tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-301941862024-03-14T08:50:42.738+00:00A Conservative's blogThis is my blog to explain why I am a member of the UK's Conservative party and my political thoughts.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comBlogger1457125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-53740623997651992432017-10-11T00:48:00.001+01:002017-10-11T00:48:11.268+01:00The burning injustice of discrimination?Apparently according to Theresa May our country is rife with the burning injustice of discrimination!<br />
<br />
The BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41560927">duly did a report, here</a>, which highlights some of the disparities that are unjust.<br />
<br />
The key point is, if you read the BBC report, we live in a Chinese supremacist society, where Bangladeshi and black people are discriminated against compared to Pakistani, white and Indian people in home ownership.<br />
<br />
I can't quite fathom why this country discriminates against white people on favour of Chinese but the statistics don't lie... unless it's all just dangerous race baiting nonsense that is going to drive us towards the sort of divisive race politics that is prevalent in the USA.<br />
<br />
The reality is that there are a whole bunch of reasons for disparities between groups of people and their outcomes. Some are down to educational drive, some down to the way a community operates and others down to how divisive race politics withing communities has led those communities to believe they will be discriminated against which in turn leads to bad choices which then leads to bad outcomes.<br />
<br />
A case in point is the Lammy report which found out that black suspects don't take their lawyers advice to plead guilty (why would they, the lawyer is racist so trying to get them treated unfairly) that otherwise similar white suspects take resulting in no discount for a guilty plea for black suspects but a discount for black.<br />
<br />
This is important. If you think you are a victim you behave in a way that makes things worse. Stop being a victim.<br />
<br />
The Spectator also has <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/theresa-mays-phoney-race-war-is-dangerous-and-divisive-2/">this</a> and <a href="http://this/">this</a> both of which are very interesting.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-24555141656700255902017-07-11T22:54:00.000+01:002017-07-11T22:54:45.780+01:00Oh dear Paris is coming for all our banking and legal jobs!You do hear some guff around the UK's departure from the EU.<br />
<br />
There is this article <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40574650">here, from the BBC</a>, by Simon Jack.<br />
<br />
There are a few points here. JP Morgan's boss, Jamie Diamond, says hundreds of jobs will go to Dublin and Frankfurt, but that many more could go if EU regulators and politicians decide to make it so.<br />
<br />
That simply isn't true. The City of London serves the UK and indeed the world. It does business that is EU related, but it isn't the lions share, not by a long chalk. Further more, much of the EU related business is wholesale which benefits massively from the scale of London. You could do it elsewhere but at a large cost. Estimates related to the Euro clearing houses I have seen suggest that if the EU forced its institutions to get their Euro clearing done in the EU it would cost £20 billion in extra capital requirements which would in turn reduce lending ability by around £200 billion.<br />
<br />
The thing that surprised me most was this though:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"English law courts conducted in English"</div>
<br />
This makes the Ed stone look like a stormingly great idea. Lets unpick it.<br />
<br />
Where are you going to get the judges? At the moment high court judges take a pay cut to do the job and do so in part out of a sense of duty. How are you going to attract them to a place where they feel no such sense of duty? I'm sure some will come because they like Paris, but enough? You will probably have to pay them a lot of money to do so.<br />
<br />
The next problem is that you will need a sizeable panel of judges to avoid conflicts of interest. If you are already paying over the odds, this is going to add to it.<br />
<br />
Who is going to appoint the judges? Seriously. That is an important part of our process. Are they going to ask us? If not will litigants trust the process?<br />
<br />
When a party to litigation doesn't like the result, who does they appeal to? If the first court of appeal is in France, see above for all the problems filling the bench, but with knobs on. If it's in England, will the lawyers involved have standing before our courts? Do they need knew representation? What if the knew representation finds major fault with the previous representation? If a litigant doesn't like the result of the appeal here, in certain circumstances they can appeal again to the Supreme Court. What happens in France?<br />
<br />
Then we come on to another issue. All these English speaking lawyers, who regulates them? The SRA and Bar association? A French equivalent? Will they fly in from London offices?<br />
<br />
Who is to staff the courts? Are they experienced in the procedures of our courts?<br />
<br />
Our legal system is not the result of a revolution, it is a result of an evolution of 1400 years. You can'r build it over night. It's laughable. There are courts systems out there, that started with English judges, built on English law which have plenty of English speakers about. They are in places like the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Companies still prefer London though.<br />
<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-86518310636781220582017-04-20T23:59:00.002+01:002017-04-20T23:59:49.423+01:00Revenue is not profit.<div dir="ltr">
I get amazed at the number of people who confuse revenue with profits.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Not too long ago the news reported that Google begin to pay £36.4 million in tax for the last year, on revenue of around a billion pounds. The Usual Suspects and chattering classes were aghast. Why that is a tax rate of only 3.6%. I wish I could pay that little tax...</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Except that is cobblers. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The revenue was £1 billion, on which VAT would have been charged and payed, wages paid, rent, heat, light and business rates. All those are fairly fixed costs. They will also have paid a hefty whack in tax, both PAYE, national insurance as well as employers national insurance. Add to that they will charge there customers VAT (though as most of their customers will be VAT registered it will be claimed back). After all these expenses they made a profit of £148 million. Frankly that's very good on a revenue of £1 billion and they should be proud. It's that they paid tax on, specifically £29.8 million, the balance made up of deferred tax from previous years.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Obviously if Google paid no wages, rent business rates etc, then their profit would be higher, and they would pay more corporation tax, but then there would be no tax paid on wages or business rates.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
So next time you see someone saying oh look they had a revenue of X but only paid Y in tax, you know they are an utter moron.</div>
Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-29564411195283280982016-11-22T23:04:00.002+00:002016-11-22T23:09:51.418+00:00Brexit: Project fear turns to project fact.... Project Fear 2.0For all those irresponsible people who voted to leave the EU... Project fear is turning to project fact.<br />
<br />
Forecasts show that the government will have to borrow £100 billion more than it would have otherwise...<br />
<br />
And this is what the remoaners will be saying tomorrow.<br />
<br />
However, it's as rubbish as the project fear was that they are now claiming will be fact.<br />
<br />
The reason why is rubbish is this: The borrowing forecasts are just that, and they are based on economic forecasts. These have been downgraded. That isn't a surprise, after all the economists threatened that they would downgrade our growth forecasts and hence downgrade the tax revenue forecasts.<br />
<br />
Thing is though... They are just forecasts. What is more, since 2008, economists have (or at least the OBR has) forecast that tax revenue would be higher than it turned out to be. Growth and tax did not meet forecasts. The forecasts for post Brexit were dire and turned out to be wrong. They were wrong. In fact our economy is now growing faster than forecast and so is tax revenue.<br />
<br />
So when remoaners say project fear is turning into project fact, it isn't. Project fear has turned into project forecast, or perhaps better known as project fear 2.0.<br />
<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-46649935465145601352016-05-13T23:29:00.002+01:002016-05-13T23:29:28.540+01:00IMF independently predict disaster if UK leaves EU shocker!The economic powers that be all predicted catastrophe if we didn’t join the Euro. They all failed to predict the global crash of 2008. Now they are all predicting disaster if we leave the EU. The IMF, OECD and Treasury all predict the economy will be anywhere between 1.5% to 9% smaller in 2030 than if we stayed in the EU. Let’s be clear what that means. We won’t be 1.5% poorer than we are now, but that we will be 1.5% less rich than we would have been if we knuckled under to the EU, and meekly accepted becoming part of a country called Europe.<br />
<br />
I’ve comprehensively debunked their figures <a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2016/04/osbornes-accountancy-is-very-creative.html">here</a> and <a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-oecds-creative-accounting-on-brexit.html">here</a>. But even if the economic establishment have got their sums right for once (please suspend your disbelief), are we really prepared to chuck away all the civil and democratic rights won by our ancestors since Magna Carta for a miserable £1.50 for every £100 we earn?<br />
<br />
But where project complete bollox really goes into overdrive, is in the insistence that there will be NO economic upside to leaving the EU. No scenario in which the UK would be better off out. Let’s look how the economic establishment comes up with these fishy figures<br />
<br />
<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>They all used broadly the same starting point.<br />
<br />
2. <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>They all used broadly the same mathematical model.<br />
<br />
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>They all make broadly the same assumptions.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it’s no surprise they come up with roughly the same result. So how have they done it?<br />
<br />
<br />
1. The starting point is uncontroversial. We can all agree that we are currently in the EU, have a GDP of approximately £1.8 trillion and have no trade deals of our own.<br />
<br />
2. The model. They all use something called the “gravity model”. Some insist this is discredited. It doesn't matter, with the assumptions made the result would not be that different regardless of model.<br />
<br />
3. The assumptions are as follows:<br />
<br />
a) We keep all existing EU regulations because we love them. This isn't just controversial, it's inane drivel. One of the main reasons for leaving the EU is daft regulations.<br />
<br />
b) We take an age about negotiating a new deal with the EU. This is possible, as we don't know if the common sense merchants or vindictive bureaucrats will win the day. What we do know is that we buy more from them than they do from us, so they would do more actual damage to their own economy than to ours. Just imagine the meeting where Angela Merkel tells the CEO’s of BMW, VWAudi, Mercedes and Porsche. “Hello, I’m going to support punitive economic sanctions on the country which takes 20% of your car exports.” No, I can’t imagine it either.<br />
<br />
c) We do no trade deals with anyone else, or at least are very slow at it. EU slow, rather than say Australia quick. This isn't plausible. An EU free trade deal has to please 28 countries. We just have to please ourselves. As well as getting rid of regulation, one of the things the leave camp favour is free trade, whether that be with the Commonwealth, the Anglo-sphere or in fact almost everywhere.<br />
<br />
There are many good reasons to leave the EU, for most of us it is the desire not to become part of a country called Europe. We want to revitalize our democracy and return to honest, accountable politics. As Dan Hannan said “We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives.” Today, that power, that we won in a bloody Civil War, is vested in European Commissioners, most of whom owe their position to having lost elections. Economic isolationism isn’t a reason to leave the EU, it is a reason to stay in. Once out, in Churchill’s words, “we will choose the open sea”, not a stagnating EU which has only just managed to raise its economic growth above that of Antarctica.<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-37027496428536861972016-04-28T00:17:00.001+01:002016-04-28T00:23:24.458+01:00The OECD's creative accounting on BrexitThe <a href="http://www.oecd.org/eco/The-Economic-consequences-of-Brexit-27-april-2016.pdf">OECD published it's report</a> on the upcoming referendum and the consequences of Brexit. We'd all be worse off by £3,200 per household by 2030! The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36148316">BBC covered it here</a>, and George Osbourne seems desperately pleased.<br />
<br />
It's shorter than the treasury report, being a mere 37 pages including the cover. What it lacks in length it makes up for with hyperbole and ridiculous assumptions though, so read it and enjoy!<br />
<br />
It comes to some stark “We'd be doomed! Doomed I tell you!” conclusions, though it seems to lack detail on where to check its figures. It also uses the same brand spanking new favourite of remain economists of the GDP per household which no one else actually uses because it's meaningless.<br />
<br />
The biggest hole in its numbers is there is no information on what figure it uses for the number of households and indeed what it expects either an in or out GDP to be in 2030. In one way, that's not a bad thing because frankly they don't know, no one does, including me. However if you're going to make a claim that household GDP will fall by £3200 you need to know how much GDP will be, and how many households will be in the country.<br />
<br />
Those numbers don't exist in the report so I will run with some of the assumptions from the treasury report but the OECDs changes to GDP.<br />
<br />
To recap, f<a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/osbornes-accountancy-is-very-creative.html">rom my article here</a>, Remain GDP in 2030 if we stay in will be 36% above what it is now. GDP in 2015 was £1.808 trillion.<br />
