans—snake oil salesmen—and they should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

And, of course, this needs to be extended to politicians: if their promised goodness does not arrive out of their policies, why should we not be able to sue the cunts for making us poorer and more miserable than we were before?

Or, in the words of your humble Devil, they might stop being a bunch of lying sacks of shit with no more excuse to live of this Earth than a fucking alien weevil.

* Yes, I know that the human form is CJD: I just couldn't be bothered to explain it in the middle of a rant.

Referism

In 2003 interview with John Hawkins, Milton Friedman famously said...

I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes."

Which is fine as far as it goes. However, the problem is a little more fraught than that, because governments like having money—money enables whichever party is in power to lavish gifts on its favoured groups, thus ensuring that they will continue to vote for said party.

At the same time, however, said government doesn't want to annoy the other parties favoured groups too much, so it does cut their funding or raise their taxes too much—or else they will never get the votes from those few people who are likely to switch allegiance (and thus win the election for the party).

Let's use a very basic illustration...

• Party 1 spends £1 billion on the unions and the poor before it is unseated by Party 2. Spending is now at £1 billion.


• Party 2 spends £1 billion on large corporations. However, it doesn't want to unduly piss off Party 1's supporters, so they only cut spending on these groups by £0.2 billion. Spending is now at £1.8 billion.


• Party 1 wants to restore the funding to its favoured groups, and more—so, it spends another £1 billion on them. And, like Party 2, it doesn't want to piss off the corporates too much—so it only cuts their funding by £0.2 billion. Spending is now at £4 billion.


• Party 2 gets in, etc. etc.

This is the basic mechanism by which government spending increases—it's why the state spent 8% of GDP in 1880, and now spends about 50% of GDP now. Another reason is, of course, that the state did far less in 1880 in terms of interference in home markets: about half of that 8% was military spending.

But, you see, once you start giving your voters money, it becomes very difficult to take it away again: and so, the more the government spends on benefits and other sweeteners, the more difficult it gets to cut those costs.

The mechanism that is supposed to curb taxation—or spending—is that of democratic elections. If taxes get too high—so the theory goes—then the voters will simply vote out the high-taxing government. This is what is supposed to keep the state in line.

Unfortunately, we don't need Jonathan Aitken to point out that "one vote every four or five years in not tremendously important" because we already know it.

Politicians can get into government promising all sorts of things—such as low taxes—but, as we also know, "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". So, politicians tell a few big lies every four or five years, and then do not have to deliver on them.

But surely, if a government wants to get re-elected, they will have to enact some fiscal restraint immediately before a general election? No.

What tends to happen is not that governments cut taxes just before an election—no. What they tend to do is simply increase spending to their favoured groups (in this case, nearly everyone) because they can borrow the money to do so: and, if they don't get elected again, well, then it's their rivals' problem, eh?

And the trouble is that there are upper limits to the amount of tax that a government can raise—not simply before voters get really pissed off, but also because people start finding ways in which to avoid said taxes (one of the factors that give rise to the phenomenon known as the Laffer Curve).

One of the ways to avoid taxes is to work less; another is to employ fewer people or to make less profit—these are just some of the reasons why higher government spending leads to lower GDP growth—in fact, according to the OECD, every additional percent of GDP taken by government is to reduce per capita GDP by 0.7%. And that, of course, makes everyone poorer than they might be.

So, the government cannot raise enough tax, and so they have to borrow to keep the ever-increasing funds flowing to their voters. And so we find ourselves in the current mess: the governments can't raise tax anymore because they would mightily piss off one bunch of voters, but they can't cut spending because they will piss off the other bunch of voters. And so governments of all stripes have simply borrowed more and more and more in the vague hope that something will turn up.

Or—like some ever more frantic game of pass the explosive, shit-filled parcel—the respective governments hope that, should nothing materialise, at least the whole shebang will blow up whilst their rivals are in power rather than them.

All of which—plus our current travails—goes to show that whilst Milton Friedman is not wrong, his statement quoted above does not tell the whole story. Because holding down taxation has not stopped our governments overspending: not even the very real threat of "bankruptcy" is doing that.

