Goodbye to 2004...

and hello to 2005! Happy New Year to all my readers.

More cuts required

The Conservatives proposal to cut the number of MPs at Westminster is excellent. I have argued before that this would be the single most effective way of increasing the prestige and power of individual MPs vis-a-vis the government, something the last 25 years have shown is sorely lacking in the British system.

The proposals do not go far enough. Congress gets by with about 535 members -- the UK Parliament has well over 1000, despite a population only 1/5th as large. The Conservatives should announce that they will cut the number of MPs to 300, and limit the size of the ministerial payroll to 60.

Is this sarcasm?

"I have nothing against the Duchess of York. I just have zero interest in what she has to say. "

Says Stephen Pollard, in a 160 word [correction: 398! words] post on what the Duchess of York has to say on snobbery.

Peter Hitchens is angry

Though my gym gives away the Daily Mail, and so I get to read it once a day, I only have the pleasure of its sibling the Mail on Sunday when I stay at my parents.

The pleasure of course is in reading Peter Hitchens. Hitchens, the author of the excellent 'Abolition of Britain', is not a happy camper. Though I disagree with much of what he says unlike most people on the Right he is at least consistent in his scorn (with one huge exception). Here are some of his targets from today's column:

Capitalists: Men of greed who see no reason why factories, call-centres, offices and supermarkets should not work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, loathe the limits the Church sets on work...dislike the married family which proper Christianity insists upon

The British: ...quit like anything. We quit Calais in 1558, the US in 1783, Spain 1809, Iraq in 1932, Indian in 1947 and Palestine in 1948.

Our role in Iraq: Pathetic, doomed role as America's deputy...disaster

Elections in Afghanistan and (potentially) Iraq: Yes there will be an 'election, yes there will be 'votes'. Similar pantomines took place in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld: I have always been faintly disgusted by Donald Rumsfeld...Those who have defended ths person must ask themselves what sort of company they are keeping.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Happy Christmas!

Here's yours truly in Heidelberg, dressed as Father Christmas to put you off your turkey.

Is there a heterosexual Mafia running Britain?

Matthew Parris is a worried man.

But it has to be asked: should heterosexuals be permitted to occupy important or sensitive posts in our country? I’m as tolerant of diversity as the next man and would never condone the persecution of anyone solely on account of his or her sexuality, so this is not a moral judgment but a practical one.

Simple observation suggests — and the last couple of months of newspaper headlines demonstrate — that heterosexuals in public life do seem to find difficulty in maintaining lasting relationships with a single partner. This is a matter for sympathy rather than censure, but can instability at the very core of their lives, in their relationships, be without effect on the stability of their professional judgments?

ADORE HIM

Craig Brown's Way of the World column yesterday was generally funny, and I recomment you read it. This bit particularly made me laugh though, in "Thirteen Irritating Things People Do at Christmas":

3) Make a show of singing louder on the third "O come let us adore him".

A Christmas letter

Dear All,

So it's that time of year again. Looking back on 2004, what a 12 months it's been! Simon's been very busy at work - the Guardian job is the usual slog but it's his role as Spectator wine critic that has been the most trying. The endless lunches, lasting for hours on end mean I hardly ever get to see him. All that alcohol takes its toll too -- when he finally comes home he tends to be rather flushed and over-excited. Anyway jobs are always make more bearable by your colleagues, and he's told me that there's a very nice American woman in charge.

Did I mention the cat that can open the fridge?

Yours

Mrs Hoggart

Note: Simon Hoggart strenously denies the story , and as he gives the impression of being the nicest man in the world, I'm inclined to believe him.
[Actually it appears the story is true. I'm disappointed -- Rod Liddle, Boris Johnson, David Blunkett -- fair enough. But SImon Hoggart. Oh dear]

Ps. All links via Nick Barlow whose permalinks appear to have disappeared. [Again another mistake - the title of the story is the permalink]

And the BNP too!

In response to my suggestion that the British people do wish to interact with foreigners, 'Dave', in the comments at Truth Unvarnished, says it's me who led the BNP to their stunning 0.8% at the last election. Feel the power of the blog.

Its guys like Matthew that are driving people into the arms of the BNP.
No matter how much we protest about immigration people like him in all 3 of the main political parties will always claim average/normal "Englishmen" dont really care about the issue. Leaving people forced to consider the BNP simply to get the message across.
Dave

Dave is not a racist.

What have I done?

The Times reports that the Tories have discovered two 'tribes' of voters who are going to win them the next election. One set are based in former mining and dock towns blah blah.

The other are the

twenty-something members of the cool urban elite that marketers call “Urban Intelligence” and nicknamed Ben and Chloe

Furthermore:

Dr Fox is encouraged by the fact that Urban Intelligence have been the biggest growth group of those joining the party since Michael Howard took over, bringing the average age of new members down to 41. “They’re a very interesting group, economically conservative but socially liberal,” he said. “We know they’re more concerned about crime but less about Europe, and they worry about education rather than asylum and immigration.”

Now, I wouldn't, particularly in light of the fact that people who know me read this, like to describe myself as a member of the 'cool urban elite'. Let's stick to 'urban'. But what you and I know as a 'cool elite' clearly is not quite the same as what the Conservative Party does, and reading the description of these new Chloes and Bens:

Live: Inner areas of London
Who: No children, aged 25-34, lived in house for one yaer, graduate
Household income: £50,000 a year or more
Type of property: Privately rented
Holiday: Weekend mini-breaks booked on internet
Media: Internet

It does rather describe yours truly. Which leads to the rather worrying conclusion that I might have ruined the Conservative Party's election strategy.

Now it's true I joined before Michael Howard took over. But my third membership card and welcome letter arrived after he took over.

So Liam, listen carefully. Don't be too encouraged! The Bens and Chloes were just a blog joke. As for the former coal-miners called Lee...I'd do some blogsearching. In the meantime stick to canvassing the fox hunters!

Defending Geoff Hoon

Backword Dave supports Annabelle Ewing's attack on the 'backstabbing coward' Geoff Hoon, over the plan to merge six Scottish regiments.

Now we all know it's great fun having a go at Geoff Hoon, and indeed he has one of those faces that makes it feel even more fun than normal. But his plans actually have a lot of merit. In any other nationalised industry having 15% of your staff based in Scotland would seem like ridiculous overmanning, particularly when you are finding it hard to recruit. There's a lot of misplaced sentimentality -- the Telegraph speaks of 'famous' regiments, of which I, and three people of varying ages I've asked, couldn't name a single one with the exception of the Black Watch, for obvious reasons.

Outside of Scotland the reforms appear designed to make a more efficient and effective Army. The Telegraph, in some excellent reporting, skewers many of the criticism, particularly on the impact of scrapping the 'arms plot' will have on recruitment (it is likely to improve it). Military bands are being cut from 30 to 24, which seems rather modest. Can't the private sector perform this function better?

Mobiles Matrix

Via PopBitch I find this amusing pyramid ...sorry matrix...scheme to get cheap mobile phones or Ipods...

Basically you buy something for at least £20 and you get placed on a list. Each time someone buys something you move up the list. When you get to the top you get sent a free mobile phone or Ipod (your choice).

According to the website, 'Once a certain amount of new users sign up (normally between 13-34) the person at the top of the list receives their mobile phone'. They argue it is not a pyramid scheme because you are under no obligation to refer other people.

This seems to be a legal nicety. The reason pyramid schemes are pyramid scheme is because at each stage you need a bigger and bigger number of entrants to keep the thing going, and entrants who believe they'll be a bigger and bigger number following them. This applies to this scheme. The company says it takes 'normally between 13-34' people to sign up to get a free phone/mp3 (it depends on the value of the product). Thus when one person was on the list, it only took 13 to 34 people to join for him/her to get his/her free product. The 14th person on the list required 14*13 or 182 people, or possibly 14*34 or nearly 500 people, that 500th person might require 15,000, and the 15,000th 500,000, and I wouldn't fancy my chances at this point.

Does it matter given you are entered for free? Well not, but... For £20 you get a CD of 'ringtones and images'; which is probably available elsewhere cheaper than $20. For £35, you get a 'bluetooth dongle. The first search for this in google returns one for £17.

So essentially you are paying £18 for the priviledge of entering the matrix. Is it worth it? That would depend on the probability of you getting your product. Clearly the first person to sign up has done well.

As an example let's take the ipod mini. Sixteen people joined on the 16/04/2004, and of those 14/15 have been sent their ipods (one is 'being dispatched'). So we know not enough people have signed up to send it to the 16th person.

304 people have signed up, so if we divide 304/15 we get 20 people needed to be signed up to get an Ipod mini (i.e. 320 would be needed for the 16th person to get his).

