The purity of the English Language

I just read this on politicalbetting .com, and it made me laugh. Many thanks to Andy Cooke.

As for its dominance, I ascribe it to its sheer cheek in nicking the best bits of other languages (cf the quote by James Nicoll chiding someone for attempting to defend the purity of the English language:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”)

Or you can read in in context with this link.

That Brown record in full.

Well, not quite in full, but here are some highlights from The Telegraph on Sunday from the 24th of September 2006.

• Council tax revenue has gone up 7% per year since 1997, that is 83% to £21 billion.
  
• Quango spending up 50% in two years to £123.8 billion. That is £40 billion, which is more than we spend on defence.
• Taxes have gone up £19 billion this year, that is £750 per household.
• Calls to the Consumer Credit Counselling Service are up from 8,000 per year in 1997 to 200,000 a year.
• Productivity growth is down from 2.3% in 1997 to 1.6% now.
• Fiscal drag means that there are now 4 million high rate tax payers, up from 2.1 million in 1997.
• Stamp duty revenue is up from £1.2 billion in 1997 to 4.9 billion now.
• Inheritance tax has gone from £1.7 billion to £3.3 billion.
• Public spending has risen from 37.4% of GDP to 44.9%
• Government forecasted a growth in public borrowing between 2001 and 2006 of £28 billion, it has in fact borrowed £129 billion.
• The forecast for the next 6 years is £175 billion, or £7000 per household.
• August 2006 borrowing was £7.6 billion, 40% above forcast and the highest since 1993.
• Personal debt has doubled to £1,120 billion (Yes that is a trillion).
• Unemployment is up to 5.5% from 4.7% last year.
• The savings ratio has halved to 5% since 1997.

And whilst all that has been going on, there have been 15 new regulations every day since 1997 costing business an estimated £40 billion.

It is going to be hard work sorting out this mess.

A week in Weymouth

I am just back from a weeks holiday in Weymouth, (in South Dorset, currently held by Labours Jim Knight). Actualy I am not. I was in August, got home wrote this article and then forgot to spell check it and publish it. Second Doh! of today.

Well, if you like the sea, and somewhere with lots for kids to do, I'd recommend it. My children and I certainly enjoyed it.

If you want to move about in Weymouth I recommend using your feet. During the summer season it seems generally quicker, and if you are staying centrally you can get to lots of places quite easily. Oddly Weymouth does not seem to have any hardware shops.

We visited the beach several times, Mr Whipy ice creams are cheap. We also went to Monkey World, (Where you try to see if there is a difference between your kids and the exhibits), Bovington tank museum, Charmouth, the Sea life centre and Nothe fort.

Weymouth will also benefit from the Olympics in 2012 as they are hosting the sailing, which should be good. However that means house prices are climbing out of the reach of the locals which seems a bit of a shame.

Weymouth's economy suffers badly from Dorset's roads as well. Speaking to some locals the only industry of any note is tourism which is seasonal. New Look used to have its main distribution centre there but that has closed down.

It is not hard to see why. The roads are appalling. Mostly single lane A and B roads, no motorways and lots of congestion. You can also tell when you have left Dorset and entered Hampshire because the roads are so much better, being either dual carriageway A roads or motor ways. What Dorset needs is a decent east west motor way/dual carriageway, linking to the M27 with dual carriageway links to the major coastal towns and a motorway to London.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

You will notice that I now carry a link to www.saveparliament.org.uk on the left hand side of the page, as well as a link to the no2id campaign.

What is all this rubbish about saving parliament? Well it is a campaign to stop The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill from becomming The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.

What the bill is for

Well according to some estimates extra regulation since 1997 is costing business some £40 billion a year according to some sources. If a regulation turns out to be a wrong un, surely we want rid of it?

What the bill allows

What the bill allows is for any act to be amended, replealed or replaced by a minister and in some cases by an official, except where it affects tax rates. It does allow for the creation of new criminal offences, but these are limited to ones with a sentence of less than 2 years (In a Crown court, less if the offence is to be tried in a magistrates court).

The original draft allowed for the act to be used to redraft it self, though that has now been restricted.


However, to give you an idea, a minister could make carrying ID cards compulsory by the back door, as a criminal offence with a sentence of 2 years.

As far as I can tell, it would also allow for the extension of a Parliament beyond 5 years. Truely scary stuff, particularly if you watched Spooks the other night.