The basic premise was right: as one episode of Yes, Minister pointed out, governments do not work out what they need to spend and then raise that amount of tax—they work out how much tax they can raise and then work out what to spend it on.

But I don't think that it even works that way any more.

I think governments work out how much they want to spend; then they work out the maximum possible that they can raise from tax, and desperately hope that they can borrow the deficit.

And since all of our major political parties operate in this way, our choice of who to vote for at a general election is not particularly different or wide. Which is a problem.

It is a problem because even a general election ceases to be meaningful as a curb on spending: if you have three main parties and they are vowing to spend much the same amount of money, then it doesn't matter who you vote for—the spendthrift, GDP destroyers always get in.

And then, of course, we are subject to another five years of profligacy which we all must pay for—not only directly in taxes and deferred taxes (which is all that government debt is) but also through lower incomes and lower growth. (And, quite apart from anything else, lower incomes and lower growth means that there are more poor people who require (or desire) more government spending, etc.)

And we haven't even covered the perverse incentives that government spending creates.

So, here is the big fact—money is power. In theory but not, it seems, in practice.

You see, the government has, seemingly, all the power but doesn't have any money of its own: that money is ours—we earn it. So, why don't we have the power?

Because the state has the one thing that trumps money: it has guns and, additionally, a monopoly on legal force. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to prison.

I think that it is important to emphasise this point, which is why I consistently point out that taxation is extortion with menaces. Some, mostly on the Left, argue that this is not the case and that, by voting whichever political party into power, we—as a nation—acquiesce to this theft.

Which, as I have argued above in pointing out the similarities between the parties' economic policies, is a something of a fallacy because we are not, actually, presented with a choice. The only way we have of registering our disapproval of all of them is not to vote—a choice that increasing numbers of people take each year.

Besides, there are any numbers of policies that people vote on that are not directly to do with money (although most of them require money to be fulfilled).

So, what we really want to do is to be able to separate the money side from any other policy; and we want to do it more often than every four or five years.

Which is where EUReferendum's campaign for Referism comes in.

The executive (the former king) must refer to parliament each year for approval of its budget. Without that, it runs out of money. Our problem is—and the heart of all our problems—is that this process has become an empty ritual. No parliament has rejected a budget in living memory, and none is likely to.

So each year we see this great ritual, where the government of the day pretends to ask us for money, and we have to watch the empty charade of approval being given—only then to see vast amounts being spent on things of which the majority of us do not approve, such as the European Union.

This must stop. The ritual must turn back into substance, and there must be real control over the annual budget. The politicians cannot be trusted to discharge this duty. They have their fingers in the till and a vested interest in maintaining high levels of expenditure. The power must go to the people who pay the bills—us.

Indeed. But how might this be achieved (I think that you can guess)...? [Emphasis mine.]

The means by which must be achieved is through the ballot box, with an annual referendum. The budget must, each year, be submitted to the people for approval, and comes into force only once approved. The politicians must make their case, put their arguments, and then ask us for the money... and they have to say please. We, the people, decide whether they get it. We, the people, have the power to say no.

If you want politics—you got it. Do you want out of the EU? Fine, build up a caucus and vote down the budget. Make it plain to the politicians that no money will be forthcoming until we withdraw. Simples... and it is that simple. Starve the beast, rather than risk everything on an all-or-nothing rigged ballot, given at the discretion of our masters. And let's do it at local level as well.

Logically, there might have to be a fall-back position, where the executive can draw down maintenance funds, pending approval, to keep basis services going—or not. If Congress does not approve the budget in the US, it falls. That tends to concentrate minds. Only, in this case, it is the people who stop the money. And money talks.

As Richard points out, the real value in this is that it provides a continuous process of control. We already know, because a judge has told us, that manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation—that means that political parties can lie and lie again in order to get into office and there is no way in which we can hold them to their promises.

