A jolly good show

From the BBC:

A teenager who sparked a land and air rescue operation after stealing a boat has almost completed a sponsored walk around Britain to make amends.

Seb Green was 15 when he and a friend sparked a search costing £20,000 when they got stranded near Weymouth Harbour, Dorset, in May 2004.

He set off from Preston, Dorset, on his 5,821-mile (9,367km) walk with his border collie Flash on 1 February.

Proof, if any were needed, that goodness persists in the next generation.

He plans to study Biology and English A' levels before joining the Royal Marines.

And they should jump at the chance to take him. Anyone with stamina enough for a walk like that and fortitude enough to take responsibility for their errors and make personal efforts to rectify them is just the sort of chap we want in the military.


(H/T Ambush predator)

Swiss see sense

Via Obo, I find the following Times article:

The free provision of heroin to addicts won the overwhelming support of Swiss voters yesterday.

Projections based on early results indicated that 69 per cent of voters approved the programme, believed to be the first of its kind in the world, in a poll called under the country's system of direct democracy.

Crime by heroin addicts has fallen 60 per cent since the initiative to allow health clinics to administer controlled doses of the drug began 14 years ago, according to the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.

Interesting that the proposal should gain such widespread support but I find it totally unsurprising that the medicalisation of the problem, rather than the criminalisation of it, should lead to a reduction in other associated crimes. It is one of the absurdities of the UK's drug policy that the easiest way for drug addicts to seek treatment is through crime; something at least one Labour MP has bravely pointed out.

Heroin is a nasty drug with plenty of attendent social ills. The solution is to take the approach that mitigates such ills in the most effective way at the least cost. Criminalisation fails on all counts: it doesn't stop demand, it hands supply over to ruthless criminal gangs and by criminalising users already and driving up product price it creates huge knock-on secondary criminal offences through addicts seeking the considerable funding required for their habit.

Interestingly, the referendum was proposed by opponents of the scheme that disapproved of the program's £14million costs, despite the scheme easily saving more than that money compared with alternative approaches. One would have rationally expected opponents to advocate an attempt to balance those costs from contributions by the addicts themselves. However, I guess this would be too close to a market for them to stomach. The advantage of such a move according to NeueArbeit Macht Frei would be:

The Swiss could easily impose a charge at some stage, evolve to allow heroin addicts to administer - this would mean, for example and initially, they only sell heroin with a clean syringe as a package so the requirement regarding supervised consumption can be relaxed. Heroin would become unprofitable for criminal gangs to sell. They stop bothering. You can see how criminal gangs would withdraw from drug pushing entirely if it became legal so allowing any organisation to supply.

It isn't about endorsing drug use, far from it as heroin is a god-awful drug, but rather about returning the control of health to the citizenry themselves and re-establishing the government as a guardian of that health, rather than ceding such control to criminal gangs, the very last people we want addicts to depend upon.

Also interesting is this:

While the Swiss have a more tolerant attitude towards drugs than most European countries, a parallel referendum to legalise small-scale cannabis growing and use was soundly rejected by a margin of about two to one.

A third of people voted to change the law in favour of legalising cannabis. In the UK, that's the sort of percentage that sees majority governments formed so it isn't insubstantial support.

The exact reasons for this difference in approach in hard and soft drugs is perhaps explained in the same Times article:

While the Swiss Government backed the heroin initiative, it opposed the call for marijuana legalisation because it feared that it could cause drugs tourism to Switzerland of the kind that is causing public disorder problems in border towns in the Netherlands. Oswald Sigg, a government spokesman, said: “This could lead to a situation where you have some sort of cannabis tourism in Switzerland because something that is illegal in the EU would be legal in Switzerland.”

It's rather akin to being the only bar in town. It isn't so much the drink as that it is the only place one can get it that amplifies the public disorder. Not surprising the residents don't want to live near or in such a place.

Dancing around the issue 2

The application for a lap-dancing bar on Beastfair, Pontefract, was approved today. As stated, I had public order concerns about this application, but not because of the proposed dancing, which I view as a private matter between attending adults. However, having spoken with local police in the interim, it appears they are confident that the intended venue will be sufficiently distinct from some other local venues in how it is run as to reduce the likelihood of present trouble-makers hijacking the club's longer hours as an opportunity to extend the existing disorder they bring to that road at night. My initial concern as to increased public disorder has now been replaced by cautious vigilance that the terms imposed by local police are followed.

On a lighter note, after reading my earlier article, a dancer emailed me to ask about whom to apply to for work in the soon-to-be opened club. Just goes to show that there are two sides to every coin.