So if we joined now, at 305, we would need an additional 6100 people to join before we'd get our Ipod mini. A bit of a gamble, particularly because the (say) 5000th person would have to believe 100,000 people will sign up to get his, and for that the 100,000th person would have to believe 20m people, etc...

ps Of course rationally no-one should ever join a pyramid scheme. The 20 millionth person shouldn't join, because he'll never get his money back. The 2 millionth shouldn't join because the 20 millionth won't, and hence the 200,000th shouldn't join because the 2 millionth won't, etc, etc. It doesn't quite work like this.

ID cards now Blunkett has departed

Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, has said there is no going back on ID cards despite David Blunkett's resignation. This is unsurprising given (much like the Tory party) the leader is in favour.

Nevertheless I have a suggestion of a way to improve the scheme whilst keeping British civil liberties intact.

Only criminals and terrorists should be made to carry them.

All of the proposed benefits in stopping terrorism and catching criminals would be preserved without any of the costs. Actually I forgot 'benefit cheats'. So let's revise that - Only criminals and terrorists and benefit cheats should be made to carry them.

Naturally the difficulty would be in spotting such people before they committed a crime, or terrorist attack, or cheated the system. The Metropolitan Police used to have a simple method of doing this, but it was found to be somewhat inaccurate and has fallen rather out of favour in recent years.

Another method would be to directly ask everyone. This may seem ludicrous, but it is after all the method used by the US immigration service, particularly with respect to Nazis.

Further suggestions welcome.

Janet Daley doesn't say much at all

Wednesday on this blog is Janet Daley day, and today's column is a rather lacklustre affair on ID cards and the Conservatives.

The headline, 'Howard has not sold birthright', gives you a flavour as does this sentence:

Well, sorry, but I'm not one of those stabbing the air, shouting "J'accuse".

In short her argument is that Britons are terribly lax on identity, not having (presumably she means until recently) photos on driving licences etc, and how in America everyone carries ID, so that's alright then. It's also popular with the public, and so that makes it doubly good.

As I said tame stuff for the Daleyster with nothing as absurd to match the democracy coming to an end in Europe, or Kensington and Chelsea turning into 1980s New York of recent memory.

Uncertainty

Daniel Davies links to a good speech by Mervyn King about uncertainty, and the need to be more open about what is known and what is not known. It ends with this rather good quote:

As Bertrand Russell said, “The whole problem of the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"

The speech mentions the case of the a woman who saw both her two children die. The Jury were told that the chance of this happening was 1 in 73 million, which essentially is 1 in 8 million and a bit squared, where 1 in 8 million is the chance of one cot death happening.

It is said this was taken to be mean that the chance of the woman being innocent (forget other possibilities other than murder) were 1 in 73 million.

There were two clear problems. First it assumed that the events were independent, which they probably weren't. But second, to quote King,

“it illustrates vividly that the interpretation of ex post outcomes depends critically on understanding the ex ante process which generated those outturns.”

The diet Standard

People in London who happen to be out and about at lunchtime, and who pass a tube station (or use the tube) now have a new newspaper to entertain them, called Standard Lite.

Basically it appears to be the Evening Standard with most of the news removed, except for the front page which looks very much like the classic Standard/Daily Mail lead.

To be honest I don't really see the point. It doesn't have a letters page, which everybody knows is the main reason to purchase an Associated News newspaper.

ID cards on us

So over the issue of ID cards I was right - the Tories are go!

Foreign readers might find this confusing. Many British political discussion appears to give the impression the Conservatives are a libertarian party and I suppose Michael Howard has striven to look like this, talking of a 'bonfire of red tape' and (as Nick Barlow reminds us) his famous comment that a Man Cannot Give Birth to a Pebble...whoops wrong Tory....er that

I believe The People should be Big. That The State should be Small.

I can square this particular circle. Here is an average Conservative voter (I've have hidden his identity) stood next to an ID card. As you can see the People are Big, and the State (as represented by the ID card) is indeed small.


















So generally there were two reasons for the Conservatives to oppose this measure. One is that it is profoundly anti-libertarian and the party does have some libertarian impulses. However Michael Howard does not, and he was never going to go down this route. Second was what David Davis was arguing the other week: that it is going to cost a lot of money and is unlikely to achive anything. Given many Tories still look fondly back to the Poll Tax this was never going to be a killer argument, but in any case by the time the Tories are back in office the introductory costs, which presumably will be the majority of the costs (at least in present value terms) will have been spent. Sunk. Etc.

Moments in history you wish you'd witnessed

From the same book as the photograph below we learn of the Duke's tour of the Union of South Africa, and in particularly his momentous visit to Jagersfontein.

The Duke's tour of the Union was enlivened by many unrehearsed incidents. At Jagersfontein, for instance, the Duke, having received the town's address of welcome, instead of returning to his car made a detour by a side street, where he encountered a traffic barrier. As seen in this picture [to come], he vaulted this, followed by the crowd, who appreciated to the full the spontaneous and unaffected nature of the Duke's attitude.

Strangely the town's website fails to mark this historic occasion, though I suspect it remains the highlight of the lives of any of the folk who were lucky enough to have been there.

Informality Magdalen College style

For those who can't read the caption it tells us how the Prince of Wales, or 'Pragger-Wagger' is seen in the picture (click here for v.large version (3MB):

at the college in the atmosphere of complete informality which marked his entire period as an undergraduate

So a word of warning. If Chris Brooke invites you to a party and says it's 'nothing formal' dig out your walking stick and suit.


































Ps This is from book I bought on Saturday called 'The Duke of Windsor: His Life and Times', written in the 1950s (and Copyright S.952.R, Odhams) but of the 1920s. After 109 pages of slobbering servility it gets to the Abdication, where it tells us that Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, could be 'depended to approach the problem sincerely'. Of the Duke's meeting with Hitler it merely records that 'the Duke had always been interested in the improvement of relations between Britain and Germany, and with the Duchess made a short visit to Germany in the October of 1937. On the left he is seen holding an animated conversation in Berlin with Dr Goebbels, then Propaganda Minister. The picture below shows the first meeting between Adolf Hitler and the Duchess'.

Latest thinking of the pro-war left

With little else to report on I thought I'd remind my readers where the Starters of the pro-war left are headed.

Here Stephen Pollard advocates the invasion of Spain byAmerican (and presumably British) troops merely because the government did not invite US troops to a parade.

Civil War Update

Regular readers will remember the concern I expressed about plans by supporters of foxhunting to launch a civil war in Britain. It appears that there is to be a civil war, but luckily it's going to remain inside the Countryside Alliance.

Defending one's home II

The Sunday Telegraph, which has adopted the Tony Martin law with gusto, has an editorial which is somewhat confused.

It complains that the current guidelines, which allow for 'reasonable force' are too subjective and indeed it is 'decided by a government bureaucrat considering at leisure and in the safety of his own office'.

This is true as far as the CPS go (and -- shock -- Melanie Phillips makes the good point that it is rather rum of the Police Chief to complain when it is his officers who often show the worse lapses of judgement) but it not of course true of any trial, in which a Jury makes the decisions (a point forgotten in the Tony Martin case).

Anyway so it's the ambiguity of the law that the Telegraph doesn't like. It doesn't even like the proposed new law, saying it prefers the law in Oklahoma, which allows:

"Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against the occupant of the dwelling."

The Telegraph says,

"The wording of that law dispels all ambiguity about what a home-owner is permitted to do when confronted by an illegal intruder."

But of course it doesn't. The law says 'when the occupant has a reasonable belief'. This, you may note, is the same word 'reasonable' as in the current law (though obviously in a different context).

So still ambiguity, coupled now with a law that could see any number of people shot dead who weren't planning on burglary. Does that happen in Oklahoma? I have no idea. But note this -- Oklahoma's population density is under 50 per square mile. England's is around 900.

Finally, Patrick Mercer says on the same pages that this will reduce the number of burglaries. Perhaps. But it's worth recalling that burglaries are down by about 50% from the peak in 1995, the same time period as concern has grown over 'political correctness gone mad'. So it doesn't seem to be much of a factor in burglars' actions. Furthermore where will it end. Allowing shopkeepers to shoot dead people who shoplift would almost certainly reduce shoplifting - but at what cost?

Update: I also worry that the Telegraph's campaign will put householders at risk. By spreading misinformation that it is illegal to defend yourself, they will a) make people less prepared to defend themselves, and b) make burglars believe there is less chance of being attacked. A double whammy.

Pensions

Phillip Coggan in the FT looks at how Britain can deal with its pensions problems (registration required).

