As a connoisseur of bad films, I give you this -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086508/
Among other silly stereotypes, the character "Blaster" stands out to me. Strangely, he is the demolition/boobytrap expert. His particular speciality is arranging an ambush of boobytraps designed so that the survivors of one explosion charge straight into the next one and so on. Inevitably, in the course of the film he breaks his own record for how many "jumps" he inflicts on the infinitely expendable bad guys....
Recently, Blair & Co finally admitted that the prisons are full and that they are instructing judges and magistrates to cut back on custodial sentences. Setting aside the fact that this is an injustice - surely the just sentence for a crime is not determined by prison spaces? - what will happen next?
1) Someone who would have gone to prison under the old rules will commit a horrific crime.
2) It will be denied that this happened because of the change in rules.
3) No one will resign - at least at first.
4) The rules will be re-imposed
5) Prison overcrowding will get worse.
6) Some one will get killed by a prison riot/disturbance. Alternatively there will be escapes from custody due to holding prisoners in improvised accommodation.
7) Prisoners will sue and get large awards for poor treatment and inadequate accommodation.
8) The rules on sentencing will be quietly reversed again.
This is this is the "Blaster" effect - if all you know is how to react to the latest headline, your policies will move in a circle.....
Sunday 22 April 2007
Friday 13 April 2007
What are the BNP?
The BNP are Left Nazis - Nazis because they are fascists combined with hardcore racism, and *Left* because of the economic policies the espouse.
The debate on the BNP is often confused by the fact that what is right and left wing has changed since Fascism rose. Free market economics were traditionally associated with the 19th century liberals, and fell out of fashion for a long time - the Great Depression and the apparent success of War Socialism in the two world wars cast a long shadow.
Fascism always has advocated socialistic economic policies - certainly to the left of mainstream economics as advocated by all the major parties the UK today. This has largely been obscured in debate by the insistence on the Left that fascism is entirely right-wing.
The BNP appeals to the working class as "the Labour Party of your fathers" - their policies are protectionist, nationalising and include total control by the government of the means of production. To the traditional right, they offer conservative social policies - talking up traditional values and the family. It should be noted that those on the right who head in their direction are those who have never accepted the value of the free-market - their position is that it undermines the country.
It is because of the dual appeal to left and right (ex-communists are common in fascism) that some have said that politics is a circle - go far enough to the left or right, and you end up with fascism...
The debate on the BNP is often confused by the fact that what is right and left wing has changed since Fascism rose. Free market economics were traditionally associated with the 19th century liberals, and fell out of fashion for a long time - the Great Depression and the apparent success of War Socialism in the two world wars cast a long shadow.
Fascism always has advocated socialistic economic policies - certainly to the left of mainstream economics as advocated by all the major parties the UK today. This has largely been obscured in debate by the insistence on the Left that fascism is entirely right-wing.
The BNP appeals to the working class as "the Labour Party of your fathers" - their policies are protectionist, nationalising and include total control by the government of the means of production. To the traditional right, they offer conservative social policies - talking up traditional values and the family. It should be noted that those on the right who head in their direction are those who have never accepted the value of the free-market - their position is that it undermines the country.
It is because of the dual appeal to left and right (ex-communists are common in fascism) that some have said that politics is a circle - go far enough to the left or right, and you end up with fascism...
Tuesday 10 April 2007
I see that others have an interest in the past. I was thinking today of John Moyse
Those that comment that the British sailors and marines should have followed his example are wrong. Moyes would have known that he faced being killed anyway - his situation was similar to that of Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Some thought should be given to the fact that the servicemen and women involved in this incident either were not given interogation training, or it was not effective. Stripping captives of their clothes, pretending that everyone else has been released and even building coffins and gallows next door are all old tricks. Indeed, they date back before the Napoleonic wars... My suspicion is that they had not received the training.
Perhaps a question in Parliment might be appropriate?
Those that comment that the British sailors and marines should have followed his example are wrong. Moyes would have known that he faced being killed anyway - his situation was similar to that of Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Some thought should be given to the fact that the servicemen and women involved in this incident either were not given interogation training, or it was not effective. Stripping captives of their clothes, pretending that everyone else has been released and even building coffins and gallows next door are all old tricks. Indeed, they date back before the Napoleonic wars... My suspicion is that they had not received the training.
