2:45pm - I had thought that I was nervous enough in the last hours of polling day when there was nothing else to do and it was just us all waiting for the election results to trickle in. But that's nothing to the sick-in-the-stomach feeling I have now, 15 minutes to go until Southampton kick off against Man Utd and the other three important matches start. This will be an attempt at a live blog. Hopefully I'll be able to cope with it.
Current League Table (before kick off)
17. Norwich City
18. Southampton
19. Crystal Palace
20. West Bromwich Albion.
3pm - My first memory of football is the latter stages of our promotion season of 1977/78 so I can just remember Saints being not being in the top division, but I don't remember what it's like to be there. Ormerod's in the team replacing Crouch, it would be wonderful if a bit-part player could save us this season.
3.03pm - United look a lot better than us, I wish I didn't have to watch, but I do.
3.07pm - United fans chanting "Going Down" to us. Is there a special school Man Utd fans go to to be so charmless? They are expecting us all to support them about Glazer too.
3.10pm - YESSSSSSSS. First chance of any note and Nigel Quashie scores.
17. Southampton
18. Norwich
19. Crystal Palace
20. West Bromwich Albion
3.13pm - And in the excitement, Fulham have scored against Norwich, McBride becomes my favourite American by scoring for Fulham
17. Southampton
18. Crystal Palace
19. Norwich
20. West Bromwich Albion
3.15pm - The Saints goal is proved to be an own goal by O'Shea, but I don't care. I'm not any less nervous, 25 years of supporting Saints (before then I was an Arsenal fan for 3 years) has taught be never to take anything for granted. We almost score but Wes Brown clears off the line.
3.18pm - Brett Ormerod caught offside again, that's been his problem from earlier in the season. I wonder how bad he was at that in that at Wigan... Bugger Fletcher just equalised, that's 1-1. Positions still unchanged, but that makes the margin tighter.
17. Southampton 33
18. Crystal Palace 33
19. Norwich 33
20. West Bromwich 32
3.21pm - Huge save by Niemi from Van Nistelrooy. We're still alive.
3.23pm - Another corner, another chance, Ormerod jumped so high, but headed over.
3.26pm - Silvestre joins Brown in the ref's book, we've got a free kick by the corner flag. Ball pings around a bit, but evantually United clear it.
3.31pm - Not much in the match, United dominant but strangely weak in front of goal. We're still surviving but one goal by Norwich, Palace or West Brom will keep them up and send us down.
3.34pm - Quashie has a header just loop over the bar. Charlton score against Palace, it's 1-0 there and Fulham go 2-0 up against Norwich.
17. Southampton 33
18. Norwich 33
19. Palace 32
20. West Brom 32
3.36pm - Still a goal by West Brom against the dreaded Pompey will send us down and it's bit nervous, the danger is that we might think a draw's enough for us and it won't be. We need to win, if we win and Norwich don't score 3 or Palace not score 4 then we'll stay up.
3.39pm - Is it just me or does O'Shea look like Peter Kay?
3.41pm - We're certainly wanting this more, but United are so much better than us. COME ON YOU SAINTS.
3.45pm - 1 minute of injury time to play. Smith just lobbed too long.
3.46pm - and that's half-time, 45 minutes from safety. COME ON YOU SAINTS.
3.57pm - on the SaintsForever message board someone's saying that he wants to cry, scream, shout and vomit all at the same time. I know exactly how he feels. If we can just get through these 45 minutes then we can put this season behind us and start next with a clean slate. All we have to do is win.
4:02pm - We're back, no chances yet.
4.06pm - Odd, according to the rules, all the 2nd halves must kick off at the same time, but according to the BBC, the Fulham v Norwich and the Saints v United game have kicked off before the other matches. This could benefit West Brom.
4:09pm - The game seems slower than the first half, I really hope we're not settling for this, West Brom are bound to win.
4.11pm - At the moment, Norwich have to score 2 to survive, Palace have to score 2 to survive, West Brom need just 1, but United just need 1 to send us down.
4.13pm - Fulham are 3-0 up now against Norwich, Norwich need 3 now to change anything. They had the benefit of having their destiny in their own hands, a win for them would trump anything we did, but now assuming they can't score 4, a win for us will ensure survival.
4.17pm - Coming up to the hour mark and we haven't had a chance on goal this half so far. We're not going to be able to ride our luck against United for another 30+ minutes, we have to score.
4.19pm - And it all goes wrong. West Brom up against Pompey and Van Nistelrooy scores for United.
17. West Brom 34
18. Norwich 33
19. Saints 32
20. Palace 32
4.21pm - Palace equalise at The Valley against Charlton, it drops us down from 17th two minutes ago, to bottom now. That doesn't matter to us too much, it's still in our hands, a win will keep us up.
17. West Brom 34
18. Palace 33
19. Norwich 33
20. Saints 32
4.23pm - Southampton til I die, Southampton til I die, I know I am, I'm sure I am, Southampton til I die.
4.26pm - Strangely I'm actually calmer now then when we were in a safety position, I don't have to worry about the other games, just this one.
4.29pm - Phillips and Delap on for Le Saux and Prutton, moving into a 4-3-3 formation.
4.30pm - Andy Johnson scores a penalty, surprise surprise and Palace are in the survival spot.
17. Palace 35
18. West Brom 34
19. Norwich 33
20. Saints 32
So all the four teams have had some time in the coveted 17th spot.
4.34pm - Norwich 4-0 down now at Fulham, if they weren't down before they are now.
4.35pm - Calum Davenport on for Olivier Bernard, 12+ minutes left to score twice, it's a tall order but it's never over till it's over.
4.37pm - West Brom 2-0 up now, it doesn't alter things for us, we still have to win, but a win is all we need.
4.38pm - Camara hit the bar... corner to us... but nothing comes of it.
4.40pm - "It's not often that the final day of the season isn't all about United" Alan Parry trying to make it all about United.
4.42pm - Camara goes down in the box, but it was a weak penalty appeal. Palace concede at The Valley so West Brom are back in 17th.
17. West Brom 34
18. Palace 33
19. Norwich 33
20. Saints 32
Only 4+ minutes left, it's looking too late for us now.
4.45pm - Steve Bennett turns down a stronger appeal when Camara tumbles, it needs 2 Saints goals or 1 for Saints and 2 for Pompey for us to survive now.
4.48pm - Massive cheer from the crowd when it's announced that there's 4 minutes of injury time to be played.
4.49pm - MLT "Going down isn't the end of the world" I know Matt, but it feels like it.
4.51pm - Norwich now 6-0 down against Fulham, it's disappointing for me, I can't imagine being a Canaries fan right now.
4.52pm - And that's it, we're down. They are still playing at The Valley and The Hawthorns, I'll carry on till the final whistle there.
4.53pm - West Brom have finished 2-0 winners, but if Palace score a winner... but that's it, Charlton 2 Palace 2 and West Brom stay up.
17. West Brom 34
18. Palace 33
19. Norwich 33
20. Saints 32
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Sunday, May 08, 2005
The survival equations
Now that the election nonsense is over I can break from cover and talk about something much more important - football.
First of all, I must congratulate Yeovil Town on their 3-0 win over Lincoln City, ensuring that Yeovil get the League Two title and promotion to League One next season.
Now to the team of my heart, Southampton. Three clubs get relegated from the Premiership and four teams are in danger of that fate. With one game to go, here's the table.
17th Norwich City: Won 7, Drawn 12, Lost 18, Points 33
18th Southampton: Won 6, Drawn 14, Lost 17, Points 32
19th Crystal Palace: Won 7, Drawn 11, Lost 19, Points 32
20th West Bromwich Albion: Won 5, Drawn 16, Lost 16, Points 31
Last games are on Sunday, Norwich travel to Fulham, Crystal Palace have a local derby at Charlton, West Brom host Portsmouth and Saints entertain Manchester United.
The recipes for survival are:
Norwich
Win ensures survival
Draw will keep Norwich up only if none of Saints, Palace and West Brom don't win
Defeat will only be okay if Saints and Palace both lose and West Brom don't win
Saints
Win is okay as long as Norwich don't win and Palace don't win by 2 more goals than the margin Saints achieve.*
Draw is only okay if Norwich lose and neither Palace or West Brom win
Defeat means we're down.
Palace
Win is good as long as Norwich don't win and Saints either don't win or win by 2 less goals than Palace manage.*
Draw is only okay if Norwich and Saints lose and West Brom don't win.
Defeat means Palace are down.
West Brom need a miracle
Win will only be enough if Norwich, Saints and Palace don't manage to win.
Anything else will be not enough.
*The Saints/Palace situation.
If two teams end up on the same points, then Goal Difference (goals scored less goals conceded) is the first tiebreak. Saints are currently on -20 and Palace on -21, so if Saints win by 1 and Palace by 2, they will both be on -19. The second tiebreak is just to look at Goals Scored, Saints have scored 44 and Palace only 39 so it is just about possible, if Saints win 1-0 and Palace win 6-4 that will be equal as well. If that happens then Saints and Palace would have to play off for the 17th position.
First of all, I must congratulate Yeovil Town on their 3-0 win over Lincoln City, ensuring that Yeovil get the League Two title and promotion to League One next season.
Now to the team of my heart, Southampton. Three clubs get relegated from the Premiership and four teams are in danger of that fate. With one game to go, here's the table.
17th Norwich City: Won 7, Drawn 12, Lost 18, Points 33
18th Southampton: Won 6, Drawn 14, Lost 17, Points 32
19th Crystal Palace: Won 7, Drawn 11, Lost 19, Points 32
20th West Bromwich Albion: Won 5, Drawn 16, Lost 16, Points 31
Last games are on Sunday, Norwich travel to Fulham, Crystal Palace have a local derby at Charlton, West Brom host Portsmouth and Saints entertain Manchester United.
The recipes for survival are:
Norwich
Win ensures survival
Draw will keep Norwich up only if none of Saints, Palace and West Brom don't win
Defeat will only be okay if Saints and Palace both lose and West Brom don't win
Saints
Win is okay as long as Norwich don't win and Palace don't win by 2 more goals than the margin Saints achieve.*
Draw is only okay if Norwich lose and neither Palace or West Brom win
Defeat means we're down.
Palace
Win is good as long as Norwich don't win and Saints either don't win or win by 2 less goals than Palace manage.*
Draw is only okay if Norwich and Saints lose and West Brom don't win.
Defeat means Palace are down.
West Brom need a miracle
Win will only be enough if Norwich, Saints and Palace don't manage to win.
Anything else will be not enough.
*The Saints/Palace situation.
If two teams end up on the same points, then Goal Difference (goals scored less goals conceded) is the first tiebreak. Saints are currently on -20 and Palace on -21, so if Saints win by 1 and Palace by 2, they will both be on -19. The second tiebreak is just to look at Goals Scored, Saints have scored 44 and Palace only 39 so it is just about possible, if Saints win 1-0 and Palace win 6-4 that will be equal as well. If that happens then Saints and Palace would have to play off for the 17th position.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Farewell Jim
In the middle of last week when I blogged on Audrey Callaghan's death, I had the sense that Jim Callaghan himself wouldn't be wanting to hang on too much without her. Still I didn't expect the end for him to come so quickly.
Farewell Jim, I'll miss you.
Farewell Jim, I'll miss you.
Could Flight claim unfair dismissal?
Turn my back for a couple of moments and all hell breaks loose. A quick recap:
Howard Flight, MP for Arundel and South Downs and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party made some indiscreet comments about the Tories public spending committments at a private meeting that was taped and leaked to the Times. He quickly resigned his position as Deputy Chairman and that would normally have been that.
Except that Michael Howard decided to limit any damage to Tory election prospects and announced that Flight would not be the Conservative candidate in the upcoming election. It seems at the moment that Flight's local Conservative Association will indeed accept Central Office's order to ditch Flight.
Question is, does Flight have a claim for unfair dismissal? Until 1996, Employment Tribunals had regarded parliamentary elections as sarcosanct, judging that it's the voters that decide, not the parties, but in that year, two male Welsh Labour Party members successfully claimed that they had been discriminated against by Labour's NEC setting up an all-woman shortlist in their constituency. The Sex Discrimination Act was altered in 2002 to make it legal to discriminate on the grounds of gender for the purpose of all-woman shortlists, but the fact that an Employment Tribunal regards some seats as being in the gift of the Labour Party remains. Arundel and South Downs must be the Tory equivalent of the Welsh Valleys, even in the Labour landslide years of 1997 and 2001, Flight still won very comfortable majorities (14,000 in 1997, 13,700 in 2001). I think it's clear that Flight, without official Conservative Party sanction would be toast as far as being re-elected MP for Arundel and South Downs is concerned.
So, based on that, I think that an Employment Tribunal would regard Michael Howard's decision as a dismissal. The question then turns to, is it fair? There are five reasons in which a person can be legally dismissed, the only two that could apply to Flight are misconduct and lack of capability. I think that Flight could be sacked for misconduct, especially if, as reported, he was told an hour before the meeting, not to go past Tory party policy in his remarks. However such dismissals are automatically unfair, if a proper procedure is not followed. A proper procedure is not announcing that you're sacking someone in a Sky News interview as Michael Howard did. I think that Howard Flight has a good case if he wants to cause trouble.
Howard Flight, MP for Arundel and South Downs and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party made some indiscreet comments about the Tories public spending committments at a private meeting that was taped and leaked to the Times. He quickly resigned his position as Deputy Chairman and that would normally have been that.
Except that Michael Howard decided to limit any damage to Tory election prospects and announced that Flight would not be the Conservative candidate in the upcoming election. It seems at the moment that Flight's local Conservative Association will indeed accept Central Office's order to ditch Flight.
Question is, does Flight have a claim for unfair dismissal? Until 1996, Employment Tribunals had regarded parliamentary elections as sarcosanct, judging that it's the voters that decide, not the parties, but in that year, two male Welsh Labour Party members successfully claimed that they had been discriminated against by Labour's NEC setting up an all-woman shortlist in their constituency. The Sex Discrimination Act was altered in 2002 to make it legal to discriminate on the grounds of gender for the purpose of all-woman shortlists, but the fact that an Employment Tribunal regards some seats as being in the gift of the Labour Party remains. Arundel and South Downs must be the Tory equivalent of the Welsh Valleys, even in the Labour landslide years of 1997 and 2001, Flight still won very comfortable majorities (14,000 in 1997, 13,700 in 2001). I think it's clear that Flight, without official Conservative Party sanction would be toast as far as being re-elected MP for Arundel and South Downs is concerned.
So, based on that, I think that an Employment Tribunal would regard Michael Howard's decision as a dismissal. The question then turns to, is it fair? There are five reasons in which a person can be legally dismissed, the only two that could apply to Flight are misconduct and lack of capability. I think that Flight could be sacked for misconduct, especially if, as reported, he was told an hour before the meeting, not to go past Tory party policy in his remarks. However such dismissals are automatically unfair, if a proper procedure is not followed. A proper procedure is not announcing that you're sacking someone in a Sky News interview as Michael Howard did. I think that Howard Flight has a good case if he wants to cause trouble.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Schiavo case
I very rarely comment on US cases for the simple reason is that from a distance of 3,000+ miles I am often ignorant of the issues. But here's a few random thoughts.
Living Wills: This case might have been easier had Terri written a living will. Daniel Drezner has suggested that the outcome of this whole issue could be an increase of living wills. I don't think that such things are useful. At the moment, I wouldn't want to be be in the state that Terri is in, I would want to be let go. However, if I wrote that in a living will, in five or ten years tie I might feel completely different. I don't think you can know how you would feel unless you're in the situation, then of course it's too late.
Slippery Slopes: For once I would agree with the right-wingers on this. In the UK, it was illegal to withhold food and water from a patient in PVS until 1993, when Tony Bland's family took a case to the House of Lords for the right to refuse food and water on his behalf. Now Charlotte Wyatt is on a "do not resucitate" order over her parent's objections. I'm not saying whether that's a desirable outcome or not, because I don't know, but there is a slope here.
The Demonisation of Michael Schiavo: Watching Fox News last night, there were many comments (particularly by Pat Boone and Bill O'Reilly) to the effect of saying that Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die simply because he will benefit financially from her death. In fact Pat Boone went further and suggested that Michael had actually caused the heart attack that originally caused the PVS. I have no idea whether that's right or not, but that's as little knowledge as Pat Boone has. If the Florida police haven't come up with anything in 15 years, I would suggest that there's nothing to find. The guy's dealing with what happened to his wife, cut him some slack.
Capital Punishment: It was interesting to see Fox trying to twist the Vatican's words, in the original press release it was clear that the Vatican was saying that both Capital Punishment and the withdrawing of food and water to Terri Schiavo is morally repugnant. Somehow in Fox's hands that changed to Terri Schiavo's death is worse because she's not a criminal. Catholic teaching is simple, every life is precious, no matter what the circumstances. I personally think that's too simplistic, but if you're going to quote the Vatican as supporting your own case, then you have to take the whole wafer (so to speak).
The biggest shame in all this is that Terri loved both her parents and her husband and it would tear her apart to know that all this has happened between them.
