Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The BBC enters the advertorial business
Listening to BBC3 in the car this morning (someone else's car) I found myself listening to a programme which was clearly designed for American cable TV. It was essentially an advert for a miraculous invention; glow in the dark house numbers so that ambulances/pizza delivery can find you more easily. While this was dressed up as a feature with incredibly probing questions like "well, wasn't it a little expensive?" to which the answer was, obviously, "the technology is expensive but we now have a special discount just for this show" it always reverted to a sales pitch. Had they been selling versatile blenders it couldn't have been much tackier.
With the collosal bias in the BBC news coverage, advertising features like this and BBC online's ongoing crippling of the UK online industry through its massively subsidised websites surely the case for scrapping the license fee has to be mounting. It was while I was in China appreciating the role of the BBC in undermining dicatatorships only to realise that the relevant service was BBC Worldwide (which was sold off and is a private concern) that I finally appreciated the complete pointlessness of the license fee we are all forced to pay.
With the collosal bias in the BBC news coverage, advertising features like this and BBC online's ongoing crippling of the UK online industry through its massively subsidised websites surely the case for scrapping the license fee has to be mounting. It was while I was in China appreciating the role of the BBC in undermining dicatatorships only to realise that the relevant service was BBC Worldwide (which was sold off and is a private concern) that I finally appreciated the complete pointlessness of the license fee we are all forced to pay.
BT released from price regulation
After 22 years Ofcom have decided to stop regulating BT's prices. The regulators deserve credit for taking a decision that reduces their ability to control and resisting the temptation to define their purpose ever outwards.
The logic behind this move is very sensible. The market for phone calls has been entered by VoIP phone services like SkyPE, cable operators and mobile phone companies. All of these firms bring different advantages from the flexibility offered by mobile phones to the extremely low costs available through Internet services. While BT has advantages in this market, such as a well developed infrastructure, these are not nearly enough to be worthy of monopoly regulation.
The stock market response suggests that investors do not expect new monopoly rents to flow. BT's share price responded with a slight fall; investors can see that with so much new competition and a mature market there are difficult times ahead. While this is hardly cast iron evidence that there are no monopoly rents for BT to make it does suggest that no one can currently see where they might come from.
The logic behind this move is very sensible. The market for phone calls has been entered by VoIP phone services like SkyPE, cable operators and mobile phone companies. All of these firms bring different advantages from the flexibility offered by mobile phones to the extremely low costs available through Internet services. While BT has advantages in this market, such as a well developed infrastructure, these are not nearly enough to be worthy of monopoly regulation.
The stock market response suggests that investors do not expect new monopoly rents to flow. BT's share price responded with a slight fall; investors can see that with so much new competition and a mature market there are difficult times ahead. While this is hardly cast iron evidence that there are no monopoly rents for BT to make it does suggest that no one can currently see where they might come from.
Funding political parties
State funding of political parties creates far too many difficulties for good governance to be a good idea. Such a move would leave the funding of political parties dependent upon the government and, therefore, create powerful electoral incentives for the government to change the system to skew it towards advantaging their own side. While it might lead to fewer funding scandals they would be replaced by massive cynicism each time a government attempted to fine tune the funding formula and commentators saw unsavoury motivations behind the changes. These fears won't always be irrational, the recent problems with Labour pushing postal voting too fast and risking fraud in defiance of the Electoral Commission in order to shore up its Northern vote provide an important example of the sort of trouble we don't want to see in the funding process.
Caps, as supported by ConservativeHome, are just as problematic. Last time these were floated it was a Labour response to Lord Ashcroft's financing of the Conservative party, the new Conservative enthusiasm for them can be traced to the widening of the Conservative funding base following the election of David Cameron. The level of the cap provides the ability for governments to adjust the system in their favour and, therefore, creates the problems described above for state funding.