Perhaps a question in Parliment might be appropriate?
Saturday 7 April 2007
Ahmadinejad & War Crimes
By appearing on TV with the captured British Servicemen, Ahmadinejad has broken Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention. It would be an open and shut case if taken to court. No issues of command resposibility or anything - he personally took part.
Anyone care to defend him?
Anyone care to defend him?
Tuesday 3 April 2007
Old Labour - Old Prejudices
Traditionally, Labour party memebers dislike the small business man. His workers are unlikely to be unionised. He is likely to be a Conservative. He is often that most terrible of sinners - a working class man trying to move up in the world. Under this government, the small business man is taking a hammering - the weight of regulations crushes small businesses, while inconveniencing the large....
A vague belef that fox hunting is something to do with Thatcher(!?) In fact the fox hunting Tories came from the aristocratic, wet, anti-Thatcher end of the party - Macmillan spoke for them when he described privatisation as "selling the family silver". No matter - as revenge for the miners, ban fox hunting.....
Talking about immigration is racist - so, ignore the entire topic..... Leaving it to the BNP, and Abu Hamza.
A belief that GPs and hospital consultants are lazy and more interested in private clients - introduce a contract system to force them to declare the hours they actually work. There's a reason that hospital consultants like Friday afternoon off - two actually. One, it is the calm before the storm - Friday and Saturday nights are busy. Two, by Friday, they have often worked 45 hours.... 12 hour days are standard. So, strangely enough their pay packets soared when they logged their true hours....
People with private pensions were considered as kin to those with private health insurance - dodging the system. No matter that many were as working class as you can get - tax the dividends that feed their pensions.
The military are traditionally suspect - an urban legend about shooting miners on strike seems to be at the root of this. So cut and cut again from the military budget.
Old Labour does seem to be getting a hearing under this government.
A vague belef that fox hunting is something to do with Thatcher(!?) In fact the fox hunting Tories came from the aristocratic, wet, anti-Thatcher end of the party - Macmillan spoke for them when he described privatisation as "selling the family silver". No matter - as revenge for the miners, ban fox hunting.....
Talking about immigration is racist - so, ignore the entire topic..... Leaving it to the BNP, and Abu Hamza.
A belief that GPs and hospital consultants are lazy and more interested in private clients - introduce a contract system to force them to declare the hours they actually work. There's a reason that hospital consultants like Friday afternoon off - two actually. One, it is the calm before the storm - Friday and Saturday nights are busy. Two, by Friday, they have often worked 45 hours.... 12 hour days are standard. So, strangely enough their pay packets soared when they logged their true hours....
People with private pensions were considered as kin to those with private health insurance - dodging the system. No matter that many were as working class as you can get - tax the dividends that feed their pensions.
The military are traditionally suspect - an urban legend about shooting miners on strike seems to be at the root of this. So cut and cut again from the military budget.
Old Labour does seem to be getting a hearing under this government.
Monday 2 April 2007
The Killing Tradition
With the Falklands War anniversary, thoughts go back to the Belgrano.
The fact that is nearly always missed is that it was the Navy who insisted that the ship must be sunk and permission was only given after a lengthy debate by the War Cabinet.
To understand this, you need to understand the Royal Navy. It is an organisation steeped in tradition. Court martials are stilled held in the Great Cabin of HMS Victory. It is an institution with a collective memory measured in hundreds of years.
In 1914, Admiral Troubridge was court martialed for failing to stop the fleeing Goeben. Though acquitted, he was completely shunned by the Navy for the rest of his life. He was given the most out of the way postings possible. Others officers would make excuses not to eat at the same table. What made this worse was that he bore the name and was a descendant of one of Nelson's "Band of Brothers".
Later that year, Admiral Cradock buried his medals in the garden of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. He sailed out to attack a superior German force - to nearly certain defeat. He stated that he was motivated, in part, by Troubridge's infamy. His aim was to try and slow down or cripple the Germans. He failed.
In December 1914 the RN got a measure of revenge at the Battle of the Falkland Isles. Admiral Graf Spee was attempting to capture the Falkland Islands - some speculate that the German plan was to turn them over to Argentina and lease them as a base.... As he bore down on Port Stanley harbour, the British fleet emerged. Two battlecruisers in the lead, they methodically chased his ships down and sank virtually all of them. None surrendered - though it was an utterly hopeless fight. One escaped - the Dresden. Wilhelm Canaris, then a Lieutenant, escaped with one of her flags....