Living Wills: This case might have been easier had Terri written a living will. Daniel Drezner has suggested that the outcome of this whole issue could be an increase of living wills. I don't think that such things are useful. At the moment, I wouldn't want to be be in the state that Terri is in, I would want to be let go. However, if I wrote that in a living will, in five or ten years tie I might feel completely different. I don't think you can know how you would feel unless you're in the situation, then of course it's too late.
Slippery Slopes: For once I would agree with the right-wingers on this. In the UK, it was illegal to withhold food and water from a patient in PVS until 1993, when Tony Bland's family took a case to the House of Lords for the right to refuse food and water on his behalf. Now Charlotte Wyatt is on a "do not resucitate" order over her parent's objections. I'm not saying whether that's a desirable outcome or not, because I don't know, but there is a slope here.
The Demonisation of Michael Schiavo: Watching Fox News last night, there were many comments (particularly by Pat Boone and Bill O'Reilly) to the effect of saying that Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die simply because he will benefit financially from her death. In fact Pat Boone went further and suggested that Michael had actually caused the heart attack that originally caused the PVS. I have no idea whether that's right or not, but that's as little knowledge as Pat Boone has. If the Florida police haven't come up with anything in 15 years, I would suggest that there's nothing to find. The guy's dealing with what happened to his wife, cut him some slack.
Capital Punishment: It was interesting to see Fox trying to twist the Vatican's words, in the original press release it was clear that the Vatican was saying that both Capital Punishment and the withdrawing of food and water to Terri Schiavo is morally repugnant. Somehow in Fox's hands that changed to Terri Schiavo's death is worse because she's not a criminal. Catholic teaching is simple, every life is precious, no matter what the circumstances. I personally think that's too simplistic, but if you're going to quote the Vatican as supporting your own case, then you have to take the whole wafer (so to speak).
The biggest shame in all this is that Terri loved both her parents and her husband and it would tear her apart to know that all this has happened between them.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Stalinist?
I was reading a piece by an American guy called Raffi Melkonian what I spotted this.
British Tories, for example, constantly argue that people should vote for them because they'll protect the UK's flatly Stalinist free health service
Stalinist?
Of course the NHS is a socialist idea, I'd argue with bureaucratic, wasteful and inefficient but at least I would understand where the argument is coming from, but Stalinist?
Last time I looked we weren't presiding over purges of the wrong type of doctor or shooting patients. So what's Stalinist about the NHS?
British Tories, for example, constantly argue that people should vote for them because they'll protect the UK's flatly Stalinist free health service
Stalinist?
Of course the NHS is a socialist idea, I'd argue with bureaucratic, wasteful and inefficient but at least I would understand where the argument is coming from, but Stalinist?
Last time I looked we weren't presiding over purges of the wrong type of doctor or shooting patients. So what's Stalinist about the NHS?
Blood Bowl Chaos Cup 1st Round
In case any of you were wondering, the Lothlorien Griffons found it difficult to beat 2-D Decimators, even a rookie dwarven team can grind out a touchdown, but they didn't have a hope of stopping a quick elven touchdown, it ended up 3-2 to the Griffons after extra time.
Meanwhile in a very ill tempered game in which six players was sent off and two were killed, the Sneaky Gitz got a taste of their own medicine and ended up without any players on the field at all and lost 2-1 after extra time.
Both teams go onto the second round, the Griffons are in the winners bracket but the Gitz face elimination if they lose again. The draw will be made on Sunday 3rd April, after all the 1st round matches have been played.
Meanwhile in a very ill tempered game in which six players was sent off and two were killed, the Sneaky Gitz got a taste of their own medicine and ended up without any players on the field at all and lost 2-1 after extra time.
Both teams go onto the second round, the Griffons are in the winners bracket but the Gitz face elimination if they lose again. The draw will be made on Sunday 3rd April, after all the 1st round matches have been played.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Travellers
It's probably best not to post when angered but Howard's Traveller policy prompts me to write:
Howard says that the laws will be the same for everyone - they already are the same for everyone. Under the Tory plans they won't be, if you or I trepass on private land, that's a civil offence, but if the Tories have their way it'll be a criminal offence for Travellers to do it, but not for non-Travellers. Local authorities will have enhanced powers to evict Travellers from land they own, but not have any power to evict other people. Local authorities will have the ability to compulsorily purchase land belonging to Travellers easier than they can for land belonging to other people.
What's next Howard, making Travellers all wear a yellow T on their clothing? You sick fuck.
What annoys me is that the policy is completely unworkable, he knows it is, but like the Lib Dems he knows that he'll never be in a position to have to implement it. A small, very small part of me actually wants Howard to win so that he will be exposed as the shallow fraud that he is.
Howard says that the laws will be the same for everyone - they already are the same for everyone. Under the Tory plans they won't be, if you or I trepass on private land, that's a civil offence, but if the Tories have their way it'll be a criminal offence for Travellers to do it, but not for non-Travellers. Local authorities will have enhanced powers to evict Travellers from land they own, but not have any power to evict other people. Local authorities will have the ability to compulsorily purchase land belonging to Travellers easier than they can for land belonging to other people.
What's next Howard, making Travellers all wear a yellow T on their clothing? You sick fuck.
What annoys me is that the policy is completely unworkable, he knows it is, but like the Lib Dems he knows that he'll never be in a position to have to implement it. A small, very small part of me actually wants Howard to win so that he will be exposed as the shallow fraud that he is.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Proud of Beharry
Private Johnson Beharry's Victoria Cross citation.
Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades.
Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries).
His valour is worthy of the highest recognition.
Remember him when people ask what immigrants have ever done for Britain. He's done more already than I'm ever likely to do.
Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades.
Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries).
His valour is worthy of the highest recognition.
Remember him when people ask what immigrants have ever done for Britain. He's done more already than I'm ever likely to do.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
How not to become an MP Part 1
From the Guardian today:
Can an ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan beat Jack Straw in the general election? Craig Murray launches his campaign
Erm, no he can't beat Jack Straw.
He apparently knows nothing at all about Blackburn.
After a frozen plod through the snow, I come to a mini-cab firm, and a very chirpy driver called Ajit. He explains that the Blackburn Rovers v Burnley FA Cup 5th round replay has just finished, the biggest event in Blackburn for a long time. The hotels will be full with supporters. He's right; I end up sleeping in the Preston Novotel.
and later...
This is one of Blackburn's most striking features. It has an astonishing number of ex-pubs. Some have been converted to other uses, but many more are derelict. I wonder why there were so many and what factors caused this cull. Something else I have yet to learn.
I don't know Blackburn, I've never stepped foot in the town, but I think the clue might be earlier in the article.
Blackburn's Muslim community is primarily Gujarati
So he has noticed that there's Muslims in town then? It seems to make sense that if the Muslim population of a town increases then average alcohol consumption might well go down a bit.
Can an ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan beat Jack Straw in the general election? Craig Murray launches his campaign
Erm, no he can't beat Jack Straw.
He apparently knows nothing at all about Blackburn.
After a frozen plod through the snow, I come to a mini-cab firm, and a very chirpy driver called Ajit. He explains that the Blackburn Rovers v Burnley FA Cup 5th round replay has just finished, the biggest event in Blackburn for a long time. The hotels will be full with supporters. He's right; I end up sleeping in the Preston Novotel.
and later...
This is one of Blackburn's most striking features. It has an astonishing number of ex-pubs. Some have been converted to other uses, but many more are derelict. I wonder why there were so many and what factors caused this cull. Something else I have yet to learn.
I don't know Blackburn, I've never stepped foot in the town, but I think the clue might be earlier in the article.
Blackburn's Muslim community is primarily Gujarati
So he has noticed that there's Muslims in town then? It seems to make sense that if the Muslim population of a town increases then average alcohol consumption might well go down a bit.
Telegraph doesn't tell the whole truth
From the Telegraph today:
If the threshold [of basic rate stamp duty] had been increased with house price inflation since Labour came to power, it would be £143,000.
Yeah, and if the threshold of £30,000 in 1979 had been increased in line with house prices then it would have been £92,000 by 1979 (calculations based on Nationwide figures), instead the Tories only increased it to £60,000. And they pretty much got rid of MIRAS too, by the time the Tories got kicked out it was only available for mortgages under £30,000. Didn't see you lot moaning then.
That's the trouble you see, the Tories are just so much better at stealth taxing.
If the threshold [of basic rate stamp duty] had been increased with house price inflation since Labour came to power, it would be £143,000.
Yeah, and if the threshold of £30,000 in 1979 had been increased in line with house prices then it would have been £92,000 by 1979 (calculations based on Nationwide figures), instead the Tories only increased it to £60,000. And they pretty much got rid of MIRAS too, by the time the Tories got kicked out it was only available for mortgages under £30,000. Didn't see you lot moaning then.
That's the trouble you see, the Tories are just so much better at stealth taxing.
Link changes
Out go 4glengate, Free Democrats and Thought at the Meridian for inactivity. In come Shot by both sides for being funny, Non Trivial Solutions for being clever and Katherine's Adventures! for calling me clever.
Budget Feedback
Loved this guy on BBC Have Your Say
As usual, the Southeast will continue to support the other regions without any relief or consideration. I'm a first time buyer and my stamp duty bill is £9300. On a planet with 6 billion people, why is the government so intent encouraging population growth and, furthermore, why do I have to pay for it?
Greg, London, UK
I venture to suggest that a first-timer buyer buying a place for £310,000 isn't exactly who Gordon Brown was thinking of.
Also this guy has doesn't seem to understand when he's getting a good deal.
So income tax allowances only go up by inflation again - another disguised income tax increase.
Colin Shepherd, Farnham Surrey
You what? How on earth can that be a disguised tax rise?
As usual, the Southeast will continue to support the other regions without any relief or consideration. I'm a first time buyer and my stamp duty bill is £9300. On a planet with 6 billion people, why is the government so intent encouraging population growth and, furthermore, why do I have to pay for it?
Greg, London, UK
I venture to suggest that a first-timer buyer buying a place for £310,000 isn't exactly who Gordon Brown was thinking of.
Also this guy has doesn't seem to understand when he's getting a good deal.
So income tax allowances only go up by inflation again - another disguised income tax increase.
Colin Shepherd, Farnham Surrey
You what? How on earth can that be a disguised tax rise?
Audrey Callaghan
I can't quite remember James Callaghan as Prime Minister though I understand he is a remarkably decent man. One thing that's in common with everything written about him is the mutual love and devotion in his marriage to Audrey.
On Tuesday, after 67 years of married life, Audrey sadly died. My thoughts go out to Jim, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
On Tuesday, after 67 years of married life, Audrey sadly died. My thoughts go out to Jim, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Blogging the budget
First some pre-budget comments on quotes ripped off the BBC
For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said.
"But a lot of that is built on an increase in personal and consumer debt over the last few years - that makes the economy quite vulnerable potentially if interest rates ever do have to go up in a significant way."
Lucky that Labour are in charge then. Low interest rates don't happen by magic.
Mr Letwin's claim that Mr Brown was planning a 40% tax on profits from house sales has been dismissed by Treasury officials.
Make that Letwin's cynical lie. I suppose the Daily Mail will be trumpeting the fact that there's no CGT on normal house price sales (note to readers, there is CGT on second house sales above a certain amount) would have happened if it wasn't for them causing a stink about it.
...shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax".
So classicly Labour that it's been around since 1765, those dastardly socialists bringing in something over 150 years before being a government.
For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said.
"But a lot of that is built on an increase in personal and consumer debt over the last few years - that makes the economy quite vulnerable potentially if interest rates ever do have to go up in a significant way."
Lucky that Labour are in charge then. Low interest rates don't happen by magic.
Mr Letwin's claim that Mr Brown was planning a 40% tax on profits from house sales has been dismissed by Treasury officials.
Make that Letwin's cynical lie. I suppose the Daily Mail will be trumpeting the fact that there's no CGT on normal house price sales (note to readers, there is CGT on second house sales above a certain amount) would have happened if it wasn't for them causing a stink about it.
...shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax".
So classicly Labour that it's been around since 1765, those dastardly socialists bringing in something over 150 years before being a government.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Most stupid criminal ever?
Watching Crimewatch and watching the CCTV footage of an idiot who pulled off his balaclava while still in shot of the security cameras I was reminded of the most stupid criminal right here in Yeovil about 2 years ago.
An idiot who wanted money for drugs went around the corner to his local chicken take-away (that he used to use regularly and where the staff knew him by name) with a fake gun and robbed the takings, Unluckily for the crim, all he got hold of was the £30 float and the £2.50 takings that the takeaway had taken since it opened, 15 minutes before. Having hold of his ill-gotten gains, the idiot then went around the corner to the hostel he was living in while the owners of the takeaway phoned up the police to tell them who had robbed them.
When the cops turned up at the hostel 5 minutes later, the crim was still counting his money.
An idiot who wanted money for drugs went around the corner to his local chicken take-away (that he used to use regularly and where the staff knew him by name) with a fake gun and robbed the takings, Unluckily for the crim, all he got hold of was the £30 float and the £2.50 takings that the takeaway had taken since it opened, 15 minutes before. Having hold of his ill-gotten gains, the idiot then went around the corner to the hostel he was living in while the owners of the takeaway phoned up the police to tell them who had robbed them.
When the cops turned up at the hostel 5 minutes later, the crim was still counting his money.
Fiend vs Fawkes
There's a little bit of a spat going on between two estimable bloggers who I have a lot of time for, Guido Fawkes and the Honorable Fiend over this post where Fiend calls Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor a f****r.
The reason why Fiend calls the Cardinal that is because the Cardinal is alleged to have protected known paedophiles when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. I have no idea if O'Connor acted naively (his words) or not but if he acted in order to protect the good name of the Catholic Church rather than protecting children from predatory priests then I have a better name for him than f****r.
That's "The Accused".
The reason why Fiend calls the Cardinal that is because the Cardinal is alleged to have protected known paedophiles when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. I have no idea if O'Connor acted naively (his words) or not but if he acted in order to protect the good name of the Catholic Church rather than protecting children from predatory priests then I have a better name for him than f****r.
That's "The Accused".
on Religious Hatred
Mr Natural over at British Spin has posted a great piece disagreeing with Nick Cohen's opposition to the proposed law against religious hatred. Money quote
I agree with Nick that any restriction on freedom of speech is especially troubling and should be examined with the most sceptical of eyes. aftrer all, if you hold that all speech should be free, this is merely society falling down a slippery slope. however, it seems to me that the extension of a protection currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs to Muslims is neither a hypocritical pandering, nor merely a piece of political demagoguery. It would not work as the former, and whether you agree with it's proposals, there is a legitimate case for the law on social grounds.
Good stuff and he's going straight into my links.
I agree with Nick that any restriction on freedom of speech is especially troubling and should be examined with the most sceptical of eyes. aftrer all, if you hold that all speech should be free, this is merely society falling down a slippery slope. however, it seems to me that the extension of a protection currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs to Muslims is neither a hypocritical pandering, nor merely a piece of political demagoguery. It would not work as the former, and whether you agree with it's proposals, there is a legitimate case for the law on social grounds.
Good stuff and he's going straight into my links.
Monday, March 14, 2005
I can still be political
In the mid-1980s, one of Thatcher's anti-union wheezes was to order ballots of trade union members every 10 years to see if they wanted the union to continue to spend money on political activities.
This wasn't really designed to stop unions being political, every single vote resulted in a clear majority to retain the current arrangements, but it does waste the union's money and district their attention for a couple of months.
So UNISON have just had their 2005 ballot, won it by over 5 to 1 but it's wasted something in the region of £500,000 for no reason.
Please Blair, can we repeal this stupid law sometime before 2015?
This wasn't really designed to stop unions being political, every single vote resulted in a clear majority to retain the current arrangements, but it does waste the union's money and district their attention for a couple of months.
So UNISON have just had their 2005 ballot, won it by over 5 to 1 but it's wasted something in the region of £500,000 for no reason.
Please Blair, can we repeal this stupid law sometime before 2015?
Even more A&E
Again from BBC News:
Martin Shalley, A&E consultant at Birmingham's Heartlands Hospital, says staff face daily battle to meet the target for patients to be seen, treated and discharged within the four hour limit.
Mr Shalley talks a lot of sense.
"We have nurse practitioners to help to see the walk-in patients. Nurses also see some patients with minor illness."
Absolutely sensible, there's no need for doctors to have to see every patient, an experienced nurse is completely able to assess and treat a patient.
However, Mr Shalley said that there were some occasions where patients needed to stay in A&E for longer, and there was just no way the four hour target could be met in those cases.
"Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. If a patient does need to stay in A&E for longer than four hours, they do. It's fine.
"It may be that there are no beds in the intensive care unit. Or they need a lot tests, or a patient may need to be resuscitated. It can all take time."
That's true as well, particularly here in the middle of the night, if a patient needs certain blood tests then the sample needs to be taken 25 miles to Taunton, the travel time cuts into the 4 hour wait. (It's one of the reasons why we miss our targets) That's why we're looking at redeveloping our diagnostic test procedures in order to be able to do blood tests more efficiently.