It's typically gloomy stuff. The falling numbers of workers per retiree means that regardless of our pension arrangements (funded v non-funded, state v private) something has to give. One suggestion, that Britons can save abroad, and thus have a claim on the fast-growing incomes of the Chinese (or whowever) is given short-shrift. Not only has it been found difficult to convert fast growth into decent investment returns, but the allocation would have to be so large to make a difference that it's unlikely many people would be willing to do it.

The only solution seems to be to work longer.

Tony Martin Laws

A Conservative party is again trying to change the law on what householders may or may not do to burglars.

Last time backbench MP Tony Gale drafted a law that would have allowed the householder to kill anyone he thought might be about to commit a crime -- with no repercussion. I pointed out here you could kill your own grandmother if you thought she was about to steal an apple from one of your trees.

Predictably that attempt failed. So they're back, this time the Shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has drafted a law that says you can use anything except 'grossly disproportionate' force -- in other words you can use disproportionate force.

The Economist points out the lunacy of these plans. The current law, which allows you to use 'reasonable force' has only seen two people imprisoned for attacks on burglars [in recent memory - see comments -- there are others]. One of course was wannabe Tory MP, Tony Martin, who repeatedly shot a burglar in the back as he was escaping. The second was Barry-Lee Hastings, who stabbed a man 12 times in the back, and kept stabbing as he had left the house. Householders have killed burglars and not been prosecuted.

In other words the law works, and works well. The Economist notes that Michael Howard is doing this for other reasons - his lack of success in the opinion polls. He described the current law as 'typical of the topsy-turvy, politically correct world in which we live'; something the Economist correctly calls the 'tut-tutting of a pub bore'.

Tories are meant to support laws that work, and change ones that don't. And leaders.

How the internet will save the NHS

Janet Daley argues in The Telegraph that the internet, and cheap flights to the US, have killed off the old criticism of 'Rip Off Britain', and that this means 'choice' could work wonders in the NHS.

It's a seductive argument. And to some extent true. But there are some problems.

First, the assumption that the internet has ended 'Rip Off Britain' is hard to sustain. Prices of certain goods have fallen sharply in the last ten years but often for reasons that have little to do with the internet. Computer prices were falling before the internet had left the laboratory. Clothes have fallen in price due to Chinese production, not internet shopping. Food prices are more to do with supermarket pricing power. Similarly with people flying to America.

Second, that there ever was a 'Rip Off Britain' is also not clear. Often newspapers appear unable to distinguish between short-term and unsustainable moves in exchange rates and shops ripping people off. Prices of many goods were always cheaper in Britain (look at PPP comparisons).

Indeed looking at measures of inflation, there seems no evidence that British prices have fallen relative to other countries (or the US). One could argue the statistics fail to measure technological change properly, but that's true of other countries'.

More importantly, third, even if it were true it's not clear what it has to do with the NHS. The reason, despite falls in goods prices, that inflation indices have continued to rise, is the rapidly rising costs of private services, such as lawyers, accountants, haircuts, hotels. These surely have more in common with, and impart more lessons for, the NHS than the price of a Dell PC? Much of these can't be provided (at least with current technology) on the internet, and those that can, such as hotel rooms, appear to be unaffected.

Conservative Party Policy

I realised the other day that on two issues that have been much in the press, ID cards and banning smoking in pubs, I have no idea what the Conservative Party's policy is, and perhaps more importantly given electoral realities whether or not they'll scrap the laws when they come to power.

Both issues raise libertarian concerns, though my assumption would be that the Conservative Party would be for the former, as Michael Howard once tried to introduce them himself (and what few libertarians -- of any sort -- there are in the Conservative Party would be outweighed by the hang 'em and flog 'em set), and against the latter, as there are some libertarians left, and they have always been on the side of the brewers.

Perusing the website it is hard to say on the former. David Davis says:

There may be an argument for an ID card, but it has to be done very carefully to deliver the outcome we want in a cost-effective manner

But he appears to accept Blunkett's arguments, just not his strategy for implementation:

If the Home Secretary carries on like this, we will end up with a scheme that is both fatally flawed and so far in the future as to be irrelevant to the problems of today. Benefit fraud is happening now, illegal immigration is happening now, and the terrorist threat is here today.

In other words they're hedging their bets, though with much (sensible) criticised much of the planning and likely implementation. Nevertheless it appears the issue is one of cost, and so presumably once it has been introduced, with much of the fixed costs incurred, they won't scrap them.

On smoking Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley had this to say:

Does he not realise that in the time taken to implement legislation, the industry could and would deliver a voluntary code, removing smoking from up to 80% of pub space? I am confident that we could additionally expect them to achieve a smoke-free environment wherever children have access.

Which again is certainly an arguable case, though I get the impression a smoking ban won't be reversed either.

Euro woes

Back from Germany I am more convinced than ever that the UK should stay out of the euro - it has caused rampant inflation.

I was last in that part of the country in December 2001, just before the introduction of the notes and coins, when a weissbier cost about two pounds. This weekend the same beer was around two pounds fifty, an increase of 25% in only four years!. Friends reported that they found a similar increases in the sterling prices of other goods and services.

And this at time when the euro has fallen against the pound from 1.65 to 1.44!

Rule Britannia! Vote Ukip!

Off on hols

I'm off on a short holiday to the land of fast cars, beer and sausages, so no posts until Wednesday.

Iraq

Interesting article in the NYRB about the American press and Iraq.

Our Royal Family

I was reading a relatively interesting but rather out-of-date book on the Monarchy, "Tarnished Crown", by Anthony Holden.

In the chapter on the Abdication crisis he makes the interesting point that there are no hard and fast rules about the succession to the Throne, particularly when there is an Abdication requiring legislation. In that case it is up to Parliament to decide the new King.

It appears back in 1936 many in Parliament considered King's brother, Albert, not really up to the job, and his other brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was said to be even worse. Much opinion therefore favoured George, Duke of Kent, who it appears (unbeknown at the time) was a cocaine addict, and much more besides.

British 20th century history would have been far more interesting, I think we can safely say.

Galloway wins libel case

Mr Justice Eady said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway in respect of the publications and the aggravated features of the defendants' subsequent conduct, and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".

The judge added, "I do not think those purposes would be achieved by any award less than £150,000."

More bizarre Janet Daley

The terrible murder of a man in Chelsea yesterday has attracted more than it's fair share of uninformed press coverage.

Leading the pack, of course, is Janet Daley, who I was horrified to learn lives in the same part of London as myself. Daley's argument is that London, or more accurately Kensington and Chelsea, is the new New York, or 'Murderous London is like old New York' as the title of her article puts it.

She notes that in the 1980s in New York, "property values, even in this fabulously prosperous city, were in free-fall" then the usual blah-blah about 'broken windows' and zero-tolerance policing. She ends with the stirring, 'New York residents have been freed from fear...when is it our turn'

Is that the situation in Kensington and Chelsea today?

Well frankly, no. Quote the Halifax, "In the UK property is most expensive in Kensington and Chelsea, central London, where it averages 734,756 pounds".

In fact Daley is clearly knows nothing about the history of crime in Notting Hill. In 1987 it was classified by the Metropolitan Police as one of the three worse crime areas, with parts an (unofficial) 'no-go area'. All Saints Road was notorious for drug-dealing. It kind of reminds of you 1980s New York.

Subsquently things are rather different now. House prices have risen 27 times (times, not percent) since 1980. All Saints Road is full of poncy restaurants. Crime is markedly lower.

I'd sooner buy a used car off Arthur Daley than take seriously a column by Janet Daley.

More suffering in Iraq

according to a British medical charity. Of course we'll probably here that Iraqis are lying about their injuries, or that doctor-reporting is not a valid way of finding out about them. Indeed surely we've had heard about this already by now if it was really happening?

Another day, another hate-fest

I mistook the above title on a Harry's Place post for a description of Melanie Phillip's site, not a quote from it (see comments).

Embarassing, but I think it's an easy mistake to make.

To quote just those posts on the home page:

"Lazy BBC journalism? Sloppy? Malicious? Bigoted?"

"Our Foreign Secretary progresses from supine to sick"

"Thus the French barter the lives of some of their citizens for many others; thus they display gross cynicism and absence of principle, decency or indeed a sense of self-preservation; thus they once again show that in the fight against terror, they are on absolutely the wrong side."

But what really beats them all is this, about those who believe in global warming as a threat:

"Both [it and a belief there is no global threat from global terrorism] are surely rooted in the same mindset-- fear and loathing of the west, and a desire to destroy it rather than defend it."

With, at the end, the weasly words, "Of course, this does not apply to all who take these positions."

In fact perhaps it isn't malice or hate, but merely a complete lack of scientific understand. See her attacks on the Lancet study.

