According to England Expects, this is a definite possibility with this new opinion poll. The methodology is being brought into question, so the poll may be flawed, but it could be good news for all those who believe in stopping the rise of the EU's power.
From reports I've heard Ireland has been flooded with Europhile propaganda, all paid with by our money, and the No side has had very little coverage. This Europhile nonsense includes "the economy will suffer if you vote no" - the economy will suffer if you vote yes because Ireland will have to increase its corporation tax rate in the name of harmonisation. Seems they've thrown the equal coverage rule out of the window then.
With this, and Poland and the Czech Republic (where it has been referred to the Constitutional Court again - 6 month delay), it looks like it may be the British public, courtesy of David Cameron, who destroy the consti-treaty once and for all. Let's just hope he keeps his promise.
If, however, the Irish happen to vote yes, that conference will be quite tense.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Just completely wrong
The government is introducing proposals to blame all crashes on the larger vehicle. So it's the car's fault not the cyclist's, the cyclist's not the pedestrians.
All this goes against the whole idea of a fair hearing, if we assume the car must be at fault. What about the cyclists that pull out, the ones that pay no attention to red lights, that don't use junctions properly - is it really the driver's fault if they are breaking the rules of the road? It's all peculiar, and really should be left to courtrooms not politicians.
I also see a proposal on the report to introduce a blanket 20mph limit on residential streets. First of all what is a residential street (there are many that could be considered for this category, but could easily be 40mph streets) and why introduce a speed limit that will just be broken and is often unnecessary? It's for local councils to decide, not central government.
All this goes against the whole idea of a fair hearing, if we assume the car must be at fault. What about the cyclists that pull out, the ones that pay no attention to red lights, that don't use junctions properly - is it really the driver's fault if they are breaking the rules of the road? It's all peculiar, and really should be left to courtrooms not politicians.
I also see a proposal on the report to introduce a blanket 20mph limit on residential streets. First of all what is a residential street (there are many that could be considered for this category, but could easily be 40mph streets) and why introduce a speed limit that will just be broken and is often unnecessary? It's for local councils to decide, not central government.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Currency should be chosen by the market, not the UN
The UN's plans to create a new global supercurrency to replace the dollar are back in the news, this time with the reason given being anti-Americanism. From Fox:
If I'm willing to pay you in dollars, and you're willing to sell me something in exchange for dollars, so be it. If we are both willing to use pounds, euros, yen, blue tack or livestock in exchange for a product, why should government, or indeed a supranational body like the UN tell us we cannot use it? It's a means of exchange, not something that government needs to get involved in.
And perhaps if there was a bit of competition in currency, they wouldn't swing about so much, or lose their value so quickly. Hayek was probably right.
According to Flassbeck demand for the US dollar is “irrational.”Is it really? Are humans not naturally irrational? Isn't it more likely that one human (Flassbeck) is likely to be irrational than many who demand the dollar?
If I'm willing to pay you in dollars, and you're willing to sell me something in exchange for dollars, so be it. If we are both willing to use pounds, euros, yen, blue tack or livestock in exchange for a product, why should government, or indeed a supranational body like the UN tell us we cannot use it? It's a means of exchange, not something that government needs to get involved in.
And perhaps if there was a bit of competition in currency, they wouldn't swing about so much, or lose their value so quickly. Hayek was probably right.
Saturday, 29 August 2009
Postal workers on strike again
It seems that, at least in Newport, they are, and I haven't received any post this morning.
It's about time that the CWU was taught that they cannot hold the country to ransom. Mail levels are falling, therefore jobs will fall, simple. The Royal Mail is already incapable of handling demand - last week I had to wait 20 minutes to pick up a parcel, and there were 7 counters closed. I'm sure they have too many counters open when demand is low too.
All of this stems from poor management, which is what happens when you put government in charge of absolutely anything. Royal Mail does not respond to demand, customer needs, or lack of government money. It's about time it was privatised to provide it with better management and demand responsiveness.
The argument that it is somehow necessary to have a government-run postal service is diminished by the advent of internet communications (note: provided by the market). The market would provide postal and courier services much more efficiently due to competition, with customers able to take their money and post elsewhere if, for example, something was lost in the post. It should also keep prices low.
So what if none of the private couriers will deliver government postage, the left cries? Is buying a few vans and using them too simple a solution for bureaucrats? Same response for the national security argument. Then of course the jobs argument, the main reason the CWU are striking, and it's one word - efficiency - the preserve of the free market.
It's about time that the CWU was taught that they cannot hold the country to ransom. Mail levels are falling, therefore jobs will fall, simple. The Royal Mail is already incapable of handling demand - last week I had to wait 20 minutes to pick up a parcel, and there were 7 counters closed. I'm sure they have too many counters open when demand is low too.
