strange stuff

Another day, Another Database

2008-08-20T21:26:00.002Z

Labour loves databases, they know nothing about them or their limitations but they love them all the same. They cannot get enough of them. Whenever there is problem the solution always seems to be another giant IT project to get farmed out to Crapita with an enormous budget, which they then squander. The latest in this long line of money pyres is to store and track every communication of almost any sort all in one place, so that the single to noise ratio can be brought to as near zero as is practically possible.

There is nothing really new in this. Labour have had a love of snooping and big databases since they first came to power. All ISPs are already obliged to install monitoring equipment (at their own cost) to allow the state to monitor their users, under the RIPA 2000. An act that is already being regularly abused in order for councils to spy on people.

Then there is the NHS Data Spine to collect all of your medical records into one place. So that it cannot be accessed when needed due to the system being constantly overloaded. Possibly a good thing, if they have the same level of security as the single giant database used to misdirect medical training and destroy the careers of young doctors. Not being able to access it could well be the only security measure there is.

Or the soon to be delayed National Identity register to collect all of your personal details into one place. So that they can be lost, stolen, left by a roundabout because they just couldn't be bothered to take it somewhere safe, or otherwise handed over to identity thieves.

Plus, of course, the congestion charge tracking system to monitor your movements throughout London, illegally, which has been proposed to be rolled out so that the state can track everybody's movements where ever they are.

To get around this latest invasion of privacy you could try encrypting everything, piping it all out to a server in a less hostile country (the Unites States for example) via a VPN and using that as a proxy. Except that encryption has been effectively illegal for eight years now since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came into force. You have to provide encryption keys to the plod on demand or face a two year prison sentence, and like so much Labour legislation you are guilty of deliberately withholding them until you prove yourself innocent.

Bansturbating furiously but not even shooting blanks

2008-08-20T21:21:00.001Z

At the start of Labour's time in power they banned the law abiding from having guns. Criminals didn't pay any attention, gun crime rose. Now they plan to ban the law-abiding from having deactivated guns as well. The criminals won't pay any attention to this either, they prefer guns that can actually shoot.

There will be blood

2008-07-31T20:14:00.003Z

Mike Smithson of Political Betting thinks that should anybody actually stand up and fight Brown he will meekly stand aside. I think otherwise. I think that Gordon Brown is going to fight harder, and dirtier, than we thought he was capable of. Every time that he has chickened out has been over competing for the next stage in his career, it has never been about protecting the position that he already had. The simple fact that he was able to stay in the top job of chancellor for so long, despite repeatedly setting his attack dogs on his boss, shows that he knows how to keep what he has managed to get.

The fact that he hates electoral contests could simply show that he knows how bad he is with people, he knows that in a personality contest he will lose. To anybody. Or anything. Even if it smells so bad that you don't want to go within ten feet of it. Even if it is so repulsive that the very thought of touching its leprous skin would send shivers down your spine and to actually offer your hand to be shaken by one of its slimy appendages turns your stomach. Perhaps even if it was himself.

We should not underestimate Gordon Brown's intellect. He will know what he is like, you can see that by the insincere attempts to try and fake being likable that he has attempted. They may come across like a clanking automaton being forced to grind its way through actions that it was designed to perform, but it does show that he knows his own weaknesses. It would be hard for somebody of Gordon Brown's intelligence not to have figured them out after all the time that he has been made to spend in his own company, something that would give anybody phycological problems.

His history comes across as one of cowardice but I suspect that it is more like coldly calculated strategy, as human an emotion as cowardice would be as unnatural to Gordon as an unforced smile, he is minimising his risks based on his knowledge of his weaknesses in order to maximise the chance of reaching his goal. He has now reached his goal, the goal he has spent his entire life working towards, so standing aside will be a step backwards. He will know that he is smarter than any challenger. He will think that he is better than any challenger. He will believe he can win, but most of all he has absolutely nothing else other than politics. Becoming Prime Minister is his reason to exist, so this time he will fight.

UPDATE

YouGov (currently the most accurate based on elections) poll just in from the Telegraph and it shows

It shows that none of the Cabinet ministers who might seriously challenge him would improve Labour's standing with the electorate.

Should be enough to give the Labour MPs second thoughts about backing a Milliband insurgency. The numbers are:

The Tories are on 47 per cent and Labour is on 25 per cent, a 22-point lead that would give Mr Cameron a landslide victory at a general election.

...

With Mr Miliband as leader, Labour scores 24 per cent against 47 per cent for the Conservatives. Under Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, the figures are 24-45.

Were Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, to take over, Labour would fall to 17 per cent, in third place behind the Liberal Democrats on 18 per cent and the Conservatives on 50 per cent.

Nick Clegg's summer message

2008-07-29T22:14:00.003Z

The words are great:

"there are no safe Labour seats ...
"You will have heard lots about the Conservatives but there are huge parts of the country where they haven't got a hope ...
"There are places where only the Liberal Democrats can defeat Labour ...
"The latest in American campaign techniques" Obviously meaning the way that Obama and the democrats used the internet. This is a form of campaigning that they could really excel at.

The strategy that he is outlining is also great. It could well give him a real chance to be leader of the opposition by 2010.

However there where a few obvious problems. Such as the editing, the other was not using a tripod. Doesn't have to be big, or flashy, a £15 one from Jessops will do, even a £5 from eBay, but if you want to make a good video shaky-cam really doesn't cut it.

Don't panic ... unless you are Gordon Brown

2008-07-29T16:50:00.003Z

Mortgages have hit a record low. This is natural, it is simply the market correcting. There was a bubble, it burst, prices are therefore going to fall back to more realistic levels before the cycle starts up again. As prices fall people will take their property off the market restricting supply until supply and demand equalise. Wait a few years and people will start investing again. A few years after that the TV property programmes will once again be popular. A few years after that people will be screaming how this is a new paradigm and the boom is going to go on forever. At which point you sell. All this has happened before and all this will happen again, to quote Battlestar Gallactica. There is no need to panic. Well, that is unless you where stupid enough to take out a 125% mortgage with Northern Rock in which case panic is probably your only hope. The biggest holder of Northern Rock mortgages at the moment is the UK taxpayer thanks to the government, but unlike any rational person they do not only not want to get rid of this toxic garbage they, the government, are actually proposing schemes to lumber us, the taxpayers, with more of it.

it may be necessary for the government to guarantee new better quality mortgage backed securities, to re-stimulate demand for these securities.

That may be necessary, Sir James is expected to say later this morning, in view of the government's objectives of supporting financial stability and operating in the long-run interest of consumers and the economy.