Police states

The story of the treatment of Nicky Samengo-Turner at the hands of the Metropolitan police is on the cover of the Spectator, and a shorter version the comments pages of today's Sunday Telegraph.

For those who can't click on a link, Samengo-Turner consented to having his car searched by the police who were training other policeman. Whilst searching they found an illegal weapon (he disputes that it is illegal), arrested, put in the cells, generally harassed for a bit, charged with carrying an offensive weapon, before his lawyer arrived and he was bailed. The case continues.

We should note that we haven't yet heard the Met Police's side of the story, and they seem confident that he was carrying an illegal weapon. Nevertheless you hear a lot about young men in London being "stopped and searched", most of whom aren't carrying illegal weapons, and I am pleased that the S.Telegraph and the Spectator, traditionally pretty authoritarian newspapers, are finally giving it the attention it deserves.

Given this, it would be as well that next time Michael Howard, who has pledged to stop the Police having to keep a record of people that they stop, makes a speech about 'political correctness gone mad', he remembers that potential Tory voters get stopped and searched too. Oh and of course David Blunkett should resign.

Old man rant

I've just been to the cinema. When did this annoying habit of people applauding the film at the end, as if they were in a theatre, start? It's not as if anyone who made the film is there to hear it.

The total honesty of our politicians

There's some good stuff on the (real) Proud of Britain site.

Backword Dave notes the beer drinking fan of the NHS.

The best however is PJ Howard

What makes me proud of Britain is:...never attempting to criminalise people to appease minority pressure groups; the incorruptibility of its politicians who would never sell its legislation under any circumstances; the way those politicians protect the rights of this country to govern itself, brooking no interference from others; the total honesty of our politicians especially when presenting statistics or giving reasons for declaring war against other nations; the way anyone found to be dishonourable in any way is removed from public office permanently, never to be rewarded later...

Over 2000 dead in Fallujah

on current Iraqi health ministry figures. Obviously the real figure could be far higher.

Polls

The latest YouGov poll is out showing Labour 3% ahead, on 35%. Anthony has a discussion of YouGov's interesting past-vote recall.

There were a few interesting findings.

First, just how popular the Tories are in London. Unless I've read it wrongly, they lead 47% to 24% (in a poll remember, in which they are behind). In the rest of the South they lead by only 1% (34% to 33%).

Second, the widespread support for a ban on smoking in public places, 76% in total, and that seems pretty standard across all regions, classes and age groups.

Third, consistent support for a ban on fox hunting (60% to 32%), and strangely the only region where a ban comes near to not having plurality support is London, 54% to 39%.

London is heavily over-represented in YouGov's sample (it is weighted downwards) and although all of these results are explainable, I wonder if their sample is a little skewed.

Johann Hari on Michael Howar

As Michael Howard attempts to woo ethnic minority voters, Johann Hari goes on the offensive:

People who know him well assure me Michael Howard is not personally a bigot. Fine. Then he is something worse: a man who is choosing to tango with bigotry for electoral gain.

Incidentally Johann says 'who now, for example, remembers terms like "hottentots" and "piccaninnies"?'. The latter (to my amazement) was used by Matthew Parris in his Times sketch in 2000. A colleague of mine wrote to complain, but Parris brushed it off. Political correctness gone mad.

Ukraine

The election result and much else hangs in the balance in Ukraine. For excellent coverage, and links to more excellent coverage, see Fistful of Euros.

Power of the blog

There's some good charts and figures here showing (puportedly) which blogs and media organisations were most cited in the US election. The BBC and the Guardian are the top British entries, both in the top 20.

City morality vs Countryside immorality

The Economist reports that unlike everywhere else in the UK the number of children born to unmarried parents has been falling in London, and indeed so much so that it now has a lower rate than the rest of the country (see chart).

For those who are extremely bothered by such things this must be a shock. But it's hardly news that the Countryside is a hot-bed (literally) of affairs, confused parentage and scandal. Anyone whose read a Jilly Cooper novel knows that, though for those who require more proof there are studies confirming it.

The Economist gives three reasons for this London trend. First the high proportion of ethnic minorities, who are said to belive in marriage more than white Britons. Second the cost of living in London, which makes co-habiting, and therefore also marriage, cost-effective. Third the far greater number of rich people, who see marriage as a social status symbol, much like the Porsche 911.

Are there any lessons that can be drawn? Politically insofar as the Conservative Party sees itself as the party of traditional morality, one might think this would suggest a route back to political success in the inner-cities. But as Anthony Wells pointed out the party is split on topics, so it would be a risky strategy. And of course recent affairs have reminded the public that the party has no special claim to such issues these days, if it ever had.

Proud of Britain

Via Backword Dave I see the Labour Party has a new site (and I think a new rod for its back) in its

"Why are you proud of Britain"

site. So far about seven people, some semi-famous have given their reasons, many of which appear to be an (often inaccurate) modern version of what Orwell complained about in 19th century literature,

when it was accepted as a kind of scientific fact that one Englishman was the equal of three foreigners

Britons on the world

Harry's Place mentioned an ICM poll that showed most Britons believe that the US government had some knowledge of September 11th 2001 before it happened.

The poll was conducted for "The People's Poll", a programme presented by Al Murray to be shown on the UKTV G2 channel.

Some other findings were:

* 40% think we went to war in Iraq over oil, while 10% believe Tony Blair's explanation of WMD.
* 93 per cent think political leaders lie to them 'sometimes' or 'all the time'.
* 40% say they believe in ghosts. 50 years ago it was 1/10.


None of these seem particularly surprising however. I think we went to war in Iraq over oil. Obviously the 'some' means you have to answer 'yes' to the second question. The third is rather alarming, but perhaps a sign of the times. 50 years ago many Britons thought the Queen was a direct descendant of God.

Update: There's also an interesting thing on how things have changed since 1954. Poor coal miners.


Most admired men - 1954
1 Winston Churchill
2 Duke of Edinburgh
3 Anthony Eden
4 Sir Edmund Hillary
5 Clement Attlee

Now
1 Nelson Mandela
2 Bill Clinton
3 The Pope
4 Lance Armstrong
5 Tony Blair

Most admired woman - 1954
1 The Queen
2 Eleanor Roosevelt
3 The Queen Mother
4 Lady Mountbatten
5 Odette Churchill (second world-war heroine, nee Samsom, no relation to Winston)

Now
1 Margaret Thatcher
2 The Queen
3 Kelly Holmes
4 Hillary Clinton
5 Mum

Can you name any occupations where you think those who work in them are paid too much?

Then
1 Miners/coal workers
2 Civil servants

Now
1 Lawyers
2 Footballers

Sensible policies for a sensible America

Matthew Yglesias comments on plans to make illegal the fast-forwarding of adverts during recorded television programmes.

I hope it's not a joke. I've often felt ashamed of myself when fast-fowarding adverts, particularly since I got a Sky + unit, and sometimes you need the law to intervene to save you from yourself.

More policies

The Conservatives have made an 'Alternative Queen's Speech', which despite its name is a serious policy document, not some Channel Four lecture to the nation on Christmas Day made by a bald man wearing woman's clothing.

Furthermore according to the BBC report Oliver Letwin has outlined his proposals for reform of Stamp Duty, an important move given he believes it costs the typical £40,000 pa taxpayer £7,500 a year.

Much like the Tory proposals on personal income tax there is no definite policy but a range of possible policies. I can't find it on the Conservatives' website but the BBC reports it as thus:

They included scrapping the tax for first time buyers spending below £250,000 or exempting all purchases below £120,000 - double the current threshold.

The first measure is quite interesting in that it discriminates for certain types of buyers. This is similar to a suggestion the Sunday Telegraph made yesterday that the Tories should make anyone who earns under £10,000 a year exempt from tax, but those who earn over £10,000 a year should pay tax on earnings below it (with tapering to make it worthwhile earning £10,500 pa).

The advantage of these measures if they increase the income of the lowly paid by quite a lot (in % terms) but don't cost much because they don't give the money to everyone.

The problem though is complexity. You don't need to be an advocate of a 'flat tax' to think that the current taxation system is as complex as needs be, and indeed could be simpler. Making exemptions based on your status, whether a first-time buyer or earning under £10,000, is not the way to go.

Incidentally I don't quite understand the Conservatives' motive in releasing these 'options'. Is there meant to be a public debate, or a party debate, as to their merits?

That shining large land mass nr Russia somewhere

The Ukrainian election results appear to show that unfortunately the Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych, has won re-election with nearly 50% of the vote, beating the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko.

