Er, not exactly

Liberal Vision proclaims;

Liberals 3 Socialists 1

Er, no, Mark. That should read 'Socialists for Volvo owners 3, Socialists 1'.

I do wish the SDP would stop pretending.

The curse of of Dale...

Mothers, do you have a daughter who is, or wants to be, an MP? Well, I need to warn you of a grave danger that lurks around Westminster ~ namely, Tory blogger Iain Dale.

Not a danger to her chastity, you understand, which I'm sure he would agree with, but to her very political existence. First, he befriended Ann Widdecombe, who promptly announced her retirement from the House. Then, he sang the praises of his little chipmunk, Hazel Blears, who appears to be slowly being executed by the Brown camp for apparent disloyalty. Lately, his sinister intentions turned to Nadine Dorris, who appears to be committing political suicide in a most cringe worthy fashion.

We can only hope that in the coming weeks he starts to see a nice side in our Home Secretary..

Lembit Opik

toast, surely? What a prat.

He's not the messiah...

....he's a ....... typical politician.

What a shock. Not.

Reefa madness

So, this stuff is legal, and it gets you battered, and the state is getting its knickers in a twist and is looking to ban it, by looking for any 'harmful effects'. So let us read on;

But the former head of the Forensic Science Service's drugs intelligence unit, Les King, yesterday told a European drugs conference in Lisbon: "Just a few months ago, it was found that a smoking mixture known as Spice was not the innocuous material it purported to be.

No, never? A legal high gets you high? How can that be? I was going to put it in my supper.

He said that the substance's real psychoactive constituents were synthetic additives, such as ones that mimic the effects of some of the more powerful active ingredients in cannabis.

Shocking!

Quick, let's ban it,that will make it go away. I mean, we can't have people choosing how to relax and forget about the appalling state of things, can we. I suggest you all concentrate on it's harmful effects, so that the Daily Mail will do a sort of 'spaced out zombies raped my cat, then dropped dead in agonising pain' story. Right, what are there harmful effects, then?

Oh, that appears to be lacking from the article. Still, you could always make some up, like they did with BZP.

According to party pill manufacturer Matt Bowden, over 20 million pills containing BZP have been consumed in New Zealand with no available record attributing deaths or lasting injuries to a single ingestion of BZP.^[29] Additionally, a retrospective study carried out at an Auckland emergency department found that BZP presentations only made a minor contribution to their overdose database with most cases not producing any significant toxicity.^[25] Several cases where BZP individually or combined with alcohol or other medicines or illicit drugs resulting in complications exist. One such example is the well publicised case of a combination of BZP and MDMA by a 23 year old from Greymouth, New Zealand. Ben Rodham, a DJ, ingested a combination of BZP and MDMA in February 2007, which nearly resulted in his death. Rodham was put into an induced coma in an effort to prevent him from dying. He later recovered.^[30]

After many millions of doses consumed worldwide, two deaths have been officially recorded in correlation with the use of BZP, although no causal relationship has been proven.^[31][32] In the first case in Zurich in 2001 a 23-year-old took two BZP tablets as well as ecstasy (MDMA) and drank more than 10 litres of water in a 15-hour period, subsequently dying of cerebral edema due to hyponatremia resulting from water intoxication.^[31] In the second case a male 25 year old New Zealander ingested alcohol alongside BZP and MDMA.^[32] The cause of death of this individual has not been released. It is uncertain what role the BZP may have had in these deaths; death from hyponatremia is a well known consequence of drinking too much fluid after consuming MDMA,^[24][33] it is likely that the additional hyponatremic effects from the BZP may have increased the hyponatremic effects from the MDMA, to the point that death resulted.

Ah well, what does science know anyway? Let's just ban it anyway, that will make it go away.

Just like weed, coke, smack, crack, speed, etc etc etc etc etc. Gangsters, start your engines...

Reasons (not) to be (retrospectivly) chearful (about Thatcher)

Oh, how I laughed. Watching the 1980's conservative government trash the statist, bullying Unions was fun. The opening up of enterprise was welcome (until it was handed over to corporatist entities and quangos, bit by bit). But I don't look back kindly on the Thatcher years any more. John Redwood may have fond memories, but he appears to forgotten a few things.

So, to jog his memory, here are five reasons not to look back with a longing sigh;

1) It was Thatcher who started the ball rolling to disarm the population with the semi-automatic rifle ban. Apparently, we could be trusted to make sure our families wouldn't starve, but not to make sure they weren't robbed or raped in their own homes. Hell, we couldn't even be trusted to shoot at targets

2) Nationalisation of morality. Apparently, we couldn't even be trusted to send our kids to schools to learn moral values that were in tune with our own. Oh no. That must be nationalised. Section 28, anyone?