<br />
From his number we will deduct the OECD's doom and gloom: a drop in GDP of 2.5% (optimistic) 5% (central) and 7.5% (pessimistic).<br />
<br />
Lets run with a 7.5% drop in GDP. I don't want to be accused of being over optimistic.<br />
<br />
The OECD suggests that if we leave, <b>in the worse case scenario</b>, immigration would drop to below 100,000 per year (<b>which is what we were promised</b>), and implies net immigration <b>will remain over 300,00 a year if we stay</b>. It doesn't seem to pin it self to either an in or an out figure for number of households though.<br />
<br />
We can only work on what we know which is the household growth figures for Remain from the ONS in the treasury report (31 million) and working off a net migration of less than 100,000 in the event of BREXIT, which I estimated at 28 million.<br />
<br />
So, time for a little bit of simple maths.<br />
<br />
Current GDP (2015) of £1.808 trillion.<br />
<br />
Remain GDP 2030 of £2.45 trillion. (+36%)<br />
<br />
Leave GDP 2030 of £2.323 trillion (+28.5)<br />
<br />
Remain households, 31 million.<br />
Remain GDP per household: £79,384<br />
<br />
Leave households, 28 million<br />
Leave GDP per household: £82,964.<br />
<br />
<b>That's £3,580 per household better off!</b><br />
<br />
I'm sure they didn't want you to know that.<br />
<br />
As a footnote the IMF, OECD and HM Treasury all disagree. They all think we would be much better off remaining in the EU.<br />
<br />
The IMF, OECD and HM Treasury also thought we would be mad not to join the ERM (That turned out well… after we crashed out of it in some pain) and also thought we should definitely have joined the Euro which would have been a disaster for both us and the rest of the Euro zone.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.andrewlilico.com/2016/04/27/the-oecds-brexit-impacts-modest-in-scale-but-implausible-in-nature/">Andrew Lillico has this analysis here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-14250675163215657312016-04-25T22:56:00.001+01:002016-04-25T22:56:34.746+01:00Osborne’s Accountancy is VERY CreativeThis post is also available here, and this revision was part written by Ann Sheridan, who has a blog here.<br />
<br />
Last week the Treasury Report was roundly panned by just about anyone who is anyone in economics, the f<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201">act checkers at the BBC</a> and <a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-trust-treasury-brexit/22772">Channel 4</a>, as well as by people like <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/23/a-pro-eu-study-straight-from-the-ministry-of-truth/">Liam Halligan at the Telegraph</a>. The key claim in George’s rigged report was that each household would be worse off to the tune of £4300 per year by 2030. Now, let’s put to one side the fact that Osborne can’t get his sums right from month to month never mind over 14 years, and look at the claims in a little more detail. Before we do though, I’d like you to consider this nugget, Osborne himself stopped using Treasury forecasters because they were so crap. That’s why today official government economic statistics all come from the Office of Budget Responsibility.<br />
<br />
Now, to the substance of the report. One point of contention is that the figures are based on a made up metric of GDP per household which no one uses, or rather no one has used it before, and no one is likely to use again, apart from me, in this article.<br />
<br />
The report also assumes that we love all existing EU regulations, would ditch none and make no trade deals apart from those with the EU. This is about as likely as Jim Davidson being asked to be the turn at the Guardian Christmas do, but we’ll run with it for now.<br />
<br />
Bear with me here please, this next bit involves sums, but unlike Boy George I can do maths without taking my shoes and socks off. According to Liam Halligan’s article we currently have 27 million households in the UK, and if we remain in the EU the treasury assumes we will have 31 million by 2030. Its £4300 per household figure is based on projected GDP in 2030. It assumes a growth rate of 36% over 15 years in the EU, and 29% out. This is where Osborne attempts to perpetuate his gigantic con on the British public:<br />
<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030. So, the GDP per household the Treasury figure represents is the GDP per household of the 27 million households we have now, not the GDP per household of the 31 million households the Treasury expect us to have in 2030. As we all know Boy George is lousy at maths, but even he should know that that will distort the GDP per household upwards, which if you think about it, is exactly what he wants.<br />
<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Second, if I tell you you’re going to be £4300 worse off you immediately look at your bank statement and credit cards and think “Oh ?$*#”. But this is manifestly not what the Treasury report says. Both in the EU and out of the EU we’ll be better off, but according to the dodgy assumptions from the Treasury, which I referred to above, we will be even more better off if we stay in the EU.<br />
<br />
If you accept Osborne’s dubious figures, 36% growth if we stay in, 29% growth if we stay out, and then assume a lower growth in households (one of the main reasons for leaving is regaining control of our borders and reducing migration from the EU), and actually use the Treasury’s own figures for projected households if we stay in, the maths work out very differently.<br />
<br />
It’s not unreasonable to assume there would be 3 million less households in the UK. The aim would be to reduce immigration to under 100 000 a year, so that would slow down the rise in the number of households considerably. The only way that that would not happen would be if, after Brexit, we opted to join the European Economic Area. Under those circumstances we would still have to allow free movement of people, but we would still have access to all EU markets, so one imagines our GDP would at the very least be no worse than it would be if we remained in the EU.<br />
<br />
Now, back to sums, current UK GDP is £1.808 trillion. So in the EU it will rise to £2.459 trillion by 2030. If we leave, it will rise to £2.333 trillion. If we divide £2.459 trillion by 31 million households we get a GDP per household of £79,349. By contrast if we leave, we divide 2.333 trillion by 28 million households, we get a GDP per household of £83,329 or £3,980 better off out. I’m sure that isn’t the number George Osborne wants you to take from his report.<br />
<br />
Unlike Boy George, I’m not saying my figures are accurate. As everyone knows there are no one handed economists because there always has to be another hand; and if all the economists in the world were laid end to end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. But these figures are at least as plausible as the Treasury’s. And again, unlike them, I’m not saying bet your country’s future on predictions that have as much basis in reality as Mystic Meg’s horoscopes. Even if we will be better off financially when we come out, the real prize is the revitalization of our democracy, the restoration of the rule of law and being in control of our own destiny once more.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-10228600479590230962016-04-23T23:31:00.002+01:002016-04-23T23:31:50.251+01:00Treasury report shows we would be better off out per household.There has been some controversy over the treasury report that said each household would be worse off to the tune of £4300 per year by 2030.<br />