Except that it isn't in the long run interests of the economy. The banks made the mistake of issuing these mortgages so the banks should suffer the consequences. The ones that made the biggest mistakes will suffer the worst consequences, the ones that made less will fair better. By preventing the banks form having to face up to the consequences of their actions they will not learn from them and so will just make the same mistakes again, and possibly on a bigger scale since this time they will know that it is taxpayers rather than themselves who will have to foot the bill should things go wrong.

It isn't needed either. The market is correcting itself but as always this is not a smooth process and will oscillate up and down as it searches for the correct level given the new circumstances. Currently there is a bit of a downward swing as the banks get back to competing for new customers, without any need for government intervention.

Lloyds TSB has trimmed its mortgage rates for the second time in 11 days in the latest sign that lenders are responding to a slight easing in wholesale borrowing costs.

...

Several UK mortgage lenders have trimmed mortgage rates this month in response to a decline in the cost of interest rate swaps, used by banks to price fixed-rate mortgages.

Lloyds's latest rate cuts follows a similar reduction by C&G on July 17, while lenders including HBOS, mutually-owned Nationwide, and Woolwich, the mortgage arm of Barclays, have all reduced their rates in the last two weeks.

The market will correct its own excesses and probably be growing again in a
couple of years time according to the National Housing Federation.

Average house prices in England are set to rise by 25% by, 2013 a National Housing Federation report claims.

However 2013 is not soon enough to save Labour form an electoral apocolipse. Hence their desire to lump tax payers with a bill that should be paid by those banks that made bad lending calls even if it will perminently distort the markets in favour of risky practices, but then what is long term damage to the country compared to short term political gain for the Labour Party?

Holed below the waterline in Glasgow East

2008-07-25T00:22:00.004Z

Labour have lost Glasgow East by 365 votes on a 42% turn out. This is a swing against Labour of about 20% matching the massive shift against Labour that have been seen in the opinion polls over the last few months. That this could happen in one of Labour's safest seats shows the perilous state that they have got themselves into. This means that Gordon Brown is nailed onto the Labour leadership until the next general election in 2010, nailed on in much the same what that Jesus of Nazareth was nailed on. It also means that next election is going to be an annihilation for Labour.

The current political situation reminds me a bit of the events that lead up to the sinking of the RMS Titanic. On sighting the iceberg strait ahead the officer in command's first instinct was to try and do everything he could to avoid it, but it might have actually been better had they not tried to avoid it at all. Sure they would have lost the bow and flooded the first compartment, but Titanic was designed to be able to survive losing up to four compartments. By trying to maneuver around the iceberg First Officer Murdoch instead scrapped along the side of it. Instead of losing one compartment in a head on collision they lost five with the hull punctured in repeatedly along the side. This meant the ship was going to sink.

This is not the Labour Party I am thinking about here, they have already had their keel ripped off and are sinking fast, it is the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg has spotted the massive swing to the conservatives in the opinion polls and losing a large number of seats in the south of England is looming up before him like the iceberg before First Officer Murdoch. He is trying to maneuver around it by going full reverse on their long standing policies of higher taxation for more services. This could be a mistake (I'm not the only one to think so).

Since New Labour mounted their raid into Conservative policy areas the Liberal Democrats have in many ways been to the left of both the other main political parties. They are now trying to get over to the right of the resurgent Tories on tax, the Tories home waters, from a position that was to the left of both main parties in order to save their seats in the south. I don't see how they are going to make it, especially since their small media profile means that they cannot reposition themselves half as easily as the other two parties. Even if they could reposition themselves in time they are not going to overcome the shear size of the Conservative revival. It might be better to use their current position the party to the left of the others and target Labour seats in the north instead of trying to hold onto the traditionally Conservative ones in the south. Glasgow East has shown that Labour can lose seats anywhere at the moment, but there are places they are not going to lose them to the Conservatives.

Maybe instead of being cynically opportunistic and trying to emulate one of their rival's successes, by becoming born again tax cutters, it would be better to be cynically opportunistic about exploiting their other rivals problems, by being resolute to the left leaning principles that they have been talking about for a long time. What they lose in the south they are going to lose anyway, but they could end up gaining even more up in the north by giving the more naturally left wing electorate a credibly left wing alternative to an increasingly hated Labour Party. 2010 offers an extremely good chance for the Liberal Democrats of actually overtaking Labour and becoming Her Majesties Loyal Opposition but it might take a big gamble and a lot of nerve to make the best of this chance. I hope they have it.

Gordon Brown's secret source of strength

2008-07-23T21:30:00.000Z

Friedrich Nietzsche's most famous, and most misquoted, aphorism is "From the Military School of Life - Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger." Nietzsche was probably being sarcastic, his first bout of military service ended when he injured himself while mounting a horse. His second left him with dysentery and diphtheria, from which he never really recovered his full health, plus the syphilis that would eventually kill him.

For Gordon Brown on the other hand the aphorism could turn out to be more literally true. The by-election in Glasgow East should be a walk in the park. It should be absolutely locked down for Labour, especially since half the population are part of Labour's welfare dependent client state. However things are looking rather different, it could even be that Labour will lose what is not just one of their safest seats but one of the safest seats of any party in the whole of the UK. Which is why Gordon Borwn's position as Labour leader and Prime minister is safe.

Why is he safe? Simple because should he be toppled there will be an election, and even with the inevitable bounce that all new party leaders get Labour will lose a lot of seats and probably end up in opposition. Would any sensible aspirant leader of the Labour party want to be in the hot seat when that happens? To go down in history as the shortest serving and least successful Prime Minister ever? No, far better for Gordon Brown to carry the can and then try to pick up the pieces afterwards. Nor are the back benchers going to mount a coupe either. As it stands all of them will have a fight on their hands to retain their seats, a very large number of them will lose this fight and find themselves out of the only job that they have any experience of, just as a recession starts to bite. Far better to wait out the bad years gorging on the over generous expenses of a Member of Parliament and spend the next two years preparing for the inevitable. The worse things get the more likely that should an election come early their acces

Labour Knifed

2008-07-14T17:10:00.002Z

I'm not exactly sure which is worse. They way that our Prime Minister is desparately hurling himself at every passing populist bandwagon, being rejected because they don't want him on it, and then doing a U-turn and pretending to have never wanted to get on the bandwagon in the first place. Or that this is the kind of authoritarian crap that Labour's record shows is what they really believe in.

