Happy New Year 2006

Well to all my loyal readers, Happy New Year.

PCRS XIII

I've spent the last month reading the Guardian's Society Section and adding up all the salaries of all the jobs in it. It comes to £38,000, much more than the private sector average. That this comparision is silly, because the private sector mean average for jobs that are advertised in national newspapers is not going to be the same as the private sector average, I can ignore, as it's only for that famed body of statistical excellence, the Taxpayer's Alliance.

Holiday pictures

Salcombe Bay

Batson village

Simon Heffer

In the Telegraph, Simon Heffer shows his outstanding knowledge of British history by saying:

Big mistake, Ollie. We would, I am sure, and not just at this time of goodwill to all persons, like to see the gap narrowed between rich and poor.

Yet there is more than one way of doing this. In the prosperous, liberal society that we should aspire to be, the rich get richer and the poor get richer, too, as the wealth of the most successful trickles down through society.

This is rather what happened in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher transformed our country from a banana republic to an economic powerhouse.

So Heffer, a) wants to see the gap between rich and poor narrowed, and b) believes that this happened in the 1980s. How ill-informed is he?

A Christmas Quiz

I am off to Salcombe for a few days, so this is my last post for a bit. All of these questions came from old newspapers my parents have.

In the castle's history, who is the only Monarch to never have slept at Windsor?

Whom or what did the Daily Express take to task for giving 'too somber a tone' over the death of King George V? And whom or what did the Catholic Bishop of Leeds say 'wrapped the nation in organised gloom' over the death of King George VI?

How many people worked in the boot trade in Leicester in 1911 out of a total population of about 200,000? And what was their annual average wage?

"Liberal Opinion", printed to promote Liberal candidates in 1911, noted that "If you have ever seen common Italian bread, you don't want to see anymore. No British working man would permit it within ___________ feet of his mouth". Fill in the blank.

The same journal also noted that Lord Nelson, the famous Admiral's brother's, nephew's, son, had received how much a year as a pension for the past 67 years?

A 1935 advert noted that "A healthy child should look like this [with picture of healthy child] yet thousands of children are 'nervy and ________ all though the lack of Quaker Oats. Fill in the blank.

What was Victor Raikes, Tory MP for Garston's, 1952 claim about why British Miners objected to Italian workers, causing the Mines president to criticise his 'moral decadence of the intellectual'?

Answers in comments

Northern Ireland

Good post by Brownie on Harry's Place about the Northern Ireland fiasco, and that no-one seems to care.

Update: Jonathan Freedland has some more thoughts.

Crimbo

I've run out of interesting things to say, perhaps I did a long time ago. But anyway I've decided to do a list. Here are cars I have driven (excluding hire cars) or owned (with an asterisk), with their bhp:

Fiat Uno 55 45 bhp
Rover 216i 120 bhp
Renault Laguna 100 bhp
Renault Megane coupe 100 bhp
Honda CRV 160 bhp
Vauxhall Cavalier 1.6i 102 bhp
Ford Ka 1.3 Collection* 60 bhp
Mazda Bongo Friendee* 160 bhp

That's a bit boring. How about computers I have owned (or had to use, ie my dad owned them and there's quite few as he worked in computers for schools) in rough chronological order, and an estimated speed (and no comments that mhz is not a good measure)

Commodore Pet 1mhz
Mattel Intellivision ?
BBC Micro B 2mhz
Spectrum 48k 3.5 mhz
Nimbus something or other ?
Commodore 64 1-2 mhz
Commodore Amiga 8 mhz
Acorn Archimedes 8 mhz
Apple Macintosh Plus 7 mhz
Apple Macintosh II 16 mhz
Apple Macintosh IIci 25 mhz
Apple Powerbook 130i 25 mhz
Apple Macintosh Quadra 660AV 25 mhz
Sony Playstation 34 mhz
Sega Dreamcast 200 mhz
Sony Playstation II 300 mhz
Sony Vaio 600 mhz
Evesham Micros 2400XP 2400 mhz
Dell 5000 3000 mhz

From that I conclude the pace of technological improvement in cars is slower than computers. And no-one also comment about the bloody fake Microsoft press release about if cars were like computers. If you want boring recycled stories go and read Nick Cohen.

Northern Ireland

I haven't a clue what's going on here. I read a lot here too, and still don't know.

Telegraph salaries

Bill Deedes tells us that in 1945, aged 32, when he returned from the war to work for the Daily Telegraph, was being paid £72 a month.

Making comparisions with today is fraught with difficulties, but it works out at around £24,000 a year in terms of purchasing power. The country was much poorer in those days though. If his pay had kept pace with the growth in average earnings it would now be just under £65,000 a year, perhaps a better guide to his relative economic position.

A depressing start to Friday

It looks possible that I could be in my late 40s and Sir Mingy Campbell will still be trying to become Lib Dem leader at the age of 79:

"Like the rest of us, Mr Kennedy is not immortal," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The fact that he is leader of the Liberal Democrats today doesn't mean to say he is going to be leader of the Liberal Democrats in 10 years or 15 years.

"I have never made any secret that if a vacancy were to arise, I would most certainly consider whether or not to put myself forward.

Gordon Brown

It seems to have disappeared, but Oliver Kamm had a post up pointing out that the targets of the Plain English Campaign are often speaking plain English. He adds though that a reader says Gordon Brown's famous 1994 declaration that he was a supporter of:

post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory

was a self-mocking reference (I think those are the words, as I say the post appears to have vanished). This surprised me, I remember Michael Heseltine's conference jibe that it was "Balls, not Browns", which implies that it wasn't seen as a joke by him, though that is hardly conclusive. An internet search, as for most things before 1999, doesn't help much, though it does turn up (in NS, April 2005):

Even Brown said that, if he hadn't had a heavy cold, he probably would have edited the phrase out of the speech, written by his aide Ed Balls.)

and another site, again which I can't vouch for the accuracy (though he gets the date wrong, which is not reassuring), saying that the quote was followed by:

and a symbiotic relationship between investment in people and infrastructure

which could make it more mocking or less. Nevertheless I have no reason to believe Oliver's reader does not know what he is talking about, so can anyone provide the context of the quote?

Update: Typepad is back, and so is the post. My memory was slightly faulty - the "self mocking" is Oliver's phrase, and refers I think to Gordon Brown's love of soundbites (or New Labour's), which Brown said in the speech the above phrase clearly wasn't. So it was the soundbites not the phrase itself that was being mocked. This has no bearings on whether it is sensible to use the phrase though, however it was a speech to a conference on economics "New Policies for the Global Economy" (26th September 1994).

Iraqi elections

Are taking place, and the BBC has good coverage. Hopefully this will mark a new stage in the country's fortunes. Certainly the bravery of some of the electorate in getting to the vote is remarkable.

Charles on his way out

Not paying very close attention to the Liberal Democrats internal politics I am at a loss to explain what is happening over Charles Kennedy, but it looks like he is on his way out*. Is it really fear of losing seats to the Conservatives due to Kennedy's perceived failings of leadership? Or is it,as this Times article insinuates, to do with more personal questions about him (which as everyone knows is taken to read he drinks too much (which is always denied))?

James Graham has more, and is more informed, but he seems similarly at a loss to explain it. He notes the Times is much more hostile than the other papers.

* On the other hand who would replace him?

Boris Johnson

Today writes a polemic on the problems of Charles Kennedy, at which the end the Telegraph declares he is the Editor of the Spectator and the MP for Henley. Has he been sacked already as Conservative spokesman on Higher Education? Or does he not begin that job until he resigns from the Spectator. And when is he doing that?

BBC Bias

Today Oliver Kamm (link to the right) lays into the BBC:

I am frequently a defender of the BBC against allegations – which I think are mistaken and miss the real criticism of its approach – of political bias. This programme does strike me as inflammatory and unprofessional, however.

The fact that a defender of the BBC is moved to complain clearly adds weight to the complaint. Indeed in the past he has said:

The problem is not that the BBC is politically biased – a charge I have never made and do not believe.

Strangely however in his second blog post of all time he declared:

The BBC's incomprehension of the requirement for political impartiality is as predictable as its inability to frame its tendentious and self-important polemics in grammatical English

What happened?

Mr Cameron declared: "Six hundred and ninety Wednesdays ago, my Party lost its reputation for economic competence. I was there that day, working in the Treasury. The events leading up to that day were bad for our economy, disastrous for our Party, but most important of all, they made life really difficult for the millions of families who faced high interest rates, negative equity, and repossessions."

I think he might have got his sums wrong. I make 690 Wednesdays ago the 23rd September 1992, presuming one Wednesday ago was last Wednesday (the 7th December). Can anyone confirm?

Call The Batman

The Evening Standard's billboard says:

Poison cloud to hit London tonight

Quick, call Commissioner Gordon and get the BatSignal ready.

More Laurence Auster

A few weeks ago I linked to a piece by Laurence Auster, a Frontpage columnist, on his blog that advocated the removal of muslims from France, using measures that "what once seemed inconceivable to them [the French/Europeans] will slowly become conceivable".

