Picking Losers

With the budget coming up next week, it is that time of year where Gordon Brown lays it on thick that this country has never had it so good and that we have seen ten consecutive years of growth and he has been the longest serving chancellor in history and then he says something else, but I'm always asleep by this point. You would have thought that all this meant that we have more money in our pockets than ever before. Of course, things are not always what they seem.

The Centre for Policy Studies think tank has reported that we are virtually no better off than we were six years ago. In fact, in real terms, households have an extra £9 disposable income in our pockets. This is a growth rate of just 0.35 per cent a year - I bet Gordon doesn't bore us with that statistic next Wednesday. Tax lawyer Charlie Elphicke, who led the study, uses the example of Ronald Reagan when he asked the question in the 1980 US Presidential debates - "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" As Elphicke points out "For the average voter, the answer to Ronald Reagan's question is likely to be a resounding no." The report also concludes that the lowest income households in Britain are paying a higher share of tax - and receiving a lower share of benefits - than they were in 1996/7. The Treasury have countered the report with claims that disposable income has increased since 1997. For a government that came to power promising that income tax will not rise only for it raise just about every other tax possible and create a few more on top of that, it is hard to believe a word they say.

Who are these people in Government who simply can not make a decent estimate? It seems every single Government major investment project runs vastly over budget. Where on Earth do they find them - it's not like it's one department or the odd project, but every single department and every single project. If this was the private sector these goons would have been sacked years ago. The latest piece of Government over spend has been revealed by the National Audit Office to be from the Department for Transport's road schemes - 200 of them! You'd have thought after the first 50 or so they might be able to spot a trend and start making better estimates.

Government

• Gordon Brown will raise billions of pounds to put education at the centre of next week's Budget with a privatisation of the student loans system. The chancellor will make the announcement of extra billions for education the centrepiece of what seems sure to be his last Budget. The book value of student loans at the end of March last year was £16bn and the Treasury is planning to sell a large chunk of this to a private sector that has an almost insatiable appetite for assets bearing a steady stream of income. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3b60aba4-d29b-11db-a7c0-000b5df10621.html
• Rail passengers face annual inflation-busting fare rises into the next decade after the government announced a £1bn investment in carriages to ease overcrowding.
  

I'm feeling rather pleased with a comment I posted to a thread on the Samizdata.net website, so I'm going to post it here too.

Jonathan Pearce had posted a thoughtful piece to Samizdata on the merits of David Cameron's announcement on rationing air travel, in the course of which he allowed that DC might genuinely have the interests of the poor at heart, but pointed out those interests were in the future, and asked "Why should a politician, answerable to an electorate, sacrifice or ask to sacrifice its interests for the interests of people in such a long time to come, and over a theory or set of theories that are, at best, not proven to the standards of a court of law?" Sounds like a good libertarian perspective, and many had agreed with him in more colourful language, accusing DC and his ilk of being fascists. Such exaggeration is often a good sign that people are thinking more with their guts than their heads, a habit discussed in my "Post-rational" post.

Government

• Peers have voted for the House of Lords to be fully appointed, setting the scene for a parliamentary battle over reform with MPs. In a series of Commons votes last week there were majorities for either an 80 or 100 per cent elected upper house, with the fully elected option receiving the largest majority. But backing in the Lords for an all-appointed second chamber by 361 votes to 121 (a majority of 240) will lead to a struggle between the two houses.
• Rail commuters have been promised an extra 1,000 train carriages by 2014 in a bid to tackle overcrowding.
  

NHS shocker: "Reorganisation of NHS services for patients needing medical attention outside normal working hours was shambolic and ran hugely over budget." This is according to a cross-party committee report on one of the government's key health reforms. That headline could be shortened to describe the NHS really - "NHS shambolic and ran hugely over budget." The NHS had been getting off quite lightly from me this week given the focus on the environment, but true to form not a week goes by without some ridiculous tale of waste and poor performance comes out.

The current government has taken the nanny state to new levels in the UK and now it is taking the term quite literally. Its latest piece of interfering is with the development of our young children - after all nanny knows best. The Guardian reports that every nursery, child minder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children's progress towards a set of 69 government-set "early learning goals", recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go. 500 milestones!?