However, if they have to come back to the electorate every, single year—regardless of party or manifesto promises—then the government will not only need to justify the next year's spending, they will need to show that the last year's actually achieved what they claimed it would.

It is that which makes the big difference—we are talking about a continuous process of control. By contrast, a one-off referendum, agreed (or not) by the government, on a grace and favour basis, for its own tactical advantage, is to concede the power to the government. We, the people, still have to go to The Man, and ask him "pretty please" can we have a referendum. When we hold the purse strings, The Man says "please" to us.

Which is all very well, but how do we achieve this aim?

So how does this become an "ism"? Well, in my earlier piece, I wrote about the need of society to communicate to its government its "wishes and needs", to make it perform and yet prevent it from taking over, swapping the master-servant relationship.

We do it by controlling the purse strings, and we do that by making the government refer to us for permission to raise and spend funds. Our tool is the referendum, our philosophy is thus "referism" and we are "referists" or, in colloquial terms, "reffers". If we want a political party, and I would not advise it, then we set up a Referist Party.

Better, I thought, we work with the existing parties. We build a movement and make it clear that the first party to offer an annual referendum on the budget gets our vote. We could, tactically, even pick on one of the parties, and tell it that it will never get into power unless it agrees to our terms. We have the power to do that, if we mobilise and then use it.

After some experience of attempting to get bloggers together to do something in the real world, I am heavily sceptical that it can be achieved—as I pointed out on the EUReferendum forum. Richard's reply was confident...

One must not ask too much, too soon. All revolutions have to have an intellectual base ... their own "ism". The blogosphere ... if it cares to do so, can build brand recognition for an "ism", cocking a snoot at the MSM. That in itself it a worthwhile and necessary task ... great fun, and doable.
...

We need to believe in our own strength and power ... but it does take time. From the start of the publication of the Chartists' "six points" (1838) it took them ten years to reach London with a major rally ... but they changed politics forever. What has been lacking so far is focus ... our "ism". Now, have ism, will travel.

Very well then, your humble Devil will happily throw what weight he has left behind this concept of Referism—it is an interesting idea and, if achieved, would shackle the politicians to the will of those who pay for the government's profligacy.

Indeed, the idea that the government—and local authorities—must come grovelling to beg us for their funds each and every year is enough to make the entire exercise worthwhile...

That Rally Against Debt...

Yes, there were only a few hundred there but it was a good vibe (as these young folks say). I think that Simon Clark sums it up most pithily...

We convened, we made our point, and then we made a beeline for the pub. Isn't that what normal people do?

Yep. And I don't know about anyone else, but the wife and I drank a skinful and mixed with some excellent people—including Nigel Farage (I'm always pro- a politician who will not only join the great unwashed in the pub, but who will also stand his round), Misanthrope Girl, Old Holborn, Guido and Harry, Brian Micklethwait, Dick Puddlecoate, Mark Wallace, Trixy, a bunch of Libertarian Party members, and many other fun people.

Basically, I don't know whether the rally will have an effect, nor do I know whether or not it was the start of a more concerted campaign. I do know that I had a very fun day with a good bunch of people.

What more could one ask for, eh?

An easy question

Iain Dale is soliciting people's answers for his LBC radio show tonight—I suggest that this might be an easy one...

7PM Coalition: Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the creation of the coalition. I want to know what you want to see the coalition do in its second year.

Well, I'd like to see them do what they promised in their first year—especially the restoration of civil liberties, cutting of red tape, slashing of the public sector and the shrinking of government.

Added to that, I would like to see elected police chiefs, the major reform of the NHS, the cutting of the tax burden, simpler taxation, the abolition of the Climate Change Act, the cessation in the persecution of smokers and drinkers, the reform of planning laws, more leaving people the fuck alone and Cameron telling the EU to fuck right off.

That'll do for starters. Next...?

Safer neighbourhoods: it is to laugh boo

Over at Orphans of Liberty, JuliaM has an article up about "safer neighbourhoods"—as defined, naturally, by speed cameras.