Today he is discussing the riots in Sydney.

It didn’t have to happen this way. The nations of the West could have chosen, by the normal political operations of free peoples, not to open their borders to millions of unassimilable aliens. But the West rejected the non-violent path to safety—and the streets of blood, to paraphrase Enoch Powell, became inevitable. So it’s better for this to start now, while our side is still the overwhelming majority, rather than later, when we will be much weaker... If at any point in this miserable process f self-undoing we had exercised our rights as a people and stood up and said, loud and clear, “We don’t want you here,” the immigrants would not have come. Though the white rioters in Sydney are only young rowdy men, they are the first significantly sized Western group to have done that.

Cameron's first week

Aside from the mixed quality of his Shadow ministers, which given the talent he has to work with is understandable, I think it has been impressive. He has managed to annoy those who should be annoyed with his focus on the environment, and not said anything ridiculous. One issue which he will surely drop is his decision -- said to appese the headbangers when he was less sure of victory -- to leave the EPP grouping.

The other thing that struck me was a great proportion of the 30% or so rump of Tories that have stuck with the party since John Major like to rail against is the 'metropolitan elite'. And now they have a leader who almost perfectly epitomises what they believe to be that grouping -- posh, lives in Notting Hill, likes dinner parties, used to work in media, cycles to work. Tough times.

Iraq survey

An opinion poll of Iraqis shows reasonable optimism about the future, concern about the security situation and a wish for stronger government. THere's lots of interesting details.

Update: But 50.3% think the invasion was wrong. Thanks to Norman Geras for this information.

Google Earth

Google Earth now has much higher resolution images for London, most of the big cities and decent resolution (you can see the colour of cars for instance) for small towns (such as my parents, St.Ives, in Cambridgeshire). The London images are a bit older than they were so if you live in a new house you may get a shock.

Students

There's a piece on some politics show on TV at the moment (called the Politics Show I see) about the failure to register to vote. One Tim Nice But Dim, aside from entirely missing the point (it's not illegal not to vote mate, it's illegal not to register), has just complained that it is "too difficult". I can't remember exactly the details of how you register, but I thought it was just writing down one's name on a form sent by the council. Can any of my readers give us some concrete examples of ways in which they have found the form difficult to fill in, so we can understand this chap's problems?

Hard life being a journalist

The Telegraph reports on its poll:

The figure of 40 per cent is the "magic" number that election experts say opposition parties must hit consistently if they are to have a realistic chance of winning power. The last time the Tories were on 40 per cent in an ICM poll was in August 1992, the month before the sterling crisis of Black Wednesday which destroyed their reputation for economic competence.

The Sunday Times reports on the Telegraph's poll:

The figure of 40% is the “magic number” that opposition parties should aim to hit consistently if they are to have a realistic chance of winning power. The Tories have not hit 40% in an ICM poll since just before Black Wednesday in September 1992, when sterling was forced out of the European exchange-rate mechanism, battering their reputation for economic competence.

Donald Luskin

It's difficult to know what mathematical errors Donald Luskin hasn't made, and here is another classic. Tim Blair's is pretty good too.

It must be a joke!

Well you can't say Cameron hasn't got a sense of humour:

LATEST: Boris Johnson named as new shadow minister for higher education.

Update: Johnson has been a strong supporter of 'free' higher eduction. It will be interesting if this policy -- IDS's policy -- remains party policy.

Here's Johnson's ridiculous taxation column in which he misreads the figures and doens't bother to check them, and yet bases his entire argument on them.

No more Tory annual conferences?

Says the BBC.

The first blog takeover bid

Clicking on my link to Peter Cuthbertson's Conservative Commentary, as I do from time to time, is an increasingly depressing experience. The formerly leading site of Conservative thought in the British blogosphere has had no posts since September, and is now kept alive only in the comments by a few blog-addicts who have not realised there is more than one out of there.

It still has a good brand name though, even theguardian mentioned it in its blog survey a few weeks ago, keeping the company of august sites such as Oliver Kamm's. Furthermore (perhaps showing the limitations of such statistics) it still has more readers a day that this site does, despite having no posts.

Thus I see value that can be exploited,and perhaps a way out of death by tediousness that appears this blog's fate. Hence I am launching what I believe is the first takeover bid of another blog. Clearly it cannot be hostile, as the only shareholder is also the management, but hopefully both sides can come to an agreement. I am starting the bidding at one copy of Simply Red's "Stars", and a pound coin.

Boris Johnson

Has he got any Shadow Cabinet role? I hope not, for he is truly awful. Today's piece in the Telegraph is simply too stupid to take seriously.

For instance:

Most social and economic historians would agree that the Thatcherian revolution of the 1980s was a liberating event for millions of people in the old working classes, who not only bought their own houses but also shares, and a stake in Britain's economic growth.

Thatcherian? Anyway this an an absurdly narrow and over simplified view of the decade, and certainly not one I believe most social and economic historians would agree on. Was class mobility higher in the 1980s than the 1970s? Johnson's been reading too much of his own party's propaganda again.

Part of Johnson's problem is he still believes his own mistakes. This passage in particular:

Above all, they [Labour] tax them [the working-class] an exorbitant proportion of their incomes

Now it is probably true that the poorest people in this country pay too much tax. But Johnson is basing his view on this on his own 'research', which was hopelessly wrong .

The Shadow Cabinet

There's some good people, Quentin Wilson, David Davis, Cameron himself possibly, but Fox needs no comment, Osborne I think is pretty hopeless (Ooh Estonia growing fast, let's have a flat tax!) and worst of all, Billy Hague returns as shadow foreign secretary. The advantage of this is presumably that he doesn't get to interfere in domestic matters. It now tends to be said that no leader had a chance in the 1997 parliament and he was thus unlucky. It is forgotten just what a terrible leader of the opposition he was -- in his choice of colleagues (look at his shadow chancellors), in his command over the party (ditto), but also in his policies. It is arguable that the 2001 election result was worse than the 1997 one given the almost total lack of movement in four years. There are reports that he will try to mend fences with the Bush Administration, a strange decision given its unpopularity in Britain and when even Republican Congressmen are heading the other direction, and he will go on the attack in Europe. This will enhance his post-politics career, for sure, but will hardly do much for his poor reputation in Britain. So what's left? That he is a good after-dinner speaker, but then again so is Tony Adams. Much like that other favourite of Tory constituencies, Michael Heseltine, he'd be better off sticking to that role.

New defections from Melanie Phillips' camp

If you read her latest witterings (here and elsewhere) the latest people to defect from her camp of "conservative values" are the Metropolitan Police, the Conservative Party, and the Daily Telegraph. Her only ally appears to be Carol Gould, the woman who believes what she experiences at friends' dinner parties in London means she knows how Jews in 1930s Germany felt.

Francis Wilson

A good chap, who signed the Maastricht Treaty, and who has been reappointed as Party Chairman by Charlie Cameron. However on Sky News just now he rather eerily resembled slimy TV car salesman, Quentin Wilson. The picture doesn't do the similarity justice.

It's Cameron

By 134,446 to 64,398, or 67.6% to 32.4% of the vote, on a turnout of 78.4% or 198,844.

This is a bit less than IDS got in numbers (155,983) but turnout then was higher than the total electorate now, IDS's % was only 60%.

Update: If you take the number of days Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS and Howard were in office (up to when they said they were standing down or stood down) you get a very nice fit on a curve, which suggests that Cameron will last 329 days. Thus he will be standing down on the 31st October 2006, presumably after a bad party conference. If he doesn't then he is a breaking a law of nature, and clearly should resign.

Stay out of tall buildings when Tories elect new leader

A plane has crashed into a tall building in Tehran, killing more than 100 people. David Cameron is elected leader of the Conservative Party.

Spooky echoes of September 11th, when IDS was elected leader* (IIRC, the result was delayed until the 12th)

The Curse of the Tory leadership election, eh? At least its getting better.

* Oh dear. Don't rely on your memory. It appears it was meant to be the 12th, and actually was the 13th. Never mind, it only strengthens my argument. The Curse of the Tory Leadership election is apparently so strong it can affect things a day either side of it, and it can be either an accident or murder, etc.

The North

I went to three restaurants whilst I was in the North, of varying recommendability:

Betty's Tea Room, Harrogate: This was for touristy reasons only, and it is dreadfully overpriced. However the food and tea are undeniably nice, and I would pop in if I was there.

Little Tokyo, Leeds: In the town centre, this Japanese restaurants makes a welcome break from shopping. Bento boxes are huge and good value (at about 11 pounds).

Dough, Leeds; You'll never find it without a map and a car (or taxi),and you need to book a sitting at weekends, but this bistro near Headingley is fantastic. We had the £25 Christmas menu, but you bring your own wine so costs are reasonable.

In today's papers

In Leeds, so rather shortened version, but two stories stand out. First, the Charles de Menezes shooting. Nothing particularly new, but it appears leaked reports from the investigation that basically everything we thought we knew on the first day turned out not to be the case, are true. This has certainly been an eye-opener for many of us.