Stir up the fires, burn the authoritarians

2008-07-13T17:33:00.002Z

Oh god, more authoritartian bullshit. The teenagers of Redruth, hardly a known crime capital, have been placed under indefinite house arrest without trial. What is worse this policy is popular. The state took away parents power to control their children so the parents now want the state to control their children for them. As DK says:

So, nine out of ten parents admit that they have no control over their own children and would like to dragoon the state into bringing in blanket and arbitrary curfews backed by the force of the law instead.

You know what, parents? Fuck you.

House arrest for teenagers in not the answer to knife crime. Whoever it was decided that collective punishment was the way forward please go fuck yourself, up the arse, with this.

Teenagers are not the source of knife crime, there have been teenagers since the dawn of the human race. They have been going outside in the evenings since the dawn of the human race. They have had knives since the dawn of the human race, before the dawn of the human race actually, but the dramatic rise in crime rates that we are worried about have only been going on since the end of World War 2. 50 years ago there where a lot more youths with knives walking about, but very very few of them using them to kill each other.

Source

Perhaps you don't think that that shows an accurate picture? The definition of what is and what is not a crime does change all the time so you would have point. Literally thousands of things that where not crimes before now are, for example there has been one new crime a day since Labour came to power in 1997. So perhaps homicide rates would be better? There are fewer data, but the trend is identical.

So we are looking for something that had an impact on everybody in the country, but that affected the poor a lot more than the rich. something that happened just after World War 2 (the Home Office paper I linked to above dates it as 1954). Something big enough to change the very foundations of society.

Some people would say it was the end of conscription, and they would be wrong. Large scale conscription has been used precisely twice in british history. Once during WW1, once during WW2. If it was not having conscription was the cause of the criminal problems of today then you would expect similarly high crime rates before WW1 when there was no, and never had been any, conscription. Or at least a spike starting in the 1920s after the WW1 conscription had ended but there wasn't any.

Some people would argue that it was the end of the death penalty, and they would be wrong as well. The removal of the death penalty will certainly have changed the risk/reward balance of violence, but the death penalty for murder was suspended in 1965 and an effect cannot proceed a cause.

Maybe a good place to start looking would be this piece by Chris Dillow his idea is that it is based around social and economic conditions.

Put yourself in the shoes of a young inner-city (black?) lad. Unlike those from more fortunate circumstances, he does not see how it’s possible to succeed by co-operating with others and playing by the rules, simply because he does not see people who have done so. His law-abiding neighbours are poor. Chances are, the only rich men he sees are gangsters.

So, from an early age he learns that the only scant chance of success he has consists not in co-operating but in preying upon others, breaking the rules. Success, then, is a zero-sum game; “it’s a jungle out there” has long been a cliché because it’s true. At best, he carries a knife to protect himself; at worst, to kill others.

But what is the reason for these economic and social conditions? What changed the way that the poor live just after world war 2 so dramatically? It was not some sudden rise in inequality. Inequality was far higher during the Edwardian era when crime was at its lowest. It was not actual poverty, this has been reducing for centuries at an accelerating pace. Why did even the very poor see life as a positive sum game before world war 2 and then as a zero sum game after?

Before world war 2 many people would have been able to directly see the benefits of mutual co-operation because they would have been members of Credit Unions and Friendly Societies and other forms of benefit societies. Often operating in the pubs of the communities that they served most people would be a member of one and for a small amount paid every month they would get insurance should anything bad happen to them. A direct and very tangible demonstration of the good that can come from mutual co-operation.

There are a few left, such as the Exeter Friendly Society but most have now been wiped out. None exist in their original form. Why? Because they were destroyed by the monopoly power of something just after created just after World War 2, the Welfare State.

Inequality to fall

2008-07-09T16:41:00.001Z

We are about to see a major reduction in inequality. After years of half hearted redistribution finally something that will actually produce a major reduction in inequality. Inequality always tends to reduce in a recession. This reduction in inequality is about as much the result of Gordon Brown deliberate plan as the previous years of growth were, none, but he has managed to make sure that there will be a much greater reduction by making sure that the recession will be much deeper than it need be.

Had he been following a prudent economic strategy, or even the classic Keynesian strategy, he would have stored up some economic reserves during the good times to be released now in order to reduce the impact of the recession. However he deliberately did not. He spent like a drunken sailor in port so there is nothing there to spend now. Not only did he spend everything he had he maxed out the credit cards as well, he cannot even borrow to try reduce the impact of the recession. In fact since government spending is going to have to rise due to the recession and there is no money to pay for it he is going to have to force even more taxes on us which is sure to deepen the recession.

Surely Polly and the Guardian should be shouting from the rooftops. Here is the economic genius that they promised us for so long. Here is Gordon's grand plan for reducing inequality finally coming to fruition. Why wouldn't left wing commentators be jumping for joy at this? For years we have been told that inequality is the worst thing to exist in our society, that people are literally dieing from their jealousy, and finally we are about to see an actual reduction in inequality.

They won't though. For the simple reason that going to the voters during a recession will turn an electoral defeat into a rout. People crowing about how the recession is actually a good thing and they should be grateful for such a skilful reduction in inequality would turn a rout into an annihilation. Inequality is not even close to the top of most peoples lists of priorities. Being able to afford the however bills is.

The fact that they almost never talk about inequality directly, always mixing it up the very different concept of poverty, speaks volumes. People don't really care about inequality that much. They don't care that much whether somebody else gets more money than they do, unlike certain parts of the left wing media people aren't primarily driven by jealousy, they care far about themselves and how they are going to pay their bills. Demanding other people hand over their money to you is a rational, if not moral, strategy; but not if you end up have to make sacrifices yourself as well.

(global) illiteracy

2008-07-04T08:29:00.003Z

So a charity that promotes global learning is complaining that school children are 'globally illiterate', and do not understand global issues so of course something-must-be-done by the government (probably involving handing over large slabs of cash to charities that promote global learning). It gets top billing in the BBC's education section and a 'Have your say'.

Personally I would be more worried about the number that are functionally illiterate. Perhaps if they where actually taught to read then they could find out for themselves about current affairs, rather than having this time spent being brain washed about whatever the trendy cause-de-jour is.

Gordon's, not chilled

2008-07-03T21:03:00.000Z

Its often said that Gordon Brown devours books, that he can get through a weighty tome
in a matter of days. Perhaps he should try reading a little of the Confucian or Taoist philosophies of ruling, particularly the concept of Wu Wei

Wu Wei has also been translated as "creative quietude," or the art of letting-be. ...
One way of envisioning wu wei is through Laozi's writings on how a ruler should govern their kingdom. The advice that was given is that it is similar to frying a small fish (too much poking and the meal is ruined). In other words, create general policies and direction, but do not micromanage. To do this well, you must understand the ways of your people and not go against the grain.

