Friday 28 June 2013

...and Bradford Council want you to think there's a housing crisis

****

For some while now the Labour folk running Bradford (into the ground) have been telling us that there's a 'housing crisis' requiring us to build loads and loads of houses all over the place to cope with our growing population.

However, it seems that this growing population is, in fact, leaving:

Internal migration statistics, released by the Office of National Statistics yesterday, show around 4,000 more people left the district than arrived in the year ending June 2012. 

We'll be finding out that the birth rate statistics the Council are using are wrong next.

Mind you in the same newspaper they're running:

Bradford’s Housing Timebomb, which calls for more affordable homes to be built on brownfield land to help the 21,000 local people stuck on social housing waiting lists. 

The 21,000 figure is, of course, a complete fiction - this is the number of people registered on the Bradford 'choice-based letting' system which isn't a waiting list. Anyone can register and no questions about housing need are asked. However, this doesn't stop self-interested lobbies like the National Housing Federation.

In Bradford there are perhaps 6,000 people actually in some kind of housing need in any given year and around 2,000 social rents coming onto the market in the same period. If a net figure of 4,000 people are leaving (mostly leaving behind an empty home), it seems to me that the housing development need in Bradford is pretty close to zero.

And this rather explains why there's over 5,000 houses planned that aren';t being built. Put simply, there's no-one to buy them.

....

...and they want to stop you using them?

****

...e-cigarettes that is:

In smokers not intending to quit, the use of e-cigarettes, with or without nicotine, decreased cigarette consumption and elicited enduring tobacco abstinence without causing significant side effects.

This is proper science showing how effective electronic cigarettes are as a means of quitting. And the health fascists, public health obsessives and new puritans want to stop you using them because there might be some unspecified, unknown way in which they aren't 'safe'.

It isn't about health. It's about control.

....

Thursday 27 June 2013

About those teachers striking...

****

As you know I don't like it and see it as counterproductive - worse striking undermines the idea of teaching as a professional vocation. More to the point, the Unions are dressing the dispute up as something far grander than it is in reality:

“The teachers who marched are not political activists, they are here for education and are concerned about young people entering the profession and their future.

“This has been a very important show of solidarity, the two unions represent 90 per cent of all teachers, and we are standing up for education.” 

If the strike is about policy rather than the self-interest of teachers then, if my understanding is right, it is illegal. So it isn't about that at all:

We are asking that he establishes a series of meetings with the NUT and NASUWT, chaired by himself to address the issues under dispute and that he suspends the implementation of the changes proposed to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, pending the outcome of these discussions. We are also asking that he publish the valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme conducted on the basis of the 2010 criteria and factors.

Not about children at all. Nor is it about qualifications. Or free schools. Or academies. Or indeed the education policies of the government. It's absolutely and specifically about the proposed changes to teachers' pay and conditions.

And those pay and conditions result from the recommendations of an independent body - the School Teachers' Review Body. This body has proposed:

The STRB has recommended an increase of 1% from September 2013 in the values of:
  • all points on the unqualified, main and upper pay scales for classroom teachers (including main scale points which will be discretionary reference points for pay decisions thereafter)
  • the minimum and maximum of the pay range for leading practitioners and all pay ranges for individual posts set before taking account of the September 2013 uplift
  • all points on the leadership pay spine
  • any individual allowances in payment and to the minima and the maxima of the ranges of all teacher allowance
Get that folks - the STRB is proposing a pay increase! And - wait for it - the government has "...accepted all of the key recommendations in the report." Plus there's a consultation period with the Unions and other relevant partners running for a month.

What the teachers' unions want is for the government to ignore the recommendations of an independent body (and not one of recent invention either) to impose a more favourable settlement - one using up more of that precious resource going to schools.

Either that or the 'dispute' is simply a canard and this really is a political strike and not a genuine dispute.

....


Wednesday 26 June 2013

On the capture of government by special interests...

****

If we assume that the airline companies will try to capture the Civil Aeronautics Board, it makes sense to assume that professors will try to capture the National Science Foundation, teachers to capture the Department of Education, environmentalists to capture the Council on Environmental Quality, and civil rights activists to capture the Office for Civil Rights.  The plausibility of this assumption is sometimes obscured by calling agency-interest relations of which we approve “citizen participation” and agency-interest relations of which we disapprove “capture,” but the issue is very much the same whatever rhetorical label we choose to employ.

Absolutely - and public health lobbies will capture the Department of Health!And, of course, bankers the treasury.

We need to remember this at all times. Government and bureaucracy is never neutral, seldom innocent and is inevitably corrupted by the people and organisations it regulates. The solution isn't more government. The solution isn't some weird thing called 'better regulation'. The solution isn't more so-called democratic oversight (as if the people the democracy puts there are innocent, uncorrupted paladins).

The solution is less government, less bureaucracy and less regulation.

...

On recruitment....

****

“We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship."  Laszlo Bock, Google’s senior vice president for people operations.

Makes you wonder.

Tuesday 25 June 2013

The failings of public transport revisited...

****

And this is despite all the old folk getting free travel during the period in question:

The new developments come after it was revealed that the number of bus journeys in West Yorkshire have reduced from 235 million in 1995-96 to an estimated 180 million in 2011-12. 

Not a very impressive record for West Yorkshire's public transport people. But somehow we're now going to hand over all the transport cash - you know for roads and cars as well as the buses they've screwed up on - to this lovely bunch (now calling themselves the 'Integrated Transport Authority').

Tell me it's a joke?

....

British healthcare needs more than reform. It needs a new health service.

****

The NHS as we know it must go if this is how its defenders react to criticism:

One caller told her they hoped ‘she dies on the way to hospital’ and she received a card ‘thanking’ her for her “hard work in closing Stafford Hospital”. The card, which has been passed to police, reportedly read: “Thank you for closing Stafford hospital, Ha, Ha, Ha, you better now spend more time watching your mother’s grave.”

We now know the full consequence, these self-appointed defenders of the NHS didn't stop at unpleasantness or rudeness, they drove Julie Bailey out of town:

“I am having to leave my home, my livelihood and my friends because a few misinformed local political activists have fuelled a hate campaign based on proven lies. The final straw for me was the desecration of my mum’s grave.”