<br />
Much has been said about how disingenuous this claim is, by the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201">fact checkers at the BBC</a> and <a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-trust-treasury-brexit/22772">Channel 4</a>, as well as by people <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/23/a-pro-eu-study-straight-from-the-ministry-of-truth/">like Liam Halligan at the Telegraph</a>.<br />
<br />
The main point of contention is that the figures are based on a made up metric of GPD per household which no one uses, or rather no one has used it before and no one is likely to use it again, apart from me, in this article.<br />
<br />
The report also assumes that we love all existing EU regulations, would ditch none and make no trade deals apart from the EU. This is a highly unlikely scenario but we will go with it for now.<br />
<br />
According to Liam Halligan's article we currently have 27 million households and if we remain in the EU the treasury assumes we will have 31 million. Its £4300 per household figure is based the GDP in 2030 with the population of 2015. It assumes a growth rate of 36% over 15 years in the EU and 29% out.<br />
<br />
If however you assume the same growth but assume a lower growth in households (one of the main reasons for leaving) the maths work out a little differently.<br />
<br />
Current GDP is £1.808 trillion. So in the EU it will rise to £2.459 trillion. If we leave it will rise to £2.333 trillion. Now if we divide £2.459 trillion by 31 million households we get a GDP per household of £79,349. If we leave we divide 2.333 trillion by say 28 million households and we get a GDP per household of £83,329 or £3,980 better off out.<br />
<br />
I'm sure that isn't the number George Osbourne wants you to take from his report.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-77086601585105074272015-11-16T23:54:00.002+00:002015-11-16T23:54:54.568+00:00In sympathy with Paris we should pass the snoopers charter... apparently?Dan Hodges thinks that is we have sympathy with the victims of the Paris bombings we should demand the snoopers charter be passed, and passed now.<br />
<br />
He <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11996968/Pass-the-snoopers-charter-now-or-London-will-be-next.html">says so here</a>, I kid you not.<br />
<br />
The problem is that the argument does not stand up to a great deal of scrutiny.<br />
<br />
The 7/7 bombings, the Charlie Hebdo attacks and these latest attacks all featured some people who were known one way or another to the security services. In the UK that's currently around 3,000.<br />
<br />
Now MI5 and MI6 don't have the resource to follow all of them so they prioritise. We don't get to see the carnage that this prioritising prevents, only that which slips though. It was ever thus. If MI5 and MI6 were perfect then we wouldn't know of them or care. In fact some would probably cut their budget.<br />
<br />
But here we are. If they (MI5 and MI6 along with GCHQ) had all the resource they needed to put surveillance on all these 3,000 they 7/7 would not have happened. So lets make that job easier by giving them 60 million innocent people to watch?<br />
<br />
Does that really make sense to anyone? Really? Seriously?<br />
<br />
If they (MI5 etc) want to look over every aspect of the 3,000's lives, let them get a warrant. A secret one, perhaps one that once granted can't be questioned (though must expire).<br />
<br />
Let that warrant if it needs to extend automatically to watching contacts of the 3,000 and if evidence emerges that would lead to another warrant, then get one that does the same.<br />
<br />
Above all, perhaps more resource.<br />
<br />
But whatever you do, don't burden them (MI5 etc) with the job of looking through all my browsing history. It will not make anyone safe.<br />
<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-20142441233514111782015-11-16T23:31:00.001+00:002015-11-16T23:31:07.487+00:00Corbyn would not order a shoot to kill policy!Apparently Jeremy Corbyn would not order the security forces to shoot to kill.<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://order-order.com/2015/11/16/corbyn-british-anti-terror-police-should-not-shoot-to-kill/">Guido here for example</a>:<br />
<br />
Thing is it isn't within the Prime Ministers gift to order to shoot to kill or not*.<br />
<br />
Who shoots what and how is an operational decision that is the final responsibility of the person with the gun**. If they are faced with a hostile armed assailant (or have a reasonable belief they are armed) they can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. This obviously includes up to lethal force.<br />
<br />
We do not live in a country where the Prime Minister can arbitrarily order death, or restrict self defence on a whim.<br />
<br />
*Obviously a PM can order forms of military action highly likely to result in the use of lethal force.<br />
<br />
**What people may not appreciate is that you don't need to be a police officer. If you are at home, cleaning your shotgun and someone breaks in, you can shoot. If they are leaving you can't. If you are walking down the street with your hunting rifle in a bag on your shoulder (does happen, not often in cities) and someone starts firing, you can fire at them to save life in self defence.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-74026304206893190492015-07-14T22:20:00.001+01:002015-07-14T22:20:55.901+01:00Has Tsipras played a blinder in getting the deal Greece needs?Odd question you may think, given the nature of the deal that Greece appears to have been forced to swallow, and the nature of the humiliation.<br />
<br />
Tsipras threw a less nasty deal back in the faces of Euro negotiators the week before last, held a referendum to tell the Euro group where to get off, then went back and accepted a worse deal... or was it?<br />
<br />
Well, they did get a third bailout and with a bit of luck will get some liquidity back in their banks. The former wasn't on offer last time and the latter wasn't actually necessary until the IMF default which caused a run on Greek banks. So what else have they got?<br />
<br />
I suppose it depends on what your looking for. When Syriza won the election, it wanted to end austerity and deal with corruption and the client state built up over the years. Some numbers I came across (from an article in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11731242/Greece-is-a-victim-of-its-own-cronyism-and-corruption.html">the Telegraph by a Greek barrister, Pavlos Eleftheriadis </a>who is a fellow at Oxford university and a member of a new left of centre Greek party.<br />
<br />
Firstly, there is virtually no welfare state or state healthcare in Greece. So 90% of the unemployed get no help except for charity. Those who do not have private medical insurance also have to rely on charity.<br />
<br />
Makes you wonder what they spend all that money on then?<br />
<br />
Well, the answer is, part the client state. The last right of centre government inherited a state the previous socialist one had burdened with tens or hundreds of thousands of "civil servants" who just collect a salary and do no work for the state. Its answer? Not clear them out but hire 150,000 of their own. So there may be 200,000 of them. Maybe 300,000. At say €10,000 each a year that could be anywhere from €1.5 billion to €3 billion.<br />
<br />
You wonder why Greeks don't want to pay taxes for that? I don't.<br />