It reminded me of an occasion when, a few years ago (four, I think), I accompanied a friend of mine to The Lord Mayor's Show. It is full of your typical English pageantry with the main feature being the three mile long procession, featuring floats from the various Guilds and organisations around the City of London.

Despite the rain, all the participants and audience were in a brilliant mood, whooping, cheering and laughing.

Until...

Until the Safer Neighbourhoods float came along. The float had the no-doubt prescribed number of adults (kitted out with CRB checks, I would imagine) but it was mainly full of children—many of whom were wearing hats in the shape of speed cameras. The whole float was adorned with images of speed cameras, and was replete with signs and messages intended to leave the audience in no doubt that speed cameras were "safer neighbourhoods".

For a moment, one could hear and sense the crowds' hesitation: speed cameras are not popular, but there were children on the float and, after all, weren't we all having a good time—too good a time, surely, to spoil it by being serious? So, hesitantly, the crowds came to their decision...

And they booed.

The disapproval started with a break in the cheering, and then a silence; then a "boo" could be heard from one or two places and then everyone was booing—showing how much they hated and loathed these contraptions. The boos were not as loud as the cheers had been, but they gathered strength and pace—but the float did not, could not. The children, one could see, were becoming increasingly bewildered, the adults guarding them tried to maintain the triumphant bonhomie whilst glaring at the crowd.

And as the float went past the stands at a walking pace, the British people—against their more compassionate judgement—gave a vocal demonstration of how they hate these money-grubbing pieces of street furniture, and the people who continue to push them.

I wonder whether the "safer neighbourhoods" float has ever tried that again? Or have they watered down or changed the image?

I didn't boo.

But I did feel angry at the adults—all those do-gooders and special interest groups and lobbyists and vested interests—who had quite deliberately decided to push the children into the front-line, to persuade these young people (who surely were too young to understand what they were being made to do) face the ire and contempt of the citizens...

It was shameful.

MPs should be paid less—proved!

The Appalling Strangeness is discussing MPs' salaries and comes to a conclusion that I can entirely agree with.

For £65,000 a year I really do expect our elected officials to do something other than bray like a rabid mob at PMQ's, and traipse through the correct lobby on the instructions of a whip.

£65k a year for what we've got; I honestly believe we could have much better for far less.

And, do you know what? I can prove this theory by means of a simple logical argument...

Because, you see, everyone—including our useless fucking politicos—has been banging on about how bankers have fucked up, right? The conventional wisdom is that these bankers have screwed their employers, and comprehensively fucked the economy, yes? That these bankers were, in fact, utterly fucking useless at their jobs.

Further, there have been howls of protest—not least from our idiot MPs—about the vast salaries and bonuses paid to these bankers. And the bankers do not deserve such vast renumeration because they have totally buggered the economy.

So...

Bankers were possibly the most massively paid people in the country and yet they were fucking crap, right? Therefore, not only do you not get the best by paying massive salaries, you actually get people who are utterly disastrous.

So, this argument that we should pay MPs lots of cash in order to command the best talent is demonstrably false. And, as such, if we want the very best legislators, the amount that we should pay these cunts is only slightly more than fuck all.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Innocent? What's that, then?

Via JuliaM (who has been doing a superb job of highlighting police fucknuttery), it seems that the police have decided to reverse the burden of proof all by themselves.

People caught with “legal highs” like mephedrone face being arrested and having their homes searched.

Senior officers say the chemicals will be treated as illegal until tests show otherwise as they try to protect young people from using dangerous drugs which have not been banned.

Oh, what a surprise—it's the police using the old "won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiiildren" defence.

Look, you fuckers: your job is to uphold the law—that is, the actual law not what you think the law should be.

I don't care whether you're doing it for the fucking kids or not: you treat the substance as legal until you have proved that it is illegal—just as someone is innocent until proven guilty. Do you see?

In Brighton and Hove officers are working with the NHS and city council to teach children about mephedrone as part of drugs education in schools and encourage young people with a problem to seek help.