The solution to this crisis has to be more along the lines of the ad hoc Labour response. When there are crises due to poor information in industries like financial services the best regulatory response is not to restrict the risk or return of products (a cap) or to have the state step in and nationalise (state funding). A proper role for government in situations like this is for it to ensure regular accounting standards and open information. This is a crisis caused by a lack of open information; the proper response is to let the information flow and leave the judgement on whether a party's funding is proper to the electorate.
Caps, as supported by ConservativeHome, are just as problematic. Last time these were floated it was a Labour response to Lord Ashcroft's financing of the Conservative party, the new Conservative enthusiasm for them can be traced to the widening of the Conservative funding base following the election of David Cameron. The level of the cap provides the ability for governments to adjust the system in their favour and, therefore, creates the problems described above for state funding.
The solution to this crisis has to be more along the lines of the ad hoc Labour response. When there are crises due to poor information in industries like financial services the best regulatory response is not to restrict the risk or return of products (a cap) or to have the state step in and nationalise (state funding). A proper role for government in situations like this is for it to ensure regular accounting standards and open information. This is a crisis caused by a lack of open information; the proper response is to let the information flow and leave the judgement on whether a party's funding is proper to the electorate.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
An idea for reforming the House of Lords
The new cash for peerages scandal highlights the problem with the lack of a long term solution to the organisation of the House of Lords. So long as the House of Lords remains an appointed body it will remain a means for patronage. Making the funding of political parties more transparent is clearly a good idea but this will not remove the suspicion surrounding a system where presence on a house of parliament can be used to return a favour.
Designing a new House of Lords faces the fundamental problem of balancing several conflicting priorities:
First, there is a need for democratic legitimacy. Without a link to public opinion the House of Lords will increasingly lack the authority to challenge the Commons and fulfill its function as a second house. This authority is necessary for the Lords to be able to properly defend civil liberties and other minority issues. Appointment is simply not close enough to the electorate and leaves the Lords as a subsidiary of the Commons dependent directly upon Commons' structures.
Second, it is important that the balance of opinion in the Lords not track the currents of public opinion reflected in the Commons too quickly. If the Lords is simply a duplicate of the House of Commons with a slightly different electoral cycle then it is likely to offer little in terms of improved governance. Defending the interests of a minority is best done in a similar manner to that of the US Senate, by having the balance of power change slowly; this allows the Lords to slow radical programmes from incoming governments who may allow transient overreactions to endanger liberty. Clearly appointment is little help here as it acts to reflect the balance in the Commons.
Finally, the Lords should be as free from the pressures of reelection as possible so that they can act as a check to interest politics and the distortion of the electoral cycle. The system in the US Senate appears to be failing in this regard. The debates over issues such as drilling in Alaska demonstrate a failure of the deliberative body as it descends into farcical interest politics.
Another concern, although subsidiary, is that there needs to be a mechanism for an orderly transition to a new system which does not involve bringing collosal tranches of new members at once.
The best system, in my view, would be to combine the life time appointments of the current House of Lords with an entirely elected system. Elections could be held in line with each general election and every Lord who died since the last general election could be replaced. The exact system for electing them would need to be designed in detail but should be a direct vote. The number of Lords who we can expect to replace each election can be calculated from the mortality rates for those in the Lords' age bracket multiplied by the number of Lords. The final figure would probably be around 72 initially (using the 65-74 age band as the average age of a Lord is 68) but would probably fall as the Lords become younger once no longer appointed in return for, and after, a life of service to country or party.
Judging by the criteria above this seems to be a suitable design. As directly elected representatives they will possess the legitimacy needed to challenge the Commons when required. Movement in the house of around 10% per election is sufficiently glacial to act as a bar to transient majorities. As the Lords would not need to be reelected they would not suffer the interest pressure which appears to have found its way into the Senate. This system even suggests a mechanism for transition by removing no current peers but instead treating the current balance as the starting point from which replacement elections are held.
The problem seen in the Supreme Court with life appointments, that each appointment has far too much at stake is negated by the House of Lords being a body of hundreds. Could a system of lifetime election be the way forward?