Second, the most important thing we thought we knew about the Iraq insurgency, namely that they were foreigners, is not true either. Indeed the Telegraph reports that

Of 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner

.

The Telegraph also reports that George Best's funeral only saw about 35,000 people turn up, though given the terrible weather this was not a bad figure, and the mood was much more as you would expct than the mawkish and Diana-like image the media was so desperate to portray.

More FrontPage writers

Bloody hell. This could be the worst yet. Another one of David Horowitz's writers, Laurence Auster, writes (not on FrontPage) chillingly (my emphasis):

I’m not primarily interested in helping the French find ways to cut the Muslim birthrate, a type of social engineering the outcome of which is very uncertain. Rather, I’m interested in the French finding ways to remove the Muslims from France. Once they’re out of France, the French won’t have to worry about their birthrate; or, at least, their birthrate will no longer represent an immediate internal threat to the state, as it now does. I know that the idea of removing Muslims from France sounds absurd and inconceivable. But in 1900 or 1945 the idea that France and Europe would admit a mass influx of their historic mortal enemies was inconceivable. Yet the inconceivable happened, didn't it? If the inconceivably bad can happen, the inconceivably beneficial can happen too.

Tory National Service

David Cameron it appears wants to bring back a non-military form of compulsory "national service". He won't of course, as he would lose about a million votes.

Apparently from a conversation with his father's generation he is under the impression it was popular.

Luvvies

The BBC reports:

The more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, UK investigators have found.

If you change the word 'have' to 'claim to have', it all makes a lot more sense.

Henry Jackson Society

With regard to the above, it's interesting that their list of signatories (which includes Stephen 'invade Spain' Pollard!) to a list of principles that includes an attack of the Bosnia policy of the mid-1990s includes Michael Ancram. Ancram's position in Bosnia was the same as Douglas Hurd's (Hansard, 19th April 1993):

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in Bosnia is anything but simple and that, although Serbs are committing appalling atrocities against Muslims, at the same time Muslims and Croats are committing appalling atrocities against each other, sometimes under the nose of the British forces? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that our response should ultimately be based on a balance of moral imperatives and that, while positive military intervention might, in the short term, prevent some of the atrocities taking place, in the longer term it could threaten a wider and even bloodier civil war throughout the region and that it should be considered only as a last resort?

Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend has the balance quite right. We must take account of events where the cameras are not. The heaviest fighting in the past day or so has been between Muslims and Croats. This is very relevant to the suggestion that the arms embargo should be partly lifted ; we must take that into account. We must take into account the very fragile situation in Croatia where a truce is just holding and where the UN forces are in substantial operational difficulty. Those are the kinds of thing that do not come into the headlines or into the news bulletins day after day and night after night, but they are part of the total picture. If we took action to deal with the situation

ps The debate is here. Perhaps George Galloway should take Ancram's place?

More Carol Gould

On the Brazilian man shot dead by the Police:

(When I learned of his profession I could not help thinking of the nickname of the sleazy character immortalised by Jonathan Pryce in ‘Miss Saigon

Norman Johnson attracts the ire of MediaLens

Even though he's a spoof. Or is he? Cue music.

I read the papers so you don't have to!

The previous Iraqi PM declares that abuse under the current regime is as bad as it was under Saddam

There will be no prosecutions over the shooting of Charles de Menezes

David Cameron says former Conservative Party deputy-Chairman and Mayoral candidate Jeffry Archer will not be allowed to return to politics

Will Michael Portillo make a return to front-line politics? The Mirror claims he is having an affair with a woman 21 yrs his junior.

Royal Marines are violent and unpleasant men, the News of the World reveals.

Blair says memo about bombing al-jazeera is a 'conspiracy theory'

There was something about the IRA and a window of one of their victims, but I can't find it again.

Christmas Bestseller

With just ten days to go in the leadership election there was suddenly a groundswell of public support across the Kingdom, the like of which had not been seen before, in favour of a third candidate, the millionaire novelist and philanthropist, Jeffrey Archer. Unwilling and reluctant to take the job he was persuaded by his beautiful and loyal wife Mary and the demands of millions of his countrymen. After a short consultation with the Conservative Party in the country David Cameron, the previous front-runner, decided to stand aside out of his desire for party unity and the knowledge he was going to be easily defeated. After a week in office the new Conservative leader decided to stand in a by-election for the Commons after the MP for Finchley had suddenly decided to quit. Elected by 90,000 votes, the highest individual vote for an MP ever recorded in British politics, he returned to the Commons triumphant. Panic set in amongst the Cabinet, who begged the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to sack them and appoint Jeffrey Archer. Archer, a democrat to the core, thought the process at risk of sounding illegitimate and announced a snap election which was held on Christmas Day. The results were a revelation -- Archer's new Conservative Party took 46% of the votes, the highest share in electoral history, and 397 seats, the most in history. As Prime Minister Archer's reign, which was to last 10 years -- the longest in history - was considered the best in Britain's last 1000 years, with Winston Churchill's granddaughter confirming it live on television. His time in office was sure and just: beginning with the Daily Mirror Reperations Act and ending with the Ken Livingstone String-em-Up Act.

On Edgware Road

Decent-left* favourite Carol Gould (who famously believes that, if you are Jewish, living in London in 2002 was like living in 1930s Nazi Germany) has been on a trip down Edgware Road, and naturally has a terrible time. Melanie Phillips declares it dark days for Britain.

* Actually it's possible that Carol Gould is not such a Decent favourite after this piece, in which she says the country has 'never looked so much like Nazi Germany' than after the arrest of Walter Wolfgang, which given her early comments is pretty damning.

Terrorists

I think Simon Jenkins has been good since he moved to the Guardian. Today's column on the government's decision to grant an amnesty to former terrorists is certainly thought-provoking.

Those defeatist, betraying, Decents

In a bizarre article in the Guardian (not online for some reason) Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley tells us that Congress is indulging in the politics of national defeat with the stench of defeatism.

Harking back to 1974 he reminds us that "anti-war Democrats" voted against $800m of military aid to South Vietnam, these "fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy; unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline".

Let's look at one of those Democrats who voted against the military appropiation bill in 1974. Step forward, Henry "Scoop" Jackson...[exerpt from Robert Kaufman's biography]

In his justification for the decision, he stressed that no further aid could save a corrupt South Vietnamese regime that “lacked the determination, leadership and direction to fight”….[in April 1975] he accused the executive branch of misleading “a foreign government and the United States Congress about US commitments to South Vietnam in 1972-73

The Status Quo is not an option

A senior [Police] Federation source told the Daily Express:

It seems there is a choice between re-introducing the death penalty and arming the officers who patrol our streets.

There is of course another choice, which is to do neither. I'm not saying it is the right choice, but certainly it is a choice.

Is the problem getting worse? Did the abolition of capital punishment make it worse? The data is not supportive. The following chart shows murders of serving police officers in each decade, and the % of those on duty who were murdered. Data has been collected, rather hurriedly, from here for the number murdered and here for serving police officers (hard data is available back to the 1970s, before then I have read it off the chart). There was a leap in the 1980s, but it has not been sustained, and in % terms the numbers have been falling. There clearly are other factors, notably Police Officers go to much greater lengths to protect themselves nowadays, and medical care is better, but conversely overall crime is vastly higher, so I think it shows this is not a new or worsening issue (unless I've made a mistake in my interpretation, comments welcome). After all Dixon of Dock Green (in the film) was murdered.

Phewee!

The BBC should be a bit more careful with its left-to-right appearing 'breaking news'. The one that began "Deadly Al-Qaeda attack using bio-agents..." rather gave me a fright.

Telegraph troubles

For those who like media gossip, the Guardian's report into the ousting of Telegraph editor, Martin Newland, provides some interesting stuff. Newland seemed to me a good editor of the paper, responding personally to emails for a start, and focusing on news, but his apparent uninterest in comment (as opposed to news) did allow some awful stuff with terrible howlers to creep into those pages.

The newspaper apparently now has Simon Heffer (and other ex-Mail journalists) in some sort of managerial capacity, which essentially means it will soon be unreadable. For us loyalists it appears we're going to have to go the other way, and start buying the Mail.

Will Blair get ideas?

I don't know enough about Israeli politics to know why Ariel Sharon plans to quit the Likud Party, or how successful such a decision will be, or even why "Israeli Army Radio" reports such things. But I wonder whether it will give our Tone an idea to do a Kilroy, and creat his own Veritas. Talking of which, I couldn't at first remember what Kilroy's party was called, and his rather sad website wasn't a help.

Chutzpah from The Telegraph

The Sunday Telegraph reports of its shock that the Treasury has refused to release David Cameron's security clearance files and given as its reason that the information may damage Cameron. It calls it "dirty tricks".

The Treasury's response came in reply to a Freedom of Information request from the Sunday Telegraph, who presumably were merely asking in order to ensure they had the most comprehensive information about him.