<br />
Then there are some systemic forms of tax avoidance and evasion. At the beginning of the Greek crisis a professor of computer science offered help to collect tax. He compared government databases and found some very poor (according to tax records) Greeks living in some very expensive parts of Athens driving new cars costing over €100,000. The tax inspectors union went to court to shut him down. They won, I kid you not.<br />
<br />
Then there is the "My property is not finished yet" scam. Greeks pay a property tax, but only on completed properties. Go ask someone who has been to Greece how many places they have seen which are both lived in (or indeed fully functioning hotels) that are still not quite finished. <br />
<br />
Many in Greece think this sort of thing is normal, and that is the way governments work in Europe, perhaps the world. They don't have other terms of reference. However many of the first Syriza cabinet have both worked and studied abroad and not only know that it isn't how other countries work but they can't do what they want to do without first clearing up the mess.<br />
<br />
So Syriza got elected. One of the things they were going to do was clean this mess up, and why not, Greece could not afford a welfare state with that burden. In fact, Greece couldn't afford anything much. No left or right of centre government we would call sensible could operate. The problem was that the vested interests and state clients suddenly turned to Syriza supporters so what could be done?<br />
<br />
Alexis Tsipras could not rely on his parliament to get reforms through... so why not do what Jim Callaghan did (according to Dennis Healy) in the 1970s and effectively call in a third party to crack the whip (In that case the Bennites in his cabinet wanted more and more public spending). And in order to do that whilst looking like a hero at home, he seems to have poked the Germans in the eye and kicked them in the shins so that they came back with some clear conditions on what Greece should do in the way of reforms.<br />
<br />
Some of the reforms the Euro group have dumped on Greece I'm sure are unwelcome, however many must secretly please those in Syriza because they know that Greece can't afford for Syriza to do what its political predecessors have done and fill the state payroll with its own clients.<br />
<br />
I don't have any evidence for this theory but on the other hand many involved in the negotiations are a long way from being stupid, yet they poked the rest of the Eurozone in the eye, told them to poke their deal (such as it was), held a referendum... and then went back and accepted what looks like a worse deal. Nothing else makes much sense.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-86476941350791545262014-01-07T22:56:00.002+00:002014-01-07T22:56:19.858+00:00Women being abused on the internet?I have just listened to Caroline Criado-Perez again talking about internet abuse as a women's issue. Saying that women who wish to get involved in the political debate are being shut down... She even implied that Isabella Sorley had been abusive because she was probably brought up in a misogynist environment.<br />
<br />
Well, there are a few home truths here..<br />
<br />
Abuse happens on the internet. It isn't pleasant, clever or nice. It would be nice if it stopped, but it isn't directed at women. It is directed and men and women.<br />
<br />
Anywhere there has been interaction in an um moderated way on the internet there is always some sad sorry individual who will happily issue all sorts of abuse, including death threats. Where such places are moderated those death threats tend to go to the moderators. I know, I've had a few as well as an on and off stalker.<br />
<br />
So, Caroline Criado-Perez, stop trying to monopolise internet abuse as either your own personal cross, or a mostly women only cross, it's a cross we all have to bear and the police devote relatively little resource to dealing with it who ever you are.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25641941">The BBC has this</a>.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-40392639500404544692012-08-14T00:06:00.002+01:002012-08-14T00:06:13.720+01:00What of the Olympic legacy?I have been thinking about this. London 2012 is of course only half over, we still have the fantastic spectacle of the Paralympics to go, but what of the venues and the fantastic infrastructure built to get people to and from them?<br />
<br />
There has been much talk of legacy, of bits you can take down and so on.<br />
<br />
Stop.... why? Haven't we the imagination to make use of the most fantastic stadia built?<br />
<br />
There is just so much that could be done.<br />
<br />
Lets start with the main stadium, well it could be the most spectacular concert venue ever! Did you see those light shows! Only shame is that ELO are no longer about, but wow!<br />
<br />
That would provide quite a lot of the running costs, then, athletic events could be held there, even televised, and here's an idea, what about an annual or biannual British youth games?<br />
<br />
The tickets would have to be cheap, and given to family members of competitors but what could we do with seeing the best of our youth competing?<br />
<br />
Can you imagine a better way of inspiring the next generation?<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-53245250443862434662012-07-26T00:19:00.001+01:002012-07-26T00:22:48.820+01:00UK in recession? I don't believe the numbers.I know people will think that I don't believe the numbers because I don't want to.<br />
<br />
Well, it's not that I don't believe the UK GDP could have shrunk by 0.7%, it's just that I don't think it could have done so whilst at the same time the number of people employed could have risen by 180,000 In fact we have had 3 quarters of employment growth matched by 3 quarters of GDP contraction. It's simply not credible to believe both numbers at the same time, the maths just don't add up. Imagine if I said what happens if you take 2 from 2? How could you get 4?<br />
<br />
So what is actually going on?<br />
<br />
I haven't got a clue, other than to say there is something odd going on.<br />
<br />
The disparity is of course not completely inexplicable, as I can see some special factors that could lead to a growing economy with an oddly shrinking GDP.<br />
<br />
Well, there is people working either short time, part time, or self employed. This could well be a large factor leading to employment being buoyant whilst the economy is slack, but we are at record employment rates at the moment.<br />
<br />
Other things are playing a part as well. For example oil. if you look at <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/commodities/143908/twelve_month.stm">this current graph on the BBC</a>* you will note that in March the price of Brent crude was $125 a barrel, and fell as low as $90, over the same period the pound has risen and fallen to end at roughly the same vale, or in short if the same amount of oil and gas was produced from the North Sea, it's actual value dropped by 24% which is a huge drop. So how much is the oil and gas industry as a percentage of GDP? Well apparently from what I have googled the best estimate I could come up with is around 6% of GDP. So in one quarter that fell by around a quarter, or 2% of GDP, but "production" in which this sector falls, fell 1.3% total, of which actually oil and gas is huge (About a half so 2% reduction in GDP would mean a fall in production of something like 15% to keep it to 1.3% means a massive growth in other parts of the sector). There must have been massive growth in the rest of production to hold the numbers up that well.<br />