There is something seriously wrong with an organisation so dysfunctional that its supporters resort to violence - to the desecration of graves. I know you'll tell me it's a few misguided nutters but they swim in the rich waters of the NHS or rather the unquestioning worship of the NHS and all it does.

Bristol, Maidstone, Mid-Staffordshire, Morecombe. There's a pattern here, a pattern that will be repeated again and again so long as critics of the NHS face what Julie Bailey faced, so long as healthcare 'professionals' hide behind committees of the great and good or run sobbing to overpowerful unions and similar clubs. And so long as people think it acceptable to attack people personally for the crime of criticising - or even asking for improvements to - one of our most important public services.

We need a new health service. One that isn't complacent about failure, defensive when faced with constructive criticism, unaccountable and secretive. A health service that really is for the people who use it not for the power games of the people who run it.

....


As society becomes less religious I find myself profoundly unmoved

****

Yesterday evening I watched two episodes of The Borgias - there I saw, just as I did reading Neal Stevenson (and others) work, The Mongoliad, the reality of organised religion. Not the honest piety we are told is its feature but rather the rapacious pursuit of power and the aggressive destruction of anything that seems to be competition. Having cowed and captured the state, religion took the instruments of the state's power - swords, soldiers and torture - and used them to exercise and sustain control.

Not in the interests of salvation but in the service of power. It was a reminder that, however much we may wish otherwise, the nature of religious authority is more political that spiritual - even if they no longer carry on quite so rapaciously as did Rodrigo and his family.

So today, with that reminder in my mind, I was struck by the Heresiac's observations on a YouGov poll:

A new YouGov poll confirms that religion among the younger generation is in headlong retreat. A mere 25% said that they believed in God. A further 19% said that they believed in a "greater spiritual power", while a full 38% now claim to have no religious or spiritual beliefs at all. The remainder were agnostic. Essentially, then, this is a non-believing generation. 10% said that they attended religious services at least once a month (this is quite close to the long-term average for the population as a whole), but the majority (56%) said that they never went. In perhaps the most significant rebuff to traditional religion, 41% thought that it was the cause of more harm than good in the world. Only 14% (a considerably smaller figure than that for belief in God) thought that religion was, on balance, a good thing.

It seems that far from (as some foolish stats-mongers contend) us having a Muslim majority in a few years, the reality is that we will have an atheist majority. Perhaps some fear this eventuality - I find myself unmoved. Not by the prospect of atheism - it is a foolish belief - but by the obvious failure of organised religion to grasp the ideals and ideas of today. I have a feeling that religion as a great institution is nearing its final days - all the baggage of the state tacked onto god (as if we still need our rulers to have some pretence of his endorsement) no longer works.

This will not make us a better society or less divided. But we will not be the worse for the demise of organised religion.

....

Sunday 23 June 2013

Quote - on feeding the poor

****

From John Boyd Orr back in the 1930s:

‘It remains, however, to adjust our food policy so that the great wealth of food which we have or can produce will be brought within the purchasing power of the poorest. This is no easy task. It will require economic statesmanship of the highest order’.

The wonderful thing is that, thanks almost entirely to the food industry, we have achieved this aim in the UK. It is strange that the people who now praise Boyd Orr are the very same people who want taxes on sugar, salt and fat. Taxes that will make food less affordable for the poor.


Funny world!

....

Taking sides in Syria - mad, bad and dangerous

****

It seems to me an utter nonsense to seek to end a war by giving the side that appears to be losing more guns. Yet that is precisely - all wrapped up in weasel words about the situation and castigastion of the Assad regime - what we're saying;

Its joint statement said the members had agreed to "provide urgently all necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies".

And, as ever, this decision - essentially a decision to escalate violence in Syria - is promoted on the basis of the most bizarre judgement. It's not because giving the "Western-backed rebel military command" means supporting the good guys. Nope, we're doing this because some chemical weapons have been used and this was the 'red line' that mustn't be crossed or else!

I could get all geopolitical, talk about arming one or other side in the ever more divisive scrap been Sunni and Shia Muslims. Or argue that we're fighting a daft proxy war with Russia and Iran lining up against the USA and Saudi Arabia. But I'm not going to do that.

No, I'm going to say that, terrible though events in Syria are, it's absolutely none of our business. By all means send relief to refugees, medical equipment to save lives and food for the starving. Definitely clamber onto the moral high ground and tell those fighting to stop it and come and talk to each other to see if there's a way to sort the mess out without murdering half the population.

But arming the rebels. That's taking sides. And we know just how loved we are across the Middle East for taking sides! Before we know there will be a queue of comfortable Syrian exiles and a veritable platoon of ex-military and former diplomatic chaps calling for 'no fly zones', for blockades and for even bigger bombs and guns for the friendly jihadist rebels.

To say it again - it really is none of our business any more than it was any of Gaddafi's business (or for that matter Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton's business) that we fought a long campaign against terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Again. Giving arms to insurgents in Middle East countries - whether we consider them good guys or not - is a monumentally stupid idea. And not why we have a defence budget.

....

Friday 21 June 2013

On health inequality...

****

Chris Snowdon takes a Times editorial as his text:

The reason no politician dare say this is that it leads to the conclusion that people have free will and personal responsibility. This goes against the grain of the ludicrous, but widely accepted, sociological consensus that individuals are victims of circumstance whose destiny is decided at birth based on the postcode they were born in and the occupation (if any) of their father.
Plus of course that these 'members or communities in multiple deprivation' as the poverty-mongers like to put it, are unable to do anything in the face of advertising - it simply forces them to do all the wrong things!

Do go an read the whole piece.

...

Wednesday 19 June 2013

Getting heavier? It's not the calories it's the sitting around....

****

As I listened to some professor of public health this morning, I was grateful that the radio is firmly attached to the car. Had it been loose, it would have been out the window - as ever we got fictitious 'deaths saved' that would come from a tax on sugar, a ban on trans fats and the compulsory reduction of salt (to dangerously low levels). And, as we've come to expect, the BBC interviewer simply allowed these lies to be told.

However, there was a little redemption in the news - unreported next to the latest collection of ban this or tax that campaigns from the public health mafia. It said this:

The full study is to be published later this summer, but details disclosed on Monday show that the average adult has cut calorie intake by around 600 a day. 

Yes that's true - we're eating less, indeed considerably less than we were in the 1980s. The problem is that we're getting fatter. Now we don't know the full details of the study but the suggestion is that the extra weight is a consequence of a more sedentary lifestyle, an older population and (I'm guessing) an increase in average height.