Vote bleg

If any of my readers are feeling particularly charitable, can you take the time to vote for my bro Si and his friends' film "Different shades of Graham" to win funding at this film competition. He's the one on the left with the blonde hair that looks far more styled than I've ever seen it.

Yes, you have to do the whole register-and-they-mail-you-a-password tedium but a moment's effort would make a hell of a difference to these thoroughly decent chaps.

Voting ends at 5:30pm on Decemnber 6th so please be quick.

Click here to go vote!

Click here to see a little vid they quickly made threate...errr...coaxing people to vote (over 18s only and not for the squeamish).

Thank you kindly!

Graffiti fail or win?

More images at the failblog.

Cooper's comments

Downfall (starring Mervyn King, Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown - H/T Obo)

Yvette Cooper has a bit in the Ponte & Cas Express where she talks about the pre-budget report. She mentions a host of different things but here's a few highlights:

“We are giving a £60 cheque to every pensioner as well as families with disabled children [in the Five Towns area]”

I wish the government just simplified things and provided such people a decent regular income via a CBI rather than these Christmas gifts. It'd be less condescending and far more welcome.

“Although petrol prices have been cut down,”

Cut? Prices fell due to global market shifts. Taxes on fuel didn't lower, indeed they just upped them to balance their VAT cut. What did the government have to do with cheaper fuel prices?

“I’m really concerned that gas and electricity companies are still not bringing prices down."

We know there is a lag in price transference in this industry because of a number of reasons, including fuel stockpiling. My supplier Equigas/Equipower (read their mission statement here) didn’t pass on the previous price hikes until after last Winter. The Labour government stayed oddly quiet on applauding that welcome move. It's all blame and no acclaim. Besides, if the government was keen to see lower prices then scrapping the 5% VAT on gas/electric would be a start.

There’s the standard government lines about “creating jobs”, which by taxing some workers to pay for others isn’t the economic job creation we need.

“We know what happens in these times – expecially around the area when the pits have closed and with the recession of the early 1980s. At that time the government turned its back on the people. We are doing the opposite.”

I’m hardly the sort of Conservative to leap to Margaret Thatcher’s defence at every opportunity but all the times I've seen Yvette Cooper speak locally, she never seems to miss an opportunity to bring up the 1980s. I don’t agree with all the things Thatcher did or how she did them. However, she didn’t create that recession, she brought us out of it, because she'd read up on her economics (chiefly the Chicago and Austrian schools). I would never downplay the devastating local effects of that recession, and some government policies, had to this area. You can practically hear the crackle in the air when Thatcher's name is mentioned. However, are we really comparing the large scale collapse of the British mining and manufacturing industries with the current financial crisis? Yvette Cooper seems to be. When we've soup kitchens and street riots, I'll accept it as a valid comparison. It should be pretty clear that it isn't current government policy that is protecting us from those earlier troubles so much as the cushion of decades of market-created wealth.

In reference to the government's drop of VAT on goods and services from 17.5% to 15%:

"Throughout the whole year, all the things people buy will be cheaper, which means more money at the end of the month."

Agreed. Eleven years of government and they've finally turned their attention to this regressive tax and dropped it to the minimum under EU law. For 13 months. It's a good move and I'll happily applaud them for doing it. Here goes:





Okay, now, let's hope it's permanent.

Insert pie pun here

A woman who drank two bottles of wine after she could not find her Alcoholics Anonymous meeting was described as the "most drunken driver" police had ever seen.

Pontefract makes the national papers and not for the best of reasons. Still, I'm hardly one to talk considering my infamy. I hear her husband makes damn fine pork pies though.

The Yorkshire Evening Post title is best:

Driver got pie-eyed after losing way to AA meeting

Now I can't think of a pun for my title.

They giveth and they taketh away

Let's look at the pre-budget report. This is probably the first one that I can remember where I actually like a number of the proposals. Here's some of the changes that caught my eye:

They've brought in a new 45% income tax bracket for those earning £150,000 or more a year. It's standard envy economics but really it's just for show as it only further complicates the tax regime and won't bring in much money, if any, as some rich will just relocate (see Mark's fagpacket figures).

The basic tax-free allowance, i.e. the amount you can earn before you start paying income tax, will stay at £6,035, making permanent the increase Brown brought in when it looked like he'd be run out of town on a rail for removing the 10% tax bracket. Larger tax-free allowances are a good thing so well done there. Of course, they've complicated it by removing the tax-free allowance for all earners over £100,000. So more envy politics with all their associated marginal effects (e.g. a pay increase from £99,999 to 100,000 just became expensive).