In 1939 the pocket battleship Graf Spee (named after the ill fated German Admiral of the first war) was chased into Montevideo harbour by a force of British cruisers led by Henry Harwood. For this action, Admiral Cunningham personally congratulated him on wiping away the shame of the escape of the Goeben in 1914.
The Graf Spee was scuttled and her captain shot himself. Draped in his room was the flag from the Dresden - the last relic of Von Spee. He did so because British Intelligence had convinced him, via rumours that a British battlecruiser was waiting for him - his ship would suffer the fate of Von Spee's and his entire crew would die. He could not surrender and dishonour the greatest German naval hero....
So, in 1982... as a British Admiral, do you "forbear to chase .... being an enemy...." - the dread words of the Troubridge court martial. Do you remember Cradock in his tomb in the deeps? Do you remember Harwood ordering his ships, already badly damaged, to turn towards the Graf Spee? Do you remember the words of Cunningham - "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition"? What would Capt. Fegan have said?
The fact that is nearly always missed is that it was the Navy who insisted that the ship must be sunk and permission was only given after a lengthy debate by the War Cabinet.
To understand this, you need to understand the Royal Navy. It is an organisation steeped in tradition. Court martials are stilled held in the Great Cabin of HMS Victory. It is an institution with a collective memory measured in hundreds of years.
In 1914, Admiral Troubridge was court martialed for failing to stop the fleeing Goeben. Though acquitted, he was completely shunned by the Navy for the rest of his life. He was given the most out of the way postings possible. Others officers would make excuses not to eat at the same table. What made this worse was that he bore the name and was a descendant of one of Nelson's "Band of Brothers".
Later that year, Admiral Cradock buried his medals in the garden of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. He sailed out to attack a superior German force - to nearly certain defeat. He stated that he was motivated, in part, by Troubridge's infamy. His aim was to try and slow down or cripple the Germans. He failed.
In December 1914 the RN got a measure of revenge at the Battle of the Falkland Isles. Admiral Graf Spee was attempting to capture the Falkland Islands - some speculate that the German plan was to turn them over to Argentina and lease them as a base.... As he bore down on Port Stanley harbour, the British fleet emerged. Two battlecruisers in the lead, they methodically chased his ships down and sank virtually all of them. None surrendered - though it was an utterly hopeless fight. One escaped - the Dresden. Wilhelm Canaris, then a Lieutenant, escaped with one of her flags....
In 1939 the pocket battleship Graf Spee (named after the ill fated German Admiral of the first war) was chased into Montevideo harbour by a force of British cruisers led by Henry Harwood. For this action, Admiral Cunningham personally congratulated him on wiping away the shame of the escape of the Goeben in 1914.
The Graf Spee was scuttled and her captain shot himself. Draped in his room was the flag from the Dresden - the last relic of Von Spee. He did so because British Intelligence had convinced him, via rumours that a British battlecruiser was waiting for him - his ship would suffer the fate of Von Spee's and his entire crew would die. He could not surrender and dishonour the greatest German naval hero....
So, in 1982... as a British Admiral, do you "forbear to chase .... being an enemy...." - the dread words of the Troubridge court martial. Do you remember Cradock in his tomb in the deeps? Do you remember Harwood ordering his ships, already badly damaged, to turn towards the Graf Spee? Do you remember the words of Cunningham - "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition"? What would Capt. Fegan have said?
Wednesday 21 March 2007
The War On Oil
The grow consensus is that a replacement for oil must be found rapidly. What unintended side effects will this have?
The United States spends 45 Billion dollars a year on oil (roughly). It it, however, a trillion dollar economy. The US spends 4.5% of its GDP on oil, in other words. By contrast, 98% of the GDP of Saudi Arabia is from exporting oil. Similar figures are recorded against most of the worlds major petroleum producers (though perhaps not quite as extreme). The reason for this is a largely Dutch Disease. It is simply too tempting to spend the money. The oil producing nations are absolutely dependent on oil. We in the West merely find it convenient to buy it.