Mr Shalley said: "We do all believe in targets. They have improved emergency care.
"But 98% is just a little bit too high a target."
If 98% is too high for a hospital (and Mr Shalley's own hospital makes the targets so it can't be unreasonable) then the hospital has to look at the reasons why, it may not be in A&E, it may be a bottleneck elsewhere in the system.
Martin Shalley, A&E consultant at Birmingham's Heartlands Hospital, says staff face daily battle to meet the target for patients to be seen, treated and discharged within the four hour limit.
Mr Shalley talks a lot of sense.
"We have nurse practitioners to help to see the walk-in patients. Nurses also see some patients with minor illness."
Absolutely sensible, there's no need for doctors to have to see every patient, an experienced nurse is completely able to assess and treat a patient.
However, Mr Shalley said that there were some occasions where patients needed to stay in A&E for longer, and there was just no way the four hour target could be met in those cases.
"Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. If a patient does need to stay in A&E for longer than four hours, they do. It's fine.
"It may be that there are no beds in the intensive care unit. Or they need a lot tests, or a patient may need to be resuscitated. It can all take time."
That's true as well, particularly here in the middle of the night, if a patient needs certain blood tests then the sample needs to be taken 25 miles to Taunton, the travel time cuts into the 4 hour wait. (It's one of the reasons why we miss our targets) That's why we're looking at redeveloping our diagnostic test procedures in order to be able to do blood tests more efficiently.
Mr Shalley said: "We do all believe in targets. They have improved emergency care.
"But 98% is just a little bit too high a target."
If 98% is too high for a hospital (and Mr Shalley's own hospital makes the targets so it can't be unreasonable) then the hospital has to look at the reasons why, it may not be in A&E, it may be a bottleneck elsewhere in the system.
Update on A&E Targets
Argh. Natasha Kaplinsky just said on BBC Breakfast that 40% of A&E Patients have been discharged early. Not even the BMA are saying that, the BMA say that in 40% of A&E departments someone has been discharged early.
If each of the 200 A&E Departments treated 50,000 patients per year (YDH is one of the smaller ones at 36,000 attendances, Victoria Hospital Blackpool was said this morning to be one of the biggest at 80,000 attendances) then that means the NHS in England has treated 10 million patients. So Natasha's just claimed that 4 million patients have been discharged early.
If we assume that early discharges are randomly spread throughout the NHS, if all A&E departments are exactly the same size and 60% of departments didn't have one then mathematics can give us the answer for how many early discharges there were. That's 102 early discharges, 102 early discharges in 10 million = 99.99898% chance of an individual patient not being discharged early. Chance of a department seeing 50,000 patients without having an early discharge, 99.99898% ^ 50,000 = 60.05%
Granted the early discharges are unlikely to be random, I can imagine a department hovering at 97.9% a couple of days before the end of the quarter and the word coming down that the department have to have no breaches in the last couple of days or else, then maybe 2 or 3 people might be discharged early. So a gut feeling would to double the calculated figure to something like 200 patients.
That's an awful lot less than 4 million.
If each of the 200 A&E Departments treated 50,000 patients per year (YDH is one of the smaller ones at 36,000 attendances, Victoria Hospital Blackpool was said this morning to be one of the biggest at 80,000 attendances) then that means the NHS in England has treated 10 million patients. So Natasha's just claimed that 4 million patients have been discharged early.
If we assume that early discharges are randomly spread throughout the NHS, if all A&E departments are exactly the same size and 60% of departments didn't have one then mathematics can give us the answer for how many early discharges there were. That's 102 early discharges, 102 early discharges in 10 million = 99.99898% chance of an individual patient not being discharged early. Chance of a department seeing 50,000 patients without having an early discharge, 99.99898% ^ 50,000 = 60.05%
Granted the early discharges are unlikely to be random, I can imagine a department hovering at 97.9% a couple of days before the end of the quarter and the word coming down that the department have to have no breaches in the last couple of days or else, then maybe 2 or 3 people might be discharged early. So a gut feeling would to double the calculated figure to something like 200 patients.
That's an awful lot less than 4 million.
The Candidate goes missing
The Candidate Speaks (an interesting, if erratically updated blog from a unnamed Tory PPC) has disappeared. So I'm moving it out of my links. If she returns, I'll put it back on.
Accident & Emergency Targets
At first glance the BMA report seems to be being spun by the BBC. I suspect that the report says that 40% of A&E doctors know of a case in their hospital where someone has been discharged inappropriately which is a different thing than saying 40% of A&Es discharge inappropriately.
However I can't comment usefully until the BMA actually publish this report on their website.
UPDATE: It's there now, although unfortunately the full report is only available to BMA members. The main points:
There are 200 A&E Departments in England, the BMA had replies back from 163. Because they talk about Departments, I suspect they sent the questionaire to either the Clinical Director of A&E (if the hospital has one) or the BMA rep for that hospital.
52% of the departments surveyed said that people had been admitted to an inappropriate ward. That doesn't surprise me, it's not dangerous for the patient, but a bed is a bed, and when a suitable bed becomes available then the patient is moved later.
40% said patients had been discharged before they were adequately assessed or stabilised. That's more dangerous, but lets get this in proportion, there are 200 A&Es, around 50,000 attendances each per year, that's 10 million A&E attendances. 80 of those departments have discharged someone early sometime in that year, so that can't be any more than 200 out of the 10 million treated. That's not too bad.
27% reported that care of the seriously ill or injured was compromised because of the pressure to the meet the 4-hour target. This is undefendable, but I would point out that the reason the target is 98% rather than 100% is that there are very valid medical reasons why you wouldn't want to discharge or admit in less than 4 hours. The classic example being someone that's completely drunk, there's nothing wrong with them so they shouldn't be admitted, you shouldn't discharge because they are incapable and it's possible that the drunken stupor could be hiding something more serious, so you let them breach the 4 hour target and just keep an eye on them.
I've just heard Vincent Cable (Lib Dem, Treasury) criticise the Government for setting targets for political reasons. Of course it's political, that's what governments are there for. These targets are not easy, they require extra resources which are going into A&E departments, but both the Tories and Lib Dems are in effect saying that they want to turn the clock back to the old days when waiting 8 hours with a broken wrist was nothing unusual.
However I can't comment usefully until the BMA actually publish this report on their website.
UPDATE: It's there now, although unfortunately the full report is only available to BMA members. The main points:
There are 200 A&E Departments in England, the BMA had replies back from 163. Because they talk about Departments, I suspect they sent the questionaire to either the Clinical Director of A&E (if the hospital has one) or the BMA rep for that hospital.
52% of the departments surveyed said that people had been admitted to an inappropriate ward. That doesn't surprise me, it's not dangerous for the patient, but a bed is a bed, and when a suitable bed becomes available then the patient is moved later.
40% said patients had been discharged before they were adequately assessed or stabilised. That's more dangerous, but lets get this in proportion, there are 200 A&Es, around 50,000 attendances each per year, that's 10 million A&E attendances. 80 of those departments have discharged someone early sometime in that year, so that can't be any more than 200 out of the 10 million treated. That's not too bad.
27% reported that care of the seriously ill or injured was compromised because of the pressure to the meet the 4-hour target. This is undefendable, but I would point out that the reason the target is 98% rather than 100% is that there are very valid medical reasons why you wouldn't want to discharge or admit in less than 4 hours. The classic example being someone that's completely drunk, there's nothing wrong with them so they shouldn't be admitted, you shouldn't discharge because they are incapable and it's possible that the drunken stupor could be hiding something more serious, so you let them breach the 4 hour target and just keep an eye on them.
I've just heard Vincent Cable (Lib Dem, Treasury) criticise the Government for setting targets for political reasons. Of course it's political, that's what governments are there for. These targets are not easy, they require extra resources which are going into A&E departments, but both the Tories and Lib Dems are in effect saying that they want to turn the clock back to the old days when waiting 8 hours with a broken wrist was nothing unusual.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Blood Bowl Chaos Cup
Away from the league now, it's onto the Cup and both DM Andy teams have drawn non-league opposition.
Sunday 20th March 11:00am Sneaky Gitz v Don't Hurt Us
The Sneaky Gitz were active last year as a Division 1 team and acquited themselves well for a Goblin team before being disbanded due to me being unable to commit to fulfilling two teams fixtures. They were renowned and disliked for using various underhand tactics in order to level up the disadvantage of being Goblins.
Strangely the Gitz may have prefered to come up with a harder matchup than the fellow Goblins of Don't Hurt Us. The usual tactic of knifing the opposition's best player won't work in a team of no stars like DHU. However class should tell and I fancy the Gitz to sneak a win by the odd touchdown in five.
Sunday 20th March 2:30pm Lothlorien Griffons v 2-D Decimators
On paper, the Griffons look to be one of the strongest teams outside the Premiership and should have no difficulties against the new Dwarven team. The contrast between elvish pass and run versus dwarven bash and carry is iconic Blood Bowl and it should be a fascinating match. My prediction, one touchdown should win the day and I expect the Griffons to score that one.
Sunday 20th March 11:00am Sneaky Gitz v Don't Hurt Us
The Sneaky Gitz were active last year as a Division 1 team and acquited themselves well for a Goblin team before being disbanded due to me being unable to commit to fulfilling two teams fixtures. They were renowned and disliked for using various underhand tactics in order to level up the disadvantage of being Goblins.
Strangely the Gitz may have prefered to come up with a harder matchup than the fellow Goblins of Don't Hurt Us. The usual tactic of knifing the opposition's best player won't work in a team of no stars like DHU. However class should tell and I fancy the Gitz to sneak a win by the odd touchdown in five.
Sunday 20th March 2:30pm Lothlorien Griffons v 2-D Decimators
On paper, the Griffons look to be one of the strongest teams outside the Premiership and should have no difficulties against the new Dwarven team. The contrast between elvish pass and run versus dwarven bash and carry is iconic Blood Bowl and it should be a fascinating match. My prediction, one touchdown should win the day and I expect the Griffons to score that one.
Cost-effective
Just another thought on the post below:
From Sky News today
People suffering from Alzheimer's disease will stage a protest this week over plans to cut back on crucial medication.
They are planning to march on Parliament to demand that the NHS scrap proposals to drop drugs it says are too expensive.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has published draft guidance saying that four drugs, known as cholinesterase inhibitors, are not cost-effective.
No, no, no, not cost-effective does not mean too expensive and it's lazy and dishonest reporting to make that mistake.
The drugs are not too expensive, the NHS happily prescribes drugs that are 20 times as expensive. They don't work well enough for the cost to be worth it.
From Sky News today
People suffering from Alzheimer's disease will stage a protest this week over plans to cut back on crucial medication.
They are planning to march on Parliament to demand that the NHS scrap proposals to drop drugs it says are too expensive.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has published draft guidance saying that four drugs, known as cholinesterase inhibitors, are not cost-effective.
No, no, no, not cost-effective does not mean too expensive and it's lazy and dishonest reporting to make that mistake.
The drugs are not too expensive, the NHS happily prescribes drugs that are 20 times as expensive. They don't work well enough for the cost to be worth it.
I may be Labour but...
As the banner shows, I think that Labour are the safest hands for the NHS, but sometimes I do have to criticise.
One of the best things that the Labour government have done is leave things that are better done by experts alone, appoint them, give them parameters and let them handle things. The independence of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee being the most well known, but Labour have also set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
NICE are charged with evaluating treatments and deciding if they are cost-effective. After all, we don't expect politicians to know drugs work and what doesn't.
Trouble is what happens when NICE make a judgement that's not popular? Simple the government bullies them into changing their mind.
From today's Observer
Ministers reprieve Alzheimer's treatment
Controversial plans to withdraw drugs for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia from the NHS are to be blocked by government ministers amid growing political and public anger.
Ministers acknowledged yesterday that there was widespread 'bafflement' at guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) which said the drugs were not cost-effective and should not be freely available to patients on the NHS.
I am particularly struck by the arrogance of this comment.
Revealing that his department will submit a report this week extolling the benefits of the drugs, he [Stephen Ladyman] added: 'It may well be that once they have looked at the extra evidence, they will come to a different decision.'
If the DoH are going to make the decisions now, what's the point in having NICE.
One of the best things that the Labour government have done is leave things that are better done by experts alone, appoint them, give them parameters and let them handle things. The independence of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee being the most well known, but Labour have also set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
NICE are charged with evaluating treatments and deciding if they are cost-effective. After all, we don't expect politicians to know drugs work and what doesn't.
Trouble is what happens when NICE make a judgement that's not popular? Simple the government bullies them into changing their mind.
From today's Observer
Ministers reprieve Alzheimer's treatment
Controversial plans to withdraw drugs for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia from the NHS are to be blocked by government ministers amid growing political and public anger.
Ministers acknowledged yesterday that there was widespread 'bafflement' at guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) which said the drugs were not cost-effective and should not be freely available to patients on the NHS.
I am particularly struck by the arrogance of this comment.
Revealing that his department will submit a report this week extolling the benefits of the drugs, he [Stephen Ladyman] added: 'It may well be that once they have looked at the extra evidence, they will come to a different decision.'
If the DoH are going to make the decisions now, what's the point in having NICE.
Disappointed in Iain Dale
I've been a regular commenter on Iain Dale's blog for a few months now, indeed it was his blog that got me into blogging in the first place which I will always be grateful to him for. But he has disappointed me by removing the comments facility from his blog.
A few weeks ago, there was a spate of commenters badgering him on various issues, he threatened to withdraw the comments facility if the level of personal abuse continued. That seemed to work, the level of debate improved.
Today, the only activity on the site seemed to be myself and a tory supporter having an interesting and polite discussion on the NHS. In that I made a comment on the end of one of my posts along the lines of "Iain, do you want an NHS based on clinical need or ability to pay" It's a tough question to answer and was meant to be, but he is someone who hopes to be elected a Tory MP so I think it's fair enough, given that the inevitable result of the Tory plans are to make poorer people wait longer.
Though, instead of answering me, he shut off his comments claiming abuse that just didn't happen.
Shame
A few weeks ago, there was a spate of commenters badgering him on various issues, he threatened to withdraw the comments facility if the level of personal abuse continued. That seemed to work, the level of debate improved.
Today, the only activity on the site seemed to be myself and a tory supporter having an interesting and polite discussion on the NHS. In that I made a comment on the end of one of my posts along the lines of "Iain, do you want an NHS based on clinical need or ability to pay" It's a tough question to answer and was meant to be, but he is someone who hopes to be elected a Tory MP so I think it's fair enough, given that the inevitable result of the Tory plans are to make poorer people wait longer.
Though, instead of answering me, he shut off his comments claiming abuse that just didn't happen.
Shame
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Electoral System biased?
I've seen a few comments in the right-wing side of the blogosphere complaining that the UK political system is biased in favour of the Labour Party.
It's certainly not deliberately biased in favour of the Labour Party, even though Labour were more efficient than the Tories in the mid 90s round of redistricting, the effect of that was not large, and in any case the political parties are not able to gerrymander seats in the way that US parties can. So it's not biased delibrately.
However the FPTP electoral system we have here, combined with a two and a half party system does lead to the potential of odd effects happening. But it doesn't mean that the system in itself is biased to one side or the other.
Say there were 3 major parties with roughly equal support, We'll call them Party A, Party B and Party C. Parties A and B both dislike Party C far more than they dislike each other and they agree to only stand 1 candidate against Party C in each constituency. The effect is just a stronger version of the effect of Labour ignoring a couple of hundred constituencies every election for the Lib Dems to have a free run at.
Back to the example, this did happen in 1931, and the Party C (Labour) got only 52 seats despite getting 30.6% of the vote whereas the National Coalition got 554 seats. Even the National Liberals (part of the Coalition, later merged with the Tories) got 37 seats with less than 4% of the vote. (Source David Boothroyd)
The effect was against Labour then, as it was when Labour outpolled the Tories 48.8% to 44.3% and still won less seats in 1951, but it was against the Tories in Feb 1974. when they won more votes but less seats than Labour.
But it's the same system, the system can't be biased if it favours different parties at different times. It's just that FPTP is unstable in multiparty situations.
It's certainly not deliberately biased in favour of the Labour Party, even though Labour were more efficient than the Tories in the mid 90s round of redistricting, the effect of that was not large, and in any case the political parties are not able to gerrymander seats in the way that US parties can. So it's not biased delibrately.
However the FPTP electoral system we have here, combined with a two and a half party system does lead to the potential of odd effects happening. But it doesn't mean that the system in itself is biased to one side or the other.
Say there were 3 major parties with roughly equal support, We'll call them Party A, Party B and Party C. Parties A and B both dislike Party C far more than they dislike each other and they agree to only stand 1 candidate against Party C in each constituency. The effect is just a stronger version of the effect of Labour ignoring a couple of hundred constituencies every election for the Lib Dems to have a free run at.