Yes, fine: I don't really have a problem with this. It can be argued that, if government has any kind of role in this aspect of people's lives, it could—and possibly should—be as an adviser. I have no real problem with local government agencies delivering advice on what are, after all, occasionally dangerous substances to young—and often tragically ignorant—people.

I do have a problem with the police treating people like criminals before they are actually proved to be so. The police are quite clearly overstepping the bounds of their power here: they do not have the authority to make law on the fly—yet—and they should be reigned in quite severely.

After all, a country in which the police make up the law, and then act as judge and jury is rather the definition of a police state, isn't it? And I think that most of us would agree that police states are, generally, not particularly desirable...

Long live the war!

Sunny Hundal: condoning class war. Would he be so keen on a race war?

Via Tom Harris (who is agin it, but for all the wrong reasons), there is a post at Liberal Conspiracy entitled Long Live The Class War Strategy.

Class War remains an electorally viable strategy because: (a) a majority of voters are persuaded by the implication; (b) it highlights wedge issues Labour needs to advance to narrow their defeat; (c) extensive polling shows that most ‘class war’ positions are deeply popular.

The author is, inevitably, that fucking unpleasant little arse, Sunny Hundal. Well, Sunny, here's a proposition for you...

Let's declare a race war.

Given the fact that immigration often tops the concern of ordinary British voters (such as in this February YouGov poll), it would be an excellent election strategy for Labour to adopt, wouldn't it? After all, Labour, the Tories and the LibDems all seem to be vying to have the most draconian immigration policies at present, so such a measure would surely be tacitly approved by the Big Three.

Surely it is time that Labour had the courage of their convictions and initiated a full-blown war on non-whites? Gordon got it started with "British jobs for British workers": now it is time to start defining who is, in fact, British—perhaps Nick Griffin could help out?

Do you think that you are sufficiently British to satisfy the knuckle-dragging morons of the BNP, Sunny? Are your "Sikh parents of Indian origin" sufficiently British, Sunny? Maybe, maybe not.

I would imagine hope that Sunny would be horrified at the idea of a race war: why, then, is he so happy to condone a class war?

It's because he is a Grade A hypocrite and a divisive little shit. After all, Sunny's career has basically been based on the fact that brown people like himself are different from the whites. This is why he runs publications like Asians In Media or websites like Pickled Politics and (the now defunct) Barfi Culture—fora that "deal with issues concerning the British Asian community".

Once again, we see how the Left prefers to label people by their differences—and why? So that human beings can be kept at each others' throats—through the generation of class envy, race hatred, religious differences. This is an old, old tactic which I call divide et impera—divide and rule—and I have written about it extensively.

It is better for people to be labelled, put into boxes and the differences between them emphasised—rather than uniting them in the realision that we are all human beings together—because that causes problems and tensions.

And then slimy political fucks like Hundal can rise up and present their solutions to the problems that they created in the first place. In short, people like Sunny want to pigeon-hole people and to create emnity between them because it allows cunts like Sunny to seize power.

Naturally Sunny doesn't want to cause a race war, because he and his might get hurt; besides, he has happily gained traction in that area and causing his power base trouble might decrease his power.

But encouraging a class war... Ah, well, Sunny will be on the side of The Righteous in that one. You see, Sunny Hundal isn't out to solve your problems: like every other Lefty political shitehawk, he is gunning for an increase in his personal power over everyone else.

And, believe me, Sunny Hundal doesn't care how many dead bodies he has to climb over to get it.

UPDATE: there are some eager class-warriors—specifically D-Notice on Twitter, SohoPolitico on Twitter, LeftOutside on Twitter and Left Outside on the original post—who seem to be a little confused about this argument. The issue can be summed up by SohoPolitico's Tweet.

I see @devilskitchen has taken the right's BS about class war to its logical conclusion. Old Etonians are apparently a race. FFS.

And can then be bulwarked by another of D-Notice's Tweets.

@devilskitchen Correct me if I'm wrong, but class isn't an hereditary trait, unlike race...

OK, let's try to explain why D-Notice and the others are wrong.

First, they seem to be defining "class" by which school you went to, which is nuts.