Designing a new House of Lords faces the fundamental problem of balancing several conflicting priorities:
First, there is a need for democratic legitimacy. Without a link to public opinion the House of Lords will increasingly lack the authority to challenge the Commons and fulfill its function as a second house. This authority is necessary for the Lords to be able to properly defend civil liberties and other minority issues. Appointment is simply not close enough to the electorate and leaves the Lords as a subsidiary of the Commons dependent directly upon Commons' structures.
Second, it is important that the balance of opinion in the Lords not track the currents of public opinion reflected in the Commons too quickly. If the Lords is simply a duplicate of the House of Commons with a slightly different electoral cycle then it is likely to offer little in terms of improved governance. Defending the interests of a minority is best done in a similar manner to that of the US Senate, by having the balance of power change slowly; this allows the Lords to slow radical programmes from incoming governments who may allow transient overreactions to endanger liberty. Clearly appointment is little help here as it acts to reflect the balance in the Commons.
Finally, the Lords should be as free from the pressures of reelection as possible so that they can act as a check to interest politics and the distortion of the electoral cycle. The system in the US Senate appears to be failing in this regard. The debates over issues such as drilling in Alaska demonstrate a failure of the deliberative body as it descends into farcical interest politics.
Another concern, although subsidiary, is that there needs to be a mechanism for an orderly transition to a new system which does not involve bringing collosal tranches of new members at once.
The best system, in my view, would be to combine the life time appointments of the current House of Lords with an entirely elected system. Elections could be held in line with each general election and every Lord who died since the last general election could be replaced. The exact system for electing them would need to be designed in detail but should be a direct vote. The number of Lords who we can expect to replace each election can be calculated from the mortality rates for those in the Lords' age bracket multiplied by the number of Lords. The final figure would probably be around 72 initially (using the 65-74 age band as the average age of a Lord is 68) but would probably fall as the Lords become younger once no longer appointed in return for, and after, a life of service to country or party.
Judging by the criteria above this seems to be a suitable design. As directly elected representatives they will possess the legitimacy needed to challenge the Commons when required. Movement in the house of around 10% per election is sufficiently glacial to act as a bar to transient majorities. As the Lords would not need to be reelected they would not suffer the interest pressure which appears to have found its way into the Senate. This system even suggests a mechanism for transition by removing no current peers but instead treating the current balance as the starting point from which replacement elections are held.
The problem seen in the Supreme Court with life appointments, that each appointment has far too much at stake is negated by the House of Lords being a body of hundreds. Could a system of lifetime election be the way forward?
Friday, March 17, 2006
More riots in France
The new riots in France should not be considered another outburst of anger from a downtrodden group in French society in the mould of the car burnings we saw earlier this year. Graduates of the Sorbonne may face some difficulty finding work with a youth unemployment rate of 23% but as they are emerging from a top university it is far more likely that they will succeed than fail in finding employment. These demonstrations are more in the mould of the regular strikes by French public sector unions defending their interests; they are strikes in the defence of the status quo.
This is significant because if the earlier riots, in the banlieues where unemployment is 50%, constituted a powerful case for reform the new demontrations, and the public support for them, are indicative of the strength of the political forces opposed to such change. The simple reality is that most French people are employed and a large number of the unemployed are safely contained within the banlieues away from the sight of the middle classes. So long as those in work fear reforms which hurt their security of employment more than they do France's present steady stagnation change is unlikely.
This is significant because if the earlier riots, in the banlieues where unemployment is 50%, constituted a powerful case for reform the new demontrations, and the public support for them, are indicative of the strength of the political forces opposed to such change. The simple reality is that most French people are employed and a large number of the unemployed are safely contained within the banlieues away from the sight of the middle classes. So long as those in work fear reforms which hurt their security of employment more than they do France's present steady stagnation change is unlikely.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
South Park vs. Scientology Round 2
It appears that after legal threats from Tom Cruise the South Park episode which so offended Mr. Hayes will not be shown in the UK or repeated in the US. There are even suggestions that this is due to his threatening to cancel publicity for Mission Impossible III with Viacom. This is an absolutely tragic violation of freedom of speech that seriously needs to be fought. Using the court system to harass those who speak out against their religion has been standard practice for the Scientologists for some time and South Park is a show uniquely placed to get past this thanks to its high ratings and experience with controversy.