A temperate view of China

This is an interesting Pew poll on what Americans, and different parts of the 'elite' think about things. I love the headline above this one, though:



It reminds me of the Onion post-Sep 11th edition, with this "point/counterpoint".

Cameron and economics

David Cameron tonight said he 'will share the proceeds the growth' which is not what Gordon Brown does, which is 'take all the proceeds of growth'.

This surely is a lie? Has the private sector not grown since 1997?

Otherwise I thought he came across well. He's going to scrap all of their headline policies in the last election, which is without doubt the only way to go.

The Left are Evil in All Possible Worlds

Imagine a fantasy-world in which an incompetent Right-wing Administration in the United States had not launched a disastrous war with no attempt to plan for the post-war situation, and instead Iraq was now a peaceful and stable democracy with a flourishing economy. Guess what? I think the Left would hate that. This shows how Evil their minds are.

The Evening Standard

Even when Nick Cohen isn't in it, the Standard really is a dreadful newspaper. Today we get Liz Jones' "City Lives" column, which may or may not be a spoof, telling us that she can prove Londo is the most expensive city in the world because this week she spent £50 on a congestion charge fine, £275 on a lamp at the Conran Shop, £134 on an H&M Stella McCartney top, £175 on cosmetics at SpaceNK, £75 on dinner for two at a pub, £20 on a taxi, £80 on a back massage, and £45 on dry cleaning, because "london is so dirty", £40 on a window cleaner, and £195 on basic groceries. She also tells us she spent £20,000 on Babington House for her weddding, £300 a night on a weekend stay last week, and plans to spend £90 on a facial at the new Cowshed Spa in Holland Park. She concludes her column by asking "how do people with children or coke habits manage? How?"

Allison Pearson's column is perhaps worse. Fitting into the role she was hired to play perfectly, she commends Abigail Witchalls for her 'grace', 'gravity', and 'sweetness', her 'strong, simple, Christian faith' and bemoans a society that has gone too far in self-gratification to follow Witchell's devout example. In the next piece she refers to the Prince of Wales and his wife as looking like 'two bewildered Saga holidaymakers', Camilla's evening frock as making her look like she had been 'lowered by crane into a Baked Alaska', and disaparagingly like Barbara Bush. Why? What is the point? What has Camilla done to deserve that?

Finally something worth reporting. Roy Jhuboo, of WC1, tells in a letter how the Police arrested him for photographing around Limehouse under the Terrorism Act. When he asked why, he was told that he "could be a terrorist on a reconnaissance mission planing to launch a rocket at Canary Wharf". He adds "I am of dark-skinned appearance".

Whether or not the two are related, we'll never know. Assuming the story is true the picture it gives of the Met's anti-terrorism training suggets one can only assume we will all be blown up soon.

Terry Wogan Breakdancing

The BBC tells us how it got Terry Wogan to break-dance. Essentially they used a body-double, padded up and wearing a wig...

...carefully matching Terry's hairstyle.

Couldn't they have just used the same one?

Today's Sunday Telegraph

Nothing particularly interesting, but things I agreed/disagreed with:

Niall Ferguson argues that instead of being polarised politicallly and socially as most people think, the US is culturally and socially more homogenous than any other similar sized place. This I think is stating the obvious to most Europeans, indeed sometimes talking about the homogenity of the place can nearly get you labelled anti-American. I think Ferguson is missing the point, it tends to be Americans who talk about the polarisation, not people from other countries. Also he says that the American Left is more right-wing on every issue than the European Left. I'm not so sure this right, mainly in the area of woman's rights.

Matthew d'Acona says the Conservatives are still the party of opportunism after Wednesday's government defeat.

The Tories' opposition to this measure and their astonishing claim that it was all just a cunning ruse by Mr Blair to split the Conservative Party showed how far they still are from power.

It's worth rememberthing this, for if d'Acona really believes this measure is so important to justify the major curtailment of liberties then surely he must think much like the Sun, that they are 'traitors'. Yet I bet he'll have soon be singing their praises. I think he is posturing too.

Eric Anderson ridiculously gives an end-of-term report for both Blair (whom was at Fettes when he was housemaster) and Cameron (who was at Eton when he was headmaster). Whatever 30 or 40 years' later gives him any knowledge in this matter I do not know. That he thinks he can seems quite in character, I remember a college tutor of mine sitting next to him at a dinner in Lincoln College and once Anderson realised the man he was next to had no idea who Eric Anderson was he hardly spoke a word to him for the rest of the dinner.

Cameron's going to win; time for my endorsement

Saturday brings us a YouGov poll showing that David Cameron, who if turnout is the same as last time (80%) needs 40% to win, already has 22% from only 33% of the electorate, and thus needs his support to slump under 40% of the remaining votes cast to lose. Sunday we get an endorsement from William Hague and Liam Fox. And who do the two 'traitors' ('traitors', according to the Sun newspaper, not myself) endorse: David Davis...

...no of course not, they go for David Cameron.

Time for my endorsement too. I hope that David Cameron, with both his youth and experience, wins the day. If he does, I will take my share of the credit and expect a reward.

Hitchens

Via The Stoa, I come across this Hitchens' quote:

If you really believe the crazed fabrication, fabrication of the figures of 100,000 deaths in Iraq.... It's a simple matter to show this is politicized hack work of the worst kind, the statistics in that case have been conclusively and absolutely shown to be false and I invite anyone to check it

It would be interesting to know how Hitchens' cheerleaders would square this statement with their belief that the man is a great teller of truths.

Traitors

The Sun declares that every MP, from the Conservative to the Democratic Unionist Party, who voted against the 90-day provision, are "Traitors". Nick points out that this includes its Sunday sister paper's columnnist, William Hague.

Time for a confidence vote

If Blair really believes the Police and Security Forces are now going to be weakened in the fight against terror markedly, and that the country is behind their and his wish for a 90 days period, he should surely now force the bill through on a confidence motion?

Government misjudgement

So the Blairs' request for a 90-day detention limit was rejected, and rejected clearly by 322 to 291.

The size of the defeat makes one wonder why the government went to the effort of having Gordon Brown flown back from Israel, and Jack Straw leaving Moscow talks early. Did they so misjudge their support, or was it merely to encourage the others?

Parliament has passed a vote on an extension to 28-days; I have no idea whether that means that will become law or not.

In the old days when governments lost votes in the House of Commons the survival of the government was questioned. At the least they usually went for a confidence vote. No-one is talking about that, I guess being due to the General Election being just five months ago and this being the first defeat.

The question now then for the Blairs is does this mean they believe the Police are fatally weakened in the fight against global terror? If they really do then they need to outline alternative steps to take. Given how much personally he staked on this one one wonders whether the Met Chief Commissioner feels unable to do his job now.

Many commentators are positioning themselves in the event of another attack to be able to say they had their reservations, but they also warned MPs of the consequences of not listening to the authorities. It is wise to say this about everything, of course, and most of them do. The same people also talk on an attack in France, which has in some ways a tougher regime, as being inevitable.

Update: Loony comment watch. "Juan" on HP, ""Interesting how the bloody BBC is playing up the "defeat for Blair" angle despite his having said he was willing
to go through the defeat in order to lay down his marker. The bloody
beeb is acting more and more like a political party and less and less
like a news organisation."

Good point Juan. What Blair said would be a defeat isn't actually a defeat, it's a marker. Why can't the BBC (and the Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Indepednent, Reuters, etc) lead their stories with "Victory for Blair"?

121.66 days

The main argument in favour of the government's plan for a 90 day detention period is that it is accepting the best advice of the Police. This does not seem to be the case:

Sir Ian [Blair, the head of the Met] said 90 days was not a "magic" figure and four months might be better.

I saw Prime Minister's Questions today. The PM was saying that each MP had to decide how to vote, which is strange as I thought that would mean it was a free vote. But I don't think it is.

Startling revelations

And a not so good Telegraph letter, by that media-darling, Oleg Gordiesvesky:

Sir - France always had a cult of revolution. The French public fully supported extremist political parties, Communists and Trotskyists, which had political violence as an integral part of their programmes.

Now they are reaping the fruits of it.

Oleg Gordievsky, London WC1

It's not so much this letter is wrong on its facts, it's the "now they are reaping the fruits of it", as if until now politics in France had been like a Scandinavian country run by clones of Sir Geoffrey Howe [NOT THE CITY BANKER] permanently drugged to the eyeballs on Mogadon.

It's true that the last 30 years or so have been relatively peaceful, but we've still had numerous motorway blockades, McDonald burnings (by a man who became a folk-hero, though the story is rather more complex that it seems, as with much of French agricultural legend).

But the 30 years before that, ie 1945-1975, saw one of the least peaceful periods in any western country's recent political history. The instability of the fourth republic, the constant blow-back from Algeria, leading to a near-attempted coup d'etat in 1958 by rogue Army elements, and an actual, if legal, coup d'etat by De Gaulle, continual terorrism and assasination attempts, ending in the least violent, but most well-known today 1968 riots, when months later bodies of those shot dead by the security forces were still be found in the Seine. Oh and De Gaulle had fled to Germany at the height of it all. Most of it can be found here.