Ukrainian nationalists are not slow to tell us of the wonders of their country, and I agree. The Ukraine of wheat farms, sunflowers, sugar beet, non-ferrous metal mining, and process food (especially sugar). The Ukraine from where came Sergy Bubka, Oksana Baiul Oksana Baiul, Igor Belanov Igor Belanov, Oleg Blokhin, Oleksander Koshetz, Taras Hryhorovich Shevchenko and Alexander Dovzhenko. The Ukraine that stood against Viktor Yanukovych, and voted for Victor Yushchenko.

New Tory policy

The Telegraph reports (behind registration wall) that David James' efficiency gains drive has come up with a plan to privatise the DVLA, and make the insurance industry produce and distribute road tax discs.

Tim Yeo, the shadow transport secretary, said that the measures would allow the Government to crack down on the estimated one in 20 motorists who drive without insurance: "Under a Conservative government, drivers will receive a tax disc from their insurance company at the same time."

There seems a lot of merit in this proposal. You cannot drive a car without insurance or road tax, so issuing them together appears sensible (there might be some problems with people changing insurers, but they don't appear insurmountable).

It'll be interesting how the Tories present the savings from this proposal however. The efficiency gain is not the money saved by scrapping the DVLA's Road Tax role. It is merely the difference between the cost of the DVLA admnistering Road Tax, and of the insurance companies doing it. Taxes will fall (all other things being equal) but insurance premiums will rise.

I note that they don't seem to have considered scrapping the charge though.

Paul McCartney won't show us his nipples

Sir Paul McCartney has been chosen to provide the half-time entertainment at this year's Super Bowl game - the slot filled by Janet Jackson last year.
Organisers have promised there will be no repeat of her nipple-baring incident that sparked thousands of complaints on US TV's most-watched broadcast.

Prince Charles

Backword Dave takes issue with my critism of Charle's now-famous memo, saying that,

"what he says in the memo ... is not contentious"

This I don't understand. Here's the memo:

What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.

In order the contentious bits appear to me to be -- It's not true there's something wrong with everyone, not everyone believes they are qualifed to do things beyond their technical capabalities, even if they did I don't believe it's to do with a learning culture in schools, nor anything to do with not admitting failures, as that is a sensible policy for schools. People don't think they can all be pop-stars etc without putting in any work or having any ability. This is not a result of social utopianism (it's a result of common sense), and I don't know what he mans by the lessons of history.

Dave suggests that it's Charles who loses out from this attitude, as he gets less qualified people. This is obviously true, but it's true of racists who won't employ blacks. It makes it no less obnoxious.

I admit I don't like Prince Charles. But I don't lose sleep over it, as I'm pretty sure he wouldn't like me if he met me, not being a member of the aristocracy. Thus I tend to agree with Johann Hari's rundown on all you need to know about the man(via Nick Barlow).

But as Johann says we shouldn't be too hard on Charles, it's not really fault he's the man he is.

Yet the humane response to this is not to be angry with Charles himself. The institution of monarchy has inflicted terrible psychological damage on him since he was a toddler. The snobbery and hatred of meritocracy that have been revealed this week are simply inevitable further by-products of monarchy

If we abolish the Monarchy then I'd have no complaints with an elderly slightly dotty landowner commenting on education. For no-one would pay him any attention.

Hunting

No, not foxes, but online. I'm not a great animal welfare person, but this seems a bit wrong to me.

Tories 8% behind

The latest Guardian/ICM poll puts the Tories 8% behind Labour, on 30%, their worst showing since May 2003 (in the wake of the then-sucessful Iraq war).

The situation is in some ways worse than this. Like many pollsters ICM adjust their polls for the likelihood to vote. There are no figures out yet for what an unadjusted poll would look like, but a Labour lead of 10% is perfectly possible. Although the adjusted polls reflect more accurately a likely election result, the unadjusted polls show how the Conservative message is going down in the country at large.

Why so bad? Two factors appear to me to have been overlooked, and both perhaps benefit Labour even though they are generally though to benefit the Tories.

First, house prices. It will not have bypassed a large section of the population that house prices are looking weaker than they have done for a long time -- an even longer time than the Tories have looked electable. This it is generally argued should boost the Tories, as high house prices help the government as they contribute to a feeling of well-being in the population, make people forget tax rises etc. The Tories in government were almost destroyed by plunging house prices.

Now so far house price falls have been tiny, taking us back to July. But even if they were to fall 20% I think it might even boost the governent's popularity. For most people know that the Bank of England sets interest rates, and furthermore in troubled economic times who would you rather have steering the economy, Gordon Brown with his impressive track record, or Oliver Letwin, who is happy to believe that people move house every year and has no idea about taxation levels in the economy?

Second, the ongoing conflict in Iraq. It's generally believed that as the conflict gets worse Labour's popularity will fall. But again this seems wishful thinking. The war is now history, and those who will never vote Labour because of it have already gone. The current conflict is clearly going to happen whoever is in power, and as it gets nastier, who would you rather have in charge, the resolute, determined and popular in the White House Tony Blair, or the opportunist flip-flopper Michael Howard?

Not for the likes of us

Not since a young Peter Phillips said to his nanny from the deck of the Royal yacht, 'look at all the poor people waving at us' have I seen such a touching example of the Royal Family's common touch as we see in today's Daily Telegraph.

The memo was in response to a suggestion by Ms Day that personal assistants with university degrees should be given the opportunity to train to become private secretaries.

The prince [of Wales] blames the education system for making people "think they can all be pop stars".

In the memo, the prince wrote: "What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?

"This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

Charles is of course right. You should stick to what you are qualified in, unless you received a 2:2 in history on the strength of a B at A-Level in history and a C in French, when you can lecture on anything you like, such as architecture, education, reincarnation...

Update: As Chris Brooke has noted before that the Prince of Wales has said he will emigrate to Switzerland if fox-hunting is banned, so the way things are going we should be expecting an announcement from Clarence House in the next few months. Readers who are hoping that this means he will not be our next Monarch will be disappointed at my next relevation -- I spoke to someone at the Department of Constitutional Affairs who says there is no law that the King has to live in the British Isles, or even the Commonwealth.

Blair stole our clothes - Howard

I am sure that to my loyal readers it will come as no less a relief than it did to me to learn that the above titled BBC story was not about a typically public-schoolboy prank by our PM at the Parliamentary swimming gala.

Instead it's referring to comments made by Michael Howard in an interview in the Guardian. Which I cannot for some reason find on their website.

The Daily Telegraph

I guess you are all waiting to hear my views on the new and improved Daily Telegraph, which I have started to purchase again on the strength of Martin Newland's interview in Monday's Guardian.

Overall I was quite impressed. The news coverage is solid, if perhaps still a little idiosyncratic, but refreshing free of bias (normally -- the City pages talk of 'slashed growth forecasts' when in fact it went from 3.2% to 3.0%). The sports coverage is good, although I preferred it when it wasn't a separate section. The City coverage is so-so.

The letters page is much like the Guardian's, not only in that it's filled with what Private Eye calls 'Mike Giggler' letters, but also because it sounds like something written by Michael Moore. Example: "The resignation of Colin Powell bodes ill for the rest of the world, and leaves a cabal of neo-Conservatives of the ilk of President Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney in a cabinet facing the global challenges of the future".

Where the paper really falls down of course is in its columnists. The normally solid Andrew Marr writes a column in which the first section is utterly incomprehensible. I presume regular readers might have a clue what he is going on about, but if this is the normal stuff he writes there must be very few of these left.

Compared to Janet Daley however Marr is sense itself. Newland was rightly happy that he had got rid of Barbara Amiel, but god knows why he keeps Daley on. Here is an example of her wing-nuttery from today's column, which is so idiotic on so many levels I'll just reprint it without comment:

...I do believe that the democratic experiment in Continental Europe, begun just over 200 years or so ago, is coming to a close.

Telegraph

There's a good interview with Telegraph editor Martin Newland in the Guardian, who says lots of sensible things, in particular this about the comments pages:

I soon came to recognise we were speaking a language on geopolitical events and even domestic events that was dictated too much from across the Atlantic. It's OK to be be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it's OK to be pro-American but not look as if you're taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barabara Amiel were key departures.

I used to read the Telegraph but stopped when the others went tabloid. I still read the S.Telegraph, though as shown below it's getting difficult. I did read the Telegraph the other day and was reasonably impressed -- the creeping comment-style news that was evident under the Black regime appears to have been stopped in its track and Newland is explicit that he will not allow it to become another Independent (which I like, btw, but see his point).

He also says the Mail is vulnerable as it presents itself in a 'spittle flecked way'. He says the tabloid Times has 'new things arriving like a unwanted trains at a station, at a time you never expected them to arrive....the flow is so bad', which is completely true.

Sadly Newland says the Telegraph will remain broadsheet as long as its readers wish, which I imagine will be some time. He also seems to rate Tom Utley highly, which is bizarre.