Back to the example, this did happen in 1931, and the Party C (Labour) got only 52 seats despite getting 30.6% of the vote whereas the National Coalition got 554 seats. Even the National Liberals (part of the Coalition, later merged with the Tories) got 37 seats with less than 4% of the vote. (Source David Boothroyd)
The effect was against Labour then, as it was when Labour outpolled the Tories 48.8% to 44.3% and still won less seats in 1951, but it was against the Tories in Feb 1974. when they won more votes but less seats than Labour.
But it's the same system, the system can't be biased if it favours different parties at different times. It's just that FPTP is unstable in multiparty situations.
Who does Gaddafi Jr want to buy
According to the New York Times Saadi el-Qaddafi, the sometime Perugia player and son of the Colonel is hoping to purchase the controlling share of a well-known British soccer team for $300 million.
So who could he mean?
Manchester United is out, with a market capitalisation at the moment of $1.4bn then $300m wouldn't be enough. On the other hand Southampton would be too cheap, a market cap of less than $17m. Even Spurs are too cheap at $60m, Newcastle are at $100m. He did say British, but no Scottish club could be in the frame, Celtic's market cap is less than $30m, Rangers are privately owned, but wouldn't be 10 times the worth of Celtic.
Liverpool aren't publically traded either, but David Morgan had enough money in the summer with $140m and I can't see Newcastle being worth more than Liverpool. Saadi would need more than $300m to prise Roman out of Chelsea.
So I reckon, he has to be talking about Arsenal.
So who could he mean?
Manchester United is out, with a market capitalisation at the moment of $1.4bn then $300m wouldn't be enough. On the other hand Southampton would be too cheap, a market cap of less than $17m. Even Spurs are too cheap at $60m, Newcastle are at $100m. He did say British, but no Scottish club could be in the frame, Celtic's market cap is less than $30m, Rangers are privately owned, but wouldn't be 10 times the worth of Celtic.
Liverpool aren't publically traded either, but David Morgan had enough money in the summer with $140m and I can't see Newcastle being worth more than Liverpool. Saadi would need more than $300m to prise Roman out of Chelsea.
So I reckon, he has to be talking about Arsenal.
D&D Players "detached from reality"
according to the Israeli Defence Forces
From Ynetnews via Ace of Spades and Natalie Solent
Ynet has learned that 18-year-olds who tell recruiters they play the popular fantasy game are automatically given low security clearance.
“They're detached from reality and suscepitble to influence,” the army says.
Fans of the popular roleplaying game had spoken of rumors of this strange policy by the IDF, but now the army has confirmed that it has a negative image of teens who play the game and labels them as problematic in regard to their draft status.
That's up to the IDF, but I seem to remember most of TSR in the early days being ex US Army.
From Ynetnews via Ace of Spades and Natalie Solent
Ynet has learned that 18-year-olds who tell recruiters they play the popular fantasy game are automatically given low security clearance.
“They're detached from reality and suscepitble to influence,” the army says.
Fans of the popular roleplaying game had spoken of rumors of this strange policy by the IDF, but now the army has confirmed that it has a negative image of teens who play the game and labels them as problematic in regard to their draft status.
That's up to the IDF, but I seem to remember most of TSR in the early days being ex US Army.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Eric Pickles Lies
Eric Pickles, the Tories shadow for Local Government and the Regions has a good old rant in today's Guardian. He has some good points, but in his haste, accuses the Prime Minister of things he simply didn't do.
Mr Blair has added an extra layer of regional government and subverted true local democracy.
Err, no Mr Pickles.
The Government Offices (regional executives) were set up in 1994 (example here)
The Regional Assemblies were set up in 1996 (example here)
Who was the Prime Minister then Mr.Pickles?
Mr Blair has added an extra layer of regional government and subverted true local democracy.
Err, no Mr Pickles.
The Government Offices (regional executives) were set up in 1994 (example here)
The Regional Assemblies were set up in 1996 (example here)
Who was the Prime Minister then Mr.Pickles?
Did the US nuke Sudan
From BBC News
The Sudanese government had a nasty shock this week, when it read on a US Congress website that the Americans had conducted nuclear tests in the country.
A House of Representatives committee report mentioned tests conducted in Sudan between 1962 and 1970.
It turned out to be a typing error (the website should have refered to Sedan, Nevada) but don't you think if the US had conducted tests in Sudan, the Sudanese would have noticed at the time?
The Sudanese government had a nasty shock this week, when it read on a US Congress website that the Americans had conducted nuclear tests in the country.
A House of Representatives committee report mentioned tests conducted in Sudan between 1962 and 1970.
It turned out to be a typing error (the website should have refered to Sedan, Nevada) but don't you think if the US had conducted tests in Sudan, the Sudanese would have noticed at the time?
What the Tories won't tell you.
From BBC News today:
Good progress has been made on improving cancer care in England, the National Audit Office says.
That's the target to reduce cancer death rates for under 75s from the 1997 figure of 141 deaths per 100,000 population per year by 20% to 113 by 2010.
The latest 2003 figures show that the rate is down to 122. As the NAO say, there's more to do, but we're well on the way.
UPDATE: Iain Dale is exercised about John Reid's comment that "If the Conservatives get in there won't just be cancelled operations - there'll be cancelled lives." But the Cancer data shows the proof. Even if death rates had remained static under the Tories (highly generous as the trend was going up before 1997) then that's 19 deaths less per 100,000 people per year from cancer. By my reckoning that over 10,000 people who didn't die in 2003 that would have if the Tories were still in charge of the NHS.
Good progress has been made on improving cancer care in England, the National Audit Office says.
That's the target to reduce cancer death rates for under 75s from the 1997 figure of 141 deaths per 100,000 population per year by 20% to 113 by 2010.
The latest 2003 figures show that the rate is down to 122. As the NAO say, there's more to do, but we're well on the way.
UPDATE: Iain Dale is exercised about John Reid's comment that "If the Conservatives get in there won't just be cancelled operations - there'll be cancelled lives." But the Cancer data shows the proof. Even if death rates had remained static under the Tories (highly generous as the trend was going up before 1997) then that's 19 deaths less per 100,000 people per year from cancer. By my reckoning that over 10,000 people who didn't die in 2003 that would have if the Tories were still in charge of the NHS.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Prescription Charges rise
on 1st April, prescription charges will go up by 10p to £6.50. It's gone up 10p every year since 1998 so it's not really news, but I think this is the first year that the Tories have decided to go on the attack about it.
From BBC News today:
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley criticised the announcement.
He said: "From the government that brought you the promise of free healthcare and accused the Conservatives of wanting to introduce charges, comes this announcement of higher NHS charges."
That's from a party that when they were in government last increased prescriptions on average by 20.4% every year for 18 years. If they'd carried on at that rate it would be nearly £25 by now.
Some history for Mr Lansley (source Royal Pharmaceutical Society)
Labour 1945-51: Prescriptions free
Tories 1951-64: Prescription fee introduced, 2 shillings (10p) by 1964
Labour 1964-70: Fee rose from 2 shillings (10p) to 2/6 (12½p)[Average rise 3.7%]
Tories 1970-74: Fee rose from 2/6 (12½p) to 20p [Average rise 12.4%]
Labour 1974-79: Fee stayed at 20p [Average rise 0.0%]
Tories 1979-97: Fee rose from 20p to £5.65 [Average rise 20.4%]
Labour 1997- : Fee rose from £5.65 to £6.50 in 2005 [Average rise 1.8%]
From BBC News today:
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley criticised the announcement.
He said: "From the government that brought you the promise of free healthcare and accused the Conservatives of wanting to introduce charges, comes this announcement of higher NHS charges."
That's from a party that when they were in government last increased prescriptions on average by 20.4% every year for 18 years. If they'd carried on at that rate it would be nearly £25 by now.
Some history for Mr Lansley (source Royal Pharmaceutical Society)
Labour 1945-51: Prescriptions free
Tories 1951-64: Prescription fee introduced, 2 shillings (10p) by 1964
Labour 1964-70: Fee rose from 2 shillings (10p) to 2/6 (12½p)[Average rise 3.7%]
Tories 1970-74: Fee rose from 2/6 (12½p) to 20p [Average rise 12.4%]
Labour 1974-79: Fee stayed at 20p [Average rise 0.0%]
Tories 1979-97: Fee rose from 20p to £5.65 [Average rise 20.4%]
Labour 1997- : Fee rose from £5.65 to £6.50 in 2005 [Average rise 1.8%]
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Jousting's Back
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
The (young) Saints go marching on
The Saints U-18 team carried on their campaign in the FA Youth Cup by defeating West Ham United U-18 by 4 goals to 1.
This sets up a two-legged semi final against either Derby or Wolves who play their quarter-final on Friday week.
This sets up a two-legged semi final against either Derby or Wolves who play their quarter-final on Friday week.
When is a tax a tax?
Nick Clegg, writing in the Guardian, is obviously stung by the claim that the Lib Dems want to bring in a tax on dogs.
"Apparently, the newspaper went on, a vote for me would usher in all sorts of additional evils such as - wait for it - a "tax on pets". Apart from the relatively minor fact that it is not Lib Dem policy to tax pets, but simply to introduce a dog registration scheme as demanded by countless pet owners since dog licensing was abandoned in 1987, I was left nonplussed."
Okay, it's not a tax, but everyone with a dog will be forced to pay it, it sounds like a tax to me.
"Apparently, the newspaper went on, a vote for me would usher in all sorts of additional evils such as - wait for it - a "tax on pets". Apart from the relatively minor fact that it is not Lib Dem policy to tax pets, but simply to introduce a dog registration scheme as demanded by countless pet owners since dog licensing was abandoned in 1987, I was left nonplussed."
Okay, it's not a tax, but everyone with a dog will be forced to pay it, it sounds like a tax to me.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Agreeing with the Adam Smith Institute
Something odd must be happening, I find myself in agreement with the Adam Smith Institute on the subject of the flat tax.
It would be simpler to collect, harder to avoid and it'll end these endless slanging matches between parties on arcane tax plans that no-one seems to understand. Example, the council tax v local income tax arguments.
It would be simpler to collect, harder to avoid and it'll end these endless slanging matches between parties on arcane tax plans that no-one seems to understand. Example, the council tax v local income tax arguments.
New Banner
Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the chance to put my heart on my sleeve
DM Andy. Proud of the NHS. Proud of Labour
DM Andy. Proud of the NHS. Proud of Labour
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Remember this
From the Telegraph today:
"The sooner the Human Rights Act is repealed, the sooner British justice will be able to re-establish its contact with common sense."
That'll be the same Human Rights Act those hunters want to abolish the hunt ban right?
"The sooner the Human Rights Act is repealed, the sooner British justice will be able to re-establish its contact with common sense."
That'll be the same Human Rights Act those hunters want to abolish the hunt ban right?
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Even more MMR proof
From BBC News
Scientists say they have strong evidence that the MMR vaccination is not linked to a rise in autism.
Researchers looked at the incidence of autism in a Japanese city before and after the withdrawal of the measles, mumps and rubella jab in 1993.
New Scientist reports autism rates kept rising after MMR was withdrawn.
Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry, who worked on the study, said it "rubbished" the link between MMR and a general rise in autism.
It may rubbish it, but I doubt it'll change anyone's mind on the subject.
Scientists say they have strong evidence that the MMR vaccination is not linked to a rise in autism.
Researchers looked at the incidence of autism in a Japanese city before and after the withdrawal of the measles, mumps and rubella jab in 1993.
New Scientist reports autism rates kept rising after MMR was withdrawn.
Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry, who worked on the study, said it "rubbished" the link between MMR and a general rise in autism.
It may rubbish it, but I doubt it'll change anyone's mind on the subject.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
The Globalizers
Long-term readers (if I have any) will remember me making a wager with Guido Fawkes over David Blunkett. I lost and consequently Guido won £50 off me.
I haven't paid it over yet, his unwillingness to have me send him money directly (I assume because I don't think he's really called Guido Fawkes) coupled with my very infrequent trips to the Smoke meant that things were complicated.
I really don't like owing anyone money, so when Guido emailed me today to give me a cause to donate it to, I was delighted. He wanted me to donate it to the Globalization Institute, who they I wondered.
Well, Milton Friedman on the front page doesn't look too promising, but it's not his fault that Thatcher thought he was wonderful. The aims of the Institute look very good, I approve of free trade, as long as it's not lopsided with us bullying developing nations into accepting our goods and services while hiding behind protective tariffs ourselves.
I was just marvelling at finding a "right-wing" economics think-tank that I agree with when I saw a name that rang a bell, Alex Singleton. The Institute describe him as "Britain's most prolific critic of 'fair trade' schemes." That's right, he was on the BBC a couple of weeks back sprouting a load of nonsense that I couldn't follow about the evils of fairtrade, something about it distorting the market.
There's not a rational argument against fair trade schemes, but there is an irrational one.
Let's demolish the often cited rational one first, which is the one I think Alex was getting at on the tv. That it's dangerous, socialist thinking which distorts the market. Let's use Alex's own words to disabuse that thinking.
One of the most unhelpful theories taught in basic economics courses is the notion of perfect competition, which has been captured by anti-capitalists to attack capitalism. They argue that brands are anti-market because they prevent perfect competition, a state where products are identical and where companies can only make 'normal' profits, whatever they are.
However, there is no such thing really as perfect competition, nor would it be desirable. In markets, different firms compete not only on price, but also on image and quality. In the car industry, the cars from Peugeot, Ford and Rover compete, but the products are not homogeneous. Consumers are made better off by this lack of sameness: manufacturers add new features and better designs in an attempt to lure custom, leading to ever improving products. In short, the perfect competition model is wrong because it oversimplifies how the market works. Ludwig von Mises, founder of the neo-Austrian school, would no doubt describe the model as "two hypothetical curves."
Add to this the fact that brands help consumers make choices about which products to buy. I know that if I buy cakes from Tesco, they will be of a high quality. I may end up spending more than buying from Mrs Globbin's shop, but I am paying for the peace of mind. When I see a can of Dr Pepper for sale, I know it is a product I enjoy and can trust.
I can't see the difference between that perfectly good explanation and the fairtrade issue. When people buy coffee, or chocolate or even footballs they buy for a number of reasons, price being only one, you're also buying an image. to paraphrase Alex's words, I may end up spending more than buying from Mrs Globbin's shop, but I am paying for the peace of mind. When I see a jar of Fairtrade coffee for sale, I know it is a product I trust and know I'm not giving my hard-earned money to big business.
That leaves only the irrational one, which is that fairtrade is dangerous hippy lefty nonsense.
Rant over, it's Guido's money after all, so £50 will be in the post tomorrow.
I haven't paid it over yet, his unwillingness to have me send him money directly (I assume because I don't think he's really called Guido Fawkes) coupled with my very infrequent trips to the Smoke meant that things were complicated.
I really don't like owing anyone money, so when Guido emailed me today to give me a cause to donate it to, I was delighted. He wanted me to donate it to the Globalization Institute, who they I wondered.
Well, Milton Friedman on the front page doesn't look too promising, but it's not his fault that Thatcher thought he was wonderful. The aims of the Institute look very good, I approve of free trade, as long as it's not lopsided with us bullying developing nations into accepting our goods and services while hiding behind protective tariffs ourselves.
I was just marvelling at finding a "right-wing" economics think-tank that I agree with when I saw a name that rang a bell, Alex Singleton. The Institute describe him as "Britain's most prolific critic of 'fair trade' schemes." That's right, he was on the BBC a couple of weeks back sprouting a load of nonsense that I couldn't follow about the evils of fairtrade, something about it distorting the market.
There's not a rational argument against fair trade schemes, but there is an irrational one.
Let's demolish the often cited rational one first, which is the one I think Alex was getting at on the tv. That it's dangerous, socialist thinking which distorts the market. Let's use Alex's own words to disabuse that thinking.
One of the most unhelpful theories taught in basic economics courses is the notion of perfect competition, which has been captured by anti-capitalists to attack capitalism. They argue that brands are anti-market because they prevent perfect competition, a state where products are identical and where companies can only make 'normal' profits, whatever they are.
However, there is no such thing really as perfect competition, nor would it be desirable. In markets, different firms compete not only on price, but also on image and quality. In the car industry, the cars from Peugeot, Ford and Rover compete, but the products are not homogeneous. Consumers are made better off by this lack of sameness: manufacturers add new features and better designs in an attempt to lure custom, leading to ever improving products. In short, the perfect competition model is wrong because it oversimplifies how the market works. Ludwig von Mises, founder of the neo-Austrian school, would no doubt describe the model as "two hypothetical curves."
Add to this the fact that brands help consumers make choices about which products to buy. I know that if I buy cakes from Tesco, they will be of a high quality. I may end up spending more than buying from Mrs Globbin's shop, but I am paying for the peace of mind. When I see a can of Dr Pepper for sale, I know it is a product I enjoy and can trust.
I can't see the difference between that perfectly good explanation and the fairtrade issue. When people buy coffee, or chocolate or even footballs they buy for a number of reasons, price being only one, you're also buying an image. to paraphrase Alex's words, I may end up spending more than buying from Mrs Globbin's shop, but I am paying for the peace of mind. When I see a jar of Fairtrade coffee for sale, I know it is a product I trust and know I'm not giving my hard-earned money to big business.