This brings us to a good letter in today's Telegraph, which notes the idiocy of Mark Steyn's view that this is what multi-culteralism brings you.

Sir - Mark Steyn, in his enthusiasm to link France's current unrest (and Europe's apparently imminent doom) to multiculturalism appears to have forgotten that France has been consistently and stridently opposed to multiculturalism, disparaged by Left and Right alike as "le communautairisme à l'anglo-saxon... this conception of citizenship is deeply problematic; it means the French state is incapable of acknowledging that the present crisis is connected to years of topographical, economic and social marginalisation along patently ethnic lines. This, ironically, puts it in rather the same position as those, such as Mr Steyn, who would denounce its supposed indulgence of multiculturalism as being somehow a factor behind the violence.

W. L. Duffy, West End, Queensland, Australia

David Cameron

There's a nice letter in the D.Telegraph today:

David Cameron in the steps of Hannay

Sir - Each time I hear David Cameron or read him in The Daily Telegraph, I am reminded of John Buchan's novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, in which the intrepid hero, Richard Hannay, blunders into an election meeting in a small Scottish town.

The organisers mistake him for their parliamentary candidate, and he is quickly thrust on to a stage to face a crowded auditorium of waiting constituents.

Our hero comes up with a lively speech, full of optimism and platitudes, that so enthuses his audience that they are soon cheering him on.

Daniel Sheen, Felixstowe, Suffolk

Phew!

Prince William is not stupid!

Prince William is the brains of the family - it's official. The 23-year-old prince, who is to enrol at the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy in January, scored seven out of 10 in the "raw intelligence" test, when he took part in a gruelling assessment at the Regular Commissions Board in Westbury, Wiltshire
It is believed that what surprised many of the officers who were judging his suitability to become a commissioned officer was his performance in multiple-choice intelligence tests, which he faced on the first day.

So that's a relief. I for one believe this is all the proof we need that this man should be one day allowed to decide whether or not laws passed by a democratically-elected legislature can stand.

May?

What can you say about this?

"The police told me, and the security services back them up, that they may have stopped two further attempts since July 7," Blair said.

"I find it really odd that we're having to make the case that this is an issue, when virtually every week, somewhere in the world, terrorists loosely linked with the same movement are killing scores of people."

What does "may have stopped" mean? What does the fact that terrorists "loosely" (and that even Blair says that is quite striking) associated with Al-Qaeda have to do with wanting a 90 day period?

It really has come to something when John Major is the voice of reason, but there you go:

But Sir John Major condemned the plans to detain terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and warned the measure was unlikely to secure Parliamentary approval.

"I think the 90 day concept is utterly and totally unacceptable in a liberal society," the ex-prime minister told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.

At last!

Gene from Harry's Place, who until now had his most amazing moment in linking favourably to a post that compared today's London to 1930's Germany, has finally woken up.

" I'm closing the comments box for this post, but Ali's blog has comments boxes, making it easy for those who have never set foot in Iraq, and live thousands of miles away, to explain to him how wrong he is"

The question must be: of the six Harry's Placers, Gene, Harry, Marcus, Brownie, Johann Hari and Dot Comrade, how many have been to Iraq? I think it's just Johann Hari, and he opposes the occupation.

Telegraph repeats lie

"Typical middle- to high-income earners now pay up to 50 per cent of their salary to the Treasury, compared to 36 per cent when Tony Blair came to power in 1997."



screams The Telegraph, and yes, it is based on the same lie, namely that a typical middle-class family moves house ever year.

In fact it is about every seven years, and so the Stamp Duty should be divided by 7. Do this and in fact it is less than 40%, not much different from what was paid in 1997.

There really is no excuse for this. "Typical" does not mean what 6/7ths of the population don't do.

Nick Cohen's not-even-Standard column

Nick Cohen in his Observer column famously blamed "liberals" for supporting the war in Afghanistan and making Britain a target for terrorists, and then famously blamed "liberals" for the opposite in the case of Iraq. His Standard column doesn't quite plumb those depths, it tends to be more of a "Cor blimey guv'nor, where are the Routemasters, why won't cabs take you South of the River, isn't modern architecture rubbish" kind of stuff.

This week however he took on the fact that on Question Time a week ago or so all of the panellists and the compere went to public schools (which he lovingly named) and this showed that we need grammar schools to allow the working-class to compete with them.

The people on the show were David Dimbleby, Tim Yeo, Tessa Jowell, Sir Max Hastings and David Laws. Except Laws, they all left school (assuming the left at 18, if they left at 16 it would be two years earlier, before 1965 (Jowell), with Hastings and Yeo 1963 and Dimbleby the earliest in 1956. Thus they were 11 in 1949, 1956, 1956, and 1957.

The first comprehensive school (except for geographical reasons) was Kidbrooke School in Greenwich, opened in 1954, and it and a few other early adopters Wikipedia says "modelled themselves firmly on the grammar school, with teachers in gowns and lessons in a very formal style". It says the "Rising Hall Comprehensive" in Islington in 1960 was the first "to offer an alternative to this model".

In other words it is absurd to suggest that it was the failure of comprehensive schools that led to this panel being so constituted. Even if you believe no-one worthy of appearing on Question Time could come from a comprehensive, hence the age group of the panel, this would imply the same was true of grammar schools, and in their heyday!

Cohen's transformation into Melanie Phillips appears unstoppable.

The things Daily Mail readers say!

Ban Public Drinking

Trust this government to make a dog's dinner of its alcohol policies. Instead of trying to ban drinking on public transport, why not just ban drinking alcohol in public places? Such a ban would be easy to enforce - walk down the street drinking, and you'd be breaking the law and could expect a trip to the local police station to pay a hefty fine.

And if you didn't have the money to pay a fine, you would either get a night in the cells, an option to pay the fine the following day, or go to court to risk a heavier fine.

Then all the money could go towards paying for more police and keeping police stations open at night.

Ms C. Portchmouth, London, SW2.

Huge cut in Stamp Duty, says the Telegraph

The reasons for the decline are unclear but today's Daily Telegraph reports on a huge collapse in Stamp Duty payments last year. It reports that home-owners paid just £5.5bn in 2004. Readers with long memories will remember I reported that the Telegraph claimed just over a year ago that the average higher-rate taxpayer (presumably referring to 2003) paid £7,500 in stamp duty per year.

Now there are roughly 3.3m higher-rate taxpayers in the UK, so the Telegraph was claiming that stamp duty payments were about £23bn in 2003. Here is a chart of this remarkable change.



Update: Of course I forgot non-higher rate taxpayers who probably account for another £3bn or so. So the Telegraph's reporting an even larger fall. Wonderful times.

Will Cameron win the Scottish Tory leadership?

Now he's seen off Gordon Brown, got David Milliband installed as Labour leader, and probably is being consulted on the replacemnet to Trident, it seems bizarre that Charlie Cameron has not been mentioned as a potential Scottish Tory leader. Does news really take that long to travel up there?

Humanitarian intervention index

It's been a few years since I last looked at which countries are ripe for humanitarian intervention. I've made some improvements to the index. Regular readers will remember that what it does is take an index of a country's Human Rights (as in the Observer, where higher is worse), to measure the desirability of intervention, and divides by their military budget, as a proxy for how easy such intervention will be.

I've now slightly improved the measure, by taking into consideration the population of the country, so now we have a "collective misery" index, whichi is the HRI multiplied by population (in thousands). The logic here is you're better off rescuing a million people from their misery than 100,000.

Here (apologies to modem users, but really, it is 2005) is the revised table with some key countries and their ranking. Keyboard warriors take note! You can click on it to see the Excel file with the full data



Or here is the full table in lovely html, courtesy of Chris Lightfoot. Just to explain the headings, HRI is the Observer's measure of human rights, the "Collective Misery' index is that multiplied by population (in thousands), defence spending is from 2000 and in $bn, and the HI is collective misery/defence spending/87 (the last being to make the US 100).

Zimbabwe isn't on it as the Observer didn't give them a rating in 2000, perhaps it wasn't considered bad enough. It has a population of 12,000 (000s) and defence spending of 120m, so it's HII will be 1,200 times its HRI. For example if it had an HRI of 10, it would have an HII of 12,000.

The tabloid Telegraph

Much has been made of the Daily Telegraph remaining broadsheet why all its rivals (excluding the FT) have got smaller. This is in fact not true. I'd not read the Telegraph since it had a revamp until today, and actually it appears to have become a tabloid, just without getting smaller. Today's front page has only one story, David Blunkett, with an enormous headline.

Good laws

I'm very pleased to read this news story. On my way to work I have to walk up a road on which large puddles form on the left hand side, and when cars are turning right off it cars go quickly on the very far left to undertake, usually resulting in a soaking unless you are careful. Obviously the worst offenders are transit van and London cab drivers. I always wondered whether you could sue them for damages; this seems easier.