Of course, the episode has already leaked onto the Internet and free speech will find a way but it is dissapointing that even a well known TV show cannot freely speak out against a group which is only differentiated from the other nutty cults by its funding. Exactly the same logic applies here as it did during the Danish cartoons crisis or after the cancellation of the play about a Sikh temple. Freedom of speech is the principle which guarantees accountability and accountability is a major part of what makes the West the success it is. Freedom of speech is a principle which we should defend to the hilt.
Of course, the episode has already leaked onto the Internet and free speech will find a way but it is dissapointing that even a well known TV show cannot freely speak out against a group which is only differentiated from the other nutty cults by its funding. Exactly the same logic applies here as it did during the Danish cartoons crisis or after the cancellation of the play about a Sikh temple. Freedom of speech is the principle which guarantees accountability and accountability is a major part of what makes the West the success it is. Freedom of speech is a principle which we should defend to the hilt.
Cameronomics
Cameron's article today on conservativehome.com got a familiar reaction. Conservatives like winning and there was broad support but nervous questions about the statement that tax cuts will not be prioritised over economic stability. Reform responded to this when it was first announced with a standard, and clearly correct, line that a small state is not more unstable. However, there are two possible processes at work if a party states that they will not prioritise tax cuts over stability:
1) They are left wing and believe that private sector irrationality makes capitalism inherently unstable and in need of state sector stability.
2) They believe that should we come to possess a debt/GDP ratio radically higher than it is today (a severe fiscal crisis) then it would be sensible to prioritise austerity over ideologically driven tax cuts. While there are no policy implications now we need to let the public know that our ideology does not imply poor decision making in a crisis.
While the first paradigm is patently false I believe it is the second that the Conservatives are addressing and this is far less troubling.
1) They are left wing and believe that private sector irrationality makes capitalism inherently unstable and in need of state sector stability.
2) They believe that should we come to possess a debt/GDP ratio radically higher than it is today (a severe fiscal crisis) then it would be sensible to prioritise austerity over ideologically driven tax cuts. While there are no policy implications now we need to let the public know that our ideology does not imply poor decision making in a crisis.
While the first paradigm is patently false I believe it is the second that the Conservatives are addressing and this is far less troubling.
MatthewSinclair.com
http://www.matthewsinclair.com now points at this blog.
Buying your own name as a domain name when you are not famous can be a form of bet on your own success. There have been several corporate cases where substantial amounts have been paid for domains and private individuals have surely had to do the same on occasion. My MP has http://www.oliverhealdmp.com which is so much less satisfying than oliverheald.com would be. Avoiding the confusion and disgrace which comes from having your name point at someone else's website becomes highly valuable if your name has meaning. That famous names can drive traffic to websites was the first mover advantage rationale behind firms like Amazon investing so much early on.
By buying the name now I incur a steady cost of £8.99 per year. At the moment I am not famous and this domain therefore has little value beyond a vague sense of satisfaction and control which I will treat as insignificant. Still, it takes ten years for me to become famous and by then I will have paid around £90. According to this shady looking website domains can go on sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars but with only the moderate success of a thousand pounds in value my domain name becomes a fine bet if I believe that I have a greater than one in nine chance of becoming famous. Of course there is an opportunity cost in tying up my capital in this way but it is unlikely to be a problem if my expectations of my own success are rational.
The reason why I can get a good deal in this case is an information assymettry. Domain registrars and shady individuals behind sites like "openforsale.com" know less about me than I do. For this reason they have to treat me in a similar manner to a random individual. The name of a random individual has a very low value as they will not bid for it and very few people become famous. I have an ability to differentiate between my promising self and random others that domain registrars do not.