Government  

• A reorganisation of NHS services for patients needing medical attention outside normal working hours was shambolic and ran hugely over budget, a cross-party committee of MPs says today in a caustic report on one of the government's key health reforms. GPs in England were allowed three years ago to opt out of responsibility for looking after patients during evenings, nights and weekends. But arrangements for primary care trusts to organise alternative medical cover were poorly prepared and cost £70m more than forecast, the Commons public accounts committee found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2033165,00.html  
• An increase in council tax banding to ensure that expensive homes attract a fairer share of the tax burden is likely to be included in a package of measures to be unveiled following next week's budget, it was confirmed last night. But Sir Michael Lyons, in his report on local government finance, is expected to make his proposal for an extra band - possibly two - on top of the existing eight conditional upon the government agreeing to a wider revaluation of English property. Both main parties have ducked this issue as politically explosive. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2033425,00.html  
• Douglas Alexander, transport secretary, warned MPs yesterday of "serious consequences" for the UK if it refused to ratify a liberalised air-services accord between the US and the European Union. EU transport ministers are to vote on the controversial draft "open-skies" treaty on Thursday next week. Mr Alexander told the House of Commons transport committee that there was "significant support" for the accord among other member states. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fc105c30-d1d0-11db-b921-000b5df10621.html  
• Tony Blair has effectively sacked Sir Alistair Graham, a trenchant critic of the Government's ethical standards, as head of the sleaze watchdog. Sir Alistair will step down as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when his contract ends in April after the Prime Minister personally intervened to ensure that he left as soon as possible, leaving the body without a successor. The move has heightened fears about the future of the committee. The Government has not left enough time to appoint a new chairman before Sir Alistair's departure, and the committee fears that it will not be able to operate effectively until a replacement is chosen. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1512099.ece  
• Tourism business leaders are offering £20m to promote the industry in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics if the amount is matched by the government. The offer mirrors the match-funding scheme agreed between ministers and the industry to revive tourism in the wake of foot and mouth disease and the attacks of September 11 2001. Tourism leaders fear the government, far from in-creasing the £47m budget of VisitBritain, its tourism agency, intends to cut its 2007-11 allocation by 7 per cent. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61ca77ae-d1d1-11db-b921-000b5df10621.html  
• Babies will be assessed on their gurgling, babbling and toe-playing abilities when they are a few months old under a legally enforced national curriculum for children from birth to five published by the government yesterday. Every nursery, childminder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children's progress towards a set of 69 government-set "early learning goals", recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go. http://education.guardian.co.uk/earlyyears/story/0,,2033356,00.html   

Conservatives  

Government 

• The Government's blueprint for tackling climate change was today set out by Environment Secretary David Miliband. The draft Climate Change Bill set out a framework for moving the UK to a low-carbon economy. Key points of the draft bill, published today, include:
• A series of clear targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - including making the UK's targets for a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 and a 26 to 32 per cent reduction by 2020 legally binding. 
• A new system of legally binding five year "carbon budgets", set at least 15 years ahead, to provide clarity on the UK's pathway towards its key targets and increase the certainty that businesses and individuals need to invest in low-carbon technologies. 
• A new statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change, to provide independent expert advice and guidance to Government on achieving its targets and staying within its carbon budgets. 
• New powers to enable the Government to more easily implement policies to cut emissions. 
• A new system of annual open and transparent reporting to Parliament. The Committee on Climate Change will provide an independent progress report to which the Government must respond. This will ensure the Government is held to account every year on its progress towards each five year carbon budget and the 2020 and 2050 targets. 
• A requirement for Government to report at least every five years on current and predicted impacts of climate change and on its proposals and policy for adapting to climate change.
• A consultation document on the proposals for enforcement of the REACH Regulation in the UK was published today. REACH, (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) was agreed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on 18 December 2006. The Regulation will come into force on 1 June this year. It will form the EU's framework legislation for the management, control and use of chemicals, replacing much of the current patchwork of over 40 pieces of legislation. The UK is required to have an enforcement and penalties regime in place no later than 1 December 2008. REACH will apply not only to chemicals manufacturers or suppliers, but to any business which uses chemicals - so a wide range of businesses will be affected by the enforcement arrangements proposed.

Conservatives  

And so to the Government and their use of the environment as a way of screwing over the taxpayer. In an attempt to out-green Green Dave, the government has gone in a radically different direction. Instead of aiming to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050, they are going to cut them by 60% by 2050. See the difference? And instead of reviewing the progress yearly as Cameron has suggested, they will review every five years. The Government claims that the five-year model is a more intelligent and flexible policy. Which may well be technically true, but it's not really saying much, is it? They have attacked the Tories for placing so much emphasis on aviation, yet their own policy review document published in January warns of the critical importance of cutting aviation emissions.

Can someone please inject some common sense in to the Environment debate? It is really starting to get out of hand and I fear will bankrupt us all! It seems that the major parties can justify doing anything just by linking it to the doomsday apocalypse that is climate change. It is more effective at getting policies accepted by the electorate than the cold war or the war on terror ever was. And it is David Cameron who is really leading the field at the moment.

After promising that his brilliant new idea to tax the frequent (and not so frequent) flier would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere, we now know what he meant. It means that he is going to tax the hell of us and then use the money to interfere with our lives. The Independent reports "Money that a Conservative government would raise from taxing air travel will be used on schemes such as tax breaks for married couples, David Cameron has promised." It goes on "His aim is to offer a double whammy to encourage people to behave in ways that the Tory leader thinks are good for society." In a BBC interview yesterday he incredibably called it "taxing the bad and rewarding the good". Who does he think he is? Is he some sort of modern day twisted Robin Hood? Since when was he crowned the moral judge of what is right and what is wrong? I do not not need this buffoon guiding me through the moral maze. I just hope for his sake that one day something isn't revealed to show him up not to be the righteous, moralistic, perfect man that he likes to portray - but I think that day will come and we all know what it's going to be. If Dave has indulged in activities of an shady nature in the past, then that is his business as far as I'm concerned, but I won't be defending him if he thinks that he has some sort of right to interfere and comment on my private life.