There are in fact so many ways that ministers can change the law in dangerous ways with this bill, if it becomes law that I urge you to visit the saveparliament website and write to your MP. The blogosphere can if it wants to defeat this bill if we all act.

Why do we have this problem?

Well, because of the relentless pace of legislation in the last 9 years creating many acts that have given more power than they should have, and indeed given power which has been used in ways that Parliament never intended.

To give you an idea of how many laws have been passed, between 1945 and 1997 we had 3 Criminal justice acts passed. since we have had about 40, or a bit over 4 a year, creating about 3000 new criminal offences, or 333 new offences a year or about 2 offences for everyday Parliament has sat.

So if they realy did want to reduce the burden of legislation, stop passing so many laws and try reforming a few.

Has any one else done this sort of thing before?

Yes, there is a similar bill listed on wikipedia here called the enabling act.

You might be a Labour party supporter and might think I am being swivell eyed about this, because a Labour government would never do any thing bad. In short you may trust this Government. Will you trust the next one though?

Muslims are being killed every day!

According to a clip from a "martyrdom video" shown on Channel 4 tonight.

There are about 1.4 billion Muslims world wide, so it seems to that it would be statistically unlikely that anything else would be the case. After all people are dying all the time from car accidents, falling of ladders and all sorts of other things, including being murdered by criminals.

I doubt that was what they were talking about though.

So what were they talking about? Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely not. The majority of the deaths of Muslims there are at the hands of people who allege they are Muslims.

John Snow did a very interesting interview with a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. John Reid gave a speech warning Muslim parents of the danger of brainwashing. The former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir did not like the term because it seems to remove responsibility for the actions of the "brain washed" from them. He thought that was wrong, because we are all responsible for what we do. I have to say he made a lot of sense. We could do with the media interviewing more people like him.

I noted the heckling at John Reids speech. The silent protest was OK, but the heckler reminded me of the sort of bully boy tactics used by the hard left of the Union movement and of course the fascists.

Worrying news

I regularly read politicalbetting.com, and from there got two links to interesting stories in the dead tree press.

One is on pensions and how they have changed in 10 years, in the Telegraph here, and one in the Daily Mail on the fail in crime detection rates here.

Pensions

10 years ago we had the strongest pensions in Europe, now they are in collapse. The report looks at the value of a pension paid in at £500 per year over 25 years maturing in 1996 and in 2006. The pension would have been worth £120,239 in 1996 and would be worth £55,992 now. As an annuity that would give an income of £13,466 in 1996 and £3,975 per year now.

Some people blame Gordon Brown for his £5 billion a year pension raid, others blame the fall in the stock market and some both. Who or what is to blame is irrelevant, the issue is that nothing has been done about it. A climate has been created in which people don't feel it makes sense to save for a pension.

Crime

The figures here are worrying. Far less people are being caught for things like robbery than used to be the case. The same is also true for rape and other violent offences. Murder detection rates are high though which is good.

The one thing most likely to deter crime is not what punishment people get if caught, it is the chances of getting caught which counts.

So why do we have this mess? Well, partly it is red tape, but it is also in my view a result of the vast number of new laws passed in the last 9 years.

This government seems happy to throw around resource (in terms of money) at things without getting the results.

A new Conservative government will need to use imagination to fix the structural problems being built in to our society.

Tax, the principled argument.

Well, why tax people? Anyone look forward to seeing just how much tax we have paid? Thought it was too low and demanded to pay more?

As far as I can see there are three things people think tax can achieve.

1. Raise money government spending.
2. Alter behavior.
3. Redistribution of wealth.

Raise money government spending

Well, hopefully this is not controversial. Government needs money. Want to defend the realm? Pay tax. Want universal education? Pay tax. Want unemployment benefit? Pay tax.

What ever you think government should, or should not be doing it should be doing something, which does need paying for, which means we have to levy taxes to get the money.

Alter behavior

Well, you can change behavior a bit by taxing things. For example as the tax on cigarettes has risen so more people have given up. (Well not me but quitters!) You can also encourage behavior by giving tax breaks for things like research and development. Currently green taxes are proposed to make us greener.

This approach works a bit, but has limitations. Fuel is smuggled in Northern Ireland and indeed agricultural fuel is cleaned to remove the red. As taxes on cigarettes rise so does smuggling.