Cor blimey guv'nor, can we rip tha foxes apart?

The Telegraph has an article in which it sends two members of the upper classes undercover in flat caps and sporting cockney accents to discuss foxhunting with Tony Banks.

It begins:

Lulu and I had never been to the East End before. But we are good mimics, and we prided ourselves on the authenticity of our cockney accents. As we sipped our teas and re-adjusted our new flatcaps in the canteen of Stratford East Bingo Hall...

You couldn't make it up. After the meeting with Banks (in which they pretended to be constituents 'Mary' and 'Lorraine' from Stratford, mentioning 'this untin' stuff' they feared they had been caught out..sorry owt.

When Lulu reminded him that his own government had appointed at least half of the 700 peers, Banks was briefly silenced. We started to worry that we'd been rumbled. Banks seemed to be turning somehing over in his mind - the possibility that we weren't as ignorant as we'd claimed'

You couldn't make it up. Naturally it ends with the usual cant "Our Government has in effect declared war against a whole section of the British population in a thoroughly underhand way". That would be Parliamentary democracy, love.

Next week the Telegraph sends Gussie Wooster blacked up with coal tar to attempt to buy drugs off a Black Man in Brixton.

Like Grandpa?

Nicholas Soames on Boris Johnson:

"But don’t let’s forget this is one of the most brilliant and amusing and interesting men of his generation."

This one sounds bad

Clearly the case has yet to go to trial, but as political scandals go this should be an interesting one to watch.

Johnson sacked

Michael Howard has sacked party vice-chairman (and culture spokesman) Boris Johnson over the allegations he had an affair with Spectator columnist, Petronella Wyatt.

Details aren't clear (but probably will be after tomorrow's tabloid headlines) but according to the BBC he was sacked not for the affair (which he denies, ish) but for lying about it (very ish, presumably).

This is obviously not a reason for sacking someone, as it doesn't make sense. If it represented a new 'back to basics' campaign by Michael Howard, then clearly we should expect John Redwood to be next to go. It doesn't of course, as Howard's own position is not particulary good on this issue.

I imagine the reason he was sacked was for the good reason that basically on some days the 'affair' has become the Tory party story, and not a particularly attractive one.

Update I: If you can't wait, the Scotsman has the headlines. The News of the World has the details

Update II: One has to criticise Michael Howard's judgement. When he said only last week that Johnson's Spectator was 'political viagra' and Boris should 'keep his end up' he was clearly referring to the affair, which implies he must have thought it was true and that Johnson was lying about it. So why did he find it a source of amusement last week, and a sacking matter today?

Update III: The BBC reports: "An associate editor of The Spectator, Rod Liddle, described the sacking as "a terrible mistake"". Neutral observer there.

Update IV: Johnson claims that he did not mislead Howard, and that he realised he couldn't continue in both jobs and was planning to quit anwyay.

4m pages of people confused about confidence intervals?

The news that google, in a spoiler to Microsoft's new search engine, now searches 8,000,000,000 webpages is terrifying.

I can remember not so long ago when 700m was a lot. So to increase by 4bn is rather a lot.

But then I thought - hang on, this blog now has every post on a single page. There must be over a 1000 posts. That's 1000 pages, on my own. If everyone adult in Greater London was like me that'd almost be the whole world!

I read somewhere there were 4m blogs. If they're all as proficient (or not) as me then that's 4bn webpages. Co-incidence? I'm not so sure.

It gets worse. Say in the next ten years there are 40m bloggers, all with 10,000 posts, that would be 400bn webpages, 390bn or so would be crazed idiots, ranting on about things they've only heard of this morning, but know they DON'T LIKE.

Is it then any wonder that google bought blogger? The two feed on each other perfectly. But perhaps even Google will not be able to control what it has unleashed. Maybe the more sensible suggestion is to miss out blogger pages altogether.

The Lancet

I've discussed the Lancet article endlessly on other sites, and, as we know from the comments below, this is the site that discusses things other sites don't, so I'm not going to post on it here.

Luckily I don't need to, as Daniel Davies has the goods on the critiques (most of which are so bad you can only marvel at them) over at Crooked Timber.

He misses out one devestating line of attack however. It's what I call the 'I can feel it in my bones' critique. This is where the blogger (and it's always a blogger) can 'feel it in their bones' that the report 'can't be right'. I would link to some obvious examples, but 'I can feel it in my bones' that it would be pointless.

Tuesday morning

Is not the best day to find you've somehoe forgotten to pay a £175 council tax bill and a £135 water bill. I would have preferred a Thursday.

57% to 33% oppose Iraq war

Anthony in his highly recommended brand spanking new poll site has the other details (Tories up, Labour down, Libs down) but the new Populous poll suggests only 31% of Britons believe the Iraq war was the 'right thing to do' and 57% believe it was the 'wrong thing'.

Howard's good points

There's a good interview with Michael Howard in today's Sunday Telegraph.

First, as predicted on these pages, he has upped his campaign against President Bush.

I'm not going to be told how to do my job, and if it displeases those in the White House, that's tough

Second, despite Dominic Lawson's near obsessionw with a "Tony Martin" law (not that he uses the term) Howard is having none of it.

This is simplistic stuff. I know you are keen on this, but I'm being straightforward with you.

As I noted when some Tories tried to introduce a new law in the House of Commons, for some reason reformers want to make the law thus that you could kill your own mother merely because you thought she might be about to steal something from your house. Howard seems to agree, worrying about

a political canvasser opening your garden gate, coming to your front door, putting a leaflet int, and if you were of a particularly nervous disposition you could kill him.

Howard also adopts a refreshingly European tone, noting that there aren't many parallels to be drawn from Bush's victory,

It's rather different...there are many differences between the US and Europe (my emphasis).

I was mocked for suggesting that the Tories would move in a greater anti-war, anti-Bush direction. It looks like I'll be right. So here's another prediction -- with the Ukip in chaos, Howard will start to advocate the benefits of the EU.

"Democracies make bad decisions sometimes"* .

Just in case the reaction to the American election result on some blogs is making you think there is something peculiar to the rest of the world, here is a reminder of American blog reaction to the Spanish election (all of which subsequently was shown to be rather inaccurate).

* Instapundit.

"Go ahead, appease the Islamofascistibabykillermotherfuckers. Bow your heads to god their way, cover your women in black sacking, kill your gays. Forbid Jews to hold good jobs, make them wear yellow stars – you know the drill. As the Great Cthulhu says, “You will be devoured last! Yum!” But at least you’ll have shown up those Yankee imperialists! And that’s what counts, isn’t it?"

"Spain is now ruled from a tiny cave somewhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and her rulers will be encouraged to see how many other countries they can take over.” Yup. Even if the “real” reason for the change of governments was some weaselly non-important matter like health care or whatever it is the socialists over there think is worth a few bombs going off every now and then, the terrorists will think they’ve caused this, and they will respond accordingly. "

"I wouldn't put England in the list [of countries who 'get it']. They just went along to Iraq so they could slow us down. They'll jump ship at first opportunity"

"France is discovering the ugly truth about this culture: it is, well, ugly. This culture doesn't believe in freedom of speech (except for themselves.) It doesn't believe in living in peace. It doesn't believe in human rights (except their own.) It is a backward anachronism that makes Medieval Western Culture appear civilized by comparison."

"What happened in Spain’s election was almost enough to make one feel nostalgic for General Franco (who is, unfortunately, still dead). "

The lesson of all this is of course -- blogs are the best medium for very stupid people to mouth off about things they know nothing about and given no thought to.

More fallout from Clark County

The fall-out from the Guardian's ill-advised stunt to write to voters in Clark County has started. An American citizen intends to tell more than 5m people in Britain who they should vote for in the forthcoming general election. Unlike the Guardian in Clark County he claims that he has already changed the result of one British election.

North-East says "no"

There was a referendum on North-East devolution last night, in which the 'yes' camp lost 22% to 78% with a relatively high turnout of 47.8%. About the only comfort you could give to the 'yes' camp is to note that the Welsh voted against devolution in about the same numbers, and 20 or so years' later changed vote for it.

On issues of wider importance, that Tony Blair, Charles Kennedy, and their respective parties supported it and got thrashed, whilst the Conservatives appear to have opposed it, hardly makes you confident about a euro referendum...

Sovereignty bites the dust.

I don't think you have to be a raving isolationist to wonder if the Iraqi people really are the best judge of whether the risks the British Army should face are a 'price worth paying'.

From the Independent:

Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, said it would be a matter for commanders on the ground if they continued to patrol on the east bankk. "We always knew that there were risks involved in these engagements but this is for the Iraqi people", he said. "Is it a price worth paying? Well the Iraqis are the best judge of that".