These findigns remind us that the mounting - and poorly evidenced - attack on sugar, fat and salt is misplaced. Our extra weight is much more to do with sitting a desks, on sofas and in car seats all day than it is to do with scoffing too much nosh.

Which probably explains why the BBC didn't give it a big splash.

....

Tuesday 18 June 2013

Let's not let a few facts get in the way of our anti-smoking, eh?

****

We should know better than to wander onto groups and forums - even on the shiny business place that is Linked In. But resistance is futile and I found myself making the case for e-cigs - the case supported by the Royal College of Physicians and other well know shills of the tobacco industry. This is the response:

I can see all your facts and figures but they simply don't stack up against the actual pain that goes with cancer and they won't change my mind. 

This was from an intelligent businesswoman (who started by saying she would never employ a smoker - imagine the reaction if it had been a disabled person she wouldn't employ) and it reminds us of how the anti-smoking campaigns have poisoned the well of truth.

Shortly after came this comment:
 
E-cigarettes are a blatant attempt to circumvent anti - smoking legislation by unscrupulous companies. Ban them now and cigarettes in 3 years time.  Should give people time to get them out of their lives.

Such care and consideration here! Such a closed mind and such ignorance.

....

Cooperative chutzpah..

****

It makes me smile to hear the Coop justify its bail out and fire sale:

“Lets remember that the bank has always been a PLC and it always has had the ownership structure of a mutual organisation around that. That remains.

“We still have the majority stake in our bank and that provides us with the opportunity to lead our bank in an ethical, community-based, responsible way and that is a core part of our business plan going forward.”

The sort of ethical and responsible way that leads you to bad due diligence and the calling in of 7,000 ordinary folks' savings? The sort of 'ethical' that thinks it fine to rob the pensions of ordinary, risk-averse people who thought the Co-op a righteous safe haven for their cash?  That sort of ethical, the sort of ethical we'd only see from a mutual! Or are they just like all the other banks?

Such chutzpah is a delight.

....

Monday 17 June 2013

Portion control is not the business of local councils...

About the right portion size don't you think?
Let's boss takeaways about then - it'll get us a headline or two and we can claim to be 'doing something' about obesity.

But first about that obesity. They (the Council that is) start with a fib:

Health bosses estimate that about 225,000 adults in the Bradford district are overweight or obese...

Bradford's electorate - as good a proxy for adult population as you can get - is 340,000. Now while there are quite a few overweight people in the Bradford district, I don't believe for a second that two-thirds of the population are overweight. Yet that is what "health bosses estimate". Indeed the actual statistics (from five years ago) had levels at just over 20% for men and 23% for women. But let's make the statistics up - so much simpler than actually using the real figures.

It really is none of the Council's business. While we fretting about keeping old people's homes open, providing children's centres and much else of real value, we really shouldn't be spending scare resources nannying the population about its chubbiness and takeaways about their portion sizes.

I'm with Abbas Ahmed on this:

At Royal’s Balti Restaurant and Fast Food in Great Horton Road, kebabs are sold in large sizes only in all but one flavour.

When asked whether their portions were too large, takeaway worker Abbas Ahmed said: “It’s the right size.”

He said people could have smaller portions if they asked for them. 

Absolutely Abbas - more power to your elbow!

....

Sunday 16 June 2013

I'd love for the Women's Institute to save the high street but it won't



****

The Women’s Institute is a great organisation – not just because it (somewhat childishly) slow-hand clapped Tony Blair or because of those ladies in the Dales who took their clothes off. No, the WI is important because is encapsulates the importance of doing things rather than calling for other people to do things.

Those ‘things done’ might not be earth-changing and indeed might be the ideal target for ever-so-slightly smug comedians (usually the ones who are, you know, faintly embarrassed at being middle-class or worse still posh). But they are ‘things done’ which makes them vastly more valuable than either ‘things discussed’ or ‘things we want someone else – usually the government – to do’.

Which brings us to saving the high street:


The group’s 212,000 strong membership will turn its attention to boosting local town centres, small retailers and communities. There will be a lobbying campaign on a local and national level and it hopes to use its strength to influence Government policy.


It seems a shame that the WI – at least nationally – have slipped from the idea of ‘things done’ and into becoming just another lobbying organisation. One hopes that there is a little more to this campaign than just bothering MPs or trying to ‘influence government policy’. There is a little hope in that the aim is for WI members to do something – or so says Marylyn Haines Evans, chair of the public affairs committee:


“We are not calling on our members to boycott online shopping or to stop using out-of-town shopping centres and major supermarkets. What we are asking is that they go first to their local shops.”


This is admirable. And of course will make absolutely no difference at all to the prospects for the town centre, the high street or the local parade of shops. Not just because there aren’t enough WI members (many of who are already the sorts who use their local shops anyway) but because the high street – even the little local centre simply isn’t about shopping any more. Don’t get me wrong, there will still be shops including those treasured (but underused butchers, bakers and greengrocers) but we’ll head for the centre as a result of other appeals and interests – mostly because of leisure and pleasure.

The little parade of shops might work because it has a little coffee shop and deli or a child care centre. Maybe the presence of specialist housing for older people might help as they prefer the short walk to the shops over the bus ride to Tesco. And it will work even better if there's a little park where folk can sit or a playground for the children. The new mini-supermarkets that cause such consternation will help too as on-line customers pop in for their ‘click and collect’ groceries. The old ‘secondary’ retail location has a good future – it may look a little different from the parade we remember from our childhood but it will work.

It’s the next level up – the town centre – that there’s a worry. The comparison bit of comparison shopping is increasingly done on-line. Even in the malls and centres shoppers are checking goods they fancy against prices on-line – either to give them a bargaining tool in the store or, more likely, to click, buy and have delivered. Town centre retail will be more about things you can’t get online so easily, things like care and beauty where you need to person to provide the attention and titivation. Plus places that are more about brand or event than about sales – the idea of a book shop where rather than to buy a book people go to meet authors, to hear readings or simply to sit and chill isn’t so far away, and we’ve already got shops and spaces from Disney, Panasonic and (in the Far East at least) big spirits brands such as Johnny Walker.