Can there be a better description of what Gordon Brown, and Labour in general, is not?

What Labour is, is a government that has been legislating at an unprecedented rate to put more rules onto the statute books more quickly than anybody before them, in order to 'send messages'. Most of which are unenforceable, and unenforced, crap which only sends the message that the law is now nothing more than a new and complicated form of press release rather than something to be obeyed. Micromanaging public services with targets set from the centre. Which simply distort what people do so that it is about reaching these targets and generating reams of statistics rather than actually doing their jobs. Micromanaging social interactions and licences to hug, which only speed up rather than slow down the erosion of the evolved social customs that bind people together for the benefit of everybody (the rituals in Confucian terms).

Labour's legislative reign has been anything but effortless doing, it has been a frenetic decade of showing how active they are while achieving nothing or worth. Their famous 'narrative' has turned out to be more like what was warned of by the greatest Western poet rather than the Chinese master.

a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Grade inflation? Fuck off

2008-06-30T16:41:00.000Z

The examination system in the UK is good for one thing, and that is not producing rigorous exams of a consistent level. It is good for showing that privatisation is not a cure-all. Most of the time privatisation is a very good thing. The new private entities have to compete with each other for their customers, rather than from an existence scrounging off state hand outs, and so will compete hard to give their customers exactly what they want. The important thing in a privatisation is to make sure that you get the correct customers for the privatised entities to compete for. In the case of exam system they got it wrong.

The exam boards want as many schools as possible to use their services, that is how they make their money. The schools want their pupils to get good exam results, this looks good on the league tables and is good for performance related pay. Therefore the schools naturally select which exam board that is likely to produce the results that they, the schools, want. The exam boards are therefore competing with each other as to who can produce the exams which are easiest to get good marks in.

However it is only the schools which want exams which it is easy for as many people to get as good marks as possible. Everybody else wants exams which can be used to show how much has been learned in various subjects, and exams that can be used to compare individuals to see who is better. Not very PC refusing all prizes and showing up differences, but then reality isn't PC. So you end up with examples like this:

One pupil, who wrote "f*** off" on an examination paper, was given two points for spelling it correctly, and conveying a meaning.

It was marked by Peter Buckroyd, a chief examiner for the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) examination board.

He told The Times newspaper: "It would be wicked to give it zero, because it does show some very basic skills we are looking for - like conveying some meaning and some spelling.

To change this you need to change the incentives. Instead of a system which is controlled by the schools, who will therefore use it to make themselves look good, you need a system controlled by everybody else that has to take the results of what the schools produce, so the incentive is to actually test what has been learned in the schools to find out how easy it will then be to teach the former pupils whatever it is they need to learn next.

Maybe if universities and employers started to differentiate between the different exam boards that would do something, but I doubt that it would be enough. After all it would only very indirectly affect the exam boards income stream, their main thing would still be to get as many schools as possible who's incentive would still be to get exams as easy as possible despite whatever reputation the board in question had. With the vast majority of schools paid for through taxation any questions that the parents might have about them using a known dodgy exam board would be ignored. The schools are going to get paid whether the parents send them their or not, and given their government sanctioned monopoly status in most areas the parents wouldn't have any choice to go elsewhere anyway even if that mattered.

This is assuming that there would be noticeable differences between suppliers anyway. This part is a competitive market after all. The product is identical, a GCSE is a GCSE. The cost is not money, since most schools are tax funded it is not their money anyway they could just demand more if need be, the cost for the consumers (the schools) is measured in how much work they have to do teaching. They only way that the exam boards can differentiate themselves is to lower this cost as much as possible by making them easier and easier. They will all therefore be driven to make things simple by the same amount and so converge on the optimum, low, value.

A better solution would be to kill this monopoly system entirely. Force schools to compete for pupils and let all of the competing qualifications compete to see which the employers and universities decide best fulfils their needs, which are not the same as the schools. Maybe it will be the same exams but with standards more rigorously enforced, perhaps the IB, or maybe it will be the exam system that some of the universities have been experimenting with, it could even be something completely new.

Whatever it is, it will be those that make judgement based on the results that will be most important, rather than the schools. Should any of these start the same slide as the current GCSEs and A-Levels the universities will not accept them and parents, who want the best start for their children, will move; choking off the school's, and therefore the exam board's, revenue stream.

some thoughts on a possible future

2008-06-26T21:52:00.004Z

Under first past the post everything tends to crystalise around two parties, with the rest squeezed out to the margins. You end up with two dominant political powers that each cover large swaths of political territory, there may be a few barbarians mounting raids from the wilderness beyond their borders but basically it is only the other major power that the main players have to worry about.

Under First Past the Post the political territory in the centre is vital, all the parties try to get as far across it and into each others territory as possible while not being cut off from their lumbering baggage trains.

In 1992 Tony Blair mounted a daring expedition from Labour's heartlands to capture as much enemy territory as he could. Confronted by a worn out and divided enemy his raid was as successful as it was audacious. He managed to capture vast swaths of formerly Tory territory sweeping all before him like an all conquering Caesar.

I like Caesar Blair was eventually stabbed in the back by those that he had once thought his closest allies, but unlike Caesar the band that he was leading was not safe in their own territory at the time. They where still deep in the enemies native territory and desperately trying to find ways to hold their position.

Labour is now under Blair's rather less able former adjutant have found themselves, un-supplied, surrounded, and cut off from their reserves. Their mercenary allies have deserted, taking most of the Labour treasury with them and the re-envigorated adversary is massing against them. Their enemy under a young Arminius has been rallying the tribes so that now from horizon to horizon is nothing but a sea of howling, blue painted, faces. The 2010 election could well prove to be Labour's Teutoburg Forest.

A tale of overreach, with hubris leading to nemesis. Labour are going to be pushed back into their own political heartland for a decade to regroup and then the cycle will repeat itself. Or maybe not.

Sitting on the strategically vital the centre of the political battlefield is a ragged band, the shattered remnants of the once proud political empire of the Liberal Party. The fact that they have managed to retain this important, if small, patch of territory when Labour swept across their former dominion is one of the reasons that they weren't swept away to become another of the minor political tribes on the fringes of the current two great power blocs. Though it has been a close run thing at times.

Labour is polling worse than at any point since scientific polling began. The only time that they have ever polled this badly before was during the 1982 general election, an election where the Liberals came very close to knocking them into third place in terms of votes cast. Today their is only 5% between them, and the Liberal's position always improves as election time grows closer and people remember that they exist. Labour have no such luxury, they cannot count on any swing to the government since that has not happened for a very long time. The polls are bad, but worse is the fact that the pollsters always overstate the support for Labour. Worse Labour have 2 more years under Gordon Brown, and a coming recession to deal. That 5% could easily shrink to nothing.