National insurance will rise by 0.5% in 2011, though no one under £20,000 per annum will pay more tax. So they've upped income tax again for the average earner. Sorry, did I say income tax? I meant tax on income. I'm sure people's wallets can tell the difference.

There's the standard tinkering with the benefits system that they do every year without ever resolving the welfare trap created by the high marginal taxation rates people on low incomes face.

Mortgage lenders will have to wait for at least three months of failed payments before seeking repossession. This only legally formalises what is common practice anyway. Repossession is expensive for all parties involved so lenders wouldn't normally foreclose. However, a three month period does seem reasonable as long as the debt is repaid.

VAT will be cut from 17.5% to 15% for 13 months. Why such a small cut? Because being the good Europhiles that they are, 15% is the minimum under EU law. The effects of this tax cut will mean cheaper products for consumers (yes!) and will help businesses on the margins to survive (double yes! because it's the jobs they create that allow both the production and purchase of those consumables by people). It's an excellent move. As someone, perhaps Mark, put it, two-and-a-half steps in the right direction, we just need to take the remaining fifteen.

VAT is one of those taxes that is accepted by many because, like myself only a few years ago, they've been conned into thinking consumption is a bad thing and that, because VAT is superficially a consumption tax, it will discourage the evils of prolific purchasing. Really, VAT is a tax on income and turnover. Oh, and consumption isn't a bad thing - it's the necessary flipside of production. If, like me, you don't like tax, but recognise its necessity, then the important point is that it is demanded only of those that can afford to pay and that it is designed to minimise its economic damage. VAT fails on both these counts.

However, my cheerleading of this move has to be tempered by the fact that the government clearly has no real idea as to the problems with this tax because it hoped to raise it to 18.5% in 2011.



So in summary, we have some slight tax cuts and increases and Labour further sidelining of its old favourite of tax-and-spend for its new darling, borrow-and-spend. I guess that leaves us with the big question: do I think these proposals will help steer us through the current recession?

Not a cat in hell's chance.

Dangerous diet?

A man with a 10 Mars Bars-a-day habit has blamed lack of sugar for an attack on his girlfriend, a court has heard.

It was only a matter of time before Britain got its version of the Twinkie defence.

Dancing around the issue

There is an application for a lap-dancing bar on Beastfair in Pontefract. I'm surprised a sleepy town of 35,000 has sufficient demand for such a place but we shall see. Some residents have expressed concerns about the very idea of lap-dancing in Pontefract. Perhaps it is prudent that I should outline my opinions.

I'm not opposed to the concept of lap-dancing, though it is not an activity to which I'm very familiar knowing no dancers and having only ever attended one club as part of a Stag night many moons ago. As is my understanding, in many clubs, the girls are self-employed, paying an upfront fee to be able to dance in the venue and then a portion of the price of each dance, or a certain minimum number of dances, to the club. The clubs then provide a safe and structured environment for the girls to work in and in turn collect the door and drink revenues that the girls attract. I'm certain some people find the notion of girls trading on their sexuality and physicality offensive. I do not, as long as all participants are informed, consenting, and the trade occurs in a safe, discrete and private manner. This is not an endorsement of the activity, so much as a reminder that the objectives of licensing law are limited to the prevention of crime and disorder, concerns for public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

As regards this particular application, I have a number of concerns. I do not know how the club will be run so cannot comment on that. Whilst it is true that it is in a commercial area with relatively few residents in the immediate vicinity, it is a part of the Town Centre of Pontefract and so an area used by many locals. The area in question already suffers substantial problems with late-night public disorder. Fights are a regular occurrence and local businesses have had windows put through with alarming frequency. Another venue with a licence to stay open till 4am would likely add to and extend the duration of these already significant problems. With an intended two doorstaff and a stated objective of dispersing patrons, I feel this will be inadequate in avoiding the potential for increased late-night disturbance and violence, especially when considered against an already limited police presence.

Unrelated to the licence bid, I am surprised that the premises have advertised their intention with a banner and by painting the building a vivid purple. I regard this at odds with the intended unified aesthetic scheme for the centre of this rather quaint market town (it having conservation area status). Curiously, the banner stated the venue was Pontefract's "latest" lap-dancing bar, can anyone remember one before? Perhaps I've not lived here long enough to recall another.

The application (details of which can be found here) will be decided on the 1st December. If any residents wish to contact me regarding it so that I might comment on their behalf, please feel free.