3) Daily Mail said drugs ate my hamster, aka the right to party. Horror of horrors, lots of young enterprising people started joining together in fields and warehouses and enjoying themselves. You can't be trusted to do that! Ban it! Ban it!

4) Enviromentalism. Yes, green-'o'-loonies. Lady T is your patron saint. Well done.

5) EU smoke and mirrors. Oh yeas, slamming handbags on the table, rebates, blaa blaa blaa. Nonsense. Thatcher started the ball rolling by signing various treaties that stole the hard won democratic rights of the people of the UK and handed them over to unelected EU officials. You see, you could be trusted to feed your own family, but not to vote correctly, etc etc.

Shall I go on?

On the rob

As the MP's expenses scandal romps on with the latest Torygraph revelations, most of the blogs are quite rightly cheesed off. However, as I have said before, this isn't a problem that can be solved by tinkering with the rules. We need to look at the source of the problem, which is members of parliament who have scant regard for what is moral, or even just fair, when dealing with taxpayers money.

I imagine that when you think nothing of walking into the lobby and voting for wasting billions of taxpayers money on some god forsaken scheme to erode the rights of the peoples of the UK while achieving nothing, claiming a few thousand pounds for nice trinkets for your houses must seem like small change.

You will not have moral M's until you have a moral system of government (or at the very least, those who wish that to be the case). As all of our present lot, with a couple of notable exceptions, are happy to vote for a large, overbearing and corrupt state that eroded the rights of others in full view of the public, you cannot be surprised when they act with similar disdain for you when your back is turned.

More truthspeak ~ this time it's DNA

So, the national DNA database is to be 'scaled back', and innocent people will have their profiles removes.

Which, after being put through the truthspeak translator means, you will be judged to be under suspicion for up to 12 years.

12 years. So, if you get arrested for looking at a policeman a bit funny during a demonstration in early middle age, you could be regarded as under suspicion until near retirement.

The solution is simple. It isn't the 'Scottish model', where samples are destroyed after 3 years, it is the presumption of innocence. Charged and released or found not guilty? Destroyed. Go to trial, and found not guilty? Destroyed.

Simple, but to liberty minded for the current shower that make up our political class.

Blogrollin'

A new(ish) blog needs a blog roll, so what could be more convenient that Brian Micklethwait compiling a list of Libertarian blogs? Served up on a plate, as it were. There are quite a few here that aren't on my 'daily read' RSS feed, so I will the reading through them and adding all of the ones that interest me / reflect my outlook to my own blog roll shortly. I will then be doing something with my template which is, frankly, a bit pants.

What is the point of PMQ's?

Conservative and Lib Dem MP's line up to ask the Prime Minister when he will call an election, or his response to the Number 10 Petition calling for his resignation. His response? A refusal to answer, because he regards them as 'not serious' questions. These are interspersed with no mark back bencher's asking planted questions, pointing out how lovely and super everything is.

Can someone tell me, what is the point? I thought the idea was to ask a question that he was obligated to answer?

Truthspeak overload

It couldn't get any more ironic / terrifying, depending on your optimism for the future. The Devil points us to plans for a 'Department of Peace', truth speak of the highest order. What is really scary is that I'm just so used to this nonsense now. Just about any government leaning media outlet, which is most of the these days, appear to almost celebrate these types of announcements or proposals, or at the very least, let them pass with an uncritical eye.

Take my local rag, for instance. Last night, as I drank my after work pint, I was informed that the Police were cock a hoop with the latest fingerprint scanning devices that could be deployed at will to 'establish someones identity'. But, don't worry, they are aware of any civil liberties issues (emphasis mine);

The tests are voluntary so if a person refuses to have it taken, they are arrested and taken into custody while further enquiries are made to establish their identity.

...where they will then be fingerprinted and DNA swabbed, I assume. Superb, eh? Voluntary is the new compulsory.

PMSL

Here;

A Downing Street spokesman later added: "We've put the country £1.4 trillion in debt, government ministers are chin-deep in sleaze and the cops are beating merry hell out of everyone. We just felt that the obvious next step was to tell thousands of heroic soldiers to go fuck themselves."

Ban! Regulate! Control!

But sod personal responsibility, eh?

Julie Barratt, director of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, said it was clear allowing the industry to self-regulate was not working.

"Unmanned sun-tanning salons are a particular problem as they are subject to no controls at all.

"The only way we can protect young people from this sort of self-inflicted damage is to control the use of sun tanning faculties by legislation."