This is retailing as entertainment, a distance away from the everyday task of getting things we need – the weeks shopping, clothes for work or school, things to mend and fix. And for town centres it is part of the mix – not everything but important as retail changes. Alongside this will be the ever changing mix of junk, tat and the unique that is the market – not merely the municipal market but the flea market, the farmers market, the concession store and the bazaar. When rents fall in town centres (and they will) these uses will flood into where we once had department stores and shoe shops.

The town centres that win will be those that embrace these changes not the ones who try to use regulation, planning or taxation to prevent the change. Some of them will be surprising places where local sensibility (and the WI) didn’t get in the way and where different uses were encouraged. Various folk have been talking about this change, of the move from the workaday to the pleasurable, of town centres as stages for events – from the birthday celebration or the stag do to formal organised and promoted occasions, from the spontaneous celebration of a win at football to the Scouts St George’s Day Parade.

Town centres and local councils that try to manage this stage the wrong way – through outdoor drinking bans, herding people away from events or stopping busking and peddling – will find quickly that places with a more open attitude, prepared to tolerate a little more noise, late nights and fun, will get the footfall and the businesses that live off that footfall.

So perhaps the WI, rather than lobbying government, should set up stall in the town centre – sell some jam, play some music, hire a clown and contribute to making local centres lively again!

...

Saturday 15 June 2013

EU regulations - we shouldn't laugh...we should cry...

****

Chris Snowdon reminds us of the lunacy that is EU regulation:

For example, the Commission wants to ban cigarette packs which are 54 mm wide, but will allow packs that are 55 mm wide (and only 55 mm wide). It will allow cigarettes to be sold if they have a diameter of 7.5 mm, but no more and no less than 7.5 mm. Only cigarettes which have a flip top lid will be allowed. Menthol cigarettes will be arbitrarily banned. Cylindrical rolling tobacco tins will be banned, but rectangular pouches will be tolerated. Packs of 20 will be OK, but packs of 19 will be illegal.

There will be some cod public health reason for each of the daft proposals. But, the complete picture is of an organisation so far up its bureaucratic backside that it simply doesn't comprehend how it destroys freedom, choice and independence.

And it's not a joke - however much we want to laugh about bent cucumbers or straight bananas. The result of this endless rule-making is to allow those with the cash to buy politicians or bureaucrats or the time to camp out in Brussels the power to damage our interests while pursuing their profits, prejudice or power.

....

Friday 14 June 2013

They really will take the shirt from your back...

****

The Government that is...

I was billed for 26k in admin costs - thats the way trhey play and its DIRTY and very very unfair - i fought like hell but i had no credit cards and no cheque books and - after 3 years they had accunilated almost £200k in administration costs -thats when the bill was brought down to 33k but with the admin costs - they seized my property and contents - and left me with nothing - not even any clothes - its a bad story.

Go read the whole sorry tale. And next time you try to pretend that government is good or kind or caring or helpful, go read it again. After a couple of reads you'll never think government is anything other than a ghastly  - perhaps necessary - evil.

With thanks to Obo for letting the world know about this.

....

A picture of a tractor....

...a big Soviet tractor.

I've decided to call it Gordon!

....

Thursday 13 June 2013

More proof of boozing's creative powers...

****

Following on from the earlier experiment that showed - following expert review that:

The team that drank alcohol came up with better ideas. And more of them.

The researchers asked the public:

Elsewhere, the public were also consulted for their opinions as to the best idea on the shortlist – both online and on the streets – asking 18-30 year-old drinkers in pubs. All consulted were asked to rate the ideas in order of effectiveness as to which would be most likely to persuade them to alter their drinking habits? 

And you've guessed it folks - the drunk team won again!

....

Wednesday 12 June 2013

A reminder that socialism doesn't work...

****

We should all have worked this out by now but, it seems, some places still have to learn that socialism really doesn't work, not even a little bit:

The new programme, launched last week, uses crowdsourcing technology to enable users to let each other know which supermarkets still have stocks of the tissue.

Called Abasteceme – "Supply Me" in English – the free Android app has already been downloaded more than 12,000 times.

Creator Jose Augusto Montiel said most downloads have been made by residents from the capital Caracas.
He said: "Lots of things are in short supply, but what people are most worried about is finding toilet paper. People never knew how much they needed it until it started running out." 

According to the government it is wicked anti-government forces that are buying up the loo paper so as to "destabilize" the country.  Yes folks, socialism is both useless and stupid!

....

Stupid, stupid, murderously stupid...

****

It was going to happen, they were going to get their way, they couldn't allow e-cigarettes to succeed. So they've set about killing them:

"Reducing the harms of smoking to smokers and those around them is a key Government health priority. Our research has shown that existing electronic cigarettes and other nicotine containing products on the market are not good enough to meet this public health priority.

“Some NCPs are already licensed and the Government's decision to work towards medicines licensing for all these products is designed to deliver quality products that will support smokers to cut down and to quit.

“The decision announced today provides a framework that will enable good quality products to be widely available. It’s not about banning products that some people find useful, it’s about making sure that smokers have an effective alternative that they can rely on to meet their needs."

Some 1.3 million people have already switched to e-cigarettes. To stop this process is stupid.

It's stupid because e-cigarettes are 99% safer than smoking regular cigarettes

It's stupid because e-cigarettes are not a medicine - unless a cup of coffee is a medicine

It's murderously stupid because it means that people will die unnecessarily.

But then it never was about health, was it.

....

Tuesday 11 June 2013

A great little beer rant...

****

...from Helen at Food Stories:

I expect the designers think this makes the pub look cool, because we need to make drinking beer cool, right? It’s not just for beardy CAMRA members; old timers with old attitudes. Well here’s the wake up call, people – beer already IS fucking cool. Get over it! Stop trying so hard! Make a pub we can sit in and actually hear the people we are trying to socialise with! 

Go read it - it pricks a few pretentious presumptions and makes a very good point.