As I mentioned earlier under a First Past the Post voting system there is only space for two major parties, the rest get squeezed out. This is the reason why the Lib-Dems always include those bar charts with their literature that claim they are either in first or second place, but never third. If people believe that they can win they will vote for them, but if they don't then these votes get placed elsewhere for tactical reasons. Should the Lib-Dems ever start out polling labour then this effect will suddenly go nation wide and it will be Labour, not the Lib-Dems having to deal with the third party squeeze as people vote tactically.

Labour's natural home, unlike the Lib-Dems with their roots in the old Liberal Party, is not in the centre. It is on the 'Left' and that is where they will retreat to just as the Tories retreated back to their home territory under Hague to try and consolidate their core vote, but the Tories never had to worry about any other force coming in and positioning themselves between that last redoubt and the stratigically vital centre ground. Labour does. If they lose to badly in 2010 they could find their path back into the political centre blocked by a resurgent Liberal Democrat Party, and from that point on, unless the Liberal Democrats make a massive mistake, they are going to get squeezed further and further 'left' until they are nothing more than a powerful union lobby group fighting it out with the other fringe tribes.

There is a possibility, abet a small one, that 2010 could see the rebirth of Liberalism in the UK and the final eclipse of socialism in this country. Gordon Brown would gain a place in the history books, that like all politicians he craves, but unfortunately as the man that lead a once powerful political force into the wilderness.

UPDATE

The Labour presence in Henley just got so decimated that they are not only amongst the tribes on the fringes of the political landscape, they are behind the Barbarians.

Churchill Asserts A Unified Europe Can Bar Tyranny

2008-06-25T18:00:00.002Z

A long and hilarious argument has sprung up between Dirty European Socialist and the rest of the world on the Devil's blog. DES does not seem to understand that misspelling everything while calling everybody 'NAZI peado creeps' is not a good way of making people take your points seriously. Not that he/she/it has many. Anyway as part of the argument Dirty points to three articles to try and show that Winston Churchill was in actual fact all in favour of the EU. The first one was behind the New York Times pay wall so in the interests of discussion I'm going to transcribe the text here.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C14F73B59157A93C1A81783D85F4D8485F9

Churchill Asserts A Unified Europe Can Bar Tyranny

Gets Ovation from 30,000 in Strasbourg as He Expresses Confidence in the Future

GAINS ASSEMBY VICTORY

Time Limit on Agenda Items Removed to Let German Admission Be Raised

The text of Mr. Churchill's address is printed on Page 3.

By Lansing Warren, Special to the New York Times.

Strasbourge, France, Aug 12 - Speaking in French here on a balcony above the Place Kleber tonight, Winston Churchill drew an ovation from a crowd of 30,000 when he said it was possible to organize Western Europe to resist the threat of tyranny.
Mr. Churchill, who is here participating in the first sessions of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, was addressing a meeting organized by the European movement, which he helped found.

"It is not against any race or nation that we range ourselves," he said. "It is against tyranny in all its forms ancient and modern, new or old, that we stand upright and unflinching. Tyranny is always the same, whatever slogans it offers, whatever name it calls itself, whatever liveries it wears."

Discusses Dangers Ahead

Mr. Churchill's French, though tinged at times by a British accent, was very good. After speaking of a long religious, dynastic and nationalistic wars that Europe had experienced, he asked:

"Are we to sink, after all our victories and sufferings, into final chaos through ideological wars thrust upon us by barbarous and wicked oligarchies whose fifth-column agents are infiltrating into many lands?"

"I feel sure," he answered to his own question, "that we have it in our power, if it is also our will, to come through the perils which still confront us. * * * In all this we are moving with the support of the mighty republic across the Atlantic and of the powerful self-governing states and members of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations."
In conclusion Mr. Churchill stated:

"Our dangers are great, but so is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not achieve the aim and design of united Europe, whose moral conceptions will win the respect and gratitude of mankind and whose physical strength will be such that none will dare molest her tranquil sway."

Mr. Churchill spoke from a flag-draped window above the square.

Other speakers at the rally were Paul Reynaud, war Premier of France; Hendrik Brugmans, Netherlands statesman; Stefano Jacini, Italian Senator just selected one of the vice presidents of the Council of Europe; Ole Kraft of Denmark, another vice president, and Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium, permanent president of the Consultative Assembly.

All spoke with fervor in the belief that if the Council of Europe obtained wide popular support it might lead the Western countries to salvation. All felt that Strasbourg was the predestined centre from which a European union could be made to spring. They called for help and for popular faith in their endeavors.

M. Reynaud mad a plea or practical examination of Europe's problems, saying there must first be a decision on her type of future economy and then a political accord.

Lord Layton, British Liberal publisher, who was chosen yesterday as one of the vice presidents, stressed this need. He said the European Marshall Plan Council was in difficulties because there was no political accord.

"Political consolidation," he said, "must precede real integration unless each is quite certain that those with whom he is associated will be on his side in time of trouble. There must be a political basis for this organization."

Assembly Agenda Remains Open.

At today's session of the Consultative Assembly Mr. Churchill won another victory when he obtained removal of the limit imposed on introducing new items to the agenda.

He thus kept open the possibility of asking for admission of Germany to the Council of Europe provided that Sunday's election and the beginnings of the new German State appear to be propitious. Mr Churchill told the Assembly that he was undecided whether this should be done and asked for "reasonable latitude before we are compelled to put any proposals on paper."
"There is a question of Germany, a grave matter," he said, "and obviously the life of united Europe depends upon our association in some for or other with Germany."

He added that it would not be wise for the Assembly to take a decision while the German elections were going on and for this reason he pressed for an extension of the three-day limit placed upon requests for new items on the Assembly's agenda.
A Compromise was engineered by M. Spaak who obtained from the Rules Committee of the Assembly the mission of negotiating with the Foreign Ministers Committee.

Although the Ministers will leave here Sunday for their capitals, they have agreed to receive from M. Spaak any new proposals from the Assembly and deliver their replies within five days. Mr. Churchill will therefore have time to deliberate before he asks for the admission of Western Germany.

Some observers thought Mr. Churchill's remarks might influence the German election.

Addressing the meeting in the Place Kleber, M. Reynaud gave the French answer to Mr Churchill's proposal when he said France was ready to cooperate with Germany, but that in the view of all that had happened in the past she would wish to have decided proof that Germany would be sincere before she was invited.