No, Julie. The way we protect young people from 'self inflicted' damage, is to supervise them, if they are too immature to be trusted to look after themselves, not by removing a facility for everyone.

A walk along beachy head

Prof Julian Le Grand, no stranger to making outrageous socially authoritarian suggestions, is back with a few more;

Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child's birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair's former Downing Street health adviser, said.

and;

Other proposals include requiring companies to organise an "exercise hour" for staff to reduce obesity.

Tim Worstall correctly points out that such 'libertarian paternalism' is, in fact, social fascism, but I am pretty convinced that Prof Le Grand thinks he is actually being jolly fair and reasonable. He believes that the state should have the right to 'nudge' people into the 'correct' course of action. Nudge, you see, not force. All very reasonable......

So, in the highly unlikely event that Le Grand gets to read this blog post, allow me to demonstrate why I find his approach completely authoritarian, and thus morally repugnant, and why the term 'libertarian paternalism' is a particularly stupid oxymoron. I suggest we do this by going for a walk along Beachy Head, with the good Prof walking right alone the edge, outlining his 'libertarian paternalistic' principles. When he mentions one that I don't think will is good, I will simply 'nudge' him in the direction of the sea.

Ye gads....

In order to encourage people to save for their old age, one presumes...

For instance, someone earning £200,000 a year, who received a £6,000 pay rise, could be handed a tax bill of £24,000 – or four times the value of the pay rise.

...let the brain drain begin.

Mad as a Hatter award

This weeks complete loon has to be 'Paul' of the State Ethics blog. DK takes him to task here, but I am also grateful to the anonymous commentator who drew our attention to this post, where he advocates 'criminalising greed', along with some handy definitions, such as;

investment of more than € 10 000 in any fund or scheme, promising a rate of return of more than 3% above the European Central Bank borrowing rate

I really can't work out of this chap is just having a laugh or if he's serious. Either way, there is enough nonsense on the site to have a good giggle during your lunch break. But don't have more than one sandwich, will you? That would be greedy, and if Paul gets his way, 'illegal'.

Another victim of policy

Mark Wadsworth correctly points out ~ this woman would probably still be alive if MDMA wasn't a controlled substance. Prohibition of a substance doesn't lead to the elimination of the demand. It simply leads to more deaths due to black market product (as per USA, circa 1919 to 1933), & more criminality (ditto). Why can we not see this?

MDMA is a class A drug ~ there can be no higher penalty for possession or intent to supply. Yet millions of doses are taken each year. Deaths are minimal, certainly less than for alcohol on a unit by unit basis, and those that do occur are generally down to either contaminated product, or over heating of the individual, which itself is often compounded by a variable strength product.

Prohibition doesn't work. It will never work. It causes society billions of pounds in direct and indirect costs. It achieves nothing, and contributes to deaths. In short, it's completely daft.

It's high time we all grew up and had our own Twenty-first Amendment moment.

MP's expenses

One of the things I was taught at University was that it is virtually impossible to correct a system without understanding the cause of its failure. So here, we have a failed system ~ the method that we use to reimburse MP's for monies expended carrying out their duties has fallen in to such disrepute as to have lost widespread public confidence.

Gordon Brown's solution, to pay an attendance allowance, appears to be the worst possible idea. It fails to ask why this system failed, preferring instead to mask is on a blanket payment. MP's do indeed occur genuine out of pocket expenses which any employer would reimburse. If I need a laptop for my work, my employer either provides one, or I provide one and claim it on expenses. Ditto travel, ditto accommodation when working away from my usual work place. If I open a branch office, I am not expected to fund the rent on it, nor should an MP have to fund a constituency office.

So what went wrong, what was the root cause of the failure of the MP's expenses system? The answer to that is simple. MP's themselves.

Rather than look upon the system as a means of refunding genuine expenses, a significant number of them used it as a method of enriching their lives. I don't care if the Home Sectary's 2nd home allowance was 'within the rules' ~ it was clearly a method of receiving tax payers’ money. An honorable MP would recognise this and only make genuine claims, but as we have seen, while they will line up on the telly to condemn 'greedy bankers' pension schemes, they aren't so diligent when it comes to spending our money on themselves.

There has been some mutterings in the MSN about the good being tarred with the same brush as the bad. To which I say tough. Let us remember it wasn't an MP that forced the publication of these expenses, but campaigners from outside of parliament. 646 men and women of differing political views, and not a single whistle blower among them, happy to keep the truth away from their employers.

So whatever bodge Gordon Brown et al come up with, you can be sure of one thing ~ the root cause of the problem, corrupt and acquiescent MP's, will still be there, and the system will fail again.