....
I expect the designers think this makes the pub look cool, because we need to make drinking beer cool, right? It’s not just for beardy CAMRA members; old timers with old attitudes. Well here’s the wake up call, people – beer already IS fucking cool. Get over it! Stop trying so hard! Make a pub we can sit in and actually hear the people we are trying to socialise with! - See more at: http://helengraves.co.uk/2013/06/craft-beer-pub-rant/?utm_source=feedly#sthash.khw60tMu.dpuf
I expect the designers think this makes the pub look cool, because we need to make drinking beer cool, right? It’s not just for beardy CAMRA members; old timers with old attitudes. Well here’s the wake up call, people – beer already IS fucking cool. Get over it! Stop trying so hard! Make a pub we can sit in and actually hear the people we are trying to socialise with! - See more at: http://helengraves.co.uk/2013/06/craft-beer-pub-rant/?utm_source=feedly#sthash.khw60tMu.dpuf
I expect the designers think this makes the pub look cool, because we need to make drinking beer cool, right? It’s not just for beardy CAMRA members; old timers with old attitudes. Well here’s the wake up call, people – beer already IS fucking cool. Get over it! Stop trying so hard! Make a pub we can sit in and actually hear the people we are trying to socialise with! - See more at: http://helengraves.co.uk/2013/06/craft-beer-pub-rant/?utm_source=feedly#sthash.khw60tMu.dpuf

Monday 10 June 2013

What about George Galloway's commitment to Bradford?

****

It seems pretty shallow right now:

George Galloway has announced he intends to fight Boris Johnson for the job of Mayor of London, despite the present incumbent already insisting he will not stand for a third term.

Now I appreciate that George is a bit of a fantasist but this suggests he's rather taking the good folk of Bradford West for granted don't you think?

....

Here be monsters...

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown”  H. P. Lovecraft

Here we go again. Buoyed up by terrible things, the bureaucrats of the security state are out to persuade their political masters that, without them, we'd all be raped, pillaged, blown up and generally battered by the chthonic forces of evil that cluster round the gates into our civilised land.

"Indeed you will never be aware of all the things that these agencies are doing to stop your identity being stolen or to stop a terrorist blowing you up tomorrow." 

This fills me with such confidence - "you will never be aware" says the Minister. But surely the whole point is that we should be aware, we should know what these agencies are doing. Not every case, every investigation but the rules under which they operate and the manner in which those rules are applied.

Instead of understanding, openness and information what we get is fear and the feeding of fear. We are to be scared - of terrorists, of sinister identity thieves, of cunning fraudsters and international crime. And when the justification for all this frightening of the people is challenged, we regaled with 'facts' - unsubstantiated statistics of terrorist plots thwarted and spy networks broken, of criminal masterminds snared in their lairs and drug lords brought to justice.

Without these 'powers', without the snooping, poking about and pouring over data, the monsters would flood in - from a peaceful, quiet place we would tumble into barbarian chaos, into some dystopian dog-eat-dog nihilism where terrorists, criminals and fraudsters destroy the tranquillity of our world. The spooks and spies are guarding the gate to that dark underworld of evil.

And the spies, spooks and snoopers know their world must remain secret - without that secrecy the frightening things would wither and suddenly the billion pound industry of surveillance and espionage would seem less vital, less important. And that would never do!

Out there in the world are bad people akin to the monsters of old. I know this because the minister told me.

....

Sunday 9 June 2013

More protectionism with a foodie spin...

****

Prosecco - lovely stuff and, as appears to be the case with almost every sort of food and drink subject to protectionism:

EU Common Market Organisation reforms take effect on August 1, 2009, and the inter-regional Prosecco DOC and the Prosecco DOCG will be folded into the new PDO Protected Designation of Origin appellation system.

That's right, if you're not in North East Italy they're going to go for you if you have the cheek to use the term "Prosecco" - despite the fact that "prosecco" is the name of the grape it's made from and has nothing specific to do with the Veneto. Just as the Cornish Pasty is just a recipe and champagne is just a process, prosecco is just a type of grape.

All this is a bit tough on the Croatians who have been using the grape - 'prosek' - for just as long as the Italians but to make a sweet dessert wine rather than a light fizz:

In a vaulted cellar on the pine-clad island of Hvar, Andro Tomic pops a cork on a bottle of his beloved prosek wine and pours a generous glass.
The amber-coloured dessert wine holds a special place in the hearts of Croats, particularly those along the Dalmatian coast, but it is about to face the full wrath of the Brussels bureaucracy.
The European Union has ruled that prosek is too similar in name to Italy's prosecco and that after July 1, when Croatia realises a decade-old ambition of joining the EU, it can no longer be sold as such. 

So much for protecting traditional local produce! The EU justify is like this:

They say there is a danger that consumers could be "misled" and could inadvertently buy a bottle of Croatian prosek when in fact they were looking for light, fizzy prosecco. 

Of course, it's not about this really at all, the Croats have been making prosek for 500 years alongside that sparkling prosecco without the need for special protections. And, I'm prepared to guess that the number of people who've confused the two is pretty low - somewhere close to zero.

The beneficiaries of these rules aren't artisan producers, they are large industrial concerns - the prosecco equivalent of Ginsters - that can secure higher profits through securing a PDO.

It's just protectionism given a foodie spin.

...

Not answering the phone is a failure...

****

So I'm trying to speak to someone at the hospital to find out how my Mum is - it's 250 miles away so I can't visit easily. And no-one is answering the telephone - or at least nowhere near enough to give me any reassurance. In a fit of irritation and anger I turn to Twitter and splurge out that the inability to answer the telephone is a failure on the part of the NHS (although, more specifically, on the part of one particular bit of the NHS).

The response was as predictable as Twitter always is on the subject of the NHS - a series of 'how dare you criticise the NHS'. 'the nurses are busy saving lives' and 'answering the telephone isn't a priority' tweets. And I guess they're right on one level - we don't employ nurses and doctors to answer the telephone, we employ them to look after patients. So I'm probably - in a frustrated sort of way - pleased that the nurses aren't answering my call.

However, not answering the phone is still a failure. In the main people don't idly ring up hospital wards just for a chat - when someone rings they're likely to be worried, upset and concerned about a friend or relative. And this is why the phone should be answered and why not answering it is a failure of service. I appreciate that on the scale of NHS service failures it's down the list - way below not giving a thirsty patient a drink, dishing out the wrong medicine or sending someone with throat cancer home because you think it's tonsillitis. But it is a failure - a failure that starts from a lack of humanity from the institution, that's a real, worried person on the line, and continues through failing to mitigate (having an answer phone, for example) to not considering that finding a solution makes any sense.

The point here is that I'm entitled to criticise the NHS as an institution when it fails me - and, unimportant though is may be to those steeped in NHS culture, not answering the phone is a failure.