Second, is your class defined by the money that you earn—if it is, as someone on the median wage, I should be with the workers, right? But I went to Eton so I can't be with the workers: is that right?

OK. So, my class must be defined by my parents; Sunny's race is defined by his parents. I can no more help the income of my parents than Sunny can affect the race of his.

So, there is an equivalence: yes?

UPDATE 2: John B has a reasonable reply to my point.

How about a war on those who’ve acquired lots of money by good luck, rather than hard work or wise business decisions, and which consists solely of taking some of their money away and giving it to people who’ve ended up without much money by bad luck?

More generally: it’s possible to conceive of a strategy marketed as ‘class war’ that consisted of reviling people like DK and Nosemonkey (and, probably, me) for their accents. This would be a stupid and morally wrong strategy, on a par with one that reviled people on the basis of their religion.

Or, it’s possible to conceive of a strategy marketed as ‘class war’ that consisted of higher taxes on unearned income, lower taxes on low earners, refocusing government spending towards poor areas (e.g. by changing the way central council tax grants are distributed), etc. Or even of one that merely consisted of not lowering taxes on unearned income or high earners, while not cutting government spending on people who were poor.

This isn't something that I subscribe to, but at least John has attempted to define the terms.

UPDATE 2: here is a continuation of this conversation.

Total Politics Interview

A couple of days ago, your humble Devil did an email interview in his capacity as Libertarian Party leader, the first part of which is up at the Total Politics blog.

Do you hate all other British politicians?

"Hate" is a strong word but I certainly despise most of them as self-serving idiots who have – through laziness or malice – abdicated from their responsibilities. Not only have they given away successively more power to supranational organisations like the EU or the UN, Parliament has given away its power to hold the government, the executive, to account: far too many illiberal measures are pushed through using statutory instruments or mini-enabling acts built into legislation that MPs have simply nodded through.

MPs are the only 646 people in this country who can make law, and most of them are spending far too much time playing at being social workers in their constituencies or working out how much money they can scam from taxpayers' pockets this year. So, whilst "hate" is too strong a word, "contempt" most certainly is not.

As with my blogging, I wrote the answers (in sequence) as first drafts with revisions for grammar and syntax only. And, as is usual with my writing, I got increasingly prolix—this part is just the warm-up for the second bit...

UPDATE: the second part of the interview is now up at the Total Politics blog.

The vision of the Libertarian Party is a society with minimal state interference—where individuals can live their lives as they see fit. There are more than 60 million people in this country: each one with their own priorities and their own desires. They should be able to pursue those desires in whatever way suits them best, provided they adhere to the central tenet of Libertarianism—the non-aggression axiom. This can be summarised as: "You shall not initiate force or fraud against someone else's life, liberty or property." I have often argued that this should, in fact, be the only criminal law on the statute books: the courts can decide the exact interpretation in each individual case.

How far are we from that? A long, long way. We have a government that can pass laws without consulting Parliament, let alone the people; we have detention without trial, confiscation of property without a verdict of guilt and a surveillance state growing steadily more intrusive by the day. We have had 60 years of the Welfare State which has delivered what David Cameron calls "our broken society"; people look to the state to solve their problems, they don't wonder what they could do for themselves or for others.

But, ultimately, our model of "social democracy" is not only unsustainable from a moral point of view, but also from an economic one. Our government is spending a hundred, a hundred and fifty, two hundred billion pounds a year more than it brings in from tax: that cannot continue indefinitely. And yet even the Tories do not seem to have a clue how they might cut this appalling structural deficit.

Do feel free to wander over and read my words of wisdom...

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.

Political Apologies - A primer

(N.B. it's me, the PG)

Lots of people are commenting on the various apologies offered up by variously Rudd and Brown. (you can google your own—I'm lazy. And I'm not going to apologise for it)

The inestimable Mr Eugenides makes a very good fist of the arguments, but somehow I'm left feeling slightly unsatisfied:

Modern political apologies may often be pointless or self-interested, and this latest example would certainly appear to be both, however worthy the cause. But that doesn't mean that they are so by definition. The evil that men do lives after them, and there are times when we need to acknowledge that as a nation. In the absence of the possibility of apology from those responsible for the original "crime", I would say that the office of the Prime Minister is an appropriate vehicle through which to say, this was wrong, it should not have been done, and we are sorry.