Sense of the great British public

The Great British Public have once again shown their true sense in political decisions, at least according to a Mori poll, which shows they aren't too keen on spending £500 each on a Trident replacement (which is, as Anthony Wells says, at the upper end of the cost projections, but when have defence projects come in on budget?), and they aren't took keen on using nuclear weapons even if fired upon.

Will the Metropolitan Elite listen? I very much doubt it.

Monstrous bosses

This is rather unpleasant.

Taxiing Issues

I got a black cab last night and it had a TV set in it! You can't get broadcast TV but it had clips of the Office, news stories, holiday programmes etc, and not much advertising (though it appear, obvioously, that is one of the ideas). It was quite good, nothing like those appalling TVs in London buses. We truly live in a golden age.

Taxing issues

As readers will be aware this blog yields to no man in its admiration of David Davis, and the hope that he will triumph against Charlie Cameron.

The Telegraph made me laugh though.

The Davis team is trying to capitalise on what it feels is Mr Cameron's vagueness on tax policy

Good idea. Don't want Vagueness. What will Decent Dave do that Dodgy Dave won't?

Mr Davis, whose pledge would commit his party to "spend wisely, cut taxes, generate growth", raises the prospect of slashing the basic rate of income tax by eight pence to 14 pence in the pound. Alternatively, the cuts could be shared out by allowing inheritance tax, stamp duty and capital gains tax to be abolished completely.

Well you can't say he's vague, can you? To be honest this sounds like a Telegraph wish list rather than anything DD would really do. What happened to reducing borrowing?

I suppose we should be grateful that unlike the two millionaires, he's not planning a middle-class destroying flat tax.

Workplace smoking ban

The government has announced its plan for a smoking ban in workplaces, and there's a reasonable debate on Harry's Place about it.

The government's compromise, which is to exempt pubs that don't serve food, is clearly silly, as it is completely at odds with their own rationale for the ban, which is to protect the health of pub staff.

It's obvious (and the government is basically saying) that it is just a short-term political fix, with the idea that once the public are used to and happy with the ban, it will be extended to all pubs.

The enforcement of the ban seems odd. Patricia Hewitt today said that the Police will be empowered to issue on the spot fines. Well we'll see, but surely it would have been better to make it a condition of the licence, and thus the licence holder's responsibility? In fact I'd have thought that must be the case too.

On whether it's a good idea, I am in two minds. That pubs are workplaces is a strong argument, as I support a workplace ban. However the civil liberties argument, which basically is that if adults want to go and smoke indoors with other adults whilst drinking, they should be allowed to, is also persuasive. However there are a host of legal regulations already governing that, for instance what times you can drink.

Indeed rather fascinatingly you will now be able to drink, but not smoke, in a pub between 11am and 11pm, and then smoke, but not drink, between 11pm and 11am.

Bloggy donations

Various bloggers from time to time attempt to offset the costs of blogging by asking for donations from readers, which seems a sensible thing to do. Does anyone know what the tax situation would be with respect to these gifts?

ps Ross, Dan, Anthony, Peter & Richard, don't worry I am not about to start.

Hitler/Saddam

I'm genuinely not sure if David Aaronovitch actually realises there were trials of Nazi leaders after world war II (represented by US and British barristers), some of whom didn't accept the authority of the court, others who argued that the Russians and Stalin's judge were hardly well-placed to try anyone, and even that one of the counts against the leaders who have indicted Churchill. Anyway read it all, I suppose.

It's not clear what he is trying to say really. Hitler committed suicide, I suppose he's aware of that, in May 1945. If he hadn't have however it's likely he would have been tried, much like his on-off Deputy Herman Goering was, in 1946, by a specially convened court under the jurisdiction of the Allies, rather than the German people, as is (replacing German with Iraqi) the case with Saddam. Such a court is I think what the people Aaro is trying to have a go at have argued for, which rather means his attempt at historical comparison is the wrong way around. But as I said I'm not sure if he knows what actually happened.

Davis camp alleges dirty tricks.

The campaign hots up, with Michael Howard's office now being blamed for the story that Davis might quit before the party members vote, and the press and BBC blamed for boosting Cameron too much (incidentally a few week's ago the BBC were being blamed for trying to get Ken Clarke elected; boosting Cameron would be an odd way to go about it).

Intolerance

The Times has been supporting David Cameron since the off, and its editorial in May makes interesting reading. Given it's now been five months, and there must have been corrections suggested, I'm wondering whether it actually did mean 'intolerant' here:

The successor must be able to articulate the need for tax cuts, and yet to appear intolerant on issues such as immigration.

Also, it's come to my attention that David Cameron was not an MP for most of April...

Cameron cures cancer; announces free ponies

Well it's possible. He's already seen off Gordon Brown!

New Iraq poll - 45% support attacks on British troops; 1% believe forces responsible for improvement in security

In today's Telegraph:

Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

Lack of awareness moment

Scott Burgess in a post titled:

Unsupported Assertions, Unabashed Spin, Unmitigated Nonsense

It is, of course, a central tenet of the liberal mentality that those who commit crimes should be understood rather than punished.

Hilarious!

David Cameron

Not on drugs this time, but his views on Iraq. Chris Brooke does some excellent sleuthing, and can't explain why he is now so hawkish.

PCRS XIXI - It's David for me!

Many people have been asking me, "Who will you be voting for in the Conservative leadership election". My answer is always the same, "David". Let me totally clear on this, I am a David man. Nothing will change my mind. I support David, and have always supported David.

Why? Let me explain. There are those who say that he lacks of experience. I say how wrong can you be! David has been a minister under John Major, a leading shadow cabinet figure since we've been out of power, and has a wealth of experience as an MP since 1987! Let me repeat that, 1987!.

Then there are those who say he lacks charisma. They weren't in the conference hall in Blackpool when David when that fantastic speech, without notes! It was a moving occasion, showing David's natural rapport with the media.

Others criticise David's posh background. I say, who are you talking about? David grew up a council estate and was in the SAS. Then there are those who say he is just another in a long list of leaders who failed to see we needed change. I say David is the epitome of a modernising Conservative, with his trendy London friends.

Then there is the issue of drugs. David couldn't be clearer, insisting that no-one who has taken drugs recently could be Conservative leader. He's also been admirable in his refusal to bow to press demands.

What about his mandate from the MPs? David got 146 votes, nearly 3/4 of the parliamentary party. What more mandate do you need? I forecast now that David will win the ballot of the party members.

Indeed so impressive is David as a candidate that it's almost like having two of them. And with that, who can doubt it's time to go back to your constituencies and prepare for government.

Friday Rant

When you're on a tube train and the driver announces that instead of going through as a Circle Line it is going to terminate at Edgware Road as a District Line would, why do some people feel the need to 'tut' very loudly? We're all annoyed, we all know we're all annoyed. Now you're making us more annoyed. Stop it. If you want to vent your anger, get a blog. Worse still, often a loud enough 'tut' will set off other people in a kind of 'Mexican Tut' throughout the carriage.

I suspect those that do this are the same people who, when in the theatre, delight at making incredibly loud 'shushing' noises if one poor person has just whispered to their friend something, so loud that the 'shushing' drowns out the sound of the actors.

Davis still in it

So Cameron won the second round with 90, Davis second on 57 and Fox last on 51. This means Davis lost 5 votes, Fox gained 9, and Cameron gained 34.

Cameron therefore did very well, it looks like of Clarke's 38 votes he got almost all of them and with it by far the best total ever in this leadership style contest.

Davis, unless he decides to quit, appears to have done enough to make a ballot of the members not a walkover. Cameron didn't get half of the votes and indeed if there was a next ballot of MPs and all of Fox's votes transferred to Davis he would win.

Of course there isn't a next ballot of MPs, so it's now up to the blue-rinse brigade. One has to assume they'll go for Cameron unless something happens.

Congratulations to Ross, with his comment-box prediction of 81/65/52, almost spot on with Fox and not to far off for the others, and so he wins the prediction contest and thus the copy of the ginger maestro's "Stars" album.

More Tory election

There's a new YouGov poll in the D.Telegraph of Conservative party members which shows Cameron has an overwhelming lead. It also shows that the drug allegations are widely believe to be by the Davis camp, or that Davis has deliberatedly not distanced himself from that, and that this has widely rebounded on Davis.

There's a slightly interesting quirk in the voting that if Fox faced Davis in the run-off he would win, but Davis scores better against Cameron. Anyway it's Cameron all the way.

I think my concerns are similar to Jamie's, which is that Cameron is basically a media-figure, he's worked in the media, he has a lot of friends in the media, and his rise has been essentially media driven. So if things go wrong, and clearly this could be policy-driven or personally-driven (or photographically-driven), his descent could be as rapid.

On the subject of drugs, I don't really understand why the press haven't asked him questions about his view on the issues as a matter of public policy, for example "Do you believe jail terms should be given to middle-class users of Class-A". This surely would be harder to refuse to answer? Also, the poll asks about use as a 'student'. This seems quite specific, given the man worked for years in the meejda.