....

Friday 7 June 2013

Cities - more creative, more individual...

****

However much I channel my inner redneck and love the wilds and the countryside, every now and then the city boy reaches out and slaps me in the face. And it's stuff like this that reminds me about the creativity, innovation and wonder of the big city:

Rochelle Canteen is a well-kept secret, unusual, perhaps, for its location. Situated inside a school down the backstreets of Shoreditch, it is converted from an old bike shed and manned by Melanie Arnold & Margot Henderson. I skipped towards my lunch date armed with detailed instructions, for it is not exactly straightforward to find. Tables were set out in the sunlight, overlooking a pretty grassy courtyard; sun hats hung on pegs inside. A simple menu keenly priced and devoid of any fussy adjectives made me want everything, while a blackboard of specials tempted further.
And they serve rabbit offal salad with snails!  I love the country pub, the wild mushroom, foraging and the idea of found food but...

...nowhere in the wilds will you get a kitchen in a school playground serving such weird - innovative, challenging, whatever, food!

Sometimes I miss London!

...

Can we have an end to the cult of leadership?



But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry [ground] through the midst of the sea. Exodus 14:16

Since time immemorial we have been cursed by leadership. Moses, Mohammed, Mao - an endless succession of leaders taking us from our wretched existence to some glorious city on the hill. We are obsessed by the idea of charisma, of how leaders transcend the ordinary to set out a vision of some wonderful future.

Now we have the idea of the leader an an institution - that we should be concerned about the charisma of that individual and his ability to drag us from our plight by the force of his personality, dividing the seas of crisis by the merest waft of that staff of power:

For the first time, David Cameron is trailing behind his party, according to the latest polling from Lord Ashcroft. Labour has long struggled with this problem, but as the charts below show, voters now also feel more favourable towards the Conservatives than they do to Cameron himself...

We're told to worry, that without a leader who can 'rise above' partisan and tribal politics there is no hope of sustained power. And so start the whispers - replace Dave with Boris or Ed with a different Ed, dump Nick. We're told by the gossip-mongers of the media that leadership is all, that the charming smile of the true leader is the difference between success and failure.

This nonsense is indulged by the pollsters who ask questions that we would never ask each other, carefully crafted questions that reinforce the idea of 'leadership', the belief - a mistaken belief - that without leadership nothing ever happens. All this does is reinforce the idea that orders, direction and control are the way to run the world and that everywhere people should know the answer to the little green aliens request: "take me to your leader".

Well I disagree, all leadership does is create conflict, division and the subordination of one person to the desires and demands of another. Leadership is about you doing something because someone else demands it of you. And it matters not one jot whether that demand is wrapped up in persuasive weasel words or done with a whip or a Kalashnikov - the end result is the same, we do what we're told (and too often believe it is good for us).

Worse still than 'leader as institution' we now have 'leadership as bureacracy' - great monuments to the power of red tape now have active leadership programmes where the administrative lemures are taught about the leadership thing. And, rather that understand that their role is to process, to administer, these "future leaders" sign up to the cult of leadership - that bureaucracy will be better for the presence of people who have a vision of that city of the hill, that magic place where everything is good and bright and wonderful.

It is the most depressing idea I know, the negation of choice and individuality, of challenge and innovation. And its replacement with 'leadership'.

‘His Excellency the Earth Ambassador wishes to speak with you at once.’

‘Is that so?’ The other eyed him speculatively, had another pick at his teeth. ‘And what makes him excellent?’

‘He is a person of considerable importance,’ said Bidworthy, unable to decide whether the other was trying to be funny at this expense or alternatively was what is known as a character. A lot of these long-isolated pioneering types liked to think of themselves as characters.

‘Of considerable importance,’ echoed the farmer, narrowing his eyes at the horizon. He appeared to be trying to grasp a completely alien concept. After a while, he inquired, ‘What will happen to your home world when this person dies?’

‘Nothing,’ Bidworthy admitted.

‘It will roll on as before?’

‘Yes.’

‘Round and round the sun?’

‘Of course.’

‘Then,’ declared the farmer flatly, ‘if his existence or nonexistence makes no difference he cannot be important.’ with that, his little engine went chuff-chuff and the cultivator rolled forward.
Now that is the right response to 'leadership'!

....

Thursday 6 June 2013

Benevolent lying...

****

A wonderful observation by Dan Murphy about the IMF and World Bank:

Over the years current and former employees of both groups have explained that bias is down to the belief inside the financial institutions that their rosy projections can take on a life of their own by inspiring that elusive beast "investor confidence" and unleashing a deluge of cash upon their clients. They see it as a form of benevolent lying.

I find this a fascinating take on the problem of these international - and essentially unaccountable - organisations. I recall being taught - back in the early 1980s - that the two babes in the Bretton Woods were essentially superior bodies since they didn't suffer from the self-interest or realpolitik of bilateral interventions. Now it seems that the truth is sneaking out - their guesses are just as self-serving as the guesses of political leaderships in client countries. And the prescriptions - based on these optimistic guesses - have dreadful consequences:

"However, not tackling the public debt problem decisively at the outset or early in the program created uncertainty about the euro area’s capacity to resolve the crisis and likely aggravated the contraction in output. An upfront debt restructuring would have been better for Greece although this was not acceptable to the euro partners."

However Murphy suggests we shouldn't be surprised:

In the middle of that decade (1990s), the so-called Asian financial crisis hit much of the region, with capital flight threatening private banks, government coffers, and project finance alike. Thailand and Indonesia accepted IMF loans in exchange for "structural adjustment programs" (government spending cuts, foreign investor friendly legal changes, promises to have fully convertible currencies), while Malaysia, against dire warnings from the IMF, imposed currency controls and sought to stimulate the economy out of the downturn with an expansive government budget. The results? Malaysia weathered the crisis better than its neighbors, with fewer job losses and much less political turmoil.

Perhaps the time has come for politics to reassert its ascendancy over the cosy internationalist boondoggle. It seems that, whatever the choices made, it is better for them to be made by politicians we can kick out rather than on some distant scapegoat of an international institution. Especially one with as lousy a record as the IMF!

....