Redistribution of wealth

Here I have to ask questions. Redistributing what from whom and to whom? More importantly, does it work?

As they say on ABC, lets take a closer look.

Firstly one of the founding principles of communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their need". I have to say that is a fantastic ideal, and in small communities it can and does work. Unfortunately it seems that it does not scale well.

I presume that the intent is to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor. This does raise the first question, which is, who is rich and who is poor? Sounds daft but I thought I'd ask. Do we mean the city banker who has just earned £1,000,000 or do we mean the old person who's houses value has just doubled because house building is at an all time low?

The first is easy to hit because you can just up his PAYE, oh no you can't. Our tax system is so complicated that Philip Green gave his wife £1.3 billion with remarkably little tax. (I wonder if he donates money to the Labour party, and if he does, is he cheaky enough to want a peerage too?)

Well at least the old folks are easy to hit, it is after all hard to hide a house.

The next issue is to whom are you going to redistribute this wealth, why, and what will it achieve?

Hopefully, (although some might be forgiven for thinking it doesn't works like that) the wealth is being redistributed to the poor.

What are we doing? If taxes can both encourage and discourage behavior, this seems to me to be paying people to be poor, and if you encourag behavior people will follow. Paying people to be poor ensures that you have poor people. So we give people on low wages benefits (As opposed to removing them from the tax system) to do jobs that do not pay a living wage. Surely that is subsidising people who want to employ people at unrealistic wages? I know some New Labour fans want to keep service sector inflation low, but why should the tax payer subsidise cleaners for those who want them, whilst keeping the jackboot of poverty over people? (The worst offender is bizarrely the public sector especially in cleaning).

So do we take money from his nibs who pays his butler a handsome sum to subsidise someone who does not want to pay for a cleaner but will if they don't have to pay the going rate?

I hear the social justice argument, but I can't see the point of paying people to be poor. If some one really wants a cleaner, they can pay for it. The only true way of lifting people out of poverty is by giving them opportunities through education and raising their expectations. All else is an illusion.

All that said, the tax burden does need to be reduced on the poor, and we do need welfare state.

The Popes controversial speech

Well, if you want to know what all the fuss was about you can read the speech here, which if nothing else may help you get to sleep.

Firstly we should all note that there are those on all sides who will jump on anything to cause controversy and raise riots. We need to appreciate that there are those who will willfully misconstrue anything that is said to gain influence or start a riot.

Secondly , and perhaps bizarrely, I do not recommend burning down Churches or murdering nuns as a sound way of showing how peaceful ones religion is. Moderate Muslims need to get their voices heard on this one.

Update, forgot to put the link in. Doh!

Spooks

I have just finished watching Spooks on BBC one. Very good drama, or at least I enjoyed it.

Just one thought. This country is about far more than warm beer and cricket. It is about freedom and the rule of law.

You do not protect it by removing freedom or the rule of law.

Hydrogen will save us from global warming!

According to George Monbiot on BBC2's Newsnight last night. He even suggested we could have a pipeline network for hydrogen.

Well, its rubbish.

It is true that hydrogen does exist in abundance both on earth and in the solar system. The problem is that it mostly exists as parts of other compounds such as water, methane and indeed all organic compounds. The only large source of free hydrogen close by I know of is the sun, and I am reliably informed that its a bit hot there!

So given that it does not exist on its own on earth, can it be used as a fuel?

No, because you have to put at least the same amount of energy into extracting it from water as you will get back turning it back into water. You can extract it from methane, but you are either using a fossil fuel or if you are using bio gas, why bother? Why not just use the gas?

What hydrogen may well be useful as is as an energy store. You have spare energy, turn it into hydrogen and oxygen (from water) ship the hydrogen to where you want to use it, and get water back. (They do this on Shetland with wind energy, using spare energy to produce hydrogen which then can be used to generate electricity when there is no wind and to drive cars).

However let us not think that hydrogen will save us from anything. It won't. What will is renewable energies such as wind and solar, as well as bio fuels. There is an article on wikipedia about the hydrogen economy here.

The next World War

It seems to me that there are many people, (Newt Gingrich is an example that springs to mind) who wish to predict the next world war, a war of civilisations and goodness knows what else.

This seems to me in many ways a naked ambition to be the next Churchill, and frequently comes from people who seem to have a end timer ideology that scares me.