The Assembly today received thirteen suggestions for the agenda from its members in addition to three submitted to it by Ministers. Some of these overlap and a small committee was appointed to re-draft them in a more compact form so that the Assembly could decide in successive vots tomorrow what items would receive the necessary two-thirds vote to obtain submission to the Ministers Committee. The Ministers by a two-thirds vote in their turn have the right to accept or reject these proposals.

The chief items are one for a study of changes in Europe's political structure to pave the way for unity and another is the proposed accord for a human rights agreement that Ministers rejected.
Mr. Churchill today sharply insisted hat, although he thought that military topics should be barred from the Assembly, he saw no reason why all the other matters should not be discussed, and he was particularly severe in his criticism of the two-thirds rule.

M. Spaak adroitly steered the Assembly towards agreement today, with the prospect that the Ministers will have the Assembly's proposals complete by tomorrow night and will thus be able to disband on Sunday, leaving the Assembly to a three-week session.

NHS spending

2008-06-22T19:09:00.003Z

When talking about the bloated wealth consuming sector there is one argument that always comes up. It is that you cannot possibly reduce the massive amounts spent on the various public 'services' because that would mean that you would be throwing out doctors/nurses/teachers etc. and nobody would stand for that unless they spend their days on horseback hunting fairies before returning to their palace to dine on roast baby. There is, in that world view, absolutely nobody else employed in the public sector except the sainted front line staff. The reality is slightly different.

between 1997 and 2007, the number of NHS managers increased by 64 per cent, as against increases of 43 per cent for doctors and 25 per cent for nurses.

To me that looks like there is room for a cut there which will have no effect on the front line what so ever. The number of managers by 64%, at least.

Chatham House on the (dead) Lisbon Treaty

2008-06-21T11:27:00.004Z

A good article on the contempt for democracy shown by the EU in still pursuing the Lisbon Treaty despite the only people allowed a referendum on it (because there was no way they could not due to the Irish constitution) voting 'No', and how this could be increasing the contempt for the EU in all of its member states. It concludes that:

In the end, the most intelligent response to the Irish 'no' vote is the same as the honourable response. The death of the Treaty must be acknowledged. But more than this, it should provide the occasion for a thoroughgoing reassessment of how and why Europe got into this mess. At all costs, this must not be a re-run of the 'period of reflection' that was announced following the rejection of the constitution by the French and the Dutch when, having 'reflected', the EU decided to ignore it.

Which is exactly what will happen.

Petition time

2008-06-17T22:37:00.002Z

Another worthy petition for the government to ignore, this one by Dr Richard North and Neil O'Brien asking the government to show a little respect for democracy and stop the ratification process of the ~~EU Constituition~~ Lisbon Treaty because of the Irish rejection. They won't, of course, but that is no reason not to ask them too.

Sign it here: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

Magna Carta remembered

2008-06-15T20:45:00.003Z

Today is the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215. Most of the rights that it contained had been repealed by the 19th century, such as "No one shall be taken or imprisoned on account of the appeal of a woman concerning the death of another than her husband." However there were a few still extant, and those that had managed to last this long were the most important ones, the ones that laid the foundations of our liberty. Such as the government itself being subject to the law. The government having to govern with the consent of the governed (though only those that counted, the aristocracy, in the case of the original document). That people had the right to defend themselves and their property and what has come to be known as Habeas Corpus, mainly from the following clauses.

38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.

Habeas Corpus was enshrined in its own act of parliament in 1679, which meant that people could net be detained without charge for more than 24 hours. With the exception of during extreme circumstances when internment has been used: such as the World Wars. During the IRA Border Campaign of 1956 to 1951 (when they where treated as political prisoners) by Basil Brooke of the Ulster Unionist Party. Or when Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner of the Ulster Unionist Party, instigated internment in Northern Ireland as the IRAs campaign began to approach a full scale revolt. Or in 2001 when Tony Blair of the Labour party decided to intern 14 foreign nationals suspected of links to various Islamist terrorist groups that could not be deported. They where shifted to permeant house arrest without trial three years later, and are still being held.

You can still only be held for 24 hours on non-terrorist related matters, but if you have been arrested on something related to terrorism (which covers a lot) then you can be held for longer. First this was extended to 2 days, with the possibility of the Home Secretary authorising a further 5 days, a state of affairs rightly described as draconian by the drafters but one that remained in place until 2000. Since then it has just grown and grown.

Here is a graph of how the number of day that you can be held without charge for terrorist offenses has changed since Oswald Mosley was released in 1943 (yes, 1943 two years before the end of the war) including the latest proposed extension to 42 days.

The irish killed the treaty, but it will still be back

2008-06-13T21:13:00.002Z

So the Irish have killed off the resurrected EU Constitution, I hope somebody remembered to stick a stake in its heart this time. Unfortunately I think not. Undoubtedly the ratification process will continue, with the EU slowly limping along towards its goal of ever closer union and eating the brains of anybody that gets into its clutches like a zombie from Dawn of the Dead.

Taking Liberties

2008-06-06T22:38:00.000Z

The Longrider is currently pointing to a very good article by John Major about how we are loosing are Civil Liberties in the name of security, security from a threat that is mostly hyperbole. He should know about real terrorist threats, he was Prime Minister when the IRA mortared Downing St. whilst he and his cabinet was in there. His predecessor was almost killed when the IRA destroyed the hotel she and most of her colleagues where in for the annual party conference. The conservatives are always painted as the ne plus ultra of evil, yet when you actually look at their record they are amateurs compared to the current government. Labour have been remorseless in taking liberties in the name of security, but what security have we really got for this? Nothing, just security theatre.

Stupid security theatre has reached the point were wearing a t-shirt depicting a cartoon character and you will be stopped from boarding your aeroplane, or a computer that isn't big and ugly, but carrying live ammunition onto a plane is just fine. Pure security theatre, just like the way that Labour wants to yet again increase the amount of time that people can be held without charge. This time it is to 42 days, as part of a show of strength to shore up Gordon Brown's precarious position, from their last increase of 28 days, which was an increase that they also created from 14 days, which itself increased the 7 day limit (also a product of the Labour administration). Every increase in the amount of time people can be detained without charge has been the product of a Labour administration.

When Labour came to power in 1997 the maximum time people could be held without charge was 2 days, with the possibility of the home secretary authorising an extra 5 days. Today it is 28 days, with the possibility of an extra 30 days authorised by any minister deciding that it is a national emergency. Or alternatively today you could also be placed under house arrest forever without the chance of ever challenging the evidence against you. Though as a slight compensation for having your life, and that of your family, ruined you would get major street cred for being in the same position as Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi. Giving its enemies the same status as these iconic freedom fighters wouldn't have been the effect that Labour was after, but then house arrest itself was only rushed in as a compromise after Labour imposed internment for the first time ever on the mainland during peacetime and this was found to be against our obligations under the ECHR.