That leaves only the irrational one, which is that fairtrade is dangerous hippy lefty nonsense.
Rant over, it's Guido's money after all, so £50 will be in the post tomorrow.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Faith
I wonder why the Tories don't want the BBC to show the drama set around the Miner's strike. (see Guardian report here)
Ahh, it couldn't be because it reminds us that the Tories, far from being the lovers of liberty they claim, actually stopped people crossing county boundaries?
They would do the same to us given the chance again, that's why, no matter what, I can never be a Tory, they see freedom as only something they deserve.
Ahh, it couldn't be because it reminds us that the Tories, far from being the lovers of liberty they claim, actually stopped people crossing county boundaries?
They would do the same to us given the chance again, that's why, no matter what, I can never be a Tory, they see freedom as only something they deserve.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
End of the first division season
Season 03 of the YeovilGames Blood Bowl league is now over.
The Furburgers slipped quietly out of the division, losing 3-0 to the Midnight Howlers. The scale of the Howlers victory combined with the Maelstrom Crew surprisingly losing 2-0 to the Pyrple Panzies mean that it's the Howlers who end up with the first division title.
The Griffons and Horrors played out a 2-2 draw in the day's highest scoring game, while Tomb King Titans laboured to a 1-0 victory over second-division bound Eeep Itzasnake.
Getting relegated from the Premiership are Da Skullrippaz and Rottingham Deathspurs, two hard hitting sides. Coming up from Division 2 are Orczillaz and the Row Men.
Final Table
1. Midnight Howlers (Human) 57
2. Maelstrom Crew (Chaos) 52
--------------------------------
3. Pyrple Panzies (Human) 43
4. Tomb King Titans (Khermi) 42
5. Lothlorien Griffons (High Elf) 38
6. Harlem Horrors (Dark Elf) 37
--------------------------------
7. Furburgers (Skaven) 29
8. Eeep Itzasnake (Snotling) 7
The Furburgers slipped quietly out of the division, losing 3-0 to the Midnight Howlers. The scale of the Howlers victory combined with the Maelstrom Crew surprisingly losing 2-0 to the Pyrple Panzies mean that it's the Howlers who end up with the first division title.
The Griffons and Horrors played out a 2-2 draw in the day's highest scoring game, while Tomb King Titans laboured to a 1-0 victory over second-division bound Eeep Itzasnake.
Getting relegated from the Premiership are Da Skullrippaz and Rottingham Deathspurs, two hard hitting sides. Coming up from Division 2 are Orczillaz and the Row Men.
Final Table
1. Midnight Howlers (Human) 57
2. Maelstrom Crew (Chaos) 52
--------------------------------
3. Pyrple Panzies (Human) 43
4. Tomb King Titans (Khermi) 42
5. Lothlorien Griffons (High Elf) 38
6. Harlem Horrors (Dark Elf) 37
--------------------------------
7. Furburgers (Skaven) 29
8. Eeep Itzasnake (Snotling) 7
Being Lazy
Apologies for the posting being a bit light this week.
I really have to address the Tory proposals for the NHS published last week. It just feels too much like work right now. Suffice to say, they are ill-thought out. Actually I'll quickly dive into it now.
Merging Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) together and abolishing SHAs (Strategic Health Authorities). While there is a case for the PCT move (I'll explain why in the next week), this will end up centralising the NHS even more than in it was in 1997, I'm not sure that squares with the Tories' stated aim of moving decisions as close to the grassroots as possible.
Abolishing targets, but actually not abolishing targets. This is a con-job, they say in one breath that central targets are disorting the performance of the NHS, but on in the next breath propose that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will set the targets instead.
Last but not least for now. Give the private sector the right of supply to the NHS. That's right, even if Yeovil Hospital had spare capacity, they would be forced by law to outsource some of it's clinical activity to private companies. What's that all about?
I really have to address the Tory proposals for the NHS published last week. It just feels too much like work right now. Suffice to say, they are ill-thought out. Actually I'll quickly dive into it now.
Merging Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) together and abolishing SHAs (Strategic Health Authorities). While there is a case for the PCT move (I'll explain why in the next week), this will end up centralising the NHS even more than in it was in 1997, I'm not sure that squares with the Tories' stated aim of moving decisions as close to the grassroots as possible.
Abolishing targets, but actually not abolishing targets. This is a con-job, they say in one breath that central targets are disorting the performance of the NHS, but on in the next breath propose that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will set the targets instead.
Last but not least for now. Give the private sector the right of supply to the NHS. That's right, even if Yeovil Hospital had spare capacity, they would be forced by law to outsource some of it's clinical activity to private companies. What's that all about?
Harlem Horrors Preview
The final first division matches of the season are to be played this afternoon.
Maelstrom Crew have confirmed promotion to the Premiership and Midnight Howlers look set to join them. At the bottom, Eeep Itzasnake are condemned to the drop so the focus turns to the scramble to avoid that last relegation spot.
7th place - Furburgers (29 points)
The bookies favourite for relegation, the only Skaven team in the league will have their work cut out playing the premiership-bound Howlers. However the other teams will write off the Furburgers chances at their peril, the Skavens are fast and with the Howlers having very little to play for, there could be a surprise in store.
6th place - Harlem Horrors (32 points)
If the Furburgers do get a win, the loser of the Horrors game with the Griffons would be odds-on to go down. The Dark Elves will be reliant on their two Witch Elf Blitzers in order to take command of the match against their good aligned cousins.
5th place - Lothlorien Griffons (32 points)
Ahead of the Horrors only on touchdown difference (13-11 compared to 10-9), the Griffons know they have to win. Thethin, their on-loan player from Premiership champs Anlec Citadels will be crucial in providing steel to the somewhat weak Griffons front line.
4th place - Tomb King Titans (33 points)
While mathematically in the relegation dogfight, the Titans are closing their season by hosting Eeep Itzasnake, it would be the shock of the season for the Titans not to win that match comfortably.
3rd place - Pyrple Panzies (33 points)
The Panzies would have expected to be safe at this stage of the season, but they do face the champions-elect Maelstrom Crew and in the event of a Furburger win and a Horrors-Griffons draw, then a defeat to the Crew would send the Panzies down to Division 2.
Maelstrom Crew have confirmed promotion to the Premiership and Midnight Howlers look set to join them. At the bottom, Eeep Itzasnake are condemned to the drop so the focus turns to the scramble to avoid that last relegation spot.
7th place - Furburgers (29 points)
The bookies favourite for relegation, the only Skaven team in the league will have their work cut out playing the premiership-bound Howlers. However the other teams will write off the Furburgers chances at their peril, the Skavens are fast and with the Howlers having very little to play for, there could be a surprise in store.
6th place - Harlem Horrors (32 points)
If the Furburgers do get a win, the loser of the Horrors game with the Griffons would be odds-on to go down. The Dark Elves will be reliant on their two Witch Elf Blitzers in order to take command of the match against their good aligned cousins.
5th place - Lothlorien Griffons (32 points)
Ahead of the Horrors only on touchdown difference (13-11 compared to 10-9), the Griffons know they have to win. Thethin, their on-loan player from Premiership champs Anlec Citadels will be crucial in providing steel to the somewhat weak Griffons front line.
4th place - Tomb King Titans (33 points)
While mathematically in the relegation dogfight, the Titans are closing their season by hosting Eeep Itzasnake, it would be the shock of the season for the Titans not to win that match comfortably.
3rd place - Pyrple Panzies (33 points)
The Panzies would have expected to be safe at this stage of the season, but they do face the champions-elect Maelstrom Crew and in the event of a Furburger win and a Horrors-Griffons draw, then a defeat to the Crew would send the Panzies down to Division 2.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Shameless self-promotion
If Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes can do it, I can do it too. Of course, Iain might only mean that I'm interesting on his blog.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
English is from the US?
No sooner had I taken the NRO off my list of links, then this piece of sheer stupidity from Denis Boyles brings me right back to the conservative journal.
Europeans hate the way Americans talk. They think we're loud and uncouth and they don't like our jokes, except for Michael Moore. Plus, they resent the fact that they’ve had to learn our language because if they didn’t we wouldn’t buy their stupid metric widgets or visit their overpriced ruins.
Hello Earth to Denis, who do you think invented English? Clue, it's something to do with the name. And last I saw, England was in Europe.
Europeans hate the way Americans talk. They think we're loud and uncouth and they don't like our jokes, except for Michael Moore. Plus, they resent the fact that they’ve had to learn our language because if they didn’t we wouldn’t buy their stupid metric widgets or visit their overpriced ruins.
Hello Earth to Denis, who do you think invented English? Clue, it's something to do with the name. And last I saw, England was in Europe.
Costing the Lib Dems
Just got involved into a Tory v Lib Dem conflict over on Iain Dale's site. Iain's claiming that the average couple would be £634/year worse off, some fellow called James disputed that, saying that the couple would have to earn a total of £50k. Now, me and my flatmate don't earn anything like that, but I think that we'll be around £600/year worse off. So something's got to give.
Here's my calculations.
If £37,000 p.a equals £1,000 local income tax and £10,000 p.a. equals £114 local income tax then (as long as there's one rate) that means that the local income tax allowance is set at £6,526 and the tax rate at 3.28%.
Income Tax as a total brings in £127 billion. Source http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/92B/AC/pbr04_chap01_284.pdf
(the piechart on page 12). Income Tax allowance is set at £4,745 and if we say that there are 35 million income tax payers then the average income tax payer earns £21,239, paying £3,629 income tax.
If we use the same average figure for local income tax payers then the local income tax will only bring in £16.9 billion. which is much less than the £24 billion that council tax currently raises.
The only figure I've had to guess at is the number of taxpayers, but that doesn't change the net receipts as much as you would think, more taxpayers would use more allowances and bring the total take down slightly, 40 million taxpayers would bring in £16.6 billion, 30 million would pay £17.2 billion.
If there's anything anyone can add that I've missed, please help me out here.
Here's my calculations.
If £37,000 p.a equals £1,000 local income tax and £10,000 p.a. equals £114 local income tax then (as long as there's one rate) that means that the local income tax allowance is set at £6,526 and the tax rate at 3.28%.
Income Tax as a total brings in £127 billion. Source http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/92B/AC/pbr04_chap01_284.pdf
(the piechart on page 12). Income Tax allowance is set at £4,745 and if we say that there are 35 million income tax payers then the average income tax payer earns £21,239, paying £3,629 income tax.
If we use the same average figure for local income tax payers then the local income tax will only bring in £16.9 billion. which is much less than the £24 billion that council tax currently raises.
The only figure I've had to guess at is the number of taxpayers, but that doesn't change the net receipts as much as you would think, more taxpayers would use more allowances and bring the total take down slightly, 40 million taxpayers would bring in £16.6 billion, 30 million would pay £17.2 billion.
If there's anything anyone can add that I've missed, please help me out here.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Link changes
I'm changing around my links.
Coming in are:
Mo's Musings from England it's good to hear an American perspective on the UK.
Europhobia a primarily EU/Kilroy/UKIP centred blog that's interested me for a while.
And to balance out the political balance a bit (I've realised that I am far more likely to link to people I disagree with then people I like) Matt T and Thought at the Meridian
I'm also moving a few out. Andrew Sullivan, Dan Drezner, the NRO Corner and the Volokh Conspiracy are all excellent blogs that deserve support, but they are American and as I've settled into blogging, bear no relation to anything I want to talk about.
Coming in are:
Mo's Musings from England it's good to hear an American perspective on the UK.
Europhobia a primarily EU/Kilroy/UKIP centred blog that's interested me for a while.
And to balance out the political balance a bit (I've realised that I am far more likely to link to people I disagree with then people I like) Matt T and Thought at the Meridian
I'm also moving a few out. Andrew Sullivan, Dan Drezner, the NRO Corner and the Volokh Conspiracy are all excellent blogs that deserve support, but they are American and as I've settled into blogging, bear no relation to anything I want to talk about.
Clarification
I said that I'm not opposed to hunting, which may come as a surprise to any blog readers who don't know me. What I've realised is that I'm opposed to hunters, the people who think they rule me.
The ban on hunting is clearly unjust, anyone can see that, it's not supported on animal welfare grounds, it's certainly illiberal. However I can't stop myself being pleased that it's banned. It's even better than your team scoring an injury time goal, in an offside position, with a handball and with the referee not noticing the foul on the goalkeeper. The fact that it's unjust just makes it feel all the sweeter to me.
Dennis Skinner supposedly said something like "This makes up for the miners." No it doesn't Dennis, The ruling class have done us down for nearly 1,000 years, this is one victory against a millennium of hurt and the more they don't like it, the more I'll enjoy it.
The ban on hunting is clearly unjust, anyone can see that, it's not supported on animal welfare grounds, it's certainly illiberal. However I can't stop myself being pleased that it's banned. It's even better than your team scoring an injury time goal, in an offside position, with a handball and with the referee not noticing the foul on the goalkeeper. The fact that it's unjust just makes it feel all the sweeter to me.
Dennis Skinner supposedly said something like "This makes up for the miners." No it doesn't Dennis, The ruling class have done us down for nearly 1,000 years, this is one victory against a millennium of hurt and the more they don't like it, the more I'll enjoy it.
Poem
I don't do poetry, but here's one that caught my eye by Ian McMillan
FAREWELL:
Farewell to the scarlet coats thundering through woods,
Farewell to the sharp stink of fear,
Farewell to the fox hunt, and I'm saying GOOD; and I'm raising my voice in a cheer,
Farewell to tradition, if that's what it is, though it's feeling quite feudal from here,
Farewell to the blood from a fox hound's sharp kiss and I'm raising my voice in a cheer,
Farewell to the mornings where mist cools your face and England of Cricket, warm beer
and folks in big flat caps who all know their place,
and I'm raising my voice in a cheer.
You're chasing the past, chaps, not chasing a fox; you're chasing a country that's gone,
They've altered the windows and changed all the locks; you're riding a land that's moved on,
and I didn't see the hunters at the head of the crowd when they closed down the factories and mines;
I didn't hear the hunting horn blaring out loud, at the head of the picket lines.
Democracy spoken, the pack's caught you up and let down the tires on your sport,
So please don't be whining like a whipped hunting pup, cos it's farewell to you and your sort.
Farewell to the stirrup cup,
Farewell the thrill of tearing a fox like a shredder shreds bills, and look, there's a fox
and he's standing quite still,
no, he's raising two fingers from the top of that hill,
Farewell to the scarlet coats thundering through woods,
Farewell to the sharp stink of fear,
Farewell to the fox hunt and I'm saying GOOD; and I'm raising my voice in a cheer
FAREWELL:
Farewell to the scarlet coats thundering through woods,
Farewell to the sharp stink of fear,
Farewell to the fox hunt, and I'm saying GOOD; and I'm raising my voice in a cheer,
Farewell to tradition, if that's what it is, though it's feeling quite feudal from here,
Farewell to the blood from a fox hound's sharp kiss and I'm raising my voice in a cheer,
Farewell to the mornings where mist cools your face and England of Cricket, warm beer
and folks in big flat caps who all know their place,
and I'm raising my voice in a cheer.
You're chasing the past, chaps, not chasing a fox; you're chasing a country that's gone,
They've altered the windows and changed all the locks; you're riding a land that's moved on,
and I didn't see the hunters at the head of the crowd when they closed down the factories and mines;
I didn't hear the hunting horn blaring out loud, at the head of the picket lines.
Democracy spoken, the pack's caught you up and let down the tires on your sport,
So please don't be whining like a whipped hunting pup, cos it's farewell to you and your sort.
Farewell to the stirrup cup,
Farewell the thrill of tearing a fox like a shredder shreds bills, and look, there's a fox
and he's standing quite still,
no, he's raising two fingers from the top of that hill,
Farewell to the scarlet coats thundering through woods,
Farewell to the sharp stink of fear,
Farewell to the fox hunt and I'm saying GOOD; and I'm raising my voice in a cheer
Michael Howard on Breakfast Time
I'm not convinced by Howard's performance today.
Started off by saying that "the Poll Tax was a mistake" ouch, The Candidate won't be happy.
Stumbled a bit around the "Why wouldn't a Local Income Tax be even fairer?" question by saying that pensioners wanted a fair deal but didn't want the burden to fall on "their children" under Local Income Tax. In contrast Howard said that the pensioner council tax rebate would be funded by the general taxpayer.
He ended well though, the usual spin about Tory Councils costing less and Labour stealth taxes that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny bt I suspect will go across well with the public.
Started off by saying that "the Poll Tax was a mistake" ouch, The Candidate won't be happy.
Stumbled a bit around the "Why wouldn't a Local Income Tax be even fairer?" question by saying that pensioners wanted a fair deal but didn't want the burden to fall on "their children" under Local Income Tax. In contrast Howard said that the pensioner council tax rebate would be funded by the general taxpayer.
