UK Un-Cunts

There were protests yesterday outside banks by members of UK Uncut dressed as doctors, protesting about "tax evasion" by the banks, and their role in the credit crunch, and hence their perceived role in the (non-existient) cuts to the NHS [Link]. First of all, like I've said before, the NHS is a Stalinist organisation which puts money before patients all the time, and fails in patient healthcare compared to the systems in most other developed countries, and thus needs to be euthanized, but I've already talked about it here. 

The protesters do have a point, in saying that big businesses tend to pay less tax than small ones, due to offshore 

accounts in tax havens and so on. However, the argument isn't to make them pay more tax, but for the small 

businesses to pay less. The government knows that without these tax "loopholes", the places like Topshop, 

Vodafone etc. wouldn't do business in the UK at all, so they would get more tax revenue if they allow these

companies to exploit these loopholes. This however makes it harder for the small business to compete, so it would

be fair to lower taxes to smaller businesses as well. However, I'm sure this has more to do with big business 

"lobbying", and less to do with the economic ineptness of politicians. The point is that instead of defending stupid,

inept public organisations like the NHS, they should be defending tax cuts for small businesses, which will then 

increase employment, increase tax revenue, and make us all better off as a result

Superinjunctions still suck

It's kinda worrying these days when even the Daily Mail is championing free speech, but here we are. The main argument for superinjunctions, especially in the Ryan Giggs case, is that it's "not in the public interest". This is the type of snobbery we have come to expect from the so called "liberal elite" (ironic as they're not liberal, and they're not elite), who look down their noses at the millions of people who read The Sun etc. The idea that we should scrutinize every story and determine whether the public have a "right to know" about it is something that would happen in communist China, not in the UK, the birthplace of the enlightenment. If that were to happen, The Sun would just be printed on a sheet of A4, with the weather, a crossword and a page 3 girl. I understand the "right to privacy", but in my view (and the view of the Irish courts as well, which are also bound by the ECHR), injunctions can only occur when somebody has hacked your phone, email, bank accounts etc. Only when the law has been broken then should you have to justify "public interest". Of course defending the right to publish kiss-and-tell stories about footballers won't get many people riled up, but when we have cases like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391918/New-gagging-order-row-erupts-Court-hear-sensitive-sex-case-secret.html, Fred the Shred raping the taxpayers and having an affair at the same time, Trafigura, and Gordon Ramsay firing two people from his company, then it's obvious the law is an ass.
  Also good on Lib Dem MP John Hemming for naming Ryan Giggs. He named him not because of the kiss-and-tell story, but because he was trying to sue people on Twitter for mentioning him (which is in the public interest), who might not even know the injunction exists. Also Giles Coren is under legal action for saying Gareth Barry has cheated on his wife, but the courts would not be allowed to name Coren, because it would break Barry's injunction. Hence we have the farcical situation where we wouldn't know who was being prosecuted, and nor would we know what he was prosecuted for. This is not open justice, and hence this is the real reason why injunctions suck.

Money-grabbing Councils #1

There is an article in the Daily Mail about a street in Camden which has so many roadsigns it confuses motorists (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392006/Revealed-The-5m-raised-camera-Britain-s-baffling-road.html). The really annoying thing about this story is that before all the roadsigns, there was a bollard and traffic lights, which seemed to work fine. Now they've removed them and put up so many restriction signs, that it catches out on average 800 motorists per month (over 25 per day). The council even have the cheek to say "The signs stating the restrictions are clear to motorists". Well obviously they're not, if 1 person an hour is caught out by them. If they actually cared about traffic management, they would think "Obviously this isn't working, well have to simplify the system". However, the fact that they haven't shows that they are motivated not by serving the people, but by greed.

Libraries suck

Hello trolls,

I was walking through Birmingham the other day and walked past the construction site for the new "Library of Birmingham". The design of the proposed building does look impressive, but I wonder will anybody actually use it? The only library I've used in the past 5 years is the one at University, and I don't really see the point in spending £193 million on a library. Especially now I think the classic version of a library will soon become obsolete, with the internet providing the information we need for research, which is more up to date and more readily available. If you're going to make the point that "how can poor kids afford to read books without a library?", then that's what school libraries are for. And anyway, with £193million, you  could buy almost 1.75million Kindles. It would be more cost effective, and more fun and practical, to give every school child in Birmingham a Kindle then to invest it in this stupid building. And anyway, why should government fund libraries anyway? If there was a public demand to rent books, then a private company would have done it, and probably much better (like a LOVEfilm for books). These companies might even exist if the government stops it monopoly on book lending.  And if we cared about the poor so much, why doesn't the government instead not take £190 from every man, woman and child who lives in Birmingham, and allows them to instead spend it on things they actually want. Like food.