What will happen when we start to move to non-fossil fuel sources? Carbon taxes/credits will make oil more expensive to us, the consumers. We will begin to switch. At first, the growth in non-fossil fuels will be less than the growth in oil usage - there will be a mild effect on the oil price. As the transition starts to bite, there will be a sudden constriction in the market for oil.
Oil is priced in a strange way. Unlike almost any other commodity in the modern world, it's price is supported by an elaborate cartel. Perhaps only diamonds are so artificially supported. When oil substitutes get to 10% of the market (say - it could be less), the oil price will crash to production prices. Today that would be $25 dollars or so, from a market price of $61.
The effect of this will be suddenly to turn oil from a cash machine to a low/zero margin industry - there will be little or no profit. No more easy billions. OPEC could try to curtail production. But in the face of impoverishment, the oil producing countries will probably cheat.
Nearly all the producers have saved nothing. Many have over spent. The prime exception to this is Norway. The sudden ending of oil profits will send these nations over a cliff. They will not be able to feed their populations, or even give them drinking water in the case of Saudi Arabia. How will they respond?
The United States spends 45 Billion dollars a year on oil (roughly). It it, however, a trillion dollar economy. The US spends 4.5% of its GDP on oil, in other words. By contrast, 98% of the GDP of Saudi Arabia is from exporting oil. Similar figures are recorded against most of the worlds major petroleum producers (though perhaps not quite as extreme). The reason for this is a largely Dutch Disease. It is simply too tempting to spend the money. The oil producing nations are absolutely dependent on oil. We in the West merely find it convenient to buy it.
What will happen when we start to move to non-fossil fuel sources? Carbon taxes/credits will make oil more expensive to us, the consumers. We will begin to switch. At first, the growth in non-fossil fuels will be less than the growth in oil usage - there will be a mild effect on the oil price. As the transition starts to bite, there will be a sudden constriction in the market for oil.
Oil is priced in a strange way. Unlike almost any other commodity in the modern world, it's price is supported by an elaborate cartel. Perhaps only diamonds are so artificially supported. When oil substitutes get to 10% of the market (say - it could be less), the oil price will crash to production prices. Today that would be $25 dollars or so, from a market price of $61.
The effect of this will be suddenly to turn oil from a cash machine to a low/zero margin industry - there will be little or no profit. No more easy billions. OPEC could try to curtail production. But in the face of impoverishment, the oil producing countries will probably cheat.
Nearly all the producers have saved nothing. Many have over spent. The prime exception to this is Norway. The sudden ending of oil profits will send these nations over a cliff. They will not be able to feed their populations, or even give them drinking water in the case of Saudi Arabia. How will they respond?
Friday 16 March 2007
Missile Defence and the media
One thing that I have always wondered about is the inability of major media (A.K.A MSM) to delve into the technical background to their stories with any skill.
Recently, Russia reacted very strongly to suggestions that the US would deploy part of its planned missile defense system in Europe - specifically Poland and the Czech republic. Various stories followed in the press and on TV about this threat.
The first thing to note about this story is that missiles based in Europe are not able to intercept Russian ICBMs unless they are fired at South America. This is because all sub-orbital and orbital vehicles follow Great Circle routes. To divert them from this would take enormous amounts of energy. This means that while small deviations of 100 miles or so are possible, big changes would require missiles far larger than anything that is practical to build. It would rapidly reduce to zero the payload capacity of existing weapons.
So, the path taken by Russian missiles from their silos to a given target is very predictable. All we need to see it is a Great Circle route maker.....
Russia to the US -
Russia to Brazil
Only if the Russians attack Brazil will their missiles pass near enough to Eastern Europe for the suggested American weapons to have a chance to hit them. If fired at the US, they go over the North Pole. Ironically, if the Russians attacked the sites in eastern Europe, it would mean that the missile defense system would have a chnace to hit them.
Why are they so upset then? Partly because those at the top of the Russian military probably aren't that technical, but mostly because this is a reminder that their colonial empire in Eastern Europe is gone.
Or did a Russian general have a very very bad experience at Carnival?
Recently, Russia reacted very strongly to suggestions that the US would deploy part of its planned missile defense system in Europe - specifically Poland and the Czech republic. Various stories followed in the press and on TV about this threat.