He ended well though, the usual spin about Tory Councils costing less and Labour stealth taxes that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny bt I suspect will go across well with the public.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Ooops
News of the World Article 20th Feb
EXCLUSIVE: Posh to have her baby on Feb 25th
ANXIOUS Victoria Beckham is flying her own medical team over to Spain—even though they WON'T be allowed to deliver her third baby.
Posh will give birth by caesarean section at a private hospital in Madrid on Friday.
BBC News Report 20th Feb
Victoria and David Beckham are celebrating the birth of their third son, who they have named Cruz.
The couple said they were "delighted" after a caesarean section delivery in Madrid at 1040 local time (0940 GMT) on Sunday. The baby weighed 7lb (3.2kg).
EXCLUSIVE: Posh to have her baby on Feb 25th
ANXIOUS Victoria Beckham is flying her own medical team over to Spain—even though they WON'T be allowed to deliver her third baby.
Posh will give birth by caesarean section at a private hospital in Madrid on Friday.
BBC News Report 20th Feb
Victoria and David Beckham are celebrating the birth of their third son, who they have named Cruz.
The couple said they were "delighted" after a caesarean section delivery in Madrid at 1040 local time (0940 GMT) on Sunday. The baby weighed 7lb (3.2kg).
Should Kate Hoey lose the whip?
From the Sunday Telegraph today
There was further defiance from Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, who described her party colleagues as "bigoted and prejudiced" when she addressed the Duke of Beaufort's hunt in Gloucestershire to which the Prince of Wales belongs.
"The law is unenforceable. It cannot last long. We will prevail and this law will have to be overturned," she declared to resounding cheers from supporters. I feel a deep sadness that my Government has allowed this ban to go through, but I have confidence in my country and the people of my country that an unjust law cannot last very long. Today is the beginning of the end of a ban on hunting."
So we have a Labour MP, criticising other Labour MPs at a public meeting and encouraging those present to vote for a Tory majority with a hefty majority at the next election (as that's the only way there could be a pro-hunting majority in the House of Commons). There are truly honourable Labour MPs who have been pro-hunting, people like Robin Cook and Tony Wright, they don't denigrate their colleagues.
I think it's time that Kate Hoey is thrown out of the Labour Party, if she wants to travel the country campaigning for the Tories to win the next General Election, let her join them.
There was further defiance from Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, who described her party colleagues as "bigoted and prejudiced" when she addressed the Duke of Beaufort's hunt in Gloucestershire to which the Prince of Wales belongs.
"The law is unenforceable. It cannot last long. We will prevail and this law will have to be overturned," she declared to resounding cheers from supporters. I feel a deep sadness that my Government has allowed this ban to go through, but I have confidence in my country and the people of my country that an unjust law cannot last very long. Today is the beginning of the end of a ban on hunting."
So we have a Labour MP, criticising other Labour MPs at a public meeting and encouraging those present to vote for a Tory majority with a hefty majority at the next election (as that's the only way there could be a pro-hunting majority in the House of Commons). There are truly honourable Labour MPs who have been pro-hunting, people like Robin Cook and Tony Wright, they don't denigrate their colleagues.
I think it's time that Kate Hoey is thrown out of the Labour Party, if she wants to travel the country campaigning for the Tories to win the next General Election, let her join them.
Maelstrom Crew vs Furburgers
The Skaven Furburgers managed to accrue five league points from a creditable 2-2 draw with Maelstrom Crew so the Griffons are not out of the relegation dogfight yet. The equation for survival is simple for the High Elf team, victory over the Harlem Horrors will ensure first division football at the Glade next season. Anything else will mean that the elves will have to rely on other results going their way.
Meanwhile there is a potential controversy over the Howlers-Panzies matchup. The fixture list initially had the match to be played today, but as that was inconvienient for the Howlers, it was moved to Saturday 19th. This time it was the Panzies that cancelled the match. Due to the League Commissioner's insistance that the final games are played at the same time on Sunday 27th, the two coaches will have to resolve the impasse, if not one or both teams may be penalised by the League.
Meanwhile there is a potential controversy over the Howlers-Panzies matchup. The fixture list initially had the match to be played today, but as that was inconvienient for the Howlers, it was moved to Saturday 19th. This time it was the Panzies that cancelled the match. Due to the League Commissioner's insistance that the final games are played at the same time on Sunday 27th, the two coaches will have to resolve the impasse, if not one or both teams may be penalised by the League.
Countryside Alliance News part 2
Lewis points out in the comments below that maybe the CA press release was correct at the time. However as time goes on, that seems less and less likely to me.
Countryside Alliance Press Release 19th Feb (still the same one)
There are no reports of anyone having been arrested in relation to offences committed under the Hunting Act.
BBC News Report 19th Feb
However, the first arrests under the new legislation were made. Four people were arrested by police in Wiltshire for illegal hunting of hares with dogs under Section 1 of the new Act.
It could be suggested that it's unfair to criticise the Countryside Alliance for not updating their press releases early enough. However they do have a full-time PR staff, several regional directors and this is one of the most important weekends in the CA campaign. Having a clearly incorrect statement on their website either makes them look stupid, or just unwilling to admit that one of the main planks of their campaign, that the legislation is unworkable and unenforcable, is turning out to be incorrect.
Countryside Alliance Press Release 19th Feb (still the same one)
There are no reports of anyone having been arrested in relation to offences committed under the Hunting Act.
BBC News Report 19th Feb
However, the first arrests under the new legislation were made. Four people were arrested by police in Wiltshire for illegal hunting of hares with dogs under Section 1 of the new Act.
It could be suggested that it's unfair to criticise the Countryside Alliance for not updating their press releases early enough. However they do have a full-time PR staff, several regional directors and this is one of the most important weekends in the CA campaign. Having a clearly incorrect statement on their website either makes them look stupid, or just unwilling to admit that one of the main planks of their campaign, that the legislation is unworkable and unenforcable, is turning out to be incorrect.
Tony Banks will be missed
It's a shame that Tony Banks is standing down at the upcoming election, I just noticed this in Hansard.
Hansard 1994/95 Column 1310
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): I try to understand the views of people who are really involved with the countryside--I do not mean those who simply think they are--and I accept that they perhaps have different standards and experiences. They live much closer to the life and death cycle.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): They should see Stratford.
Mr. King: The debate would not be complete without a crack from the hon. Gentleman.
Hansard 1994/95 Column 1310
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): I try to understand the views of people who are really involved with the countryside--I do not mean those who simply think they are--and I accept that they perhaps have different standards and experiences. They live much closer to the life and death cycle.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): They should see Stratford.
Mr. King: The debate would not be complete without a crack from the hon. Gentleman.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Countryside Alliance News
I'm not sure if the Countyside Alliance's Press Office are just inefficient or if there's something more sinister at work.
Countryside Alliance Press Release 19th Feb
There are no reports of anyone having been arrested in relation to offences committed under the Hunting Act.
BBC News Report 19th Feb
Four men have been arrested by police in Wiltshire in what are believed to be the first arrests under the new hunting legislation.
Countryside Alliance Press Release 19th Feb
There are no reports of anyone having been arrested in relation to offences committed under the Hunting Act.
BBC News Report 19th Feb
Four men have been arrested by police in Wiltshire in what are believed to be the first arrests under the new hunting legislation.
vs Eeip Itzasnake
Difficult start but once one of Eeip's Pumpwagons had careered off the pitch and another broken down the Griffons took control of the game. A riot at the beginning of the second half reduced the time available but the Griffons ended up with a comfortable 3-0 victory. Griffons gained 5 bonus points to add to the six points for a win, Eeip just got a solitary bonus point.
The Griffons win has sealed Eeip's relegation to the second division and gone a long way towards securing Griffon's safety. The pressure now moves to the Furburgers, in seventh place but with a game in hand. If they lose to the Maelstrom Crew, they will be favourites for the drop.
The Griffons win has sealed Eeip's relegation to the second division and gone a long way towards securing Griffon's safety. The pressure now moves to the Furburgers, in seventh place but with a game in hand. If they lose to the Maelstrom Crew, they will be favourites for the drop.
Iron Ladies
Visiting the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website I noticed this.
Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher's Britain
The Women's Library, London Metropolitan University
22 October 2004 – 2 April 2005
Entrance free
What was it like to be Britain's first female prime minister? What
legacy did Margaret Thatcher create for women and the women's movement?
Was Thatcher's election a reflection of women's changing social roles,
or a political one-off? Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher’s Britain is the
first exhibition to consider the impact of ‘Thatcherism’ on British
women in the 1980s, and to look at the ways in which Margaret Thatcher’s
presence as a role model affected women’s lives. Using a wide range of
original material, including previously unseen visual and archival
documents, photographs, posters, memorabilia and clothing of the period,
the exhibition addresses central issues from this defining period of
recent history.
They use this photo, I'm not sure that any of these women thought of Thatcher as a role model.
Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher's Britain
The Women's Library, London Metropolitan University
22 October 2004 – 2 April 2005
Entrance free
What was it like to be Britain's first female prime minister? What
legacy did Margaret Thatcher create for women and the women's movement?
Was Thatcher's election a reflection of women's changing social roles,
or a political one-off? Iron Ladies: Women in Thatcher’s Britain is the
first exhibition to consider the impact of ‘Thatcherism’ on British
women in the 1980s, and to look at the ways in which Margaret Thatcher’s
presence as a role model affected women’s lives. Using a wide range of
original material, including previously unseen visual and archival
documents, photographs, posters, memorabilia and clothing of the period,
the exhibition addresses central issues from this defining period of
recent history.
They use this photo, I'm not sure that any of these women thought of Thatcher as a role model.
Blood Bowl Preview
Lothlorien Griffons travel today (5:00pm) to the Snot Bowl to play their relegation rivals Eeip Itzasnake in the penultimate game of the season. Eeip, the only Snotling team in the league already look set for the drop into the second division, having not won a game all season, while the Griffons must be full of confidence after beating championship favourites the Maelstrom Crew 3-2 last Sunday.
The Griffons will be without hat-trick hero Grassrider, having suffered a broken hand in the closing minutes of the match against the Crew. It is hoped that he will be fit enough for Sunday 27th's game against the Harlem Horrors.
On paper, the Griffons look to be far too strong for Eeip and should pick up at least three bonus points in addition to the six points for the win, but as their coach pointed out in a press conference yesterday, Blood Bowl games are not played on paper. The match against the Crew last week showed that shocks can happen.
Current League Tables
This Weekend's Fixtures
Saturday 19th February
Premiership
Anlec Citadels v De SkullRippaz
Iron Guards v Slavers Inc
Da Boozers v Eddie's Babies
First Division
Midnight Howlers v Pyrple Panzies
Eeip Itzasnake v Lothlorien Griffons
Sunday 20th February
Premiership
Loren Mapleleaves v Rottingham Deathspurs
First Division
Maelstrom Crew v Furburgers
The Griffons will be without hat-trick hero Grassrider, having suffered a broken hand in the closing minutes of the match against the Crew. It is hoped that he will be fit enough for Sunday 27th's game against the Harlem Horrors.
On paper, the Griffons look to be far too strong for Eeip and should pick up at least three bonus points in addition to the six points for the win, but as their coach pointed out in a press conference yesterday, Blood Bowl games are not played on paper. The match against the Crew last week showed that shocks can happen.
Current League Tables
This Weekend's Fixtures
Saturday 19th February
Premiership
Anlec Citadels v De SkullRippaz
Iron Guards v Slavers Inc
Da Boozers v Eddie's Babies
First Division
Midnight Howlers v Pyrple Panzies
Eeip Itzasnake v Lothlorien Griffons
Sunday 20th February
Premiership
Loren Mapleleaves v Rottingham Deathspurs
First Division
Maelstrom Crew v Furburgers
Friday, February 18, 2005
Hunting and me
I don't view myself as being opposed to hunting, however today's posts would certainly give that impression, so this post is to try and explain my position:
Before moving to Somerset in 1996, I hadn't lived in a hunting area, I can't even remember thinking about hunting. Then in the next year, I was in an area where hunting was an issue. In the 1997 election, our Labour candidate was asked by very many people where he said on hunting, he said he was opposed to it, and not having a settled view on the issue, I kind of settled into a default Labour opposition.
At the Young Labour Conference 1997, there was a workshop, it was called something like "Rights and Freedoms" we were in an eight or so, each had to defend a right. I can't remember whether I choose it or got it randomly, but I remember the gasp from the rest of the group when I got the card, "Defend the right to hunt foxes".
I didn't know the animal welfare issues one way or the other So I decided to defend the right in very Labour terms. I acknowledged that there was a balance of rights, between the right of hunters to exercise their hobby and the right of countryside dwellers not to have their land trepassed. I didn't touch on animal welfare at all, think I mentioned football and you wouldn't ban football just because of the actions of hooligans. What a lot of people don't realise is that there is significant opposition in rural areas to hunting, but I've never heard a rural dweller oppose hunting due to the cruelty, it's always the thuggish nature of some hunt followers that make them upset. By the end of my piece, I think I'd gained the respect of the others in the group and managed to shift my own views somewhat.
So what happened, well, what happened was partly me and partly the way the Countryside Alliance framed the debate. The Alliance from the very start, framed the debate as country vs town, as hunters vs Labour. They poured so much viterol on townies and Labour Party members and as I was both I felt they meant me. Now, some may say that there was a lot of muck thrown the other way, but the CA should still have reached out to those of us on the Labour side who were more or less undecided, instead with every action they pushed us into opposition.
The Countryside Alliance did pursue a policy of meeting individual MPs but in so doing missed out an important fact about the Labour Party, CLPs have more power over a sitting MP than Conservative Associations do. Even if the MP was persuaded, it would have been a brave MP to stand against a hostile CLP, especially in the hunting issue where there would have been no advantage politically to break ranks. The CA didn't help by not giving any credit to Labour MPs who did support them. There is no supportive comment about Kate Hoey anywhere on the CA site, and Alun Michael, someone who bent over backwards to thrash out a compromise, is usually labelled as "devious" on the CA site.
I was a CLP secretary for a while, on the Executive Committee for the rest of the time and never did the CA write to the CLP offering to talk with us? When there's a debate, but one side doesn't want to talk to you, then there's only one way the debate's going to go.
Even now, the hunt supporters are making enemies when they should be making friends. One of the CA slogans is Support Freedom, Support Tolerance. What tolerance have they ever shown to us?
Before moving to Somerset in 1996, I hadn't lived in a hunting area, I can't even remember thinking about hunting. Then in the next year, I was in an area where hunting was an issue. In the 1997 election, our Labour candidate was asked by very many people where he said on hunting, he said he was opposed to it, and not having a settled view on the issue, I kind of settled into a default Labour opposition.
At the Young Labour Conference 1997, there was a workshop, it was called something like "Rights and Freedoms" we were in an eight or so, each had to defend a right. I can't remember whether I choose it or got it randomly, but I remember the gasp from the rest of the group when I got the card, "Defend the right to hunt foxes".
I didn't know the animal welfare issues one way or the other So I decided to defend the right in very Labour terms. I acknowledged that there was a balance of rights, between the right of hunters to exercise their hobby and the right of countryside dwellers not to have their land trepassed. I didn't touch on animal welfare at all, think I mentioned football and you wouldn't ban football just because of the actions of hooligans. What a lot of people don't realise is that there is significant opposition in rural areas to hunting, but I've never heard a rural dweller oppose hunting due to the cruelty, it's always the thuggish nature of some hunt followers that make them upset. By the end of my piece, I think I'd gained the respect of the others in the group and managed to shift my own views somewhat.
So what happened, well, what happened was partly me and partly the way the Countryside Alliance framed the debate. The Alliance from the very start, framed the debate as country vs town, as hunters vs Labour. They poured so much viterol on townies and Labour Party members and as I was both I felt they meant me. Now, some may say that there was a lot of muck thrown the other way, but the CA should still have reached out to those of us on the Labour side who were more or less undecided, instead with every action they pushed us into opposition.
The Countryside Alliance did pursue a policy of meeting individual MPs but in so doing missed out an important fact about the Labour Party, CLPs have more power over a sitting MP than Conservative Associations do. Even if the MP was persuaded, it would have been a brave MP to stand against a hostile CLP, especially in the hunting issue where there would have been no advantage politically to break ranks. The CA didn't help by not giving any credit to Labour MPs who did support them. There is no supportive comment about Kate Hoey anywhere on the CA site, and Alun Michael, someone who bent over backwards to thrash out a compromise, is usually labelled as "devious" on the CA site.
I was a CLP secretary for a while, on the Executive Committee for the rest of the time and never did the CA write to the CLP offering to talk with us? When there's a debate, but one side doesn't want to talk to you, then there's only one way the debate's going to go.
Even now, the hunt supporters are making enemies when they should be making friends. One of the CA slogans is Support Freedom, Support Tolerance. What tolerance have they ever shown to us?
New Links
Two new links added today, both of a more right-wing bent.
Adam Smith Institute - Bunch of nutters who believe the merely changing the ownership of an enterprise from private to public automatically makes it more efficient.
David Stewart - Politics student from my old stomping ground, Stirling University, and he agreed with me on the Jack McConnell issue.