Whilst we may be heading into some sort of world war, I don't think it is inevitable, I think it can be avoided by the sensible use of diplomatic, covert, political and military means.

What does seem clear to me though is that we clearly do not have the troops, like the infantry to do the job at hand let alone deal with a world war.

We did have 200,000 in the army we now have of the order of 100,000.

We are tied up in Afghanistan without enough troops on the ground to do the job.

We did not have enough troops to deal with winning the military conflict in Iraq! (See my article here on why I think it all went wrong).

So, in short, if we want to avoid another world war we need more troops, (with some or all of the old regiments reformed), and if we want to fight one, we need more troops.

Either way we need more troops.

Where is the battleground?

Whilst Labour are currently fighting like rats in a sack, missing the point that if you are going to have a coup, get it over with quickly, many particularly on the right are wondering what exactly is the difference between Labour on the left and the Conservatives on the right?

After all isn't being a Conservative about low taxes and a small state?

Isn't Labour about a large state and close control?

Well, here is an article from Prospect magazine, which deals with the differences in attitudes and it is stark. It is a long article, and a bit boring, but please read it. It is worthwhile to understand where us Conservatives are coming from.

We may be huddled together, but do not mistake that for fundamental agreement, think of it as hand to hand combat rather than the long range missile strikes the right and left used to get into.

The fight between left and right is as fundamental as ever. It is between the state minutely micro managing peoples lives to solves what it sees as today's problems, and empowering individuals and groups of people to run their own lives.

It is about building a society that is not the same as the state, rather than the left looking to replace society with the state.

Al Qaida is winning the war on terrorism.

Grim news indeed if true. I think it is because what they are trying to do is to separate Muslims from the rest of us. To create a climate of fear and a clash of civilisations. I have discussed this in two previous articles on the "war on terror" here and here.

However what concerns me is this article in Fridays Telegraph here, reporting a YouGov survey which according to the report puts 53% of British people thinking Muslims are some sort of threat. That's half of Al Qaida's job done, now all they need to work on is making Muslims think the "war on terror" is in fact a "war against Islam", some thing made much easier by stupid people using silly language like "islamo fascist".

That said David Cameron is using far more sensible language. Obviously he thinks it is more important to deal with terrorism than play to the popularist gallery just to get votes.

The week before a plane load of passengers refused to fly with two people who looked suspicious. That really does not help either.

Our government and indeed the US government seem not to understand the battle we are fighting. It is very much a battle for hearts and minds. We can win as many battles as we like, but it is the war over all that counts.

Mind you, it is not all bad, it looks like the counter terrorist operation has caught some people intent on terrorism, having made "martyrdom videos". Obviously we will have to see what happens in court. It would have been a disaster if there was no credible evidence.

The War on Terror II

Over a month ago I wrote an article on the "War on Terror" and given current events I thought I would write another.

From out of the blue, in a speech trailed as dealing with transforming the home office, reforming the immigration and nationality department, and "rebalencing the criminal justice system", we got this from Dr. John Reid, secretary of State for the home office.

Others have covered the timing, and I share their concerns. Its not that I think the whole thing is made up, but that the fore knowledge has been used for political ends to justify the unjustifiable.

We are told that terrorism is the biggest threat since the Second Word War. That is patent rubbish.

George Bush described these people as "Islamic fascists".

This language is dangerous. It is not that we do not know who George Bush means, it is that it gives the enemy a weapon to use against us.

When these groups are trying to recruit young disaffected Muslims, they are not going to tell them that George Bush does not mean you, he means nutters like us. No they are going to twist the language for their own recruiting purposes.

As I said in my last article on the subject, this struggle is on two levels. The first is the tactical level, where we try to intercept and prevent acts of terror and they try to commit them. The more important level is the strategic level, which in this case is the political and propaganda level.

The French won every battle in Algeria yet lost the war. They lost the strategic war. That is the most important one.

In the strategic sphere they are trying to cleave as many Muslims away from us and into their ranks as possible. We need to be combating them there. Failure on the strategic level means losing. We can't afford to lose, just for the sake of using silly language.

Iraq: Why are we in this mess?

Well, Iraq looks like a mess to me. A bloody one in which the guilty don't die often enough, but the innocents die in droves.

Did it need to be like this? No.