Buying your own name as a domain name when you are not famous can be a form of bet on your own success. There have been several corporate cases where substantial amounts have been paid for domains and private individuals have surely had to do the same on occasion. My MP has http://www.oliverhealdmp.com which is so much less satisfying than oliverheald.com would be. Avoiding the confusion and disgrace which comes from having your name point at someone else's website becomes highly valuable if your name has meaning. That famous names can drive traffic to websites was the first mover advantage rationale behind firms like Amazon investing so much early on.
By buying the name now I incur a steady cost of £8.99 per year. At the moment I am not famous and this domain therefore has little value beyond a vague sense of satisfaction and control which I will treat as insignificant. Still, it takes ten years for me to become famous and by then I will have paid around £90. According to this shady looking website domains can go on sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars but with only the moderate success of a thousand pounds in value my domain name becomes a fine bet if I believe that I have a greater than one in nine chance of becoming famous. Of course there is an opportunity cost in tying up my capital in this way but it is unlikely to be a problem if my expectations of my own success are rational.
The reason why I can get a good deal in this case is an information assymettry. Domain registrars and shady individuals behind sites like "openforsale.com" know less about me than I do. For this reason they have to treat me in a similar manner to a random individual. The name of a random individual has a very low value as they will not bid for it and very few people become famous. I have an ability to differentiate between my promising self and random others that domain registrars do not.
Old problems in UK scientific education
The Financial Times today reports on the CBI's observation of further falls in the number of science graduates. The CBI is right to point out anomalies such as psychology being used to boost biology numbers. Psychology is methodologically more subjective than economics and both are different in nature to the natural sciences. Psychology is a fine subject for academic study but is a far more esoteric concern for industry.
The FT fails, in setting the context of the article, to note that this is a fall from a low base in the UK. There have been concerns about the quantity of scientific education in the UK since at least the beginning of this century and these concerns have generally been justified. While there are excellent centres of scientific study (such as Imperial College) there is not the same quantity of scientific education as elsewhere in Europe. This matters because scientific education is particularly important economically. Scientific education doesn't only increase the base of skills for high value sectors but also increases the ease with which firms can identify promising scientists, which is important if they are making a high value investment in them. Also, science departments are valuable as they often maintain links with industry and are at the centre of competitive industries. Early and important examples are the links between Ruttgers University and Merck and between the University of Delaware and Du Pont. These advantages are the reason Michael Porter pointed to high end research institutions as far more important to economic growth than mass university attendance.
Our current system of higher education funding is created with the goal in mind of creating lots of graduates. This goal is determined by class concerns (university implies entrance to the middle class) as much as anything. The economic rationale above suggests we could be better off targeting funding at the hard subjects which provide such solid returns to the nation.
The FT fails, in setting the context of the article, to note that this is a fall from a low base in the UK. There have been concerns about the quantity of scientific education in the UK since at least the beginning of this century and these concerns have generally been justified. While there are excellent centres of scientific study (such as Imperial College) there is not the same quantity of scientific education as elsewhere in Europe. This matters because scientific education is particularly important economically. Scientific education doesn't only increase the base of skills for high value sectors but also increases the ease with which firms can identify promising scientists, which is important if they are making a high value investment in them. Also, science departments are valuable as they often maintain links with industry and are at the centre of competitive industries. Early and important examples are the links between Ruttgers University and Merck and between the University of Delaware and Du Pont. These advantages are the reason Michael Porter pointed to high end research institutions as far more important to economic growth than mass university attendance.
Our current system of higher education funding is created with the goal in mind of creating lots of graduates. This goal is determined by class concerns (university implies entrance to the middle class) as much as anything. The economic rationale above suggests we could be better off targeting funding at the hard subjects which provide such solid returns to the nation.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
South Park vs. Scientology
Isaac Hayes, who has voiced Chef since the series' inception, has quit South Park. He has described how he cannot be associated with the attacks on religion he sees in the show. It appears, as is noted by the Reuters report, that the problem is more specific and related to the show's recent attack on Mr. Hayes' religion, Scientology.