Ken Clarke is not evil

Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, today has been brandished a "danger to women", and is under pressure to resign, after he suggested that some rapes were worse than others, and that he was considering halfing jail time for rapists who admitted guilt. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3588801/Sex-attack-victim-demands-Ken-Clarke-sacking-for-endangering-women.html)

First of all, all rapes are bad, whether they're committed by your boyfriend when he's drunk, to being committed by a family member, to being ambushed by someone in a dark alley. All are crimes. However, in our legal system, rightly or wrongly, some rapes would be considered more serious than others, as different rapists would get different jail sentences, depending on the circumstances/likelihood to re-offend. It doesn't mean some of them aren't serious. However, if you think all rapes, whatever the circumstances, should get the same jail sentence, it's unfair to criticise Ken Clarke, your critisisms should be going to the judges instead.

It is very opportunistic for Jack Straw to criticize Clarke for his comments, saying that "The exact circumstances may have varied, but the profound emotional damage, the violation, was the same.", basically saying that all rapes should be treated equally. If he really felt that way when he was justice secretary, he would have put in minimum sentences for rapists. As it turns out he isn't, so he is nothing more than a hypocrite. 

Clarke was also criticized for suggesting that sentences should be cut by half for those who plead guilty at the first opportunity. Again, he was referring to all crimes not just rapes. I don't agree with it personally, but I understand his logic when it comes to rape crimes. There is something like 6% of reported rapes lead to a conviction. (However, 60% of those charged are convicted (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8319/). Rape crimes, due to their nature, are hard to convict for as it is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That means there are a lot more rapists out there, and I understand the reasoning that it is better for those to be in prison (even for half the time) compared to not being in prison at all. Although, I would still suggest that it probably wouldn't make a difference, as only those with the most evidence against them would plead guilty, as again rapes are very hard to prove.

But anyway, again he is critised by Labour, even though pleading guilty will reduce your sentence by a third anyway under the current rules, which were inherited from Labour. Even before the Clarke situation,  Sadiq Khan the shadow justice secretary said that we should be "jailing fewer people", and Ed Milliband said that we should have shorter sentences (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/05/ken-clarke-labour-policy). Again, I don't think Ken Clarke has done much wrong personally, he was only stating what the courts have done for years, when it came to different sentences for different rapes (although the way he said it wasn't voter-friendly), and whilst I don't agree with it, reducing the jail term by half instead of a third (16% less jail time), I don't think matters that much anyway. It just exposes, again, how much of a slimeball Ed Milliband and his hypocrites "R" us Labour crew are.

Lets make homeowners very poor, and destroy the greenbelt at the same time

The price of housing has gone up roughly 3 fold in the last 15 years (adjusted for inflation). The reason why this is not because bricks have become really expensive, it's because there us a shortage of supply. The low supply is not because our island is "full", but because planning permission is really expensive an hard to get, hence making it harder to build houses than what it should be. The consequences of this action is that it made homeowners really rich, especially at the higher end of the scale. It also meant only te middle-classes could pit down deposits before the age of 30, putting those homeowners on the lower end of the scale in a lifetime of debt, increasing rents (hence making it harder to save for a deposit), and therefore creating less of an incentive for those in council housing to move out, hence decreasing the supply of council houses for those who need it. Overall this has reduced social mobility, and it's all the fault of the "fights of the working class", New labour.

Because of this the government do token schemes, like "part rent/part buy", but the biggest help would be if they got rid of all the planning permission, taxes and energy assessment which stop houses being made. I could accept house prices going up due to increased prices of materials etc, but when it is being done Artificially, by the direct actions of a mainly pretend "progressive" government (although the coalition have not done anything different) just to win the votes of the "squeezed middle" (read: the voters which labour/conservatives need to win elections), then these people can fuck
Off. Let's build more houses on the green belt. It's better to have more people in affordable homes, than for a rich people to have a nice view from their estate (only 5% of the country live in rural areas anyway, and it's mainly the roh)

The truth about tuition fees

There is an article today in the Guardian with the headline "Richest students to pay for extra places at Universities"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/09/universities-extra-places-richest-students). Invariably when somebody reads this headline they'll probably think 'Robbing bastards, now only the rich can afford to go to University, Tory scum". However, once you read the article, you realize that it is actually the poorest students that will benefit the most, as I will explain.