So how much special legislation was passed after Prime Minister Thatcher was nearly killed by the IRA in 1984? None; but all it takes is the most ridiculous and impossible movie plot threat to get Labour throwing more legislation onto the statute books.

The conservatives did limit the right to silence when they where in power. However Labour have not reversed, they made it even worse. The Conservatives let juries in a trial (not that Labour likes people coming before a jury when they can just be locked up anyway) take inferences from a persons silence. Labour made it a crime not to go to the police and actively inform should you believe that any of Labour's extremely broad anti-terrorist legislation be about to be infringed.

The conservatives banned knifes. Labour banned guns. Neither ban made the slightest difference to the kind of criminals that would actually use them, but both did erode of the right to self defense.

The right to silence is one of the ways that people are protected from incriminating themselves. I the United States it is a Constitutionally protected right, it is not protected under the British Constitution but neither was it anything that the Conservatives sought to damage. Labour on the other hand did with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which makes it a criminal offense not to hand over encryption keys if they are demanded by the police, and it is up to you prove your innocence. Under the RIP Act you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Not that Labour likes its minions having to prove peoples guilt before punishing them. You can get much better statistics with a lower, or reversed, burden of proof. The RIP Act which reverses the burden of proof. Then there are ASBOs which allow gossip to be admitted as evidence. The Proceeds of Crime Act where not only does the state seek to extract unlimited fines on the balance of probability from people that it cannot prove have commiteed any crime, it makes sure that they cannot properly defend themselves by not letting them pay for a defense and not allowing them legal aid. Or the people that have had all of their assets confiscated based on mere accusation

The conservatives did infringe the freedom of association by outlawing a group, the INLA (this was the full extent of the Conservative response to the INLA assassination of the Conservative shadow minister, and personal friend of Thatcher, Airey Neave). On the other hand Labour have outlawed 46 organisations bringing the total up to 62. Thanks to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 it is now also enough for a police officer to simply state that a person is part of a proscribed organisation rather than them having to admit to it.

Labour have been better than the Conservatives in the area of human rights for gay people; equalising the age of consent, giving recognition of the long term relationships of gays and lesbians have though civil partnerships, and getting rid of Section 28.

Personally I'm gay and grew up in the late 80s to early 90s. Section 28 didn't make the slightest bit of difference to me at all. Do you know anybody that was ever prosecuted under it? I don't, and I would not expect anybody else to either. This is because there was only one single prosecution ever brought by a christianist group against Glasgow City Council, and that case failed. Section 28 was symbolic but in practical terms it was not a big deal.

I do however know somebody that was prosecuted under Labour's child porn laws for being given an erotic photo by an 18 year old of himself, because that 18 year old looked like they were 18. That is somebody over the age of consent gave an erotic photo to somebody else who is over the age of consent and because they looked like they where over the age of consent by only a couple of years that is classified a child porn. The stupidity of this law means that while two young adults can do whatever they like together in bed if they what to take some happy snaps of the event they could wind up in jail. My acquaintance didn't, but is now thinking of emigrating to France since it still fucked his life up.

These laws are about to get even worse if Labour gets its way, which given their majority they probably will, as they intend to extend these laws to drawings and CGI as well as images that actually involved real people. So an image of a young adult that looks only a couple of years over the age of consent, even if it is a pure fantasy based on nothing more than the artists thoughts with all the realism of a Tom of Finland(NSFW) sketch (but without the talent), becomes illegal. They claim that this is in case the drawings or CGI was somehow based on real people at some point in its creation, even though this is already covered in the 2008 legislation so the only thing that is going to get banned are pure fantasy images. Labour intends to literally criminalise thought.

Like Section 28 these bits of stupid gesture legislation are just to show the mouth breathing authoritarian elements of their core vote that they are repressed prudes as well. However unlike Section 28 these laws will actually be used and will cause actual harm. Both to the people that get caught up as victims of Labour's gesture, and anybody that gets hurt by people that could have simply worked out their frustrations with porn because porn is a substitute for, not a compliment to, sexual violence.

The conservatives never imposed ID Cards and the National Identity Register, or any of the other databases that make up the database state and track us from cradle to grave. Labour did.

The Conservatives never colluded to have people tortured. labour did.

It was economics that hit Mrs Thatcher's g-spot. Imagine perhaps a single boney finger slowly circling a cracked and shriveled nipple while she watched the old industries finally exposed to the economic winds of change. She freed the economy from the shackles of the state and the results where so obviously better that Labour had to abandon the idea of the state controlling industry in order to become electable.

They might have had the chance of economic control taken away but that did not change the Labour parties need for control so they reacted by trying to worm their way into peoples lives in other ways. Image perhaps a set of fingers, with nails gnawed to the quick, reaching around the rolling layers of overhanging gut to fondle at a small stub of a penis while he channel surfs the CCTV cameras.

Where the conservatives good for freedom? Yes overall, because the massive return of economic freedom that they brought. Where they good for Civil Liberties? No, they did limit many of them. Where the Conservatives worse than Labour? No, not even close.

2008-06-06T20:29:00.002Z

An interesting argument against the Welfare State by Chris Dillow

This suggests money might buy happiness because of what it represents - that we have worked hard and saved hard - rather than because of what it buys.

So if you want to increase happiness you should not be handing people money. You should not be setting up the marginal tax rates to make work unattractive, you should be doing everything to get a job because even if the cash result is the same the dignity of work would lead to a greater net happiness.

liberty and security

2008-06-06T20:12:00.002Z

It can be argued that security and liberty is a trade off, you can only get better security at the expense of liberty. That at one extreme when society is in a state of chaos you have perfect liberty, but no security, and at the other in a police state you have perfect security, but no liberty.

Personally I think that this isn't necessarily always the case. There are two reason for this.

1. The government is incompetent. If you ask them to do anything then they will do it in such a way that does not necessarily work, so long as it favours the internal empire building of the bureaucrats that run it.

2. Good security, as apposed to the security theatre that the government seems to prefer, is invisible. It protects you, but otherwise gets out of your way to let you do whatever it is you want to do (so long as this does not harm others).

Here are a few suggestions that could increase security without doing too much damage to liberty.

1. Let people know that they do have the right to self defense, that if they are attacked and have to defend themselves the the law will be on their side, so that more people are willing to try and defend themselves. This is good for liberty because self defense is a fundamental right, and it is good for security because it tilts the risk/reward balance of an assault meaning that there would be less of them.