The first thing to note about this story is that missiles based in Europe are not able to intercept Russian ICBMs unless they are fired at South America. This is because all sub-orbital and orbital vehicles follow Great Circle routes. To divert them from this would take enormous amounts of energy. This means that while small deviations of 100 miles or so are possible, big changes would require missiles far larger than anything that is practical to build. It would rapidly reduce to zero the payload capacity of existing weapons.
So, the path taken by Russian missiles from their silos to a given target is very predictable. All we need to see it is a Great Circle route maker.....
Russia to the US -
Russia to Brazil
Only if the Russians attack Brazil will their missiles pass near enough to Eastern Europe for the suggested American weapons to have a chance to hit them. If fired at the US, they go over the North Pole. Ironically, if the Russians attacked the sites in eastern Europe, it would mean that the missile defense system would have a chnace to hit them.
Why are they so upset then? Partly because those at the top of the Russian military probably aren't that technical, but mostly because this is a reminder that their colonial empire in Eastern Europe is gone.
Or did a Russian general have a very very bad experience at Carnival?
The usual comedy
How to fix a problem the wrong way. Despite all the usual protestations, university entrance will be "normed".
In the US, this led to interesting effects. Chinese and Jewish students were declared not to be minorities. Apparently, a real minority is unsuccessful as a group. They even went so far as to put caps on how many could go to certain universities.... For those with a sense of history this was particularly nasty, since one of the first breakthroughs for civil rights in the US was the removing of the quotas (limits) on the number of Jewish students at various universities.
So are we going to have the same stupidity here? The argument is that not enough working class children are going to university. What is actually happening? The evidence is interesting - equally qualified candidates to Oxford and Cambridge, for example, have an equal probability of getting the place. But why is it that half the places go to the private/grammar school entrants?
The simple problem is that many of those from the state sector who do have 4 or 5 As at A grade do not apply to top Universities. That is, they do not put them down on the form. There is no cost associated with requesting them. The form is simply filled in by the pupil/teacher/parents and posted to the general administration service. I repeat, they are not even applying. So, it cannot be reactionary snobs in the universities turning them down.
I have personal and hence anecdotal evidence of what happens - a friend at UCL who had 4 A Levels at A didn't apply to Oxbridge because "They wouldn't take me - I'm not posh". This had been the advice of her teacher. She had not, herself, ever been near either place.....
The old Soviet Union tried the game of giving university places preferentially to the children of "workers". So of course the truly powerful got round this, and it was those in the middle who got the short end of the stick. Interestingly, this was the cause of several defections by mid ranking KGB officers....
Lastly, selecting on class will probably be illegal - A Human Rights lawyer would have a field day, arguing that since a child has no choice in parents or indeed schooling before 16, penalising them for their background would be unjust. Cherie Blair is quite rich enough. How about a campaign to get State school pupils with the requisite grades to sign up for Oxbridge/Russel Group Universities?
In the US, this led to interesting effects. Chinese and Jewish students were declared not to be minorities. Apparently, a real minority is unsuccessful as a group. They even went so far as to put caps on how many could go to certain universities.... For those with a sense of history this was particularly nasty, since one of the first breakthroughs for civil rights in the US was the removing of the quotas (limits) on the number of Jewish students at various universities.
So are we going to have the same stupidity here? The argument is that not enough working class children are going to university. What is actually happening? The evidence is interesting - equally qualified candidates to Oxford and Cambridge, for example, have an equal probability of getting the place. But why is it that half the places go to the private/grammar school entrants?
The simple problem is that many of those from the state sector who do have 4 or 5 As at A grade do not apply to top Universities. That is, they do not put them down on the form. There is no cost associated with requesting them. The form is simply filled in by the pupil/teacher/parents and posted to the general administration service. I repeat, they are not even applying. So, it cannot be reactionary snobs in the universities turning them down.
I have personal and hence anecdotal evidence of what happens - a friend at UCL who had 4 A Levels at A didn't apply to Oxbridge because "They wouldn't take me - I'm not posh". This had been the advice of her teacher. She had not, herself, ever been near either place.....
The old Soviet Union tried the game of giving university places preferentially to the children of "workers". So of course the truly powerful got round this, and it was those in the middle who got the short end of the stick. Interestingly, this was the cause of several defections by mid ranking KGB officers....
