What’s Eating Me Today?

Same rants and foaming at the mouth, but in a new locale. Enjoy!               
 

Well, I think it’s humourous anyway… the supercomputer used by the UK Met Office to “predict” climate change allegedly consumes enough energy to power a town. Leaving aside the fact that the Met Office cannot even predict what day it will be tomorrow, how does it think that spending £30m on a computer will help to predict possible, potential weather that will affect us (maybe) in 25 years.

What is even more hilarious is that F(r)iends of the Earth have commented on the colossal use of power, stating that it is “ironic that a computer designed to stave off climate change is responsible for such high levels of pollution”. Oh dear. Computers do not stave off anything, let alone mythical meteorological patterns. Computers can tell humans as much useful information as they are programmed to. But computers do not change the weather. And given the Met Office’s track record this year, they can’t forecast it either.
 

I see that high speed rail travel is on the news agenda again this week. It must be at least 6 weeks since the last time the government tried to convince the electorate that it was “doing something” about transport. Lord Adonis is like a small child in a toy shop. “Daddy, daddy, please can I have one of those high speed train sets, like they have in every other developed European country?”.

He seems to be hoping that if he keeps nagging on about it long enough, his dad (the taxpayer) will write him a cheque for £40bn to pay for it. As far as I can remember, this is the THIRD time this has been announced in 2009. Why doesn’t he give it a rest? There’s no chance of it happening at the moment, as the government is far too busy bailing out banks and paying civil servants huge pensions to worry about something as useful as core infrastructure.

Even if a new train system does get approval, it will take years of planning before the first foot of track is laid. And then they will lay it from the centre of
London to somewhere near Birmingham, join it up to the existing system and say “Job Done”. And it will have cost £80bn.

If the government is serious about reducing or eliminating domestic air travel (as it claims it is), then put the main station for this grand projet at Heathrow. Travellers landing to the west of London could then get the existing Heathrow Express into London, or take the new high speed service to Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow.

But the big question is: why didn’t Prescott start laying the tracks in 1997 after his much-vaunted and little-acted upon transport Green paper? If a high speed network was started 12 years ago, it would be finished by now and at a fraction of the cost. I have bleated on before about how quickly the French built their TGV network, with the average line length of 250 miles being laid in 4 years. Compare that to 67 miles in 11 years for the UK’s only high speed line from London to Dover.

Hopefully a future government will have the courage to go ahead with a new rail network; I just hope that it is soon and that it doesn’t get bogged down in its ambitions and dare I say, I hope it involves the French.
 

I would have titled this rant “Black Day”, but (a) The Times beat me to it and (b) according to the accompanying article in the aforementioned organ, the use of the word “black” carries with it a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”. The funny thing is, when I use the word “black” in writing or speech, the last thing that is on my mind is a hierarchical valuation of skin colour.

If the PC horde get their way, colour, insofar as it relates to a person’s skin, will be expunged from the language. No more white collar workers, black sheep, playing the white man, blackballing, being whiter than white or giving someone a black mark against their name. Cowards will no longer be yellow-bellied (offensive to our Sino cousins); Van Morrison’s “Brown-Eyed Girl” will have to be relabelled; red lights will need to become “stationary advice signals” so as not to upset native Americans.

Gender-specific language is also under fire: gentleman’s agreements and right-hand men are considered taboo.

The most irritating aspect of this mastication of the English language is that it is sponsored by central and local government agencies within the
UK, as well as any number of quangos, meaning that it is being paid for by our taxes. I would rather that my tax was spent on schools, hospitals and roads, than on telling me how to speak proper.
 

I am presently marooned in a hotel in
Eastern Europe. The only, fractionally decent (I was going to say “half” or “semi-“ decent, but that would be stretching things) English language channel is BBC World. There is CNN too, but there is only so much talking up of a non-existent bull market that I can take.

Yesterday, BBC World was like a dog with two peckers because it could cover the breaking news about the extended detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. However, this was about the only news the channel saw fit to broadcast. It seems that in the world of BBC World, there is no other news, at least there wasn’t yesterday.