2. Replace CCTV with uniformed police patrols. CCTV cameras cannot chase and catch a criminal, their quality often isn't even good enough to be used at a trial when somebody else have done the leg work. Police on the other hand can chase and catch thugs, and their evidence is always useful in court. So if there is a chance that there is a policeman just around the corner then there is a much higher risk for any would be assailant. If there is a CCTV camera around the corner then there is no risk what so ever, since it cannot get up and walk around that corner to see you. So uniformed police would be better for security, but they would also be better for liberty by reducing the database state and the way that peoples movements can be catalogued and tracked.

3. Take Habeas Corpus seriously. By reducing the amount of time between arrest and them getting their day in court mean that its deterrent effects do not get eaten away by people discounting future pain compared to present gain. This would be good for security because it shifts the risk reward balance and good for civil liberties because it reduces the state's ability to detain the innocent. I am not talking just about pre-charge detention either (though a return to the pre-1974 period of 1 day would be a good thing, returning to the pre-2000 2 days would welcome) but also sorting out the abomination of the remand system. The fact that somebody can spend so long on remand that even if they are found guilty they are immediately released is a sick joke. It means that guilty or innocent the state is going to punish you just the same amount, and that is simply wrong.

Knife Crime

2008-06-05T22:32:00.006Z

Knife crime is making the news again and something must be done. It does not matter if that something stands a hope of actually working, the government just has to be seen to do something. The obvious solution to this most authoritarian of governments is more pointless bans, this time by saying that they are going to prosecute anybody found to be carrying a knife. It won't work but to show why have a look at these three knives. Carrying any of them in public today would be illegal but 50+ years ago, when the crime rate was considerably lower than it is today, they would all have been carried without anybody batting an eyelid.

This first is a simple pen knife, of the type that the modern swiss army knife and other multi-tools evolved out of. It has a blade, for the multitude of times when you need to cut things, a Marlin Spike, for unpicking knots and making splices, and a tin opener, the purpose of which is obvious. It was a very common tool with all sorts of uses and just about everybody would have one.

Now imagine a dozen teenage boys walking down the street towards you. They are all dressed the same, and they all have one of these:

The only danger you are in is of them trying to find a way of helping you so as to do their good deed for the day. This scary looking sheath knife is a 50 year old Boy Scout knife, everybody would have had a pen knife but only a smaller number would have had the privilege of owning one of these.

The final blade is this one.

It is rather hard to call this a mere knife since it is nearly two feet long. The teenage youth that carried it, who would have been possibly as young as fourteen, would have know exactly how to use it in a fight. They would have been ready and willing to attack and possibly kill if the need arouse. However unless you where an enemy of their King you where perfectly safe and would be unlikely to find a more disciplined, courteous and respectful young man; since this is a Midshipman's Dirk and would have been owned by an officer of the Royal Navy.

Something has changed in our society that has lead to the murders and assaults that we hear about so often, and it is not a sudden increase in the amount of potential weaponry about. If anything knifes are much less common than they used to be, it is just that it has become much more common to us they to try and hurt people. Part of the reason why can actually be seen in the design of the Midshipman's Dirk. This is a stabbing weapon, it has an edge but like many European swords it is designed to make its point with its point. Notice anything about the point? Here is a close up to give you a better idea.

The tip is rounded rather than coming to a sharp point, rather a strange feature for a stabbing weapon. The reason for this is the naval tradition that no knife has a pointed tip. The reason behind this tradition is because no seaman would carry one with a pointed tip since the risk should they accidentally stab somebody was simply too high. On board a crowded ship there is nowhere to hide and so an absolute certainty that they would be caught. When they where caught the punishment was harsh as well. This wouldn't simply be a flogging, itself potentially fatal, should their victim die the perpetrator would be tied to the body of the victim and then thrown overboard the now bloating body acting as a temporary life raft so that they would see their ship sailing away leaving them all alone in the vast expanse of ocean. The punishment was rightly feared to the point that they where willing to do almost anything, including reducing the utility of their tools, to avoid it.

Today things are a little different. If you assault somebody most likely you will not be caught. If you are caught, because you carried out your assault right in front of a police officer, you will have nothing more than a wrist slap. A far greater risk than in the past. It is also the commonly held view that if you defend yourself it will be you, who has just been assaulted, that will end up in serious trouble while your assailant walks away. So many victims are less likely to try and defend themselves, again reducing the risk for the assailant. As the risks decrease it will become less than the potential rewards of unprovoked violence for an increasing number of people, so you will get more.

With the state unwilling to fulfill its duty to protect its citizens the natural, and correct, response of the citizens is to try and defend themselves. This is why there has been an increase in the number of knifes taken into schools. They are not there as tools, as in the past, but as protection by those not cowed by the fear that they would have the law after them should they need to defend themselves. Trying to use the blunt instrument of the law against people carrying knifes will make no difference unless they tackle the root of the problem. Which is the growing feeling that if somebody actually uses a knife against you, rather than just carry it, or a bottle, or their boots, or their fists then the state will look the other way and try to ignore it because it is easier and safer to go after the generally peaceful such as motorists.

This form of privatisation won't work

2008-06-04T21:16:00.004Z

Labour is planning to privatise the NHS. Iain Dale thinks that this is great as from a partisan point of view it is Labour burning one of their trump cards. They will no longer be able to try and create scary stories about the tories seeking to privatise the NHS and replace it with an American system since they already did. I think that this is crap, because it will not work.

There is nothing special about private sector managers. Simply replacing one set of managers with a different set will not make a bit of difference. The problem is not the management, the problem is the system. The system will still be the top down centralised unresponsive monster of old. It will continue to fail for exactly the same reasons it always has no matter who is in charge. The private sector is better than the public not because it has some magic managers pixie dust sprinkled over it but because it is a competitive market and the inefficiency gets weeded out in a darwinian process as the firms that do not give their customers what they want loose their customers and eventually go bankrupt. That is what keeps the private sector sharp, being made up of firms that are generally much smaller and closer to their customers with the constant fear of where the next pound is coming from. The NHS has none of that and therefore will never offer the responsiveness of a private sector company, because it does not need to, no matter who is in charge.

If they where finally serious about actually reforming the NHS rather than fiddling with the edges and spraying more money on it then they would be looking at the bits that actually work, the GP practices for example, and seeing how they could make the rest of it more like them. Rather than looking at the GP practices and seeing how they can be made more like the rest of the failing edifice with their Polly Clinics scheme.