Update: David Davis has now said he won't discuss even drugs policy for the rest of the campaign. What a decent man. Of course his supporters are a liberty to do what they want. I was wondering, if Cameron does become leader, will any MPs resign the party whip? Surely Andrew Rosindell, who demanded Kate Moss be sacked as "It gives teenagers completely the wrong impression when someone who they look up to is caught taking hard drugs and is able to carry on regardless", and "zero toleranace", could not carry on?

Cameron leader on Friday

If Cameron beats Davis into a distant second place (with Fox in third) it looks possible that Davis may stand aside, and allow the party to do another Michael Howard-style coronation.

This is clever stuff. If the members won't let you change the rules, ignore them. Hopefully Cameron will agree to do the same in the unlikely event he doesn't come first.

More Nick Cohen in 2001!

...If alleged rogue states need to be controlled, they can only be controlled by international agreement between regional powers, as Iraq was before American arrogance alienated Russia, China and much of the Middle East. Bush is destroying international agreements and pushing potential rivals who fear American military dominance of the planet through the militarisation of space into a new and unnecessary nuclear race...

...The British political class adores America. Like a sad old man who fears his young wife will seek her pleasures elsewhere, our élite will give the United States whatever she wants if she will only massage the fragile national ego...

...If Britain had a fair voting system… No sooner was the question out, than the hall realised Britain doesn't have PR and relaxed...

Ken Clarke

If history repeats itself the Tory party will dump Cameron and come calling for Ken Clarke on the 30th January 2008.

Cameron campaign derailed by new allegations

The BBC is reporting that Sir Malcolm Rifkind plans to support David Cameron in the next round of the Tory leadership election.

Meal after meal

A friend of mine has just been to a dinner at one of the Livery company halls in the City and had a three course meal (starter, main, then dessert) then got served mini scotch pancakes with bacon and friend quail's egg. Then coffee and chocolates.

Has anyone ever heard the like? What's this course called?

The winner is the loser

Unless Davis is right in his claims of 'tactical voting', it appears likely to me that having failed to even get his public supporters to vote for him, his support will now collapse, and we're going to get Fox v Cameron. Cameron will have the momentum, but Fox will have the head-banging credentials.

Incidentally why does the Tory party not just have one round, with the top two going through? I read the system was designed to stop Ken Clarke in his heyday, I don't really see why having more rounds would do that.

ps Incidentally as we here how good a leader this man or that man will be, it is worth remember the Telegraph's words on the election of IDS, which sound eerily similar to the things Tories are saying today:

Closely in touch with his colleagues in the House of Commons ...Although it helped Mr Duncan Smith to have the backing of Lady Thatcher during his campaign, he will find that he is the first of her successors not to have to define his leadership by being either for or against her...Substance and seriousness will be more in demand, and Iain Duncan Smith has both

It's also worth remembering what happened in 2001. Here were the results on the first ballot:

Michael Portillo: 49
Iain Duncan Smith: 39
Kenneth Clarke: 36
Michael Ancram: 21
David Davis: 21

The important point here being that Portillo won, but nowhere near as much as was expected, and IDS did much better. The tie between Ancram and Davis rather comically was not forseen in the rules, and a recount was held, which remarkably saw both Ancram and Davis go because they both scored so pitifully. In the second ballet Portillo managed to come last (Clarke won), widely believed to be because some of his supporters backed Clarke to ensure he made the run-off (which then Portillo would easily win).

David Cameron did not crack

Well that'll be a relief to his campaign team, though whilst advising Norman Lamont I think he could have been excused anything:

Alice Thomson, a close friend and holiday companion, wrote in her Daily Telegraph column: “He did not crack when advising Norman Lamont during the exchange-rate mechanism [ERM] debacle.”

Micheal J Totten is not a spy

Spread the word.

His trip to Lebanon appears to be stumbling under these untrue allegations, which is making the country look "barking mad":

How about all my Lebanese readers tell their friends and family that accusing every foreigner they see of being a spy is only funny the first 29 or 30 times that it happens. After that it’s stupid. After that it’s offensive. After that it makes your country look barking mad.

Associated Newspapers

According to Political Betting via The Guardian, (and I've heard it from an even more reliable source) the Associated Newspaper group are straining every sinew to do David Cameron in this Sunday.

I have little expectation, but I hope Conservatives who in the past have been staunch supporters of the Daily Mail, and indeed Cameron himself, remember this behaviour in years to come and indeed, learn from Stanley Baldwin, who in Ross McKibben's words, did: "never take any notice of the Daily Mail and, when stuck, publicly abuse its owner"

Update: One supposes the Davis camp is behind much of this, with David Davis today oddly saying that any "recent" users can't be PM. I guess we'll find out why he said that, but it's not something you can take back, so if all these hints are true presumably this statement rules him out of any Shadow Cabinet position under Cameron.

Gerard Baker is shrill

Gerard Baker, a slighty right-wing Times columnist who has spent much of his time there defending Bush, now sounds rather shrill:

And yet, the Trouble with Harriet is much larger than any of this. It is not just that she is so obviously unfit to hold the office of associate justice of the US Supreme Court, though she is certainly that. It is the simple, depressing lack of seriousness demonstrated by the White House in coming up with such a candidate, the sheer cramped and occluded smallness of the thinking that now seems to characterise the Bush Administration’s approach to governing. It is hard to overstate the mood of demoralisation among conservatives in America. The rising tide of disillusionment is ready to break the dam of loyalty.

Of course he still defends the vision, and indeed parrots the standard line from the Bushies/Decents that if the theory was good enough, the disastrous reality can be forgiven:

The grisly ineptitude of the conduct of US policy in Iraq has been forgivable — just — because the cause was right and the vision, a democratic Middle East that shakes off centuries of despotic decay, remains an inspiring one. The cavalier attitude towards the public finances reflected a disturbing callowness but could still be tolerated as a messy outcome of awkward political realities. In both cases, soaring idealism in concept has been undermined by woeful execution.

but I suspect it's only a matter of time before he gives up on that too.

Ian Gilmour on the Tory leadership election

Did The Times really support IDS with quotes about Archer?

1980s nostalgia

The Ft's coverage of Mrs Thatcher's 80th birthday bash annoyed me.

First:

...the guest list certainly had a whiff of 1980s revivalism about it. Among those invited were Rupert Murdoch...

Oh yes, Murdoch. Whatever happened to him?

Then, and this isn't the FT's fault, this absurd Michael Howard birthday greetings:

"What Churchill did in wartime, Margaret Thatcher did in peacetime. Her political will and her iron courage saw off threats to our way of life that Britain faced in 1979."

Why the silly reference to Churchill? If you believe Mrs Thatcher's premiership was fantastic, say so, and on its own terms, not by comparision with something 60 years ago. If I was Mrs Thatcher I would have found that irritating.

Finally, a quote from bloody Sinjan Forsley, or however you spell it.
Why? Why?

Is Mr Snuffles dead?

Regular readers of this site will know there is no celebrity figure in Britain I dislike more than Andrew Marr (with the obvious except of David 'Bablylon' Grey). Nevertheless credit where it is due, it appears he may have got over his period of madness, in which he pretended to one million people a day (at least) that he was his children's guinea pig called Mr Snuffles, and is back writing a column. It's not a good column, but it's a column nonetheless.

Oliver's finest

I've not read any Noam Chomsky, so I've also never read any of Oliver Kamm's posts on him. However today's caught my eye as it is called 'Chomsky's Finest', and is about an interview [sound clip] in which Chomsky talks about the 2004 Presidential election.

Listening to it I'm not sure I accept Oliver's description of it, but more worrying is this analysis. Oliver quotes Chomsky:

The most prestigious institutions that monitor public opinion came out with extensive studies related to the election. Right before the election, this October

and says:

Needless to say, Chomsky does not divulge the identity of the prestigious institutions that made this remarkable discovery, which remains a closely-guarded secret

which is weird, as I heard quite clearly Chomsky give the two names of the organisations in answer to a question asking for them, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and Programme of International Policy Attitudes.

I make no claims about the quality or reputation of either institute, but Chomsky clearly said them.

Don't pay 40p for Nick Cohen's Standard column; read it free online

With Harry gone, Nick's reduced to recycling 13-month old columns.

Nick Cohen, New Statesman, August 2004
"Why it's right to hate traffic wardens"

In its small way, what has happened in Islington shows why "broken windows" theory is a nonsense. English policing used to be as much about order as law. Discretion was applied and trouble was avoided by the police moving people on rather than applying the law to the letter. There were quiet words rather than arrests, and extenuating circumstances were taken into account.

Nick Cohen, Evening Standard, October 2005
"Counting the cost of traffic tyrants"

Dull-witted conservatives say we want zero-tolerance policing. Well we've got zero-tolerance traffic policing [in Islington] and no-one likes it. English policing was once as much about order as law. Discretion was applied and extenuating circumstances were taken into account.