E-cigarettes - a case of 'not-invented-here' syndrome

****

As ever Clive Bates hits the nail on the head over the egregious pseudo-debate within public health over e-cigarettes:

That’s because they have lost sight of their real goal – which is to reduce cancer and other diseases, not just to campaign for tobacco control policies.  But e-cigarettes have arrived like an insurgency, coming from nowhere creating opportunities for smokers rather than restrictions.  Public health workers have played no part in this uprising, they haven’t ‘approved’ the products, they don’t know much about them or why they are popular, and most importantly they aren’t in control.  I think they are professionally affronted and are responding with a regulatory and rhetorical broadside to fight back.

A classic, unmistakeable case of 'not-invented-here' syndrome. E-cigarettes cannot be an effective tobacco control product for the simple reason that they weren't created by tobacco control professionals or their 'partners' in the pharmaceutical nicotine business.

Gradually - at least among those who have thought about this - the e-cigarette is getting acceptance. Here's Professor Paul Aveyard, Nice guidance developer, GP and Professor of Behavioural Medicine at the University of Oxford:

Professor Aveyard said he will tell patients that using e-cigarettes is ‘better than smoking.'

Now while there's a little 'damning with faint praise' to all this, it's better than the usual 'it looks a bit like smoking so it must be wrong' argument we hear from public health.  This neanderthal outlook acts only to ensure the continued success of the cigarette business - banning e-cigs which is what the EU is inching towards would be great for tobacco companies and a poor do for the million plus UK smokers who have already switched to e-cigs.

....

Wednesday 5 June 2013

Robots are great and we need more of them to make stuff for us...

****

I get ever more irritated by the bonkers notion that technological advance and improvement is a bad thing for the economy. You see it churned out all over, mostly (but not always) by the good thinking Guardian left. These folk just don't get it:

It's about technology taking jobs, about what it can and can't provide. Hoskyns quotes Jaron Lanier's new book Who Owns The Future?, in which he argues: "Capitalism only works if there are enough successful people to be customers." Lanier, a computer scientist and a musician, is rightly called a visionary because he sees what is happening, when everything is live-streamed but no one knows the name of the person who made the music any more. Content is free.

This is just plain daft. Free is good. We like free - not only is it a magic word but, more to the point, it's an improvement on 'costs so much only people such as Guardian journalists can afford it'. Now in one respect, Lanier is right but his emphasis is still on production rather than consumption. We aren't here to produce stuff, we're here to consume stuff - even if we love our fabulous creative industries job, that's consumption (we're eating up the pleasure).

So yes robots and digital wizardry will "destroy jobs" (this translates as 'makes things a whole lot cheaper because you don't have to pay wages') but all the while new playthings are being invented - think how many people are scraping an adequate living from creating stuff to make use of that digital wizardry, for example. And, so long as the idiot protectionist lefties don't get to control things, stuff gets cheaper so we don't have to work as hard as we do now to get the good stuff. Brilliant!

So no, it's simply not the case and never has been the case, that technical innovation is bad for the economy. Protectionism, subsidised overmanning and the refusal to embrace technology - that was what caused China's 500 year stagnation. And if we adopt the same approach, we will stagnate, there really won't be the jobs we need and future Suzanne Moore types really will be scraping by in some rat-plagued garret.

So let's grab that technology, let's get it working for us, let's shove aside the barriers - unions, business oligopolies, MPs and silly Guardian writers - and get the robots working. We'll all be richer, less frazzled by work and more able to have a bloody great time with the few years we get living on this wonderful planet.

.....

Nice work this proof reading lark....

****

But then she's really a lawyer, so it's a special sort of secret, occult proofreading:

A proof reader employed by Lord Leveson to undertake fact checking work during last year’s media ethics inquiry has been thrust into the spotlight once again after it emerged the work had netted her approaching £220k.

The whole enquiry was a waste of public funds but two hundred grand on a single proof reader reminds us just what a total rip-off the lawyer's scam has become - especially when our taxes are the source of the funds.

....

Tuesday 4 June 2013

More slippery slope - Tim Lang and the denormalisation of meat

****

I think we've been here before. Professor Lang has been peddling his eco-waffle for some while, wrapping it in ethics, lies about animal welfare and misdirection on food safety. But these days, of course, it's 'climate change' that's the daddy in the Prof's campaign against an efficient, effective international food system that might actually feed the starving and ensure they get fed up to the likely peak population somewhere between 2030 and 2050.

Here's Prof Lang (via an excellent critique in Samizdata):

Without a shadow of a doubt, the ubiquity and cheapness of meat and meat products, as a goal for progress for Western agriculture, let alone developing world agriculture, is one we have to seriously question now for reasons of climate change, emissions, ecosystems and local reasons.

See what he's saying here? Yet again we get the "cheap food is bad" line from the food fascists. And not for the first time.

Is the priority to keep food cheap or to lower its carbon footprint and the cost of diet-related health care? Are consumers modern gods, or should they have their choices restricted before they even see the food on shelves? 

Prof Lang, of course, answers his questions in the affirmative - the idea of free trade in food sticks in the craw of his localist, eco-farming and sad obsession with claiming that the western diet is the cause of starvation elsewhere (it isn't). More to the point there's that "diet-related health care" - caused by the food industry rather than by people grazing on stupid quantities of processed carbohydrates (certainly not meat, it's not the burger but the bun that's the problem). No evidence to support Prof Lang's contention yet he makes it time and time again.

And - agreeing with Tim is one Camilla Toulmin who looks at meat production and concludes:

In 20 years’ time we will look back at it in the same way as we now look back at smoking as it was 20 years ago.

Yes folks - the denormalisation of meat begins!

 ....

Monday 3 June 2013

Quote of the day...

****

From the genius of P. J. O'Rourke:

I don’t pretend to be wise enough to know what the lesson is. But let’s send our children to the planets and the stars. And let’s keep them out of Congress and the White House. 

Amen to that! And the House of Commons too!

....

"Microlives": I'm pretty certain this is utter tripe...

****

...from the Guardian (where else) with some people's wonderful new 'live forever' theory:

The Norm Chronicles, a new book by journalist Michael Blastland and Professor David Spiegelhalter that has a neat idea which turns all these abstract dangers into a concrete figure.

It centres on this idea: once you hit adulthood (or, being more precise, 22 for a man and 26 for a woman) you can expect to live for around 500,000 more hours – or a million half-hours. Each of those 30 minutes of life is a "microlife".