That's true up until the last four words.

Given my solemn duty to educate and correct, I feel it is incumbent upon me to expand.
Here, therefore, is the Pedant-General's handy cut-out-and-keep guide for politicians wishing to apologise for something.

You simply cannot apologise—actually apologise—for something for which you were not responsible or accountable.
You just can't. I tend to think that political apologies are essentially attempts to grab cost-free boy points—it's a blatant attempt to look good—and are therefore almost always to be condemned.

An apology requires contrition and if there is no true contrition, then it's not an apology.
It may in fact make matters worse. If the apology appears insincere or simply for show, then it appears to be an attempt to weasel out. Not good.

Further, if you have—to take a purely hypothetical example—make a complete cock up of everything you've ever touched and brought a powerful nation to the very brink of bankruptcy and then steadfastly refuse to recognise your part in this disaster, then any apology you make on any other topic is going to be met with more than just a side-portion of scepticism. Remove the beam from thine own eye and all that. Especially if it's in your only good one.

On that note, if the "apology" intones anything along the lines of "I feel your pain", then it ALWAYS makes matters worse. Of course your political apologiser doesn't feel your pain. He may imagine that he does, but that's going to be a pale imitation of the real thing and it displays a risible lack of awareness to fail to appreciate this.

Besides, you end up thinking "Politician feeling pain? What a cracking idea!" and make a mental note to go and find your thumb-screws.

It's not real contrition unless there is a commitment to make good the error.
If someone has been treated manifestly unjustly and has suffered loss as a result, then an apology on its own is insufficient. It may in fact make matters worse—see above.

In order for a wrong to be put right, it has actually to be put right. Saying "Sorry" often appears to be cost-free in more than one way.

P-G Rule of thumb: Political apologies should be regarded by default as shameless attempts to look good and should be treated as devious and/or immoral unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary and such evidence needs to be in form of ACTIONS not words.

So what are you—assuming you are a Prime Minister—to do?

Well, you can recognise that something done by predecessors was wrong/immoral, spell out precisely why, recognise that you understand this and to make a commitment that you will

1. correct any harm to individuals as result of your predecessors actions


2. ensure that we are all able to remember that this bad thing happened and why it is a bad thing—and probably also why it occurred—in order that we do not make the same or similar mistakes in the future


3. use the good offices of your position to root out similar instances of injustice wherever they may be occurring outside your juridiction in whatever manner that may be possible.

You don't need to have a cry with the victims, but you do need to show grit, determination and an understanding of what happened and why. None of this requires the utterance of the word "sorry" and any such statement will be all the more powerful for its absence.

Just one thing though: there's a quid pro quo. All of the above refers to individuals and, implicitly, living individuals. So if you're thinking of extorting an apology from someone, here is a handy guide for you too. Never let it be said that your free-to-air Pedant-General is not comprehensive in coverage.

Groups have no rights, only individuals.
So don't go claiming that I need to stump up my hard earned cash just because someone a bit like you was hard done by.

Nail the people or organisations responsible
In that order: only go for the organisation if the relevant people are no longer around.

Further, just as it's generally distasteful for someone to apologise for something for which they were not responsible, it's a bit off to go around trying to extort concessions from people (or organisations) who weren't responsible.

Claims are timebound
Those bastard Normans stole my great-great-great-great..........grandparents' sheep. Aye right.

We can argue about where the time limit may lie, but that such a limit exists is not up for debate. I would argue (and I'm sure that I will be comprehensively eviscerated in the comments—for which I will need apologies for my hurt feelings, mark you) that the limit may be different in different cases:

• Actually expropriated physical property still exists and can be claimed for. You've got a good case, maybe for several generations.


• Physical harm really relates only to individuals so the claim passes to the other side with them, and possibly before that point.