The episode was brutal, featuring long sections describing the bizarre beliefs of Scientologists but the inclination of those who run the religion to sue those who publically question it rendered the religion a fine target for important satire. South Park is in its tenth series and Mr. Hayes has taken part in shows where entire episodes have been devoted to mocking Christians, Jews and Mormons. If there has ever been a show which can fairly use the defence of mocking all equally it is South Park. Being so selectively offended completely undermines the moral case Mr. Hayes attempts to deploy.
The episode was brutal, featuring long sections describing the bizarre beliefs of Scientologists but the inclination of those who run the religion to sue those who publically question it rendered the religion a fine target for important satire. South Park is in its tenth series and Mr. Hayes has taken part in shows where entire episodes have been devoted to mocking Christians, Jews and Mormons. If there has ever been a show which can fairly use the defence of mocking all equally it is South Park. Being so selectively offended completely undermines the moral case Mr. Hayes attempts to deploy.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The OFT investigates supermarkets
The BBC reports that the Office of Fair Trading is set to launch a probe into the dominance of the UK market by a limited number of supermarkets. The problem is that it appears to be struggling to find a harm. There is the question of monopsony power allowing supermarkets to drive down prices but, as supermarket margins remain low, this operates as a transfer of wealth from producers to consumers which is not a suitable candidate for OFT action.
All the evidence is that the supermarkets have been an unambiguous good thing for the consumer with prices falling and increased choice thanks to the supermarket's expansion into non-food items. An anti-trust case could exist to block a merger between any of the top players but beyond that the watchdog should clearly be stepping back and letting the supermarkets tear each other to pieces.
The move towards increased shopping in supermarkets instead of small shops surely has its origins in the same trend that is leading to reduced fertility. With the decline of discrimination against women in the workplace there are increasing opportunity costs to time spent not earning. When women could not work the value of the time they spent travelling between different shops is of far less concern than when that time could be spent earning or in scarce leisure time.
All the evidence is that the supermarkets have been an unambiguous good thing for the consumer with prices falling and increased choice thanks to the supermarket's expansion into non-food items. An anti-trust case could exist to block a merger between any of the top players but beyond that the watchdog should clearly be stepping back and letting the supermarkets tear each other to pieces.
The move towards increased shopping in supermarkets instead of small shops surely has its origins in the same trend that is leading to reduced fertility. With the decline of discrimination against women in the workplace there are increasing opportunity costs to time spent not earning. When women could not work the value of the time they spent travelling between different shops is of far less concern than when that time could be spent earning or in scarce leisure time.
"Shoot to kill"
Reuters reports that an initial review has suggested that the Met's "shoot to kill" policy is appropriate and should remain. This has led to another chorus from various quarters that such a policy is both wrong and undemocratic as it was introduced in secret.
I honestly fail to see the secrecy. I would have always expected that if a police officer saw a suicide bomber and thought the only way they could stop them killing others was to shoot them then they should do so. As suicide bombing does not require great physical exertion it seems entirely credible that killing is the only way of stopping them and that it must often be done quickly. If this has been formalised recently then I don't think a police cover up is to blame for that formalisation not making the front page; it doesn't sound much like news.
The problem in the de Menezes case was that the police shot someone who was not a suicide bomber. This may raise questions about whether the police have poor mechanisms for identifying suicide bombers but it says little about how they should behave towards bombers once they identify them.
I honestly fail to see the secrecy. I would have always expected that if a police officer saw a suicide bomber and thought the only way they could stop them killing others was to shoot them then they should do so. As suicide bombing does not require great physical exertion it seems entirely credible that killing is the only way of stopping them and that it must often be done quickly. If this has been formalised recently then I don't think a police cover up is to blame for that formalisation not making the front page; it doesn't sound much like news.
The problem in the de Menezes case was that the police shot someone who was not a suicide bomber. This may raise questions about whether the police have poor mechanisms for identifying suicide bombers but it says little about how they should behave towards bombers once they identify them.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Galloway remains a shit
Jeremy Brier links to the BBC transcript of an interview of George Galloway in which he not only repeats his celebration of the Iraqi "resistance" currently massacring their fellow Iraqis but also extends this by describing the Danish cartoons as worse than both 7/7 and 9/11. Anyone who views insulting cartoons as worse than violent deaths has clearly lost touch with even basic morality.