By working out the average effect of, say, smoking or eating red meat, we can figure out a cost in microlives for different habits. A portion of red meat, for example, costs you a microlife – in the words of Blastland, it's "a 30-minute chip off your stock of adult life".

This seems to me to be ignorance squared - taking averages (I guess 'norms') and using them as a predictor of individual life expectancy is not either good maths or good science. Maybe that's not what the book says - the good professor is, after all, a statistician. But it is what the Guardian says the book says - essentially that we can quantify the effect on our individual health of actions where the effect is based on estimates of how much the action adds or subtracts from our lifespan.

The problem is - and if we thought about it for a second we'd know this - that the estimates are open to question. We really haven't much of a clue about the impact of eating red meat on life expectancy even if we do have a general (if challenged) idea that a diet of red meat isn't ever so healthy. For sure, where there's a known dose-response effect (e.g. with smoking - note the word is smoking not tobacco - or alcohol) there's perhaps a bit of a case. But for things such as exercise there is little evidence that getting sweaty on the treadmill extends life - the the adding of microlives on the rowing machine is probably nonsense.

What we have here is extending the general to the specific (from the whole population average to little old me or you) combined with evidence that, to put it mildly, is open to question and perhaps not epidemiologically sound.

But I guess that the gullible Guardianistas are looking for a 'Spirit Level' for personal health and these authors have delivered! However, such tripe is best served with onions and accompanied by a good claret.

....


The (lottery) funding of fussbucketry...

****

You'll recall a fuss over how old folk are getting drunk and fall over rather too much for the liking of the public health fanatics. Indeed, it is one particular set of fussbuckets - the Royal College of Psychiatrists - who are leading the charge on this one:

A group of experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists says there is a growing problem with substance abuse among older people, who they describe as society's "invisible addicts".

The report says a third those who experience problems with alcohol abuse do so later on in life, often as a result of big changes like retirement, bereavement or feelings of boredom, loneliness and depression.

But the extent of the drinking is hidden because unlike younger drinkers, more older people drink in their own homes, the report suggests.

Far be it for me to say that these older folk a drinking because, hell, they like getting sloshed and, since they've retired they now see absolutely no reason not to do so.

Any way these fussbuckets have persuaded the National Lottery to stump up a load of cash (£25 million to be precise) to:

The Big Lottery Fund will make a £25 million award to one partnership to develop a portfolio of projects which will also generate learning to influence and inform policy and practice in preventing alcohol misuse amongst older people aged 50 and over. The scale and scope of the investment means that the award will be made to a partnership of voluntary and community organisations that can work together, drawing upon wide ranging expertise to deliver projects and interventions that provide a wider evidence base of what works for policy makers and practitioners. Potential UK leads have until 24 October 2013 to submit their first stage application. 

Essentially the lottery are stumping up the cash for Alcohol Concern and others of that ilk to polish their lobbying skills and thereby to persuade government that old folk getting a little tipsy is a major public health crisis. Doubtless this money will fund campaigns to ban drinking in old folks homes, to develop new ways of 'screening' for drunken wrinklies (drunken in this context seems to be having drunk a couple of small sherries or one large whiskey) so that doctors can find yet another thing to hector and stress at said old folk.

When I think of all those cricket clubs wanting pavilions, those village halls that need fixing and those befriending services for lonely people that could use a bob or two, I can't help but think that all those people's lottery money is being misused to prosecute an ideological obsession of the public health business. Quite frankly I'm inclined more towards the Leg Iron attitude to old age and retirement:

I’m getting old too, I have seven years until my little pension kicks in and by then it’ll be just enough. I plan to spend most of it on booze and along with some other old scientists I know, maybe try class A drugs. Can’t touch them now, I need my brain to make money but at the end of life hey, get those experiences in while you can.

The lottery's there to help good causes and, however hard I try, I can make out lecturing old folk about drinking to be a good cause. This is just £25 million of unwanted, annoying and unhelpful nannying fussbucketry.

....

Saturday 1 June 2013

In which I get a little country - and love it!



So I'm in need of some music to while away a journey away from Milton Keynes. And, in a fit of curiousity I choose a selection of 40 classic country hits. Quite why I did this remains unclear but I was reminded again how our judgemental nature means we miss out on some great stuff.

I'm not entirely sure as to the point when we began to look down our noses at country music. Nor am I sure quite why this approach was taken - maybe it was the mawkish lyrics, rhinestones and oversized hats or perhaps there really is something wrong with the actual music (if there is something wrong with the music it's probably its simplicity and accessibility that we dislike rather than the tunes - the tunes are mostly fine).

By 'we' I mean the musical commentariat, the sorts who talk as if the Ting Tings play great music or who want to impress by attending concerts from bands we'd all forgotten about. And it seems to me that country music's greatest failing - and perhaps the reason for its lasting success as a genre - was that it didn't target young, middle-class, with-it kids. The music - its sound, its words - quite consciously cross the barrier of age:

You placed gold on my finger
You brought love like I've never known
You gave life to our children
And to me, a reason to go on.

So sang Don Williams back in 1975.  Not a song about first love or the search for love but a remembering, looking back at a life and at the reasons it was good.

The second reason that country music meets with a sniffy response is that it's a working class music that lacks any sort of call to arms. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of politics in country music but the story telling is more often about experience rather than challenge. When Dolly Parton sings of the coat of many colours that her momma made for her, she tells a tale of poverty lived and poverty conquered:

But they didn't understand it
And I tried to make them see
That one is only poor
Only if they choose to be
Now I know we had no money
But I was rich as I could be
In my coat of many colors
My momma made for me
Made just for me

This acceptance of life's rubbish - poverty, ill-health, injury, war, divorce, death - runs as a theme through country music.  Accompanied by the constant reminder that family, community and god are important. And that a warm heart and a welcoming hearth are the bedrock of society. What there's precious little of in country is the sort of self-aware political point-making that is so common in other genres. The singer tells a story, sets it to a simple melody line (often played strict tempo so you can dance to it), tugs a little - but not too much - at the listeners heart strings and leaves behind a tear, a smile or both.

Perhaps there's a little room in our hearts for these songs. Certainly, for all the schmaltz, all the maudlin words, they stick in your memory. Having picked up those 40 Country Classics, I found there wasn't a song I didn't know and many where I could have a stab at both the tune and the words. Not sure you can say that about Indie Rock!

....