All of this stems from poor management, which is what happens when you put government in charge of absolutely anything. Royal Mail does not respond to demand, customer needs, or lack of government money. It's about time it was privatised to provide it with better management and demand responsiveness.
The argument that it is somehow necessary to have a government-run postal service is diminished by the advent of internet communications (note: provided by the market). The market would provide postal and courier services much more efficiently due to competition, with customers able to take their money and post elsewhere if, for example, something was lost in the post. It should also keep prices low.
So what if none of the private couriers will deliver government postage, the left cries? Is buying a few vans and using them too simple a solution for bureaucrats? Same response for the national security argument. Then of course the jobs argument, the main reason the CWU are striking, and it's one word - efficiency - the preserve of the free market.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
How does she get away with this?
Harriet Harman is back on her feminazi soapbox today.
She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.She'd have a go at me if I said "women cannot be left to run things on their own". It seems this "equality" drive is now a drive for domination and blatant sexism left unchecked. If men are better for the job, so be it. If women are better, they get the job. Simple as that - merit. Trying to put women into roles just for the sake of balancing the sexes is pretty much saying that since women aren't good enough to take the job against men, they have to be given special treatment, and I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few women found that quite insulting.
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Placing lives at risk
Once again the EU tries to impose their continental employment model on us by further breaching freedom of contract - a 48 hour week for junior doctors.
This is a vital stage in their careers, and at this rate training will have to be prolonged, hence increases in debt and so on. It also means that potentially there will be less doctors to treat patients, as my title says placing lives at risk and further increasing waiting lists. You then get the BNP etc complaining at the increase in foreign doctors in our hospitals.
But nothing more than this is the breach of the freedom of contract; the dynamic labour market based on supply and demand - doctors generally accept they'll have to work antisocial hours, and by devoting their lives to this career they accept that. So why stop them earning all the money they are willing to earn? This sort of regulation distorts the labour market.
I also thought we'd saved our opt-out from the 48-hour week. It's about time we left the EU and left continental Europe to rue becoming uncompetitive while Britain controls its own affairs and does well based on old Anglo-Saxon free market principles. It's ever so simple.
This is a vital stage in their careers, and at this rate training will have to be prolonged, hence increases in debt and so on. It also means that potentially there will be less doctors to treat patients, as my title says placing lives at risk and further increasing waiting lists. You then get the BNP etc complaining at the increase in foreign doctors in our hospitals.
But nothing more than this is the breach of the freedom of contract; the dynamic labour market based on supply and demand - doctors generally accept they'll have to work antisocial hours, and by devoting their lives to this career they accept that. So why stop them earning all the money they are willing to earn? This sort of regulation distorts the labour market.
I also thought we'd saved our opt-out from the 48-hour week. It's about time we left the EU and left continental Europe to rue becoming uncompetitive while Britain controls its own affairs and does well based on old Anglo-Saxon free market principles. It's ever so simple.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
(By) election day
So all eyes on Norwich North later today as they decide who will replace Ian Gibson who resigned after he was deselected. The polls are suggesting a good win for the Conservative candidate Chloe Smith, but I think it'll be close and interesting - a good marker will be the turnout.
I'm not expecting minority parties to do too well, but I'm interested to see how well they do.
I'm not expecting minority parties to do too well, but I'm interested to see how well they do.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
The House of Lords and constitutional reform
So while we are in the worst recession in living memory, the government attempts to create a distraction by going for some populist and traditional-voter-appeasing policies - Lords reform - removing the remaining hereditary peers.
The hereditary peers should never have been removed in the first place - they provided a good check on illiberal policies and the executive, something seriously lacking since Blair's gerrymandering of the late 90s. Now they have been shown to be the least sleazy - the bad Lords are generally appointed Labour lords.
The problem here is that the Lords has become a glorified quango - a means of elected dictatorship, a bit of window dressing. There's no accountability when the people you are meant to hold to account appoint you!
However I don't see the hereditary peers returning, so we have to look one way - to democracy. I don't want to see a carbon copy of the Commons. The Lords has to be a chamber of experts and local politicians - I'd like to see elected mayors sitting in the Lords, as well as other elected "experts" - although how an "expert" is determined for election is difficult, since you have the regulating the regulator problem.
It really is an open-ended question, but whatever happens, it must be more accountable. At least there's one good speck in this bill - the ban on protests outside Parliament that have been affront to British liberty for too long would be ended. However it's just a small part of the bill, and not one everything else should rest on.
Britain constitutionally needs a renegotiation of the EU arrangement and a localist agenda to devolve power as locally as possible, with each budget-setting authority raising its own funds. This is more important than the issue of the Lords.