I had my own experience of Galloway lunacy when I went along, to do my bit, to a Respect event at the LSE. The high point was when he tried to defend, in the face of my question, his assertion that Iran was free and democratic. Apparently no one had been barred from standing in the recent elections. It became funny instead of tragic when, following our questions of Galloway a Respect activist stood up to congratulate him as our questioning was clearly evidence that the establishment feared his movement; three students turning up doesn't exactly suggest Whitehall is panicking.
I had my own experience of Galloway lunacy when I went along, to do my bit, to a Respect event at the LSE. The high point was when he tried to defend, in the face of my question, his assertion that Iran was free and democratic. Apparently no one had been barred from standing in the recent elections. It became funny instead of tragic when, following our questions of Galloway a Respect activist stood up to congratulate him as our questioning was clearly evidence that the establishment feared his movement; three students turning up doesn't exactly suggest Whitehall is panicking.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Pro-Test
The Pro-Test organisation is great news; in the face of animal rights lunatics the defence of liberal society requires the silent majority to get a little louder. Animal rights extremists are a danger not just to progress but also to democracy, any movement which opposes them deserves success and support.
Its first protest prompted an absurd attack from the movement which represents the "mainstream" of the animal rights movement and evidently has far less maturity than the schoolboy it is facing off against. Equally the arrogance in their statement at the initially small pro-testing organisation backfired when the next Pro-Test march massively outnumbered them. The BBC was then stupid enough to buy their newfound commitment to an open debate.
Its first protest prompted an absurd attack from the movement which represents the "mainstream" of the animal rights movement and evidently has far less maturity than the schoolboy it is facing off against. Equally the arrogance in their statement at the initially small pro-testing organisation backfired when the next Pro-Test march massively outnumbered them. The BBC was then stupid enough to buy their newfound commitment to an open debate.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Kinnock continues his descent into the world of the crank
Lord Kinnock, returned from Europe, is supporting a report from the UK Metric Association. This report calls, in a little too strident language, for the replacement of our measuring of distance in miles with a metric measurement in kilometres.
Some of the language is absurd. Kinnock alleges that miles "contradict the image - and the reality - of our country as a modern, multicultural, dynamic place where the past is valued and respected and the future is approached with creativity and confidence". The idea that continuing to use an old measurement implies placing less value on the past is clearly absurd. However, why do miles necessarily imply a lack of confidence or creativity when facing the future? It would seem, rather, to suggest a confidence in a future different to that imagined by Kinnock and sufficient confidence not to mind the overexaggerated costs of multiple measurement systems.
One cost suggested is that our education system needs to teach both metric and imperial units. This cost isn't entirely a result of UK Government choices, though, as there is a benefit to learning imperial measurements in an economy which does business with the US.
Equally the "contradiction" of using different systems is overrated. Using one system for temperature and another for distance is of little concern when few conversions are being made the two. Equally few people will regularly need to make feet/miles calculations and therefore the complication of the calculation is a limited concern.
None of this removes fact that the metric system is clearly "better" but the overexaggeration is a fine example of the broader crisis of specialists crying wolf. People are always inclined to accord great importance to an area they spend much of their time working on and the availability heuristic, assuming that events you hear about a lot are common, will lead you to overestimate the frequency of rare problems. The metric association actively goes looking for cases of metric-imperial confusion and evidently assumes that those it finds represent part of a broader reality, they probably don't.
Some of the language is absurd. Kinnock alleges that miles "contradict the image - and the reality - of our country as a modern, multicultural, dynamic place where the past is valued and respected and the future is approached with creativity and confidence". The idea that continuing to use an old measurement implies placing less value on the past is clearly absurd. However, why do miles necessarily imply a lack of confidence or creativity when facing the future? It would seem, rather, to suggest a confidence in a future different to that imagined by Kinnock and sufficient confidence not to mind the overexaggerated costs of multiple measurement systems.