<br />
There are some other odd factors. Garden centres. Sounds lame, and this production is lost, but they haven't been busy during a very wet spring. Garden furniture and bedding plants remain unsold.<br />
<br />
So what's the story? Personally I think there is growth, and indeed strong growth, hence the jobs numbers, but crucially, oil and gas as well as all other commodities are very volatile, and we produce a lot of oil and gas.<br />
<br />
The next thing is construction. Well the sector is far from a boom, but one of it's problems has been the rain. There is a lot of construction that can go on rain or shine but a lot that can't be done in the rain. In short I expect construction to grow in the next quarter.<br />
<br />
* This graph will take you to 12 months historical figures from the date you click on the link not when this article was written.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-54954952680536859242012-01-19T00:31:00.002+00:002012-01-19T00:31:28.105+00:00Costa Concordia Captain's lucky escape!Apparently Francesco Schettino, Captain of the cruise liner Costa Concordia did not abandon ship, he tripped and fell into a lifeboat.<br />
<br />
How lucky is that? I mean what are the odds?<br />
<br />
Rumours that he tripped over 3 disabled people and a small child have been strenuously denied.*<br />
<br />
Meanwhile Captain Schettino has hired <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_ali">Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf</a> as a public relations consultant to shore up his reputation and provide credible answers.**<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16620807">The BBC has this</a>.<br />
<br />
*I made that up.<br />
** That too. Should I become a journalist?Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-24131000664516013472011-12-14T01:25:00.001+00:002011-12-14T01:25:22.118+00:00Cameron was wrong to use the EU veto for city interests!We have heard allot about David Cameron wielding the veto in European negotiations for the UK's national interests as far as our financial sector was concerned. It was wrong to wield the veto for that reason.<br />
<br />
It is true, that were they the only reason to use the veto, I would have done it, however a better reason is that the deal on the table, whether it involved us or not, was wrong for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>It does nothing to actually address the Euro's sovereign debt crisis, which was the purpose of the summit. Crucially there is no stated mechanism for the ECB to become the lender of last resort.</li>
<li>It proposes a set of rules that Euro members promised to keep to last time, and most did not but the Euro countries promise to be really good from now on. It's not credible.</li>
<li>The rules allow a country to run up it's debt to GDP ratio in good times as well as bad, creating an automatic structural deficit if a recession hits. (Gordon Brown would have met those rules.)</li>
<li>It has too little flexibility in the event of an actual recession for those countries who have behaved well to borrow what they need to as a recession hits. </li>
</ol>
<div>
So, I don't disagree with the veto being used, but it should have been used because the deal does not fix the problems of the Euro zone, it makes them worse, and punishes the UK for it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What we could do with though, is counter proposals. The French and German governments are busy trying to look like they are doing something useful, and forcing others to back them when all they are doing is coming up with quarter measures to keep their electorates on side. This will work in the short term. Sarkozy has an election next year. The problem is last weeks summit will only work until the new year, and then only if they are lucky. The ink will never dry on the last deal to be signed in March 2012 because it will be renegotiated at least twice before then.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16166352"> BBC has this on the state of the Euro</a>. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-its-the-clash-of-the-eu-titans-political-will-vs-financial-maths-what-next-6275218.html">Independent has this on the maths in the Euro</a>.</div>Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-84133519334705721852011-12-13T17:59:00.001+00:002011-12-13T18:04:57.787+00:00Worlds smallest steam engine? No!The BBC has an article entitled: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16147965">World's 'smallest steam engine' built in Germany</a>, except if you read the article, it is obviously not a steam engine at all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4wat2-qaSWw/TueRKdswklI/AAAAAAAAAEw/IeutrUoNz68/s1600/bbc-steam-stirling.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4wat2-qaSWw/TueRKdswklI/AAAAAAAAAEw/IeutrUoNz68/s320/bbc-steam-stirling.jpg" width="301" /></a></div>
It is in fact a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine">Stirling engine</a>, originally invented by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stirling">Rev Dr Robert Stirling</a> (and his brother) in 1815 as a safer alternative to steam engines because many of his parishioners had died in boiler explosions. It is positively not a steam engine and is nothing at all like one.<br />
<br />
I know journalists love to bask in utter ignorance, but this is really irritating. You do have to wonder where else they talk compete and utter rubbish because they are simply ignorant of the facts.<br />
<br />
That may sound like an unfair rant, and in some ways it may be. However the news media spread knowledge and information and it is dangerous when they get it wrong as they frequently do. <br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-46610531428267591522011-11-24T13:17:00.001+00:002011-11-24T13:19:22.506+00:00Nabila Ramdani twitter spat Another thought.I want to point that Nabila Ramdani seemed to make it her business as a French citizen of Algerian decent to keep popping up on places like the BBC claiming that Libyans were as a group, inflicted with a tribal mentality such that they could not get on without Gaddafi to keep them in some kind of line. Should he fall Libya would, by implication turn into some version of Somalia. Whilst Libyans were dying in numbers, it is unsurprising therefore that Libyans seemed to take some exception at being described as such and as a consequence may have described Nabila Ramdani in terms which were either less than charitable or possibly not repeatable in polite company. Given the nature of her comments, were you to cast Libyans as a race her comments would be racist and as such I can entirely understand their anger.<br /><br />Then when Gaddafi met his fate, it appears she changed her tune a bit. (In part because spouting the same somewhat inexpert nonsense would not do her any favours.) Some began to speculate at he volte face and indeed possible motivation for spouting bile about Libyans in the first place and subsequently changing her tune. It is in this context that the tweet was made and the reply given which was retweeted by me.<br /><br />The moral of the story is, calling 6 million people who are dying to overthrow a vicious dictator a bunch of tribal ingrates may not get polite responses from them.<br /><br />If after reading what I have just written you think my actions are capable of any criticism I would welcome hearing why.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-43649263097388901532011-11-23T18:30:00.001+00:002011-11-23T18:41:00.467+00:00The Nabila Ramdani twitter spat updateThere is now a <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100119118/the-arab-whore-twitter-incident-is-bad-pr-for-the-conservative-party-but-is-benedict-white-really-a-tory-activist/#disqus_thread">blog post over at the Telegraph here, by Katharine Birbalsingh</a> who claims to have read my blog post but clearly had not properly (is she supposed to be a good teacher?).<br />