The values are money

There's lots of wailing and grinding of teeth already on blogs abou how the Democrats are losing the battle of values. As far as I can work it out what this means is that the Republicans have broken through compared with say 2000 by appealing to voters' morals, not their wallets, and thus the Democrats are losing a large chunk of lower-income voters.

It's sadly not true. From the CNN exit polls for 2000 and 2004 (which were accurate in their vote share, note)

Of those earning under $15,000, Gore took 57%, Kerry took 63%, of those $15-$30k, Gore took 54%, Kerry took 57%, of those earning $30k to $50k, Gore took 49% and Kerry 50%.

So Kerry took a higher share than Gore of anyone earning under $50,000 p.a.

On higher earners it reverses. Of those on $50k to $75k, Gore 46%, Kerry 45%. On those on $100k a year or more, Gore took 43%, Kerry took 41%.

The figures for Bush are the exact opposite. So the lower income you are in America the more you prefer the Democrats, and the more you prefer John Kerry over Al Gore.

There are obviously some important caveats. Some of this (but not all) reflects Ralph Nader's failed candidature. Assuming his votes were 3 to 1 Gore's, then Gore would only have been 2-3% behind Kerry among lower income voers. Also there are issues that would need further discussion, such as is income a proxy for a more important determinant such as age. It doesn't really seem very obvious why it should change though between 2000 and 2004, and the % in each income group is very similar between the two dates, suggesting similar age profiles.

ps Oh look. Kerry took a higher share of white males than Gore too! 37% to 36%. Bush seems to have picked up Nader's share. Perhaps a lurch to the left is in order?

What does it mean for the UK?

And particularly British politics. It was discussed before the election what a Kerry victory would mean - some said good for Blair, as Kerry would be more willing to listen to Britain, and shared some of Blair's aims in other policies. Others said bad, it would be seen as a referendum on the war, and the war party lost. Blair would be left vulnerable.

Essentially what it boiled down to is Blair would prefer Kerry as President, but didn't want to see Bush lose. So in reverse, today is good for Blair in that his partner in crime remains in the White House, his policy on Iraq intact. Overally though, it's going to be bad for Blair. His relationship with Bush has been a loser all the way for him personally. Bush has failed to listen to Blair on any aspect of policy, from Iraq to the environment. Blair has recieved nothing in return for his support.

The advantage for Blair that it's worse for the Conservatives. He and the President have no relationship. Michael Howard is banned from the White House until 2008, and perhaps longer if the Republicans or Bushes win again. It is beyond me how he considers he could be PM whilst that ban remains in place, though I salute his courage.

Update: Howard, you'll be pleased to know, is trying to make amends with a suitably grovelling congratulations comment.

Bush wins the election

So it wasn't to be. Bush has won a second-term in a close but decisive race. I think I agree with Crooked Timber that a Kerry victory in these circumstances would not be desirable - a minority President, facing a hostile Congress, with a disastrous war and looming economic problems. A clear-cut Kerry victory would not have changed the latter three, but it might have given him the electoral authority to deal with these issues. Not now.

In that sense this election might have been a bit like 1992 -- one which in hindsight was better to lose. Kerry's loss might be the 2008 candidate's gain.

For now though, my sympathy to Senator Kerry, who fought a valiant campaign. He must console himself with the above thoughts, and that his wife is very rich. But of course the main congratulations to President Bush who (again like John Major in 1992) has recorded the highest vote in his country's history, a clear majority of votes, and a second-term in office. For the first time in his life he has bested Pops.

It's 2000 all over again

Not in that it's close (though it looks like it will be). But in the US TV networks behaviour. Or at least one in particular. Fox News has a graphic on its home page showing each party's attempt to get to 270 electoral votes (see here)

A few minutes' ago, and I swear I am not making this up, they had three states going for Bush (coloured in yellow). They were Georgia, Kentucy and one other I can't remember. Bush had 34 electoral college votes on the finishing post graphic.

One minute ago only Georgia remained. Now they've all gone back to 'no result'. I assume it was someone testing the software.

US election competition

Nick Barlow's away, so it is left to me to hold the election competition, and it's a simple one.

What will be President Bush's electoral college votes minus Senator Kerry's electoral college votes?

For example if you think Bush will lead by 20, put +20. If Kerry is going to win by 15, put -15. A tie you put 0.

Rules are - results as published by CNN tomorrow afternoon, nearest person wins, and the prize, as normal, is a copy of Simply Red's 'Stars' album. To try to get more than 1 entrant, I'll also throw in a copy of John Lloyd's, 'What the Media are Doing to Our Politics'.

Answers in the comments box by midnight UK time tonight.

Update: It's not all finished yet, but the winner is likely to be Anthony, who already technically owns the Simply Red CD by virtue of winning it in a previous election competition. And you though the US election was complicated and corrupt!

The Economist comes to its senses

The Economist, a right-wing UK-based but mainly US-selling magazine, joins the camp.

John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.

It's a pretty grudging endorsement, with a nasty line about his making his mind up only once, and that was 30 years' ago, but given how right-wing some members of the Economist's editorial team are it's still pretty amazing.

Naturally of course, The Economist is never wrong, so it wasn't wrong about Iraq, and it wasn't wrong about supporting Bush first time. Still welcome to the camp.

ps The Economist has another editorial on how things should be as simple as possible. This would have been good advice for its editorial. It also notes that

We know of no-one who is prepared to swear that he understands whether he is getting a good or bad deal from his mobile phone operator. One could build a spreadsheet to calculate the minutes talked off-peak, on-peak, in-plan, out-of-plan, and whatever other formulas consumers are forced to choose from. But then there would be no time left for talking

A friend, who is a regular reader of this site, actually once did this. Remarkably he has a social life, and a girlfriend.

Some blog roundup

Some interesting things on blogs this week

Johann Hari doesn't like George Bush (from a debate with Robert Fisk, which I have to say was rather good, and Johann came out of it well. Also he's had 300,000 hits on his site, which shows both the quality of some of his stuff, and the power of the national press):

[T]hat George Bush is a serial killer (he executed more than 100 people in Texas). That George Bush is an illegitimate President. That there was no link between the mass murder of 9/11 and Saddam. Aall that was true and right.

The purpose of using the term "Stopper", from Harry on the same site

"As long as it keeps annoying you it is a useful phrase" (comments to this post)

The American Right in full cry - burn New York and kill tens of millions people -- to show John Kerry who's boss!

Part of me hopes Kerry is elected and NY or other major cities are utterly devastated by terrorists. No tears then, you stupid bastards deserve it.

(Comment on Jeff Jarvis's site, via Backword Dave)

Ukip activity today

Kilroy about to lose whip


Now, the BBC says, "Kilroy resigns whip"

Now, does this mean he is no longer a member of Ukip? Or just no longer a member of the Ukip European Parliamentary party. Hopefully Mr Wells will provide some of the answers.

ps I wrote this yesterday as the news broke. Anthony Wells does indeed have a little bit of information, mainly that Kilroy is remaining in the party!

I was right objectively, possible wrong subjectively, and I really care ironically.

As I said he would a few days' ago, Christopher Hitchens appears to be supporting Kerry in the election, or at least he's not supporting Bush. A bit of a flip-flop.

I say appears as it would take an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of years typing away at typewriters to come up with something as tortured as his contribution to this piece by Slate writers.

Not perhaps that anyone cares.

Over in Britain, heading into an election with Hitchens appears to be getting confused with the American one, the Tories appear to be in all sorts of trouble. ICM's October Guardian poll has Labour six points clear on 37%, suggesting last month's poll wasn't a 'rogue' one, and according to Anthony, it appears that Blair's announcement of his plans to go on for another 5-6 years is responsible.

I would suggest it was time for Michael Howard to go quietly, but for the Tories changing leaders is probably as pointless as changing managers is for the Scottish football team.

Flypaper Strategy -- what did you expect?

So Bush Admnistration negligence has allowed vast quantities of high explosive to be looted from a site in Iraq, potentially arming thousands of murderous terrorists. And people are surprised?

We all know now that the main rationale for the Iraq war, at least if you read right-wing American blogs, is the 'flypaper strategy'. Essentially the argument is that it is safer for Americans if the US fights terrorists in the area of their choosing, with the forces of its choosing and that area was Iraq, not Iowa, and those forces were the US Army not the Firefighters.

Now how do you expect such a strategy to work if you don't give the terrorists weapons? They're hardly going to come out and fight unarmed! In other words this is another stroke of Bush genius, the bait so the flypaper works. An October surprise indeed.