I’ve wobbled on about this before, and since there really is a dearth of things to wobble on about during the silly summer season, I will wobble on again: what is the point of the BBC World channel? It broadcasts re-heated stories from the main BBC news programmes and re-heated interviews with politicians and the occasional celebrity. And that’s about it. If the jet-lagged traveller wants to catch up on world events, why does the BBC feel the need to compete with the execrable CNN? I would rather that they showed the exact same news that is broadcast on News 24: I want to know what is going on at home, not in some South East Asian backwater.

I never thought I’d write it, but roll on the end of summer when our underworked, overpaid MPs return to SW1. Then again, that will be about October, and with only six months to the next election, the news is going to be filled with 180 days of Tory promises about their next government, 180 days of Peter Mandelson  shooting down every one of Cameron’s team’s vows and 180 days of Harriet Harperson spouting that it would all be better if a woman was in charge. I can’t wait…
 

I have written before about the prospect of Labour wanting to charge us to use roads that we have already paid for. However, amid the media scrum that accompanied the celebrity deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Colin “Private Sponge” Bean, Mollie Sugden and Karl Malden – is no celebrity safe? – this week’s transport minister slipped out a press release to the effect that road pricing will be ditched.

Lord Adonis, the most inappropriately-named politician, said this is dependent on Labour winning the next election. So, in order not to get road pricing, we need to vote Labour. However, to also not get road pricing, we could vote Tory. Confused? Why do the government need to trumpet the non-enactment of legislation, just as they did when Darling announced that punitive road tax would not be retrospectively applied to cars built after 2001? They expect a pat on the back for performing U-turns when they should have used common sense and not wasted government time and money on the ideas in the first place.

But in the unlikely (and unpalatable) event that Labour are re-elected in the next 11 months, can someone please remind the transport minister of the day that they promised not to charge motorists for using the roads? The government has a nasty habit of campaigning with one message and then altering the message to suit once they have the keys to the relevant ministry: the EU referendum and not raising direct taxation are two examples that spring to mind.

In the meantime, 3 muted cheers for the death of road pricing.
 

There is an article in today’s Standard explaining that “direct democracy” is needed as a cure for voter apathy. Direct democracy means that decisions on major issues would be put to a public vote by the electorate, national or local, rather than left up to 646 MPs or a dozen councillors.

Sounds good in principle, but what will be the boundaries for determining when an issue is put to a borough or country vote? A mobile phone mast in the middle of the green? Going to war to guarantee oil supply for an empire-building nation? We could end up with a situation where almost all “big decisions” are put to a public vote, which means they will take even longer and get mired in costly appeals.

I don’t think Direct Democracy is the solution to getting people to the ballot box. As the article also states “people care passionately about how they are governed”. This is true: as long as we have enough money to get by and are not having our fun spoiled by a nanny state.

The simple fact is that between 1997 and 2006, Labour were seen as a friendly, low-tax alternative to the Conservatives (Tony Blair MP=I am Tory Plan B), which is why they were allowed to stay in power and why so few people bothered voting. Labour were conservative, with a small “c”. Also, despite dodgy wars and stealth taxes, we were allowed to get on, live our lives and make money.

However, since Gormless Clown took over, the mood has changed and there is an ever-increasing focus on controlling every aspect of life and forcing us to pay for it. There has also been a dawning realisation that vast sums of money has been pee-d up the wall in bank bailouts and civil service pensions, whilst very little progress has been made in improving public services or local facilities such as schools and hospitals. Education and NHS budgets have risen, but only to pay higher salaries, rather than to build new hospitals or reduce classroom sizes.

The combination of a backlash against Clown and resentment at being cajoled and fleeced will see a big voter turnout in 2010.
 

Gordon Brown – remember him? The one that inherited a perfectly good economy and ran it into the ground deeper than the foundations for
Canary Wharf – has apparently recommended the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin for a peerage. In case you’d forgotten who Martin is as well, he’s the fella that tried to “reform” the MPs’ expenses system by proposing that all receipts be made secret. He was also such a poor orator that he was in danger of being sued under the Trade Descriptions Act of 1968.