There were two fundamental ways of avoiding this mess, the most obvious of which was not to invade. The other was to understand warfare a little better.

Warfare, politics and diplomacy all go hand in hand. When diplomacy fails war is always an option.

So what went wrong in Iraq? We won the war, and very easily?

Well, it was a failure to win the peace, or at least to win it so far. This failure is the result of many primary blunders, made by Donald Rumsfeld, who ignored any general who disagreed with him.

The Americans seemed to have sought advice from the Israelis, certainly over interrogations, but quite possibly over other things as well. The Israelis are very dismissive of Arabs as a fighting force, and looking at the various Arab Israeli wars you can see why. I wonder if this under estimation played any part in the complete lack of resource available to win the peace.

The mistakes of the war

• The coalition forces failed to impose martial law when they captured areas, because they just did not have the men or the will.
• They failed to plan to have a working police force.
• They made 500,000 armed men unemployed.
• They failed to guard the ammunition dumps.
• They failed to guard the borders.
• They failed to understand who the losers would be in the liberation of Iraq.
  
• They made political blunders of epic proportions.
  

Lets just look at that in more detail.

The failure to impose martial law

The Americans wrang their hands at the lawlessness that ensued after Baghdad fell. They talked of people having been oppressed letting go, as if this was only for a while.

War brings chaos, and criminality. Both make some people lots of money. Once law and order is lost, it is very hard to get back. Scores are settled, whilst more are created. Looting is bad news also. The ministries that could have contained vital intelligence information were ransacked, as was vital infrastructure. Vital infrastructure is still under attack.

The failure to plan for a working police force

This is amazing to me. For obvious reasons, the police force that existed at the time of the invasion was not trusted by the people because of the nature of the Ba'athist regime it was a part of. It was disbanded. However there was no replacement, in particular not enough troops to enforce martial law in the mean time.

The scale of criminality that then occurred was stagering. Kidnappings, killings, thefts.

I seems odd to me that this was not thought out before hand. You did not need to know that much about Iraq to understand that the police force as was needed either very urgent reform, or disbanding given how nasty the regime was, and how central the police were to it. So why not plan for this, and indeed either eventuality?

Making 500,000 armed men unemployed

Here is the position. You have just defeated an army of 500,000 fairly easily, partly because the army did not feel like fighting for Saddam. You have a country whose economy is not in robust health because of years of mismanagement and sanctions, and is about to be ravaged by looters. So what do you do with half a million armed men who can't get work because there are not enough jobs?

You make them unemployed? How are they going to feed their families? There is no welfare state. There is however money in criminality and money in fighting. This decision seems so bizarre to me. It has often been said that civilisation is only 3 meals away from anarchy. So which idiot made that decision?

The failure the guard the ammunition dumps

frankly I just do not understand why we did not guard them or destroy the weapons and ammunition in them. Bearing in mind the lawlessness that war brings, and the value of guns in such circumstances it is strange indeed that the ammunition dumps were not dealt with. Iraq became a net exporter of small arms after the war.

The failure to guard the borders

The USA has trouble guarding its borders with Mexico against illegal immigrants. Its Canadian border is not really guarded at all. Yet with that reality it seems that the coalition relied on neighboring countries to police Iraqs border for them. These borders are vast, mostly either desert or mountain, and very difficult to police. Even if those countries wanted to police them, and were with us all the way, the fact is that they don't have the resources, and people can be bribed in any case.

However the reality is there are elements whether non state actors or not, in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria who are less than benign. There are also lots of nutters about who want to attack us, for all sorts of reasons.

The inability to control the borders from day one to date has been a cataclysmic disaster.

The failure to understand who the losers would be

I just can't see that any account has been taken of who would be unhappy to see a stable democratic Iraq. So lets look at who the losers would be.

• Sunni Arab dominance.
  
• Syria
• Iran

Sunni Arab dominance

There is no country in the Middle East, where the Shia hold sway. In most countries it is Sunni Muslims, in Syria it is the Alawites, and in Lebanon Maronite Christians hold power in a national pact. The fact is that Sunnis Arabs are a minority in Iraq. A democratic government in Iraq would give Shia Muslims a much larger say in politics than anywhere else in the Middle East, causing Sunni extremists to be upset. They could come over from Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria.