Adam Smith Institute - Bunch of nutters who believe the merely changing the ownership of an enterprise from private to public automatically makes it more efficient.
David Stewart - Politics student from my old stomping ground, Stirling University, and he agreed with me on the Jack McConnell issue.
The Countryside Alliance condemns...
...Dan Norris for being in Badminton.
Their press release
The Countryside Alliance has condemned Labour MP for Wansdyke, Dan Norris, following his visit to the foxhunting village of Badminton to gloat on the eve of the hunt ban coming into force. Badminton residents are appalled by the misleading spin and accusations made by Mr Norris.
Villagers at Badminton, in the heart of Gloucestershire foxhunting country, were furious that the MP had left his constituency in order to provoke a reaction in a community that will be deeply damaged by the Hunting Act. Many people's homes and jobs in rural areas depend on hunting, especially in villages like Badminton.
Countryside Alliance Regional Director Delly Everard commented: "Dan Norris is an experienced MP who understands the passions that hunting evokes, especially in rural areas. I can only speculate on his motivation, which seemed to many Badminton residents to be nothing more than a sick publicity stunt."
Okay, lets look at this. BBC Points West decided to do an interview/debate between Dan Norris, an MP who has been vocal in his support for the hunt ban, and a member of the Beaufort Hunt. Dan Norris accepts and the BBC decide to hold the debate in the Beaufort's home village of Badminton. Before the BBC could actually do the interview, Norris was pelted with eggs and cream and, Norris says, his assistant was punched. The CA deny that she was punched but in the general confusion of the event, I've seen clips on TV, I can't see how anyone can say that no punches were thrown. So he didn't come to Badminton to gloat, he visited to take part in a civilised debate, the venue of which he did not choose.
Even if he had gone there to gloat, are the CA really saying that there should be parts of Britain off-limits to people who hold certain political views? Some lovers of freedom they are.
Their press release
The Countryside Alliance has condemned Labour MP for Wansdyke, Dan Norris, following his visit to the foxhunting village of Badminton to gloat on the eve of the hunt ban coming into force. Badminton residents are appalled by the misleading spin and accusations made by Mr Norris.
Villagers at Badminton, in the heart of Gloucestershire foxhunting country, were furious that the MP had left his constituency in order to provoke a reaction in a community that will be deeply damaged by the Hunting Act. Many people's homes and jobs in rural areas depend on hunting, especially in villages like Badminton.
Countryside Alliance Regional Director Delly Everard commented: "Dan Norris is an experienced MP who understands the passions that hunting evokes, especially in rural areas. I can only speculate on his motivation, which seemed to many Badminton residents to be nothing more than a sick publicity stunt."
Okay, lets look at this. BBC Points West decided to do an interview/debate between Dan Norris, an MP who has been vocal in his support for the hunt ban, and a member of the Beaufort Hunt. Dan Norris accepts and the BBC decide to hold the debate in the Beaufort's home village of Badminton. Before the BBC could actually do the interview, Norris was pelted with eggs and cream and, Norris says, his assistant was punched. The CA deny that she was punched but in the general confusion of the event, I've seen clips on TV, I can't see how anyone can say that no punches were thrown. So he didn't come to Badminton to gloat, he visited to take part in a civilised debate, the venue of which he did not choose.
Even if he had gone there to gloat, are the CA really saying that there should be parts of Britain off-limits to people who hold certain political views? Some lovers of freedom they are.
Civil Disobedience
Because the updates on the Hunt Defenders post are getting confusing, I'm bringing it back up to the top.
John says that "I do not support it and have not said anywhere that I do" is a vague condemnation. I'm happy to accept that in the spirit that it's offered.
He further says "I certainly consider physical violence as a possible form of civil disobedience, but I do not give it my support." I think that's a little further than I would go, but it's a logical position, the whole issue is an interesting debate I would like to have when cooler heads prevail.
One more comment "Indeed, I remember as a younger man feeling simply dreadful the day that taxi driver was killed by a protesting miner when he threw that concrete slab off that bridge and it is not something I have forgotten." I remember that day, it was probably worse for me, I was 12, the miners were my heroes, I felt much the same about Thatcher as it seems John thinks about Blair now. Up until then, at least to me, the miners held the high moral ground, I knew a policeman (my best friend's elder brother) who flew up to Nottinghamshire every week and came home to boast about beating up (his words) picketing miners, that one comment has remained with me forever. In my mind, Scargill could do no wrong (well, I was only 12). But then that poor taxi driver died, and it was my heroes who had killed him. I remember I went through the denial, the justifications, but it very soon dawned on me that the miners had been wrong. It doesn't matter how right you are, it's not worth that. It seemed to me that the steam went out of the strike at that moment, as people came to the same realisation as me.
John has said that the protesters have overstepped the mark and I applaud him for that. I'd better get off and do some work, no more posts until this evening.
John says that "I do not support it and have not said anywhere that I do" is a vague condemnation. I'm happy to accept that in the spirit that it's offered.
He further says "I certainly consider physical violence as a possible form of civil disobedience, but I do not give it my support." I think that's a little further than I would go, but it's a logical position, the whole issue is an interesting debate I would like to have when cooler heads prevail.
One more comment "Indeed, I remember as a younger man feeling simply dreadful the day that taxi driver was killed by a protesting miner when he threw that concrete slab off that bridge and it is not something I have forgotten." I remember that day, it was probably worse for me, I was 12, the miners were my heroes, I felt much the same about Thatcher as it seems John thinks about Blair now. Up until then, at least to me, the miners held the high moral ground, I knew a policeman (my best friend's elder brother) who flew up to Nottinghamshire every week and came home to boast about beating up (his words) picketing miners, that one comment has remained with me forever. In my mind, Scargill could do no wrong (well, I was only 12). But then that poor taxi driver died, and it was my heroes who had killed him. I remember I went through the denial, the justifications, but it very soon dawned on me that the miners had been wrong. It doesn't matter how right you are, it's not worth that. It seemed to me that the steam went out of the strike at that moment, as people came to the same realisation as me.
John has said that the protesters have overstepped the mark and I applaud him for that. I'd better get off and do some work, no more posts until this evening.
Fighting
The Countryside Alliance's new slogan looks a little bit inappropriate considering last night's events.
More mindless violence
Sadly, it seems that the Beaufort Hunt isn't the only hunters who, stopped from killing foxes have turned to hitting women instead.
Fifteen members of the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt attacked eight hunt protesters. (Source The Sun). A woman suffered head injuries, a 27-year old had severe head injuries and an elderly man was kicked and punched, his glasses smashed and camera stolen.
The Hunt Defenders
John at the England Project has just posted on the topic of the Hunt Ban and has an attempt at explaining the hunt supporters' feelings.
Some of these hundreds of thousand of people will be angrier than others and some of those will not be able to help themselves in expressing that anger. Any large group will have some people among them who are less able to control their rage. I hope and pray that any incidents will be few and far between and minor.
Minor? Punching a woman because she happens to work for a Member of Parliament who you have a disagreement with? How would John feel if someone punched his wife because someone was upset with her boss?
But of course, John explains that's all the government's fault and he has a go at stoking up the temperature even more.
For some it is no longer about who is wrong and who is right; that process has pretty much run its course and those in the wrong were fortunate enough to have the ear of some of the most wickedly illiberal men and women to have ever held influence in this country.
John, you really ought to look at what you've written. Do you really believe that huntsmen and women are above the law? Do you really think that punching a woman is okay if you're angry?
UPDATE 18th Feb - John's replied to my comments above as an update of his post here.
He says that he hadn't heard about the Badminton incident before writing his post and I apologise to him for assuming that he had.
He says that "I believe that the law is wrong on this issue and I would support a policy of civil disobedience on the issue." Civil Disobidence is a bedrock of our democracy, indeed as I said above egg-throwing is to my mind perfectly acceptable, the problem I have with John's post is that he seems to consider physical violence as civil disobidence. John is going to respond to that by pointing out that he's never said he supports it, however he has managed to write about it now without even vaguely condemning it. All I want to hear from him is that the Beaufort and the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunts have overstepped the bounds of what's acceptable.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Catching a report on BBC West about the Badminton incident, it seems that Dan Norris was actually prevented from taking part in the debate by the egg-throwing. Intimidating people into remaining silent, in my view, also steps over the bounds of decent democratic behaviour.
Some of these hundreds of thousand of people will be angrier than others and some of those will not be able to help themselves in expressing that anger. Any large group will have some people among them who are less able to control their rage. I hope and pray that any incidents will be few and far between and minor.
Minor? Punching a woman because she happens to work for a Member of Parliament who you have a disagreement with? How would John feel if someone punched his wife because someone was upset with her boss?
But of course, John explains that's all the government's fault and he has a go at stoking up the temperature even more.
For some it is no longer about who is wrong and who is right; that process has pretty much run its course and those in the wrong were fortunate enough to have the ear of some of the most wickedly illiberal men and women to have ever held influence in this country.
John, you really ought to look at what you've written. Do you really believe that huntsmen and women are above the law? Do you really think that punching a woman is okay if you're angry?
UPDATE 18th Feb - John's replied to my comments above as an update of his post here.
He says that he hadn't heard about the Badminton incident before writing his post and I apologise to him for assuming that he had.
He says that "I believe that the law is wrong on this issue and I would support a policy of civil disobedience on the issue." Civil Disobidence is a bedrock of our democracy, indeed as I said above egg-throwing is to my mind perfectly acceptable, the problem I have with John's post is that he seems to consider physical violence as civil disobidence. John is going to respond to that by pointing out that he's never said he supports it, however he has managed to write about it now without even vaguely condemning it. All I want to hear from him is that the Beaufort and the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunts have overstepped the bounds of what's acceptable.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Catching a report on BBC West about the Badminton incident, it seems that Dan Norris was actually prevented from taking part in the debate by the egg-throwing. Intimidating people into remaining silent, in my view, also steps over the bounds of decent democratic behaviour.
How low will they go?
Dan Norris (Lab, Wansdyke) was in Badminton, Gloucestershire last night. Some hunt supporters pelted him and his staff with eggs and someone punched his female assistant (Source BBC Gloucestershire)
Dan Norris himself was remarkably even handed, "It is unfortunate because I don't think these hot heads are typical of the behaviour I have seen from the pro-hunt lobby. It's a great shame because I don't think they do their cause any good, and they let their side down."
Sadly, the Beaufort Hunt's joint master Captain Ian Farquhar was less concilliatory (especially considering it was his people that had acted disgracefully). "He's come out of his constituency and he's the one that's pushed though this bill which will put people out of work. He's here to gloat he's right ... and I think that stinks."
But Dan Norris wasn't there to gloat, he was invited by BBC Points West to take part in a live interview/debate with hunt supporters.
Pelting politicians with eggs is just part of our political culture and I wouldn't want to condemn that. But when your "protest" involves punching a woman, that's completely unacceptable and I call on the Countryside Alliance to unequivocally make clear that such actions have absolutely no merits whatsoever and to point out that the Beaufort Hunt have demeaned the image of hunt supporters everywhere.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Of course Captain Farquhar doesn't have his facts right either, Dan Norris isn't the one that's pushed through this bill. His bill was the Private Member's Bill that was talked out in 1998.
UPDATE 18th Feb - A spokeswoman for the Beaufort Hunt said "I think he [Dan Norris] was asking for it. [The action]was definitely not from a drunken minority". So, John, these are the people you have allied yourself with.
Dan Norris himself was remarkably even handed, "It is unfortunate because I don't think these hot heads are typical of the behaviour I have seen from the pro-hunt lobby. It's a great shame because I don't think they do their cause any good, and they let their side down."
Sadly, the Beaufort Hunt's joint master Captain Ian Farquhar was less concilliatory (especially considering it was his people that had acted disgracefully). "He's come out of his constituency and he's the one that's pushed though this bill which will put people out of work. He's here to gloat he's right ... and I think that stinks."
But Dan Norris wasn't there to gloat, he was invited by BBC Points West to take part in a live interview/debate with hunt supporters.
Pelting politicians with eggs is just part of our political culture and I wouldn't want to condemn that. But when your "protest" involves punching a woman, that's completely unacceptable and I call on the Countryside Alliance to unequivocally make clear that such actions have absolutely no merits whatsoever and to point out that the Beaufort Hunt have demeaned the image of hunt supporters everywhere.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Of course Captain Farquhar doesn't have his facts right either, Dan Norris isn't the one that's pushed through this bill. His bill was the Private Member's Bill that was talked out in 1998.
UPDATE 18th Feb - A spokeswoman for the Beaufort Hunt said "I think he [Dan Norris] was asking for it. [The action]was definitely not from a drunken minority". So, John, these are the people you have allied yourself with.
RIP Hunting
A brand new day and one where the people who thought they were above the law will wake up and realise that they have to obey the law like the rest of us.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Seems that I had been giving the hunt supporters too much credit. Sorry.
UPDATE 18th Feb - Seems that I had been giving the hunt supporters too much credit. Sorry.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Lib Dems *are* in favour of ASBOs - Official
From Western Gazette 17th Feb 2005
Drunken yobs could find themselves facing football-style red and yellow cards in the latest crackdown on anti-social behaviour in Yeovil. The scheme is being piloted in Taunton and Cllr Tony Fife, who is the portfolio holder for community safety for South Somerset District Council, said if is successful it could be introduced in Yeovil by autumn.
Based on the "three strikes and you are out" rule, once a person is convicted of an anti-social offence involving alcohol they will be issued the yellow card, featuring information on the damage alcohol does to the body.
A second conviction is accompanied by a red card which automatically bans the offender from all licensed premises for 28 days and a third conviction would mean an automatic anti-social behaviour order.
Cllr Fife said: "There is evidence that this is proving successful in Taunton and, if it continues, we would look at bringing it into Yeovil.
Mr Fife is a Lib Dem. Does Mark Oaten know?
Drunken yobs could find themselves facing football-style red and yellow cards in the latest crackdown on anti-social behaviour in Yeovil. The scheme is being piloted in Taunton and Cllr Tony Fife, who is the portfolio holder for community safety for South Somerset District Council, said if is successful it could be introduced in Yeovil by autumn.
Based on the "three strikes and you are out" rule, once a person is convicted of an anti-social offence involving alcohol they will be issued the yellow card, featuring information on the damage alcohol does to the body.
A second conviction is accompanied by a red card which automatically bans the offender from all licensed premises for 28 days and a third conviction would mean an automatic anti-social behaviour order.
Cllr Fife said: "There is evidence that this is proving successful in Taunton and, if it continues, we would look at bringing it into Yeovil.
Mr Fife is a Lib Dem. Does Mark Oaten know?
Defending a Lib Dem
Regular readers will know that I don't support the Lib Dems, but when the need arises I am fair enough to do so.
Somerset County Councillor Tim Carroll (Lib Dem, Wincanton & Bruton) is also chairman of the Environment and Transport Policy Committee and has been a stauch campaigner for the strict imposition of speed limits throughout the county.
On 4th September he was caught driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone through Bayford and last week was fined £60 and got 3 points on his licence.
Clive Allen, the Tory PPC covering Tim Carroll's patch called on him to resign his position, he said, "What a hypocrite, He no longer has any credibility in campaigning for speed measures"
What a lot of nonsense. Certainly for a speed limits campaigner to be caught speeding is embarrassing, but has no bearing on his work as a councillor or as a campaigner. There is absolutely no need for this man to resign.
Somerset County Councillor Tim Carroll (Lib Dem, Wincanton & Bruton) is also chairman of the Environment and Transport Policy Committee and has been a stauch campaigner for the strict imposition of speed limits throughout the county.
On 4th September he was caught driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone through Bayford and last week was fined £60 and got 3 points on his licence.
Clive Allen, the Tory PPC covering Tim Carroll's patch called on him to resign his position, he said, "What a hypocrite, He no longer has any credibility in campaigning for speed measures"
What a lot of nonsense. Certainly for a speed limits campaigner to be caught speeding is embarrassing, but has no bearing on his work as a councillor or as a campaigner. There is absolutely no need for this man to resign.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Boggling
A real comment on the Veritas forum:
"Those who so love the foreigners should all go and live with them! I have wished they would very fervently for nearly a year, now! If I pray hard enough, maybe God will hear me. Let's all pray really hard that God will send them all to the Third World, and not let them come back! I bet those countries would take them, because they could make use of their talents/whatever. Or eat them for dinner! Or something. Robert Mugabe would love them, I bet!"
"Those who so love the foreigners should all go and live with them! I have wished they would very fervently for nearly a year, now! If I pray hard enough, maybe God will hear me. Let's all pray really hard that God will send them all to the Third World, and not let them come back! I bet those countries would take them, because they could make use of their talents/whatever. Or eat them for dinner! Or something. Robert Mugabe would love them, I bet!"
Political cold-calling
This report says that both Labour and the Tories are continuing to phone people who are registered on the Telephone Preference Scheme.
Now I used to argue strongly that we (the Labour Party) shouldn't call TPS homes as we didn't want to annoy them. But since I've registered onto TPS, I've changed my mind.