Christsmash

Pontefract switched on its Christmas lights today in a very popular event. You may have seen me up on stage singing along and looking every bit of the fool I frequently am. As I stood chatting with some of the other councillors near the corner of Ropergate, a large white van rounded the corner and clipped a green Ka, scraping the paintwork and flattening one of its tyres. The van carried on regardless with nary a worry. I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody smash one of my resident's cars and get away Scot-free. Cue me having to dash down the road after this van, despite my wearing the less than ideal attire of a suit and greatcoat. I managed to catch up with it enough at TownEnd junction to get its registration (that's got to be the first time that the congestion there has proven good for anything!). If you happened to see an oddly dressed individual near TownEnd junction, standing in the middle of the road and scrawling on his hand, then that was probably me.

Another BNPost

Following on from my previous post on the BNP, two recent events:

1) I got in a heated discussion with a neighbour whom made no secret of having voted BNP at the last election. He is not unusual; for example, in his Council ward the BNP typically come second in local elections. He works as a bricky and has seen his wages depressed through competition from Polish immigrants. They are willing to work for less. From the £13 an hour he was on to £9ph and now to more recent offers of £6ph. It is all very well to talk about immigration from the perspective of the entire economy as politicians are prone to, but such talk means little to those affected at the margins.

I have long said that those willing to come here and work are a welcome addition, as long as they can socially integrate. However, integrated or not, their presence, chiefly because of its temporary nature, can have a detrimental effect on existing residents, most notably through wage depression. The obvious solution would seem to be to fix the incomes of low earners. However, we know that fixing wages, such as the minimum wage (MW) does, costs jobs, e.g. a recent study (H/T ASI) on teenagers found a 10% rise in MW led to a 3.2% increase in unemployment. Increasing the MW across the board to £13 or £9 or even £6 would increase unemployment and hurt some of the very people we are trying to help. Additionally, we can't localise such wage fixing within a particular sector, e.g. just increase MW within the building trade, without distorting the labour market as a whole. If we have learned anything over the last few decades, it should be that price-fixing, yes, even the price-fixing of labour, tends to increase the very problems it seeks to solve.

So what can we do? We can supplement the income of low earners so that they can compete with immigrant labour. A Citizen's Basic Income (CBI) is the least distorting means of achieving this. Pay all British citizens a fixed amount to cover the basic costs of living* and what they earn through work adds to this. The CBI would not be available to immigrants until they have met some conditions, e.g. worked here for a number of years, naturalisation, etc. Setting this CBI at the appropriate amount would allow British workers to compete in the wage market against immigrants. They wouldn't be faced with the crushing choice between working for low wages or not working and claiming the dole. There are lots of other advantages to the CBI, not least its simplification of the gross complexities of the welfare system and the elimination of the welfare trap, but its ability to level the playing field between natives and foreigners is one that is frequently overlooked.

2) I received a booklet from the BNP through the post. Apparently they've sent 200,000 of these out to MPs, Councillors, 18-year-olds and others. It's entitled "Racism cuts both ways" and is about the various instances of anti-white racism that have occurred.

Curiously, I've experienced this myself quite a few times. I once dated a Malaysian girl whose parents refused to tolerate the fact I was white and demanded she break up with me for this reason. In Trinidad, a local drug-dealer threatened to chop me up for having the audacity to be white and date a local girl. However, it would be false for me to claim that my relatively scant experience of incidents such as these is on a par with the more pervasive problems that can accompany permanent minority status in a majority culture.

The government's role in solving such problems amongst its citizenry is to ameliorate social tensions through a combination of education and ensuring that all are equal before the law. Unfortunately, it has not always succeeded in the latter, sometimes calling for positive discrimination, a policy that replaces one hard-done-by demographic for another. In fact, this process has gone so far that now we have Trevor Phillips calling for the positive employment discrimination for the white working class. If we just treated people equally, we wouldn't be caught in this tit-for-tat of advantage.

Personally, I resent both the advantaging of whites, e.g. most of the past century's employment history, and the advantaging of non-whites, e.g. here, here and here. Either we choose to have a meritocracy and give all citizens an equal chance on the basis of their ability, or we don't. I fail to see how we can rectify the injustices of yesterday with injustices today.


* If this sounds like Left-wing wealth redistribution, then I'll be the first to admit it is. It's just a tidier, simpler version of it with fewer unintended consequences. I don't see this as being incompatible with a free market system that allows people to succeed by the sweat of their brow, their entrepreneurial ingenuity and their daring. I want a balance of risk and security. Any reader of this blog will know I'm all over the place on the traditional political spectrum, as are most people.

A good Boss

The masterful "Thunder Road" from 1975's album "Born to Run":



And its sequel "The Promise":



"The Promise" wasn't released until 1999, despite being an outtake of Bruce Springsteen's 1978 album "Darkness on the edge of town" and having gained fame amongst fans during the interim. It says something of an artist when such is the standard of the songs that don't make it onto an album.