Syria

Syria is an interesting country. It produces enough oil to meet its own needs and has craftsmen that can handmake the most beautiful things. It is however run by a useless regime more concerned about staying in power than advancing its own people. A relatively small religious minority runs the country as well.

A well run prosperous liberal democracy made up of similar people is a definite threat as Syrians are bound to ask why they don't have the same there?

So the democratisation of Iraq is not in the Syrian regimes interests. We seem to have relied on shouting at Syria to get it to stop insurgents. This is dumb. Besides which even if they wanted to they can't watch the whole border.

Iran

I think most of us are used to thinking of Iran as the center of Shia Islam. This is because although there are lots of Shia about, Iran is the only country run by the Shia. The Holy City of Qom is also in Iran. The Ayatollahs in Iran were the effective leaders of the Shia world.

The problem the Iranians have is that Iran is not the center of Shia Islam, Iraq is, specifically centered in the Holy Cities of Najaf and Karbala, and its Ayatollahs are much more moderate than those in Iran, in particular Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the late Abdul Majid al-Khoei who believe in such radical ideas as no religion in politics. The fact that these people have more authority over Shia Islam and indeed present a better image of it AND want religion out of politics makes a successful Iraq a direct threat to the loony squad in Iran, AND yet we did not guard the borders? This is madness.

I won't even discuss the Kurdish question, and the problems that causes Turkey.

The political blunders

I wrote an article on The War on Terror a few days ago, one of the main themes of which was how both politics and propaganda play a larger part in fighting terror than military means. We have to understand that the enemy uses what we do against us. Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp are used ruthlessly by our enemies to show how "this is a war against Islam" , and how evil we all are. It also incites otherwise reasonable people to hate us. We can't afford blunders like this. It costs the lives of our soldiers and their civilians.


So in sort, we needed at least twice the number of troops on the ground to do the job. The reason why we did not have them is the complete arrogance and ignorance of one man, Donald Rumsfeld.

So is it beyond repair? I hope not.

Is it just me or is the world mad?

We are in Afghanistan as a result of the attacks of the 11th of September 2001. In many ways we have removed a very unpleasant government from that land and that is good. We are working on rebuilding the country and making it stable.

We are also trying to eradicate the opium poppy crop. Seemed like a good idea to me until I read this in the Guardian

Just to summarize:

• Every time we try to eradicate poppy farming it causes a backlash and helps the Taliban.
• There is a world wide shortage of medical opiates, some in the UK.
  
• Heroin production in Turkey was halted not by eradication of poppies but by licensing growing it.

Firstly, it is good that a Conservative has pointed out this madness, but why has this not been dealt with before? Why are we spending so much money destroying something we need?

Party Funding.

Those who inhabit the blogosphere can't have missed the various scandals around how parties currently get their funding. Guido Fawkes has been one of the main people writing on the subject, and the issue has come up for discussion on politicalbetting.com.

There is therefore the sticky question of how we fund party campaigns.

Various ideas have been floated around as solutions to these problems, in my view they may well end up causing more problems.

One idea being touted is of state funding. Well there are a number of problems with that:

1. It is not popular with the tax payer.
2. What happens when the BNP come asking for funds?
3. It allows the party leadership to distance itself from its grass roots.
4. How do you dish the money out?
   

Some people have suggested that we can come up with wheezes to exclude people like the BNP, but this is dangerous thinking. Firstly the old "No platform" thinking is anti democratic, secondly they can use the wheezes as a political weapon to get more votes.

There is also the problem of how you dish the money out? Is it on seats in parliament? Seems unfair to the Lib Dems, though it is a wheeze to squeeze the BNP. What about vote share? The arguments would be endless, and further more the party in power could well fiddle it to their advantage and their opponents disadvantage.

The thing that concerns me most is that the party leadership can then distance itself from its grass roots. Labour have already done this by loosening the relationship with the Unions, but is that a good thing? Is turnout going down because the grass roots are not being energised? How is a party that has lost its grass roots going to pick a new leader, candidates and policies?

There is currently some state funding of campaigns, which consists of a free mailing to all households in a constituency, but only for the parliamentary seat. The candidate has to pay for the envelope and the contents.

Others have suggested a cap on party spending and a cap on maximum donations. This seems most sensible to me as you still need to have a grass roots base, still need to talk to people and above all the spending cap will mean far less money is wasted in the dreadful ways it normally is during elections.