Lastly, selecting on class will probably be illegal - A Human Rights lawyer would have a field day, arguing that since a child has no choice in parents or indeed schooling before 16, penalising them for their background would be unjust. Cherie Blair is quite rich enough. How about a campaign to get State school pupils with the requisite grades to sign up for Oxbridge/Russel Group Universities?
Thursday 15 March 2007
Trident & The US/UK nuclear relationship
Many wild statements have been made regarding Trident replacement and the nuclear relationship between the US and the UK. Some genuine history might be a good idea.
Following the end of the Second World War, the US congress passed a law prohibiting the sharing of nuclear technology with anyone. This cut the connection with the UK. The UK contribution to the Manhattan project was a mostly a number of scientists - most of the personnel and money was American. The most significant non-US contribution came from émigré scientists who chose to go to the US from Nazi occupied Europe.
In fact the McMahon Act was based on a misunderstanding - the Manhattan project had been held so secretly that Vice President Truman hadn't been told, let alone Congress. When Roosevelt died, there was a degree of confusion. This was not helped by the security paranoia of Leslie Groves, the man in charge of the project. Mind you, his paranoia was justified - thanks to the stupidity of British civil servants Klaus Fuchs had been given clearance to work on the project.
In the immediate aftermath of the act, it was realized a mistake had been made. In fact cooperation restarted almost immediately. British observers at the subsequent US tests were allowed to install their own measuring equipment, for instance.
The French withdrawal from NATO was partly caused by this culture of secrecy. It was also in part due to French anger at what they regarded as the unfair attributed towards the UK - contrary to popular belief, the UK built its first atomic weapons using design information from the Manhattan project.
After the breach with the French, the US revised its policy and essentially re-wrote it with a special exemption for the UK. From then on, UK scientists worked in the US. They were not sharing data, but doing joint design. You could say the current US arsenal is 90% US designed and 10% UK. The UK builds its own weapons at Aldermaston to these same designs. This infuriated the French even more - since they were now specifically excluded. There are no “black” nuclear programs in the US, incidentally. After 1947 Congress took firm control of development and deployment of nukes and has not relinquished it – breaking it would be a very good way to end up in jail.
Much has been written on the Skybolt cancellation - the simple truth is that the US cancelled an expensive, obsolete, fragile system and offered the UK (a minor partner in the project) the Polaris system instead. This was the equivalent so telling someone you don’t want to sell them
an MG Roadster, but offering them a Ferrari instead. Polaris was the crown jewel of the American arsenal, decades ahead of everything else. The French were, again, very upset. Incidentally, British nuclear subs got their start when the Americans pretty much gave us their reactor design. The first UK sub, HMS Dreadnought was half US made.
When the decision replace Polaris was made, variousoptions were considered. The French were, in fact, contacted. The problem was that their system was obsolete as well, and required an expensive replacement. The French wanted to keep all the actual work in France, but get Britain to fund half the project. They also wanted all the warhead design information that the Americans had shared with the UK. Not surprisingly the talks foundered very rapidly – they were asking us to pay more for a system that was less capable, and give them information that we had promised not to pass on to third parties.
A great deal of what has been written about UK Trident is based around argument from personal incredulity. Many people simply can’t accept that there is no US control over the missiles and their targeting. The simple fact is that one of these boats can go to sea for 6 months – in that time there is no need for external contact. The only way that the US could influence their usage would be to withdraw the maintenance cycle for the missiles. Assuming that nothing was done, this would mean that Trident would be out of service about 18 months to 2 years after this happened – the missiles are “canned”, sealed in their tubes with no need for maintenance. They would be operational until their service life expired and they required overhaul. And, of course they could refuse to give us reloads, if we start a nuclear war they
objected to.
It is worth noting that during the early sixties, US nuclear weapons were being carried on German (among others) aircraft. Fighter-bombers would sit on German airbases with German crews, with the bombs attached. A couple of US guards preserved the 2 man rule. There are a number of stories regarding the fact that a couple of the German pilots had tin ties….. The truth is that in the area of nuclear policy, the US has pursued a remarkably un-paranoid policy with regard to its allies since the late 50s. Quite simply they had no objection to NATO members having weapons, or a considerable level of access to US ones.
Wednesday 14 March 2007
$250 a barrel oil
Oil costs $61 dollars a barrel (Brent Crude).... However, in the UK, the government takes 80% of the sale price of petrol/diesel in tax. A tax rate of 400%. The effective price of oil is thus $250 dollars a barrel.