Currently each Uni course has to fill a quota of about 50-60% I think on average for "UK" students. These students pay NOTHING up front, and they get a stipend/loan to pay for living costs as well, but may have to pay up to 9k per year plus their living costs back if they have enough money after graduation, which is still heavily subsidized and taken out of their wages just like any other tax. If you can't pay it eventually it is written off. The rest is formed of EU (which pay 9k upfront) and non-EU students, who can pay from 12k-28k per year depending on the course. The scheme which the government are announcing is that the UK students who can afford the full fees (that is 12-28k per year) upfront, can apply for places outside the UK quota system, that is apply like an international student. This will help the poorest UK students for 3 reasons:

1.   This will free up places in the quota system, therefore allowing some students to study a course they would not otherwise had the opportunity to study

2. The Uni will make more money from these rich UK students, hence more money will be invested in the course overall, and therefore more places will be available as a result (even for the normal UK students, as there is a quota system).

3. UK students funded by charities and businesses will now be able to register as "international", rather than UK like they did before, and pay the full fees. As these charities/businesses tend to fund the poorer students, the amount of poorer students at university will increase anyway. This will also free up places in the quota for more students.

Therefore don't believe what the headline says. This government proposal will undoubtedly increase social mobility, not decrease it.

Why the Lib Dems got their arse kicked

The results for the local elections are in, and basically the British public gave a big middle-finger to the Lib Dems, whilst Labour made gains, and the Conservatives roughly stayed the same. What is interesting is that the Tories did quite well, even though their coalition partners did very poorly. I am going to examine why.

1. Lib Dems are actually in power

Before, the Lib Dems had no chance of getting in to government, so basically they could come up with any policy they wanted, and have no reprocussions. Infact, it's actually hard to understand what the Lib Dems stand for in the first place. The Lib Dems themselves are split. Clegg and Cable represent the "market liberal" wing of the party, which advocate the role of the free market in healthcare and schools, and generally want lower taxation, especially for lower income earners. Whilst the "social liberal" side, which compose of Kennedy, Ashdown etc., call for "progressive taxation", and are generally for an increased role of the state in public services. There are views on civil liberties however, like no ID cards, gay marriage etc., which unite the two sides, as well as a generally pro-EU stance.

As it is mainly this "market liberal" wing in power with the government, it is of no surprise that the "social liberal" supporters of the party feel alienated, and thus it is of little surprise that these supporters are turning to Labour.

2. They just agree with the Tories all the time

This would seem like an obvious point to make. However, what people don't understand is that the Tories got the most votes, whilst the Lib Dems came third, so they should get more influence in terms of policy, as that's how a fair democracy works. Also, truth is we don't  know how much the Lib Dems influence policy, the cuts could have been a lot more harsh. And anyway, Clegg and Cameron generally align with each other anyway on free market policies, which many people probably didn't know about before the election.

3. Their policies are unpopular

To my mind there are two policies that are unpopular with Lib Dem supporters, Tuition fees and NHS reforms. Although on the face of it this policies might seem controversial, when you actually examine them they are actually fair. It just the harsh reality of politics. The policies might be sound, but if you can't sell them then you haven't got a chance.

Why Tuition fees are a good thing

Nobody likes paying more for stuff, especially education. However, more people are going to University these days, and thus the government can't afford to subsidise it as much as they have done in the past. I could write another blog about tuition fees, but in short, the new system is fairer than the old one because you only start paying back when you earn over £21K. Also, nobody pays upfront, and there is more student financial support whilst you're at Uni then before. Hence it is actually better for poorer students, as financial support whilst your at Uni would be a greater consideration about whether to go into higher education, rather than how much of your paycheck goes when you're working after graduation. The NUS and Labour actually proposed a "finite graduate tax", which means you pay nothing upfront, and an amount of your paycheck is taken out when you graduate. In essence, there is NO DIFFERENCE between the coalition policy and NUS/Labour policy. It's again just a public relations thing. The policy might be good once it is examined, but its as much about the selling as it is the policy itself. "Finite tax" sounds better than "debt", even though it is essentially the same thing in this case.