I didn't register with TPS because I didn't want to be cold-called. I joined because of just 2 companies (I'll name and shame here, Anglian Windows and Tele2) who used to phone me most evenings and simply not take no for an answer. I don't mind if the Tories or the Labour Party phone me. I would be very interested if the Lib Dems do despite their holier-than-thou attitude.
Now I used to argue strongly that we (the Labour Party) shouldn't call TPS homes as we didn't want to annoy them. But since I've registered onto TPS, I've changed my mind.
I didn't register with TPS because I didn't want to be cold-called. I joined because of just 2 companies (I'll name and shame here, Anglian Windows and Tele2) who used to phone me most evenings and simply not take no for an answer. I don't mind if the Tories or the Labour Party phone me. I would be very interested if the Lib Dems do despite their holier-than-thou attitude.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The Daily Mail can't report the truth
I'm backing Ken Livingstone on his crusade against Der Stürmer oops, I meant the Daily Mail and it's sister the Evening Standard.
Interestingly the Daily Mail manage to report the growing row without mentioning the meat of Livingstone's comment. I'll repeat it here for the benefit of any Mail readers.
"Although we uniquely have some brilliant newspapers and first-rate journalists, their standing is dragged down by what must be some of the most reprehensibly managed, edited and owned newspapers in the world."
"They have a disgraceful record, none more so than the Daily Mail,"
"When it was first set up [in 1896] its first campaign was against Jewish refugees coming to London from the pogroms. It continued its anti-Semitism in the 1930s, fighting any proposals that Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler should be admitted to this country."
"Had Britain lost the war and had the Nazis controlled Britain, Lord Rothermere and his cohorts would have been at the front of the queue of collaborators."
Quite right Ken.
UPDATE 16th Feb - Guido Fawkes has pointed out that Ken's distate at Associated Newspapers hasn't stopping him writing for the Standard in the past. Doesn't make him wrong, just a hypocrite.
Interestingly the Daily Mail manage to report the growing row without mentioning the meat of Livingstone's comment. I'll repeat it here for the benefit of any Mail readers.
"Although we uniquely have some brilliant newspapers and first-rate journalists, their standing is dragged down by what must be some of the most reprehensibly managed, edited and owned newspapers in the world."
"They have a disgraceful record, none more so than the Daily Mail,"
"When it was first set up [in 1896] its first campaign was against Jewish refugees coming to London from the pogroms. It continued its anti-Semitism in the 1930s, fighting any proposals that Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler should be admitted to this country."
"Had Britain lost the war and had the Nazis controlled Britain, Lord Rothermere and his cohorts would have been at the front of the queue of collaborators."
Quite right Ken.
UPDATE 16th Feb - Guido Fawkes has pointed out that Ken's distate at Associated Newspapers hasn't stopping him writing for the Standard in the past. Doesn't make him wrong, just a hypocrite.
The Young Saints prosper
Southampton U-18s beat their Arsenal counterparts 1-0 in front of 3,000 fans at St.Mary's tonight to book their place in the quarter finals of the FA Youth Cup. Well done the lads.
UPDATE 15th Feb - Saints now face a trip to East London for the quarter finals. They will play the winner of the Leyton Orient v West Ham match that's played tomorrow.
UPDATE 17th Feb - West Ham beat Leyton Orient 3-2 last night so it's West Ham v Southampton in the quarter final.
UPDATE 15th Feb - Saints now face a trip to East London for the quarter finals. They will play the winner of the Leyton Orient v West Ham match that's played tomorrow.
UPDATE 17th Feb - West Ham beat Leyton Orient 3-2 last night so it's West Ham v Southampton in the quarter final.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Smoking
A pub in Kent is to reintroduce smoking six months after banning it.
John over at England Project says that it's "just one of the many reasons why decisions on when and where customers are allowed to smoke should be left to private businesses"
I beg to differ.
It's just the reason why government has to take a steer. The Junction Inn banned smoking, so smokers (and their) friends moved to other pubs in the area. All the pubs have to work in concert to do anything like that. I personally would prefer self-regulation, but without that, then government has to step in.
John over at England Project says that it's "just one of the many reasons why decisions on when and where customers are allowed to smoke should be left to private businesses"
I beg to differ.
It's just the reason why government has to take a steer. The Junction Inn banned smoking, so smokers (and their) friends moved to other pubs in the area. All the pubs have to work in concert to do anything like that. I personally would prefer self-regulation, but without that, then government has to step in.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Quangos
The BBC have published what they say are the nine most useless quangos but some of their choices are a bit odd.
Admittedly I think that we could do without the British Potato Council, but I don't think that anyone that remembers Ibrox, Bradford or Hillsborough could object to the Football Licensing Authority and anyone whose wages depend on the Agricultural Wages Committees' decisions would hardly call that quango useless.
Admittedly I think that we could do without the British Potato Council, but I don't think that anyone that remembers Ibrox, Bradford or Hillsborough could object to the Football Licensing Authority and anyone whose wages depend on the Agricultural Wages Committees' decisions would hardly call that quango useless.
Hey Mr Tangerine Man
Great flash movie featuring this blogs favourite orange-hued chat show host turned MEP
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Charles and the Princess Consort
Best wishes to Charles and Camilla. As an ardent republican I'm completely indifferent to the whole royalty thing, but they are two people who obviously love each other and want to be married, what could be wrong with that.
The most interesting thing is the titles, Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort. I never cease to be amazed by the British Constitution's ability to make things up but make it sound like we've done it that way for hundreds of years.
The most interesting thing is the titles, Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort. I never cease to be amazed by the British Constitution's ability to make things up but make it sound like we've done it that way for hundreds of years.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
The Guildford Four
Tony Blair's made an apology to the Guildford Four but isn't it a bit pointless. In 1974 Tony Blair was still a hippy student, he bears no personal responsibility for the imprisonment of four innocent men for 15 years. Shouldn't the people who should be saying sorry the police that fitted them up and the government of the time who were more happy to see someone sent down for the bombings than getting the right people (who have remained free all this time)
Danish Elections
Anders Fogh Rasmussen has won the general election in Denmark, but not without losing seats and sadly being unable to do without the right-wing Danish People's Party
Liberal Party: 52 seats (lost 4 on 2001)
Danish People's Party: 24 (gained 2)
Conservative Party: 19 (gained 3)
Total Government Coalition: 95
Social Democratic Party: 47 (lost 5)
Social Liberal Party: 16 (gained 7)
Socialist People's Party: 11 (lost 1)
Unity List: 6 (gained 2)
Christian Democrats: 0 (lost 4)
Others: 4 (no change)
Total Opposition: 84
Liberal Party: 52 seats (lost 4 on 2001)
Danish People's Party: 24 (gained 2)
Conservative Party: 19 (gained 3)
Total Government Coalition: 95
Social Democratic Party: 47 (lost 5)
Social Liberal Party: 16 (gained 7)
Socialist People's Party: 11 (lost 1)
Unity List: 6 (gained 2)
Christian Democrats: 0 (lost 4)
Others: 4 (no change)
Total Opposition: 84
How much will Veritas Cost?
Finally there a hint of a manifesto up at Veritas. As they believe that they are top of the polls by 3% from Labour at the moment, I thought it would be interesting to cost their promises.
Immigration and Asylum Seekers - by only accepting the UK's "fair share" they claim to reduce costs by £1.5 billion/year.
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Open all police stations 24/7 and recruit 40,000 extra police officers. My estimate cost £2 billion/year.
Pensions - Increase married pension by £48.75/week and single pension by £30.40/week. Difficult one to cost because for pensioners claiming Pension Credit, their pensions will not rise that much but a back of an envelope costing puts that at £8 billion/year.
Tax - Raise the Income Tax threshold so that a million workers are taken out of paying tax altogether. Of course, if you simply raise the threshold, all taxpayers benefit by the same amount. Estimated cost £26 billion/year.
Tax - Scrap Council Tax and pay for local services from national taxation, as they haven't mentioned increasing national taxation, that's a cost, another £24 billion/year.
Tax - Scrap Inheritance Tax on the family home. Despite what the Daily Mail might say, IHT on family homes is not a big money-spinner for the treasury and so this provision would not be a significant cost.
Tax - Likewise raising the Stamp Duty threshold on first-time buyers from £60k to £150k would not have large Treasury implications, although would make the bureaucracy more complex, together IHT and Stamp Duty costs wouldn't be more than £0.5 billion/year.
Drugs & Drink - Restoring Marriage Allowances and increasing tax allowances for families with children under the age of 5. Because they don't say how much, it's difficult to cost, but assuming it will be at a low-cost but symbolic level, lets say £1 billion/year including cost of administration. (By the way, why is this proposal under the Drugs and Drink heading?)
Europe - Here's the saving, according to Veritas, CIVITAS say EU membership costs the UK £40 billion/year. In fact CIVITAS reckon that EU membership costs somewhere between £17 billion/year and £40 billion/year, I'll be nice and we'll split the difference and make the cost to the UK £29 billion/year.
So, what's the score
Costs per year
Extra Police = £2b
Pensions = £8b
Income Tax Changes = £26b
Council Tax = £24b
IHT & Stamp Duty = £½b
Marriage and Family Tax Changes = £1b
TOTAL COST = £61½ billion/year
Savings per year
Reducing Asylum Seekers = £1½b
Leaving the EU = £29b
TOTAL SAVINGS = £30½ billion/year
That still leaves £31 billion short, maybe the Party of Truth would like to explain where the rest is coming from.
Immigration and Asylum Seekers - by only accepting the UK's "fair share" they claim to reduce costs by £1.5 billion/year.
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Open all police stations 24/7 and recruit 40,000 extra police officers. My estimate cost £2 billion/year.
Pensions - Increase married pension by £48.75/week and single pension by £30.40/week. Difficult one to cost because for pensioners claiming Pension Credit, their pensions will not rise that much but a back of an envelope costing puts that at £8 billion/year.
Tax - Raise the Income Tax threshold so that a million workers are taken out of paying tax altogether. Of course, if you simply raise the threshold, all taxpayers benefit by the same amount. Estimated cost £26 billion/year.
Tax - Scrap Council Tax and pay for local services from national taxation, as they haven't mentioned increasing national taxation, that's a cost, another £24 billion/year.
Tax - Scrap Inheritance Tax on the family home. Despite what the Daily Mail might say, IHT on family homes is not a big money-spinner for the treasury and so this provision would not be a significant cost.
Tax - Likewise raising the Stamp Duty threshold on first-time buyers from £60k to £150k would not have large Treasury implications, although would make the bureaucracy more complex, together IHT and Stamp Duty costs wouldn't be more than £0.5 billion/year.
Drugs & Drink - Restoring Marriage Allowances and increasing tax allowances for families with children under the age of 5. Because they don't say how much, it's difficult to cost, but assuming it will be at a low-cost but symbolic level, lets say £1 billion/year including cost of administration. (By the way, why is this proposal under the Drugs and Drink heading?)
Europe - Here's the saving, according to Veritas, CIVITAS say EU membership costs the UK £40 billion/year. In fact CIVITAS reckon that EU membership costs somewhere between £17 billion/year and £40 billion/year, I'll be nice and we'll split the difference and make the cost to the UK £29 billion/year.
So, what's the score
Costs per year
Extra Police = £2b
Pensions = £8b
Income Tax Changes = £26b
Council Tax = £24b
IHT & Stamp Duty = £½b
Marriage and Family Tax Changes = £1b
TOTAL COST = £61½ billion/year
Savings per year
Reducing Asylum Seekers = £1½b
Leaving the EU = £29b
TOTAL SAVINGS = £30½ billion/year
That still leaves £31 billion short, maybe the Party of Truth would like to explain where the rest is coming from.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Heroes of the Black Peaks Online
My pencil and paper Dungeons and Dragons campaign is going online. If you're interested please email me at andrashaf@aol.com
Can't be true?
From the BBC
Snooker star Jimmy White is changing his name to Jimmy Brown, as part of a madcap sponsorship deal.
The Whirlwind decided on his new moniker following news that the brown ball in all major tournaments is to be backed by a sauce manufacturer.
Not only that, White will ditch his usual black tuxedo for the forthcoming Masters event in favour of a brown one.
"With a bit of luck, the name Jimmy Brown will be engraved on the Masters trophy at the end of next week," he said.
"The sponsorship of the brown ball really puts the fun back into snooker and, given my previous surname, I wanted to follow that lead.
"I think it is also up to the players to help liven up snooker's image and raise its profile, and I feel good to do my bit with the help of HP."
White, who changed his name by deed poll, plans to keep his new title for the duration of the Masters - and possibly even the World Championships.
And after suffering heartbreak at the Crucible on six occasions, perhaps it will be just the tonic he needs.
Can anyone confirm this story, and how exactly can you sponsor the Brown Ball?
UPDATE 9th Feb - Apparently it is true, and HP Sauce will have a little logo on the brown ball
Snooker star Jimmy White is changing his name to Jimmy Brown, as part of a madcap sponsorship deal.
The Whirlwind decided on his new moniker following news that the brown ball in all major tournaments is to be backed by a sauce manufacturer.
Not only that, White will ditch his usual black tuxedo for the forthcoming Masters event in favour of a brown one.
"With a bit of luck, the name Jimmy Brown will be engraved on the Masters trophy at the end of next week," he said.
"The sponsorship of the brown ball really puts the fun back into snooker and, given my previous surname, I wanted to follow that lead.
"I think it is also up to the players to help liven up snooker's image and raise its profile, and I feel good to do my bit with the help of HP."
White, who changed his name by deed poll, plans to keep his new title for the duration of the Masters - and possibly even the World Championships.
And after suffering heartbreak at the Crucible on six occasions, perhaps it will be just the tonic he needs.
Can anyone confirm this story, and how exactly can you sponsor the Brown Ball?
UPDATE 9th Feb - Apparently it is true, and HP Sauce will have a little logo on the brown ball
Monday, February 07, 2005
Honorary Scottish
I note that I've been linked to as "Honorary Scottish" by Stuart Dickson. I'm not sure why I'm honorary Scottish, the only time I've ever been there was to attend Stirling University, but there's a lot worse things to be called.
Thinking what they are thinking?
I'm back.
The Tories have this billboard (coincidentally outside Yeovil's Labour Club). The sheer cheek of that as an election poster takes my breath away.
I just happened to be sent the Cardiff University / UNISON report "Hospital Contract Cleaning and Infection Control" in the post last week. The pdf version is here. It presents a convincing case that the worsening of infection control in the NHS is a result of contract cleaning.
Basically the theory goes like this, since cleaning services in the NHS started being outsourced in 1986, there have been a downward pressure on cleaner numbers, wages have gone down (relatively), training has been squeezed out and retention has worsened. If you ask 1 untrained person to clean a ward instead of 2 trained cleaners, then it stands to reason that the quality of cleaning has gone down.
The rise in MRSA in today's hospitals can be directly traced back to the Tories health policies of the 1980s, although it must be said that Labour haven't done as much as they should in solving the problem.
But maybe that's being unfair on Michael Howard, maybe he realises the error of his ways and is promising to employ more cleaners and actually pay them more than Tescos does. What it is they say about private sector CEOs, you have to pay the right money to get the right people? Surely the same should be said about hospital cleaners. Unfortunately, the Tories don't want to employ more cleaners, they want to increase outsourcing to more parts of the NHS. But surely they want to solve the MRSA? It seems that the only policy they have is to "free" hospitals from the "burden" of telling the Dept of Health how much MRSA they have. So the Tories aren't even pretending that they will solve the problem, merely sweep it under the carpet.
Even for Michael Howard, that's disgusting.
The Tories have this billboard (coincidentally outside Yeovil's Labour Club). The sheer cheek of that as an election poster takes my breath away.
I just happened to be sent the Cardiff University / UNISON report "Hospital Contract Cleaning and Infection Control" in the post last week. The pdf version is here. It presents a convincing case that the worsening of infection control in the NHS is a result of contract cleaning.
Basically the theory goes like this, since cleaning services in the NHS started being outsourced in 1986, there have been a downward pressure on cleaner numbers, wages have gone down (relatively), training has been squeezed out and retention has worsened. If you ask 1 untrained person to clean a ward instead of 2 trained cleaners, then it stands to reason that the quality of cleaning has gone down.
The rise in MRSA in today's hospitals can be directly traced back to the Tories health policies of the 1980s, although it must be said that Labour haven't done as much as they should in solving the problem.
But maybe that's being unfair on Michael Howard, maybe he realises the error of his ways and is promising to employ more cleaners and actually pay them more than Tescos does. What it is they say about private sector CEOs, you have to pay the right money to get the right people? Surely the same should be said about hospital cleaners. Unfortunately, the Tories don't want to employ more cleaners, they want to increase outsourcing to more parts of the NHS. But surely they want to solve the MRSA? It seems that the only policy they have is to "free" hospitals from the "burden" of telling the Dept of Health how much MRSA they have. So the Tories aren't even pretending that they will solve the problem, merely sweep it under the carpet.
Even for Michael Howard, that's disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)