There are also hybrid suggestions such as giving more than just a free mailing to candiates, but not anything like full funding. Well, that may also be a way forward.

What seems clear to me though, is that what we are doing at the moment can't carry on. We are in a strange arms race of dirty tricks, back room deals and general all round mendacity that is poisoning our democracy.

Any ideas for a solution?

Hugging Hoodies! Part II

Yesterday David Cameron leader of the Conservative party gave two speeches, one on social justice, and the other on the criminal justice system. (See links for transcripts of each.)

In the social justice speech David highlighted the need to look at the causes of the problems as well as the need to enforce the law. We do not have prisons of infinite size, so we might as well look at dealing with why people end up there as well as putting people in prison when we need to.

Iain Duncan Smith set up the Center for Social Justice because state agencies do not have all the answers and frequently can make matters worse. The reason for this is inflexibility. Too often a solution is thought to work, and that ends up being the only solution.

In reality there are many solutions which play their part in helping, for example the Army Cadet Force was set up after the Napoleonic wars to keep young boys off the streets and give them something to do. Others get involved in boxing or other sports.

Some are in need of far more specialised and intense care, such as those helped by Kids Company. The fact is there are an awful lot of different sorts of young people out there, in need of all sorts of help, education and interaction. The state does run quite a lot of these services directly, such as education and the Army Cadets. However it can't run and do everything, it is not light enough on its feet to adapt and change to new challenges. The Social entrepreneurs are.

But let us not get the wrong idea, this does not mean being soft on criminals, far from it. It does mean adapting the police force to local issues, making them more locally accountable rather than less.

Lastly, of course the vacuous Guardian reading and indeed in the case of Polly Toynbee, writing classes don't seem to be able to handle a Conservative party that does not live up to there silly stereotypes. As an example see Polly's drivel here.

There is a daft idea that the Conservative party is only interested in self interest and the rich. That is wrong. If that were true we would have been against the abolition of Slavery rather than pushing that through, against universal education, and indeed against all the other projects that have been aimed at helping people better themselves. We just don't believe in helping people to be poor. We believe in helping people when they need help, but above all helping people to help themselves.

Of Energy reviews.

The government is about to publish an energy review. Clearly someone did not like what was in the last one, and in the time honored tradition ordered a re review so that this time it could be "got right".

The Conservative party is also doing an energy review, and they have just published their interim findings.

There is a "video" of Alan Duncan and Oliver Letwin, making a presentation, It seems very earnest and remarkably unspun which is nice. (It did however remind me of the very earnest Mr Michael Foot).

What I thought was interesting, a piece of information I had forgotten was that when the Conservatives privatised and de regulated the electricity sector it had a scheme of capacity payments to make sure there was extra generating capacity available should we hit a very cold spell, get a good world cup run or what ever circumstances cause large peaks in demand for a short period of time.

This government abolished it on entering office. The net result is that now if there is a peak in demand large industrial customers have to turn things off, making manufacturing more difficult in this country. Absolute madness.

Anyway, we will of course bring capacity payments back in when we gain power.

The thing that really bothers me is that this government clearly fiddles with things with out understanding why they are there, and so can have no long term idea of what the consequences of its actions are going to be.

Hugging Hoodies!

Today David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party is to give a speech on Social justice. In it he is roughly going to indicate that we need to understand young people more. I do not have the transcript of what he is going to say, but when I get it I will comment further. I will however make the following observations:

Young people have dressed differently since the 50's, and young yobs do no more than wear what young non yobs wear. It is called "street culture". Today it is hoodies, in the 70's it was safety pins.

We are building an irrational fear of young people which is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy as it always seems to have done. Speeches about hoodies directed at the Daily Mail reading classes go down well, but do nothing to help with the problem.

Having a "war on hoodies" makes as much sense as "the war on terror" (See my previous article). We need to be more imaginative.

We also need to make sure the Police don't sit around filling in forms until enough pressure builds that they go and apply for an ASBO banning someone from doing something which is illegal, but getting out there and preventing them doing it in the first place, or just arresting them for it when they do.

Where I live, we don't get much youth trouble, it is after all a medium sized village in the country. However, some people do get worried about the "youth". I don't. I wave at them, say hello, generally acknowledge them and give them a bit of respect. They reciprocate that, so I do not get any problems, and if I tell them they are doing something wrong they are more likely to listen.

Respect works both ways.