One argument against tuition fees is that is dimishes social mobility. However, when Labour raised tuition fees, they found that students from poor or rich households which got the same grades generally both went to university at the same rate. However, rich students are more likely to get better grades than poorer students. The point is  if you want to improve social mobility, its got less to do with tuition fees, and more to do with the 18 years prior. The Lib Dems actually implemented their "pupil premium" policy to improve schooling for poorer students. However, it's success will be determined long after the coalition government ends, in which case if it is a success  the Tory/Labour government at the time will take the credit, rather than the Lib Dems. Again good long-term policy, but it's not so good on winning votes.

NHS reforms

A lot of people are against NHS reforms which have been proposed. But to be honest, I don't think many people understand them. I don't really understand them that much. I think it involes taking power away from primary care trusts to GPs. There are arguments for/against this but I don't really why the public care so much about it, as these arguments are not obvious to the layman. The other part involves private sector companies providing NHS services. Again, scaremongering by Labour seems to suggest that somehow this would lead to a profit-driven NHS. However, again once you examine the policy, I don't really see why it is the case. Basically, if a GP decides that a private hospital could do the same operation better or cheaper than an NHS hospital, then you could go there. The argument against is that cheaper providers might not be better, but again I'm going to trust a GPs judgment on that. The NHS likes saving money everywhere they can anyway, and at least the private company has the risk of going out of business if they give a crap service, unlike the NHS, hence private companies have more to lose out from poor service. To deny patients the right to better healthcare if it is available is a damn disgrace, no matter who provides it.

Again it comes down to public relations. "Privatisation" together with "healthcare" are dirty words, and give an image of the failed US healthcare system, which the public have every right to be against. But the reforms proposed, once examined, doesn't anywhere suggest that healthcare will go down the US insurance route. Many doctors have come out against the reforms, but of course they would. If you knew somebody has the opportunity to give a better service than you, then you would do everything in your power to stop them. It more to do with doctors protecting their jobs, and less to do with patient care.

So to conclude, I don't think Lib Dem policy is that bad, and have infact made many improvements over Labour. Also, I think the public would generally agree if they actually examined them. Their public relations department is very poor though, and good policies do not necessarily equal votes.

The problem with politicians

I have just finished reading an e-book on my phone, called The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford. It is a good read and I throughly recommend it. In it he basically explains how economics works in everyday life. After reading this I've decided that economist's would run the country much better than any politician would.

To give an example, he talks about import taxes. Let's say that the UK textile industry is losing ground big-time to the sweatshops in Indonesia and Vietnam. A politician would say this is a bad thing, as people in the UK are losing jobs in the textile industry, and the conditions in sweatshops are very poor compared to western standards. Therefore to solve this problem we'll impose a tax on imported goods. You might say that this makes sense, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and might be popular with the public. However, to an economist it makes as much sense as taxing exports out of the UK.

First lets talk about comparative advantage. For example, David Beckham could be better at plumbing than my local plumber. However, David Beckham doesn't make money from plumbing, as its much better at football, therefore my local plumber will get more money from plumbing than David Beckham, even though David Beckham is better. In this situation Vietnam's strongest industry is textiles. We could be better at producing clothes than Vietnam, but the UK is better in other industries (e.g. pharmaceuticals) than textiles, so it's better to import our textiles from Vietnam. Obviously I have over-simplified the situation, but I hope you understand the general point.

Next it has to do with sweatshops. Obviously these are horrible places, but people work there voluntarily, with a low staff turnover. This is because the alternative is more horrible, like sorting out rubbish in a rubbish tip for recycling, or drug dealing/prostitution. If we imposed import taxes, the sweatshops would disappear, leaving the workers no choice to go into more horrible jobs. Also we deprive the Vietnam workers the chance to make money, which in turn could be used to buy British exports.

You could say that import taxes protect British jobs, but the Undercover Economist will tell you that on balance it will cost more jobs than it saves. It stops other countries making money, hence stopping them buying British exports in industries which we are good at (e.g pharmaceuticals), which in turn costs jobs in the UK pharmaceutical industry, even though our pharmaceutical industry is better than our textile industry.Hence we might as well have an export tax on medicines.

The worrying thing is that most economists agree protectionism is bad for the UK economy. But it still goes on. The EU is very protectonist of agriculture, with its common agriculture policy. This policy means that effectively pay twice for our food, via the prices in the supermarkets and our taxes. It also increases the price of food, by preventing competition from agriculture from outside countries, like Africa. It also directly hurts developing countries, as these countries cannot make money by selling their produce competitively to Europe, so it affects the poorest in the world the most. This shows why we need more economists in our governments, and less self-serving retard politicians whose sole purpose in life is to keep the lobby groups happy.