One cost suggested is that our education system needs to teach both metric and imperial units. This cost isn't entirely a result of UK Government choices, though, as there is a benefit to learning imperial measurements in an economy which does business with the US.
Equally the "contradiction" of using different systems is overrated. Using one system for temperature and another for distance is of little concern when few conversions are being made the two. Equally few people will regularly need to make feet/miles calculations and therefore the complication of the calculation is a limited concern.
None of this removes fact that the metric system is clearly "better" but the overexaggeration is a fine example of the broader crisis of specialists crying wolf. People are always inclined to accord great importance to an area they spend much of their time working on and the availability heuristic, assuming that events you hear about a lot are common, will lead you to overestimate the frequency of rare problems. The metric association actively goes looking for cases of metric-imperial confusion and evidently assumes that those it finds represent part of a broader reality, they probably don't.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Tory funding rises
There have been stories recently of big donors dissatisfied with Cameron's leadership. Fortunately, this anecdotal evidence seems to be well off the mark and Conservative fundraising has risen heavily in the last quarter off last year compared to a heavy fall for Labour. While some Tory donors may prefer to fund their own ideological playground of a party it would appear that most prefer the Conservatives with their new found electability.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The world's favourite nation
Apparently we are the most liked nation in the world. Despite our various military ventures and despite, or possibly in some quarters because of, our imperial past when ranked on politeness, culture, education, quality of investment environment, as a tourist destination etc. etc. we come out as the nation people most like. This result is true on all sorts of criteria and across huge swathes of the world.
The press release from the pollster contains dollar valuations of national brands which have to contain a fair bit of arbitrary information but the sample is very large and reasonably broad although presumably biased towards those with Internet access. These results provide additional evidence for one explanation of part of Britain's relative economic success recently. We do well out of being a place where lots of highly skilled and talented people want to live, they bring money and achievement with them. The Mittals, Abramovichs and Madonnas of this world are an extreme example of a trend which has been of huge benefit to Britain.
The press release from the pollster contains dollar valuations of national brands which have to contain a fair bit of arbitrary information but the sample is very large and reasonably broad although presumably biased towards those with Internet access. These results provide additional evidence for one explanation of part of Britain's relative economic success recently. We do well out of being a place where lots of highly skilled and talented people want to live, they bring money and achievement with them. The Mittals, Abramovichs and Madonnas of this world are an extreme example of a trend which has been of huge benefit to Britain.
A victory for the Single Market
Marks & Spencers have won their case in the European Court over group offsetting. UK companies now face the same tax risk when investing elsewhere in the EU as they do when setting up a subsidiary in the UK. This has to be a victory for the Single Market as it reduces the distinction between a UK company and a European company.
Worries about a loophole are ever present but would seem more of a problem for group offsetting, whether in the UK or abroad, than international group offsetting in particular. Allowing tax benefits from loss making subsidiaries creates the risk. Offsetting is worth this risk as it is an important tool to allow businesses to expand and challenge in new markets without facing greater tax risk than it does in its core business. Existing companies in other markets are in a good position to enter into insufficiently competitive markets and encouraging this kind of action is good for consumers and efficient business.
The concentration of financial services in London has been a huge benefit to the UK and is one of the key trends behind the strong performance of the UK economy over the last decade and the improvement in the public finances which we are seeing right now.
Worries about a loophole are ever present but would seem more of a problem for group offsetting, whether in the UK or abroad, than international group offsetting in particular. Allowing tax benefits from loss making subsidiaries creates the risk. Offsetting is worth this risk as it is an important tool to allow businesses to expand and challenge in new markets without facing greater tax risk than it does in its core business. Existing companies in other markets are in a good position to enter into insufficiently competitive markets and encouraging this kind of action is good for consumers and efficient business.
The concentration of financial services in London has been a huge benefit to the UK and is one of the key trends behind the strong performance of the UK economy over the last decade and the improvement in the public finances which we are seeing right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