• Hurt feelings: you can f*ck off now.

Enough already
In two forms.

Firstly and generally, shit happens. Get over it.

Secondly but more specifically, if shit has happened, but those responsible (or their heirs and successors) have already made extensive efforts to clear it up and there are considerable safeguards against it happening again, then you're not seeking an apology or restitution: you're seeking rent.

There. That's cleared the air.

An admission

You know how I said that politicos are starting to realise that the Welfare State is unsustainable...? Well, via my impecunious yet peripatetic Greek friend, it seems that Herman Van Rompuy, front-runner for the new job of EU President, has decided to confirm my assertion...

"New resources will be necessary for the financing of the welfare state. Green tax instruments are a possibility, but they are ambiguous: This type of tax will eventually be extinguished.

But the possibilities of financial levies at European level must be seriously examined and for the first time the large countries in the union are open to that."

This is, of course, only an admission that our model of social democracy is too expensive and that the fuckers want to soak us for yet more cash—the trouble is that they could tax us at 99% and still they would need more.

The Welfare State is unsustainable, socially destructive and incredibly wasteful: we need to find other solutions.

At last, some good news!

Is it just me, or is this absolutely fucking hilarious?

Labour’s cash-strapped party machine is quietly abandoning up to 60 vulnerable seats to divert resources to defend constituencies in its heartlands, according to MPs.

It is the first sign that some senior Labour figures accept that defeat is inevitable and are switching resources to defend seats with larger majorities to prevent a rout next year.

Plans for targeted mailshots in marginal seats have been scaled back dramatically because of a lack of resources. Some MPs say Labour’s HQ is refusing to help seats with majorities of less than 3,000 — about 60 — as it retrenches in the face of the Tory advance.

A member of the National Executive Committee denied that it had set a bar but acknowledged that the party was being forced to make “difficult decisions” about which seats to defend.

Aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! Ah haha hah ha. Ha.

Although it has fended off bankruptcy Labour’s national party remains in a precarious financial position.

In the past year the party has “raised” £18 million compared with the Conservatives’ £25 million. However, £2 million was a loan converted to a donation and £15 million is in borrowing and credit facilities.

Oh dear, oh dear: what a pity, how sad.

On a less amusing note, Labour's financial problems are indicative of how they have run the country—as Charlotte Gore pointed out a few days ago.

A pet theory of mine, as yet untested, is that the way parties run themselves internally is probably one of the best indicators we have about what a Government run by that party will be like. I base this on the idea that parties can run their parties however they like so, in effect, it exposes how they view authority, organisation, hierarchy, democracy etc. In addition we can see how they manage their communications, how they manage their own internal processes in drawing up policies, making announcements and finally—and crucially—we can see how they run their finances.

Is it reasonable to believe that an undemocratic, highly centralised, tightly disciplined party with strict processes and chains of command and rules about what people can and can’t say to whom would somehow then produce a decentralised, open, democratic government that values civil liberties? The very idea seems absurd, and in practice—in reality—Labour’s approach to Government appears to mirror their approach to their own internal organisation.

More relevant and important—can you believe that a party with a well documented “spend now, worry later—nothing must get in the way of winning” reckless, scorched earth attitude to funding election campaigns, landing them in serious debt would run the public finances with prudence, care and diligence?

Time has told on this one—Labour have run the public finances with the same ‘whatever it takes to win’ attitude, and has left our public finances mirroring their own.

Quite. And, like the country, Labour are not quite bankrupt—not yet. But you can bet that it is getting more and more expensive to service their debts.

Why would you trust the morally-bankrupt leader of a near financially-bankrupt party to run your country—and your life?

To coin an old phrase, would you buy a used car off Gordon Brown? No? Then why, in the name of all that's unholy, would you vote for the cunt?

P.S. It's worth noting (last I heard, anyway) that all of the Big Three parties are in considerable amounts of debt. The Tories and the LibDims aren't in quite the same position as Labour, but I wouldn't expect either of them to run the public finances particularly responsibly...