The hereditary peers should never have been removed in the first place - they provided a good check on illiberal policies and the executive, something seriously lacking since Blair's gerrymandering of the late 90s. Now they have been shown to be the least sleazy - the bad Lords are generally appointed Labour lords.
The problem here is that the Lords has become a glorified quango - a means of elected dictatorship, a bit of window dressing. There's no accountability when the people you are meant to hold to account appoint you!
However I don't see the hereditary peers returning, so we have to look one way - to democracy. I don't want to see a carbon copy of the Commons. The Lords has to be a chamber of experts and local politicians - I'd like to see elected mayors sitting in the Lords, as well as other elected "experts" - although how an "expert" is determined for election is difficult, since you have the regulating the regulator problem.
It really is an open-ended question, but whatever happens, it must be more accountable. At least there's one good speck in this bill - the ban on protests outside Parliament that have been affront to British liberty for too long would be ended. However it's just a small part of the bill, and not one everything else should rest on.
Britain constitutionally needs a renegotiation of the EU arrangement and a localist agenda to devolve power as locally as possible, with each budget-setting authority raising its own funds. This is more important than the issue of the Lords.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Blocking Andreason is a disgrace
Marta Andreason, the former EU chief accountant (and whistleblower) turned UKIP MEP has been blocked from becoming the Vice President of the Budgetary Committee by EPP and PES MEPs who fear "scandal". Or more to the point, they fear the horrific budget being exposed by Andreason (again) and have taken to political, unaccountable means (secret ballot) to do so.
Andreason, regardless of political affiliation, is the perfect candidate for the role - she has experience and knows about, well, accounting and budgetary. She would also take the role of a committee vice president properly, holding the executive to account, the whole point of a committee. The EPP and PES, being Europhile nonsensists, want to further the EU integration and federalisation, so naturally oppose the Commission being shown up for what it is - an utterly hopeless organisation. They are also enemies of accountability - they blocked her on political lines, not meritocratic lines - a real disgrace to democracy, which again is seriously lacking in the EU, even its supposedly democratic chamber.
Andreason, regardless of political affiliation, is the perfect candidate for the role - she has experience and knows about, well, accounting and budgetary. She would also take the role of a committee vice president properly, holding the executive to account, the whole point of a committee. The EPP and PES, being Europhile nonsensists, want to further the EU integration and federalisation, so naturally oppose the Commission being shown up for what it is - an utterly hopeless organisation. They are also enemies of accountability - they blocked her on political lines, not meritocratic lines - a real disgrace to democracy, which again is seriously lacking in the EU, even its supposedly democratic chamber.
Banking regulation
First of all, I apologise for not posting in a while - although exams are over, life has been hectic.
David Cameron hits the right notes with the briefing for his speech on regulatory reform. Having already been told by Osborne that the FSA would be scrapped, we have an idea of how banks would be regulated.
It makes sense for the central bank to regulate - it knows how much banks are borrowing, knows what the economy is doing, and so on - after all it has to set interest rates every month. Not only this, but we are told that the Bank of England warned the FSA about the risks taken, but the FSA took no action - incompetence.
Breaking up RBS/HBOS is a welcome step too - no bank should become too big to fail, and no bank should be bailed out by the government - the economy is better off without bad banks.
However the MPC especially has to look at the prime cause of the financial crash - keeping interest rates too low for too long and encouraging over-borrowing. The only viable solution would be to allow the market to set interest rates, since it is more efficient than nine central bankers. That way, as demand for borrowing increases, interest rates are raised by banks to get a greater return and to encourage saving to build up a capital base; in the same way interest rates will fall if banks want to encourage borrowing. I know it isn't a perfect theory, but should be more efficient than the current macroeconomic consensus we have today.
David Cameron hits the right notes with the briefing for his speech on regulatory reform. Having already been told by Osborne that the FSA would be scrapped, we have an idea of how banks would be regulated.
It makes sense for the central bank to regulate - it knows how much banks are borrowing, knows what the economy is doing, and so on - after all it has to set interest rates every month. Not only this, but we are told that the Bank of England warned the FSA about the risks taken, but the FSA took no action - incompetence.
Breaking up RBS/HBOS is a welcome step too - no bank should become too big to fail, and no bank should be bailed out by the government - the economy is better off without bad banks.
However the MPC especially has to look at the prime cause of the financial crash - keeping interest rates too low for too long and encouraging over-borrowing. The only viable solution would be to allow the market to set interest rates, since it is more efficient than nine central bankers. That way, as demand for borrowing increases, interest rates are raised by banks to get a greater return and to encourage saving to build up a capital base; in the same way interest rates will fall if banks want to encourage borrowing. I know it isn't a perfect theory, but should be more efficient than the current macroeconomic consensus we have today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