I particularly like the way he's changed some key phrases, e.g "broken windows" with "zero-tolerance policing" to make it seem different.

Betfair

I've not had a good relationship with Betfair, losing every bet I've ever placed. I could have got out of a bet on Blair resigning (due to his 'family problems') with a profit, but I held on actually for him to resign, and the selfish man didn't. On the General Election I managed to place bets on two things that were almost impossible to happen together, which was the Tories get more than 210 seats but not get some London marginals, but not impossible for them not to happen together, so I lost both.

Anyway the current odds on the Tory leadership election are:

Cameron 1.7
Davis 3.4
Fox 8.8
Clarke 10.5
Hague 170

Fox is the best value at 8.8, I think.

Could it happen?

Liam Fox appears to be moving into a comfortable 3rd place (though in these contests, with a secret ballot, MPs are often lying) with a non-formal endorsement from a right-wing grouping I've never heard of it.

That will mean David, David and Liam will go into the next round, where presumably the right-wing vote could go to Fox if David's campaign is considered irrevocably punctured. That would leave the party members voting on David or Liam, and though the membership aren't as right-wing as you would believe, they do like a bit of Europe bashing and Cameron only does that to a degree.

So Fox it is! Years of fun ahead.

Who is going to be your Shadow Chancellor?

I've followed the Tory leadership election probably a tad more than the average person, but two tads less than the average blogger. So I could be wrong when I say that none of the candidates appear to have said who'll be in their Shadow Cabinet. In American politics a lot of attention is paid to the choice of Vice-President, even if in reality it matters only sometimes. A parliamentary system is not the same as a Presidential one, and in a party of less than 200 MPs clearly there is not a great deal of uncertainty over who will fill the positions, if not perhaps the specific positions.

But any ideas? Presumably George Osbourne will be David Cameron's Chancellor*, though if he's got any sense above that silver spoon of his he'll look over the Despatch Box and choose someone less ambitious. But Ken Clarke's? Or David Davis's? Will they give Cameron a job? And where does John Redwood fit in?

* Politically however one wonders how this would play. Two very rich and privileged (Osbourne in particular) 30-somethings thinking of introducing a tax that benefits the rich and privileged at the expense of the 90% of the population strikes me as a bit of a disaster.

Trends

Richard Tomkins in the FT notes that the growing belief that cancer is becoming more common is at odds with the facts, similarly the view that more people are self-employed than they used to be. He suggests this is a general trend:

My small thought on this is that humans have a natural tendency to believe that phenomena of all kinds are increasing because, from the individual’s own perspective, they are. When you are very young you will probably never have seen or heard of anyone being afflicted with cancer but as your life progresses, you accumulate a growing number of such experiences, leading you to suppose that cancer itself is occurring more often. When you first get a job you will probably never have met anyone who has been laid off and had to become a free agent, but as your career progresses you meet more and more such people, leading you to suppose they are part of a growing trend.

The classic case of this is crime, he says. The longer you live, the more you are likely to have been a victim of crime, or know someone else who is. So you find it harder to believe crime rates are falling.

Camden stuff

"Shake it! Feel the rhythm pulse through Black History Month", screams "CamdenLiving", the local borough's free monthly newspaper (their embolding).

Elsewhere they have an interview with Simon Mayo. About his wedding night.

Sunday rants

Three things we (see point 2) feel the world needs to know.

1. Bus stop maps. Where have they gone? They've stopped putting local area maps on the windows of the shelter. These were always very useful to know where you were. Now they just have diagrammatic maps of bus routes, which don't really work in my experience.

2. Mirrors in clothes shops outside of the changing rooms. Where have they gone? This is BG's complaint btw, not mine.

and a less ranty one:

3. Went to the Tesco's Wine Fair on Saturday (at Lords, £10, all you can drink). Spanish wines from Toro, seem good value and nice. For example here and in Tesco's, obviously. That's as much as I can remember.

Stephen Pollard

It's always risky on a blog to take the intellectual high ground, and if you're Stephen Pollard even more so. He attacks, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, using his delightful and witty nickname "Yazzmonster":

Talking about Blair's dertermination [sic] to remain PM, she came out with this piece of insight:

Not since Thatcher have I come across a politician so committed to their legacy.

Er, yes, Yasmin. There's only been one other PM. Startling insight.

This says much about Pollard. He cannot conceive of a politician other than the PM. He cannot conceive of politicians in other countries.

Labour forever?

Niall Ferguson writes a column in the Sunday Telegraph in which I think he was told to 'think big', and by-and-large he succeeds. Today he suggests that the Labour party may be in power for a generation.

He first notes that around the world one-party rule for decades is not uncommon, classically Japan, but also Germany, Sweden, Israel, Italy and even for periods in the US (Congress was Democrat for most of post-war era) and the UK.

Obviously there are many counter-examples, and you can take or leave the data really. More interesting to me was his suggestions why it may be so for Labour in Britain. He gives four reasons, the first three specific to Britain:

1. The end of the cold war means defence is less of an issue.
2. Increasingly liberal social behaviour
3. Increasingly urbanisation.

All three are debatable, in the extent they matter and whether they really benefit Labour. The fourth point however is more general, and that's to do with the economy. Since 1990 economic volatility in all western countries has declined, at least in terms of GDP growth or employment. Furthermore people are more inclined to blame external factors, of the Bank of England, than the government, when things go wrong.

In other words governments really have to muck up to lose power. It's a good argument, though again clearly you can argue with some of the points. For instance we don't really know if people will blame the Bank of England for a recession, as there's not been one since it was made independent. Economic variability was just as low in the 1950s and 1960s (though it is true there was a long period of one-party rule).

Finally, I remember arguments that the Tory party would be in power for a generation in 1992.

Terrorism in France

Nick Cohen's latest column is almost the polar opposite of his famous 2001 column, in which he told us that:

Blair has turned himself from British Prime Minister to American ambassador and willingly accepted exhaustion and humiliation as he tours the world on the President's behalf. He has ordered British troops to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US military. He has - and there's no point being prissy about this - pinned a large target sign on this country.

About the only point in common between the two columns is that its "liberals" to blame. Then they were to blame for refusing to accept the link between their actions and terrorism. Now they're to blame for making a link.

The weirdest thing about the new column is the argument about the risk of France being a victim of Islamic terrorism. France? Paris? Surely not? Who'd have thought it?

So why is Cohen ranting on about this now? I suspect he is positioning himself, in the realisation of a bomb on the Metro, so he can say that "liberals" said it couldn't happen, and therefore declare all their views are discredited. He'll probably add that the French government must be embarassed that their opposition to the war in Iraq didn't save them. And so on.

Flat taxes

I've been labelling the flat tax the 'middle class' tax. But perhaps instead it should just be called the '90% tax', as that's the estimate of Lombard Street Research on how many taxpayers would be worse off if it kept the same revenue.

Cameron surges

Sunday Times has a poll of Tory members which show massive support for David Cameron. This could be fun.

The Telegraph says Cameron is so confident he is planning his first 100 days. Lots of really earnest brow-furrowing, I guess.

In the newspapers

The Guardian, presumably somewhat mischeviously, has been talking up Liam Fox's candidature, here, and here (and elsewhere).

I think there's an element of let's have another IDS about this, though personally I think Fox would be a worse leader than IDS, a worse leader than Michael Howard, and even a worse leader than William Hague. My own choice, for what its worth, would have to be David Davis.

In the Telegraph Boris Johnson waxes lyrical about David Cameron, and as usual talks a lot of piffle.

But the Tories must never forget that millions of people are looking to them to save them from the depredations of the taxman - and those millions are by no means the richest in society, but the very poorest who pay grotesque proportions of their income in tax.

This is clearly rubbish. It is true that the poorest pay more in tax that I would like, but they do not by and large pay "grotesque" proportions of their income in tax, particularly not the taxes Johnson means, which are income taxes. Johnson believes they pay large amounts in income tax because either a) he was fooled by a roadsweeper into believing said roadsweeper paid about four times more tax than he actually did, b) he met a roadsweeper who was paying four times more tax than he should or c) he decided, before the general election, to invent the figures. He himself says it is b), which makes you wonder why he didn't offer to help the poor man pay the correct figure.

It is also true that the very poorest often face high marginal rates of taxation. This is an inevitable feature of a minimum income guarantee that doesn't cost tens of billiohns. However high marginal rates of taxation are a very different thing than paying 'grotesque proportions of their income in tax'.

And indeed a flat tax, at least in the form proposed by most right-wing groups, would reduce the income tax paid by the very poorest. It's a tiny amount however, probably about £350 per household if it removed income tax altogether from the poorest quintile. It would more importantly reduce the income tax paid by the very richest by an enormous amount, say about £5,500 per household if it halved their income tax bill (this is consistent with the 'cost' of the reform), and obviously this an average, much of the gain would go to the top 5%. If, as is likely, the tax-take was maintained, it would of course be the middle-class who would pay for it all.