<br />
It has had some of the more defamatory elements removed. However a comment <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100119118/the-arab-whore-twitter-incident-is-bad-pr-for-the-conservative-party-but-is-benedict-white-really-a-tory-activist/#comment-370846968">by Andy Cooke here is a very good summary of the events so far, and it is here</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hmm.<br />So, the facts of the case are:<br />1. Mr White (who, according to the blog linked above, grew up in the Middle East before his family fled the violence), was understandably interested in the Libya campaign and followed (and contributed to) the discussion on Twitter</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2. Ms Ramdani also was involved in the Libya discussions, repeatedly opining (in wider media sources as well as online) that if Gaddafi were removed, Libya would fall into chaos and tribal warfare.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3. A number of people on Twitter (including Mr White) disagreed with and attempted to debunk her claims.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
4. When Gaddafi finally fell, Ms Ramdani "popped back up saying that maybe Gaddafi deserved it and her tone changed"</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
5. Some of the people on twitter who had taken exception to her implication that Gaddafi's removal would be a bad thing for Libya, highlighted the sudden change of tone with an implication that she had had a financial interest in the issue. Specifically, the Twitter uses "LibyaNewDay" stated it in a disbelieving tweet that BBC news were broadcasting her, to which Mr White responded "Yes, but she did say that Gadaffi getting it was his fault ... maybe she isn't getting paid any more"</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
6. "LibyaNewDay" responded "Exactly what I was thinking, @NabilaRamdani has toned down her love of Gaddafi. No more paypacket #Gaddafiwhores", which Mr White retweeted.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
7. Ms Ramdani blew the incident up to the police and papers, including writing an article for the Guardian accusing Mr White of calling her "an immigrant prostitute", claiming that they used a 'whore' hashtag and "spiced up their principal insult with as many sexual allusions as they could fit into the 140 characters that Twitter allows". the latter appears to be completely unfounded.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
8. Ms Birbalsingh pops up and uses the spat - well, as seen in the article above, whilst claiming to have read Mr White's version posted on his blog (which, incidentally, contains links to the primary source (the Twitter feed) unlike Ms Ramdani's version.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I've seen plenty of discussions on the internet, and terms like "commentwhoring" and "karmawhoring" (aiming to write comments specifically to gain support rather than to engage in debate), and, of course, "attentionwhoring". None of them ever seem to be interpreted to mean that the person discussed (usually more frequently male than female) is in fact a prostitute. <br />Of course, anyone aiming to blow these comments up out of context to make a point unsupported by the facts would of necessity separate the "whore" bit (as Ms Burbalsingh did above) or drop off the rest of the word entirely (as Ms Ramdani has done). None of Mr White's comments even seem to imply anything sexual at all, let alone her being "an immigrant prostitute".</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
On the face of it, it seems that Ms Ramdani has used the incident to try to make a political point that isn't there, using it as an excuse to try to slam the Conservatives. An unkind observer would possibly suspect mischief on her behalf. Ms Burbalsingh has used the incident to lament the fact that such claims damage the chance of a full Tory Government in power, and baldly state that Mr White is guilty of "racist and misogynist behaviour". Similarly, this would seem to be playing into Ms Ramdani's hands - explicitly claiming that her accusations are true but trying to wash the Conservatives hands of Mr White.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Personally, if I were Mr White, I'd wonder if Ms Ramdani's statements were actionable, and Ms Burbalsingh's likewise - a number of the statements in the article above being apparently unsupported by the facts (which Ms Burbalsingh states she had access to via Mr White's blog and link to the relevant discussion) and heavily insulting of Mr White's character, yet repeated in a public organ with wide circulation. It does call into question Ms Burbalsingh's reliability on any article she has published.</blockquote>
<br />
Looks like a good summary to me. <a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2011/11/police-dont-investigate-tory-activist.html">My previous article on the subject is here</a>.<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-47026949482877833802011-11-21T18:28:00.001+00:002011-11-21T18:48:00.595+00:00Police don't investigate Tory activist not calling woman a whore shocker!Police are apparently not investigating a Conservative activist (me) for not calling Nabila Ramdani a whore. That said you would not get that impression from <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24012302-police-investigate-after-tory-activist-tweets-woman-is-arab-whore.do">the article on line at the Evening Standard here</a> currently titled "Police investigate after Tory activist tweets woman is 'whore'" though its previous title which was even more defamatory towards me has been changed , or presumably from their paper edition.<br />
<br />
What does appear to be true (though I am only taking Associated Newspapers word for it) is that the police/police watchdog are investigating why the police are not investigating. (Presumably because there is no crime, for there is none made out).<br />
<br />
This stems from Nabila Ramdani presumably being short of work and therefore looking to raise he profile as some kind of victim of hate, misogyny and racism, which of course she is not.<br />
<br />
I will start with the context, for here context is key.<br />
<br />
I had been following the Libyan situation on twitter, primarily because it was the only way to keep up once the main stream media had got bored with it.<br />
<br />
Nabila Ramdani kept on popping up as being some kind of Middle East/North Africa expert (Which she obviously isn't) and discussing the state of Libya as the war with Gaddafi raged. She took the position that in essence Libya would fall into chaos, tribal warfare etc without Gaddafi, that it was beset by tribal issues and so on. By implication it would be better if Gaddafi stayed.<br />
<br />
Many Libyan's following the situation and I on twitter noted her "expert opinions" and from their knowledge denounced her statements. On the 20th of October Gaddafi was captured and then either executed or died of his injuries. On the same day Nabila Ramdani popped back up saying that maybe Gaddafi deserved it and her tone changed.<br />