Peak Oil advocates believe that the world will lapse into chaos at that price - oh well, on to the next prophecy of doom.
There is a general agreement that we should move away from fossil fuel. Why do we use it? Well, fossil fuel is the cheapest fuel available. All the other options cost more. It isn't a conspiracy by Big Oil.
However the difference is much less than the tax on fuel. If we switch, the government is faced with a simple and very unpleasant choice. Either lose reveue or try and persuade people that fuel prices should be even higher. The Fuel Crisis tells us that the second option would be impossible.
The first option has a high political cost - people are used to the extortionate fuel taxes. Shifting the tax elsewhere would be very visible. 2p on income tax, anyone?
I suspect that part of the reason behind the road pricing scheme is to shift the tax take from the fuel to the vehicle. What Chancellor wants to be the one who puts a 400% tax on hydrogen & made motoring yet more expensive. A gradual ramp up of road pricing would be a neat way to keep their hands in your pockets.
The government is addicted to Oil. Not us, not even the Oil companies (who are merrily moving to the post Oil age).
This is pertinent in light of the plans of all the major parties to introduced environmental taxes. Taxes do not merely discourage behaviour - their purpose is always raising revenue. A tax on CO2 emissions will make the government dependent on CO2 being emitted....
Peak Oil advocates believe that the world will lapse into chaos at that price - oh well, on to the next prophecy of doom.
There is a general agreement that we should move away from fossil fuel. Why do we use it? Well, fossil fuel is the cheapest fuel available. All the other options cost more. It isn't a conspiracy by Big Oil.
However the difference is much less than the tax on fuel. If we switch, the government is faced with a simple and very unpleasant choice. Either lose reveue or try and persuade people that fuel prices should be even higher. The Fuel Crisis tells us that the second option would be impossible.
The first option has a high political cost - people are used to the extortionate fuel taxes. Shifting the tax elsewhere would be very visible. 2p on income tax, anyone?
I suspect that part of the reason behind the road pricing scheme is to shift the tax take from the fuel to the vehicle. What Chancellor wants to be the one who puts a 400% tax on hydrogen & made motoring yet more expensive. A gradual ramp up of road pricing would be a neat way to keep their hands in your pockets.
The government is addicted to Oil. Not us, not even the Oil companies (who are merrily moving to the post Oil age).
This is pertinent in light of the plans of all the major parties to introduced environmental taxes. Taxes do not merely discourage behaviour - their purpose is always raising revenue. A tax on CO2 emissions will make the government dependent on CO2 being emitted....
Tuesday 13 March 2007
Loans For Lordships - a question
When the Community Charge (popularly known as the Poll Tax) was before the Lords, Gerald Kaufman stated on BBC Radio 4 that the Lords would be dealt with if they didn't vote against it.
Despite this threat the Lords passed the bill. The reason for this was that the Community Charge was considered a money bill - voting it down would have re-started the 1911 war between the Commons and the Lords. Many peers voted it through or abstained despite their dislike of the measure itself.
Lords reform duly became (again) a part of the manifesto. Within 2 years of the election of the current government, the first stage of the process was complete - only 92 hereditary peers remained. Then things stopped. Despite a parlimentry party eager for further change nothing happened
We now know that a process of raising money from potential peers began. The question is this - was policy changed to keep the cash flowing?
Since the scandal has broken, the money has dried up. Lords reform is back on again. It should be noted that the prefered method of election is list based proportional representation. One wonders if a donation would influence ones place upon the list.
Despite this threat the Lords passed the bill. The reason for this was that the Community Charge was considered a money bill - voting it down would have re-started the 1911 war between the Commons and the Lords. Many peers voted it through or abstained despite their dislike of the measure itself.
Lords reform duly became (again) a part of the manifesto. Within 2 years of the election of the current government, the first stage of the process was complete - only 92 hereditary peers remained. Then things stopped. Despite a parlimentry party eager for further change nothing happened
We now know that a process of raising money from potential peers began. The question is this - was policy changed to keep the cash flowing?
Since the scandal has broken, the money has dried up. Lords reform is back on again. It should be noted that the prefered method of election is list based proportional representation. One wonders if a donation would influence ones place upon the list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