Government 

What is it with David Cameron? He is obsessed with taxation and the environment. Or is it he is obsessed with taxation and excuses for raising taxes whilst sounding like a kind and caring new Tory? Forget the comparisons with Tony Blair, Cameron is the new Gordon Brown (though slightly less dour) - or at least his old pal George Osborne is. The latest value (not policy) is to issue passengers with a 'green miles' allowance and forced to pay more if they took extra flights.

One of the most ill conceived and un-needed policies from the current government is coming back to haunt all of us. The revised 1970 equal pay legislation is just beginning to show its impact - and guess what, women aren't getting pay rises and those on higher salaries are being forced in to getting pay cuts (even higher paid women).

Government

• Gordon Brown will slap down David Cameron's plan to impose strict personal allowances on tax-free air travel as little better than feel-good politics which do not address global warming at the vital level of coordinated international action. On the eve of tomorrow's publication of the Climate Change bill, the chancellor will use a speech to the Green Alliance to demand a "new world order" that can address the need for urgent cuts in carbon emissions in the same way that the Make Poverty History campaign put pressure on institutions such as the UN, EU and G8.

Good news from the Energy Saving Trust's website:

"A new carbon reduction method for diesel vehicles is set to be demonstrated on Ford's fleet of vehicles in the near future....To be trialed on Ford's Power Stroke diesel vehicles, the technology is hoped to reduce carbon emissions and increase engine torque."

Fantastic. But...

"Ford is set to unveil its 6.4-litre Power Stroke engine in its new F-Series pickup next year, which is set to be the company's cleanest ever diesel."

6.4 litres!!! If that's their idea of clean, I want to see what a really dirty Ford pickup looks like. Much like their current fleet, I suppose, which tells you how badly run and behind the times they have got.

I've got an idea. If you want to save energy and/or carbon, don't run a truck with a 6.4-litre engine.

I've added a link to the Not Proud of Britain (But Would Like To Be) blog, simply for this comment on the Bloggers4Labour blog. It is one of the most intelligent observations that I have seen on the false economics of the Government's road-pricing scheme. Does the Government really think that people sit in rush-hour traffic for the hell of it, and that all they need is a financial incentive to get them to drop off the kids or go to work at a different time? It's not difficult to spot the flaw in the plan, is it? Headmaster/mistress and boss may have something to say about it. Snafu sums it up superbly in the language of economists. What a pity a blogger has a better grasp of economics than the large number of academic pseudo-economists who have come out in support of road-pricing simply because it looks superficially like a market.

Last night's Dispatches report on the Great Global Warming Swindle brought some welcome balance to the climate-change debate. Not because the programme itself was balanced - it was completely one-sided in favour of the sceptics - but because the other side of the argument (the alarmists) has been given almost all of the air-time for the past few years. We are constantly told by politicians, publicists and much of the media that there is scientific consensus, that the debate is over, and that it is somehow morally wrong to question the science. Well, there is clearly not consensus, the debate is not over, and suppressing debate is a whole lot more morally contemptible than trying to raise it (stand up and take a bow, all you Royal Society representatives, for your ignoble role in the effort to suppress debate).

Having said that, some climate-change sceptics are as inclined to grasp any evidence as complete refutation of global-warming theory, as the alarmists are inclined to interpret any data as further evidence to support their beliefs. So in the interests of balance, here is a link to the best-informed article I could find that provided counter-arguments to those in the programme.

It's as if there are no problems left in this country and our MPs can now start to squabble over the petty and inconsequential. Watch out, the PC brigade are taking over and their leader is Jack Straw. The man being touted as our next Chancellor has decided to come out with this: "Male pronouns are used on their own in contexts where a reference to women and men is intended, and...words such as 'chairman' are used for offices capable of being held by either gender. Many believe that this practice tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes, and presents an obstacle to clearer understanding for those unfamiliar with the convention." Many believe, do they Jack? I imagine even more couldn't give a monkeys. Meg Munn, minister for women, has taken the ill-founded assumptions one step further "It really is outdated to have language which refers to 'he' when it means women as well. Most people would see this as a normal, sensible way forward." Most people? Sensible way forward?

Charles N. Steele wrote a funny little comment on Hot Coffee Girl's blog a while back, about not defining oneself as a "non-smoker". Recent encounters with various pseudo-intellectual movements defining themselves as post-this or post-that got me to thinking that the prefix "post-" probably deserves similar contempt for defining oneself not in terms of what one is but in terms of what one is not.

There is a debate going on at Charles's site about a strange concept called post-science. Though much of the argument is esoteric, I recommend it to you for the entertainment value of the claims of the post-science spokesman (and of the websites that he points to), and as an illustration of the difficulty of reasoning with people who consciously reject rationality, and of where such a rejection gets you to.