<br />
In this context I tweeted:<br />
<br />
@LibyaNewDay @NabilaRamdani Yes... but she did say #Gaddafi getting it was his fault... maybe she isn't getting paid any more.<br />
<br />
and @LibyaNewDay tweeted (which I retweeted)<br />
<br />
@BenedictMPWhite Exactly what I was thinking, @NabilaRamdani has toned down her love of Gaddafi. No more paypacket #Gaddafiwhores<br />
<br />
You can see the relevant <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/LibyaNewDay">time line here</a>.<br />
<br />
What is clear is that at no point did I tweet that Nabila Ramdani is a whore, and the tweet I retweeted had the hashtag #GaddafiWhore which clearly implies a non sexual use of the term in this context.<br />
<br />
I will do some more digging later and add to this article.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-91777143375184556412011-09-23T01:42:00.002+01:002011-09-23T01:42:54.268+01:00Science is lies, religion is truth!That might sound like an odd statement for a rational person to say who has studied Physics to university level, but it is true.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today we learn that a theory that proved Newton's laws of motion were wrong* is possibly in itself wrong because neutrinos may in fact have travelled faster than the speed of light, fired from CERN to Italy. (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484">The BBC has this</a>)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is not actually either a surprise or unusual. Real scientists (Not Richard Dawkins) are always finding out that what they believed last week was not quite right and so knowledge progresses. There can be no truths in science, because if there were it would become a religion and so not gain further knowledge. That said parts of the science community do turn religious in their dogma holding things up for a while.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Religion on the other hand is truth. This is not because it can be proven in a scientific sense but because it tells us something beyond fact about ourselves, our relationships with others, the world and our responsibility over it. Religions vary, but most contain some parts which many people would call a truth.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand with science you must always be testing and breaking the current position or else it does not move forward.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*I am being a bit hard on Newton's laws of motion, they work quite well at the level of practical human experience. </div>
Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-86151381061510974282011-09-14T22:50:00.001+01:002011-09-14T22:50:26.244+01:00VAT increase to cost families £450! Did I hear that right?I am just watching BBC's Newsnight. Ed Balls has just said that the VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% will cost the squeezed middle £450. Did he really say that as a sound bite?<br />
<br />
The thing is, that if you work it out, to get taxed £450 more by the VAT increase you would have to spend £18,000 on VATable goods that are taxed at the full rate. That excludes most food, vegetable plants and seeds, books, children's clothes, rent, mortgage and of course newspapers. <br />
<br />
So who spends £18,000 on luxury items a year who is in the squeezed middle?Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-20358723109741572972011-07-27T00:23:00.002+01:002011-07-27T00:52:39.185+01:00So why is UK growth so sluggish?Well, that is a whole matter of debate, but what I can say is this: Birmingham is no longer quite the industrial hub it once was. <div><br /></div><div>The problem is this: A lot of our industrial output, like cars particularly (but not exclusively) Nissan (capacity 340,00 cars per year), Honda (250,000 per year) and Toyota (137,000 per year) are reliant on parts made in Japan. UK manufacturers have also been affected as they are also reliant upon Japanese imports which have been cut short by the tsunami. In short, 0.2% growth is fantastic under the circumstances.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now lets get back to the phrase "under the circumstances". It's actually quite important. Making cars in the UK is quite cheap particularly if you only have to deal with one union but making components here is less so when you have to deal with the tax office who want you to write off plant long after you have had to scrap it because it is cost-efficient. This is something for which the whining Ed Balls was responsible when he was telling Gordon what to do, but it was also the case before Labour got into power in 1997. </div><div><br /></div><div>The boss of Nissan UK thinks he wants to buy more parts in the UK. Good. Get that past the Treasury and we are in a win win situation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, Japan is recovering from the tsunami and so will our production. Growth next quarter will be 0.6 to 0.9% of GDP which will make Ed Balls look a bit silly. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, looking at tax rules on plant would seriously help in growth without being too costly.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14288348">The BBC has this</a>. </div>Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-47880922594329874932011-07-07T18:00:00.002+01:002011-07-07T18:01:25.798+01:00NOTW to close: 200 innocents pay whilst guilty keep their jobsSo, in a move to deflect growing anger of the News of the Wor;ld phone hacking scandal, 200 innocent journalists are to lose their jobs whilst Rebekah Brooks can keep hers, as the News of the World will publish it's last edition this Sunday. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage#block-98">You can read James Murdoch's statement here</a>. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733">The BBC has this</a>.<br /><br />This is disgusting. What's more it looks like Murdoch will be starting a paper called the Sun on Sunday, possibly as soon as the following week. In fact the domain names for thesundaysun.com and thesundaysun.co.uk have already been registered. In fact there seems to have been a plan to make the Sun a 7 day week operation (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/28/newsinternational-rebekahwade">See The Guardian here</a>).<br /><br />What will be interesting to see if there are claims for unfair dismissal.<br /><br />So, if the editor and staff of the News of the World want to start a new paper put me down for £100 in share capital. If I can spare more I will.Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-14665605745724394672011-07-06T01:20:00.003+01:002011-07-06T01:27:07.905+01:00Should there be a public inquiry over phone hacking?No. That would cost the taxpayer millions. <div><br /></div><div>What taxpayers should do is just boycott the tabloids, and anyone who advertises with them.</div><div><br /></div><div>It would be much quicker, more effective and very very cheap.</div><div><br /></div><div>So ... boycott News International and the tabloid press. Job done. </div><div><br /></div><div>I also <a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2011/07/milly-dowler-boycott-news-international.html">have this on the original story</a>, and this on how the News of the World<a href="http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-did-notw-get-milly-dowlers-mobile.html"> got Milly Dowler's mobile number</a>. </div>Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.com0