Seemingly it is a “long-established convention” that the Speaker receives a peerage as a reward for doing their job. It is also a “long established convention” that the Speaker should not be hounded out of office for attempting to cover up the fraudulent misuse of public funds by MPs. It is also a “long established convention” that the Speaker be good at their job.

Although Brown has recommended the peerage and Her Majesty has agreed (she is obviously so down on her luck at the moment that she can’t afford a servant to read the newspapers for her, or to turn on her telly), the Lords Appointments Commission are not so sure. They believe that appointing a Speaker with Martin’s reputation could damage the reputation of the House of Lords. That’s the same House that is chock-full of peers who have made significant contributions to the charity also known as The Labour Party. It is also the same House that contains Lords who are willing to alter enacted legislation in exchange for a brown envelope stuffed with cash. On second thoughts, I think Martin will fit in quite nicely.

But if I was Her Maj, I would be sharpening the sabre right now, so that I could give Gorbals Mick an investiture ceremony that would make us all proud: off with his head!

And in other monarch-related news, HM was in Edinburgh today to join in the festivities as the devolved Scottish parliament celebrated its 10^th birthday. At least the Queen bothered to turn up, unlike 50 of the 129 MSPs who did not, citing pre-booked holidays as their excuse. Holidays? As far as I know, Scottish schoolchildren finished today at 12pm, my own pair of offspring included. Does this mean that many of the dishonourable members are already on holiday, having taken their little treasures out of school early? Or did they have the first flight to Malaga booked from Edinburgh or Glasgow as soon as school broke up? Shows how interested in their work these lads and lassies are.
 

David Cameron said yesterday that there would be riots on the streets if Labour were elected on a mandate of spending more money on public services, which actually turned out to be a series of spending reductions.

Would there really? The last serious riots in the
UK were over the proposed introduction of the Poll Tax in 1990. This was prompted by the not unreasonable expectation of the government of the day that citizens benefitting from local services should pay for them. However, the crusty element believed that they should be exempt and set fire to a few cars in protest.

The Poll Tax riots were a direct consequence of people being asked to pay more tax to receive services. Labour is proposing to fight the next election on a platform of government investment in public services – although they’ve singularly failed to deliver much of an improvement over the last 12 years, so why do they think they can get it right in a fourth term? – whereas the Tories are probably going to argue that government is too big, too expensive and needs to be cut down in size and cost. Labour claim that the Conservative option will lead to cuts in services, but in reality it will make service delivery cheaper and more efficient, and will actually improve the situation.

Labour’s option is to “borrow to invest”, hoping to pull the wool over their voters’ eyes that such investment is free. But it isn’t. When a government borrows, we taxpayers have to make the loan payments for them. And there is a very efficient loan-shark, called Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who will take varying and increasing amounts of your salary to ensure that the government does not default on its obligations. And unlike MPs and their expenses, where the rules on what is right and wrong are hazy, HMRC’s rules are black and white: pay up or be locked up.

So, it is very likely that a future Labour government will promise to increase spending but will end up cutting the amount it invests (although this is not a lot different from the current situation where they spend lots but deliver very little). Money will be taken out of your taxable income. Much like was threatened in 1990, but this time it will really happen, as it has since 1997 (covered up as changes in allowances, withdrawal of rebates and other stealth taxes).

But will this prompt rioting on the streets of Cheadle or Tonbridge Wells? I doubt it. The populace are more likely to complain over the hedgerows and at dinner parties, and there will be a few “I told you so” letters to The Telegraph, but I can’t see any blood being spilled.
 

On the same day that the BBC’s expenses were released – about which more another time (why did I need to contribute to Brucie’s 80^th birthday present or Wogan’s knighthood party?) – I noticed that they are broadcasting live football from the Confederations Cup.

I’m sorry, but why is the BBC wasting money and airtime broadcasting football during the summer when it could have stumped up some cash to get the rights to show The Ashes? Or even coverage of the British & Irish Lions tour to
South Africa? There is too much bellending football on the television.