Certainty and absurdity

Brad DeLong notes that Norman Geras appears to have no concept of probability. Geras says:

"The sole convincing moral case against the war would have had to demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war... must be a state of affairs even worse than the one the war was supposed to remedy...There was no persuasive moral case against the Iraq war."

Whereas De Long notes:

"The right standard is, "More likely than not to make things worse"

In other words he is saying that intervention requires that the expected outcome is better than the expected outcome of non-intervention, i.e it is 'more likely than not to make things' better. Geras however, I think, is arguing that the spread of outcomes is heavily skewed, such that the worst disaster under Saddam is much, much, worse than the worst disaster under the occupation forces. And it is not the expected outcome what matters, but the worst case outcome.

Aside from the worrying onus on those opposed to regime change, the major complaint I have though is that taking Geras's statement and adding a few words rather changes its whole nature:

"The sole convincing moral case against the war would have had to demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war by the Bush Administration... must be a state of affairs even worse than the one the war was supposed to remedy or one not as good as any other feasible option was as likely to deliver and there were no more as likely moral uses for the $200bn proposed cost"

That more Iraqi civilians are being killed per month by the occupation forces than in Saddam's final few years makes one wonder, to put it mildly, if there werent' better otpions.

Impeach George Bush

Christopher Hitchens comes out fighting:

The Kerry camp also rightly excoriates the President and his Cabinet for their near-impeachable irresponsibility in the matter of postwar planning in Iraq.

Impeachment in the American political process is a very serious thing. Hitchens believes Bush's behaviour is near-impeachable. The Hitch is back.

American politics in crisis

I think most of us would agree that fair and accurate opinion polling is an important component of democracy. Thus this post from Steven Den Beste is chilling. He believes that independently all of the major polling companies have deliberately been skewing their results to favour John Kerry.

The argument is slightly complex, so let me explain. They've not been deliberately boosting Kerry, as that (one presumes) would be too obvious. Instead they deliberately underplayed his chances after the Republican conference, in order to allow an October comeback.

You have to wonder about Amerian political culture sometimes...

The Spectator

It's hard to disagree with this article in the FT about Boris Johnson's editorship of the Spectator, particularly this quote:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the offending article, editors cannot put themselves at the beck and call of politicians. Are future editions of The Spectator to be pre-read by Conservative Central Office?

PS: THe more you think of it the more absurd it seems. It's one thing being a hands-off proprieter, but another the editor. What if its though Oliver Letwin wasn't doing his job well enough - how could the Spectator comment in its leader?

The case for voting for Bush

John Kay in today's FT makes what an interesting case for voting for Bush (aside from the amusement factor), which is the 'chickens coming home to roost' angle.

America is engaged in a bold, ideologically motivated experiment, in defiance of conventional wisdom about international affairs and economic policy. If it succeeds, its architects deserve their political success, and there will be important lessons for us all. If it fails, which seems to me much more likely, it is important that the connection between policy initiatives and their consequences should be obvious both to those who opposed this course of action and to those who favoured it. If there is a change of administration, there will certainly be another neo-conservative experiment, and the myth of Democratic betrayal will fuel it.

Where Kay errs I think is in believing that a 'neo-conservative' foreign-policy still has a chance of working. Much of the their beliefs have already been proven wrong - there were no flowers to greet the invasion force, there is not a major square named after President Bush, the Americans could not do it with a small number of troops, allies would have been useful, it has not set off a democratic revolution etc. If somehow everything turns out alright in the end it probably have little to do with them, instead it will have much to do with America's traditional foreign policy strengths, such as a effective diplomacy, a large army, international support, using the UN etc.

Tabloid trash journalism

I don't really like giving it further coverage, but I think this story, in yesterday's Sunday Mirror, is such an awful example of British tabloid journalism that it needs pointing out.

Immigration = Crime...say Tories

That seems to be the Conservative Party's current message (ok...I know it's historically been their message too, but I thought things had changed).

How so? I was looking for their policy on immigration on their website, and in their Amazon style tabs at the top the one in which it features is the 'Crime' one, where the first story is 'UK immigration controls under threat'.

I have written to complain.

Pollard advocates invasion of Spain

(I'm keeping this near the top as it deserves the widest coverage)

by American (and presumably British) troops. Remember his column is ' things I think need to be said'...it's clearly not a joke.

The idea is repugnant.

When Mao meets Oakeshott...

is the title of another interestine essay in the LRB (this time online) reviewing Ferdinand Mount's new book, "Mind the Gap: The New Class Divide in Britain", which (according to the reviewer). IT's here.

an analysis of the ways the working class has been consistently denigrated, disempowered, and 'subjected to a sustained programme of social contempt and institutional erosion which has persisted through many different governments and several political fashions'. This has caused a 'kind of cultural impoverishment', accompanied by a 'hollowing out' of what Mount unflinchingly calls 'lower-class' life, leading to 'the sense that the worst-off in this country live impoverished lives, more so than the worst-off on the Continent or in the United States'.

In other words, as the reviewer (John Lanchester) ashamedly says, it's about "chavs", or what Mount calls, "Downers". He notes that it's an issue that is difficult to talk about without sounding insufferably snobbish (and rude and mean, I would think), but says that Mount, although being easy to disagree with, does at least present an interesting case.

The first stage in Mount's argument is to trace how 'the masses' were invented, or reified, as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Early modern England had a complex, highly stratified social structure. Mount quotes a 1688 classification of lords, baronets, knights, esquires, gentlemen, 'persons in greater and less offices and places, merchants and traders, lawyers, clergymen and freeholders, farmers, persons in liberal arts and scientists, shopkeepers and tradesmen, artisans and handicrafters, and naval and military officers . . . common seamen, labouring people and servants, cottagers and paupers, common soldiers and finally "Vagrants", as Gipsies, Thieves, Beggars etc'. All these groups had overlapping, conflicting and co-operating interests. But the Industrial Revolution, as interpreted by Marx with 'his ferocious rhetoric, his thundering certainties and his air of scientific infallibility' made it much simpler to divide society into two groups: Us and Them, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, ineluctably at war

This formed:

Once class simplification was set up, however, something very close to class war did take place. Mount sees this process as being driven by middle-class dislike of the proles. He draws extensively on John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses to evince a widespread contempt for the working classes on the part of their betters: Huxley, Shaw, Wells, Lawrence, Woolf, the usual suspects - 'the extraordinary thing remains that so many of the finest talents of their generation should have found the mere existence of millions of their fellow countrymen loathsome to the point of being intolerable.'

This told Mount makes the controversial argument that the bourgouise then declared war on the working-class with, "'a national system of education, a state system of welfare, public housing schemes and, later on, a state system of hospitals, a comprehensive system of National Insurance and much else besides".

Yikes! That sounds like current Conservative Party policy, admittedly, but I'm not sure they came up with the idea.

The state, he claims, by taking away the working classes' means of providing for themselves, and especially by creating catastrophic Downer ghettos in housing estates, has created a culture of dependency which, together with other cultural forces (increased ease of divorce, increased prevalence and stupidity of the mass media), has caused the famous 'hollowing out'.

Mount has specific suggestions about what to do: basically, school vouchers and a massive building programme to get the Downers out of their housing estates. But that in itself won't be enough, as Mount acknowledges in one of his engaging Mao-meets-Oakeshott moments: 'Only a wholehearted, even reckless opening up of genuine, substantial power to the bottom classes is likely to improve either their self-esteem or the view which the managing classes take of them - which is what makes the managing classes so reluctant to effect any such transfer.'

Anyway it's an interesting argument, and a spirited review, though Lanchester gets terrible muddled about poverty towards the end and I think perhaps a bit too impressed by what, if you think about it for a few minutes, can be pretty silly and offensive stuff* (how exactly has the NHS led to a culture of dependency unique to Britain?). But I'm sure it'll appeal (in parts) to our conservative friends.

* I haven't read the book, so make that usual blog proviso, 'he probably doesn't know what he's talking about'.

Global competitiveness

The World Economic Forum has a new set of 'global competitiveness indicators' out (warning - pdf). Finland, then the US, are top. The UK is in 11th. It's not worth taking them too seriously -- you'd need to find some from the early 1990s and see whether they had any predictive power above the obvious before doing that.

But the subsectors make some interesting reading.

Technoloy - US, Taiwan, Finland. The UK is in 18th.

In fact at this point it's worth taking it less seriously. To paraphrase what John Kay noted about an earlier version, how seriously can you take an index of technology in which France is behind Hungary and Slovakia?

Public institutions - Denmark, Iceland, Finland. UK does well here in 7th.

Economic environment - Singapore, Norway, Finland. UK in 8th.

Business Competitive Index (this is actually a separate index) - US, Finland and Germany. UK in 5th.